Penerapan Metode AHP dan WASPAS Pada Pemilihan Aplikasi Multimedia Terbaik 56 28
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26623/transformatika.v24i1.14417Keywords:
AHP, WASPAS, Aplikasi Multimedia, Desain GrafisAbstract
The selection of the appropriate multimedia application is an important factor in supporting the effectiveness of graphic design and digital visual processing work. Adobe Photoshop, CorelDraw, and Lightroom are multimedia applications with different characteristics and advantages, making an objective selection process based on several evaluation criteria necessary. This study aims to determine the best multimedia application using a priority weighting method based on the level of importance with AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process), while the ranking of alternative multimedia applications uses the WASPAS (Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment) method. The research employs a quantitative approach, collecting data through an online questionnaire using Google Form with 24 respondents who have experience using multimedia applications. The criteria used include output quality, features, performance, ease of use, and processing speed. The results indicate that the output quality criterion has the highest priority weight of 0.48532. Based on the WASPAS calculation results, Lightroom obtains the highest preference score of 0.9956 and is thus recommended as the best multimedia application, followed by Adobe Photoshop with 0.9878 and CorelDraw with 0.9636. This study demonstrates that the combination of the AHP and WASPAS methods can produce a more objective, systematic, and measurable decision-making process in selecting multimedia applications.
Downloads
References
T. Vaughan, Multimedia: Making It Work. McGraw-Hill, 2011.
J. Nielsen, Usability Engineering. Academic Press, 2004.
T. Vaughan, Multimedia: Making It Work. McGraw-Hill, 2011.
R. S. Pressman, Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. McGraw-Hill, 2014.
J. Nielsen, Usability Engineering. Academic Press, 1994.
M. A. Ceisar, “Pemilihan Software Desain Grafis Terbaik Menggunakan Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) pada Promo Copy Centre Jakarta,” Jakarta, 2019.
F. Piliang, “Sistem Penunjang Keputusan Pemilihan Perangkat Lunak Pengolah Citra dengan Metode Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) dan Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP),” pp. 6–8, 2015.
Setiawan Adi Nugroho and Nur Wakhidah, “Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Penerima Bantuan Sosial dengan AHP dan MOORA,” Jurnal Transformatika, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 54–66, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.26623/transformatika.v23i1.12244.
D. Purnomo Putro, P. Eka Suryani, and S. Amri, “Comparative Analysis of AHP, SAW, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and MABAC in Pharmaceutical Supplier Selection,” Jurnal Transformatika, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–11, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.26623/transformatika.v23i1.12220.
Z. Fathony, E. R. S. . H. Saputra, and A. C. Frobenius, “Kombinasi Analytical Hierarchy Process dengan Weighted Product untuk Penerima Beasiswa Prestasi Sistem Pendukung Keputusan,” Jurnal Transformatika, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1–14, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.26623/transformatika.v21i2.6815.
A. Hallang Lewa, I. Farida, G. Taufan Hadiyadi, A. Setiawan, and A. Puji Purwatingsih, “Manajemen Sistem Penilaian Kinerja Guru Taman Kanak-Kanak dengan Simple Additive Weighting,” vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 25–34, 2024, doi: 10.26623/transformatika.v18i2.xxxx.
M. Imam, Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, 3rd ed., vol. 1. Yogyakarta: Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta, 2021.
A. Ishizaka and S. Siraj, “Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 264, no. 2, pp. 462–471, 2018.
R. Kumar, S. Singh, and R. Singh, “Multi-criteria decision-making approaches for evaluating alternatives: A review,” 2021.
J. R. Evans and A. Mathur, “The value of online surveys: A look back and a look ahead,” Internet Research, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 854–887, 2018, doi: 10.1108/IntR-03-2018-0089.
T. L. Saaty, “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process,” International Journal of Services Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 83–98, 2008.
M. Velasquez and P. T. Hester, “An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods,” International Journal of Operations Research, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 56–66, 2013.
J. A. Alonso and M. T. Lamata, “Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: A new approach,” International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 441–462, 2020.
S. Chakraborty and E. K. Zavadskas, “Applications of WASPAS method in manufacturing decision making,” Informatica, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2014.
E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Antucheviciene, and A. Zakarevicius, “Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment,” Electronics and Electrical Engineering, vol. 122, no. 6, pp. 3–6, 2012.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jupri, Wire Bagye, Maulana Ashari
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Transformatika is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
