Decision support system for selecting delivery service partners at the Kefmenanu branch using the multi attribute utility theory (MAUT)
Abstract
Shipping is the process of transporting goods from producers to consumers. Most goods will be shipped through a cargo transportation network (physical goods) delivered by land, sea and air. The increasing number of internet users among the public encourages more people to ship goods online. The many choices of shipping services available often cause confusion and obstacles for the public in determining the best service according to their needs, both in terms of cost, delivery time, type of payment and shipping costs. To avoid existing problems, a decision support system is needed that can make it easier for the public to make the right decision in choosing a shipping service partner. The Decision Support System (DSS) for selecting a shipping service partner at the Kefamenanu branch aims to help the public make more precise and efficient decisions in choosing a shipping partner. The method used in this study is the Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), which allows comparison of various important criteria in selecting a delivery partner. The decision-making process is carried out by assessing each alternative delivery partner based on the weight of the previously determined criteria. Each partner is then given a score for each criterion, which is then calculated using the maut method to produce a final score with the highest score from each alternative. The results of this system are able to provide the best recommendations in selecting delivery services objectively. That way, the Kefamenanu community can make wiser decisions. The implementation of this SPK can improve operational efficiency and community satisfaction, as well as reduce errors in decision making. Thus, this system can help the community to improve the performance of goods delivery at the Kefamenanu branch.
Keywords: Delivery of Goods, Decision Support System (DSS), Kefamenanu Community, Maut, Performance
Full Text:
PDFReferences
A. L. Mario, “Seaweed value chain sustainability assessment in the Kupang Regency, East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia: a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Agribusiness, School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Manawatu Campus, New Zealand.” Massey University, 2024. https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/72653
A. Jarašūnienė, M. Išoraitė, and A. Petraška, “Developing small-cargo flows in cities using unmanned aerial vehicles,” Futur. Transp., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 450–474, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp4020022
T. Pratiwi and H. Hartini, “Pondasi Keberhasilan di Era Persaingan Jasa Ekspedisi JNE Express Kediri,” vol. 1, pp. 45–57, 2023.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376451287_Pondasi_Keberhasilan_di_Era_Persaingan_Jasa_Ekspedisi_JNE_Express_Kediri
S. S. Mohri, N. Nassir, R. G. Thompson, and P. S. Lavieri, “Public transportation-based crowd-shipping initiatives: Are users willing to participate? Why not?,” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., vol. 182, p. 104019, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2024.104019
M. X. Liu, T. Wu, T. Chen, F. M. Li, A. Kittur, and B. A. Myers, “Selenite: Scaffolding Online Sensemaking with Comprehensive Overviews Elicited from Large Language Models,” in Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2024, pp. 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642149
F. Poszler and B. Lange, “The impact of intelligent decision-support systems on humans’ ethical decision-making: A systematic literature review and an integrated framework,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 204, p. 123403, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123403
A. Lobo, D. Sá, J. Cunha, R. Duarte, J. Duarte, and M. F. Santos, “Healthcare Cognitive Decision Support System - The State-of-the-Art,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 257, pp. 1104-1109, 2025, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2025.03.145
L. Angel, A. Villot, M. Rodriguez Susa, J. Plazas-Tuttle, Y. Andres, and C. Gerente, “Optimizing activated carbon production from chontaduro seeds via physical activation with steam for ibuprofen removal: A factorial design and multi-attribute utility theory approach,” J. Water Process Eng., vol. 70, p. 107020, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2025.107020
Y. Song, Y. Xiu, L. Zhou, and J. Wang, “Implementing multi-attribute utility theory in service recovery: An operational management perspective on online retailing,” J. Retail. Consum. Serv., vol. 81, p. 103968, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103968
F. B. N. Tonle et al., “A road map for developing novel decision support system (DSS) for disseminating integrated pest management (IPM) technologies,” Comput. Electron. Agric., vol. 217, p. 108526, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2023.108526
Y. Du, Y. Dong, X. Chen, L. Sun, Y. Wu, and Q. Lu, “Site selection of wind-photovoltaic coupling hydrogen production project with the assistant of geographic information system: A multi-criteria decision-making study under the hybrid fuzzy environment,” Energy Reports, vol. 13, pp. 6089–6100, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2025.05.054
G. Parolin, J. Arnbjerg, T. C. McAloone, and D. C. A. Pigosso, “Navigating trade-offs in design for sustainability and circularity: A tool for decision making leveraging narratives and multiple criteria decision analysis,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 494, p. 145004, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145004
L. Bidoux, J.-P. Pignon, and F. Bénaben, “Planning with preferences using Multi-Attribute Utility Theory along with a Choquet Integral,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 85, pp. 808–817, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.08.002
U. Akpan and R. Morimoto, “An application of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) to the prioritization of rural roads to improve rural accessibility in Nigeria,” Socioecon. Plann. Sci., vol. 82, p. 101256, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101256
P. Kailiponi, “Analyzing evacuation decisions using multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT),” Procedia Eng., vol. 3, pp. 163–174, 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2010.07.016
S. M. Golodetz, C. Nicholls, I. D. Voiculescu, and S. A. Cameron, “Two tree-based methods for the waterfall,” Pattern Recognit., vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 3276–3292, 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2014.04.017
D. Ly, M. Overeem, S. Brinkkemper, and F. Dalpiaz, “The Power of Words in Agile vs. Waterfall Development: Written Communication in Hybrid Software Teams,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 219, p. 112243, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.112243
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21107/simantec.v13i2.29617
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 Margaretha Tae, Yoseph Pius Kurniawan Kelen, Fetronela Rambu Bobu
Indexed By
.png)
11.png){kind=logo}
SIMANTEC JOURNAL: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.