Implementation of MABAC Method and Entropy Weighting in Determining the Best E-Commerce Platform for Online Business

Junhai Wang; Dedi Darwis; Setiawansyah Setiawansyah; Yuri Rahmanto

doi:10.35447/jitekh.v12i2.1000

Junhai Wang Zhejiang Technical Institute of Economics
Dedi Darwis Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia
Setiawansyah Setiawansyah Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia
Yuri Rahmanto Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35447/jitekh.v12i2.1000

Keywords: Determining, E-Commerce, Entropy, Implementation, MABAC

Abstract

The main problem in choosing an e-commerce platform for an online business is finding the one that best suits the specific needs of the business. Each platform has its advantages and disadvantages, such as ease of use, cost, features offered, as well as support for inventory management, shipping, and payments. Other challenges include ensuring that the platform can support future business growth, offer good scalability, and provide flexibility in terms of customization and integration with digital marketing tools. In addition, data security and a good user experience are also important considerations for long-term success. The purpose of this study is to implement the MABAC method and Entropy weighting in determining the best e-commerce platform for online businesses, so that this research can provide clear and data-driven recommendations to stakeholders regarding the most effective e-commerce platform. The application of the MABAC method combined with Entropy weighting in determining the best e-commerce platform for online business people offers a comprehensive and objective approach in decision-making. This combination not only improves decision-making accuracy, but also ensures that the most important criteria are weighted accordingly, resulting in more reliable results in choosing the best platform for business needs. The final result of the MABAC Platform A score is the first choice, considering the highest score of 0.82, which indicates its optimal performance in meeting the criteria that have been set. In addition, Platforms B and C, with scores of 0.78 and 0.75, respectively.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] J. Wang, “Impact of mobile payment on e-commerce operations in different business scenarios under cloud computing environment,” Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 776–789, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s13198-021-01100-3.
[2] J. Wang and Y. Zhang, “Using cloud computing platform of 6G IoT in e-commerce personalized recommendation,” Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 654–666, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s13198-021-01059-1.
[3] S. Bošković, L. Švadlenka, M. Dobrodolac, S. Jovčić, and M. Zanne, “An Extended AROMAN Method for Cargo Bike Delivery Concept Selection,” Decis. Mak. Adv., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–9, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.31181/v120231.
[4] S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, F. Ecer, D. Pamučar, and S. Raslanas, “NEIGHBORHOOD SELECTION FOR A NEWCOMER VIA A NOVEL BWM-BASED REVISED MAIRCA INTEGRATED MODEL: A CASE FROM THE COQUIMBO-LA SERENA CONURBATION, CHILE,” Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 102–118, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.3846/ijspm.2020.11543.
[5] S. Setiawansyah, S. H. Hadad, A. A. Aldino, P. Palupiningsih, G. Fitri Laxmi, and D. A. Megawaty, “Employing PIPRECIA-S weighting with MABAC: a strategy for identifying organizational leadership elections,” Bull. Electr. Eng. Informatics, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 4273–4284, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.11591/eei.v13i6.7713.
[6] D. Tešić, M. Radovanović, D. Božanić, D. Pamucar, A. Milić, and A. Puška, “Modification of the DIBR and MABAC Methods by Applying Rough Numbers and Its Application in Making Decisions,” Information, vol. 13, no. 8, p. 353, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.3390/info13080353.
[7] S. Chakraborty, S. S. Dandge, and S. Agarwal, “Non-traditional machining processes selection and evaluation: A rough multi-attributive border approximation area comparison approach,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 139, p. 106201, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2019.106201.
[8] H. Shi, L. Huang, K. Li, X.-H. Wang, and H.-C. Liu, “An extended multi-attributive Border Approximation Area comparison method for emergency decision making with complex linguistic information,” Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 19, p. 3437, 2022, doi: 10.3390/math10193437.
[9] S. Sintaro, “Penerapan Rank Reciprocal dan Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison Untuk Penentuan Lokasi Cafe Baru,” J. Artif. Intell. Technol. Inf., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 26–37, 2024.
[10] M. W. Arshad, D. Darwis, H. Sulistiani, R. R. Suryono, Y. Rahmanto, and D. A. Megawaty, “Combination of Weighted Product Method and Entropy Weighting in the Best Warehouse Employee Recommendation,” KLIK Kaji. Ilm. Inform. dan Komput., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 193–202, 2024, doi: 10.30865/klik.v5i1.2095.
[11] T. Van Dua, D. Van Duc, N. C. Bao, and D. D. Trung, “Integration of objective weighting methods for criteria and MCDM methods: application in material selection,” EUREKA Phys. Eng., no. 2, pp. 131–148, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.21303/2461-4262.2024.003171.
[12] I. Mukhametzyanov, “Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC and SD,” Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 76–105, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.31181/dmame210402076i.
[13] J. Tao, X.-H. Sun, Y. Cao, and M.-H. Ling, “Evaluation of water quality and its driving forces in the Shaying River Basin with the grey relational analysis based on combination weighting,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 18103–18115, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-16939-z.
[14] A. D. Wahyudi, S. Sumanto, S. Setiawansyah, and A. Yudhistira, “Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Rekomendasi Hotel Bintang Tiga Menggunakan Kombinasi Entropy dan Combine Compromise Solution,” Bull. Artif. Intell., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 16–25, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.62866/buai.v3i1.142.
[15] N. E. I. Hamda, A. Hadjali, and M. Lagha, “Multisensor Data Fusion in IoT Environments in Dempster–Shafer Theory Setting: An Improved Evidence Distance-Based Approach,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 11, p. 5141, May 2023, doi: 10.3390/s23115141.
[16] H. Sulistiani, Setiawansyah, P. Palupiningsih, F. Hamidy, P. L. Sari, and Y. Khairunnisa, “Employee Performance Evaluation Using Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) with PIPRECIA-S Weighting: A Case Study in Education Institution,” in 2023 International Conference on Informatics, Multimedia, Cyber and Informations System (ICIMCIS), 2023, pp. 369–373. doi: 10.1109/ICIMCIS60089.2023.10349017.
[17] Setiawansyah, A. A. Aldino, P. Palupiningsih, G. F. Laxmi, E. D. Mega, and I. Septiana, “Determining Best Graduates Using TOPSIS with Surrogate Weighting Procedures Approach,” in 2023 International Conference on Networking, Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, and Technology (IConNECT), 2023, pp. 60–64. doi: 10.1109/IConNECT56593.2023.10327119.