The Analytic Hierarchy

Process (AHP)
for
Decision Making
Decision Making involves
setting priorities and the AHP
is the methodology for doing
that.

1-1

Order, Proportionality and Ratio

Scales
All order, whether in the physical world or in
human thinking, involves proportionality among
the parts, establishing harmony and synchrony
among them. Proportionality means that there
is a ratio relation among the parts. Thus, to
study order or to create order, we must use ratio
scales to capture and synthesize the relations
inherent in that order. The question is how?
1-2

Decision Making
We need to prioritize both tangible and intangible criteria:
In most decisions, intangibles such as
political factors and
social factors
take precedence over tangibles such as
economic factors and
technical factors
It is not the precision of measurement on a particular factor
that determines the validity of a decision, but the importance
we attach to the factors involved.
How do we assign importance to all the factors and synthesize
this diverse information to make the best decision?
1-3

Knowing Less, Understanding More

You dont need to know everything to get to the answer.
Expert after expert missed the
revolutionary significance of
what Darwin had collected.
Darwin, who knew less,
somehow understood more.
1-4

Nonmonotonic Relative Nature of Absolute Scales

Good for
preserving food

100

Bad for
comfort
Good for
comfort

Bad for
preserving food
Good for
preserving food

Temperature

1-5

Bad for
comfort

Making a Decision
Widget B is cheaper than Widget A
Widget A is better than Widget B
Which Widget would you choose?

1-6

Basic Decision Problem

Criteria:
Car:
Alternatives:

Low Cost > Operating Cost > Style

A
V
B

B
V
A

B
V
A

Suppose the criteria are preferred in the order shown and the
cars are preferred as shown for each criterion. Which car
should be chosen? It is desirable to know the strengths of
preferences for tradeoffs.

1-7

MCDM SEBAGAI SALAH SATU MODEL DALAM

PENGAMBILAN KEPUTUSAN
Tujuan yang akan dicapai
Masalah yang akan diselesaikan

Kriteria
Kinerja

Pengambil
Keputusan

Alternatives
alat/rencana/
1-8

KOMPONEN KEPUTUSAN
Alternatif Keputusan
Kriteria Keputusan
Bobot Kriteria
Model Penilaian
Model Penghitungan
Tipe Pengambil Keputusan

1-9

Unity
:

Complexity:

Process Repetition
Judgment and
Consensus

Interdependenc
e:

AHP
Trade-off

Hierarchic Structuring
Measurement

Synthesis
Consistenc
y

AHP Main Features

1-10

MODEL PENILAIAN
Menggunakan Nilai Numerik (Nyata)
Menggunakan Nilai Ordinal (Skala)
Misal:
1. Sangat Kurang

4. Baik

2. Kurang

5. Sangat Baik

3. Cukup
Menggunakan Nilai Perbandingan Berpasangan
Misal pada AHP : <misal A dibandingkan dengan B>
1 : A dan B sama penting

7 : A sangat nyata lebih penting

3 : A sedikit lebih penting dari B

9 : A pasti lebih penting dari B

5 : A jelas lebih penting dari B

Menggunakan Preferensi Fuzzy

1-11

Background on AHP
To understand the world we assume that:
We can describe it
We can define relations between
its parts and
We can apply judgment to relate the
parts according to
a goal or purpose that we
have in mind.
1-12

Conflicts
Options

Objectives
Political
Factors

Judgments

Scenarios

Criteria
Priorities

AHP

Allocations
Weights
Preference Ratios

1-13

GOAL
CRITERIA

ALTERNATIVES
1-14

Power of Hierarchic Thinking

A hierarchy is an efficient way to organize complex
systems. It is efficient both structurally, for representing a system, and functionally, for controlling and
passing information down the system.
Unstructured problems are best grappled with in the
systematic framework of a hierarchy or a feedback
network.

1-15

Relative Measurement
In relative measurement a preference
judgment is expressed on each pair of
elements with respect to a common property
they share.
In practice this means that a pair of elements
in a level of the hierarchy are compared with
respect to parent elements to which they relate
in the level above.

1-16

Relative Measurement cont.

If, for example, we are comparing two apples
according to weight we ask:
Which apple is bigger?
How much bigger is the larger than the smaller apple?
Use the smaller as the unit and estimate how
many more times bigger is the larger one.
The apples must be relatively close (homogeneous)
if we hope to make an accurate estimate.

1-17

Comparison Matrix
Given:

Three apples of different sizes.

Apple A

Apple B

Apple C

We Assess Their Relative Sizes By Forming Ratios

Size
Comparison

Apple A

Apple B

Apple C

Apple A

S1/S1

S1/S2

S1/S3

Apple B

S2 / S 1

S2 / S 2

S2 / S 3

Apple C

S3 / S 1

S3 / S 2

S3 / S 3

1-18

Pairwise Comparisons
Size

Apple A
Size
Comparison

Apple A

Apple B
Apple B

Apple C
Apple C
Resulting
Priority
Eigenvector

Relative Size
of Apple

Apple A

6/10

Apple B

1/2

3/10

Apple C

1/6

1/3

1/10

When the judgments are consistent, as they are here, any

normalized column gives the priorities.
1-19

Consistency
In this example Apple B is 3 times larger than Apple C. We can
obtain this value directly from the comparisons of Apple A
with Apples B & C as 6/2 = 3. But if we were to use judgment
we may have guessed it as 4. In that case we would have been
inconsistent.
Now guessing it as 4 is not as bad as guessing it as 5 or more.
The farther we are from the true value the more inconsistent we
are. The AHP provides a theory for checking the inconsistency
throughout the matrix and allowing a certain level of overall
inconsistency but not more.

1-20

Consistency cont.

Consistency itself is a necessary condition for a better

understanding of relations in the world but it is not
sufficient. For example we could judge all three of
the apples to be the same size and we would be perfectly
consistent, but very wrong.
We also need to improve our validity by using redundant
information.
It is fortunate that the mind is not programmed to be always
consistent. Otherwise, it could not integrate new information
by changing old relations.

1-21

Comparison of Intangibles
The same procedure as we use for size can be used to
compare things with intangible properties. For example,
we could also compare the apples for:
TASTE
AROMA
RIPENESS

1-22

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

is the Method of Prioritization
AHP captures priorities from paired comparison judgments of the
elements of the decision with respect to each of their parent criteria.
Paired comparison judgments can be arranged in a matrix.

Priorities are derived from the matrix as its principal eigenvector,

which defines a ratio scale. Thus, the eigenvector is an intrinsic
concept of a correct prioritization process. It also allows for the
measurement of inconsistency in judgment.

Priorities derived this way satisfy the property of a ratio scale

just like pounds and yards do.

1-23

Goal
Satisfaction with School

Learning

School
A

Friends

School
Life

Vocational
Training

School
B

1-24

College
Prep.

Music
Classes

School
C

Scale For Pairwise Comparisons

Equal importance
Moderate importance of one over another
Strong or essential importance
Very strong or demonstrated importance
Extreme importance

1-25

Fundamental Scale of Absolute Numbers

for Pairwise Comparisons
1

Equal importance

Moderate importance of one over another

Strong or essential importance

Very strong or demonstrated importance

Extreme importance

2,4,6,8 Intermediate values

Use Reciprocals for Inverse Comparisons
1-26

Comparison of Schools with Respect

to the Six Characteristics
Learning
A B C
A

1/3 1/2

1/3

Friends
A B C

Priorities

Priorities

.16

.33

.45

.59

.33

1/5

1/5

.09

.25

.33

.46

College Prep.
A B C

Vocational Trng. Priorities

School Life
A B C

Priorities

Music Classes

Priorities

Priorities

.77

1/2

.25

.69

1/9

1/5

.05

.50

1/6

1/3

.09

1/7

.17

1/2

.25

1/4

.22

1-27

Benchmark Measurement
Instead of using intensities, we can compare all the alternatives
with respect to well known alternatives called benchmarks that
are different and range from the best to the worst for each
criterion. For example, with respect to dependability we can put
three well known individuals who are respectively, extremely
dependable, moderately dependable and undependable. With
respect to leadership we may use five such individuals and so on.
We then pairwise compare each individual with these
benchmarks to obtain a priority. Here again, in the end we can
use the distributive or ideal modes. The benchmarks are
compared only once. However, new judgments are needed for
each alternative when it is compared with them. For more work,
one obtains greater accuracy in the final priorities. This process
is known as Benchmark Measurement.
1-28

Memilih Komoditi
Agroindustri

Sasaran

Kriteria

Bahan Baku

Pemasaran

Teknologi
Proses

Alternati
f

Minyak
Sawit

Minyak
Sawit

Minyak
Sawit

Cokelat

Cokelat

Cokelat

Karet

Karet

Karet

Teh

Teh

Teh

Gambar : Hubungan sasaran, kriteria dan alternatif dalam

AHP
1-29

Nilai

Keterangan

Sama penting (Equal)

Sedikit lebih penting (Moderate)

Jelas lebih penting (Strong)

Sangat jelas penting (Very Strong)

Mutlak lebih penting (Extreme)

2,4,6,8

Apabila ragu-ragu antara 2 nilai yang berdekatan

1/(1-9)

Kebalikan nilai tingkat kepentingan dari skala 1-9

Misalnya hasil perbandingan berpasangan untuk contoh diatas

adalah:
E1

Bahan Baku

Pemasaran

Teknologi
Proses

Bahan Baku

1/1

3/1

Pemasaran

2/1

1/1

4/1

Teknologi Proses

1/3

1/1

1-30

Penyelesaian untuk contoh diatas (misalnya dengan syarat nilai eigen

sudah tidak berubah sampai 4 angka dibelakang koma):
Ubah matrik menjadi bilangan desimal:
1.000 0.500 3.000
2.000 1.000 4.000
0.333 0.250 1.000
Iterasi ke I :
Kuadratkan matrik diatas
1.000 0.500 3.000
2.000 1.000 4.000
0.333 0.250 1.000

1.000 0.500 3.000

X

2.000 1.000 4.000

0.333 0.250 1.000

1-31

3.0000

1.7500 8.0000

5.3333

3.0000 14.0000

1.1666

0.6667 3.0000

Jumlahkan nilai setiap baris matrik dan hitung nilai hasil

normalisasinya:
Jml Baris
Hasil Normalisasi
3.0000 1.750 8.0000

12.750

12.7500/39.9166 = 0.3194

5.3333 3.0000 14.000

22.333

22.3333/39.9166 = 0.5595

1.1666 0.6667 3.0000

Jumlah

4.8333
39.9166

1-32

4.8333/39.9166 = 0.1211
1.0000

 Iterasi ke II :
Kuadratkan kembali matrik diatas

3.0000 1.750 8.0000

3.0000 1.750 8.0000

5.3333 3.000014.000 X

5.3333 3.000014.000

1.1666 0.6667 3.0000

1.1666 0.6667 3.0000

27.6658

15.8330

48.3311

27.6662 126.6642

10.5547

6.0414

72.4984

24.6653

1-33

Jumlahkan nilai setiap baris matrik dan hitung nilai hasil

normalisasinya:
Jml Baris Hasil Normalisasi
27.6658 15.8330 72.498
4
48.3311 27.6662 126.6642

115.9967

0.3196

202.6615

0.5584

10.5547 6.0414 24.6653

44.2614

0.1210

Jumlah 362.9196

1.0000

Hitung Perbedaan nilai eigen sebelum dan sesudah nilai eigen

sekarang:
0.3194 0.3196 = - 0.0002
0.0011
0.5595 0.5584 =
0.1211

0.1210

= - 0.0009

Terlihat bahwa perbedaan tersebut tidak terlalu besar sampai dengan 4

desimal
1-34

 Iterasi ke III :
Bila kita melakukan iterasi satu kali lagi, maka syarat akan terpenuhi
(nilai eigen sudah tidak berbeda sampai 4 desimal)
Jadi nilai eigen yang diperoleh adalah : 0.3196, 0.5584, 0.1220
Apakah makna dari nilai eigen di atas?
Berikut ini adalah matrik berpasangan berserta dengan nilai eigennya:
Bahan
Baku

Pemasaran

Teknologi Proses

Nilai Eigen

Bahan Baku

1.000

0.500

3.000

0.3196

Pemasaran

2.000

1.000

4.000

0.5584

Teknologi Proses

0.333

0.250

1.000

0.1220

Berdasarkan nilai eigen maka kita tahu bahwa kriteria yang paling
penting adalah Pemasaran, kemudian Bahan Baku dan terakhir
Teknologi Proses
1-35

Memilih Komoditi
Agroindustri 1.00

Sasaran

Kriteria

Bahan Baku
0.3196

Pemasaran
0.5584

Teknologi
Proses 0.1220

Minyak
Sawit

Minyak
Sawit

Minyak
Sawit

Cokelat

Cokelat

Cokelat

Karet

Karet

Karet

Teh

Teh

Teh

Gambar : Hasil Perhitungan Bobot Kriteria

1-36

PEMBOBOTAN
ALTERNATIF
Susunlah matrik berpasangan untuk alternatif-alternatif bagi setiap
kriteria, misalnya untuk kriteria bahan baku adalah :
Bahan Baku

Minyak Sawit

Cokelat

Karet

Teh

Minyak Sawit

1/1

1/4

4/1

1/6

Cokelat

4/1

1/1

4/1

1/4

Karet

1/4

1/4

1/1

1/5

Teh

6/1

4/1

5/1

1/1

1-37

Misalnya untuk kriteria Pemasaran adalah

:
Pasar

Minyak Sawit

Cokelat

Karet

Teh

Minyak Sawit

1/1

2/1

5/1

1/1

Cokelat

1/2

1/1

3/1

2/1

Karet

1/5

1/3

1/1

1/4

Teh

1/1

1/2

4/1

1/1

1-38

Memilih Komoditi
Agroindustri 1.00

Bahan Baku
0.3196

Pemasaran
0.5584

Teknologi
Proses 0.1220

Minyak Sawit
(0.1160)

Minyak Sawit
(0.3790)

Minyak Sawit
(0.3010)

Cokelat (0.2470)

Cokelat (0.2900)

Cokelat (0.2390)

Karet (0.0600)

Karet (0.0740)

Karet (0.2120)

Teh (0.5700)

Teh (0.2570)

Teh (0.2480)

Gambar : Hasil Akhir Seluruh Bobot

1-39

Dari hasil analisa di atas, maka jawaban dapat kita peroleh dengan
jalan mengalikan matrik nilai eigen dari alternatif dengan matrik bobot
matrik:
Bahan Baku

Pemasaran

Teknologi
Proses

Bobot Kriteria

Minyak Sawit

0.1160

0.3790

0.3010

0.3196

Cokelat

0.2470

0.2900

0.2390

0.5584

Karet

0.0600

0.0740

0.2120

0.1220

Teh

0.5770

0.2570

0.2480

1-40

Hasilnya :
Minyak Sawit : 0.3060
Cokelat

: 0.2720

Karet

: 0.0940

Teh

: 0.3280

Jadi rangking yang diperoleh :

Teh

: 0.3280

Minyak Sawit : 0.3060

Cokelat

: 0.2720

Karet

: 0.0940
1-41

Consistency Ration (CR)

Consistency Ratio merupakan parameter yang digunakan untuk
memeriksa apakah perbaikan berpasangan telah dilakukan dengan
kosekwen atau tidak.
Penentuan parameter ini dapat dilakukan dengan proses sebagai
berikut, misalnya kita akan menghitung CR untuk kriteria bahan baku
pada contoh diatas:
Bahan Baku

Minyak Sawit

Cokelat

Karet

Teh

Minyak Sawit

1/1

1/4

4/1

1/6

Cokelat

4/1

1/1

4/1

1/4

Karet

1/4

1/4

1/1

1/5

Teh

6/1

4/1

5/1

1/1

1-42

Dari nilai faktor (nilai eigen) dari kriteria bahan baku

adalah:
Minyak Sawit

: 0.1160

Cokelat

: 0.2470

Karet

: 0.0600

Teh

: 0.5770

Kita dapat Weighted Sum Vector dengan jalan mengalikan ke dua

matrik tsb.
1/1

1/4

4/1

1/6

0.1160

0.5139

4/1

1/1

4/1

1/4

0.2470

1.0953

1/4

1/4

1/1

1/5

6/1

4/1

5/1

1/1

0.0600
0.5770

1-43

0.2662
2.5610

Kemudian kita menghitung Consistency Vector dengan menentukan

nilai rata-rata dari weighted sum vector:
0.5139 / 0.1160 4.4303
1.0953 / 0.2470
0.2662 / 0.0600

4.4342
=

2.5610 / 0.5770

4.4358
4.4385

Nilai rata-rata dari Consistency Vector adalah

: = (4.4303 + 4.4342 + 4.4358 + 4.4385) / 4 = 4.4347
Nilai Consistency Index dapat dihitung dengan menggunakan rumus
:
CI = ( - n) / (n 1) ; n : banyak alternatif
= (4.4347 4) / (4 1)
= 0.1449
1-44

AHP Hierarchy for R&D Project Selection

Future of the Firm

Goal

Criteria

Technical

SubCriteria

Ratings
(for each
SubCriterion)

Marketing

Financial

Manufacture

Regulatory Compliance
Development Cost
Prob. of Tech. Success
R&D and Eng. Resources
Development Time
Patent Position

Capability to Market
Market Growth
Market Share
Market Potential
Customer Acceptance

NPV
Capital Invest
ROI
Unit Cost

Capability to Manufacture
Facility/Equp. Req.
Safety

Outstanding
Above Average
Average
Below Average

Outstanding
Above Average
Average
Below Average

Outstanding
Above Average
Average
Below Average

Outstanding
Above Average
Average
Below Average

P1

.....

P2

P99

This approach for R&D project selection has been and is currently being used by a hypothetical firm,
Novatech, Inc., which manufacturers and sells a line of fertilizers.
(see Golden, G.L. (eds), Analytic Hierarchy Process - Applications and studies, 1989, Springer-Verlag. p. 82-99.)

1-45

A Complete Hierarchy to Level of Objectives

At what level should the Dam be kept: Full or Half-Full

Focus:
Decision
Criteria:

Financial

Political

Decision
Makers:

Congress

Dept. of Interior

Factors:

Groups
Affected:
Objectives:
Alternatives:

Clout

Legal Position

Farmers

Irrigation

Envt Protection

Courts

Potential
Financial
Loss

Recreationists

Flood Control

State

1-46

Lobbies

Archeological
Problems

Irreversibility
of the Envt

Power Users

Flat Dam

Half-Full Dam

Social Protection

Environmentalists

White Dam

Full Dam

Current
Financial
Resources

Cheap Power

Protect
Environment

Whom to Marry - A Compatible Spouse

Flexibility

Psychological
Communication
& Problem Solving
Family & Children
Temper

Independence

Growth

Physical

Challenge

Commitment

Socio-Cultural

Food

Sociability

Shelter

Finance

Sex

Understanding

Humor

Philosophical

CASE 1:

Marry

Housekeeping

Theology

Sense of Beauty
& Intelligence

Not Marry

Loyalty

CASE 2:

Campbell

Graham

McGuire

1-47

Aesthetic

World View

Security
Affection

Intelligence

Faucet

Future of Soviet Union

Exercise in May 1990

FOCUS:
TIME HORIZON:

Technology

FORCES:

POLICIES

OBJECTIVES

ACTORS:

Short-Term

Communist
Party
Hard Liners

Mid-Term

Economy

Mikhail
Gorbachev

People of
Russia

Long-Term

International
Affairs

Religion

People of
Baltic
Republics

People of
C. Asia
Republics

People of
Caucacus
Republics

Internal
Politics

Nationalities

Boris
Yeltzin

Western
World
Countries

Insiders
A.1

A.2

A.3

Policies

SCENARIOS:

B.1

B.2

B.3

B.4

B.5

B.6

Policies

C.1

C.2

D.1
D.3

C.3

Policies

Peaceful Break-up of Soviet

Union; Negotiated
& Constitutional Independence
(.34)

Rest of
World

Outsiders
D.2
D.4

E.1

E.2

F.2

F.3

D.5

Policies

F.1

Policies

Power Sharing
(.46)

1-48

Policies

G.1

G.2

G.3

Policies

H.1

H.2

H.3

H.4

H.5

H.6

Policies

Violent Break-up
Civil Wars Terrorism
Brutal Repression
(.20)

I.1

I.2

I.3

I.4

Policies

Should U.S. Sanction China? (Feb. 26, 1995)

BENEFITS
Protect rights and maintain high Incentive to
make and sell products in China (0.696)

Yes .80
No .20

Rule of Law Bring China to

responsible free-trading 0.206)

Help trade deficit with China

(0.098)

Yes .60
No .40

Yes .50
No .50

No 0.271

Yes 0.729

COSTS
$ Billion Tariffs make Chinese products
more expensive (0.094)

Yes .70
No .30

Retaliation
(0.280)

Being locked out of big infrastructure

buying: power stations, airports (0.626)

Yes .90
No .10

Yes 0.787

Yes .75
No .25

No 0.213

RISKS
Long Term negative competition
(0.683)

Yes .70
No .30

Effect on human rights and

other issues (0.200)

Yes .30
No .70
Yes 0.597

Result:

Benefits
Costs x Risks

Harder to justify China joining WTO

(0.117)

YES

.729
.787 x .597

Yes .50
No .50
No 0.403

= 1.55

1-49

NO

.271
.213 x .403

= 3.16

Group Decision Making

and the
Geometric Mean
Suppose two people compare two apples and provide the judgments for the larger
over the smaller, 4 and 3 respectively. So the judgments about the smaller relative
to the larger are 1/4 and 1/3.

Arithmetic mean
4+3=7
1/7 1/4 + 1/3 = 7/12
Geometric mean
4 x 3 = 3.46
1/ 4 x 3 = 1/4 x 1/3 = 1/ 4 x 3 = 1/3.46
That the Geometric Mean is the unique way to combine group judgments is a
theorem in mathematics.
1-50

METODE PENILAIAN DENGAN

AHP
Perbandingan Alternatif A, B, C, D
Misalnya pada kasus
Alternatif A :
Alternatif B :
Alternatif C :
Alternatif D
:
A

1
-

3
1

5
4

1/7
7

1-51

 Penggabungan Matrik Individu

NG (ij) =

N (ij) x N
1

N1 (ij) =

1
-

5
1
-

7
4
1

NG (ij) =

1
-

5
1
-

(ij) x x Ne(ij)

N2 (ij) =

1-52

1
-

5
1
-

4
2
1

A. Struktur Hierarki dan Prioritas Penanggulangan Krisis Ekonomi Jilid Dua

Penanggulangan Krisis Ekonomi
Jilid Dua

Level 0 :
Fokus

Nilai
Tukar
Rupiah
10.7 %

Level 1 :
Faktor

Level 2
Tujuan

Level
3
Strategi

Harga Minyak
Dunia
6.4 %

Hutang
Pemerintah
9.9 %

Ketahanan Ekonomi
Nasional
70.6%

Privatisasi
BUMN
13.8 %

Kebijakan
Pemerintah
17.7%

Kepemimpinan
Nasional
22.3 %

Penegakan
Hukum
33 %

Citra danKredibilitas
Internasional
29.4%

Liberalisasi
Perdagangan
19.3 %

1-53

Rekapitalisasi
Perbankan Jilid
Dua
15.8 %

Pemberdayaan
Ekonomi Rakyat /
Sektor Riil
51.1%

B. Struktur Hierarki dan Prioritas Manajemen Krisis Pengangguran

Level 0 :
Fokus

Penanggulangan Ledakan
Pengangguran

Pasar
Tenaga
Kerja
14.4 %

Level 1 :
Faktor

Level 2
Tujuan

Level
3
Strategi

Pendidikan &
Keterampilan
Tenaga Kerja
24.3 %

UMR
10.5%

Regulasi
Ketenagakerjaan
& Indag
10.7 %

Pertumbuhan
Ekonomi
39.9 %

Pembangunan
Infrastruktur
28.6 %

Sumberdaya
Alam
10.6 %

Sumberdaya
Finansial
13.9 %

Pemerataan
Sumberdaya Ekonomi
60.1 %

Pemberdayaan
Usaha Mikro &
Kecil
51.3 %

1-54

Investasi
Swasta &
PMA
20.1 %

Penegakan
Hukum
15.6%

PENGEMBANGAN
AGROINDUSTRI

FOKUS

FAKTOR

Sumberdaya
Manusia
(28,79 %)

AKTOR

TUJUAN

ALTERNATIF

Pemerintah
(17,62 %)

Perluasan
Lapangan
Pekerjaan
(20,48 %)

Sumberdaya
Alam
(16,52 %)

Petani
(20,21 %)

Modal
(16,13 %)

Pemasaran
(12,13 %)

Sarana dan
Prasarana
(6,28 %)

Kebijakan
Pemerintah
(20,15 %)

Pengusaha
(16,94 %)

Koperasi
(18,23 %)

Perbankan
(13,00 %)

Pedagang
(13,99 %)

Perluasan
Pasar
(28,09 %)

Peningkatan
Daya Saing
(14,14 %)

Mempertahankan dan Memperkuat

Agroindustri yang telah ada
(45,90 %)

1-55

Peningkatan
Pendapatan
(25,44 %)

Pembangunan
Daerah
(11,85 %)

Menciptakan suasana yang medukung

tumbuhnya Agroindustri Baru
(54,10 %)

Hirarki Penentuan Strategi Peningkatan Kualitas Teh

STRATEGI PENINGKATAN KUALITAS TEH

FOKUS

FAKTOR

AKTOR

TUJUAN

STRATEGI

KUALITAS HARAPAN
PELANGGAN

KINERJA KEBUN

SINDER KEBUN

ADMINISTRATUR

PENINGKATAN
HARGA TEH

DIREKSI

KPB

PENINGKATAN
PANGSA PASAR

ISO 9000

TQM

PEMERINTAH

PELANGGAN

PENURUNAN JUMLAH TEH YANG

TIDAK TERJUAL

HACCP

Hirarki Penentuan Strategi Peningkatan

Kualitas Teh

1-56

PROSES PRODUKSI