Analisis Perbandingan Metode AHP dan TOPSIS Dalam Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Pemilihan Vendor Penyediaan Barang dan Aset Terbaik di Badan Pendapatan Daerah Kabupaten Situbondo

Zaehol Fatah; Rosa Umami Rahman

doi:10.69693/ijmst.v5i1.14572

Authors

Zaehol Fatah Universitas Ibrahimy
Rosa Umami Rahman Universitas Ibrahimy

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.69693/ijmst.v5i1.14572

Keywords:

Analytic Hierarchy Process, TOPSIS, Sistem Pendukung Keputusan, Pemilihan Vendor, Badan Pendapatan Daerah

Abstract

Pengadaan barang dan aset penunjang operasional layanan publik di Badan Pendapatan Daerah (Bapenda) Kabupaten Situbondo menuntut mekanisme seleksi vendor yang objektif, transparan, dan akuntabel sesuai Peraturan Presiden Nomor 12 Tahun 2021. Selama ini, evaluasi pemilihan vendor masih didominasi pertimbangan subjektif yang berfokus pada harga terendah tanpa instrumen pembobotan multikriteria yang terstandarisasi, sehingga berisiko menurunkan reliabilitas aset dan menghambat pelayanan perpajakan daerah. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis dan membandingkan kinerja metode Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) dan Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) dalam Sistem Pendukung Keputusan pemilihan vendor penyediaan barang dan aset terbaik di Bapenda Kabupaten Situbondo. Pendekatan kuantitatif komparatif diterapkan pada data observasi lima kandidat vendor (CV. Bytech, CV. Cahya Miki, CV. Andre Mandiri, CV. Adinda, dan CV. Berkah Jaya) berdasarkan lima kriteria, yaitu variasi barang, fleksibilitas harga, kualitas barang, responsivitas layanan, dan masa garansi. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa metode AHP menghasilkan rasio konsistensi matriks kriteria sebesar 0,0039 dengan bobot prioritas tertinggi pada kriteria kualitas barang (0,3865). Metode AHP dan TOPSIS secara konsisten menetapkan CV. Andre Mandiri (A3) sebagai vendor terbaik peringkat pertama dengan skor sintesis global AHP sebesar 0,3445 dan nilai preferensi TOPSIS sebesar 0,8784, serta korelasi peringkat Spearman sebesar 0,9000. Uji sensitivitas sepuluh skenario perturbasi bobot membuktikan bahwa metode AHP lebih responsif terhadap perubahan bobot kriteria dengan rata-rata perubahan 0,2539, sedangkan metode TOPSIS lebih stabil dengan rata-rata perubahan -0,0023.

References

1. Aditia, R., Supriyono, Hamka, M., & Mustafidah, H. (2025). Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Kelayakan Kenaikan Pangkat Tenaga Kependidikan Menggunakan Metode AHP-TOPSIS. Remik: Riset dan E-Jurnal Manajemen Informatika Komputer, 9(1), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.33395/remik.v9i1.14285

2. Barman, J., Biswas, B., Ali, S. S., & Zhran, M. (2024). The TOPSIS Method: Figuring the landslide susceptibility using Excel and GIS. MethodsX, 13, 103005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.103005

3. Canco, I., Kruja, D., & Iancu, T. (2021). AHP, a reliable method for quality decision making: A case study in business. Sustainability, 13(24), 13932. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413932

4. Ccatamayo-Barrios, J. H., Huamán-Romaní, Y. L., Cruz Yupanqui, G. M., Seminario-Morales, M. V., Flores-Castillo, M. M., Gutiérrez-Gómez, E., & de la Cruz-Girón, K. A. (2023). Comparative Analysis of AHP and TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Mining Method Selection. Mathematical Modelling of Engineering Problems, 10(5), 1625–1634. https://doi.org/10.18280/mmep.100516

5. Divayana, D. G. H., Adiarta, A., & Suyasa, P. W. A. (2021). Design of Tat Twam Asi-Discrepancy Evaluation Model Based on TOPSIS in Determining the Improvement Priority Aspect. Emerging Science Journal, 5(3), 392–404. https://doi.org/10.28991/esj-2021-01285

6. Fatah, Z. (2026). Application of the K-Nearest Neighbor Algorithm for Performance Classification Based on Students' Academic Performance and Lifestyle. G-Tech: Jurnal Teknologi Terapan, 10(3), 1226–1234. https://doi.org/10.70609/g-tech.v10i3.10315

7. Fatah, Z., & Mubarok, M. A. H. (2025). Perbandingan Metode WP dan TOPSIS dengan Pembobotan PIPRECIA untuk Penentuan Restoran Terbaik. JMSI: Jurnal Mahasiswa Sistem Informasi, 7(1), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.24127/jmsi.v7i1.10462

8. Fatah, Z., & Sholeha, N. F. (2026). Perbandingan Metode SAW dan TOPSIS dalam Menentukan Karyawan Terbaik di BMT NU. Jurnal Ilmiah Sistem Informasi (JISI), 5(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.24127/jisi.v5i1.10586

9. Goswami, S. S., & Behera, D. K. (2021). An Analysis for Selecting Best Smartphone Model by AHP-TOPSIS Decision-Making Methodology. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology, 12(3), 116–137. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSSMET.2021050107

10. Gusni, R. A., Ayuningsih, R. R., & Hidayat, R. (2026). Decision Support System Model for Determining Priority Criteria for Quality of DANA Application Services Using the AHP Method. Sistem Pendukung Keputusan dengan Aplikasi, 5(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.55537/spk.v5i1.1570

11. Hamidani, S., & Alfiarini. (2023). Perbandingan Metode AHP dan Topsis pada Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Seleksi Penerimaan Bonus Karyawan. Jurnal Pustaka AI, 3(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.55382/jurnalpustakaai.v3i1.586

12. Hulu, A. A. (2023). Perbandingan Metode AHP dan TOPSIS Pada Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Pemilihan Juara Vokal Grup. Journal of Computing and Informatics Research, 2(2), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.47065/comforch.v2i2.836

13. Indriartiningtias, R., Novianti, T., & Zuhriyah, A. (2024). Pemilihan Supplier Kedelai dengan Metode AHP dan TOPSIS (Studi Kasus UKM Tahu Pak Wit di Desa Ledok Kulon, Bojonegoro). Metris: Jurnal Sains dan Teknologi, 25(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.25170/metris.v25i01.4477

14. Kang, D., Lee, E., Ahn, Y., & Kwon, N. (2024). Deriving the Importance of Defects in Multi-Unit Residential Buildings Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process Method. Buildings, 14(12), 4028. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14124028

15. Kellekci, M., Cebeci, U., & Dogan, O. (2025). Prioritizing early-stage start-up investment alternatives under uncertainty: A venture capital perspective. Applied Sciences, 15(18), 10060. https://doi.org/10.3390/app151810060

16. Moreno Rocha, C. M., & Arenas Buelvas, D. (2024). Evaluation of renewable energy technologies in Colombia: Comparative evaluation using TOPSIS and TOPSIS fuzzy metaheuristic models. Energy Informatics, 7(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42162-024-00348-w

17. Nazarov, A. (2024). Strategic Market Entry Decision-Making in Africa's Satellite Sector: A Comparative Analysis Using TOPSIS and AHP Methods. Proceedings of Azerbaijan High Technical Educational Institutions, 44(9), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.36962/PAHTEI44092024-10

18. Nazim, M., Mohammad, C. W., & Sadiq, M. (2022). A comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to software requirements selection. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 61(12), 10851–10870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.04.005

19. Niqotaini, Z. (2023). Penerapan dan Perbandingan Metode AHP dan TOPSIS untuk Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Pemilihan Karyawan Terbaik. Technologia: Jurnal Ilmiah, 14(2), 140–145. https://doi.org/10.31602/tji.v14i2.10280

20. Nulsyah, R., Hasibuan, M., & Panjaitan, N. (2022). Integrasi Metode AHP dan TOPSIS dalam Pemilihan Supplier Bahan Baku Sabun di PT. Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh Medan. Jurnal Vorteks, 3(1), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.54123/vorteks.v3i1.144

21. Park, C., Son, M., Kim, J., Kim, B., Ahn, Y., & Kwon, N. (2025). TOPSIS and AHP-Based Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Evaluating Redevelopment in Old Residential Projects. Sustainability, 17(15), 7072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157072

22. Pohan, N., Purnama, P. A. W., Julita, N. R., & Afifah, H. (2026). Decision Support System for Prioritizing Economic Sectors for Regional Investment Using AHP-TOPSIS. Sistem Pendukung Keputusan dengan Aplikasi, 5(2), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.55537/spk.v5i2.1709

23. Prastiwinarti, W., & Yanti, D. (2026). Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Pemilihan Supplier Paper Bag Ready to Use Menggunakan Integrasi Metode AHP dan TOPSIS di PT CKN. Factory: Jurnal Industri, Manajemen dan Rekayasa Sistem Industri, 5(1), 222–241. https://doi.org/10.56211/factory.v5i1.1868

24. Rahayu, S., & Brotosaputro, G. (2026). Decision Support System for Department Selection Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Profile Matching Algorithms at Vocational High School: A Case Study at SMK Pembangunan Jaya Yakapi. Faktor Exacta, 19(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.30998/faktorexacta.v19i1.2236

25. Rahman, M. (2024). Comparative Analysis of AHP and TOPSIS Methods in Retail Business Location Selection Decision Support System. Journal Electrical and Computer Experiences, 2(2), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.59535/jece.v2i2.355

26. Suartini, N. K. Y., Divayana, D. G. H., & Dewi, L. J. E. (2023). Comparison Analysis of AHP-SAW, AHP-WP, AHP-TOPSIS Methods in Private Tutor Selection. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS), 15(1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2023.01.03

27. Sulaiman, R., Astuti, Y. P., Yunianti, D. N., & Awang, N. A. (2024). On the Picture Fuzzy-TOPSIS Method. European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 17(3), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.29020/nybg.ejpam.v17i3.5225

28. Taufiq, G., Lubis, B. O., Priyono, Alam, N., & Amir. (2026). Penerapan Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) dan TOPSIS dalam Pemilihan Supplier Bahan Baku. Jurnal TICOM: Technology of Information and Communication, 14(3), 121–128. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6839-9287

29. Vern, Y. R., Mansor, M. R., & Shaharuzaman, M. A. (2024). Natural Fibre Composite Selection for Two-stroke Marine Engine Under-piston Door using Hybrid AHP and TOPSIS Methods. International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture, 7(5), 672–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlmm.2024.07.006

30. Wang, K., Hong, Y., & Li, C. (2024). Fuzzy Risk Assessment Method for Airborne Network Security Based on AHP-TOPSIS. Computers, Materials & Continua, 80(1), 1123–1142. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2024.052088