Penilaian Kinerja Pemasok Biomassa untuk Pembangkit Listrik Tenaga Batubara Menggunakan Pendekatan Pengambilan Keputusan Multi-Kriteria
Downloads
Transisi energi menuju sistem rendah karbon mendorong pemanfaatan biomassa sebagai bahan bakar alternatif melalui skema co-firing pada pembangkit listrik tenaga batubara. Keberhasilan implementasi strategi ini sangat bergantung pada kinerja pemasok biomassa yang mampu menjamin kontinuitas pasokan, kualitas bahan baku, efisiensi biaya, serta aspek keberlanjutan lingkungan. Penelitian ini bertujuan mengembangkan kerangka kerja evaluasi kinerja pemasok biomassa yang komprehensif dan sistematis sebagai dasar pengambilan keputusan dalam pengelolaan rantai pasok biomassa secara multidimensional berdasarkan kriteria biaya, kualitas, keandalan pasokan, dan lingkungan, serta menghasilkan penilaian pemasok sebagai dasar pendukung pengambilan keputusan. Metodologi yang digunakan mengombinasikan pendekatan Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), yaitu Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) untuk menentukan bobot kriteria dan Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) untuk melakukan evaluasi dan pemeringkatan 124 pemasok biomassa PLN Grup. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa biaya merupakan kriteria dengan bobot tertinggi (0,3287), diikuti keandalan pasokan (0,2854), kualitas (0,2767), dan lingkungan (0,1092), sedangkan harga jual biomassa menjadi subkriteria dengan bobot global tertinggi (0,2607). Hasil TOPSIS menunjukkan adanya perbedaan tingkat kinerja relatif antar pemasok, dengan nilai relative closeness (Ci) berkisar antara 0,168 hingga 0,855 (rata-rata 0,788). Kerangka kerja yang dikembangkan dari integrasi Fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS dapat digunakan sebagai pendekatan sistematis untuk supplier performance evaluation dengan mempertimbangkan berbagai dimensi kinerja secara simultan. Hasil penelitian dapat dimanfaatkan sebagai decision-support tool untuk supplier performance monitoring dan identifikasi prioritas perbaikan kinerja pemasok.
Ahmad, M., & Wilkins, S. (2025). Purposive sampling in qualitative research: A framework for the entire journey. Quality & Quantity, 59(2), 1461–1479.
Ahmad, N., & Qahmash, A. (2020). Implementing Fuzzy AHP and FUCOM to evaluate critical success factors for sustained academic quality assurance and ABET accreditation. PLOS ONE, 15(9), e0239140. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239140
Andersson, G., Asikainen, A., Björheden, R., Hall, P. W., Hudson, J. B., Jirjis, R., Mead, D. J., Nurmi, J., & Weetman, G. F. (2002). Production of forest energy. In Bioenergy from Sustainable Forestry (pp. 49–123). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47519-7_3
Ansaripour, H., Haeussler, K. L., Ferguson, S. J., & Flohr, M. (2023). Prioritizing biomaterials for spinal disc implants by a fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS decision making method. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 21531. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-48735-9
Bachtiar, N. K., Fariz, M., & Arif, M. S. (2024). Conducting a focus group discussion in qualitative research. Innovation, Technology, and Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(2), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.31603/itej.11466
Ballestero, E., & Romero, C. (1998). Multiple criteria decision making: An introduction. In Multiple Criteria Decision Making and its Applications to Economic Problems (pp. 1–10). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2827-9_1
Behzadian, M., Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, S., Yazdani, M., & Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of-the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), 13051–13069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056
Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9
Chen, A., & Liu, Y. (2023). Designing globalized robust supply chain network for sustainable biomass-based power generation problem. Journal of Cleaner Production, 413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137403
Chen, J., & Guo, Z. (2014). Strategic sourcing in the presence of uncertain supply and retail competition. Production and Operations Management, 23(10), 1748–1760. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12078
Dabbene, F., Gay, P., & Tortia, C. (2014). Traceability issues in food supply chain management: A review. Biosystems Engineering, 120, 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2013.09.006
Dey, P. K., Bhattacharya, A., & Ho, W. (2015). Strategic supplier performance evaluation: A case-based action research of a UK manufacturing organisation. International Journal of Production Economics, 166, 192–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.021
Emrouznejad, A., & Ho, W. (2018). Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Franek, J., & Kresta, A. (2014). Judgment scales and consistency measure in AHP. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12, 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00332-3
Frish, S., Talmor, I., Hadar, O., Shoshany, M., & Shapira, A. (2025). Enhancing consistency of AHP-based expert judgements: A new approach and its implementation in an interactive tool. MethodsX, 14, 103341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2025.103341
Gerogiannis, V. C., & Kazantzi, V. (2012). Selecting suppliers for biomass supply networks with an IFS-multi periodic optimization method. In Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Istanbul.
Gerogiannis, V. C., Kazantzi, V., & Anthopoulos, L. (2012). A hybrid method for evaluating biomass suppliers—Use of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and multi-periodic optimization. IFIP AICT, 381.
Gital, Y., & Bilgen, B. (2024). Biomass supply chain network design under uncertainty, risk and resilience: A systematic literature review. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2024.110270
Giuffrida, L. M., & Rovigatti, G. (2022). Supplier selection and contract enforcement: Evidence from performance bonding. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 31(4), 980–1019. https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12492
Gocer, F. (2021). A novel interval value extension of picture fuzzy sets into group decision making: An approach to support supply chain sustainability in catastrophic disruptions. IEEE Access, 9, 117080–117096. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3105734
Göçer, F. (2022). Limestone supplier selection for coal thermal power plant by applying integrated PF-SAW and PF-EDAS approach. Soft Computing, 26(13), 6393–6414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-022-07157-x
Gocer, F., & Sener, N. (2022). Spherical fuzzy extension of AHP?ARAS methods integrated with modified k?means clustering for logistics hub location problem. Expert Systems, 39(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12886
Govindan, K., Azevedo, S. G., Carvalho, H., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2014). Impact of supply chain management practices on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.068
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Jafarian, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014
Huang, F. (2022). Low?carbon supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and goal programming approach. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2022(1). https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3115490
Kabeyi, M. J. B., & Olanrewaju, O. A. (2022). Sustainable energy transition for renewable and low carbon grid electricity generation and supply. Frontiers in Energy Research, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.743114
Kementerian ESDM. (2022, August 29). Akselerasi transisi energi, co-firing biomassa di PLTU jadi teknologi pilihan. Siaran Pers Nomor: 324.Pers/04/SJI/2022.
Krishnadevarajan, P. K., Ravichandran, V., Balasubramanian, S., & Kannan, N. (2015). Supplier management: A framework for selection, evaluation and performance. International Journal of Management, 6(9), 16–28.
Kuchler, C., Schön, C., Kuptz, D., Dietz, E., Zimmermann, D., Rist, E., Mack, R., Riebler, M., Blum, U., Borchert, H., & Hartmann, H. (2024). Fuel upgrade and soil contamination effects on wood chip quality and combustion behaviour. Biomass and Bioenergy, 183, 107150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2024.107150
Lai, Y. J., Liu, T. Y., & Hwang, C. L. (1994). TOPSIS for MODM. European Journal of Operational Research, 76(3), 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(94)90282-8
Li, Z., Liu, Y., Liao, W., Chen, S., & Zemetra, R. S. (2011). Bioethanol production using genetically modified and mutant wheat and barley straws. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(1), 542–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.10.006
Liu, Z., Wang, S., & Ouyang, Y. (2017). Reliable biomass supply chain design under feedstock seasonality and probabilistic facility disruptions. Energies, 10(11), 1895. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10111895
Lu, Z., Sun, X., Wang, Y., & Xu, C. (2019). Green supplier selection in straw biomass industry based on cloud model and possibility degree. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209, 995–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.130
Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078
Minahan, T. A., & Vigoroso, M. W. (2002). The supplier performance measurement benchmarking report. Aberdeen Group.
Nguyen, D. H., & Chen, H. (2018). Supplier selection and operation planning in biomass supply chains with supply uncertainty. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 118, 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2018.07.012
Noorul Haq, A., & Kannan, G. (2006). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for evaluating and selecting a vendor in a supply chain model. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 29(7–8), 826–835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-005-2562-8
Nunes, L. J. R., Causer, T. P., & Ciolkosz, D. (2020). Biomass for energy: A review on supply chain management models. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109658
Nunes, L. J. R., & Silva, S. (2023). Optimization of the residual biomass supply chain: Process characterization and cost analysis. Logistics, 7(3), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics7030048
O’Brien, J. (2022). Supplier relationship management: Unlocking the value in your supply base (3rd ed.). Kogan Page Publishers.
Okay, N. C., Sencer, A., & Taskin, N. (2024). Quantitative indicators for environmental and social sustainability performance assessment of the supply chain. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 28(3), 6049–6069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05210-3
Pehlivan, N. Y., Paksoy, T., & Çalik, A. (2018). Comparison of methods in FAHP with application in supplier selection. In A. Emrouznejad & W. Ho (Eds.), Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (pp. 45–75). CRC Press.
Permana, I., & Salisah, F. N. S. (2022). Pengaruh normalisasi data terhadap performa hasil klasifikasi algoritma backpropagation. Indonesian Journal of Informatic Research and Software Engineering, 2(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.57152/ijirse.v2i1.311
Prihartono, B., Darmawan, R. A., Kamilah, M., & Rizkiana, A. (2026). Perancangan mekanisme penilaian dan evaluasi kinerja supplier pada pusat penjualan dan distribusi X dengan pendekatan fuzzy multi-criteria decision making (FMCDM) dan ISM-fuzzy MICMAC. J@ti Undip: Jurnal Teknik Industri, 1(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.14710/jati.1.1.47-57
PT PLN (Persero). (2025, February 1). Co-firing biomassa di PLTU PLN hasilkan 1,67 juta MWh listrik hijau sepanjang 2024. Siaran Pers 01 Feb 2025.
PT PLN Energi Primer Indonesia. (2025, May 7). Biomassa.
Pujawan, I. N., & Er, M. (2017). Supply chain management (3rd ed.). ANDI.
Rao, C., Wang, C., Hu, Z., Meng, Y., & Liu, M. (2018). Sustainable procurement decision of electric coal under fuzzy information environment. Scientia Iranica. https://doi.org/10.24200/sci.2018.5054.1065
Saaty, T. L. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research, 145(1), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
Saaty, T. L. (2013). Analytic hierarchy process. In Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science (pp. 52–64). Springer.
Sa?abun, W., Watróbski, J., & Shekhovtsov, A. (2020). Are MCDA methods benchmarkable? A comparative study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, and PROMETHEE II methods. Symmetry, 12(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/SYM12091549
Sitorus, F., Cilliers, J. J., & Brito-Parada, P. R. (2019). Multi-criteria decision making for the choice problem in mining and mineral processing: Applications and trends. Expert Systems with Applications, 121, 393–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.001
Squire, C. V., Lou, J., & Hilde, T. C. (2024). The viability of co-firing biomass waste to mitigate coal plant emissions in Indonesia. Communications Earth and Environment, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01588-0
Sun, F., Aguayo, M. M., Ramachandran, R., & Sarin, S. C. (2018). Biomass feedstock supply chain design—A taxonomic review and a decomposition-based methodology. International Journal of Production Research, 56(17), 5626–5659. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1475766
Swami, S. (2013). Executive functions and decision making: A managerial review. IIMB Management Review, 25(4), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2013.07.005
Toka, A., Iakovou, E., & Vlachos, D. (2010). Biomass supply chain management for energy polygeneration systems. In 1st International Conference on Supply Chains.
Vafaei, N., Ribeiro, R. A., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2021). Assessing normalization techniques for TOPSIS method (pp. 132–141). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78288-7_13
Van Weele, A. J., & Rozemeijer, F. (2022). Procurement and supply chain management (8th ed.). Annabel Ainscow.
Vilakazi, L., & Madyira, D. (2025). Estimation of gross calorific value of coal: A literature review. International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization, 45(2), 390–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392699.2024.2339340
Yana, S., Nizar, M., Irhamni, & Mulyati, D. (2022). Biomass waste as a renewable energy in developing bio-based economies in Indonesia: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 160, 112268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112268
Copyright (c) 2026 Andy Tri Hermawan, Maria Anityasari
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC-BY-SA). that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
