DAFTAR PUSTAKA. Aksoy, A., & Özturk, N. (2011). Supplier selection and performance evaluation in

(1)

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Aksoy, A., & Özturk, N. (2011). Supplier selection and performance evaluation in

just-in-time production environments. Expert Systems with Application,

38 , 6351 - 6359.

Atmoko, T. (2011). Standar Operasional Prosedur (SOP) dan Akuntabilitas

Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah.

Unpad, Bandung.

Badri, S. (2012). Proses Keputusan Dengan Metode AHP (Aplikasi Model Untuk

Mengembangkan Klaster Agroindustri Kelapa Sawit). Retrieved January

31, 2017, from http://journal.unwidha.ac.id/index.php/penelitian/article/

view/206/158

Bogdanoff, M. J. (2009). Supplier Evaluation using Analytical Hierarchy Process

(Master's thesis, Lappeenranta University Faculty of Technology

Management, Helsinki). Retrieved from http://www.doria.fi/bitstream/

handle/10024/44646/nbnfi-fe.pdf

Castro, M. F. (2011). Defining and Using Performance Indicators and Targets in

Government M&E Systems. Poverty Reduction And Economic

Management

Network

.

Retrieved

November

2016,

from

http://siteresources.

worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/Resources/335642-1276521901256/ME1 2_v2

Cooper, Donald R., & Schindler, Pamela S., 2011. Business research methods

(11

th

_{ed). Mc GrawHill/Irwing, New York.}

BIBLIOGRAPHY Cousins, P. D., Lawson, B., & Squire, B. (2008).

Performance measurement in strategic buyer-supplier relationships The

mediating role of socialization mechanisms. International Journal of

Operations & Production Management, 28

(3), 238-258.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Kainulainen, T., Leskinen, P., Korhoner, P., Haara , A., &

Hujala , T. (2009). A Statistical Approach to Assessing Interval Scale

Preferences in Discrete Choice Problems. The Journal of the Operational

Research Society, 60

(2), 252-258.

Boer, L. d., Labro, E., & Morlacchi, P. (2001). A review of methods supporting

supplier selection. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply

(2)

137 C., C. T., Oyugi, L. A., & Charles, R. (2015). Effect Of Supplier Relationship

Management Practises On Performance Of Manufacturing Firms In

Kisumu County, KENYA. International Journal of Economics, Commerce

and Management, 3

(1), 499-512.

Govindan, K. (2010). Analyzing supplier development criteria for an automobile

industry. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(1), 43 - 62.

Grace , O., & George , O. (2014). Factors affecting successful implementation of

buyer - supplier relations on procurement performance among logistics

service providers in Kenya: A case of DHL Exel Kenya. International

Academic Journal of Procurement and Supply Chain Management, 1

(3),

12-27. Retrieved from http://www.iajournals.org/articles/iajpscm_v1_i3_

12_27.pdf

Gulo, W. (2002). Metodologi Penelitian. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Widiasarana

Indonesia.

Hald, K. S., & Ellegaard , C. (2011). Supplier evaluation processes: the shaping

and reshaping of supplier performance. International Journal of

Operations & Production Management, 31

(8), 888 - 910.

Ishizaka, L. A. (2009). Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice: Benefits

and Limitations. International Operational Research, 22(4), 201-220.

Jenab, K., Pourmohammadi , H., & Sarfaraz , M. (2014). An i-AHP&QFD

warranty model. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 21(6), 884-902.

Kang, H.-Y., & Lee, A. H. (2010). A new supplier performance evaluation model

A case study of integrated circuit (IC) packaging companies.

Benchmarking: An International Journal, 39

(1), 37-54.

Kannan, V. R., & Tan, K. C. (2006). Buyer-supplier relationships The impact of

supplier selection and buyer-supplier engagement on relationship and firm

performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management, 36

(10), 755-775.

Lambert, D. M. (2008). Supply Chain management: Processes, Partnerships,

Performance.

Sarasota, Florida: Supply Chain Management Institute.

Millet, I., & Saaty , T. L. (2000). On the relativity of relative measures -

accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP.

European Journal of Operational Research

, 205-212.

Mohanty, M. K., & Gahan, D. P. (2012). Buyer Supplier Relationship In

Manufacturing Industry - Findings From Indian Manufacturing Sector.

(3)

Omkarprasad, V., & Hudnurkar, M. (2013). Multi-criteria supply chain

performance evaluation An Indian chemical industry case study.

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,

62 (3), 293 - 316.

Puspitasari, N. B., Prastawa, H., & Diana , A. (2012). Perancangan Sistem

Pengukuran Kinerja Dengan Metode Performance PRISM (Studi Kasus

Pada PDAM TIRTA MOEDAL Cabang Semarang Tengah). Jurnal Teknik

Industri Universitas Diponegoro, 7(1), 13-18.

Putri, C. F. (2012). Pemilihan Supplier Bahan Baku Kertas Dengan Model

QCDFR Dan Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Jurnal Teknik Industri

universitas Widya Teknika, 20(2), 32 - 38.

Rezai J., O. R. (2013). Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy

preference relations based AHP. European Journal of Operational

Research, 225

(1), 75-84.

Salem, A. A. (2012). An Integrated Model for Supplier Quality Evaluation. For

the Degree of Master of Applied Science

. Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Sarkar, A., & Mohapatra, P. K. (2006). Evaluation of supplier capability and

performance: A method for supply base reduction. Journal of Purchasing

& Supply Management

, 148-163.

Sugiyono. (2007). Metode penelitian pendidikan pendekatan kuantitatif, kualitatif,

dan R&D.

Bandung: ALFABETA.

Zagarnauskas, A. (2012). Developing A Supplier Performance Analysis Model

(Master's thesis, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway). Retreived

from http://brage.bibsys.no/hia/retrieve/6020/Oppgave % 20Adomas%20

(4)

139 Lampiran 1. Kuesioner

Surat Permohonan Pengisian Kuesioner

Kepada yth.

Responden PT. Gajah Tunggal Tbk

Dengan hormat,

Saat ini saya adalah mahasiswa Pascasarjana Fakultas Teknik Industri

Universitas Mercu Buana yang sedang mengadakan penelitian dengan judul

“Model Penilaian Kinerja Mould Supplier dengan Menggunakan Analytical

Hierarchy Process

(AHP) Dalam Kerangka Supply Chain guna penyusunan tesis

sebagai tugas akhir. Berkenaan dengan hal tersebut, saya mohon kesediaan

Bapak/Ibu/Saudara untuk meluangkan waktu guna mengisi kuesioner ini.

Jawaban Bapak/Ibu/Saudara bersifat rahasia dan tidak akan disebarluaskan

untuk konsumsi publik karena penelitian ini bersifat akademis/keilmuan semata

dan hasilnya tidak akan disebarluaskan.

Atas kesediaan, perhatian dan kerjasama Bapak/Ibu/Saudara, saya ucapkan

terima kasih.

Rangga Raditya

55314120050

(5)

Lampiran 2. Daftar Pertanyaan Kuesioner Pendahuluan

Questionnaire

Kepuasan Terhadap Performance Supplier

Di PT. Gajah Tunggal Tbk

Nama

:

Departemen

:

Jabatan

:

Pengalaman Kerja :

1. Apakah Anda puas dengan penilaian performance supplier yang dilakukan oleh

perusahaan (PT. Gajah Tunggal Tbk) yaitu hanya berdasarkan Quality dan

Delivery

?

a. Ya (Tidak lanjut kepertanyaan selanjutnya)

b. Tidak (Lanjut kepertanyaan dibawah)

2. Menurut Anda, berapa kriteria kinerja supplier yang seharusnya menjadi tolak

ukur kinerja supplier yang tepat untuk perusahaan?

a. 3

b. 4

c. 5

d. …… ( Tulis sesuai keinginan anda)

3. Dibawah ini adalah kriteria evaluasi supplier menurut Dikson’s (Isi sesuai

jumlah kriteria performance supplier yang ada pilih diatas).

a. Quality

b. Delivery

c. Performance History

d. Warranties and Claim Policies

e. Production Facilities and Capacity

f. Price

(6)

141 h. Financial Position

i. Procedural Compliance

j. Communication System

k. Reputation and Position in Industry

l. Desire for Business

m. Management and Organization

n. Operating Controls

o. Repair Service

p. Attitude

q. Impression

r. Packaging Ability

s. Labor Relations Record

t. Geographical Location

u. Amount of Past Business

v. Training Aids

w. Reciprocal Arrangements

x. (Isi faktor yang tidak masuk dalam kriteria diatas)

………

4. Tuliskan kritik dan saran Anda terhadap Questionnaire ini dan penilaian kinerja

yang dilakukan oleh PT. Gajah Tunggal Tbk.

a. Saran

………

b. Kritik

………

(7)

Demikian saya ucapkan terima kasih atas partisipasinya dalam membantu

mengisi Questionnaire ini.

Lampiran 3. Daftar Pertanyaan Wawancara Pendahuluan

Dibawah ini terdapat kriteria dan sub-kriteria dalam evaluasi kinerja

supplier

yang mengacu kepada hasil pengembangan kuesionar (Lampiran 2) dan

didukung pada penelitian-penelitian sebelumnya Fabio et al., (2015) dan Jenab et

al

., (2013). Apabila terdapat kriteria yang kurang sesuai dengan kebijakan

perusahaan maka dapat dihilangkan atau diganti dengan kriteria yang menurut

Bapak/Ibu perlu dipertimbangkan atau sesuai dengan kebijakan perusahaan.

No. Kriteria Sub-Kriteria

1. Quality a. Defect Rate, prosentase cacat produk mould yang dihasilkan

supplier dalam setiap tahunnya.

b. Quality Audit Assessment, total skor (%) yang diperoleh berdasarkan pemenuhan persyaratan mutu dan pencapaian target yang ditetapkan perusahaan.

c. Final Process Inspection, prosentase laporan berupa kelengkapan dokumentasi terhadap hasil inspeksi akhir

mould sebelum dikirimkan kepada pelanggan.

d. ………...…. ……….…..……. ……….………….…..…… e. ………...………. ……….…..……. ……….………

2. Delivery a. On-time Delivery, kesesuaian antara komitmen waktu yang

ditetapkan (CDD) dengan ETD pada Purchase Order (PO). b. ………..…

……….……. c. ………..… ……….……. 3. Technical a. Meet on standard requirement, kesesuaian dimensi/ukuran

(8)

143

No. Kriteria Sub-Kriteria

Capability mould dengan standar yang diminta dan toleransi yang ada.

Hasil dari penilaian ini berupa OK/NG level yang tertuang dalam inspection report perusahaan.

b. ………. ... c. ………. ...

4. Service a. Technical Support, durasi waktu dan jumlah tenaga ahli

yang dikerahkan supplier dalam membantu mengatasi permasalahan mould di lapangan hingga tuntas.

b. Response to changes; quick response. Prosentase lamanya waktu respon yang dihitung dalam setiap menjawab email pertanyaan-pertanyaan teknis mould dan permintaan solusi atas perubahan desain yang ada.

c. Ease of communication. Kemudahan bahasa yang digunakan dan latar belakang edukasi personil yang dimiliki supplier. d. Processing EDI (electronic data interchange), kemudahan

yang diberikan supplier dalam membuat track record atau sistem laporan yang mudah dipanggil jika suatu saat dibutuhkan oleh pelanggan.

e. ………. ………. ………. f. ………. ………. ……….

(9)

Lampiran 5. Hasil Questionnaire Kepuasan Terhadap Performansi Supplier

di PT. Gajah Tunggal Tbk

Pertanyaan ke 1 No

Kriteria

Jumlah

1 Puas

0

2 Tidak Puas

4 Pertanyaan ke 2 No

Kriteria Performance

Jumlah

1

3

0

2

4

2

3

5

1

4

6

0

5

7

1

6

11

0

7

13

0 Total

4 Pertanyaan ke 3 Rank

Faktor

Hasil Narasumber

1 Quality

4

2 Delivery

4

3 Performance History

0

4 Warranties and Claim Policies

1

5 Production Facilities and

Capacity

1

6 Price

1

7 Technical Capability

3

8 Financial Position

0

9 Procedural Compliance

0 10 Communication System

0 11 Reputation and Position in

(10)

145 Pertanyaan ke 3 Rank

Faktor

Hasil Narasumber

12 Desire for Bussiness

0 13 Management and

Organization

0 14 Operating Controls

0 15 Service

2 16 Attitude

0 17 Impression

0 18 Packing Ability

0 19 Labor Relation Record

0 20 Geographical Location

0 21 Amount of past business

0 22 Training Aids

0

(11)

1. Lampiran 6. Hasil Perhitungan AHP

1. Perbandingan Berpasang Kriteria Pakar ke-1 (R&D-1).

KUISIONER PERBANDINGAN BERPASANGAN ANTAR KRITERIA

skala kiri _{skala kanan}

Quality 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Delivery

Quality 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Technical Capability

Quality 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Services

Delivery 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Technical Capability

Delivery 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Services

Technical Capability 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Services

a. Matriks Perbandingan Pakar ke-1 (R&D-1). Pakar 01

Step 01 Quality Delivery Technical _Capability Services

Quality 1 1/5 5 3

Delivery 5 1 7 5

Technical Capability 1/5 1/7 1 1

Services 1/3 1/5 1 1

Total' 6.53 1.54 14.00 10.00

b. Nilai Eigen Pakar ke-1 (R&D-1).

Step 02 Quality Delivery Technical _Capability Services Eigen

Quality 0.15 0.13 0.36 0.30 0.23

Delivery 0.77 0.65 0.50 0.50 0.60

Technical Capability 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.07

Services 0.05 0.13 0.07 0.10 0.09

Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

c. Tabel Vektor Pakar ke-1 (R&D-1).

Step 03 Quality Delivery Technical _Capability Services Total

(12)

147

Delivery 1.17 0.60 0.52 0.44 2.73

Services 0.08 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.36

d. Nilai Lamda & CR Pakar ke-1 (R&D-1).

Attribute Lamda Quality 4.20 Delivery 4.53 Technical Capability 4.00 Services 4.10 Max Lamda 4.21 Sehingga CI 0.0697 CR 0.08

Sumber : Data diolah menggunakan aplikasi expert choice, 2016

2. Perbandingan Berpasang Kriteria Pakar ke-2 (R&D-2).

(13)

Step 01 Quality Delivery _CapabilityTechnical Services

Quality 1 5 7 5

Delivery 1/5 1 3 1/3

Technical Capability 1/7 1/3 1 1/5

Services 1/5 3 5 1

Total' 1.54 9.33 16.00 6.53

Step 02 Quality Delivery _CapabilityTechnical Services Eigen

Quality 0.65 0.54 0.44 0.77 0.60

Delivery 0.13 0.11 0.19 0.05 0.12

Services 0.13 0.32 0.31 0.15 0.23

Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Quality 0.60 0.59 0.39 1.15 2.72

Delivery 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.08 0.48

Services 0.12 0.36 0.28 0.23 0.98

(14)

149 3. Perbandingan Berpasang Kriteria Pakar ke-3 (QA).

a. Matriks Perbandingan Pakar ke-3 (QA). Pakar 03

Quality 1 3 5 1/5

Delivery 1/3 1 1 1/5

Technical Capability 1/5 1 1 1/7

Services 5 5 7 1

Total' 6.53 10.00 14.00 1.54

b. Nilai Eigen Pakar ke-3 (QA).

(15)

Step 02 Quality Delivery Technical _Capability Services Eigen Quality 0.15 0.30 0.36 0.13 0.23 Delivery 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.09 Technical Capability 0.03 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.07 Services 0.77 0.50 0.50 0.65 0.60 Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

c. Tabel Vektor Pakar ke-3 (QA).

Step 03 Quality Delivery Technical _{Capability Services} Total

Quality 0.23 0.26 0.37 0.12 0.99

Delivery 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.36

Services 1.17 0.44 0.52 0.60 2.73

d. Nilai Lamda & CR Pakar ke-3 (QA).

4. Perbandingan Berpasang Kriteria Pakar ke-4 (TECH).

(16)

151

a. Matriks Perbandingan Pakar ke-4 (TECH). Pakar 04

Quality 1 5 7 5

Delivery 1/5 1 5 3

Technical Capability 1/7 1/5 1 1

Services 1/5 1/3 1 1

Total' 1.54 6.53 14.00 10.00

b. Nilai Eigen Pakar ke-4 (TECH).

Quality 0.65 0.77 0.50 0.50 0.60

Delivery 0.13 0.15 0.36 0.30 0.23

Services 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.09

Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

c. Tabel Vektor Pakar ke-4 (TECH).

Step 03 Quality Delivery Technical _{Capability Services} Total

Quality 0.60 1.17 0.52 0.44 2.73

Delivery 0.12 0.23 0.37 0.26 0.99

Services 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.36

(17)

5. Penggabungan 4 Pakar (Matriks Perbandingan ke-4 Pakar) dari

Perbandingan Berpasangan Kriteria.

4 pakar

Pengabungan Pakar

Quality 1 15 1225 15

Delivery 0.067 1 105 1.000

Technical Capability 0.001 0.010 1 0.029

Services 0.067 1 35 1

Total' 1.13 17.01 1366.00 17.03

Quality 1 1.968 5.916 1.968

Delivery 0.508 1 3.201 1.000

Technical Capability 0.169 0.312 1 0.411

Services 0.508 1.000 2.432 1

Total' 2.19 4.28 12.55 4.38

(18)

153

Quality 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.449 0.46 Delivery 0.23 0.23 0.26 0.228 0.24 Technical Capability 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.094 0.08 Services 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.23 0.22 Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 b. Tabel Vektor 4.

Quality 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.44

Delivery 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.22

Technical Capability 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.09

Services 0.23 0.24 0.20 0.22

c. Nilai Lamda & CR 4 Pakar.

6. Perbandingan Berpasang Sub-Kriteria Quality Pakar ke-1 (R&D-1).

KUISIONER PERBANDINGAN BERPASANGAN ANTAR SUB KRITERIA

(19)

Defect Rate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Final Process Inspection

Defect Rate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Quality Assesment

Final Process Inspection 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Quality Assesment

Step 01 Defect Rate Final Process _Inspection _AssesmentQuality

Defect Rate 1 5 3

Final Process Inspection 1/5 1 1/3

Quality Assesment 1/3 3 1

Total' 1.53 9.00 4.33

Step 02 Defect Rate Final Process _Inspection _{Assesment Eigen}Quality

Defect Rate 0.65 0.56 0.69 0.63

Final Process Inspection 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.11

Quality Assesment 0.22 0.33 0.23 0.26

Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Step 03 Defect Rate Final Process _Inspection _{Assesment Total}Quality

Defect Rate 0.63 0.53 0.78 1.95

Attribute Lamda Defect Rate 3.07 Final Process Inspection 3.01 Quality Assesment 3.03

Max Lamda 3.04

Sehingga CI 0.0194

(20)

155 7. Perbandingan Berpasang Sub-Kriteria Quality Pakar ke-2 (R&D-2).

a. Matriks Perbandingan Pakar ke-2 (R&D-2).

Pakar 2

Defect Rate 1 5 3

Quality Assesment 1/3 3 1

Total' 1.53 9.00 4.33

Step 02 Defect Rate Final Process _Inspection _AssesmentQuality Eigen

Defect Rate 0.65 0.56 0.69 0.63

Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Step 03 Defect Rate Final Process _Inspection _AssesmentQuality Total

(21)

Max Lamda 3.04

Sehingga CI 0.0194

CR 0.033

8. Perbandingan Berpasang Sub-Kriteria Quality Pakar ke-3 (QA).

Defect Rate 1 3 1/5

Quality Assesment 5 7 1

(22)

157

Defect Rate 0.16 0.27 0.15 0.19

Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Defect Rate 0.19 0.25 0.14 0.59

Max Lamda 3.07

Sehingga CI 0.0329

CR 0.057

9. Perbandingan Berpasang Sub-Kriteria Quality Pakar ke-4 (TECH).

(23)

a. Matriks Perbandingan Pakar ke-4 (TECH). Pakar 04

Defect Rate 1 3 1

Quality Assesment 1 7 1

Total' 2.33 11.00 2.14

Defect Rate 0.43 0.27 0.47 0.39

Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Defect Rate 0.39 0.30 0.51 1.20

d. Nilai Lamda & CR Pakar ke-4 (TECH).

Max Lamda 3.08

(24)

159

CR 0.070

10. Penggabungan 4 Pakar (Matriks Perbandingan ke-4 Pakar) dari

Perbandingan Berpasangan Sub-Kriteria Quality.

4 pakar

Pengambungan Pakar

Defect Rate 1 225 2

Final Process Inspection 0.00444 1 0

Quality Assesment 0.55556 441.00000 1

Total' 1.56 667.00 2.80

Defect Rate 1 3.87298 1.15829

Final Process Inspection 0.25820 1 0.21822

Quality Assesment 0.86334 4.58258 1

Total' 2.12 9.46 2.38

a. Nilai Eigen 4 Pakar.

Defect Rate 0.47 0.41 0.49 0.46

Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

(25)

Defect Rate 0.46 0.41 0.51 1.38

Max Lamda 3.01

Sehingga CI 0.0055

CR 0.010

11. Perbandingan Berpasang Sub-Kriteria Service Pakar ke-1 (R&D-1).

KUISIONER PERBANDINGAN BERPASANGAN ANTAR SUB-KRITERIA

Technical Support 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Quick Response

Technical Support 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ease Communication

Technical Support 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Processing EDI

Quick Response 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ease Communication

Quick Response 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Processing EDI

(26)

161

a. Matriks Perbandingan Pakar ke-1 (R&D-1).

Pakar 01

Step 01 Technical _Support _ResponseQuick _{Communication}Ease Processing _EDI

Technical Support 1 5 3 7

Quick Response 1/5 1 1/5 1

Ease Communication 1/3 5 1 5

Processing EDI 1/7 1 1/5 1

Total' 1.68 12.00 4.40 14.00

Step 02 Technical _Support ResponsQuick e Ease Communicatio n Processing EDI Eigen Technical Support 0.60 0.42 0.68 0.50 0.55 Quick Response 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.08 Ease Communication 0.20 0.42 0.23 0.36 0.30 Processing EDI 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.07 Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Step 03 Technical _Support _ResponseQuick _{Communication}Ease Processing _EDI Total

Technical Support 0.55 0.40 0.90 0.50 2.35

Quick Response 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.32

Ease Communication 0.18 0.40 0.30 0.36 1.24

Processing EDI 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.29

Attribute Lamda Technical Support 4.28 Quick Response 4.02 Ease Communication 4.13 Processing EDI 4.06 Max Lamda 4.12 Sehingga CI 0.0405 CR 0.04

(27)

12. Perbandingan Berpasang Sub-Kriteria Service Pakar ke-2 (R&D-2).

Ease Communication 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Processing EDI

Quick Response 1/7 1 1/5 1/3

Ease Communication 1 5 1 5

Total' 2.48 16.00 2.40 9.33

Step 02 Technical _Support _ResponseQuick _{Communication}Ease Processing _EDI Eigen

(28)

163

Quick Response 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.06

Processing EDI 0.13 0.19 0.08 0.11 0.13

Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Quick Response 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.24

Processing EDI 0.13 0.18 0.08 0.13 0.52

13. Perbandingan Berpasang Sub-Kriteria Service Pakar ke-3 (QA).

(29)

Technical Support 1 5 1/3 3

Ease Communication 3 5 1 7

Total' 4.53 14.00 1.68 11.33

Quick Response 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.07

Processing EDI 0.07 0.21 0.09 0.09 0.12

Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Quick Response 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.04 0.27

(30)

165

Processing EDI 0.09 0.20 0.08 0.12 0.48

14. Perbandingan Berpasang Sub-Kriteria Service Pakar ke-4 (TECH).

(31)

Pakar 04

Ease Communication 1/3 5 1 3

Total' 1.68 16.00 4.53 9.33

Quick Response 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.06

Processing EDI 0.12 0.19 0.07 0.11 0.12

Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Quick Response 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.23

Processing EDI 0.11 0.17 0.09 0.12 0.49

d. Nilai Lamda & CR Pakar ke-4 (TECH).

(32)

167

15. Penggabungan 4 Pakar (Matriks Perbandingan 4 Pakar) dari

Perbandingan Berpasangan Sub-Kriteria Service.

4 pakar

Pengambungan Pakar

Quick Response 0.00082 1 0 0.03704

Ease Communication 0.33333 625.00000 1 525.00000

Processing EDI 0.00317 27 0 1

Total' 1.34 1878.00 4.00 841.04

Step 02 Technical _Support _ResponseQuick _{Communication}Ease Processing _EDI Technical Support 1 5.91608 1.31607 4.21287

Quick Response 0.16903 1 0.20000 0.43869 Ease Communication 0.75984 5.00000 1 4.78674

Processing EDI 0.23737 2.27951 0.20891 1

Total' 2.17 14.20 2.72 10.44

a. Nilai Eigen 4 Pakar.

Quick Response 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.07

Processing EDI 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.10 0.11

Total' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

b. Tabel Vektor 4 Pakar.

(33)

Quick Response 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.27

Processing EDI 0.10 0.15 0.08 0.11 0.45

Contoh Perbandingan Berpasangan Antar Kriteria oleh Para Pakar

(34)

169

Perbandingan Berpasangan Antar Sub-Kriteria oleh Para Pakar

(35)

(36)

171

an ce 20 13 2 01 4 ok 3.9 % 4.0 10 87 NG p p lie r-1 (S A EH W A ) ok 15 .9 8% Su b -K ri te ri a A p r-13 Me i-13 Ju n -1 3 Ju l-13 A gu -1 3 Se p -1 3 O kt -1 3 N o v-13 D es -1 3 Ja n -1 4 Fe b -1 4 Ma r-14 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 To ta l Ev al u at io n p o in t 80 100 80 80 100 80 100 100 100 60 40 40 80 80 100 40 40 % D ef ec t 5.0 % 4.9 9% 5.4 6% 6% 1.5 % 6.6 % 2.3 % 1.5 % 1.8 % 14 .7 % 17 .2 5% 16% -Ra n gk in g B A B B A B A A A C D D -A cc u mu la ti o n 80 90 85 82 .5 91 .2 5 85 .6 3 92 .8 1 96 .4 1 98 .2 0 79 .1 0 59 .5 5 49 .7 8 85 85 .6 3 98 .2 0 49 .7 8 49 .7 8 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n B A A A A A A A A B C C A A A C C Ev al u at io n p o in t 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Ra n gk in g A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A cc u mu la ti o n 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Ev al u at io n p o in t -96 .5 4 -Ra n gk in g -A -A cc u mu la ti o n -96 .5 4 96 .5 4 96 .5 4 -96 .5 4 96 .5 4 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n -A A A -A A Ev al u at io n p o in t 100 90 80 80 80 100 80 100 90 100 100 100 80 100 90 100 100 D eme ri t 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 Ra n gk in g A A B B B A B A A A A A B A A A A A cc u mu la ti o n 100 95 87 .5 0 83 .7 5 81 .8 8 90 .9 4 85 .4 7 92 .7 3 91 .3 7 95 .6 8 97 .8 4 98 .9 2 87 .5 0 90 .9 4 91 .3 7 98 .9 2 98 .9 2 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n A A B B B A B A A A A A B A A A A Ev al u at io n p o in t 80 -80 -80 -80 -Ra n gk in g B -B -B -B -A cc u mu la ti o n 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B Ev al u at io n p o in t -75 -Ra n gk in g -C -A cc u mu la ti o n -75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n -C C C C C C C C C Ev al u at io n p o in t -70 70 70 -Ra n gk in g -C C C -A cc u mu la ti o n -70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n -C C C C C C C C Ev al u at io n p o in t -80 -Ra n gk in g -B -A cc u mu la ti o n -80 80 80 80 80 80 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n -B B B B B B Ev al u at io n p o in t -Ra n gk in g -A cc u mu la ti o n -Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n -D ef ec t Ra te Fi n al P ro ce ss In sp ec ti o n To ta l Qu al it y A u d it A ss es sme n t D ec ri p ti o n Tr iw u la n I Tr iw u la n II Tr iw u la n II I Tr iw u la n IV Pa ge 2/ 2 O n -t ime d el iv er y Te ch n ic al S u p p o rt Qu ic k Re sp o n se P ro ce ss in g ED I Ea se C o mm u n ic at io n et o n s ta n d ar d r eq u ir eme n t

(37)

(38)

173

Su pp lie r N am e : SU PP LI ER -1 ( SA EH W A ) A dd re ss : K ore a A tt n : Krite ria Su b-k rit er ia Pr op or si N ila i Su b Kr ite ria N ila i To ta l N ila i Su b-K rit er ia (1 ) Ra ng ki ng (2 ) Pr op or si Kr ite ria N ila i K rit er ia (3 ) To ta l N ila i K rit er ia (4 ) D ef ec t Ra te 45% 49 .7 8 Fi na l P ro ce ss In sp ec tio n 11% 100 Q ua lit y A ud it A ss es sm en t 44% 96 .5 4 D el iv er y O n-t im e de liv er y 100% 98 .9 2 98 .9 2 A 24% 23 .7 4 Te ch ni ca l Ca pa bi lit y M ee t o n st an da rd re qu ire m en t 100% 80 80 B 8% 6. 4 Te ch ni ca l Su pp or t 44% 75 Q ui ck Re sp on se 7% 70 Ea se C om m un ic at io n 38% 80 Pr oc es si ng E D I 11% -R an gk in g Pe rf orm an si S up pl ie r Pe ring ka t Ni la i A Poi n ≥ 9 0 A pp ro ve B 80 ≥ P oi n < 90 C 60 ≥ P oi n < 80 D Poi n < 6 0 Ca nd ra .N Co m m en t by P T. G aj ah Tu ng ga l T bk Co m m en t by S up pl ie r Pa ge 1 /2 Re po rt o f P er fo rm an ce S up pl ie r Pe rio de 2 01 3/ 20 14 (Ap ril 2 01 3 - M ar ch 2 01 4) Q ua lit y 75 .8 8 C 46% 34 .9 0 81 .9 3 Se rv ic e 76 .7 4 C 22% 16 .8 8

B

Ta ng er an g, 2 0 Ja nu ar y 20 15 Pr ep ar ed Ch ec ke d Ra ng ga .R D an an g. H

(39)

Su pp lie r N am e : SU PP LI ER -1 ( SA EH W A ) A dd re ss : K ore a A tt n : Krite ria Su b-k rit er ia Pr op or si N ila i Su b Kr ite ria N ila i To ta l N ila i Su b-K rit er ia (1 ) Ra ng ki ng (2 ) Pr op or si Kr ite ria N ila i K rit er ia (3 ) To ta l N ila i K rit er ia (4 ) D ef ec t Ra te 45% 85 Fi na l P ro ce ss In sp ec tio n 11% 100 Q ua lit y A ud it A ss es sm en t 44% -D el iv er y O n-t im e de liv er y 100% 87 .5 0 87 .5 0 B 24% 21 Te ch ni ca l Ca pa bi lit y M ee t o n st an da rd re qu ire m en t 100% 80 80 B 8% 6. 4 Te ch ni ca l Su pp or t 44% -Q ui ck Re sp on se 7% -Ea se C om m un ic at io n 38% -Pr oc es si ng E D I 11% -R an gk in g Pe rf orm an si S up pl ie r Pe ring ka t Ni la i A Poi n ≥ 9 0 A pp ro ve B 80 ≥ P oi n < 90 C 60 ≥ P oi n < 80 D Poi n < 6 0 Ca nd ra .N Co m m en t by P T. G aj ah T un gg al T bk Co m m en t by S up pl ie r Pa ge 1 /2

C

Ta ng er an g, 2 0 Ja nu ar y 20 15 Pr ep ar ed Ch ec ke d Ra ng ga .R D an an g. H Re po rt o f P er fo rm an ce S up pl ie r Pe rio de 2 01 3/ 20 14 (Ap ril 2 01 3 - J un e 20 13 ) Q ua lit y 87 .9 5 B 46% 40 .4 6 67 .8 6 Se rv ic e -22%

(40)

-175

Su pp lie r N am e : SU PP LI ER -1 ( SA EH W A ) A dd re ss : K ore a A tt n : Krite ria Su b-k rit er ia Pr op or si N ila i Su b Kr ite ria N ila i To ta l N ila i Su b-K rit er ia (1 ) Ra ng ki ng (2 ) Pr op or si Kr ite ria N ila i K rit er ia (3 ) To ta l N ila i K rit er ia (4 ) D ef ec t Ra te 45% 85 .6 3 Fi na l P ro ce ss In sp ec tio n 11% 100 Q ua lit y A ud it A ss es sm en t 44% -D el iv er y O n-t im e de liv er y 100% 90 .9 4 90 .9 4 A 24% 21 .8 3 Te ch ni ca l Ca pa bi lit y M ee t o n st an da rd re qu ire m en t 100% 80 80 B 8% 6. 4 Te ch ni ca l Su pp or t 44% -Q ui ck Re sp on se 7% -Ea se C om m un ic at io n 38% -Pr oc es si ng E D I 11% -R an gk in g Pe rf orm an si S up pl ie r Pe ring ka t Ni la i A Poi n ≥ 9 0 A pp ro ve B 80 ≥ P oi n < 90 C 60 ≥ P oi n < 80 D Poi n < 6 0 Ca nd ra .N Co m m en t by P T. G aj ah Tu ng ga l T bk Co m m en t by S up pl ie r Pa ge 1 /2

C

Ta ng er an g, 2 0 Ja nu ar y 20 15 Pr ep ar ed Ch ec ke d Ra ng ga .R D an an g. H Re po rt o f P er fo rm an ce S up pl ie r Pe rio de 2 01 3/ 20 14 (Ap ril 2 01 3 - S ep t 2 01 3) Q ua lit y 88 .4 5 B 46% 40 .6 9 68 .9 1 Se rv ic e -22%

(41)

-pp lie r N am e : SU PP LI ER -1 ( SA EH W A ) dd re ss : K ore a tt n : Krite ria Su b-k rit er ia Pr op or si N ila i Su b Kr ite ria N ila i To ta l N ila i Su b-K rit er ia (1 ) Ra ng ki ng (2 ) Pr op or si Kr ite ria N ila i K rit er ia (3 ) To ta l N ila i K rit er ia (4 ) D ef ec t Ra te 45% 98 .2 0 Fi na l P ro ce ss In sp ec tio n 11% 100 Q ua lit y A ud it A ss es sm en t 44% -D el iv er y O n-t im e de liv er y 100% 95 .6 8 95 .6 8 A 24% 22 .9 6 Te ch ni ca l Ca pa bi lit y M ee t o n st an da rd re qu ire m en t 100% 80 80 B 8% 6. 4 Te ch ni ca l Su pp or t 44% 75 Q ui ck Re sp on se 7% -Ea se C om m un ic at io n 38% -Pr oc es si ng E D I 11% -an gk in g Pe rf orm an si S up pl ie r Pe ring ka t Ni la i A Poi n ≥ 9 0 A pp ro ve B 80 ≥ P oi n < 90 C 60 ≥ P oi n < 80 D Poi n < 6 0 Ca nd ra .N m m en t by P T. G aj ah Tu ng ga l T bk m m en t by S up pl ie r Pa ge 1 /2

A

Ta ng er an g, 2 0 Ja nu ar y 20 15 Pr ep ar ed Ch ec ke d Ra ng ga .R D an an g. H Re po rt o f P er fo rm an ce S up pl ie r Pe rio de 2 01 3/ 20 14 (Ap ril 2 01 3 - De c 20 13 ) Q ua lit y 98 .5 6 A 46% 45 .3 4 91 .2 0 Se rv ic e 75 C 22% 16 .5 0

(42)

177

ie r D et ai l P er for m ance 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 OK 2. 17 % 1. 62 58 33 ie r N am e : Su p p li e r-2 ( HI M ILE ) OK 4. 63 % 3. 00 95 a Su b -K ri te ri a A p r-13 Me i-13 Ju n -1 3 Ju l-13 A gu -1 3 Se p -1 3 O kt -1 3 N o v-13 D es -1 3 Ja n -1 4 Fe b -1 4 Ma r-14 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 To ta l Ev al u at io n p o in t 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 100 100 100 80 80 % D ef ec t 2.2 0% 4.4 % 2.1 7% 2.1 7% 0% 2.5 % 1.9 5% 2.1 7% 2% 2.3 5% 4.6 3% 6.9 1% -Ra n gk in g A A A A A A A A A A A B -A cc u mu la ti o n 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 100 100 100 90 90 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Ev al u at io n p o in t 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Ra n gk in g C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C A cc u mu la ti o n 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Ev al u at io n p o in t -84 -Ra n gk in g -B -A cc u mu la ti o n -84 84 84 -84 84 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n -B B B -B B Ev al u at io n p o in t 100 100 100 100 80 100 80 100 100 100 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 D eme ri t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 Ra n gk in g A A A A B A B A A A A A A A A A A A cc u mu la ti o n 100 100 100 100 90 95 87 .5 0 93 .7 5 96 .8 8 98 .4 4 94 .2 2 97 .1 1 100 95 96 .8 8 97 .1 1 97 .1 1 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n A A A A A A B A A A A A A A A A A Ev al u at io n p o in t 60 -60 -60 -60 -Ra n gk in g C -C -C -C -A cc u mu la ti o n 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Ev al u at io n p o in t -65 -Ra n gk in g -C -A cc u mu la ti o n -65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 75 65 65 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n -C C C C C C C C C C C C C Ev al u at io n p o in t -70 70 70 -Ra n gk in g -C C C -A cc u mu la ti o n -70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n -C C C C C C C C Ev al u at io n p o in t -80 -Ra n gk in g -B -A cc u mu la ti o n -80 80 80 80 80 80 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n -B B B B B B Ev al u at io n p o in t -65 -70 -Ra n gk in g -C -C -A cc u mu la ti o n -65 65 67 .5 67 .5 67 .5 67 .5 67 .5 67 .5 67 .5 67 .5 67 .5 65 67 .5 67 .5 67 .5 67 .5 Ra n gk in g A cc u mu la ti o n -C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C To ta l D ec ri p ti o n Tr iw u la n I Tr iw u la n II Tr iw u la n II I Tr iw u la n IV D ef ec t Ra te Qu al it y Fi n al P ro ce ss In sp ec ti o n Qu al it y A u d it A ss es sme n t el iv er y O n -t ime d el iv er y ch n ic al p ab ili ty Me et o n s ta n d ar d r eq u ir eme n t Te ch n ic al S u p p o rt Se rv ic e Qu ic k Re sp o n se Ea se C o mm u n ic at io n P ro ce ss in g ED I Pa ge 2/ 2

(43)

Su pp lie r N am e : SU PP LI ER -2 ( H IM IL E) A dd re ss : Chi na A tt n : Krite ria Su b-k rit er ia Pr op or si N ila i Su b Kr ite ria N ila i To ta l N ila i Su b-K rit er ia (1 ) Ra ng ki ng (2 ) Pr op or si Kr ite ria N ila i K rit er ia (3 ) To ta l N ila i K rit er ia (4 ) D ef ec t Ra te 45% 90 Fi na l P ro ce ss In sp ec tio n 11% 60 Q ua lit y A ud it A ss es sm en t 44% 84 D el iv er y O n-t im e de liv er y 100% 97 .1 1 97 .1 1 A 24% 23 .3 1 Te ch ni ca l Ca pa bi lit y M ee t o n st an da rd re qu ire m en t 100% 60 60 C 8% 4. 8 Te ch ni ca l Su pp or t 44% 65 Q ui ck Re sp on se 7% 70 Ea se C om m un ic at io n 38% 80 Pr oc es si ng E D I 11% 67 .5 R an gk in g Pe rf orm an si S up pl ie r Pe ring ka t Ni la i A Poi n ≥ 9 0 A pp ro ve B 80 ≥ P oi n < 90 C 60 ≥ P oi n < 80 D Poi n < 6 0 Ca nd ra .N Co m m en t by P T. G aj ah Tu ng ga l T bk Co m m en t by S up pl ie r Pa ge 1 /2 R ep or t of P er fo rm an ce S up pl ie r Pe ri od e 20 13 /2 01 4 (Ap ri l 2 01 3 - M ar ch 2 01 4) Q ua lit y 84 .0 6 B 46% 38 .6 7 82 .4 7 Se rv ic e 71 .3 3 C 22% 15 .6 9

B

(44)

(45)

Su pp lie r N am e : SU PP LI ER -2 ( H IM IL E) A dd re ss : Chi na A tt n : Krite ria Su b-k rit er ia Pr op or si N ila i Su b Kr ite ria N ila i To ta l N ila i Su b-K rit er ia (1 ) Ra ng ki ng (2 ) Pr op or si Kr ite ria N ila i K rit er ia (3 ) To ta l N ila i K rit er ia (4 ) D ef ec t Ra te 45% 100 Fi na l P ro ce ss In sp ec tio n 11% 60 Q ua lit y A ud it A ss es sm en t 44% -D el iv er y O n-t im e de liv er y 100% 100 100 A 24% 24 Te ch ni ca l Ca pa bi lit y M ee t o n st an da rd re qu ire m en t 100% 60 60 C 8% 4. 8 Te ch ni ca l Su pp or t 44% -Q ui ck Re sp on se 7% -Ea se C om m un ic at io n 38% -Pr oc es si ng E D I 11% 65 R an gk in g Pe rf orm an si S up pl ie r Pe ring ka t Ni la i A Poi n ≥ 9 0 A pp ro ve B 80 ≥ P oi n < 90 C 60 ≥ P oi n < 80 D Poi n < 6 0 Ca nd ra .N Co m m en t by P T. G aj ah Tu ng ga l T bk Co m m en t by S up pl ie r Pa ge 1 /2 R ep or t of P er fo rm an ce S up pl ie r Pe ri od e 20 13 /2 01 4 (Ap ri l 2 01 3 - Ju ne 2 01 3) Q ua lit y 92 .1 4 A 46% 42 .3 9 85 .4 9 Se rv ic e 65 C 22% 14 .3 0