Comparative Analysis of AHP and TOPSIS Methods in Retail Business Location Selection Decision Support System

Maulia Rahman

doi:10.59535/jece.v2i2.355

Authors

Maulia Rahman Program Studi Informatika, Universitas Potensi Utama, Jl. K.L. Yos Sudarso Km 6,5 No. 3A Tanjung Mulia - Medan 20241, Sumatera Utara, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59535/jece.v2i2.355

Keywords:

DSS, Retail Location Selection, AHP, TOPSIS

Abstract

Retail business location selection is a critical strategic decision for company success. This research aims to compare the effectiveness of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methods in decision support systems for retail business location selection. Using a simulation-based quantitative approach, this study evaluates the performance of both methods based on alternative ranking accuracy, result consistency, and computational efficiency. Results show that AHP excels in handling complex criteria hierarchies and result consistency, while TOPSIS demonstrates superiority in computational efficiency and resilience to data outliers. Sensitivity analysis reveals that AHP is more sensitive to changes in criteria weights compared to TOPSIS. Model validation through comparison with literature case studies shows a high level of concordance between simulation results and actual decisions. This research provides theoretical contributions to the development of decision support systems and practical implications for decision-makers in the retail industry. Development prospects include method integration for hybrid approaches and exploration of big data integration in the retail location decision-making process.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ghorui, N., Ghosh, A., Algehyne, E. A., Mondal, S. P., & Saha, A. K. (2020). AHP-TOPSIS inspired shopping mall site selection problem with fuzzy data. Mathematics, 8(8), 1380. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8081380

Ccatamayo-Barrios, J. H., Huamán-Romaní, Y. L., Cruz Yupanqui, G. M., Seminario-Morales, M. V., Flores-Castillo, M. M., Gutiérrez-Gómez, E., ... & de la Cruz-Girón, K. A. (2023). Comparative Analysis of AHP and TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Mining Method Selection. Mathematical Modelling of Engineering Problems, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.18280/mmep.100516

Iswari, V. D., Arini, F. Y., & Muslim, M. A. (2019). Decision support system for the selection of outstanding students using the AHP-TOPSIS combination method. Lontar Komput. J. Ilm. Teknol. Inf, 10(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.24843/LKJITI.2019.v10.i01.p05

Vern, Y. R., Mansor, M. R., & Shaharuzaman, M. A. (2024). Natural Fibre Composite Selection for Two-stroke Marine Engine Under-piston Door using Hybrid AHP and TOPSIS Methods. International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlmm.2024.07.006

Wang, K., Hong, Y., & Li, C. (2024). Fuzzy Risk Assessment Method for Airborne Network Security Based on AHP-TOPSIS. Computers, Materials & Continua, 80(1). https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2024.052088

Parmonangan, T., Hasan, M. A., Walhidayat, & Nasution, F. (2022). Decision Support System For The Selection Of Pencak Silat Athletes Using AHP - TOPSIS. ZONAsi: Jurnal Sistem Informasi, 4(1), 117 - 127. https://doi.org/10.31849/zn.v4i1.9320

Nazarov,A. (2024). Strategic Market Entry Decision-Making In Africa's Satellite Sector: A Comparative Analysis Using Topsis And Ahp Methods. Proceedings Of Azerbaijan High Technical Educational Institutions, 85 – 94. https://doi.org/10.36962/PAHTEI44092024-10

Nazim, M., Mohammad, C. W., & Sadiq, M. (2022). A comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to software requirements selection. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 61(12), 10851-10870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.04.005

Palilingan, K. (2020). Multi Criteria Decision Making Using TOPSIS Method For Choosing Mate. Jurnal Teknik Informatika, 15(4), 283-290. https://doi.org/10.35793/jti.v15i4.32603

Canco, I., Kruja, D., & Iancu, T. (2021). AHP, a reliable method for quality decision making: A case study in business. Sustainability, 13(24), 13932. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413932

Guler, D., & Yomralioglu, T. (2020). Suitable location selection for the electric vehicle fast charging station with AHP and fuzzy AHP methods using GIS. Annals of GIS, 26(2), 169-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2020.1737226

Rahman, M. (2023). Determining Participants in the Web Technologies Student Competency Competition Using the Vikor Method. Journal Electrical and Computer Experiences, 1(2), 45-52. https://doi.org/10.59535/jece.v1i2.201

Asadabadi, M. R., Chang, E., & Saberi, M. (2019). Are MCDM methods useful? A critical review of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process (ANP). Cogent Engineering, 6(1), 1623153. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2019.1623153

Khan, A. U., & Ali, Y. (2020). Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process methods and their applications: a twenty year review from 2000-2019: AHP & ANP techniques and their applications: Twenty years review from 2000 to 2019. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v12i3.822

Liu, Y., Eckert, C. M., & Earl, C. (2020). A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert systems with applications, 161, 113738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738

Niqotaini, Z., & Vernanda, D. (2024). Implementation of the SAW and TOPSIS Methods as a Decision Support System in the Election of Outstanding TNI Members. Sainteks: Jurnal Sain dan Teknik, 6(2), 229-244. https://doi.org/10.37577/sainteks.v6i02.695

Moreno Rocha, C. M., & Arenas Buelvas, D. (2024). Evaluation of renewable energy technologies in Colombia: comparative evaluation using TOPSIS and TOPSIS fuzzy metaheuristic models. Energy Informatics, 7(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42162-024-00348-w

Sulaiman, R., Astuti, Y. P., Yunianti, D. N., & Awang, N. A. (2024). On the Picture Fuzzy-TOPSIS Method. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS. Vol. 17, No. 3, 2024, 1727-1736. https://doi.org/10.29020/nybg.ejpam.v17i3.5225

Barman, J., Biswas, B., Ali, S. S., & Zhran, M. (2024). The TOPSIS Method: Figuring the landslide susceptibility using Excel and GIS. MethodsX, 103005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.103005

Menarianti, I., & Fathurachman, C. (2024). A TOPSIS Framework for Supplier Selection Problem. Jurnal Inovtek Polbeng Seri Informatika, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.35314/isi.v9i1.3904

Ma, L., Li, Y., Xue, J., Xu, L., Li, X., & Chang, X. (2024). Characteristics of Medical Quality in Tertiary Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospitals by TOPSIS and RSR Methods. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing, 61, 00469580241275324. https://doi.org/10.1177/004695802412753

Frederick, D. P., Fernandes, A. S., Frank, R. A., Fernandes, M., BN, K., & BB, K. (2024). Evaluating Online Food Delivery Services: Cost Efficiency Through AHP and TOPSIS. Library Progress International, 44(3), 182-189.