Performance Assessment and Evaluation Ofcurving Ma

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT e-ISSN 2477-6025
INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM VOL. 6 NO. 1 YEAR 2018 DOI 10.21776
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF CURVING

MACHINE OPERATOR AT PT.XYZ USING ANALYTICAL
HIERARCHY PROCESS(AHP)
AND RATING SCALE
Muhammad Rusdi
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Universitas Brawijaya Malang
Abstract PT. XYZ is a company engaged in manufacturing the defense and security products for military and
commercial, which consists of 20% of military products and 80% of commercial products. This study aims to
determine the performance assessment of the curving machineoperators in PT.XYZ. Previously, the system of
operator's performance assessment has an incomplete criterion that is less likely to reflect actual operator
performance and the absence of reference data for annual bonus sharing. To get an accurate operator
performance, then conducted an assessment based on the Spencer competency owned by each operator. The
dimensions of this assessment are based on objective and subjective judgments. Research data were collected
by observation and filling out the questionnaire.Then, data were analyzed using Expert Choice software. The
method of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was chosen in accordance with the research problems and
objectives. After obtaining the final result of weight of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the next
performance assessment was done by integration with Rating Scale method. The results show that there is a
difference in the measurement of performance evaluation of the prior and new method, this is due to
additionalcriteria taken into the new assessment, including absenteeism (presence), quantity of work, work
quality, work safety, teamwork, and so forth.
Keywords:Performance assessment of plant operator, Spencer competency, Analitycal Hierarchy Proces

(AHP), Rating Scale
1.Introduction
Generally, there are three factors or maintain the quality of products to provide
obstacles that often faced by manufacturing satisfactory service for customers. Currently,
companies, including human factor, PT. XYZ has a problem related to the
machine,and environment. Human resource assessment of plant operator performance.
is an important factor that determines the The current performance assessment has
success of achieving the company’s goals, incomplete assessment criteria so that it is
both as the executor and the decision making. less able to reflect the actual operator
Existing human resources must first be performance and the absence of reference
processed and developed so that it can be a data for annual bonus sharing for the operator
potential that supports the development of the with exceeds expectations. Operators with
company, especially in creating skilled and the assessment result of meets expectations,
qualified human resources. Therefore, it is and improvement desired and unsatisfactory
necessary to evaluate the performance of the performance equally get the annual bonus.
company to determine the competence of The assessment is subjective based on the
existing resources. superior's assessment only. In addition,the
PT. XYZ is a company engaged in objectivecriteria arenot described in detail,
manufacturing defense and security products the operating and maintenance criteria, these
for military and commercial purposes, which criteria become general for all machines,
consists of 20% of military products and 80% whereas each machine has different operating
commercial products. In the implementation and maintenance methods. The assessment
of high production, PT. XYZ strives to becomes ambiguous since it is not focused on
the operator's ability to maintain the machine,
* Corresponding author. Email:[email protected] especially when it is specified to a particular
Published online at http://Jemis.ub.ac.id
Copyright ©2018 JTI UB Publishing. All Rights Reserved
machine type. This will affect the
Cite this Article As ……….

Paper Submitted :July, 13th 2018
Paper Published : Okt, 11th 2018
46
determination of appropriate actions to

improve the operator's
performance.Furthermore, there is no
assessment of quantity and quality of work,
hence this requires more objective
assessment with some appropriate criteria.If
the performance standards or calculations
have nothing to do with the work, the Fig. 1 Curving machine
evaluation can lead to inaccuracies or regular
results, triggering unhealthy relationship There are two criteria of performance
between operators, and minimize the same assessment, namely the objective measures
good job opportunities. which include a quantity of work, quality of
This research was conducted in the work, attendance and safety [1], and
production department of the curving assessment criteria based on subjective
machineat PT. XYZ. The following table measures described in Spencer competency.
provides the data comparison between the Spencer competency is chosen because it is
operators and the machines. in accordance with the competencies shown
by PT. XYZ in assessing operator
Table 1. The Number Of Operator And
Production Machine
performance, and in accordance with the
No Position Number of Number of
criteria listed on the subjective size (table 1).
Operator Machines The subjective measures are used in
1 Stretching 30 5 performance assessment because there are
Machine some things in a person that can not be
2 Cutting 18 3 measured by numbers, such as skill,
Machine initiative, leadership, and so forth. Therefore,
3 Curving 38 8 the complete combination of objective and
machine subjective measures is expected to establish
4 Boring 18 3 the better performance assessment, especially
Machine when there are unexpected circumstances that
5 Lathe 24 4
can not be controlled by the company. The
Machine
7 Washing 18 2 score determination in PT.XYZ is described
Machine in the table 2.
8 Burning 18 2
Machine Table 2. Score determination
8 Visual 9 3 Type Score Class Interpretation
Machine A 80-100 Exceed Expectation
Total 169 30 B 70-79 Meets Expectation
C 65- 69 Improvement Desired
The selection of the curving machine D < 65 Unsatisfactory
operator is based on several reasons, Performance
including the whole process in production,
the ability in operating the curving machine, The criteria for each assessment has a
accuracy in the reading of the specification, different level of interest, therefore, the
and considering the long duration required researchers implemented the Analytic
for bending process compared to the other Hierarchy Process (AHP) method for
processes. weighting each criterion. AHP is a method
for decision making that develop by Saaty [2,
3, 4]. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is
chosen in accordance with research problems
and objectives. Some examples of the
application of AHP are the determination of
an item or equipment that is appropriate in a

47
construction [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. The advantage of

using the AHP method is that analysis can be
carried out systematically and simply on
factors that are tangible and intangible [10,
11]. The implementation of the method is
expected to solve the complex problem
regarding the relationship between
objectives, criteria, sub-criteria,and
alternatives by structuring the hierarchy of
criteria in the assessment. Furthermore, the
design of performance assessment with
Rating Scale method is expected to be a
solution in making the right decision based
on the results of an objective assessment.
2.Method
The research was conducted at PT.XYZ,
especially in the production department of
the curving machine. This study focused on
the calculation and weighting the competency
criteria and designing the performance
assessment. The investigation will be
obtained on the operators of curving machine
at PT. XYZ, which has the number of 38
operators. The procedures of this research are
described in the following chart at fig. 2.
The variable in this research is Spencer
Competency. This study used 2 types of
questionnaires; questionnaire for determining
the assessment criteria of importance level
and questionnaire for weighting the criteria
by using Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP) with pairwise comparison scale.
3. Result And Discussion

3.1 Assessment Criteria of Ofcurving Fig. 2 Research Procedures
Machine Operator Performance
The assessment criteria of the operator's 3.1.1 Objective Assessment Criteria
performance refer to some references, The criteria for assessment of the
discussions and the questionnaires forthe operator performance based on objective
company (PT.XYZ). The criteria for the measure refers to several criteria [1],
assessment of operator performance are made includingabsenteeism (presence), quantity of
based on the objective and subjective work, work quality, and work safety.
measures. Objective assessment relates to the Determinationwas done by discussion with
operator's work, and subjective the Junior General Manager of
assessmentrelates to the Spencer productiondepartment. The objective
Competency. measures forthe assessment are shownin
Table 3.

48
Table 3 Assessment Criteria of Operator 3.2.1 Weighting the Assessment Criteria

Performance Based on Objective The weighting of assessment criteria
Measures was done by using AnalyticalHierarchy
No Criteria Assessment Process (AHP) method to determine the
1 Abseenteism(Presence) 1.Work 2.Permit
3.Sick 4.Absent
priority of both objective and subjective
criteria.
2 Work environment Average percentage
of monthly 3.2.1.1 Weighting the Criteria of Objective
production of
Assessment
machinery per
month with monthly Objective measures include four criteria;
production target the absenteeism, the quantity of work, the
during the period of quality of work, and workplace accidents.
assessment. The weighting criteria arebased on
3 Work quality Average percentage
of the number of
theAnalytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
defects in machinery method by performing pairwise comparison
products per month between each criterion using Expert Choice
during the appraisal program.
period.
4 Work safety Injury severity.
Table 4 The Result of Paired Assessment
Comparison on the Objective
3.1.2Subjective Assessment Criteria Measures
The criteria for assessment of operator No. Comparison Between Assessment
performance based on subjective measures Objective Measures Result
[12], which is tailored to the needs and 1 Absenteeism: Work 8
conditions in PT. XYZ. Identification of quantity
assessment criteria was conducted by 2 Absenteeism: Work 7
discussing and filling questionnaires by quality
Junior Manager. The result was the 3 Absenteeism: Work safety 1/8
determination of 16 performance criteria that 4 Work quantity:Work 8
quality
is achievement orientation, concern for order,
5 Work quantity:Work 1/8
initiative, information seeking, interpersonal safety
understanding, customer service orientation, 6 Work quality:Work safety 1/8
relationship building, developing others,
teamwork, analytical thinking, conceptual The weight of each criterion serves to
thinking, expertise, self-control, self- determine thepriority order of each criterion
confidence, flexibility, and organizational that influences the operator performance
commitment assessment. In determining the priority,
weights are distributed between the sum of
3.2 Data Analysis all relative weights by the number of criteria
Data processing and analysis are in the objective measures.
including three stages. The first stage is to
weight each objectiveand subjective criterion Table 5. Weighting priority on each criteria
with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Objective Measures Weighting Result
method. The second stage is to determine the
Abseenteism 0,085
scale of assessment for each objective and
Work Safety 0,029
subjective criterion for making the new
Work Quantity 0,237
performance assessment system. Finally, the
Work Quality 0,650
last step is to compare the result of the prior
and the new performance assessment.
Table 5 showsthat the quality of work
has the greatest weight of 0.650, followed by

49
the quantity of work (0.237), absenteeism expertise is the most important competence
(0.085), and work safety (0.029). and flexibility is the competence with the
3.2.1.2 Weighting the Criteria of Objective lowest interest in assessing operator
Assessment performance.
Subjective measuresinclude 16 of the
Spencer competency, the criterion is 3.2.1.3 Comparison of Objective and
weighted based on the method ofAnalytical Subjective Criteria
Hierarchy Process (AHP) by performing a The Junior Manager of production
pairwise comparison between each criterion department considered that the objective
using the Expert Choice program. measureshave a weight of 0.5 and the
The matrix of pairwise comparison of subjective size has 0.5. The same weight
the subjective measure can be seen in Figure between objective and subjective measuresis
4. It is known that three criteria with the due to both sizes having the same importance
greatest weight are Expertise, Customer in assessing one's performance. The method
Service Orientation, and Organizational of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is
Commitment, with the score of 0.148, 0.127 used only for weighting each criterion in
and 0.90, respectively. The criteria with the objective and subjective criteria.
lowest weight were Flexibility, which
showed by the score 0.022. Therefore,
Fig. 3 Result of weighting the criteria of objective assessmentusing Expert Choice
Fig. 4 The matrix of paired comparison of subjective measures

50
Based on the table 4 and table 5, it is Table 6 Weighting Priority Of Each Subjective
known that the objective criteria with the Criteria
highest score are Work Quality (0.650). Criteria of Weighti Criteria of Weighti
Meanwhile, the subjective criteria with the Subjective ng Subjective ng
highest score wereExpertise (0.148). The Measures Priority Measures Priority
weight of each criterion that has been Expertise 0,148 Developing 0,049
Others
obtained will be used for scoring. The score
Costumer 0,127 Concern 0,048
will be multiplied by the weight of each Service For Order
criterion in order to determine the difference Orientation
between the results of the criteria. The Organizatio 0,090 Analitical 0,045
addition of the weight of each criterion is nal Thinking
expected to make the performance Commitme
assessment more objective. nt
Achievemen 0,082 Self 0,041
3.2.2 Determining the Assessment Scale t Confidence
The scoring stage of the performance Orientation
Team work 0,078 Information 0,034
appraisal refers to a Rating Scales Rating
Seeking
Rating model with five rating scales. The size Relationshi 0,065 Interperson 0,032
of the appraisal is adjusted according to how p Building al
the company judges the operator The Understand
assessment scale for objective and subjective ing
measures is useful in the creation of a new Initiative 0,058 Conceptual 0,028
performance appraisal system as a guideline Thinking
for assessment measures. With a clear Self control 0,052 Flexibility 0,022
assessment scale, it is expected that Junior
Manager's assessment of the operator will 2. Quantity of Work
refer to the size guidelines so that the results In the quantity of work, the output calculated
are more objective. on the bending process is the component.The
process of bending component is using 6
3.2.2.1 Determining the Scale of Objective types of machines;1 unit of 5.56 mm caliber
Measures machine (INT), 1 unit of 5.56 mm caliber
1. Absenteeism (Presence) machine (EXT), 1 unit of 9 mm caliber
The value of absenteeism is obtained machine, 1 unit of Caliber 2 TJ Machine, 1
from absentee recaps that have been done by unit of RECT Hall Rooks Machine OP, and 1
the personnel department. The Company unit of Hall Docking Machine D. The
determines that the attendance of all company determines the number of
employees and operators is only calculated components to process dents every 2 months,
on the basis of attendance or absence. in accordance with the total number of units
Operators with personal permission, sickness, to be produced for both make to stock and
loss to follow-up, and delays of more than 15 make to order products. The production
minutes without notice will be counted not target per day in the bending process is
present. 650,000 items. The component that has been
Based on Table 7, it can be seen that successfully processed will proceed to the
workers with 0 absence will get an next stages.
assessment scale of 5.If the absence is
between 1 to 5 days, then the assessment
scale is 4. If between 6 to 10 days, the
assessment scale is 3.If 11 to 15 the days, the
assessment scale is 2. Finally, if the absence
is between 15 and 18 days, the assessment
scale will be 1.

51
Table 7 Assessment Scale of the Absenteeism Month Target Output % %

Assessment Number of Description Achieve Annual
Scale Absenteeism ment Achieve
(Days) ment
5 0 Very Good, mber .000 .000
Discipline in Oktob 15.000 14.950 99.66
compliance with er .000 .000
high attendance Novem 15.000 14.700 98
order. ber .000 .000
4 1 s.d 5 Good,The Desem 15.000 15.000 100
attendance ber .000 .000
amount is within
reasonable limits. Example of the calculation percentage of
3 6 s.d 10 Enough.The achievement for January to December, for 12
number of months (Year) is:
absences is due to
% Achievement of the team in January =
illness and
permission. x100 = x100 = 98.6%
2 (11 s.d 15) Poor.Total
absenteeism is
% Achievement of the team in a year
due to illness,
consent, and loss
(January–December)
8 1
to follow-up. It =
needs action from
superiors. = 98.909%
1 15 s.d ≥ 18 Very Poor.Total After determining the quantity of work
absenteeism is calculation, then get the rating scale by using
due to illness, interpolation. The Company determines the
consent, and loss minimum production of 90%. Here are the
to follow-up. It scales for the assessment of work quantity
needs action from criteria.
superiors.
If the worker fulfills more than 100% of
production target, the worker will get the
Table 8 Calculation of Work Quantity
rating scale 5, if between 96.25% -99.99%,
Month Target Output % %
workers will get the rating scale of 4, if
Achieve Annual
ment Achieve between 92.5% -96.24% workers will get a
ment rating scale of 3, if between 88.75% -
Janua 14.500 14.300 98.6 92.49%, workers will get a scale of 2, and if
ri .000 .000 between 88.74% to less than 85%, workers
Febru 12.500 12.350 98.8 will get a rating scale of 1.
ari .000 .000
Maret 14.000 13.650 97.5 Table 9 Assessment Scale Kriteria Kuantitas
.000 .000 Kerja
April 13.750 13.650 99.27 98.909 Measurement Assessment Interpretation
.000 .000 Scale Calculation
Mei 13.000 13.000 100 (%)
.000 .000 5 ≥1 Very Good
Juni 10.000 97.5 4 96.25 s.d Good
.000 9.750. 99.99
000 3 92.5 s.d 96.24 Poor
Juli 14.500 14.300 98.62 2 88.75 s.d Very Poor
.000 .000 92.49
Agust 14.500 14.350 98.96 1 ≥ 85 s.d 88.74 Intolerable
us .000 .000
Septe 13.000 13.000 100
3. Quality of Work

52
The calculation of the work quality is Month Target Numb % %

obtained from the recap of defective er of Defe Defe
components from the curving process. Defect ct ct in
Defects caused by an operator will be the s a
responsibility of the team, hence the Year
assessment will be the same for each member machineRiks
a Hall OP)
of the team. The data of target and defects
July-August 1.611.1 19444 1.20
obtained per 2 months of machining. The (Curving 11 6
following table showed the calculation of machineRiks
work quality from January to December a Hall D)
2017. September- 1.555.5 2777 0.17
Here is the example of the calculations October 55 8
of achievements from January to December (Curving
2017 (one year):. machineCali
% defectin January dan February= ber 9 mm)
November- 1.666.6 16666 0,99
December 66 9
% defectin 12months (1 Year) = (Curving
machine
Calliber 2
After determining the quality of work, TJ)
then cothe ntinue the information scale by
using interpolation. Maximum defect per Table 11 Assessment scale of work performance
workstation is 10%. Here are the scales for criteria
the assessment of work quality. Assessment Assessment Unit Interpretation
Based on Table 11, workers will get a Scale (%)
scale of 5 if the defect is 0%. The score is 4 if 5 0 Very Good
the defect is only 0-2.5%. Furthermore, 4 0.01 s.d 2.5 Good
between 2.5% to 5% of defects, workers will 3 2.51 s.d 5 Enough
2 5.01 s.d 7.5 Poor
get the 3, and between 5% sd 7.5% of
1 7.51 s.d >10 Very Poor
defects, the score is 2. Finally, defect ranging
from 7.5 to more than 10% will cause the
workers to get 1. 4. Safety of Work
The data on safety was obtained from the
Table 10 Work Quality Calculation record of accidents in the work environment.
Month Target Numb % % Frequent work accidents are including hand
er of Defe Defe pinched or scratched due to lack of focus
Defect ct ct in during the process. The accident is
s a categorized in the type of minor accident if
Year there is no injuries occur. Otherwise, if the
January- 1.500.0 11111 0,74 accident cause injury, then it is categorized
February 00 1 inmoderate accident. In addition,it is
(Curving important to investigate whether the accident
machine is caused by the engine error or human error.
Calliber 5,56 Operators who often experience work
mm (INT)) 0,79
accidents due to human error will get
March-April 1.541.6 8333 0,54 1
(Curving 66 1 supervision and further action from
machine companies, such as training about machinery
Calliber 5,56 and training of occupational safety and
mm (EXT)) health.
May- 1.277.7 13888 1,08
June(Curvin 77 6
g

53
Table 12 Assessment scale of work safety there are five criteria that will be converted to
Assessment Injury Severity Work Days the criteria fromSpencer competency. Table
Scale 13 converts the prior criteria into the new
5 Not significant. Not causing criteria.
Events do not cause lost
harm or injury to workdays. Table 13 The conversion of subjective criteria
humans. Accuracy No New criteria No Old criteria
and caution when
1 Expertise 1 Abilityto
working high.
maintain the
4 Small. It results in Can still
machine and
minor injuries, work on the
operation
minor losses and no same day.
2 Costumer Service 2 Abilityto instruct
serious impact on
Orientation the work process
production
3 Organizational 3 Quality standard
continuity.
Commitment in the area
3 Medium. Moderate Lost
4 Achievement 4 Loyalty and
injuries and working
Orientation dedication for
hospitalization, no days under
the work
permanent disability, 3 days.
5 Team work 5 Initiative and
moderate financial
will
loss.
6 Relationship
2 Serious. Causes Lost
Building
severe injuries and working
7 Initiative
permanent days 3 days
disabilities and large or more. 8 Self-control
financial losses and 9 Developing
has a serious impact Others
on production 10 Concern For
continuity. Order
1 Disaster. Causing Losing the 11 Analytical
the death toll and working Thinking
severe loss can even day forever. 12 Self Confidence
stop the business 13 Information
forever. Seeking
Based on Table 3.10 ,if the accident 14 Interpersonal
does not cause injury, the operator will get Understanding
5.If it is a minor injury, the operator will get 15 Conceptual
4.If the accident causesmoderate injury, Thinking
operator will get a scale of 3. Furthermore, 16 Flexibility
severe injuries and permanent disability will
get a rating scale of 2, and if the accident Some criteria from the old assessment
causes death, the operator will get the score are aligned with the criteria on Spencer
of 1. competency. Thus the design does not
eliminate the criteria that have been used
3.2.2.2 Determining the Assessment Scale before but improve it with the criteria from
of Subjective Measures Spencer competency. Table 3.14 shows the
The assessment of operator performance scale of the subjective assessment. Especially
was based on subjective measures using for expertise competency, there is an addition
Spencer competency that included 16 of criteria for the type of curving machine.
competencies. The assessment of the rating This is due to expertise competency
scale refers to the assessment dimension of assessment is done based on the operator's
Spencer's competencies but with few changes ability or expertise about the machine. This
based on the discussions with the personnel merger serves to make the new scoring
and Junior Manager. In the prior assessment, model in more detail.

54
3.2.2.3 Differences in Results of Prior 3.2.2.4 The Differences of Prior and New
Performance Assessment and the New Performance Assessment
Assessment Using AHP and Rating Scales The last difference lies in the results of
The difference is not only in the number both types of scoring systems.
of criteriabut also the scoring scale. The prior
scoring system had 4 types of assessment Table 15 The Differences in Results of Prior and
scales for each category, namely, Exceed New Performance Assessment
Expectation, Meets Expectation, Name Prio Ne Name Prio Ne
r w r w
Improvement Desired, and Unsatisfactory Kasiyan B A Khoirul B A
Performance. Meanwhile, the new M
performance assessment has 5 types of rating Nurul B A Roby B A
scale for each category and category Sihabudin Noer
classification. This amount corresponds to Rochiem C A Agung C B
Yuli P W
the Rating Scales method of Outstanding Arif Kukusu
C B C A
Performance, Exceed Expectation, Meets Hidayatullo
Expectation, Improvement Desired, and h
Unsatisfactory Performance. Sesario C B Yoga C A
Aldis Putra P
Table 14 Differences in scale category of the Faizal Z C C Dwi C A
Afrianto
prior and new assessment
Rizal C C Bagus T C B
Scal New Output Scal Prior Prasetya
e Category (Annu e category
Rizky D C Galih C B
al
Bahtiar Yoga C
Bonus)
Isman C A Rizki C A
A Very Good 100% A Exceed
Mahfud Fauzi P
Outstanding Expectation
Andi C A Saiful C B
Performance
Afrianto Anwar
B Good 85% B Meets
Moch. Aris C B M. C B
Exceed Expectation
M Muflih H
Expectation
Rahmanda C A Wisnu C B
C Enough 60% C
A.H Dimas S
Meets Improvemen
Expectation t Desired Ahmad C B Ennan C C
Saiful H Ristianto
D Poor 40 % D Unsatisfacto
Improvemen ry M. Syukron C B Edi C C
t Desired Performance Santoso
E Very Poor 0% Riyanto C B Adiyta K D C
Unsatisfacto M. Adi C A Aldiki C A
ry Saputro Yudi S.
Performance Suyadi C A Mufti C A
Haikal
Rizki Brian C B Khoimar B A
The table shows that the indicators are A u Z.
different. The prior system had no criteria for Kriswanto C A Doni B A
each criterion, but using only one scale that Pramana
was previously created. There was no
provision from an appraiser, and this will Based on Table 3.13, there was an
provide an appropriate score for non- increase that the average operator who got
technical ability, as the scale created is more the category better than before is shown on
suitable for technical skills. Meanwhile, the the blue, green and orange lines. Operators
new score has the criteria for each criterion, who got 2 times better improvement from the
and the criteria are tailored to that criterion. previous performance category were 13
The addition of this arena will make it easier people, such as Rochiem from category C to
and clearer, also more objective as it is not category A. This increase is due to the new
only based on the assessors only. assessment includes some new criteria that
were not includedin the old assessment, such

55
as absenteeism, work quantity, work quality concern for order, initiative, information
work, work safety, Teamwork, Developing seeking, interpersonal understanding,
others, and so forth. On the absenteeism customer service orientation, relationship
criteria, the operator gets a value of 5, which building, developing others, teamwork,
means the operator never lost any days of analytical thinking, conceptual thinking,
work. In addition, operators also scored high expertise, self-control, self-confidence,
on some subjective measure criteria, flexibility, and organizational commitment).
including Achievement Orientation, The prior scoring system has 4 types of
Relationship Building, Developing Others, assessment scales for each category; Exceed
Teamwork, Team Leadership, Analytical Expectation, Meets Expectation,
Thinking, and Expertise. Improvement Desired, and Unsatisfactory
These results illustrate that the operator Performance. Meanwhile, the new
has a high discipline, is responsible for the performance assessment system has 5 types
job, has leadership skills, and has excellent of rating scale either for each category or for
qualities in the operation of the curving class category determination. This amount
machine. However, There are 4 operators that corresponds to the Rating Scales method of
do not show improvement or still get the Outstanding Performance, Exceed
category C (yellow mark),including operators Expectation, Meets Expectation,
named Faizal Z, Rizal Prasetya, Enan Improvement Desired, and Unsatisfactory
Ristianto, Edi Santoso. This is due to the low Performance.
value on the objective measures, such as on Based on the results of the work
the absenteeism criteria. Operators were assessment, there is a difference between the
absent for at least 3 times. When the operator assessment results with the prior scoring
lost 3 days of work, then thevalue will be 2. system and the new assessment system. The
The low score on absenteeism criteria is prior system showed the result that there
considered the highest priority. In addition, were only 2 operators with “B” category, 3
the low value is also found on the subjective operators with “C” category, and 2 operators
measures for the Initiative criterion, which is with D category. On the other hand, the new
worth 1. The operator does not perform the assessment system revealed that there were
task if not prompted. Both of these results 1 operators with “A” category A, 13
show that the discipline and responsibility of operators in category B, and 6 operators in
the operator to his work are poor, hence the category C. The result differences are due to
results of the assessment indicate is low or the application of additional criteria, such as
categorized in Improvement Desired. The use absenteeism (presence), quantity of work,
of objective and subjective measures allows work quality, work safety, Teamwork, and so
the assessment to see operators better than forth.
others and vice versa so that it can be
considered to determine the amount of annual References
bonus for the operator.
[1] Aamodt, M. G. Industrial/
4. Conclusion Organizational Psychology: An
The new system of performance Appied. Approach. Sixth Edition.
assessment is an improvement of the prior USA : Wadsworth Cencange
scoring system that refers to the objective Learning. 2010.
and subjective measures. The objective
[2] Saaty, T.L. Exploring the Interface
measures are including absenteeism
between Hierarchies, Multiple
(presence), the quantity of work, quality of
Objectives and the Fuzzy Sets. Fuzzy
work, and safety. The measures are used
Sets and Systems, 1, 1978, 57-68.
since the assessment results of the operator's
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0165-
performance can be viewed holistically. The
0114(78)90032-5
subjective measures include 16 Spencer
competencies (achievement orientation,

56
[3] Saaty, Thomas L. Pengambilan [8] Tsung-Han Chang, Tien-Chin Wang.

keputusan bagi para pemimpin Using the fuzzy multicriteria decision
Analitik Untuk Pengambilan making approach for measuring the
Keputusan Dalam Situas Kompleks. possibility of successful knowledge
Seri manajemen No 134. Jakarta : PT. management. International Journal of
Pustaka Binaman Pressindo. 1993. Information Sciences, 2009, Vol. 179,
Issue 4, 355-370.
[4] Rani, Ruzanita M., Wan Rosmanira
dan Mohd Nizam. Operators [9] Hastarini Dwi Atmanti. Analitycal
Evaluation and Allocation in SME’s Hierarchy Process Sebagai Model
Food Manufacturing Company Using Yang Luas. Prosiding Teknik Industri
Analytical Hierarchy Process and UNDIP. Semarang, 2008.
Computer Simulation. International
[10] Skibniewski, M.J. and Chao, L.
Journal of Applied Physics and
Evaluation of Advanced Construction
Mathematics, Vol 4, No 3, 2014, Hal
Technology with AHP Method.
215 – 222.
Journal of Construction Engineering
[5] Aviad Shapira, M.ASCE and Marat and Management, ASCE, 1992, 118,
Goldenberg, “AHP Based Equipment 577-593.
Selection Model for Construction http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)073
Projects”, Journal of Construction 3-9364(1992)118:3(577)
Engineering and Management, 2005,
[11] Mukti, Ayu M., Retro Astuti dan
Vol. 131, No. 12, 1263-1273.
Shyntia Atica P. Penilaian Kinerja
[6] Fikri Dweiri and Faris M. Al-Oqla, Kepala Bagian Produksi dengan
Material selection using analytical Metode ANP dan Rating Scale (Studi
hierarchy process, Int. J. Computer Kasus di PT. Santar Top, Tbk. Waru-
Applications in Technology, , 2006, Sidoarjo). Jurnal Industria, Vol 2, No
Vol. 26, No. 4. 1, 2012, Hal 47 – 56.Malang:Univ.
Brawijaya.
[7] Mohammad H. Vahidnia, Ali A.
Alesheikha and Abbas Ali [12] Spencer, Lyle & Signe M. Spencer.
Mohammadia. Hospital site selection Competence at Work, Models For
using fuzzy AHP and its derivatives, Superior. Performance. Canada : John
Journal of Environmental Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1993.
Management, 2009, Vol. 90, Issue 10,
3048-3056.

57

Performance Assessment and Evaluation Ofcurving Ma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Assessment and Evaluation Ofcurving Ma

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Assessment and Evaluation Ofcurving Ma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT e-ISSN 2477-6025

INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM VOL. 6 NO. 1 YEAR 2018 DOI 10.21776

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF CURVING

Keywords:Performance assessment of plant operator, Spencer competency, Analitycal Hierarchy Proces

Cite this Article As ……….

determination of appropriate actions to

Cite this Article As ……….

construction [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. The advantage of

3. Result And Discussion

Cite this Article As ……….

Table 3 Assessment Criteria of Operator 3.2.1 Weighting the Assessment Criteria

Cite this Article As ……….

Fig. 3 Result of weighting the criteria of objective assessmentusing Expert Choice

Fig. 4 The matrix of paired comparison of subjective measures

Cite this Article As ……….

Cite this Article As ……….

Table 7 Assessment Scale of the Absenteeism Month Target Output % %

Cite this Article As ……….

The calculation of the work quality is Month Target Numb % %

Cite this Article As ……….

Cite this Article As ……….

Cite this Article As ……….

Cite this Article As ……….

[3] Saaty, Thomas L. Pengambilan [8] Tsung-Han Chang, Tien-Chin Wang.

Cite this Article As ……….

You might also like