Warehouse Selection for Storage of Finished Goods

(1)

Warehouse Selection for Storage of Finished Goods

Sarinah Sihombing STMT Trisakti stmt@indosat.net.id yoritupang@yahoo.com Gires Firera STMT Trisakti stmt@indosat.net.id ABSTRACT

,Q VHOHFWLQJ D ZDUHKRXVH IRU VWRUDJH RI ¿QLVKHG JRRGV IURP TXDOLWDWLYH DQG TXDQWLWDWLYH GDWD DJJUHJDWH YDOXH ZDV REWDLQHG DV D UHTXLUHPHQW WR PDNH FKRLFHV DQG GHWHUPLQH costs.

.H\ZRUG ORJLVWLF ZDUHKRXVH DQDO\VLV KLHUDUFK\ SURFHVV $+3

Introduction

&XUUHQWO\ DOPRVW DOO PDQXIDFWXULQJ FRPSDQLHV KDYH D ZDUHKRXVH ZKLFK JHQHU-DOO\ VHUYHV DV D WHPSRUDU\ VWRUDJH RI JRRGV in each stage of the logistics process.

37 )ULVLDQ )ODJ ,QGRQHVLD )), LV D manufacturing company that produces KHDOWK\ GULQNV VXFK DV SRZGHU DQG OLTXLG PLON ZLWK YDULRXV RWKHU VXE SURGXFWV ,Q LWV RSHUDWLRQDO DFWLYLWLHV WKH )), PXVW DO-ZD\V PDLQWDLQ WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKH SURGXFWV LW SURGXFHV HVSHFLDOO\ WKH VWRUDJH DFWLYLWLHV LQ WKH ZDUHKRXVH 7KH ZDUHKRXVH XVHG IRU temporary storage of the products as well as D ZDUHKRXVH DQG GLVWULEXWLRQ FHQWHU LV PDQ-DJHG E\ 37 <&+ ,QGRQHVLD ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR LQVXI¿FLHQW VWRUDJH ORFDWLRQ )), DOVR SD\V attention to the hygiene or sterilization of WKH ZDUHKRXVH HQYLURQPHQW DQG IDFLOLWLHV WKDW ZLOO EH XVHG WR VWRUH DOO WKH ¿QLVKHG SURGXFWV ,W LV EHLQJ FRQVLGHUHG EHFDXVH WKH QDWXUH RI WKH SURGXFWV UHTXLUHV VSHFLDO treatment.

:LWK WKH LQFUHDVLQJ QXPEHU RI QHZ

SURGXFWV IROORZHG E\ WKH DGGLWLRQ RI SURG-XFW LQYHQWRU\ LQ RUGHU WR ZLQ WKH FRPSHWL-WLRQ )), PXVW EH DEOH WR VWRUH WKH ¿QLVKHG products in a larger scale at the central ZDUHKRXVH +RZHYHU GXH WR WKH LQFUHDVH RI DGGLWLRQDO LQYHQWRU\ LQ WKH ZDUHKRXVH )), LV ORRNLQJ IRU D QHZ ZDUHKRXVH WKDW FDQ DFFRPPRGDWH LQYHQWRU\ ZLWK ODUJHU VFDOH EHWWHU TXDOLW\ DQG DW D FRPSHWLWLYH FRVW

%HVLGHV LQ -DNDUWD )), KDV RWKHU ZDUH-KRXVHV LQ RWKHU FLWLHV OLNH LQ 6XUDED\D 6H-PDUDQJ DQG 0HGDQ ,W LV DLPHG WR PDNH HTXDO GLVWULEXWLRQV RI WKH SURGXFW WR EH VSUHDG DOO RYHU ,QGRQHVLD 2I FRXUVH DOO WKH GHWHUPLQDWLRQV DQG GHFLVLRQV RQ PDNLQJ ZDUHKRXVLQJ VHUYLFHV VKRXOG EH EDVHG RQ GH¿QHG FULWHULD

7KLV UHVHDUFK XVHG TXDOLWDWLYH DQG TXDQ-WLWDWLYH GDWD 4XDOLWDWLYH GDWD LV XVHG IRU QRQ VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VLV 0HDQZKLOH TXDQ-WLWDWLYH GDWD LV XVHG IRU VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VLV ,W KDV SULPDU\ DQG VHFRQGDU\ GDWD 7KH SULPDU\ GDWD LV REWDLQHG GLUHFWO\ IURP

(2)

OR-gistics managerss and the secondary data is REWDLQHG IURP RWKHU SDUWLHV UHODWHG WR WKH research.

7KH PHDVXUHPHQW RI WKH DQVZHU LV EDVHG RQ $QDO\WLFDO +LHUDUFK\ 3URFHVV PHWKRG

$+3

$QDO\WLFDO +LHUDUFK\ 3URFHVV $+3 LV D V\VWHPDWLF GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ PHWKRG ZKLFK ZDV LQWURGXFHG E\ 7KRPDV / 6DDW\ during 1971-1975 when he was in Wharton 6FKRRO ,W LV XVHG LI WKHUH DUH YDULRXV FULWH-ULD RI WKH GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ 7KHUH DUH VRPH SULQFLSDOV WKDW QHHG WR EH XQGHUVWRRG IURP WKH $+3 PHWKRG QDPHO\ GHFRPSRVLWLRQ FRPSHUDWLYH MXGJPHQW V\QWKHVLV RI SULRU-LW\ GDQ ORJLFDO FRQVLVWHQV\

)XUWKHUPRUH $+3 DOVR KDV D VSHFLDO FRQFHUQ DERXW WKH GHYLDWLRQV RI FRQVLVWHQ-F\ LQ WKH SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQ PDWUL[ )LUVW WKH GHFLVLRQ PDNHUV PDNH D VFRULQJ RQ WKH UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH EHWZHHQ WZR HOHPHQWV TXDOLWDWLYHO\ RI ³YHUWLFDO FL ´ HOHPHQW ZLWK ³KRUL]RQWDO FM ´ HOHPHQW LQ WKH SDLUZLVH comparison matrix using the following for-mula: 6DDW\

Results and Disscusion

a. Rating the relative importance of two elements

D 3DLUZLVH &RPSDULVRQ PDWUL[

c_iF_M Q (OHPHQWV FULWHULD RQ SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQ PDWUL[ RI D OHYHO LQ D KLHUDU-chy.

w_iZ_M Z_n 7KH UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH VFRUH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR HOHPHQWV RI WKH matrix of pairwise comparison EDVHG RQ WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI SDLUHG FRPSDULVRQV DWWDFKPHQW

,9 DSSHQGL[ %

$IWHU VFRULQJ WKH UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH EH-WZHHQ HOHPHQWV WKH LQYHUVH YDOXH LV FDUULHG RXW WR REWDLQ WKH LQYHUVH VFRUH RU UHFLSURFDO D[LRP XVLQJ WKH IROORZLQJ IRUPXOD

b.Reciprocal axiom

a_LM = 1 a_LM

D 3DLUZLVH &RPSDULVRQ PDWUL[ c

iFM Q (OHPHQWV FULWHULD RQ SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQ PDWUL[ RI D OHYHO LQ D KLHUDUFK\ 7KH VFRULQJ ZDV performed to measure the con-sistency of the results of the UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH EHWZHHQ HOHPHQWV VFRULQJ TXDQWLWDWLYHO\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKHVH VFRULQJ LV VDLG WR EH SHUIHFW RU FRQVLVWHQW LI LW VDWLV¿HV WKH IROORZLQJ IRU-mula:

c. Consistancy Scoring

D 3DLUZLVH &RPSDULVRQ PDWUL[

Q RU ] 7KH WRWDO RI UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH EH-WZHHQ HOHPHQWV FL FM FN Q VFRULQJ DQG WKH LQYHUVH YDOXH UH-FLSURFDO D[LRP LQ HDFK FROXPQ RI WKH 3DLUZLVH &RPSDULVRQ PDWUL[ RU WKH (LJHQ YDOXHV

w = priority score of pairwise comparison matrix.

7KLV DVVHVVPHQW ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH SULRULW\ VFRUH RI SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQ PDWUL[ 7KXV REWDLQHG =PD[ RU (LJHQ YDOXH WKDW PHHWV WKH SULRULW\ VFRUH LQ WKH SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQ PDWUL[ 7KH consistency of the indicators measured

aij = wi/wj

(3)

WKURXJK WKH &RQVLVWHQF\ ,QGH[ &, formulated as follow:

1. Counting the Consistensy Index value

CI = Consistensy Index.

=_max WKH PD[LPXP (LJHQ YDOXH RI WKH pairwise comparison matrix n = the no of elements of pairwise

comparison matrix

$+3 PHDVXUHV WKH HQWLUH FRQVLVWHQF\ YDOXH XVLQJ WKH &RQVLVWHQF\ 5DWLR &5 DV GH¿QHG

2.Counting the Consistency Ratio (CR)

&5 Consistensy Index &,

Random Consistensy Index *) 5, VFRUH LV WKH VFRUH RI WKH 5DQGRP ,QGH[ LVVXHG E\ 2DUNULGJH /DERUDWRU\ LQ WKH IRUP VKRZQ LQ WDEOH Q LV WKH QXPEHU RI FULWHULD contained in the pairwise comparison ma-trix.

Determination of the Criteria of Each Warehouse Selection Priority

7KH GHFLVLRQ PDNHUV VKRXOG FRQVLGHU WKH IROORZLQJ LWHPV EHIRUH PDNLQJ WKH GHFL-sion:

:DUHKRXVH¶V ZLGWK WKLV LV WKH ¿UVW FULWH-ULD VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG

)DVLOLWLHV DVVHVVHG RQO\ RQ WKH DYDLO-DELOLW\ RI SDOOHWV RZQHG E\ WKH VXSSOLHUV and types of storage facilities on each al-WHUQDWLYH ZKLFK DUH UDFNLQJ DQG VWDFNLQJ EORFNV EXON

FRVW DVVHVVHG IURP WKH UHQWDO DQG VKLS-ping costs from the factory to the ware-house as well as the cost per pallet.

/RFDWLRQ DVVHVVHG IURP WKH GLVWDQFH DQG WUDYHO WLPH EHWZHHQ IDFWRULHV DQG ZDUH-houses

:KDW EHLQJ DQDO\]HG LQ WKLV FDVH LV WKUHH ZDUHKRXVHV ZLWK WKHLU RZQ FULWHULD QDPHO\ ZDUHKRXVH $ % DQG &

7DEOH LV SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQ PDWUL[ RI WKH FULWHULD RI ZDUHKRXVH VHOHFWLRQ HTXLSHG ZLWK WKH UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH VFRUH EHWZHHQ HOHPHQWV DQG YDOXHV RI D[LRPV 5HFLSURFDO EDVHG RQ WKH UHVXOWV RI UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH VFRUH EHWZHHQ HOHPHQWV RI GHFLVLRQ PDN-HUV YDOXH

7KH WDEOH LV WKH LQLWLDO DVVHVVPHQW GRQH E\ FRPSDULQJ WKH YHUWLFDO HOHPHQWV ZLWK horizontal elements.

1. Warehouse’s width is more important WKDQ IDFLOLWLHV VR LW LV ZHLJKWHG

2. Cost is more important than warehouse’s ZLGWK VR LW LV ZHLJKWHG

:DUHKRXVH¶V ZLGWK LV PRUH LPSRUWDQW than location so it is weighted 5.

&RVW LV PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ IDFLOLWLHV VR it is weighted 5.

)DFLOLWLHV LV PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ ORFD-WLRQ VR LW LV ZHLJKWHG

6. Cost is more important than location so it is weighted 5.

7KH PDWUL[ JDYH UHVXOW WR WKH WRWDO YDOXH IRU HDFK FROXPQ WKDW LV (LJHQ YDOXH = RI the pairwise comparison matrix. Column WKDW KDV WKH VPDOOHVW (LJHQ YDOXH ZLOO EH the highest priority score to the normalized matrix.

7DEOH UHIHUV WR QRUPDOL]HG PDWUL[ ZKLFK ZDV JDLQHG IURP WKH GLYLVLRQ RI WKH SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQ PDWUL[ DQG WKH (LJHQ YDOXH RI HDFK FROXPQ ,W VKRZV WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH SHUIHFW QRUPDOL]DWLRQ FDOFXODWLRQV DV WKH WRWDO YDOXH RI HDFK FROXPQ LV

CI = Zmax – n

(4)

The comparison between alternative warehouses and warehouses’ width criterion

7KH ¿UVW FULWHULRQ LV WR SHUIRUP SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQV IRU HDFK DOWHUQDWLYH RI ZDUHKRXVH¶V ZLGWK FULWHULRQ )LOOLQJ WKH UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH VFRUH RI HDFK DOWHUQDWLYH against the warehouse’s width criterion is GRQH E\ XVLQJ WKH UHVXOW RI WKH LQWHUYLHZV GRQH WR WKH ORJLVWLFV PDQDJHUV DV VHHQ RQ WDEOH

7KH WDEOH LV WKH LQLWLDO DVVHVVPHQW GRQH E\ FRPSDULQJ WKH YHUWLFDO HOHPHQWV ZLWK horizontal elements.

D $OWHUQDWLYH :DUHKRXVH % LV PRUH LPSRU-WDQW WKDQ DOWHUQDWLYH :DUHKRXVH $ VR LW LV ZHLJKWHG

E $OWHUQDWLYH :DUHKRXVH & LV PXFK PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ DOWHUQDWLYH :DUHKRXVH $ so it is weighted 7.

F $OWHUQDWLYH :DUHKRXVH & LV PRUH LPSRU-WDQW WKDQ DOWHUQDWLYH :DUHKRXVH % VR LW LV weighted 5.

7KH PDWUL[ JDYH UHVXOW WR WKH WRWDO YDOXH IRU HDFK FROXPQ WKDW LV (LJHQ YDOXH = of the pairwise comparison matrix of the ZDUHKRXVH¶V ZLGWK 1H[W LV WR PDNH WKH QRUPDOL]HG PDWUL[ DV VKRZQ LQ WDEOH

7DEOH UHIHUV WR QRUPDOL]HG PDWUL[ ZKLFK ZDV JDLQHG IURP WKH GLYLVLRQ RI WKH pairwise comparison matrix of warehouse’s ZLGWK FULWHULRQ DQG WKH (LJHQ YDOXH RI HDFK column. It shows the results of the perfect QRUPDOL]DWLRQ FDOFXODWLRQV DV WKH WRWDO YDO-XH RI HDFK FROXPQ LV ,W DOVR VKRZV the priority scores for each column.

$IWHU JHWWLQJ WKH SULRULW\ VFRUH WKH QH[W LV WR WHVW WKH FRQVLVWHQF\ RI WKH UHODWLYH LP-SRUWDQFH DVVHVVPHQW EHWZHHQ HOHPHQWV E\ VHWWLQJ WKH YDOXH RI &RQVLVWHQF\ 5DWLR &5

¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¹ · ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ © § . . 1276 .

as well as the priority scores for each cri-terion

$IWHU JHWWLQJ WKH SULRULW\ VFRUH WKH QH[W is to test the consistency of the results of UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH VFRUH EHWZHHQ HOHPHQWV E\ VHWWLQJ WKH YDOXH RI &RQVLVWHQF\ 5DWLR

&5 WKURXJK WKH IROORZLQJ VWHSV

1. Counting the Eigen Vector Score.

$Z =_max.w $Z = =_max 7KH (LJHQ YDOXHV =PD[ LV ,W VKRZV WKDW HDFK HOHPHQW FULWHULRQ contains the priority score of the ele-ment.

2.Counting the Consistency Index (CI).

&, =_max± Q ±

Q ± í

3.Counting the Consistency Ratio (CR).

&5 &, 5,

n LV FULWHULD FRPSDUHG %DVHG RQ WDEOH 5, VFRUH IRU Q LV

7KH &5 YDOXH JDLQHG IURP WKH FDOFXODWLRQ DERYH LV %HFDXVH &5 ” WKHQ WKHUH LV QR QHHG WR GR WKH DVVHVVPHQW UHYL-VLRQ EHFDXVH WKH SULRULW\ VFRUH RI HDFK DO-WHUQDWLYH LV FRQVLVWHQW DQG YDOLG

Determination of Alternative Priority toward Each Criterion

¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¹ · ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ © § . 1 . . . . 5 . 1 . 5 . . . . 1 . . 5 . . . 1 ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¹ · ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ © § . . 2 5251 . 1666 . 1

(5)

¸ ¸ ¸ ¹ · ¨ ¨ ¨ © § . . .

through the following steps:

a. Counting the Eigen vector.

$Z = max.W $Z = = max 7KH (LJHQ YDOXHV =PD[ LV ,W VKRZV WKDW HDFK HOHPHQW FULWHULRQ FRQ-tains the priority score of the element.

b.Counting Consistensy Index (CI).

&, =_max± Q ±

Q ± ±

c.Counting the Consistensy Ratio (CR).

&5 &, 5,

n LV FULWHULD FRPSDUHG %DVHG RQ WDEOH 5, VFRUH IRU Q LV

7KH &5 YDOXH JDLQHG IURP WKH FDOFXODWLRQ DERYH LV %HFDXVH &5 ” WKHQ WKHUH LV QR QHHG WR GR WKH DVVHVVPHQW UHYL-VLRQ EHFDXVH WKH SULRULW\ VFRUH RI HDFK DO-WHUQDWLYH LV FRQVLVWHQW DQG YDOLG

The Comparison between Alternative Warehouses and Facilities Criterion

7KH QH[W SURFHVV LV WR SHUIRUP SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQV IRU HDFK DOWHUQDWLYH DJDLQVW WKH IDFLOLWLHV FULWHULRQ )LOOLQJ WKH UHODWLYH LP-SRUWDQFH VFRUH RI HDFK DOWHUQDWLYH DJDLQVW WKH IDFLOLWLHV FULWHULRQ LV GRQH E\ XVLQJ WKH UHVXOW RI WKH LQWHUYLHZV GRQH WR WKH ORJLV-WLFV PDQDJHUV OLNH WKH VWHSV WDNHQ EHIRUH DV VKRZQ LQ WKH PDWUL[ RI WDEOH ¸ ¸ ¸ ¹ · ¨ ¨ ¨ © § . 1 . . . 5 . 1 . . 7 . . 1 ¸ ¸ ¸ ¹ · ¨ ¨ ¨ © § 2726 . 2 . 2511 .

7KH PDWUL[ JDYH UHVXOW WR WKH WRWDO YDOXH IRU HDFK FROXPQ WKDW LV (LJHQ YDOXH = RI WKH pairwise comparison matrix of the facili-WLHV 1H[W LV WR PDNH WKH QRUPDOL]HG PDWUL[ DV VKRZQ LQ WDEOH

7DEOH UHIHUV WR QRUPDOL]HG PDWUL[ ZKLFK ZDV JDLQHG IURP WKH GLYLVLRQ RI WKH SDLU-wise comparison matrix of facilities crite-ULRQ DQG WKH (LJHQ YDOXH RI HDFK FROXPQ ,W shows the results of the perfect normaliza-WLRQ FDOFXODnormaliza-WLRQV DV WKH WRWDO YDOXH RI HDFK FROXPQ LV ,W DOVR VKRZV WKH SULRULW\ scores for each column

$IWHU JHWWLQJ WKH SULRULW\ VFRUH WKH QH[W LV WR WHVW WKH FRQVLVWHQF\ RI WKH UHODWLYH LP-SRUWDQFH DVVHVVPHQW EHWZHHQ HOHPHQWV E\ VHWWLQJ WKH YDOXH RI &RQVLVWHQF\ 5DWLR &5 through the following steps:

a.Counting the Eigen vector.

$Z = max .w $Z = =_max 7KH (LJHQ YDOXHV =PD[ UHVXOW LV ,W VKRZV WKDW HDFK HOHPHQW DOWHUQDWLYH contains the priority score of the element.

b.Counting the Consistency Index (CI).

&, =PD[ ± Q ±

Q ± ±

c.Counting the Consistency Ratio (CR). &5 &,

5,

%DVHG RQ WKH DERYH FDOFXODWLRQ WKH &5 YDO-¸ ¸ ¸ ¹ · ¨ ¨ ¨ © § . 1 . 2 . 2 . . 1 . 2 . . . 1 ¸ ¸ ¸ ¹ · ¨ ¨ ¨ © § 1976 . . . ¸ ¸ ¸ ¹ · ¨ ¨ ¨ © § . . . 1

(6)

¸ ¸ ¸ ¹ · ¨ ¨ ¨ © § . . . XH LV %HFDXVH &5 ” WKHQ WKHUH LV QR QHHG WR GR WKH DVVHVVPHQW UHYLVLRQ EH-FDXVH WKH SULRULW\ VFRUH RI HDFK DOWHUQDWLYH LV FRQVLVWHQW DQG YDOLG

The comparison between Alternative Warehouses and Cost Criterion

7KH QH[W SURFHVV LV WR SHUIRUP SDLUZLVH

FRPSDULVRQV IRU HDFK DOWHUQDWLYH DJDLQVW WKH FULWHULD RI FRVW )LOOLQJ WKH UHODWLYH LPSRU-WDQFH VFRUH RI HDFK DOWHUQDWLYH DJDLQVW WKH &RVW FULWHULRQ LV GRQH E\ XVLQJ WKH UHVXOW RI WKH LQWHUYLHZV GRQH WR WKH ORJLVWLFV PDQDJ-HUV DQG UHVXOWHG LQ WKH PDWUL[ RI WDEOH

7KH PDWUL[ JDYH UHVXOW WR WKH WRWDO YDOXH IRU HDFK FROXPQ WKDW LV (LJHQ YDOXH = RI the pairwise comparison matrix of the cost. 1H[W LV WR PDNH WKH QRUPDOL]HG PDWUL[ DV VKRZQ LQ WDEOH

7DEOH UHIHUV WR QRUPDOL]HG PDWUL[ ZKLFK ZDV JDLQHG IURP WKH GLYLVLRQ RI WKH SDLU-wise comparison matrix of cost criterion DQG WKH (LJHQ YDOXH RI HDFK DOWHUQDWLYH $IWHU JHWWLQJ WKH SULRULW\ VFRUH WKH QH[W LV WR WHVW WKH FRQVLVWHQF\ RI WKH UHODWLYH LP-SRUWDQFH DVVHVVPHQW EHWZHHQ HOHPHQWV E\ VHWWLQJ WKH YDOXH RI &RQVLVWHQF\ 5DWLR &5 through the following steps:

a. Counting eigen vector value.

$Z =_max .w $Z = =_max 7KH (LJHQ YDOXHV =PD[ UHVXOW LV ,W VKRZV WKDW HDFK HOHPHQW DOWHUQDWLYH contains the priority score of the element

¸ ¸ ¸ ¹ · ¨ ¨ ¨ © § . 1 . . . 7 . 1 . 5 . . . 1 ¸ ¸ ¸ ¹ · ¨ ¨ ¨ © § . 2 . .

&, =PD[ ± Q ±

Q ± í

c.Counting the Consistency Ratio (CR).

&5 &, 5,

%DVHG RQ WKH DERYH FDOFXODWLRQ WKH &5 YDO-XH LV %HFDXVH &5 ” WKHQ WKHUH LV QR QHHG WR GR WKH DVVHVVPHQW UHYLVLRQ EH-FDXVH WKH SULRULW\ VFRUH RI HDFK DOWHUQDWLYH LV FRQVLVWHQW DQG YDOLG

The Comparison between Alternative Warehouses and Location Criterion

7KHQ WKH SURFHVV IROORZHG E\ SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQV IRU HDFK DOWHUQDWLYH DJDLQVW the criterion of location using the result RI WKH LQWHUYLHZV WR WKH ORJLVWLFV PDQDJHUV so we get a pairwise comparison matrix as VHHQ RQ WDEOH

7KH PDWUL[ JDYH UHVXOW WR WKH WRWDO YDOXH IRU HDFK FROXPQ WKDW LV (LJHQ YDOXH = RI WKH pairwise comparison matrix of the location. 1H[W LV WR PDNH WKH QRUPDOL]HG PDWUL[ DV VKRZQ LQ WDEOH

7DEOH UHIHUV WR QRUPDOL]HG PDWUL[ ZKLFK ZDV JDLQHG IURP WKH GLYLVLRQ RI WKH pairwise comparison matrix of location cri-WHULRQ DQG WKH (LJHQ YDOXH RI HDFK FROXPQ It shows the results of the perfect normal-L]DWLRQ FDOFXODWLRQV DV WKH WRWDO YDOXH RI HDFK FROXPQ LV ,W DOVR VKRZV WKH priority scores for each column.

$IWHU JHWWLQJ WKH SULRULW\ VFRUH WKH QH[W LV WR WHVW WKH FRQVLVWHQF\ RI WKH UHODWLYH LP-SRUWDQFH DVVHVVPHQW EHWZHHQ HOHPHQWV E\ VHWWLQJ WKH YDOXH RI &RQVLVWHQF\ 5DWLR &5 through the following steps:

a.Counting the Eigen Vector Score.

(7)

ELJJHU WKDQ RWKHUV WKDW LV ,WV ZLGWK LV P ,W KDV SDOOHW FDSDFLW\ %HVLGHV LW KDV 5DFNLQJ DQG %ORFN 6WDFNLQJ

%XON IDFLOLW\ EHFDXVH LW LV ORFDWHG LQ &LELWXQJ RU NP IURP WKH IDFWRU\ VR LW WDNHV RQO\ RQH DQG KDOI KRXU WR JHW WKHUH

7KH FRVW WKDW QHHGV WR EH SUHSDUHG

E\ WKH FRPSDQ\ LV 5S DV

WKH GHOLYHU\ FRVW IURP WKH IDFWRU\ WR WKH ZDUHKRXVH LV 5S DQG WKH FRVW SHU SDOOHW LV 5S

References

$UZDQL $ Warehouse Check up.

-DNDUWD 330

+HL]HU - 5HQGHU % Manajemen Operasi -DNDUWD 6DOHPED (PSDW

<X]DO , Gudang dan Pergudangan.

-DNDUWD 6707 7ULVDNWL *LWRVXGDUPR , 0XO\RQR $

Manajemen Bisnis Logistik.

<RJ\DNDUWD %3)(

:DUPDQ - Manajemen Pergudangan.

-DNDUWD 37 3XVWDND 6LQDU +DUDSDQ 5L]DO . 6DUL Manajemen Logistik

Referensi dan Direktori -DNDUWD 330,

0DULPLQ 0DJK¿URK 1 Aplikasi Teknik Pengambilan Keputusan dalam Manajemen Rantai Pasok.

%RJRU ,3% 3UHVV

,QGUDMLW 5( 'MRNRSUDQRWR 5

Konsep Manajemen Supply Chain Cara Baru Memandang Mata Rantai Penyediaan Barang -DNDUWD

Grasindo.

6LDJLDQ <0 Aplikasi Supply Chain Management dalam Dunia Bisnis.

-DNDUWD *UDVLQGR $Z = =_max 7KH (LJHQ YDOXHV =PD[ UHVXOW LV ,W VKRZV WKDW HDFK HOHPHQW DOWHUQDWLYH contains the priority score of the element

&, =PD[ ± Q ±

Q ± ±

c.Counting Consistency Ratio (CR).

&5 &, 5,

%DVHG RQ WKH DERYH FDOFXODWLRQ WKH &5 YDOXH LV %HFDXVH &5 ” WKHQ there is no need to do the assessment UHYLVLRQ

The determination of Alternative Ware-house based on the Highest Aggregate Score.

7KH ODVW SURFHVV LQ WKH FDOFXODWLRQ RI $QDO\WLFDO +LHUDUFK\ 3URFHVV $+3 LV WR calculate the aggregate score of each alter-QDWLYH ZDUHKRXVH ZKLFK ZDV REWDLQHG E\ multiplying the priority score of each alter-QDWLYH RQ DOO FULWHULD ZLWK D SULRULW\ VFRUH RI HDFK FULWHULRQ 7KH DOWHUQDWLYH ZDUHKRXVH WKDW KDV WKH KLJKHVW DJJUHJDWH YDOXH LV FKRVHQ DV D UHIHUHQFH LQ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ 7DEOH VKRZV WKH DJJUHJDWH VFRULQJ

Conclusion

Warehouse C was selected as the VWRUDJH RI ¿QLVKHG JRRG DW 37 )ULVLDQ )ODJ Indonesia as it has aggregate score twice

(8)

6RHEDJLR Manajemen Logistik.

(9)

n 1 2 5 6 7 9

RI

Focus Warehouse’s width )DFLOLWLHV Cost /RFDWLRQ

GLJLW decimal GLJLW decimal GLJLW decimal GLJLW decimal Warehouse’s width 1 5 Facilities 1 1/5 Cost 1 5 Location 1 Total Focus Warehouse’s

width )DFLOLWLHV Cost /RFDWLRQ

3ULRULW\ 6FRUH Warehouse’s width Facilities Cost Location Total

Appendices

Tabel. 1 Random Index (RI) Score

Table 2 Pairwise Comparison Matrix of Warehouse Selection Criteria

Table 3 Normalized Matrix Source: Sri Mulyono (2002)

Source: Processed interview result * = reverse score (axioms reciprocal)

(10)

Warehouse’s

width criterion :DUHKRXVH $ Warehouse B Warehouse C

GLJLW GHFLPDO GLJLW GHFLPDO GLJLW GHFL-mal Warehouse A 1 1/7 Warehouse B 1 1/5 Warehouse C 1 Total

Table 4 Warehouse’s width Pairwise Comparison Matrix

Source: Processed Interview result

* = reverse score (axioms reciprocal)

Warehouse’s

width criterion :DUHKRXVH $ Warehouse B Warehouse C Priority Score

Warehouse A 0.0833

Warehouse B 0.1932

Warehouse C 0.7235

Total 1.0000

Warehouse’s

GLJLW GHFL-mal GLJLW GHFLPDO GLJLW GHFL-mal Warehouse A 1 2 2 Warehouse B 1 2 Warehouse C 1 Total

Table 5 Normalized Matrix

Table 6 Facilities Pairwise Comparison Matrix Source: Processed Interview result

(11)

Warehouse’s

GLJLW GHFL-mal GLJLW GHFLPDO GLJLW GHFLPDO Warehouse A 1 5 Warehouse B 1 1/7 Warehouse C 1 Total

Cost Criterion :DUHKRXVH $ Warehouse B Warehouse C 3ULRULW\ 6FRUH

Warehouse A Warehouse B Warehouse C

Total

Table 8 Cost Pairwise Comparison Matrix

Table 9 Normalized Matrix Source: Processed Interview result

Facilities Criterion :DUHKRXVH $ Warehouse B Warehouse C 3ULRULW\ 6FRUH

Total

Table 7 Matriks Normalized

(12)

Warehouse’s

GLJLW GHFL-mal GLJLW GHFLPDO GLJLW GHFLPDO Warehouse A 1 5 Warehouse B 1 Warehouse C 1 Total

Location Criterion :DUHKRXVH $ Warehouse B Warehouse C 3ULRULW\ 6FRUH

Total

Warehouse’s

width )DFLOLWLHV Cost /RFDWLRQ

Aggregate Value

Warehouse A 0.2783

Warehouse B 0.1389

Warehouse C 0.5829

Table 10 Location Pairwise Comparison Matrix

Table 11 Normalized Matrix

Table 22 Final Scoring of Each Alternative Source: Processed Interview result