International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 9 (2017) pp.

1974-1981
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Selection Anti Submarine Sensor of Helicopter Using ELECTRE III Method

Ahmadi1, Siswo H. Sumantri 2, Okol S. Suharyo 3 and A. Kukuh Susilo4
1
Indonesian Naval Technology College, STTAL.
Bumimoro-Morokrembangan, Surabaya 60187, Indonesia.
1ORCID: 2ORCID:0000-0002-4456-5279,
0000-0002-2859-3165,
3ORCID:0000-0003-4766-6662 4ORCID:0000-0002-7012-7520

Abstract region from border line, development of anti submarine

Indonesian Navy (TNI AL) is one of them component for warfare ability is response from TNI AL to counter and
Maritime Security and Defence in activities of warfare alert, protect maritime area.
basic training and operation at sea. It needs air power to
Indonesian Naval Aviation apart from Navy as airpower will
support and covered sea power. Indonesian Naval Aviation
receive 11 helicopters to carry function about anti surface
as airpower will receive 11 helicopters to carry function
ship and submarine. The Helicopters needs sensor
about anti surface ship and submarine. The Helicopters
equipment to detect the submarine likes Magnetic Anomaly
needs sensor equipment to detect the submarine likes
Detector (MAD), Sonobuoy, and Dipping Sonar. Dipping
Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD), Sonobuoy, dan
sonar system have many criteria sensor equipment for
Dipping Sonar. The purpose this paper is giving alternatives
helicopters. It needs decision making system to suitable
for sensor equipments anti submarine in Helicopters at
choice for their option, one of ways is used Multi Criteria
Indonesian Naval Aviation. For gives alternative sensor
Decision Making (MCDM).
equipment, this paper used ELECTRE Methode in decision
making. The result of choiced sensor equipment with type of MCDM is the decision-making technique by considering
dipping sonar, according the best rank is HELRAS DS 100, some alternative option (4). MCDM approach handles both
FLASH-S, AN/AQS-22 ALFS, VGS-3 dan AQS-18A. quantitative and qualitative choices and is able to combine
Alternative 1 dipping sonar sensor L3 Comm Helras DS 100 the historical data and expert opinion by quantifying
has 1 for value toward alternative 4, with 0,99 toward subjective judgement (5). There are two kinds of categories
alternative A3, with 0,95 toward alternative A5 and 0,86 of MCDM, namely Multiple Objective Decision Making
toward alternative A2. It result by compared with (MODM) and Multiple Attribute Decision Making
Concordance Global, alternative A1 has highest rank toward (MADM) (4).
all alternatives. Alternative A3 (AN/AQS-22 ALFS) has 1
MADM can be defined as decision aids to help a decision
for Condordance Global value toward alternative A2 and
maker identify the best alternatives that maximize his
A1, alternative A3 has 0,93 for Concordance Global value
satisfaction with respect to more than one attribute (6). It
toward alternative A1, toward alternative A2 is 0,89 and
can be solved by several method such as AHP, DEX,
alternative A5 is 0,94. So that, alternative A3 is second
Macbeth, Pragma, SAW, Promethee, Topsis and ELECTRE
choiced.
(7).
Keyword: Anti Submarine, Helicopter, Dipping Sonar, This paper presents about alternatives for sensor of anti
ELECTRE Method. submarine in Helicopters at Indonesian Naval Aviation. To
gives alternative sensor, this paper used ELECTRE Methode
INTRODUCTION in decision making. The benefit is giving information and
Today’s, market for submarines over the coming decade is literature for Indonesian Naval Aviation in best decision
projected to exceed one hundred vessels of all types and making of anti submarine sensor procurement. Scope of
more than half of these are destined for the Asia-Pacific paper is Dipping sonar for helicopter, decision making with
region (1). Many countries develop their sea power with ELECTRE III method.
ability of submarine in the battle formation. To secure about This paper has many literature to support it, such as literatur
battlespace from undersea threats by swiftly destroying about Anti submarine warfare, MCDM, MADM and
enemy submarines, many countries needs Anti submarine ELECTRE Method. Literature of paper about Anti
operations (2). Submarine warfare likes Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW)
Anti submarine warfare is handled by specialised ship Capability Transformation : Strategy of Response to Effect
equipped with low frequency long-range sonars and by Based Warfare (2). Implementation of Contemporary
helicopters with dipping sonar, the quality of performance technologies in The Modernisation of Naval Sonars (3).
depends largely on the efficiency and quality of sonar (3). Under The Sea Air Gap : Australia's anti-submarine warfare
challenge (1).
Indonesian Navy (TNI AL) is one of them component for
Maritime Security and Defence in activities of warfare alert, Paper literature explained about MCDM and MADM likes
basic training and operation at sea. For defence power, TNI ELECTRE Methods in Solving Group Decision Support
AL needs air power to support and covered sea power. System Bioinformatics on Gene Mutation Detection
Because of these challenge in the Indonesia underwater Simulation (4). Hearing thresholds of a harbor porpoise

1974
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 9 (2017) pp. 1974-1981
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

(Phocoena phocoena) for helicopter dipping sonar signals MATERIAL & METHODOLOGY
(1.43–1.33 kHz) (8). Applications of Multi-criteria Decision Flowchart Diagram:
Making in Software Engineering (5). Selection of Cutting
Tool Insert in Turning of EN 8 Steel using Multiple
Attribute Decision (6). Reducing of Inconsistent Data Using
Fuzzy Multi Attribute Decision Making for Accessing Data
from Database (9). Land Suitability Analysis using Multi
Attribute Decision Making Approach (10). Application of
the Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods for Project
Selection (11). Applications of Multi-criteria Decision
Making in Software Engineering (5). A Qualitative Multi-
Attribute Model for the Selection of the Private Hydropower
Plant Investments in Turkey: By Foundation of the Search
Results Clustering Engine, Hydropower Plant Clustering,
DEXi and DEXiTree (7). Application of Multi-Attribute
Decision Making Approach to Learning Management
Systems Evaluation (12). A Multiple Attribute Decision
Making Method Based on Uncertain Linguistic Heronian
Mean (13). Applications and Modelling Using Multi-
Attribute Decision Making to Rank Terrorist Threats (14).
Research on the Multi-attribute Decision Making Model
Based on the Possible Regret Degree of the Policy-maker
(15). Multi Attribute Decision Making Techniques (16).
Multi-attribute and Multi-criteria Decision Making Model
for technology selection using fuzzy logic (17). A Multiple
Attribute Decision Making for Improving Information
Security Control Assessment (18). Comparison of Multi
Criteria Decision Making Methods From The Maintenance
Alternative Selection Perspective (19).
Some paper literature about ELECTRE method likes
Application of ELECTRE Method for Sub-Contractor
Selection using Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets - Case Study Figure 1. flowchart Diagram
(20). ELECTRE Methods in Solving Group Decision
Support System Bioinformatics on Gene Mutation Detection
Simulation (4). A Comprehensive Solution to Automated ELECTRE Method:
Inspection Device Selection Problem Using ELECTRE ELECTRE was envisage by Bernard Roy (1991) to
Method (21). The development and application of multi- overcome some deficiencies of popularly used MCDM tools
criteria decision-making tool with consideration of to deal with ordinal attributes without the need for
uncertainty: The selection of a management strategy for the transforming them into cardina values (21). ELECTRE
bio-degradable fraction in the municipal solid waste (22). (Elimination Et Choix Traduisant He realite) is based on the
Multiple Criteria Outranking Algorithm: Implementation concept of ranking by paired comparison between
and Computational Tests (23). Development of a Fuzzy alternatives on the appropriate criteria (4). An alternative is
Multi-Criteria Decision Support System for Municipal Solid said to dominate th other alternatives if one or more criteria
Waste Management (24). Logistic Center Location : are met (compared with the criterion of other alternatives)
Selection using Multicriteria Decision Making (25). and it is equal to the remaining criteria (4). A characteristic
Hierarchical outranking methods for multi-criteria decision features of ELECTRE is the use of an outranking relation
aiding (26). ELECTRE III as a Support for Partcipatory for the representation of decision maker’s preferences (32).
Decision-Making on the Localisation of Waste-treatment An advantage of using complementary ELECTRE is that the
Plants (27). Selecting the Best Project Using the Fuzzy tradeoff among attributes is compensatory (24). The variants
ELECTRE Method (28). A user-oriented implementation of of the ELECTRE Method, namely ELECTRE II,IS,III,IV
the ELECTRE III method integrating preference elicitation and TRI can be suitably applied in choosing the most
support (29). ELECTRE I Decision Model of Reliability efficien alternative that account for both the decision
Design Scheme for Computer NUmerical Control Machine maker’s intervention and other technical elements (21).
(30). An improved ranking method for ELECTRE III (31) ELECTRE methods establish a realistic representation of
This paper is organized as follows : section 2 describes four basic situations of preference : indifference, weak
ELECTRE III method, flowchart diagram and data preference, strict preference and incomparability (26).
collecting. Section 3 explaines the result and discussion of
this paper. Section 4 present about conclusion this paper.

1975
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 9 (2017) pp. 1974-1981
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

The strenghts of ELECTRE methods include the following imprecision and uncertainty of some available data, and was
(26) : explained to the commission in its overall logic (27).
a. ELECTRE methods are able to take into account the ELECTRE III method was chosen because it allows the use
qualitative nature of some criteria, allowing the DM to of inaccurate, indefinite, imprecise and uncertain data (25).
consider the original data directly, without the need to ELECTRE III method follows the two outranking steps:
make transformations into arti_cial numerical scales. first, the construction of an outranking relation over all the
b. ELECTRE methods can deal with heterogeneous possible pairs of alternative ; second, the exploitation of this
criteria scales, preserving the original scores of the outranking relation to solve the ranking decision problem
alternatives on each criterion coded in an ordinal scale (26). In order to construct a outranking relation in the
or a \weak" interval scale, without the need for ELECTRE III method, three different threshold values,
nornamlization techniques or the assessment of a value namely undifferentiated threshold (qj), strict superior
function. threshold (pj) and rejection threshold (vj) are first
c. ELECTRE follows a the non-compensatory character in introduced (21).
the aggregation.
d. ELECTRE methods incorporate the notion of The evaluation procedures of the ELECTRE III method
incomparability between a pair of alternatives, referring model encompass the establishment of a threshold function,
to the case where one option is better that the other in disclosure of concordance and discordance indices,
some criteria and simultaneously is worse in other determination of credibility degree, and the ranking of the
criteria, making impossible the establishment of a alternatives (33).
preference relation between them.
If g(a) ≥ g(b), then
The main weaknesses of ELECTRE methods are as follows
(26) : g(a) > g(b) + p(g(b)) ⇔ aPb (1)
a. When the aim is to calculate an overall score for each
alternative, ELECTRE methods are not suitable and
g(b) + q(g(b)) < g(a) < g(b) + p(g(b) )⇔aQb (2)
other scoring methods should be applied.
b. When all the criteria are quantitative, it is better to
apply another method, unless we are dealing with g(b) < g(a) < g(b) + q(g(b)) ⇔aIb (3)
imperfect knowledge or a non-compensatory process where P denotes a strong preference, Q denotes a weak
should be taken into account. preference, I denotes indifference, and g(a) is the
criterion value of the alternative a (33).
ELECTRE III Method.
ELECTRE III method was chosen from the different
ELECTRE family methods, mainly in relation to the
The steps of ELECTRE III and calculations are presented below (33).
a. Step 1.
The The concordance index c(a, b) is computed for each pair of alternatives :
a
c(a, b ) = ∑m m
i=1 𝑤𝑖 𝑐𝑖 (a, b) and W = ∑i=1 𝑐𝑖 (4)
w

Where ci(a, b) is the outranking degree of the alternative a and the alternative b under the criterion i, and

0 if 𝑔𝑖 (𝑏) − 𝑔𝑖 (𝑎) > 𝑝𝑖 (𝑔𝑖 (𝑎))

− 𝑔𝑖 (𝑎) ≤ 𝑞𝑖 (𝑔𝑖 (𝑎))
𝑐 (𝑎, 𝑏) = { 1 if 𝑔𝑖 (𝑏)
𝑖 (5)
𝑝𝑖 +𝑔𝑖 (𝑎)− 𝑔𝑖 (𝑏)
𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
𝑝𝑖 −𝑞𝑖
Thus, 0 ≤ 𝐶𝑖 (𝑎, 𝑏) ≤ 1,
The veto threshold 𝑣𝑖 (𝑔𝑖 (𝑏)) is defined for each criterion i as follows (33):

𝑣𝑖 (𝑔𝑖 (𝑏)) = 𝛼𝑣 + 𝛽𝑣 𝑔𝑖 (a) (6)

The veto threshold, vi, allows for the possibility of aSb to be refused totally if, for any one criterion j. 𝑔𝑖 (𝑏) > 𝑔𝑖 (a) + 𝑣𝑖 .

b. Step 2.
The discordance index d(a, b) for each criterion is then defined as follows (33):
0 if 𝑔𝑖 (𝑏) − 𝑔𝑖 (𝑎) ≤ 𝑝𝑖 (𝑔𝑖 (𝑎))
Thus, 0 ≤ 𝑑𝑖 (𝑎, 𝑏) ≤ 1, 1 if 𝑔𝑖 (𝑏) − 𝑔𝑖 (𝑎) > 𝑣𝑖 (𝑔𝑖 (𝑎))
𝑐 (𝑎, 𝑏) = {
𝑖 (7)
𝑔𝑖 (𝑏)−𝑔𝑖 (𝑎)−𝑝𝑖
𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
𝑣𝑖 −𝑝𝑖

1976
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 9 (2017) pp. 1974-1981
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

c. Step 3.
Finally, the degree of outranking is defined by S(a,b) (33) :

c(a, b) if 𝑑𝑖 (𝑎, 𝑏) ≤ c(𝑎, 𝑏) ⩝ j ∊ J

𝑆(𝑎, 𝑏) = { (8)
1 − 𝑑𝑖 (𝑎,𝑏)
c(a, b) x ∏𝑗∊𝑗(𝑎,𝑏) 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
1 − 𝑐 (𝑎,𝑏)

Where J(a, b) is the set of criteria for which dj(a, b)>c(a, b)

d. Step 4. alternative xi. Then, all the alternatives can be completely

To obtain the complete ranking of the alternatives, the ranked by the net credibility degree.
normal ranking method of ELECTRE III uses a
structured al-gorithm via two intermediate ranking Data Collection:
procedures: one is descending, where the alternatives are a. Sonar with type Helicopter Long Range Active Sonar
classified from the best to the worst (descending (HELRAS) DS-100 from L-3 Communication, United
distillation), while the other is based on the ascending State.
order from the worst to the best alternative (ascending b. Sonar with type FLASH-S from Thales Underwater
distillation) (33). System, French.
c. Sonar with type AN/AQS 22 ALFS from Raytheon
A new ranking method based on the introduction of three Integrated Defence System, United State.
concepts, including the concordance credibility degree, d. Sonar with type AN/AQS 18 from L-3 Communication,
the discordance credibility degree and the net credibility United State.
degree (31). e. Sonar with type VGS-3 Foal Tail from
Rosonboronexport, Russian.
1) The concordance credibility degree is defined by

𝜑 + (𝑥𝑖 ) = ∑𝑥𝑗 ∊𝑋 𝑆 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝑥𝑗 ), ∀𝑥𝑖 ∊ X (9)

RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The concordance credibility degree is a measure of the Result:
outranking character of xi (showing how xi dominates all The result of choiced sensor equipment with type of dipping
the other alternatives of X). sonar, according the best rank is HELRAS DS 100, FLASH-
S, AN/AQS-22 ALFS, VGS-3 dan AQS-18A. Alternative 1
2) The discordance credibility degree is defined by dipping sonar sensor L3 Comm Helras DS 100 has 1 for
value toward alternative 4, with 0,99 toward alternative A3,
𝜑 − + (𝑥𝑖 ) = ∑𝑥𝑗 ∊𝑋 𝑆 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝑥𝑗 ), ∀𝑥𝑖 ∊ X (10) with 0,95 toward alternative A5 and 0,86 toward alternative
The discordance credibility degree describes the A2. It result by compared with Concordance Global,
outranked xj (showing how xj is dominated by all alternative A1 has highest rank toward all alternatives.
Alternative A3 (AN/AQS-22 ALFS) has 1 for Condordance
the other alternatives of X).
Global value toward alternative A2 and A1, alternative A3
has 0,93 for Concordance Global value toward alternative
3) The net credibility degree is defined by
A1, toward alternative A2 is 0,89 and alternative A5 is
𝜑(𝑥𝑖 ) = 𝜑 + (𝑥𝑖 ) − 𝜑 − (𝑥𝑖 ), ∀𝑥𝑖 ∊ X (11) 0,94. So that alternative A3 is second choices.

The net credibility degree represents the value function,

where a higher value reflects higher attractiveness of the

1977
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 9 (2017) pp. 1974-1981
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Table 1. Result Of Sensor Selection

Figure 2. Result Of Sensor Selection

DISCUSSION
Assessment of each alternative in each criteria based from primer data (qualitative) in form of questionnaire to respondens from
expert and quantitaive daat from references, technical specification of equipment from factory. Criteria Classification shows in
table 2.

Table 2. Classification of Crtiteria

1978
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 9 (2017) pp. 1974-1981
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Table 3. Payoff Matrix

In Rank of ELECTRE III method, to determine threshold value is based to compared in each criterion alternative. Threshold value
have three part indefference threshold (qj), veto threshold (vj) dan preference threshold (pj). Threshold value showed in table 4.

Table 4. Threshold Value of Each Criteria

The table 5 showed that concordance value if global

concordance index= 1, then alternative j absolute or more
preferred than k in all criterion. If global concordance index
site between 0 and 1, it has value almost 1 that is alternative
j more preferred than k in all criterion and vice versa.

1979
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 9 (2017) pp. 1974-1981
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Table 6. Value Of Ranking Matrix REFERENCES

[1] Pacey, Brice. Under The Sea Air Gap : Australia's
anti-submarine warfare challenge. Canberra : Kokoda
Foundation, 2011.
[2] Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) Capability
Transformation : Strategy of Response to Effect
Based WArfare. Finch, David P. 2009, ICCRTS.
[3] Marszal, Jacek. Implementation of Contemporary
technologies in The Modernisation of Naval Sonars.
Poland : Gdansk University of Technology, 2014.
[4] Electre Methods in Solving Group Decision Support
System Bioinformatics on Gene Mutation Detection
Simulation. Ermatita, et al. 2011, International
Journal of Computer Science & Information
Technology (IJCSIT), hal. 40-52.
Table 5. Value of Concordance Global [5] Applications of Multi-criteria Decision Making in
Software Engineering. Sehra, Sumeet, Brar,
Yadwinder dan Kaur, Navdeep. s.l. : International
Journal of Advanced Computer Science and
Applications, 2016.
[6] Selection of Cutting Tool Insert in Turning of EN 8
Steel using Multiple Attribute Decision. K.G.Nikam
dan S.S.Kadam. 2014, International Journal of
Engineering Sciences & Research Technology, hal.
109-115.
[7] A Qualitative Multi-Attribute Model for the Selection
of the Private Hydropower Plant Investments in
Turkey: By Foundation of the Search Results
Clustering Engine (Carrot2), Hydropower Plant
Clustering, DEXi and DEXiTree. Saracoglu, Burak
Result from ranking matrix showed that I is alternative j and O. 2016, Journal of Industrial Engineering and
k indifference, that mean both of alternative must be Management, hal. 152-178.
choiced. P showed that alternative j more preferred than k, [8] Hearing thresholds of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena
and alternative P- more preferred than j. phocoena) for helicopter dipping sonar signals (1.43–
1.33 kHz) . Kasteleina, Ronald A. dan Hoek, Lean.
2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
CONCLUSION America, hal. 679-682.
The result of choiced sensor equipment with type of dipping
sonar, according the best rank is HELRAS DS 100, FLASH- [9] Reducing of Inconsistent Data Using Fuzzy Multi
S, AN/AQS-22 ALFS, VGS-3 dan AQS-18A. Alternative 1 Attribute Decision Making for Accessing Data from
dipping sonar sensor L3 Comm Helras DS 100 has 1 for Database. Yusof, Mohd Kamir, Rahman, M. Nordin
value toward alternative 4, with 0,99 toward alternative A3, M dan Azlan, Atiqah. 2013, International Journal of
with 0,95 toward alternative A5 and 0,86 toward alternative Database Theory and Application.
A2. It result by compared with Concordance Global, [10] Land Suitability Analysis using Multi Attribute
alternative A1 has highest rank toward all alternatives. Decision Making Approach. Sudabe Jafar, Narges
Alternative A3 (AN/AQS-22 ALFS) has 1 for Condordance Zaredar. 2010, International Journal of Environmental
Global value toward alternative A2 and A1, alternative A3 Science and Development.
has 0,93 for Concordance Global value toward alternative [11] Application of the Multi Criteria Decision Making
A1, toward alternative A2 is 0,89 and alternative A5 is Methods for Project Selection. Pangsri, Prapawan.
0,94. So that alternative A3 is second choices. 2015, Universal Journal of Management, hal. 15-20.
[12] Application of Multi-Attribute Decision Making
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Approach to Learning Management Systems
This research has been supported by Indonesia Naval Evaluation. Tanja Arh, Borka Jerman Blažič. 2007,
Technology College (Sekolah Tinggi Teknologi Angkatan Journal of Computers .
Laut/STTAL). [13] A Multiple Attribute Decision Making Method Based
on Uncertain Linguistic Heronian Mean. Xiaodi Liu,

1980
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 9 (2017) pp. 1974-1981
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Jianjun Zhu, Guodong Liu,Jingjing Hao. 2013, [26] Terrientes, Luis Miguel Del Vasto. Hierarchical
Hindawi Publishing Corporation. outranking methods for multi-criteria decision aiding.
[14] Applications and Modelling Using Multi-Attribute Tarragona : Universitat Rovira Virgili, 2015.
Decision Making to Rank Terrorist Threats. Fox, [27] Electre III as a Support for Partcipatory Decision-
William P. 2016, Journal of Socialomics. Making on the Localisation of Waste-treatment
[15] Research on the Multi-attribute Decision Making Plants. Norese, Maria Franca. 2006, Elsevier, hal. 76-
Model Based on the Possible Regret Degree of the 85.
Policy-maker. Weibing, Peng. 2012, Journal of [28] Selecting the Best Project Using the Fuzzy Electre
Computers. Method. Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh, Serpil Erol.
[16] Multi Attribute Decision Making Techniques. 2012, Hindawi Publishing Corporation.
Sharma, Manoj. 2013, International Journal of [29] A user-oriented implementation of the Electre III
Research in Management, Science & Technology. method integrating preference elicitation support.
[17] Multi-attribute and Multi-criteria Decision Making Mousseau, V., Slowinski, R. dan Zielniewicz, P.
Model for technology selection using fuzzy logic. 2000, Elsevier, hal. 757-777.
Kalbande, Dhananjay R. dan G.T.Thampi. 2009, [30] Electre I Decision Model of Reliability Design
International Journal of Computing Science and Scheme for Computer NUmerical Control Machine.
Communication Technologies. Pang, Jihon, Zhang, Genbao dan Chen, Guohua.
[18] A Multiple Attribute Decision Making for Improving 2011, Journal of Software .
Information Security Control Assessment . Nadher [31] An improved ranking method for ELECTRE III. Li,
Al-Safwani, Suhaidi Hassan, Norliza Katuk. 2014, H.F. dan Wang, J.J. 2008. nternational Conferenceon
International Journal of Computer Applications. Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile
[19] Comparison of Multi Criteria Decision Making Computing. hal. 766-776.
Methods From The Maintenance Alternative [32] Application of ELECTRE III and Shannon Entropy
Selection Perspective. Thor, Jureen, Ding, Siew-Hong for Strategy Selection. Jafari, Hassan. 2013,
dan Kamaruddin, Shahrul. 2013, The International International Journal of Innovation and Applied
Journal Of Engineering And Science, hal. 27-34. Studies, hal. 189-194.
[20] Application of Electre Method for Sub-Contractor [33] Multicriteria Group Decision Making with ELECTRE
Selection using Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets - Case III Method based on Interval-valued Intuitionostic
Study. Hassan Hadipour, Roozbeh Azizmohammadi, Fuzzy Information. Hashemi, Shide S., et al. 2013,
Abbas Mahmoudabadi, Mohammad Khoshnoud. Bali elsevier, hal. 1554-1564.
: s.n., 2014. International Conference on Industrial [34] A Comprehensive Solution to Automated Inspection
Engineering and Operations Management. Device Selection Problem Using Electre Method.
[21] A Comprehensive Solution to Automated Inspection Prasenjit Chatterjee, Suprakash Mondal, Shankar
Device Selection Problem Using Electre Method. Chakraborty. 2014, International Journal of
Chatterjee, Prasenjit, Mondal, Suprakash dan Technology, hal. 193-208.
Chakraborty, Shankar. 2014, International Journal of
Technology, hal. 193-208.
[22] The development and application of multi-criteria
decision-making tool with consideration of
uncertainty: The selection of a management strategy
for the bio-degradable fraction in the municipal solid
waste. Ali El Hanandeh, Abbas El-Zein. 2009,
Elsevier.
[23] Azziz, Mohamed Bou-Hamdan. Multiple Criteria
Outranking Algorithm: Implementation and
Computational Tests. Lisbon : s.n., 2015.
[24] Cheng, Steven KwokYam. Development of a Fuzzy
Multi-Criteria Decision Support System for
Municipal Solid Waste Management. Regina :
University of Regina, 2000.
[25] Fagarasan, Maria dan Cristea, Ciprian. Logistic
Center Location : Selection using Multicriteria
Decision Making. s.l. : Annals of the Oradea
university, 2015.

1981