Analytical Hierarchy Process Untuk Pemilihan Payment Gateway Pada E-Commerce

Erliyan Redy Susanto; Khoirunisa Cahyaning  Tyas

doi:10.37859/jf.v14i2.7099

Erliyan Redy Susanto Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia
Khoirunisa Cahyaning Tyas

https://doi.org/10.37859/jf.v14i2.7099

Keywords: Analytical Hierarchy Process, Decision Making, E-commerce, Payment Gateway, Prioritization

Abstract

Studi ini menggunakan metode Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) untuk menganalisis pemilihan payment gateway pada platform e-commerce. Melalui proses perbandingan berpasangan, enam kriteria utama, termasuk biaya transaksi E-Wallets, biaya transaksi Over The Counter, biaya transaksi Cardless Credit, ketersediaan E-Wallets, ketersediaan Over The Counter, dan ketersediaan Cardless Credit diidentifikasi dengan jelas. perbandingan berpasangan antara kriteria dan alternatif untuk menentukan bobot relatif, diikuti dengan penghitungan nilai eigen dan vektor eigen untuk menentukan bobot prioritas. Hasil Studi menunjukkan tingkat konsistensi yang baik dalam matriks perbandingan, memvalidasi keandalan metode AHP dalam pengambilan keputusan. Perangkingan alternatif payment gateway menunjukkan bahwa Doku adalah pilihan terbaik, selanjutnya adalah iPaymu, Faspay, Xendit, dan Midtrans. Analisis ini memberikan landasan yang kuat untuk meningkatkan efisiensi dan kualitas layanan e-commerce melalui pemilihan payment gateway yang optimal, serta menekankan pentingnya mempertimbangkan berbagai faktor dalam konteks pemilihan tersebut guna mencapai hasil yang optimal dan memuaskan bagi pelanggan dan pemilik bisnis.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] V. F. dos Santos, L. R. Sabino, G. M. Morais, and C. A. Goncalves, “E-Commerce: A Short History Follow-up on Possible Trends,” International Journal of Business Administration, vol. 8, no. 7, p. 130, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.5430/ijba.v8n7p130.
[2] S. Fatonah, A. Yulandari, and F. W. Wibowo, “A Review of E-Payment System in E-Commerce,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Institute of Physics Publishing, Dec. 2018. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1140/1/012033.
[3] S. Supriyati and E. Nurfiqo, “Effectiveness of Payment Gateway in E-Commerce,” European Alliance for Innovation n.o., Oct. 2019. doi: 10.4108/eai.18-7-2019.2287932.
[4] M. Qasaimeh, N. A. Halemah, R. Rawashdeh, R. S. Al-Qassas, and A. Qusef, “Systematic Review of E-commerce Security Issues and Customer Satisfaction Impact,” in Proceedings - 2022 International Conference on Engineering and MIS, ICEMIS 2022, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2022. doi: 10.1109/ICEMIS56295.2022.9914393.
[5] R. F. Olanrewaju, B. U. I. Khan, M. M. U. I. Mattoo, F. Anwar, A. N. B. Nordin, and R. N. Mir, “Securing electronic transactions via payment gateways-a systematic review,” 2017.
[6] J. Khazaii, “Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP),” in Advanced Decision Making for HVAC Engineers, Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 73–85. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-33328-1_9.
[7] E. Terzi, “Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).” [Online]. Available: http://scjournal.ius.edu.ba
[8] D. Ernawati, I. Nyoman Pujawan, I. Made, L. Batan, and M. Anityasari, “Evaluating alternatives of product design: a multi criteria group decision making approach,” Production Planning and Control, 2015.
[9] E. Muslim, I. Riansa, and Komarudin, “Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) pairwise matrix with one missing value,” International Journal of Technology, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 1356–1360, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.14716/ijtech.v8i7.773.
[10] A. Stecyk, “The analytic hierarchy process AHP for business intelligence system evaluation,” European Journal of Service Management, vol. 28, pp. 439–446, 2018, doi: 10.18276/ejsm.2018.28/2-52.
[11] M. Brunelli, “A survey of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons,” International Journal of General Systems, vol. 47, no. 8. Taylor and Francis Ltd., pp. 751–771, Nov. 17, 2018. doi: 10.1080/03081079.2018.1523156.
[12] P. Akademia Baru, E. M. Nazri, M. Balhuwaisl, and M. M. Kasim, “A Pre-Evaluation Step towards a Guaranteed Consistent AHP-Based Pairwise Comparison,” 2016.
[13] Mustakim, N. K. Sari, Jasril, I. Kusumanto, and N. G. I. Reza, “Eigenvalue of analytic hierarchy process as the determinant for class target on classification algorithm,” Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1257–1264, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.11591/ijeecs.v12.i3.pp1257-1264.
[14] W. Guo, Z. Gong, E. Herrera-Viedma, and Q. Li, “Priority weights acquisition of linear uncertain preference relations and its application in the ranking of online shopping platforms,” Appl Soft Comput, vol. 105, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107292.
[15] Z. Zhang and C. Wu, “Deriving the priority weights from hesitant multiplicative preference relations in group decision making,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 25, pp. 107–117, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2014.08.062.
[16] V. Shyam Prasad and P. Kousalya, “Role of Consistency in Analytic Hierarchy Process – Consistency Improvement Methods,” Indian J Sci Technol, vol. 10, no. 29, pp. 1–5, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i29/100784.
[17] N. I. Nedashkovskaya, “Investigation of methods for improving consistency of a pairwise comparison matrix,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 1947–1956, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1080/01605682.2017.1415640.
[18] C. Lin, G. Kou, and D. Ergu, “A statistical approach to measure the consistency level of the pairwise comparison matrix,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 1380–1386, 2014, doi: 10.1057/jors.2013.92.
[19] M. Xia and J. Chen, “Consistency and consensus improving methods for pairwise comparison matrices based on Abelian linearly ordered group,” Fuzzy Sets Syst, vol. 266, pp. 1–32, May 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2014.07.019.
[20] L. N. P. K. Rallabandi, R. Vandrangi, and S. R. Rachakonda, “Improved Consistency Ratio for Pairwise Comparison Matrix in Analytic Hierarchy Processes,” Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, vol. 33, no. 3, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1142/S0217595916500202.