Analisis Perbandingan dan Sensitivitas Metode Saw dan Topsis pada Seleksi Penerima Beasiswa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21009/pinter.10.1.3Keywords:
sensitivity analysis, SAW method, TOPSIS methodAbstract
The scholarship recipient selection process is a multi-criteria decision-making problem that involves various criteria such as academic achievement, economic conditions, and student activities. A selection process that remains subjective has the potential to produce less optimal and inconsistent decisions. This study aims to analyze the comparison and sensitivity of the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) in scholarship recipient selection. The research method includes the preparation of alternative data, normalization, calculation of preference values, and ranking based on the criteria of Cumulative Grade Point Average, parental income, number of dependents, achievements, and organizational activity. The research results show that both methods produce relatively consistent rankings, but differ in the distribution of preference values. The SAW method tends to be more stable, while TOPSIS is more sensitive to changes in criterion values. Sensitivity analysis shows differences in the stability of results in response to changes in criterion weights. The conclusion of this study shows that the choice of method affects the ranking results and decision stability.
References
Aggarwal, A., Sharma, I., Kukreja, V., Verma, T., & Aggarwal, R. (2025). Assessing and ranking the skills required for IT personnel: A hybrid decision-making model using fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-05-2024-0253
Anggrawan, A., Mayadi, M., Satria, C., & Putra, L. G. R. (2022). Scholarship recipients recommendation system using AHP and Moora Methods. International Journal of Intelligent Engineering and Systems, 15(2), 260–275. https://doi.org/10.22266/ijies2022.0430.24
Calfoforo, J. C., Raga, R. C., & Abisado, M. B. (2025). Transforming scholarship selection: A review of AI-Driven matching algorithms and transformer models. 2025 8th International Conference on Information and Computer Technologies (ICICT), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1109/icict64582.2025.00070
Chen, A., Xiang, M., Zhou, J., Jia, J., Shang, J., Li, X., Gašević, D., & Fan, Y. (2025). Unpacking help-seeking process through multimodal learning analytics: A comparative study of ChatGPT vs Human expert. Computers & Education, 226, 105198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105198
Gaona, À., Guisasola, A., & Baeza, J. A. (2025). An Integrated TOPSIS Framework with full-range weight sensitivity analysis for robust decision analysis. Decision Analytics Journal, 17, 100642–100642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2025.100642
Kalibatienė, D., & Simanavičienė, R. (2026). A novel method to investigate the effect of normalization techniques on fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making in web service quality assessments. Applied Sciences, 16(6), 2940. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16062940
Mahpour, A., Yaghoobi, P., Aryannejad, A., & Baghestani, A. (2026). A hybrid MCDM framework for evaluating transit position in international corridors. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 25, 101903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2026.101903
Marović, I., Šopić, M., Jurčević, M., & Radojčić, R. (2025). Making informed choices: AHP and SAW for optimal formwork system selection. Information, 16(10), 873. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16100873
Pandey, N., Dash, S. P., & Kaur, P. (2026). A systematic review of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods applied to personnel selection: Trends, models, and effectiveness. Opsearch. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-026-01136-8
Paradowski, B., Wątróbski, J., & Sałabun, W. (2025). Novel coefficients for improved robustness in multi-criteria decision analysis. Artificial Intelligence Review, 58(10). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-025-11307-6
Pooja, B., Elangovan, C., Predeksha, T., Praisy, V., & Pooja Shree, K. (2026). A decision-support framework for fair scholarship eligibility screening. 2026 International Conference on Machine Learning and Autonomous Systems (ICMLAS), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/icmlas67792.2026.11483867
Remolado, A. T., & Dumdumaya, C. E. (2025). Enhancing scholarship allocation through machine learning: A review of models and techniques. 2025 IEEE Open Conference of Electrical, Electronic and Information Sciences (eStream), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/estream66938.2025.11016866
Runtuk, J. K., Christanto, S., & Ng, P. K. (2025). Optimizing supplier selection: A comparative study of fuzzy VIKOR and fuzzy Moora for performance-based decision making. IEEE Access, 13, 8456–8468. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2024.3525362
Schweers, D., & Freitag, M. (2026). Supporting Assembly process planning with implicit knowledge from process history: A decision support system approach. International Journal of Production Research, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2026.2728017
Song, D., Goo, Y.-H., Choi, S., Kim, J.-W., Park, H.-J., & Kim, K. (2026). A new TOPSIS sorting method using data-driven min/max values. Expert Systems with Applications, 326, 132664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2026.132664
Tarnanidis, T., Mareschal, B., Papathanasiou, J., Vlachopoulou, M., Manda, V. K., & Sousa, B. (2026). A practical framework for selecting PROMETHEE preference functions in marketing decision-making. Journal of Marketing Analytics. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-026-00532-9
Tighnavard Balasbaneh, A., Aldrovandi, S., & Sher, W. (2025). A systematic review of implementing multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches for the circular economy and cost assessment. Sustainability, 17(11), 5007. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115007
Yuksel, F. Ş., Kayadelen, A. N., & Antmen, F. (2023). A systematic literature review on multi-criteria decision making in higher education. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 10(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1104005
