Evaluating a computer application that aids multi-criteria decision making

• Authors: Rajiansyah , Grzegorz Filcek , David M. Ramsey

Abstracts

EN

In this article, we describe and assess the implementation of several methods of multi-criteria decision-making using a web-based computer application. Such an application makes it easier to determine the effectiveness of decisions. The methods adopted in this application are SMART (Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique), AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), and ANP (Analytic Network Process). Each of these methods has distinctive characteristics in determining the best alternative for the user. This study assesses the feasibility of each method in the application. The application is assessed based on functionality, reliability, efficiency, and usability. (1) Functionality is tested according to the appropriateness of the decisions made, (2) Reliability is assessed using stress testing, (3) Efficiency is assessed according to the computational effort, and (4) System usability is tested according to the user's answers to the Computer System Usability Questionnaire authored by J.R. Lewis. This research results in a decision support system based on SMART that has been appropriately tested and is ready for use.

Keywords

EN

multi-criteria analysis; SMART; AHP; ANP; system usability

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Katowicach
• Journal: Multiple Criteria Decision Making
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 18
• Pages: 47-76

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Rajiansyah

• Wrocław University of Technology, Poland

author

Grzegorz Filcek

• Wrocław University of Technology, Poland

author

David M. Ramsey

• Wrocław University of Technology, Poland

References

• Bottomley P.A., Doyle J.R., Green R.H. (2000), Testing the Reliability of Weight Elicitation Methods: Direct Rating versus Point Allocation, Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 508-513.
• Camciuc A., Gheorghiu H., Constantin N., Gavan M. (2005), Aspects Concerning the Implementation of the Probabilistic Approach in Evaluating the Reliability of the Structures, Transilvania University Press of Braşov.
• Cronbach L.J. (1951), Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests, Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
• Diomidis S. (2006), Code Quality: The Open-Source Perspective (Effective Software Development Series), Adobe Press, Hoboken, NJ.
• Engels G., Lohmann M., Wagner A. (2006), The Web Application Development Process [in:] G. Kappel, B. Proll, S. Reich, W. Retschitzegger (eds.), Web Engineering: The Discipline of Systematic Development of Web Applications, John Wiley & Sons, England
• Goodwin P., Wright G. (1998), Decision Analysis for Management Judgment, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
• Herbert A.J., Jones K.I.S. (2004), Computer Systems: Theory, Technology, and Applications (Vol. 1), Springer Science & Business Media.
• Keeney R.L., Raiffa H. (1976), Decison with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley, New York.
• Lewis J.R. (1995), IBM Computer Usability Satisfaction Questionnaires: Psychometric Evaluation and Instructions for Use, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7(1), 57-78.
• Olsina L., Lafuente G., Rossi G. (2001), Specifying Quality Characteristics and Attributes for Websites [in:] Web Engineering: Managing Diversity and Complexity of Web Application Development, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 266-278.
• Olsina L., Rossi G. (2002), Measuring Web Application Quality with WebQEM, IEEE Multimedia, 9(4), 20-29.
• Perlman G. (2009), User Interface Usability Evaluation with Web-Based Questionnaire, http://hcibib.org/perlman/questiOn.html.
• Ramsey D.M. (2020), A Game Theoretic Model of Choosing a Valuable Good via a Short List Heuristic, Mathematics, 8(2), 199.
• Rouse M.W., Borsting E., Hyman L., Hussein M., Cotter S.A., Flynn M., Scheiman M., Gallaway M., De Land P.N. (1999), Frequency of Convergence Insufficiency among Fifth and Sixth Graders, Optometry and Vision Science, 76(9), 643-649.
• Saaty T.L. (1987), The Analytic Hierarchy Process - What It Is and How It Is Used, Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 161-176.
• Saaty T.L. (2003), Decision-making with the AHP: Why Is the Principal Eigenvector Necessary? European Journal of Operational Research, 145(1), 85-91.
• Saaty T.L. (2007), Time-dependent Decision-making. Dynamic Priorities in the AHP/ANP: Generalizing from Points to Functions and from Real to Complex Variables, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7-8), 860-891.
• Spinellis D. (2006), Code Quality: The Open Source Perspective, Adobe Press, Hoboken, NJ.
• Subraya B.M., ed. (2006), Integrated Approach to Web Performance Testing: A Practitioner's Guide, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
• Sugiyono (2009), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D, Alfabeta, Bandung.
• Suryadi K., Ramdhani M.A. (2002), Sistem Pendukung Keputusan: Suatu Wacana Struktural Idealisasi dan Implementasi, Remaja Rosdakarya, Bandung.
• Teeravarunyou S., Poopatb B. (2009), Computer-based Welding Training System, International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 16(2), 116-125.
• Wachowicz T., Roszkowska E. (2023), How Well May the Direct Linguistic Declarations Substitute AHP in Defining Accurate Criteria Weights? International Transactions in Operational Research, Wiley.
• Yulianti E. (2015), Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Pemilihan Mobil Dengan Metoda Simple Multi Attribute Rating (SMART), Jurnal Momentum, 17(1).
• Yunitarini R. (2013), Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Pemilihan Penyiar Radio Terbaik, Jurnal Mikrotek, 1(1), 43-52.
• Zlaugotne B., Zihare L., Balode L., Kalnbalkite A., Khabdullin A., Blumberga D. (2020), Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods Comparison, Environmental and Climate Technologies, 24(1), 454-471.

Identifiers

DOI

10.22367/mcdm.2023.18.03

Biblioteka Nauki

33922499