IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALGORITHM OF MULTI-FACTOR EVALUTION PROCESS (MFEP) FOR THE ELECTION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE INVESTIGATOR AT BARESKRIM POLICE

Transcription

1 Volume 116 No , ISSN: (printed version); ISSN: (on-line version) url: ijpam.eu IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALGORITHM OF MULTI-FACTOR EVALUTION PROCESS (MFEP) FOR THE ELECTION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE INVESTIGATOR AT BARESKRIM POLICE Ady Widjaja 1,Mujito 2 Faculty of Information and Technology of Universitas Budi Luhur Jl. Ciledug Raya, Petukangan Utara, Jakarta Selatan-Indonesia Abstract - This research was conducted on one of the police Union called the Agency ResersePolri (the national police Bareskrim) Agency ResersePolri Criminal (BareskrimPolri) is implementing a major element of the State police of the Republic of Indonesia (Polri) at the level of Headquarters led by Chief Bareskrim (KabareskrimPolri) is responsible under the head of the State police of the Republic of Indonesia (Assistant). Kabareskrim Police on duty Help Assistant in fostering and organizing functions of investigations and the investigation of criminal acts, supervision and control of the investigation, conducting identification, forensic laboratories in order to law enforcement as well as the national criminal information management. The quality of A Criminal Investigator in the body Reserse determines the success of uncovering a case, errors in the selection of an investigator on Resersepolri will make Criminal difficulty in uncovering a case and the performance of the Agency's Criminal Police Reserse (BareskrimPolri) decreased. Therefore in this research will create a system of election of members of the Agency's Criminal Investigators On ResersePolri Multi Factor Algorithm that utilizes the Evaluation Process (MFEP), namely the decision-making is done by providing an intuitive and subjective considerations against the Factors that are considered important. The considerations in the form of granting the weighting (weighting system) for multifactor involved and considered important. So it is with the System, the decision makers can see Prospective Agency Investigators ResersePolri Criminal who really have the ability in the field of investigation Keyword : Police Investigators, Multi Factor Evaluation Process (MFEP) 1. Introduction Decision making is the management actions in achieving the target. The theory of decision making has a main element in the form of decision maker faced with a specific problem that can be compared with each other; goals, values or goals that guided by the decision maker is very clear and can be set up in accordance with the highest order of importance. Various alternatives to solve the problem is examined carefully. The consequences brought about by any alternative selected carefully. Each of the alternatives and their respective consequences attached to them can be compared with other alternatives as well as the decision maker will choose alternatives and consequences that can enable the achievement of business objectives, values or goals. With so many alternatives that affect a decision then it is difficult to take a decision manually. One method that can be used in the taking of a decision is by using an algorithm of Multi-Factor Evaluation Process (MFEP), namely the decision-making is done by providing an intuitive and subjective considerations against the Factors that are considered important. The considerations in the form of granting the weighting (weighting system) for multifactor involved and considered important. So it is with the System, the decision makers can see Prospective Agency Investigators ResersePolri Criminal who really have the ability in the field of investigation 2. Theory 2.1 Decision Support System According to Kusrini (2007), a decision support system is an interactive information system that provides information, data modelling and data manipulation. This system is used to help make decisions 381

2 in situations of semi structured and not structured, where nobody knew for sure how the decision should be made 2. The decision-making Phase In the decision-making process there are 4 phases, i.e. as follows a. Stage of the intelligents (intelligence phase) for search conditions conditions that may produce decisions resulting in a decision criteria. b. The planning stages (design phase) is to discover, develop and analyze materials that may be undertaken, using modeling. c. Stage selection (choice phase), namely the selection of the material material available, which will be carried out, by selecting the model that has been done to further implement. d. Stages of implementation (implementation phase) that the election results are then implemented in the decision-making process. Figure 1: the decision making process (Turbans: 2005) 3. Multi Factor Evaluation Process (MFEP) MFEP is the use of quantitative methods. weighting system. Multi factors in decision making, decision makers are subjective and intuitive weigh a variety of factors that have an influence on their choice of alternatives. The decision to effect more strategically, it is recommended to use a quantitative approach like MFEP. In the entire first MFEP criteria become important factors in doing consideration given weighting (weighting). The same steps also performed against alternatife alternatife to be chosen, which can then be evaluated with regard to factors factors of consideration. Alternative methods of MFEP determines that the highest value is the best solution based on the criteria you have selected 382

3 4. Steps the Steps of calculation method using MFEP Below is a step-by-step process of calculation method of MFEP according to Debi MarizaNitbani (2012) : a. Specify the weighting factors and the factors which total weighting must be equal to 1 (Σ = 1 weighting), i.e. the factor weight. b. Fill in the values for each of the factors that influence in the decision making of data-the data to be processed, the value entered in the decision-making process is an objective value, that's for sure. c. Calculation of weight evaluation, which is the process of calculation of the weighting between the factor and the weight factor evaluation with a summation of the whole as well as the results of the evaluations in order to obtain the total weight evaluation results. Each participant has a selection of value evaluation for these three factors into consideration, to get the total value of the evaluation of each participant selection by means of the following calculations : Formula for doing normalization : wve = vef x vwf Description: wve : Weighting Value Evaluation vef : The Value Of Evaluation Factors vwf : The Value Of The Weighting Factors The calculation of the total value of the evaluation Tev = wve1 + wve2 + wve3,... Description: Tev : Total evaluation value Wve : Weighting value evaluation 3. Results and Discussion 3.1Discussion In determining a candidate's criminal investigators on ResersePolri used the 5 pieces of data members that investigators will be described in the following table : Table 1: table of alternative No Code Name Description 383

4 1 A001 Charles A former Police Investigator in A002 Robert - 3 A003 Budiman A former Police Investigator in A004 Sudirman - 5 A005 Agus - In the application of MFEP to do 1st time is the determination of the factors that are considered important in the investigators received. The next step is compare these factors to get the factors which are most important, the second most important, and so on. And the next is give weighting to faktorf actors are used where a total weighting must be equal to 1 (Σweighting = 1). Table 2: table of criteria Code criteria Criteria Name Weighting C001 The Rank Of Personnel 0,2 C002 Last Education 0,3 C003 Test Computer 0,2 C004 Completeness Of The Administration 0,05 C005 Health Test 0,1 C006 Psychology Test 0,15 Next is to provide the value of the crips (subkriteria values) are shown in the table below: Table 3: Table Subkriteria Code criteria Criteria Name Crips value C001 The Rank Of Personnel AKBP 10 The Rank Of Personnel KOMPOL 9 The Rank Of Personnel AKP 8 The Rank Of Personnel IPTU 7 384

5 The Rank Of Personnel IPDA 6 C002 Last Education Master Of Law 10 Last Education Law Degree 9 Last Education Bachelor Of Psychology 8 Last Education Bachelor Of Computer 7 Last Education The title of the other 6 C003 Test Computer A 10 Test Computer B 9 Test Computer C 8 Test Computer D 7 Test Computer E 6 C004 Completeness Of The Administration A 10 Completeness Of The Administration B 9 Completeness Of The Administration C 8 Completeness Of The Administration D 7 Completeness Of The Administration E 6 C005 Health Test A 10 Health Test B 9 Health Test C 8 Health Test D 7 Health Test E 6 C006 Psychology Test A 10 Psychology Test B 9 Psychology Test C 8 Psychology Test D 7 385

6 Psychology Test E 6 After the data Factors in the criteria, and the criteria (Crips) as well as an alternative to already created then the next step is the calculation process: first we calculate the Evaluation Factors on Alternative i.e. give value to the evaluation of the Factor in each of the alternatives in accordance with test results : Table 4: table Value evaluation of the Alternative Factor Factor/ Criteria A001 A002 A003 A004 A005 C C C C C C With the above information, the evaluation of the value of the total amount earned for each alternative or participant selection. Each participant has a selection of value evaluation for the sixth criteria into consideration, to get the total value of the evaluation of each of the members of the investigator by means of the calculation as follows : wve = vef x Description: wve : Weighting Value Evaluation vef : The Value Of Evaluation Factors vwf : The Value Of The Weighting Factors Then evaluated each Alternate candidate members of the Investigators, then we calculate the first alternative, namely charles with code A001 Table 5: evaluation of alternative A

7 Factor/ Criteria Weighting Factors Evaluation Factor Weights evaluation C001 0,2 X 9 1,8 C002 0,3 X 7 2,1 C003 0,2 X 8 1,6 C004 0,05 X 6 0,3 C005 0,1 X 10 1 C006 0,15 X 7 1,05 Total 1 7,85 From the table above to see that Weighting of evaluation from Charles was 7.85 Tabel6 : evaluation of alternative A002 Factor/ Criteria Weighting Factors Evaluation Factor Weights evaluation C001 0,2 X 6 1,2 C002 0,3 X 7 2,1 C003 0,2 X 9 1,8 C004 0,05 X 10 0,5 C005 0,1 X 6 0,6 C006 0,15 X 7 1,05 Total 1 7,25 387

8 From the table above to see that Robert is 7.25 Evaluation weighting Tabel7 : evaluation of alternative A003 Factor/ Criteria Weighting Factors Evaluation Factor Weights evaluation C001 0,2 X 8 1,6 C002 0,3 X 6 1,8 C003 0,2 X 10 2 C004 0,05 X 7 0,35 C005 0,1 X 8 0,8 C006 0,15 X 8 1,2 Total 1 7,75 From the table above to see that weighting Evaluation Budiman is 7.75 Tabel8 : evaluation of alternative A004 Factor/ Criteria Weighting Factors Evaluation Factor Weights evaluation C001 0,2 X 7 1,4 C002 0,3 X 8 2,4 C003 0,2 X 6 1,2 C004 0,05 X 6 0,3 C005 0,1 X 7 0,7 C006 0,15 X 9 1,35 Total 1 7,35 388

9 From the table above to see that weighting Evaluation Sudirman was 7.35 Tabel9 : evaluation of alternative A005 Factor/ Criteria Weighting Factors Evaluation Factor Weights evaluation C001 0,2 X 6 1,2 C002 0,3 X 8 2,4 C003 0,2 X 6 1,2 C004 0,05 X 6 0,3 C005 0,1 X 9 0,9 C006 0,15 X 8 1,2 Total 1 7,2 From the table above to see that weighting Evaluation Agus is 7.2 After evaluation of the weighting values overall are known then if we make The Rank as follows : Table 10: Rank Value Table Factor/ Criteria A001 A002 A003 A004 A005 C C C C C

10 C Total 7,85 7,25 7,75 7,35 7,2 Rank Rank Value Table can be seen from the results of alternative No. A001 on behalf of Charles got the greatest value i.e so be rank 1 (the best alternative) which means selected by Charles as an investigator at Bareskrim Police 3.2. Result After doing the calculations using the algorithm of Multi-Factor Evaluation Process (MFEP) then it can be seen that Charles is worthy to be an investigator on ResersePolri Criminal (Bareskrim Police) 3.3 Display Program a. The Main Menu This form serves to print a selection of menus are available, such as kritera, alternative up to calculation Algorithm MFEP Figure 2: Main Menu 390

11 b. Alternative Form Figure 3: Alternative Form c. The Display Process MFEP 391

12 Figure 4: the process of calculation of MFEP 4. Conclusion After studying the problems as well as applications that had already been made, then a conclusion can be drawn as follows: a. Election of the members of the application in the presence of Investigators using an algorithm Multifactor Evaluation Process (MFEP) then the leadership can decide who the Members are really in accordance with the criteria of the investigator; b. Multifactor Evaluation Process Algorithm (MFEP) can be applied to the election of the members of the Investigator Bareskrim Police 5. Suggestions As for suggestions that can be delivered for further system development are as follows: a. Algorithms Multifactor Evaluation Process (MFEP) can be optimized using the algorithm of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and other algorithms; b. Need for maintenance and supervision of the responsible party to the system 6. Bibliography 392

13 Debi Mariza Nitbani, SISTEM PENDUKUNG KEPUTUSAN PENYELEKSIAN CALON MAHASISWA BARU UNIVERSITAS KATOLIK WIDYA MANDIRA KUPANG. Seminar Nasional Sains dan Teknik 2012 (SAINSTEK 2012). Heny Pratiwi, Sistem Pendukung keputusan Penentuan Karyawan Berprestasi Menggunakan Metode Multifactor Evaluation Process, JURNAL SISTEM KOMPUTER, Volume 5, Nomor 2, September 2014 Iis Afrianty, Ravi Umbara, 2016, Sistem Pendukung Keputusan (SPK) Menentukan Kelayakan Calon Penerima Zakat Menerapkan Multi-Factor Evaluation Process (MFEP) Seminar Nasional Teknologi Informasi, Komunikasi dan Industri (SNTIKI) ISSN : Kosasi, Sandy, Sistem Penunjang Keputusan (Decision Support System), Pontianak: Sekolah Tinggi Manajemen Informatika dan Komputer. Kusrini Konsep dan Aplikasi Sistem Pendukung Keputusan. Andi. Yogyakarta Muhammad Dahria, Ishak, dan Umi Fadilah Yanti, Pendukung Keputusan Seleksi Calon Polri Baru di Polda Kota Medan Menggunakan Metode Multifactor Evaluation Process (MFEP), Jurnal SAINTIKOM Vol. 13, No. 2, Mei Niko Eduard Rubenov Ginting, Perancangan aplikasi sistem pendukung keputusan (spk) penyeleksian calon pegawai Menggunakan model Multifactor Evalution Process (MFEP). Final Assignment Universitas Komputer Indonesia T. Henny Febriana Harumy, Indri Sulistianingsih, Sistem Penunjang Keputusan Penentuan Jabatan Manager Menggunakan Metode MFEP Pada Cv. Sapo Durin, Seminar Nasional Teknologi Informasi dan Multimedia STMIK AMIKOM Yogyakarta, ISSN : Rajesh, M. & Gnanasekar, J.M. Wireless Pers Commun (2017). Rajesh, M., and J. M. Gnanasekar. "GCCover Heterogeneous Wireless Ad hoc Networks." Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences (2015): Rajesh, M., and J. M. Gnanasekar. "CONGESTION CONTROL IN HETEROGENEOUS WANET USING FRCC." Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences ISSN 974: Rajesh, M., and J. M. Gnanasekar. "Consistently neighbor detection for MANET." Communication and Electronics Systems (ICCES), International Conference on. IEEE, Rajesh, M., and J. M. Gnanasekar. "Hop-by-hop Channel-Alert Routing to Congestion Control in Wireless Sensor Networks." Control Theory and Informatics 5.4 (2015): 1-11 Rajesh, M., and J. M. Gnanasekar. "Multiple-Client Information Administration via Forceful Database Prototype Design (FDPD)." Rajesh, M., and J. M. Gnanasekar. "Annoyed Realm Outlook Taxonomy Using Twin Transfer Learning" International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, (2017) Rajesh, M., and J. M. Gnanasekar. "Get-Up-And-Go Efficientmemetic Algorithm Based Amalgam Routing Protocol." International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, (2017) Rajesh, M., and J. M. Gnanasekar. "Congestion Control Scheme for Heterogeneous Wireless Ad Hoc Networks Using Self-Adjust Hybrid Model." International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, (2017)

14 394