Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 87 Download : 36

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aims to identify the appropriate authority responsible for managing rig-owned transportation within Pertamina Hulu Rokan Zone 4 by employing mixed-method approach, integrating both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) generates values, alternatives, and objectives. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) quantifies and prioritizes criteria and alternatives. VFT, through expert interviews, enhances the initial set of criteria and alternatives by introducing additional sub-criteria and alternatives. AHP is then employed to prioritize the outputs from VFT through a structured computational process. Ultimately, the selected authority established a new operation support function, which is preferred over the existing SCM-RAM system and the Well Intervention (self-managed) alternative

Keywords

Jamaluddin Kamal Pri Hermawan

Article Details

References

  1. Affandi, Z. D., & Novani, S. (2023). Implementing Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Oil Production Scenario from TMB & KRG Field Development: Case Study of PT Pertamina Hulu Rokan Zone 4. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 8(3), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2023.8.3.1937
  2. Aruldoss, M. (2013). A Survey on Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods and Its Applications. American Journal of Information Systems, 1(1).
  3. Darraji, R., Golshan Khavas, R., & Tavakoli Kashani, A. (2024). Public Involvement in Transportation Decision Making: A Comparison between Baghdad and Tehran. Infrastructures, 9(9), 151. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures9090151
  4. HajShirmohammadi, A., & Wedley, W. C. (2004). Maintenance management – an AHP application for centralization/decentralization. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 10(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552510410526839
  5. Höfer, T., von Nitzsch, R., & Madlener, R. (2019). Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3501616
  6. Jain, S., Aggarwal, P., Kumar, P., Singhal, S., & Sharma, P. (2014). Identifying public preferences using multi-criteria decision making for assessing the shift of urban commuters from private to public transport: A case study of Delhi. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 24, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.03.007
  7. Keeney, R. L. (1996). Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research, 92(3), 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(96)00004-5
  8. Koczkodaj, W. W., Mikhailov, L., Redlarski, G., Soltys, M., Szybowski, J., Tamazian, G., Wajch, E., & Yuen, K. K. F. (2016). Important Facts and Observations about Pairwise Comparisons (the special issue edition). Fundamenta Informaticae, 144(3–4), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.3233/FI-2016-1336
  9. Kriswardhana, W., Toaza, B., Esztergár-Kiss, D., & Duleba, S. (2025). Analytic hierarchy process in transportation decision-making: A two-staged review on the themes and trends of two decades. Expert Systems with Applications, 261, 125491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125491
  10. Kumar, A., & A, R. (2020). An MCDM framework for assessment of social sustainability indicators of the freight transport industry under uncertainty. A multi-company perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 33(5), 1023–1058. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2019-0272
  11. Kuo, T., & Chen, M.-H. (2023). On using pairwise comparison in the analytic hierarchy process: Validity is goal while consistency is means. Information Sciences, 648, 119630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.119630
  12. Logullo, Y., Bigogno-Costa, V., Silva, A. C. S. da, & Belderrain, M. C. (2022). A prioritization approach based on VFT and AHP for group decision making: a case study in the military operations. Production, 32. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.20210059
  13. Madudova, E., & Dávid, A. (2019). Identifying the derived utility function of transport services: case study of rail and sea container transport. Transportation Research Procedia, 40, 1096–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.07.153
  14. Mohamed, A., Stone, S., & Oloufa, A. A. (2024). Application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process for Autonomous Truck Strategies of Commercial Vehicles. Applied Sciences, 14(21), 9702. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14219702
  15. Moslem, S., Saraji, M. K., Mardani, A., Alkharabsheh, A., Duleba, S., & Esztergar-Kiss, D. (2023). A Systematic Review of Analytic Hierarchy Process Applications to Solve Transportation Problems: From 2003 to 2022. IEEE Access, 11, 11973–11990. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3234298
  16. Önden, İ., & Eldemir, F. (2022). A multi-criteria spatial approach for determination of the logistics center locations in metropolitan areas. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 44, 100734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100734
  17. Rivero Gutiérrez, L., de Vicente Oliva, M. A., & Romero-Ania, A. (2021). Managing Sustainable Urban Public Transport Systems: An AHP Multicriteria Decision Model. Sustainability, 13(9), 4614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094614
  18. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
  19. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
  20. Taherdoost, H., & Madanchian, M. (2023). Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods and Concepts. Encyclopedia, 3(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010006
  21. Ulutaş, A., Popovic, G., Radanov, P., Stanujkic, D., & Karabasevic, D. (2021). A NEW HYBRID FUZZY PSI-PIPRECIA-COCOSO MCDM BASED APPROACH TO SOLVING THE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY SELECTION PROBLEM. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 27(5), 1227–1249. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2021.15058
  22. Wang, Y., Zhou, R., Li, X., & Zhang, Y. (2023). A Model for Evaluating the Efficiency of Government Functional Departments based on VFT-AHP Data Analysis (pp. 363–373). https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-056-5_52
  23. Winowoda, B., & Wasesa, M. (2024). VFT and AHP Approach to Selecting the Best Option in Decision-Making at PLN: A Case Study in the Cawang-Gandul Project. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 9(2), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2024.9.2.2103
  24. Yalcin Kavus, B., Gulum Tas, P., Ayyildiz, E., & Taskin, A. (2022). A three-level framework to evaluate airline service quality based on interval valued neutrosophic AHP considering the new dimensions. Journal of Air Transport Management, 99, 102179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2021.102179
  25. Yannis, G., Kopsacheili, A., Dragomanovits, A., & Petraki, V. (2020). State-of-the-art review on multi-criteria decision-making in the transport sector. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), 7(4), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2020.05.005