Modul S7 AHP for Product Strategy

1-1

The Analytic HierarchyProcess (AHP)

for Decision Making

Decision Making involvessetting priorities and the AHPis the methodology for doingthat.

1-2

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?

1-3

Decision MakingWe 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?

1-4

Knowing Less, Understanding More

You don’t need to know every-thing to get to the answer.

Expert after expert missed therevolutionary significance of what Darwin had collected.Darwin, who knew less, somehow understood more.

1-5

Nonmonotonic Relative Nature of Absolute Scales

Good forpreserving food

Bad for preserving food

Good for preserving food

Bad forcomfort

Good forcomfort

Bad forcomfort

100

0

Temperature

1-6

Making a Decision

Widget B is cheaper than Widget A

Widget A is better than Widget B

Which Widget would you choose?

1-7

Basic Decision Problem

Criteria: Low Cost > Operating Cost > Style

Car: A B B V V V

Alternatives: B A A

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

1-8

MCDM SEBAGAI SALAH SATU MODEL DALAM PENGAMBILAN KEPUTUSAN

Tujuan yang akan dicapai

Masalah yang akan diselesaikan

Alternatives alat/rencana/…

Pengambil Keputusan

Kriteria Kinerja

1-9

KOMPONEN KEPUTUSAN

Alternatif Keputusan

Kriteria Keputusan

Bobot Kriteria

Model Penilaian

Model Penghitungan

Tipe Pengambil Keputusan

1-10

AHP

Consistency

Synthesis

Trade-off

Measurement

Hierarchic Structuring

Interdependence:

Judgment and Consensus

Process Repetition

Unity:

Complexity:

AHP Main Features

1-11

MODEL PENILAIAN

• Menggunakan Nilai Numerik (Nyata)

• Menggunakan Nilai Ordinal (Skala)

Misal:

1. Sangat Kurang 4. Baik2. Kurang 5. Sangat Baik3. 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

1-12

Background on AHPTo understand the world we assume that:

We can describe it

We can define relations between its parts and

We can apply judgment to relate theparts according to

a goal or purpose that wehave in mind.

1-13

OptionsConflicts

Objectives

PoliticalFactors Scenarios

Judgments

Criteria

AHPPriorities

Allocations

Weights

Preference Ratios

1-14

GOAL

CRITERIA

ALTERNATIVES

1-15

Power of Hierarchic Thinking

A hierarchy is an efficient way to organize complexsystems. It is efficient both structurally, for represent-ing 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 feedbacknetwork.

1-16

Relative Measurement

In relative measurement a preferencejudgment is expressed on each pair of elements with respect to a common propertythey share.

In practice this means that a pair of elementsin a level of the hierarchy are compared with respect to parent elements to which they relate in the level above.

1-17

If, for example, we are comparing two applesaccording 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.

Relative Measurement cont.

1-18

Comparison MatrixGiven: Three apples of different sizes.

SizeComparison Apple A Apple B Apple C

Apple A S1/S1 S1/S2 S1/S3

Apple B S2 / S1 S2 / S2 S2 / S3

Apple C S3 / S1 S3 / S2 S3 / S3

Apple A Apple B Apple C

We Assess Their Relative Sizes By Forming Ratios

1-19

Pairwise ComparisonsSize


SizeComparison


Apple A 1 2 6 6/10 A

Apple B 1/2 1 3 3/10 B

Apple C 1/6 1/3 1 1/10 C

When the judgments are consistent, as they are here, any normalized column gives the priorities.

ResultingPriority Eigenvector

Relative Sizeof Apple

1-20

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 judgmentwe 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.

1-21

• 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.

Consistency cont.

1-22

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

1-23

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.

1-24

GoalSatisfaction with School

Learning Friends School Vocational College Music Life Training Prep. Classes

School A

School C

School B

1-25

Scale For Pairwise Comparisons

Equal importance

Moderate importance of one over another

Strong or essential importance

Very strong or demonstrated importance

Extreme importance

1-26

1 Equal importance

3 Moderate importance of one over another

5 Strong or essential importance

7 Very strong or demonstrated importance

9 Extreme importance

2,4,6,8 Intermediate values

Use Reciprocals for Inverse Comparisons

Fundamental Scale of Absolute Numbersfor Pairwise Comparisons

1-27

Comparison of Schools with Respectto the Six Characteristics

LearningA B C

Priorities

A 1 1/3 1/2 .16

B 3 1 3 .59

C 2 1/3 1 .25

FriendsA B C

Priorities

A 1 1 1 .33

B 1 1 1 .33

C 1 1 1 .33

School LifeA B C

Priorities

A 1 5 1 .45

B 1/5 1 1/5 .09

C 1 5 1 .46

Vocational Trng.A B C

Priorities

A 1 9 7 .77

B 1/9 1 1/5 .05

C 1/7 5 1 .17

College Prep.A B C

Priorities

A 1 1/2 1 .25

B 2 1 2 .50

C 1 1/2 1 .25

Music ClassesA B C

Priorities

A 1 6 4 .69

B 1/6 1 1/3 .09

C 1/4 3 1 .22

1-28

Benchmark MeasurementInstead 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”.

1-29

Memilih Komoditi Agroindustri

Bahan Baku Pemasaran Teknologi Proses

• Minyak Sawit

• Cokelat• Karet • Teh

Sasaran

Kriteria

• Minyak Sawit


• Minyak Sawit


Alternatif

Gambar : Hubungan sasaran, kriteria dan alternatif dalam AHP

1-30

Nilai Keterangan

1 Sama penting (Equal)

3 Sedikit lebih penting (Moderate)

5 Jelas lebih penting (Strong)

7 Sangat jelas penting (Very Strong)

9 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 ½ 3/1

Pemasaran 2/1 1/1 4/1

Teknologi Proses 1/3 ¼ 1/1

1-31

Penyelesaian untuk contoh diatas (misalnya dengan syarat nilai eigen

sudah tidak berubah sampai 4 angka dibelakang koma):

• Ubah matrik menjadi bilangan desimal:

1.000

2.000

0.333

0.500

1.000

0.250

3.000

4.000

1.000

• Iterasi ke I :Kuadratkan matrik diatas

1.000

2.000

0.333

0.500

1.000

0.250

3.000

4.000

1.000

1.000

2.000

0.333

0.500

1.000

0.250

3.000

4.000

1.000

X

1-32

3.0000

5.3333

1.1666

1.7500

3.0000

0.6667

8.0000

14.0000

3.0000

=

Jumlahkan nilai setiap baris matrik dan hitung nilai hasil normalisasinya:

Jml Baris Hasil Normalisasi

3.0000

5.3333

1.1666

1.750

3.0000

0.6667

8.0000

14.000

3.0000

12.750

22.333

4.8333

12.7500/39.9166 = 0.3194

22.3333/39.9166 = 0.5595

4.8333/39.9166 = 0.1211

Jumlah 39.9166 1.0000

1-33

• Iterasi ke II :Kuadratkan kembali matrik diatas

3.0000

5.3333

1.1666

1.750

3.0000

0.6667

8.0000

14.000

3.0000

3.0000

5.3333

1.1666

1.750

3.0000

0.6667

8.0000

14.000

3.0000

X

27.6658

48.3311

10.5547

15.8330

27.6662

6.0414

72.4984

126.6642

24.6653

=

1-34

Jumlahkan nilai setiap baris matrik dan hitung nilai hasil normalisasinya:

Jml Baris Hasil Normalisasi

27.6658

48.3311

10.5547

15.8330

27.6662

6.0414

72.4984

126.6642

24.6653

115.9967

202.6615

44.2614

0.3196

0.5584

0.1210

Jumlah 362.9196 1.0000

Hitung Perbedaan nilai eigen sebelum dan sesudah nilai eigen sekarang:

0.3196

0.5584

0.1210

0.3194

0.55950.1211

- -

-

=

=

=

- 0.0002

0.0011

- 0.0009

Terlihat bahwa perbedaan tersebut tidak terlalu besar sampai dengan 4 desimal

1-35

• 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

1-36

Memilih Komoditi Agroindustri 1.00

Bahan Baku 0.3196

Pemasaran 0.5584

Teknologi Proses 0.1220

• Minyak Sawit


Sasaran

Kriteria

• Minyak Sawit


• Minyak Sawit


Gambar : Hasil Perhitungan Bobot Kriteria

1-37

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

1-38

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

Misalnya untuk kriteria Pemasaran adalah :

1-39

Memilih Komoditi Agroindustri 1.00

Bahan Baku 0.3196

Pemasaran 0.5584

Teknologi Proses 0.1220

• Minyak Sawit (0.1160)

• Cokelat (0.2470)• Karet (0.0600)• Teh (0.5700)





Gambar : Hasil Akhir Seluruh Bobot

1-40

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

1-41

Hasilnya :

Minyak Sawit

Cokelat

Karet

Teh

: 0.3060

: 0.2720

: 0.0940

: 0.3280

Jadi rangking yang diperoleh :

Teh : 0.3280

Minyak Sawit : 0.3060

Cokelat : 0.2720

Karet : 0.0940

1-42

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

1-43

Dari nilai faktor (nilai eigen) dari kriteria bahan baku adalah:Minyak Sawit

Cokelat

Karet

Teh

: 0.1160

: 0.2470

: 0.0600

: 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 * 0.0600 = 0.2662

6/1 4/1 5/1 1/1 0.5770 2.5610

1-44

Kemudian kita menghitung Consistency Vector dengan menentukan nilai rata-rata dari weighted sum vector:

0.5139 / 0.1160 4.4303

1.0953 / 0.2470 4.4342

0.2662 / 0.0600 = 4.4358

2.5610 / 0.5770 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

1-45

AHP Hierarchy for R&D Project SelectionFuture of the Firm

Marketing FinancialTechnical Manufacture

Regulatory ComplianceDevelopment CostProb. of Tech. SuccessR&D and Eng. ResourcesDevelopment TimePatent Position

Goal

Criteria

Sub-Criteria

Ratings(for eachSub-Criterion)

OutstandingAbove AverageAverageBelow Average

Capability to MarketMarket GrowthMarket ShareMarket PotentialCustomer Acceptance


NPVCapital InvestROIUnit Cost


Capability to ManufactureFacility/Equp. Req.Safety


. . . . . 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.)

1-46

A Complete Hierarchy to Level of ObjectivesAt what level should the Dam be kept: Full or Half-Full

Financial Political Env’t Protection Social Protection

Congress Dept. of Interior Courts State Lobbies

Clout Legal PositionPotentialFinancialLoss

Irreversibilityof the Env’t

Archeo-logical Problems

CurrentFinancial Resources

Farmers Recreationists Power Users Environmentalists

Irrigation Flood Control Flat Dam White Dam Cheap PowerProtectEnvironment

Half-Full Dam Full Dam

Focus:

DecisionCriteria:

DecisionMakers:

Factors:

Groups Affected:

Objectives:

Alternatives:

1-47

Flexibility Independence Growth Challenge Commitment Humor Intelligence

Psychological Physical Socio-Cultural Philosophical Aesthetic

Communication& Problem Solving

Family & Children

Temper

Security

Affection

Loyalty

Food

Shelter

Sex

Sociability

Finance

Understanding

World View

Theology

Housekeeping

Sense of Beauty& Intelligence

Campbell Graham McGuire Faucet

Whom to Marry - A Compatible Spouse

Marry Not MarryCASE 1:

CASE 2:

1-48

Future of Soviet UnionExercise in May 1990

Short-Term Mid-Term Long-Term

Technology Economy Religion InternationalAffairs

Nationalities InternalPolitics

CommunistParty

Hard Liners

MikhailGorbachev

People ofRussia

People ofBaltic

Republics

People ofC. AsiaRepublics

People ofCaucacusRepublics

BorisYeltzin

WesternWorld

Countries

Rest ofWorld

A.1 A.2

A.3

C.1 C.2

C.3

F.1 F.2

F.3

G.1 G.2

G.3

B.1 B.2

B.3 B.4

B.5 B.6

D.1 D.2

D.3 D.4

D.5

E.1 E.2H.1 H.2

H.3 H.4

H.5 H.6

I.1 I.2

I.3 I.4

Policies Policies Policies Policies Policies Policies Policies Policies Policies

Peaceful Break-up of Soviet Union; Negotiated

& Constitutional Independence(.34)

Power Sharing

(.46)

Violent Break-upCivil Wars TerrorismBrutal Repression

(.20)

FOCUS:

TIME HORIZON:

FORCES:

SCENARIOS:

POLI

CIE

SO

BJE

CTI

VES

ACTORS:

Insiders Outsiders

1-49

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

Rule of Law Bring China to responsible free-trading 0.206)

Help trade deficit with China (0.098)

BENEFITS

Yes 0.729 No 0.271

$ Billion Tariffs make Chinese productsmore expensive (0.094)

Retaliation(0.280)

Being locked out of big infrastructurebuying: power stations, airports (0.626)

COSTS

Yes 0.787 No 0.213

Long Term negative competition(0.683)

Effect on human rights and other issues (0.200)

Harder to justify China joining WTO(0.117)

RISKS

Yes 0.597 No 0.403

Result: Benefits

Costs x Risks; YES

.729

.787 x .597= 1.55 NO

.271

.213 x .403= 3.16

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

YesNo

.80

.20YesNo

.60

.40YesNo

.50

.50

YesNo

.70

.30YesNo

.90

.10YesNo

.75

.25

YesNo

.70

.30YesNo

.30

.70YesNo

.50

.50

1-50

Group Decision Makingand the

Geometric MeanSuppose 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.

1-51

METODE PENILAIAN DENGAN AHP

• Perbandingan Alternatif A, B, C, D

Misalnya pada kasus

Alternatif A :

Alternatif B :

Alternatif C :

Alternatif D :

A B C D

1 3 5 1/7- 1 4 7

- - 1 3

- - - 1

A

B

C

D

1-52

• Penggabungan Matrik Individu

NG (ij) =

N1 (ij) =1 5 7- 1 4- - 1

N2 (ij) =1 5 4- 1 2- - 1

NG (ij) =1 5 -- 1 -- - 1

√ N1 (ij) x N2 (ij) x … x Ne(ij)e

1-53

Level 0 : Fokus

Level 2 : Tujuan

Level 3 : Strategi

Penanggulangan Krisis Ekonomi Jilid Dua

Nilai Tukar

Rupiah10.7 %

Harga Minyak Dunia6.4 %

Hutang Pemerintah

9.9 %

Kebijakan Pemerintah

17.7%

Kepemimpinan Nasional22.3 %

Ketahanan Ekonomi Nasional70.6%

Citra danKredibilitas Internasional

29.4%

Privatisasi BUMN13.8 %

Liberalisasi Perdagangan

19.3 %

Rekapitalisasi Perbankan Jilid

Dua15.8 %

Penegakan Hukum33 %

Pemberdayaan Ekonomi Rakyat /

Sektor Riil51.1%

Level 1 : Faktor

A. Struktur Hierarki dan Prioritas Penanggulangan Krisis Ekonomi Jilid Dua

1-54

Level 0 : Fokus

Level 1 : Faktor

Level 2 : Tujuan

Level 3 : Strategi

Penanggulangan Ledakan Pengangguran

Pasar Tenaga Kerja

14.4 %

UMR10.5%

Pendidikan & Keterampilan Tenaga Kerja

24.3 %

Regulasi Ketenagakerjaan

& Indag10.7 %

Sumberdaya Alam

10.6 %

Sumberdaya Finansial13.9 %

Pertumbuhan Ekonomi39.9 %

Pemerataan Sumberdaya Ekonomi

60.1 %

Pembangunan Infrastruktur

28.6 %

Pemberdayaan Usaha Mikro &

Kecil51.3 %

Investasi Swasta &

PMA20.1 %

Penegakan Hukum15.6%

B. Struktur Hierarki dan Prioritas Manajemen Krisis Pengangguran

1-55

FOKUS

FAKTOR

AKTOR

TUJUAN

ALTERNATIF

PENGEMBANGAN AGROINDUSTRI

Sumberdaya Manusia(28,79 %)

Sumberdaya Alam

(16,52 %)

Modal(16,13 %)

Pemasaran(12,13 %)

Sarana dan Prasarana(6,28 %)

Kebijakan Pemerintah(20,15 %)

Pemerintah(17,62 %)

Petani(20,21 %)

Pengusaha(16,94 %)

Koperasi(18,23 %)

Perbankan(13,00 %)

Pedagang(13,99 %)

Perluasan Lapangan Pekerjaan(20,48 %)

Perluasan Pasar

(28,09 %)

Peningkatan Daya Saing(14,14 %)

Peningkatan Pendapatan(25,44 %)

Pembangunan Daerah

(11,85 %)

Mempertahankan dan Memperkuat Agroindustri yang telah ada

(45,90 %)

Menciptakan suasana yang medukung tumbuhnya Agroindustri Baru

(54,10 %)

1-56

Hirarki Penentuan Strategi Peningkatan Kualitas Teh

STRATEGI PENINGKATAN KUALITAS TEH

KINERJA KEBUN KUALITAS HARAPAN PELANGGAN

PROSES PRODUKSI

SINDER KEBUN ADMINISTRATUR PEMERINTAH PELANGGANDIREKSI KPB

PENINGKATAN HARGA TEH

PENINGKATAN PANGSA PASAR

PENURUNAN JUMLAH TEH YANG TIDAK TERJUAL

ISO 9000 HACCP

Hirarki Penentuan Strategi Peningkatan Kualitas Teh

FOKUS

FAKTOR

AKTOR

TUJUAN

STRATEGI TQM

Modul S7 AHP for Product Strategy

Documents