AHP-based Selection of Outstanding Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70356/jafotik.v1i2.17Keywords:
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Outstanding Students, Performance IndicatorsAbstract
The decision support system employs the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method to enhance the selection of outstanding students at SMA Muhammadiyah 8 Palembang. This system acknowledges the limitations of the current evaluation process, which relies solely on academic scores and aims to rectify this by integrating additional factors like attendance, behavior, and non-academic achievements. The AHP method's systematic breakdown of criteria and sub-criteria, supported by figures and tables, elucidates the decision-making process, ensuring a more comprehensive evaluation framework. The development of this system follows the Waterfall model, emphasizing sequential phases from analysis to implementation, yet acknowledging its challenges in accommodating evolving requirements. The method section expounds on the AHP process, delineating its steps in structuring problems, conducting pairwise comparisons, creating priority matrices, and arriving at conclusive decisions. It also outlines the hierarchical model and the subsequent ranking of alternatives, showcasing how the AHP method facilitates a fairer assessment of outstanding students. The conclusion underscores the system's functionality, validated through Black Box testing, affirming its alignment with initial expectations. Overall, this comprehensive approach advocates for a more holistic method of identifying outstanding students.
Downloads
References
R. D. Estrada-Esponda, M. López-Benítez, G. Matturro, and J. C. Osorio-Gómez, “Selection of software agile practices using Analytic hierarchy process,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22948.
S. Moslem, “A novel parsimonious spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for sustainable urban transport solutions,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 128, no. June 2023, p. 107447, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107447.
K. D. Prasetya, Suharjito, and D. Pratama, “Effectiveness Analysis of Distributed Scrum Model Compared to Waterfall approach in Third-Party Application Development,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 179, no. 2019, pp. 103–111, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2020.12.014.
T. Thesing, C. Feldmann, and M. Burchardt, “Agile versus Waterfall Project Management: Decision model for selecting the appropriate approach to a project,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 181, pp. 746–756, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.227.
A. A. S. Gunawan, B. Clemons, I. F. Halim, K. Anderson, and M. P. Adianti, “Development of e-butler: Introduction of robot system in hospitality with mobile application,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 216, no. 2019, pp. 67–76, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.112.
G. Bergström et al., “Evaluating the layout quality of UML class diagrams using machine learning,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 192, p. 111413, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2022.111413.
H. Wu, “QMaxUSE: A new tool for verifying UML class diagrams and OCL invariants,” Sci. Comput. Program., vol. 228, p. 102955, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.scico.2023.102955.
P. Danenas, T. Skersys, and R. Butleris, “Natural language processing-enhanced extraction of SBVR business vocabularies and business rules from UML use case diagrams,” Data Knowl. Eng., vol. 128, no. February, p. 101822, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.datak.2020.101822.
Meiliana, I. Septian, R. S. Alianto, Daniel, and F. L. Gaol, “Automated Test Case Generation from UML Activity Diagram and Sequence Diagram using Depth First Search Algorithm,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 116, pp. 629–637, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2017.10.029.
Z. Daw and R. Cleaveland, “Comparing model checkers for timed UML activity diagrams,” Sci. Comput. Program., vol. 111, no. P2, pp. 277–299, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.scico.2015.05.008.
F. Chen, L. Zhang, X. Lian, and N. Niu, “Automatically recognizing the semantic elements from UML class diagram images,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 193, p. 111431, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2022.111431.
D. Felicio, J. Simao, and N. Datia, “Rapitest: Continuous black-box testing of restful web apis,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 219, no. 2022, pp. 537–545, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.322.
H. Bostani and V. Moonsamy, “EvadeDroid: A Practical Evasion Attack on Machine Learning for Black-box Android Malware Detection,” Comput. Secur., p. 103676, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2023.103676.
F. Pagano, A. Romdhana, D. Caputo, L. Verderame, and A. Merlo, “SEBASTiAn: A static and extensible black-box application security testing tool for iOS and Android applications,” SoftwareX, vol. 23, p. 101448, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.softx.2023.101448.
C. Cronley et al., “Designing and evaluating a smartphone app to increase underserved communities’ data representation in transportation policy and planning,” Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect., vol. 18, no. January, p. 100763, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2023.100763.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Dian Retno Utami
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
