Integration of DAM Objective Weighting and TOPSIS Ranking for Strategic Business Partner Selection
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67449/juriko.v1i1.1Keywords:
Strategic Business Partner Selection, DAM Weighting, TOPSIS Method, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Sensitivity AnalysisAbstract
Selecting the right strategic business partner is important because partner performance can directly influence operational efficiency, competitiveness, sustainability, and long-term business performance. However, strategic business partner selection involves multiple criteria with different levels of importance, making subjective decision-making potentially inconsistent and biased. This study proposes an integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approach combining Data Assessment Method (DAM) Weighting and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to support systematic and objective strategic business partner selection. DAM Weighting is employed to determine objective criterion weights based on the characteristics of the available data, while TOPSIS ranks partner alternatives according to their relative closeness to the positive ideal solution. Seven strategic business partners were evaluated using seven criteria representing cost, quality, delivery, flexibility, technology, financial stability, and collaboration. The DAM Weighting results indicate that CP1 obtained the highest weight of 0.2414, followed by CP4 (0.1537), CP6 (0.1408), CP3 (0.1384), CP5 (0.1212), CP2 (0.1105), and CP7 (0.0940). Based on TOPSIS, Partner F achieved the highest preference value of 0.8277, followed by Partner B with 0.7158 and Partner D with 0.6657, indicating that Partner F is the most preferred strategic business partner. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by modifying criterion weights to evaluate ranking stability and robustness. The results show that several alternatives maintain stable positions, while some experience ranking changes under different weighting scenarios. Overall, the DAM Weighting-TOPSIS framework provides a systematic, objective, and transparent approach for supporting strategic business partner selection and evaluating ranking robustness.
Downloads
References
[1] A. C. Yoshikuni et al., “Effects of Knowledge Management Processes by Strategic Management Accounting on Organizational Ambidexterity: Mediation of Operational Processes Under Environmental Dynamism,” Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 513–532, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s40171-024-00398-9.
[2] U. A. A. Anwar et al., “Supply chain integration as the implementation of strategic management in improving business performance,” Discov. Sustain., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 101, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s43621-025-00867-w.
[3] A. Puška et al., “Application of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Approaches and Bonferroni Mean Operators in the Selection of Suppliers of Agricultural Equipment and Machinery for the Needs of the Agriculture 4.0 System,” Mathematics, vol. 13, no. 14. p. 2268, 2025. doi: 10.3390/math13142268.
[4] E. Mohammed Abdelkader, T. Zayed, H. El Fathali, G. Alfalah, A. Al-Sakkaf, and O. Moselhi, “An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for the Assessment of Public Private Partnerships in Transportation Projects,” Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 16. 2023. doi: 10.3390/math11163559.
[5] C. Liu, “Evaluating corporate high performance work systems via an intelligent model using complex T spherical fuzzy CoCoSo method,” Sci. Rep., vol. 16, no. 1, p. 304, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-29589-9.
[6] Z. Xiang and X. Zhang, “An integrated decision support system for supplier selection and performance evaluation in global supply chains,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 180, p. 113325, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113325.
[7] A. Ulutaş, A. Topal, and F. Ecer, “The Alternative Prioritization and Assessment System (ALPAS) Method for Environmental Performance Evaluation,” Mathematics, vol. 13, no. 20. p. 3333, 2025. doi: 10.3390/math13203333.
[8] K. Subramani, D. Nithyanandham, F. Augustin, S. Ramasamy, A. P. Paulose, and P. V, “An integrated picture fuzzy entropy–MAIRCA–TOPSIS framework for sustainable soil suitability evaluation,” Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., vol. 152, p. 105474, 2026, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2026.105474.
[9] Z. Turskis and V. Keršulienė, “SHARDA–ARAS: A Methodology for Prioritising Project Managers in Sustainable Development,” Mathematics, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 219, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.3390/math12020219.
[10] M. A. Alsalem et al., “Evaluation of trustworthy artificial intelligent healthcare applications using multi-criteria decision-making approach,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 246, p. 123066, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.123066.
[11] A. Ozdagoglu, G. Zeynep Oztas, M. Kemal Keles, and V. Genc, “A comparative bus selection for intercity transportation with an integrated PIPRECIA & COPRAS-G,” Case Stud. Transp. Policy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 993–1004, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.03.012.
[12] D. A. Megawaty et al., “DAM Weighting: A New Approach to Determining Criteria Weighting in Multi-Criteria Decision Making,” Evergreen, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 788–800, 2026, doi: 10.5109/7432655.
[13] S. Dash, S. Chakravarty, N. C. Giri, and R. Khargotra, “Evaluating sustainable wind energy sources with multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques,” Comput. Electr. Eng., vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 110–123, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2025.110285.
[14] M. Abdel-Basset, R. Mohamed, and V. Chang, “A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework to Evaluate the Impact of Industry 5.0 Technologies: Case Study, Lessons Learned, Challenges and Future Directions,” Inf. Syst. Front., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 791–821, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10796-024-10472-3.
[15] S. Eti et al., “Enhancing solar panel recycling efficiency through zero-shot learning and hybrid fuzzy decision-making techniques,” Renew. Energy, vol. 256, p. 124411, 2026, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.124411.
[16] A. Biswas, K. H. Gazi, P. M. Sankar, and A. Ghosh, “A Decision-Making Framework for Sustainable Highway Restaurant Site Selection: AHP-TOPSIS Approach based on the Fuzzy Numbers,” Spectr. Oper. Res., vol. 2, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 1–26, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.31181/sor2120256.
[17] M. Reza Mehrpour, S. Kheybari, J. Singh Srai, and A. Rohani, “Integration of strategic and operational attributes to calculate the optimal cultivation of crops,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 236, p. 121238, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121238.
[18] D. Štreimikienė, A. Bathaei, T. Baležentis, and J. Štreimikis, “Multi-criteria decision analysis of Circular Economy performance in the Baltic States: a comparative evaluation,” J. Bus. Econ. Manag., vol. 26, no. 5 SE-Articles, pp. 1050–1070, doi: 10.3846/jbem.2025.24717.
[19] N. Ayvaz-Çavdaroğlu, S. Iyanna, and M. Foster, “Smart service quality in hospitality – A quantitative assessment using MCDM and clustering methods,” Int. J. Hosp. Manag., vol. 123, p. 103931, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.103931.
[20] M. A. D. de O. Ferreira, L. C. Ribeiro, H. S. Schuffner, M. P. Libório, and P. I. Ekel, “Fuzzy-Set-Based Multi-Attribute Decision-Making, Its Computing Implementation, and Applications,” Axioms, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 142, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.3390/axioms13030142.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Setiawansyah Setiawansyah, Ryan Randy Suryono (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Jurnal Riset Informatika dan Komputer is committed to making published research accessible to the academic and research community. The following license terms define how published articles may be used, shared, and distributed.
The journal supports the broad dissemination and responsible reuse of scholarly research in accordance with the applicable license terms.
