Sistem Seleksi Calon Penerima Bantuan Siswa Miskin Menggunakan Metode Simple Additive Weighting pada SMK NU Ma'arif 2 Kudus
Abstract
Permasalahan yang dihadapi panitia seleksi adalah bahwa wali kelas menunjuk siswanya secara acak. Siswa tersebut mendapat bantuan dari pemerintah berupa sejumlah uang tunai yang diberikan secara langsung kepada siswa sesuai kriteria yang telah ditetapkan. Kesulitan dalam menentukan siswa yang berhak mendapatkan bantuan yang sesuai capaian standar yang diinginkan. Penentuan siswa terbaik harus didukung oleh sistem seleksi untuk memilih siswa yang diterima terutama bagi Siswa Miskin. Pemecahan masalah dapat dilakukan dengan merancang Sistem Pendukung yang sederhana terhadap Keputusan Seleksi Calon Penerimaan Bantuan Siswa Miskin dengan menggunakan Metode Simple Additive Weighting di SMK NU Ma'arif 2 Kudus yang merupakan status sekolah swasta. Metode pemeringkatan ditentukan dari data identitas dari siswa berkualitas atau berbobot berdasarkan kriteria penilaian yang telah ditentukan. Kriteria yang digunakan dalam Sistem Seleksi berdasarkan Penghasilan Orang Tua, nilai Rapor Rata-rata, dan jumlah Keluarga. Jumlah siswa yang akan terseleksi sebanyak 10 siswa untuk mendapatkan bantuan beasiswa siswa miskin.
The problem faced by the selection committee is that the homeroom teacher appoints their students randomly so that there is difficulty in determining who is entitled to receive assistance in order to achieve the desired standard and obtain the best candidates. To overcome this problem, a Decision Support System (SPK) was designed for the Selection of Candidates for Reception of Poor Student Assistance (BSM) using the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) Method at SMK NU Ma'arif 2 Kudus, which is a simple ranking method by finding weighted summations based on predetermined assessment criteria. The criteria used in the Selection System for Prospective Assistance for Poor Student Assistance (BSM) using the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) Method at SMK NU Ma'arif 2 Kudus, namely: Total Parents' Income, Average Score Report Card, Number of Relatives.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Fishburn, P.C., 1967, Additive Utilities with Incomplete Product Set: Application to Priorities and Assignments, Operations Research Society of America (ORSA), Baltimore, MD, U.S.A.
Kusumadewi, S., 2006, Fuzzy Multi Attribute Decision Making (FMADM), Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
MacCrimmon, K.R., 1968, Decision Making among Multiple Atribut Alternatives: a Survey and Consolidated Approach California: The RAND Corporation.
Kaliszewski, I., & Podkopaev, D. (2016). Simple additive weighting—A metamodel for multiple criteria decision analysis methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 54, 155-161.
Adela, H., Jasmi, K. A., Basiron, B., Huda, M., & Maseleno, A. (2018). Selection of dancer member using simple additive weighting. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(3), 1096-1107.
Tariq, A., & Rafi, K. (2012). Intelligent decision support systems-A framework. In Information and Knowledge Management 2(6), 2-20.
Nurmalini, N., & Rahim, R. (2017). Study Approach of Simple Additive Weighting for Decision Support System. Int. J. Sci. Res. Sci. Technol, 3(3), 541-544.
Irvanizam, I. (2017, October). Multiple attribute decision making with simple additive weighting approach for selecting the scholarship recipients at Syiah Kuala university. In 2017 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICELTICs) (pp. 245-250). IEEE.
Dicks, L. V., Walsh, J. C., & Sutherland, W. J. (2014). Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a ‘4S’hierarchy. Trends in ecology & evolution, 29(11), 607-613.
Kar, A. K. (2015). A hybrid group decision support system for supplier selection using analytic hierarchy process, fuzzy set theory and neural network. Journal of Computational Science, 6, 23-33.
Luna, D. R., Lede, D. A. R., Otero, C. M., Risk, M. R., & de Quirós, F. G. B. (2017). User-centered design improves the usability of drug-drug interaction alerts: Experimental comparison of interfaces. Journal of biomedical informatics, 66, 204-213.
Kastner, M., Tricco, A. C., Soobiah, C., Lillie, E., Perrier, L., Horsley, T., ... & Straus, S. E. (2012). What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1), 114.
Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, A. R., Deng, Y., He, X., Kumar, P., & Bansal, R. C. (2017). A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69, 596-609.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
