Smartphone Selection through AHP, Value Engineering, and Adapted QSPM Evaluation
Abstract
Smartphone selection depends on criterion importance, perceived product attractiveness, monetary value, and ranking stability. This follow-up case study evaluates VIVO Y29 4G, POCO M6 PRO, and REDMI NOTE 14 4G using new paper questionnaires from 11 purposively selected assessors in Gresik, Indonesia, from 3 to 15 August 2026. We aggregated individual pairwise judgments geometrically for Analytic Hierarchy Process weighting, while averaging and rounding attractiveness ratings for an adapted quantitative strategic planning matrix. A post hoc value-engineering benchmark separated functional performance from monetary cost by using renormalized performance-camera weights and documented Indonesian suggested retail prices for standardized 8/256 GB variants. Camera received the highest AHP weight (0.574228), followed by performance (0.314461) and price (0.111312), with a group consistency ratio of 0.001290. Rounded QSPM scores ranked VIVO first (3.462916), REDMI second (3.111312), and POCO third (2.740233); normalized value indices were 0.642260, 0.610822, and 0.463032, respectively, preserving the same order. Retaining unrounded means reduced the VIVO–REDMI QSPM margin from 0.351604 to 0.257318, while all 12 one-at-a-time weight perturbations and all group-exclusion checks retained the ranking. The contribution is an explicit AHP-weighted operational adaptation of QSPM for product alternatives, not a new ranking algorithm; preference weighting, perceived attractiveness, function-to-cost value, and robustness are kept analytically separate, while the normalized value index (VI) remains a post hoc convergence benchmark rather than a reconstruction of survey-period market conditions.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
A. Mehra, S. Rajput, and J. Paul, “Determinants of adoption of latest version smartphones: Theory and evidence,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 175, p. 121410, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121410.
M. R. H. K. Rakib, S. A. K. Pramanik, M. A. Amran, M. N. Islam, and M. O. F. Sarker, “Factors affecting young customers’ smartphone purchase intention during Covid-19 pandemic,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 9, p. e10599, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10599.
S. Alsmadi, K. Qassem Hailat, S. Bazi, and H. B. al-Haddad, “The influence of consumer awareness in the digital era on the selection of smartphones: A study among Jordanian university students,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 4, p. e25635, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25635.
V. Trivedi, A. Chauhan, and A. Trivedi, “Analysing consumers’ smartphone adoption decisions using qualitative dimensions: a multi-criteria decision approach,” International Journal of Technology Marketing, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 48–65, 2021, doi: 10.1504/IJTMKT.2021.116893.
A. W. Pratama and Z. Budiarso, “Implementasi Metode AHP dan Topsis Pemilihan Smartphone iOS Gaming Terbaik,” SMATIKA JURNAL, vol. 14, no. 02, pp. 216–226, 2024, doi: 10.32664/smatika.v14i02.1268.
R. Singh, S. Avikal, R. Rashmi, and M. Ram, “A Kano model, AHP and TOPSIS based approach for selecting the best mobile phone under a fuzzy environment,” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 37, no. 6/7, pp. 837–851, 2020, doi: 10.1108/IJQRM-01-2020-0022.
M. A. D. A. Putra and J. Arifin, “Sistem Rekomendasi Pemilihan Smartphone Menggunakan Content-Based Filtering Dan Topsis,” JIKO (Jurnal Informatika dan Komputer), vol. 10, no. 2, 2026, doi: 10.26798/jiko.v10i2.2689.
M. A. Fais, I. S. Deviyanti, W. Prihartanti, and A. Rahmanto, “Analisis Pemilihan Smartphone Berdasarkan Pendekatan Rekayasa Nilai Menggunakan Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process,” JISO : Journal of Industrial and Systems Optimization, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 18–30, 2026, doi: 10.51804/jiso.v9i1.18-30.
T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation., vol. 3, no. 7. Virginia: McGraw-Hill, 1980. Accessed: Nov. 18, 2023. [Online]. Available: @inproceedings{Saaty1980TheAH, title={The analytic hierarchy process : planning, priority setting, resource allocation}, author={Thomas L. Saaty}, year={1980}, url={https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:120643630} }
T. L. Saaty, “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process,” International Journal of Services Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 83–98, 2008, doi: 10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.
A. Ishizaka and A. Labib, “Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 14336–14345, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143.
M. Brunelli, Introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2015. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12502-2.
E. Forman and K. Peniwati, “Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 165–169, 1998, doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00244-0.
W. Ossadnik, S. Schinke, and R. H. Kaspar, “Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis,” Group Decis. Negot., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 421–457, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s10726-015-9448-4.
J. Aguarón, M. T. Escobar, J. M. Moreno-Jiménez, and A. Turón, “AHP-Group Decision Making Based on Consistency,” Mathematics, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 242, 2019, doi: 10.3390/math7030242.
S. Pant, A. Kumar, M. Ram, Y. Klochkov, and H. K. Sharma, “Consistency Indices in Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Review,” Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 1206, 2022, doi: 10.3390/math10081206.
M. E. David, F. R. David, and F. R. David, “The quantitative strategic planning matrix: a new marketing tool,” Journal of Strategic Marketing, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 342–352, 2017, doi: 10.1080/0965254X.2016.1148763.
F. R. David, “The strategic planning matrix—a quantitative approach,” Long Range Plann., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 102–107, 1986, doi: 10.1016/0024-6301(86)90015-4.
M. E. David, F. R. David, and F. R. David, “The Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM) Applied to a Retail Computer Store,” Coastal Business Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 4, 2009, [Online]. Available: https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/cbj/vol8/iss1/4/
H. Hosseini Nasab and A. S. Milani, “An improvement of quantitative strategic planning matrix using multiple criteria decision making and fuzzy numbers,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 2246–2253, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2012.03.010.
P. Fan, Y. Zhu, Z. Ye, G. Zhang, S. Gu, and Q. Shen, “Identification and Prioritization of Tourism Development Strategies Using SWOT, QSPM, and AHP: A Case Study of Changbai Mountain in China,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 4962, 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15064962.
J. Lee, “Indexing Model Based on Vector Normalization Available for Value Engineering in Building Materials,” Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 20, p. 9515, 2021, doi: 10.3390/app11209515.
W. T. Chen, H. C. Merrett, S. S. Liu, N. Fauzia, and F. N. Liem, “A Decade of Value Engineering in Construction Projects,” 2022, Hindawi Limited. doi: 10.1155/2022/2324277.
T. M. Liddell and J. K. Kruschke, “Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong?,” J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., vol. 79, pp. 328–348, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.009.
G. Norman, “Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘laws’ of statistics,” Advances in Health Sciences Education, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 625–632, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y.
G. M. Sullivan and A. R. Artino, “Analyzing and Interpreting Data From Likert-Type Scales,” J. Grad. Med. Educ., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 541–542, 2013, doi: 10.4300/JGME-5-4-18.
V. Belton and T. J. Stewart, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Boston, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4.
S. Greco, A. Ishizaka, M. Tasiou, and G. Torrisi, “On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness,” Soc. Indic. Res., vol. 141, no. 1, pp. 61–94, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9.
M. Cinelli, M. Kadziński, M. Gonzalez, and R. Słowiński, “How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy,” Omega (Westport)., vol. 96, p. 102261, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2020.102261.
J. Więckowski and W. Sałabun, “A new sensitivity analysis method for decision-making with multiple parameters modification,” Inf. Sci. (N. Y)., vol. 678, p. 120902, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2024.120902.
E. Triantaphyllou and A. Sánchez, “A Sensitivity Analysis Approach for Some Deterministic Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods,” Decision Sciences, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 151–194, 1997, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01306.x.
J. Więckowski and W. Sałabun, “Sensitivity analysis approaches in multi-criteria decision analysis: A systematic review,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 148, p. 110915, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110915.
A. Saltelli, K. Aleksankina, W. Becker, P. Fennell, F. Ferretti, and N. Holst, “Why so many published sensitivity analyses are false: A systematic review of sensitivity analysis practices,” Environmental Modelling & Software, vol. 114, pp. 29–39, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.01.012.
T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35308/jopt.v12i2.16505
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2026 Jurnal Optimalisasi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
JOPT: Jurnal Optimalisasi Indexing and Abstracting by:
Jurnal Optimalisasi
Diterbitkan oleh Jurusan Teknik Industri, Fakultas Teknik, Universitas Teuku Umar, Indonesia
Jl. Alue Peunyareng, Gunong Kleng, Kec. Meureubo, Kabupaten Aceh Barat, Aceh 23681
Website: https://jurnal.utu.ac.id/joptimalisasi/
Email: jopt@utu.ac.id
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA).