W9_UDS_ Evaluation in Choosing Best Supply Pattern Part 2

  1. Problem Evaluation

Kediri is a city in east java; My Company has a Fuel Terminal in this city but was closed on 2009. Kediri consumes fuel almost 4% around east java region. And from the fuel consume forecast it will be growing up 3% each year.

Phenomena appear in Indonesia and Kediri also, which non subsidiary fuel consumption rise significantly and lead in the market. It is very different condition than few years ago. In this unpredictable situation, we need to prepare the facility of non-subsidiary fuel to catch the opportunity.

  1. Development of feasible alternatives

There are three alternative Fuel Terminals as supply point to supply Kediri area to catch the opportunity:

  • Existing pattern; Surabaya, Malang, and Madiun Fuel Terminal as supply point to supply Kediri area
  • Shortcut pattern; Tuban Fuel Terminal as supply point to supply Kediri area. Tuban regularly also supply to Fuel Terminal in Surabaya, Malang, and Madiun
  • New pattern; Kediri Fuel Terminal as supply point to supply Kediri area. In this alternative we will reopen the Kediri Fuel Terminal.

Multi Attribute Decision Making Method will use in choosing the best alternative pattern to supply Kediri area not only at economic aspect but also other aspect that influence customer satisfaction such as delivery time, transport loss,  operational flexibility, and etc.

  1. Development the outcome for each alternative

In this part (2st part) I will use method that tension not only on economic criteria but also other criteria that is AHP Method.

AHP is multi-objective decision analysis tool first proposes by Saaty. It is designed when either subjective or objective measures are being evaluated in terms of a set of alternatives based upon multiple criteria, organized in hierarchical structure. At the top level, the criteria are evaluated or weighted, and at the bottom level the alternatives are measured against each criterion. The decision maker assesses their evaluation by making pairwise comparisons in which every pair is subjectively or objectively compared. The subjective method involves a 9 point scale that we present later.

The AHP converts these evaluations to numerical values that can be processed and compared over the entire range of the problem. A numerical weight or priority is derived for each element of the hierarchy, allowing diverse and often incommensurable elements to be compared to one another in a rational and consistent way. This capability distinguishes the AHP from other decision making techniques.

  1. Selection of criteria

Decision rule of AHP method is grading the alternative based on AHP score. The higher score alternative is better alternative. So in this evaluation I will choose the alternative with highest score. Beside that In pairwise comparison step the most important is consistency ratio which should be 10% or less.

  1. Analysis and comparison of the alternative

First we must determine the criteria that can influence customer satisfaction and operational excellent. We determine that criteria using brainstorming technique among our expert to get better result. We got four criteria that are:

  • Delivery Time
  • Transport Loss
  • Operational Flexibility
  • Economical Factor

Economical factor contain two method B-C ratio and ERR. This is the advantage of AHP, we can compare not only on economic factor but also other factor that important to us or our customer.

Figure 1. AHP hierarchy in choosing best pattern in supply Kediri area

We also used brainstorming technique when make pairwise comparison for each criteria again alternative and between all criteria.

Table 1. Pairwise comparison for delivery time

Table 2. Pairwise comparison for transport loss

Table 3. Pairwise comparison for operational flexibility

Table 4. Pairwise comparison for economical factor

Table 5. Pairwise comparison for all criteria

Table 6. AHP result

All pairwise comparison in this model has consistency ratio no more than 10%, so all judgment is consistent and appropriate.

  1. Alternative selection

New Pattern alternative has biggest weighted score than the other so it preferred to be used.

  1. Performance monitoring & Post Evaluation Result

Different form the first part, the second part (AHP method) show new pattern alternative is preferred to be used. In this part we use not only economic but also operational and customer satisfaction, so it is more comprehensive and must be better advise to use.


  1. Planning Planet. (2017). Multi-Attribute Decision Making. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective Figures 8-14
  2. Sullivan, G. W., Wicks, M. E., & Koelling, C. P.(2014). Engineering economy 16th Edition. Chapter 14 – Decision Making Considering Multiattributes., pp.559-608.
  3. Norris, G. A., & Marshall, H. E. (1995). Multiattribute decision analysis method for evaluating buildings and building systems. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  4. Fox, P. William. (2016). Application and Modeling Using Multi-Attribute Decision Making to Rank Terrorist Threats. Journal of Socialomics. 5:2.

1 thought on “W9_UDS_ Evaluation in Choosing Best Supply Pattern Part 2”

  1. VERY WELL DONE, Pak Dhanu……
    Now let’s get your paper wrapped up so you can switch your focus from the PAPER over to PREPARING FOR YOUR EXAMS…….

    The paper is the hardest part of this course and once you get that done, the remaining work is pretty easy in comparison…..

    IF you can finish your paper before the 25th of this month, I can get it submitted for publication in October…… Nothing makes me more proud than to see my Indonesian colleagues and students getting their papers published in such a prestigious journal….

    Dr. PDG, Jakarta


Leave a Reply to Dr Paul D Giammalvo Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *