Implementasi analytic hierarchy process dalam penentuan bobot key performance indicators pada pembangkit listrik turbin uap

Akbar Anggriawan; Anita Susilawati; Dodi Sofyan Arief; Nazaruddin

doi:10.71452/6yw8w905

Authors

Akbar Anggriawan, ST, Universitas Riau Author
Anita Susilawati, ST, M.Sc, PhD, Mechanical Engineering Department, Universitas Riau Author
Dr. Dodi Sofyan Arief, ST., MT Mechanical Engineering Department, Universitas Riau Author
Dr. Nazarudin S.T., M.T. Mechanical Engineering Department, Universitas Riau Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71452/6yw8w905

Keywords:

AHP, KPIs, Turbin Uap, Decision-Making

Abstract

Optimalisasi Key Performance Indicators (KPI) pada pembangkit listrik turbin uap sangat penting untuk meningkatkan efisiensi operasional dalam industry pengolahan kelapa sawit. Penelitian ini menerapkan metode Analytic Hieararchy Process (AHP) untuk menentukan bobot relative setiap KPI, sehingga memfasilitasi pengambilan keputusan berbasis data untuk peningkatan kinerja. Empat KPI krusial dievaluasi melalui perbandingan berpasangan berdasarkan keahlian para pakar. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa power output (47,16%) merupakan KPI paling signifikan, diikuti oleh availability factor (38,58%), steam consumption (9,69%), dan capacity factor (4,58%). Nilai consistency ratio (CR) dari seluruh penilaian pakar berada di bawah 0,10, yang menunjukan bahwa hasil AHP tersebut dapat diandalkan.

References

A. Susilawati, “Productivity enhancement: lean manufacturing performance measurement based multiple indicators of decision making,” Prod. Eng., vol. 15, no. 3–4, pp. 343–359, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11740-021-01025-7.

T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, no. July. 1985. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-08-032599-6.50008-8.

L. V. Cremades and A. Ponsich, “Simple and Objective Determination of Criteria Weights for Evaluating Alternatives When Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Int. J. Anal. Hierarchy Process, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1–23, 2024, doi: 10.13033/ijahp.v16i3.1177.

S. Carpitella, V. Kratochvíl, and M. Pištěk, “Multi-criteria decision making beyond consistency: An alternative to AHP for real-world industrial problems,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 198, no. July, p. 110661, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2024.110661.

D. Emawan, A. T. Pratama, and H. Nasution, “Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Develop the Weighting of Key Performance Indicators on Gas Engine Power Plants,” Proc. Conf. Manag. Eng. Ind., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 18–23, 2021, doi: 10.33555/cmei.v3i4.90.

Sudeep Yadav, Amitabh K. Srivatava, and R.S.Singh, “Selection And Ranking Of Multifaceted Criteria For The Prioritization Of Most Appropriate Biomass Energy Sources For The Production Of Renewable Energy In Indian PerspectiveUsing Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Int. J. Eng. Technol. Sci. Res., vol. Volume 2, no. Special Issue, pp. 89–98, 2015.

M. Meri and V. Dila, “PENENTUAN PRIORITAScKPI UNTUK PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PEMELIHARAAN PLTA MENGGUNAKAN METODE ANALYTICAL HIERARCY PROCESS ( AHP ) DOI : https://doi.org/10.33330/jurteksi.v5i1.39 Available online at http://jurnal.stmikroyal.ac.id/index.php/jurteksi PENDAHULUA,” vol. V, no. 1, 2018.

X. Chen, “Deaerator system pressure and liquid level PID regulation control strategy,” Highlights Sci. Eng. Technol., vol. 27, pp. 133–145, 2022, doi: 10.54097/hset.v27i.3730.

M. Soleh, Y. Hidayat, and Z. Abidin, “Co-firing RDF in CFB Boiler Power Plant,” 2019 Int. Conf. Technol. Policies Electr. Power Energy, TPEPE 2019, 2019, doi: 10.1109/IEEECONF48524.2019.9102591.

T. Elie, “Boiler Fuels, Emissions and efficiency,” no. 877, p. 1 to 3, 2016.

S. V. Oprea and A. Bâra, “Key Technical Performance Indicators for Power Plants,” Recent Improv. Power Plants Manag. Technol., no. August, 2017, doi: 10.5772/67858.

Y. Gunawan, C. L. F. Simorangkir, and M. Aman, “Analisis Kinerja Pltu Indramayu Sepanjang Tahun 2015 Performance Analysis of Indramayu ’ S Coal-Fired Power Plants in Year 2015,” Ketenagalistrikan dan Energi Terbarukan, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 97–106, 2017.

A. Tasri and A. Susilawati, “Selection among renewable energy alternatives based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in Indonesia,” Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments, vol. 7, pp. 34–44, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2014.02.008.

R. Kumar Phanden, A. Sheokand, K. Kumar Goyal, P. Gahlot, and H. Ibrahim Demir, “8Ds method of problem solving within automotive industry: Tools used and comparison with DMAIC,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 65, no. May, pp. 3266–3272, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.05.383.

J. Krejčí and J. Stoklasa, “Aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process: Why weighted geometric mean should be used instead of weighted arithmetic mean,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 114, pp. 97–106, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.06.060.