OPERATIONS - THE WEST PAPUA SEA WATER
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.3. Research Stages
In this research, there are several stages of data processing analysis using a combination of two different methods where Borda method as the initial determination of the criteria weighting value and the alternative of landing beach selection followed then next stage is the analysis of AHP method which is used as the main framework of decision maker system builder as well as determining the value of
alternative weighted value through the process of pairwise comparison analysis up to the final stages of the research (Michela, 2015).
3.3.1. Determination of landing beach criteria weight value.
The criteria of landing beach selection in this research can be seen in table 1 as follows (Collins, 1998):
Postgraduate International Conference, Vol. 2 ICMST 2018 July, 26th 2018
25
Table 1. Criteria for selection of landing beach (Collins, 1998).
NO CRITERIA INFLUENCE IN AMPHIBIOUS
OPERATIONS IDEAL PARAMETER
1 2 3 4
1 Type of Shorelines.
a. Straight shoreline. a. Influence on currents and waves. Straight shoreline b.Convex shoreline. b. Effect on the direction of the shot
c.Concave shoreline. the opposing coastal defense.
2 Composition of the seafloor.
a. Sand. Influence on surface manuver Sand.
b. Sand pabbles.
c. Muddy sand.
d. Rocky gravel.
3 Coastal gradient.
a. Steep (gradient 1:15) a. Influence on determination of a. Moderate gradient.
b.Moderate (1:15 >gradient≥ 1:30) ship type & landing lifeboat. 1:15 > gradient ≥ 1:30 c.Gentle (1:30 > gradient≥ 1:60) b. Influence on type of break wave b. Gentle gradient d.Mild (1:60>gradient≥1:120) in shallow water area 1:30 > gradient ≥ 1:60
e. Flat (gradient > 1:120)
4 Physical hydro-oceanography
a. Wave
a. Effect on landing lifeboat and
amphibious vehicle. a. spilling wave type.
b. Tidal
b.To determinate type of lifeboat &
amphibious vehicle to be used.
b.Semidiurnal and Mixed Semidiurnal tidal type
c. Current c. Current parallel shoreline
velocity < 1 knots.
5 Back area of beach a. Influence on manuver of troops &
amphibious vehicles.
a. Flat with an elevated beach backdrop.
b. Defence area for protection after
b. There is a ramp to the rear of the beach.
landing.
6
Point of reference for landing
beach. a. To help identification process
Can be a known terrain sign for its position
about landing beach.
b. As a navigation mark when on
sea surface.
7 Coastal obstacles.
a. Natural obstacles
a. Influence in motion power of combat materials and troops
Selected beaches which minimum natural obstacle.
1 2 3 4
b. Artificial obstacles
b. Can make amphibious vehicle and lifeboat become broken.
8 Beach access Make easy to manuver for troops & Selected beach which have
vehicle on landing beach. enough total access.
. Determination of the criteria weighting value was
analyzed by using Borda method after obtaining the
table of values of criteria ranking value from expert choice as in table 2. below
Postgraduate International Conference, Vol. 2 ICMST 2018 July, 26th 2018
26
Table 2. Obtaining the rating criteria (Costa, 2017).
NO CRITERIA RANK
1 2 3
1 CRITERIA 1
2 CRITERIA 2
3 CRITERIA 3
The determination of the ratio value for all rankings is weighted across all criteria (𝑅1) (Ishida, 2017):
𝑅1= ∑ 𝑅𝑖𝑗
𝑛
𝑗=1
(1)
Determination of the weight value of each criteria (𝑊1) (Ishida, 2017):
𝑊1= 𝑅1
∑𝑚𝑖=1 𝑅1 (2) Where:
𝑅1: The sum of all rankings is weighted for all criteria 1.
𝑅𝑖𝑗: The rankings are evaluated by j for the criteria 1.
𝑊1: Weight criteria 1 for the evaluator n.
The steps for calculation with Borda method are as follows (Mohajan, 2012):
a. Each decision maker assigns n-1 to first choice criteria or alternative, n-2 for second choice, n-3 for third option and so on up to 0 for last choice criteria or alternative (Ishida, 2017).
b. The optional alternative with the highest amount is the winner (Ishida, 2017).
3.3.2. Determination of alternative weighted value of landing beach option.
Determination of the weight value of landing beach alternative is also analyzed by Borda method as in table 3 as follows (Ishida, 2017) :
Table 3. Obtaining the rating criteria (Mohajan, 2012).
NO CRITERIA RANK
1 2 3
1 ALTERNATIVE 1
2 ALTERNATIVE 2
3 ALTERNATIVE 3
As for the determination of the weight value of each alternative in the same process as the formula (1) and (2).
3.3.3. Weighting matrix of criteria with AHP Method.
In order to make a decision in the AHP method it is necessary to process the problem with the following stages (Saad, et al., 2016):
a. Create a hierarchy structure.
The multicriteria problem in AHP is arranged in the form of hierarchy consisting of three main components namely the main objectives, assessment criteria and alternative choice (Koc &
Burhan, 2015). The structure of the hierarchy can be illustrated as shown in Figure 3 following (Taha, 2007) :
Postgraduate International Conference, Vol. 2 ICMST 2018 July, 26th 2018
27
Fig. 3. Hierarchy structure (Taha, 2007).
b. Create a pairwise comparison matrix.
1) Pairwise comparison based on Saaty Scale.
At this stage begin pairwise comparison in order to determine the
weighting value of assessment criteria based on the Saaty Scale as in table 4 below (Saaty, 2008) :
Table 4. Assessment of criteria weighting based on Saaty scale (Koc & Burhan, 2015).
2) Calculates the criteria weight (priority vector).
Calculation of the value of criteria weight by normalizing the matrix value of pairwise comparison by dividing all matrix values by the sum of each matrix column(Triantaphyllou & Mann, 1995). After that is done the calculation of the average value of the sum in each line matrix according to the following formula (Saaty, 2008) (Triantaphyllou & Mann, 1995):
𝐴 = (𝑎𝑖𝑗)
= [
1 𝑊1⁄𝑊2 ⋯ 𝑊1⁄𝑊𝑛 𝑊2⁄𝑊1 1 ⋯ 𝑊2⁄𝑊𝑛
⋮ 𝑊𝑛⁄𝑊1
⋮
𝑊𝑛⁄𝑊2 ⋯ ⋮
⋯ 1
] (3)
The matrix value generated from the process is the value of the priority vector (Triantaphyllou & Mann, 1995).
3) Testing Consistency Ratio (CR).
At this stage tested the level of consistency ratio of matrix comparison in
Value Definition Explanation
1 The same important
3 Slightly more important
5 More important
7 Very important
9 Absolute is very important
2,4,6,8 Average When in doubt between two adjacent
values
1/3,1/5,1/7,1/9 The opposite of the value 1,3,5,7,9 If the value of A to B is 4 then the value of B to A is 1/4
(Reciprocal)
Postgraduate International Conference, Vol. 2 ICMST 2018 July, 26th 2018
28 pairs of criteria assessment that has been determined the value of weight criteria (priority vector) (Triantaphyllou & Mann, 1995). If CR>0,1 then the pairwise comparison process should be repeated again until it gets results CR≤0,1. CR value is derived from the division between Consistency Index (CI) with Index Ratio (IR) with the following calculation phases (Koc &
Burhan, 2015):
a. Determine 𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑠 by formula (Saaty, 2008):
[𝐴𝑥 = 𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑠𝑥] (4)
Where x is eigen vector value obtained from the calculation priority vector. After process (4) has
obtained 𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑠 matrix and than determine average value of 𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑠. b. Determine Consistency Index (CI) by
formula (Saaty, 2008):
CI = (𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑠−𝑛)
(𝑛−1) (5)
Where:
CI : Consistency Index.
𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑠 : Average value 𝐴𝑥
𝑥. n :Total weight.
c. Determine CR value by formula (Saaty, 2008):
CR=𝐶𝐼
𝐼𝑅 (6)
Where Index Ratio value determined in accordance with
Table 5 as follows:
Table 5. Index Ratio (IR) (Saaty, 2008).
At this stage it should be ensured that CR values must be consistent (CR≤0,1) (Triantaphyllou & Mann, 1995).
4) Develop a new hierarchy complete with criteria weight.
The preparation of a new hierarchy is needed to reinforce the key assessment criteria that will be used in the next weighting process ie the choice of alternative weighting
against each assessment criterion(Gorener, et al., 2012). The preparation of the new hierarchy can be seen as shown in Figure 4 following (Triantaphyllou & Mann, 1995) :
Fig. 4. Hierarchy structure with weight value (Triantaphyllou & Mann, 1995).
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
IR 0,00 0,00 0,58 0,90 1,12 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,49 1,51 1,48 1,56 1,57 1,59
Postgraduate International Conference, Vol. 2 ICMST 2018 July, 26th 2018
29 5) Calculation of the value of
alternative weight for each criteria.
The calculation of the value of alternative weight for each criterion is needed in order to construct a pairwise comparison matrix between the alternative
elements of choice in the operation of the assessment criteria matrix(Yogi, et al., 2017). This process carried out a number of assessment criteria such as table 6 as follows (Saaty, 2012) :
Table 6. Matrix Table of Assessment Criteria (Saaty, 2012).
6) Develop a new hierarchy complete with the value of the weighting criteria and the value of alternative weight.
The preparation of a new hierarchy structure with the value of the criteria weight and the value of alternative weight is required in order to display the
weight
values of the matched comparison matrix results of all alternative alternatives in each assessment criterion that will produce alternative weighting for each criteria (priority vector). The preparation of the new
hierarchy can be seen in Figure 5 as follows (Saaty, 2012) :
Fig. 5. Structure hierarchy with weight value (Saaty, 2012).
a. Determine the preferred alternative ranking.
The determination of the optional alternative rank corresponds to the following matrix calculations (Saaty, 2012) (Triantaphyllou & Mann, 1995):
[
𝑎11 𝑎12 𝑎13 𝑎21 𝑎22 𝑎23 𝑎31 𝑎32 𝑎33
] [ 𝑘 𝑙 𝑚
] = [ 𝑥 𝑦 𝑧
] (7)
In determining the rankings in the alternative option is done multiplication process between matrix of alternative weight value (Triantaphyllou & Mann,
1995) as the priority matrix element with the matrix of the corresponding criteria weighting value as the criteria weights element so that the final priority value of the alternative matrix is ready to be sorted according to the rank (Koc & Burhan, 2015).