IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Improvement of the Ability of
Implementation of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory Representation, Reasoning, and Self-
Efficacy of Prospective Mathematics
(MAUT) method for selecting diplomats Teacher Students by Using Learning with
A Scientific Approach
Darta, J Saputra, W Eliyarti et al.
To cite this article: I Taufik et al 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1098 032055 - Problem-based learning for measuring
representation ability
E D Wahyuni, E Susanti, N Sari et al.

- Indecomposable representations of the

Lorentz algebra in an angular momentum
View the article online for updates and enhancements. basis
B Gruber and R Lenczewski

This content was downloaded from IP address 36.76.137.157 on 16/02/2022 at 14:59

The 5th Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1098 (2021) 032055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1098/3/032055

Implementation of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT)

method for selecting diplomats

I Taufik1,*, C N Alam1, Z Mustofa1, A Rusdiana2 and W Uriawan1

1
Department of Informatics, State Islamic University of Sunan Gunung Djati
Bandung, Jl. A.H Nasution 10, Bandung, 40614 Indonesia
2
Department of Islamic Education Management, State Islamic University of Sunan
Gunung Djati Bandung, Jl. A.H Nasution 10, Bandung, 40614 Indonesia

*[email protected]

Abstract. Diplomatic relations between countries increasingly show how important the meaning
of relations between these countries. Representatives are needed in order to establish cooperative
relationships in several fields such as culture, politics, and education. The Ministry of Foreign
Affairs is expected to recommend objective representatives to be placed as foreign diplomats.
Finding suitable representatives and the number of representatives to be dispatched in
accordance with the criteria and rules that apply in the foreign ministry becomes complicated.
With this objective and value-weighted recommendation made, it is easier for superiors in the
ministry to make representative selection. The method used is the Multi Attribute Utility Method
(MAUT) which can make effective and specific selections. Based on the results of testing of 50
sample data to calculate the selection of foreign diplomats using the MAUT method the results
were 94%.

1. Introduction
In international relations, cooperation between countries is absolutely necessary. Because there is no
country in the world that does not depend on other countries [1]. This is done as an instrument of foreign
relations in the implementation of foreign policy, commonly called diplomacy. Diplomacy is conducted
to establish, strengthen, and improve relations between one country and another in order to achieve
common interests by sending an official representative to the recipient country [2]. The recipient country
is the country where the representative is placed. This is closely related to the quality of human resources
(labour) that is right for an organization so that management goals are achieved properly and
appropriately. So this requires the selection of representatives / diplomats in the foreign ministry.The
problem that arises is where the diplomat will fill in the fields / functions needed by the recipient
country. In this case representatives are needed to be assigned based on functions required by the
recipient country [3]. By using some of the required criteria, the problems faced such as the number of
diplomats stationed in several places can be overcome and the process and assessment become objective.
If it is not done, this causes prone to manipulation in terms of valuation and error prone. Based on the
research conducted, it is required good method to solve this problem such as multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM). The paper that we already read for instance multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT).
MAUT analysis incorporates consideration of attributes as can be shown by Samstad et al. some decision
makers might be reluctant to employ formal methods of decision making [4]. The attitude among some

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
The 5th Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1098 (2021) 032055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1098/3/032055

of the decision makers in their study was that the political decision process could not be subjected to
science. It is one of MCDM method used effectively for selecting many criteria. MAUT enables the
decision maker to structure a complex problem in the form of a simple hierarchy and to subjectively
evaluate a large number of quantitative and qualitative factors in the presence of uncertainty [5]. If in
the process of selecting a diplomat assisted by a computerized system, each competency assessment
can be done well. Research conducted by Riadhil Jannah using the Multi Attribute Utility Theory
(MAUT) method has an accuracy rate of testing of 91.57% [6]. Multi-Attribute Utility Theory
(MAUT), proposed by Gunawan and Ramadhan aims to increase accuracy of selection high
performing employees [7]. The major advantage of MAUT is that it takes uncertainty into account.
It can have a utility assigned to it, which is not a quality that is accounted for in many MCDM methods
[8]. Therefore to calculate the assessment in the diplomatic placement process, a method that is
suitable with many criteria is needed to find an alternative with the best results.This work proposes
a decision support system that can reduce the number of subjectivity problems including the application
of the Multi Attribute Utility Theory Method in the experimental phase. Previous methods have been
research related to the use of MAUT method in decision making [9-13]. It is important to note that
MAUT represents one of many different methodologies to analyse decision-making [14,15]. As used,
there are several things that determine the decision making in this selection process as follows the criteria
of each alternative and the level of accuracy.

2. Methodology

2.1. Multi-Attribute Utility Theory

According to Schaefer, the Multi Attribute Utility Theory is a final evaluation scheme, v (x), of an
object x defined as a weight added by a value relevant to its dimension value (utility). MAUT is used
to convert several interests into numerical values on a scale from 0-1 with 0 representing the worst
choice and 1 being the best. This allows direct comparisons of various sizes [16]. The MAUT is used
primarily to solve complex problems that involve the consideration of several criteria in relation to
different outcomes. The decision makers assess the values of the possible outcomes based on utility,
i.e., the relative desirability of each possible outcome [17]. The end result is a ranking order of
alternative evaluations. Evaluation values are entirely defined by the equation:
(1)
Where vi (x) is the evaluation value of an object to i and wi is the weight that determines the value
of how important the element i to other elements. Whereas n is the number of elements. The total
weight is 1.
(2)
For each dimension, the evaluation value vi (x) is defined as the sum of the relevant attributes. Final
equation to produce the best results.

(3)

In Figure 1 is the Multi Attribute Utility Theory flowchart procedure. The domain expertise of the
decision maker is needed in making decisions when using the MAUT; apart from that she must have a
knowledge of the criteria, the value of an alternative available in the data set and the decision maker
must understand the concept of MAUT [18]. In another study it was mentioned that there is a multi-
attribute concept with a similar concept that is AHP. AHP is generally used for prioritizing the various
alternative options available and those options are complex or multi criteria. The basic concept of AHP
is essentially the use of pairwise comparison of matrices to generate weights between criteria and
between alternatives [19]. Comparing AHP with MAUT, it can be stated that while AHP does not
consider uncertainty, MAUT considers uncertainty MAUT is a branch of Multi-Criteria Decision

2
The 5th Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1098 (2021) 032055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1098/3/032055

Analysis (MCDA). MCDA is a structured approach that quantitatively evaluates alternatives in a

decision-making process by considering both indicators and their weighting In MCDA, multiple
indicators can be formally incorporated into an evaluation process. The major steps of MCDA analysis
are: (1) normalization and evaluation of the performance of each indicator (criterion); (2) determination
of the weights representing the priorities for each indicator [20].

Start

Deciding the alternative and criteria

Deciding the weight

Calculating a normalized matrix

Normalization of decision matrix

Addition of multiplication results from

normalization results with criteria weights

Determine the highest value

Finish

Figure 1. Multi Attribute Utility Theory flowchart procedure.

2.2. Software development method

The prototype model is one method of software development that is widely used by developers because
in addition to being simple, this method can also adjust user requirements in detail in making software.
This method is able to offer the best approach in terms of certainty about the efficiency of the algorithm,
the ability to adjust from an operating site or the forms that must be done by human-machine interaction
[21].

3. Results and discussion

This system analysis is a description of a software system and identifies and evaluates the problems of the
needs that are expected so that it can be used as well as possible.

3.1. MAUT analysis

Implementation of the system is to do some analysis of the data needs to be used.

 Alternative Data Analysis. Prospective diplomats will be inputted by the admin.

 Value Data Analysis. The value obtained will be entered in accordance with the criteria and
weight values that have been determined. To find alternatives approach the user desires then to
identifying it as a multiplication predetermined priority scale [22].

The next step is the implementation of the MAUT method in the selection of foreign diplomats:

3
The 5th Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1098 (2021) 032055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1098/3/032055

3.1.1. Deciding the alternatives. Prospective diplomats who are registered, have job criteria that are
in accordance with their needs and competencies as well as predetermined requirements. This is done
because all diplomats will be placed in the destination country on the basis that the diplomatic
recommendation is an assignment from the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

3.1.2. Deciding the weight criteria. The process of assigning weights to these criteria is very much
needed to simplify calculations on the MAUT method. This is done by configuring values. The
following is Table 1 Criteria Configuration Value Table. This criteria data is taken from the foreign
ministry by entering the criteria parameters into a number of weights that have been determined. Each
of these criteria is Position and function, final placement, multiple placements, official education,
expertise, language, and performance values. Each has parameters and weighting values are from 1 to
5. This is done to facilitate the assessment process which is then converted into numerical numbers. This
numeric number will be processed by entering the weight of each value multiplied by the weight of the
preference. Then the next step is normalization. The results of this normalization will be summed and
ranked data. So that the best value will be sorted into the first position. The following are data from the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs with weight values in Table 1 in the configuration of criterion values. We
provide criteria values for all parameters. For quantitative values are given alternatives and change from
several interests into numerical values on a scale from 0-1 with 0 being the worst value and 1 the best
value can be seen in the Table 1.

Table 1. Configuring criteria values.

Weight
Criteria Parameter
Value
Not needed 1.00
needed 2.00
Enough needed 3.00
Title & Function (C1)
Really needed 4.00
Much really needed 5.00
Been there 1.00
Last Placement (C2)
Never been there 2.00
> 4x 1.00
3x 2.00
Number of Placement
2x 3.00
(C3)
1x 4.00
Never 5.00
Didn’t join 1.00
Sekdilu 2.00
Education (C4)
Sesdilu 3.00
Sesparlu 4.00
Is not needed 1.00
needed 2.00
Proficiency (C5) enough needed 3.00
very needed 4.00
much really needed 5.00
Suitable 3.00
Language (C6) Not suitable but master English 2.00
Suitable but not master English 1.00
0 – 29 1.00
30 – 49 2.00
Performance Rating (C7) 50 – 69 3.00
70 – 89 4.00
90 – 100 5.00

4
The 5th Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1098 (2021) 032055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1098/3/032055

Table 2. Preference weight. Table 3. Example calculations.

Preference No. X C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
No. Criteria Percentage
Weight 1 A1 5.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 3.00
1 C1 25 % 5.00 2 A2 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
2 C2 15 % 3.00
3 C3 18% 3.00 3 A3 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
4 C4 20 % 4.00 4 A4 5.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00
5 C5 5% 2.00 5 A5 3.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
6 C6 7% 2.00
7 C7 10 % 3.00 W 5.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 3.00

Giving weights based on the interests of each existing criteria, with the largest weight to the smallest at
intervals of 0-100 like the table above Table 2 Preference Weight. Table 3 is a manual calculation from
the sample data.

Table 4. Example of normalization results.

X C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
1 A1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
2 A2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
3 A3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
4 A4 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
5 A5 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
Weight 5.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 3.00

The next step is to count the matrix normalization:

(4)

𝒙𝒊 ~ Worst value of 𝒙 and 𝒙𝒊+ the best value of 𝒙. The normalization results are in table 4.

(5)

Where V (X) is the evaluation value of an object from i and Wi is the weight that determines the value
of how important i to the other elements. Whereas n is the number of elements. The total weight is 1.
The following Table 5 results of the matrix normalization matrix multiplication from Multy Attribute
Utility Theory. Here is table 5 multiplied matrix & value weights. From Table 5, it will get the ranking
as can be seen in Table 6.

Table 5. Example of the results of the normalization matrix Table 6. Ranking results.
multiplication.
No. Alternative Total Score
No. X C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 Z 1 A4 19
2 A1 14
1 A1 1x5 1x3 0x3 1x4 0x2 1x2 0 x 3 14 3 A5 9
2 A2 0x5 1x3 0x3 1x4 0x2 0x2 0 x3 7 4 A2 7
3 A3 0x5 0x3 0x3 1x4 0x2 0x2 0 x3 4 5 A3 4
4 A4 1x5 0x3 1x3 1x4 1x2 1x2 1 x3 19
5 A5 0x5 1x3 1x3 0x4 0x2 0x2 1 x3 9

5
The 5th Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1098 (2021) 032055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1098/3/032055

3.2. Testing
Calculation of system accuracy is needed to find out the results of the diplomatic election system. The
accuracy of the diplomatic election system = X 100% = 94%. These results are based on testing of
50 test data samples obtained 47 appropriate data, then the diplomatic selection system is valid with an
accuracy rate of 94%. In the test results there are some data that have a difference value that makes the
test different. This is due to the rounding that occurs in the normalization process. This data mismatch
occurs in the final ranking results. This happens between the differences in the calculation of the system
weights with the calculation of manual weights or real data. There are 3 numbers of samples that have
a difference in this test. So that the results of this test are very accurate with an accuracy value of 94%.
Samples taken in this study were taken directly from random foreign ministry data. Of the 50 real data
all of them are in accordance so that the data can be entered into the system to be made. The next step
is to prove the comparison of the accuracy of the system with the manual.

4. Conclusion
There are some conclusions from this study are:

 The implementation of the MAUT method in the system built is able to produce a ranking of
diplomat candidates with a value that can be sorted.
 The level of accuracy of MAUT in the selection process of diplomats can run well and
accurately, so this method is suitable for use in assessments involving many alternatives and
criteria with testing that has been done on system accuracy where manual calculations are
compared with system calculations. The results of testing the accuracy of the system that has
been carried out, namely from 50 test data obtained 47 data that is appropriate so that the
accuracy rate reaches 94%.

References
[1] Kawatak J B 2015 Tugas Kewenangan Perwakilan Diplomatik Indonesia Di Luar Negeri Lex
Adm. Iii(6) 98–105
[2] “Indonesia Tentang Mutasi Luar Negeri,” pp 1–44 Th. 2004
[3] Se-Sekjen Juklak SkMenlu 06 No. 01 Th. 2004
[4] Samstad A, Sundberg L and Larsson A 2019 Assessing Stakeholder Preferences in Urban
Planning-A Multi-Attribute Utility Approach 2019 IEEE International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) (IEEE) pp 1417-1421
[5] Sanayei A, Mousavi S F, Abdi M R and Mohaghar A 2008 An integrated group decision-making
process for supplier selection and order allocation using multi-attribute utility theory and
linear programming Journal of the Franklin institute 345(7) 731-747
[6] Hidayat M and Jusia P A 2018 Analisa dan Perancangan Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Untuk
Penerimaan Karyawan PT Dos Ni Roha Jambi Menggunakan Metode MAUT (Multi Attribute
Utility Theory) 13(1)
[7] Gunawan H and Ramadhan H 2018 Increased accuracy of selection high performing employees
using multi attribute utility theory (MAUT) 2018 6th International Conference on Cyber and
IT Service Management (CITSM) (IEEE) pp 1-4
[8] Velasquez M and Hester P T 2013 An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods
International journal of operations research 10(2) 56-66
[9] Rupprecht F, Schmidt C, Ebert A, Ravani B, Soni V and Van Der Veer G 2017 An approach for
evaluating collaborative software environments based on integration of house of quality with
multi-attribute utility theory 2017 9th International Congress on Ultra Modern
Telecommunications and Control Systems and Workshops (ICUMT) (IEEE) pp 45-54
[10] Feng X, Gu J and Guan X 2018 Optimal allocation of hybrid energy storage for microgrids based
on multi-attribute utility theory Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy 6(1)

6
The 5th Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference (AASEC 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1098 (2021) 032055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1098/3/032055

107-117
[11] Chang W L 2008 Using multi-attribute utility theory to rank and select co-branding partners 2008
Eighth International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications vol 1 (IEEE)
pp 195-200
[12] Kang C C and Feng C M 2009 Risk measurement and risk identification for BOT projects: A
multi-attribute utility approach Mathematical and Computer Modelling 49(9-10) 1802-1815
[13] Poormoaied S and Atan Z 2020 A multi-attribute utility theory approach to ordering policy for
perishable items International Journal of Production Economics 225 107582
[14] Kailiponi P 2010 Analyzing evacuation decisions using multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT)
Procedia Engineering 3 163-174
[15] Darmawan E 2018 C4. 5 Algorithm Application for Prediction of Self Candidate New Students
in Higher Education Jurnal Online Informatika 3(1) 22-28
[16] Jannah R 2015 Aplikasi Penerimaan Karyawan dengan Metode Multi Attribute Utility Theory
SATIN-Sains dan Teknologi Informasi 1(2) 79-89
[17] El-Sawalhi N I and El Agha O 2017 Multi-attribute utility theory for selecting an appropriate
procurement method in the construction projects Multi-Attribute Utility Theory for Selecting
an Appropriate Procurement Method in the Construction Projects 22(1) 75–96
[18] Shanmuganathan M, Kajendran K, Sasikumar A N and Mahendran M 2018 Multi Attribute
Utility Theory–An Over View International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research
9(3) 698-706
[19] Taufik I, Zulfikar W B and Monica F 2001 The Design of Expert System for Social Assistance
and Grant Selection Process Using Analytical Hierarchy Process Criterion 100(1/1) 1
[20] Talukder B and Hipel K W 2016 Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) as a Tool to Develop
Index and Dashboard for Goal 2 of SDGs: A Hypothetical Case Study 2016 International
Conference on Sustainable Development (ICSD) (New York, USA: Columbia University) pp
1-13
[21] Pressman R S 2012 Rekayasa Perangkat Lunak Edisi 7 (Yogyakarta: Andi)
[22] Satria E, Atina N, Simbolon M E and Windarto A P 2018 SPK: Algoritma Multi-Attribute Utility
Theory (Maut) Pada Destinasi Tujuan Wisata Lokal Di Kota Sidamanik Computer
Engineering, Science and System Journal 3(2) 168-172