Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Industrial & Mechanical Engineering and Operations
Management, Dhaka, Bangladesh, December 26-27, 2022
Employee Performance Assessment Using Simple Additive
Weighting (Saw) Method
Hery Mustofa and Syaiful Bakhri
Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang, Indonesia
Jl. Walisongo No.3-5, Tambakaji, Kec. Ngaliyan, Kota Semarang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia
herymustofa@[Link], syaifulbakhri@[Link]
Abstract
An employee performance appraisal system is used to assess employees who have good performance. The
agency or company conducts performance appraisals on employees to evaluate, motivate, verify and improve
employee performance. The decision support system will assist the company in the process of evaluating
employees quickly and objectively. The simple additive weighting (SAW) method is a good method and can be
applied in a decision-making system. From the research results, it is known that the simple additive weighting
(SAW) method can determine employee performance appraisals using four criteria, namely attendance,
behavior, workload, and work realization. The highest-ranking value was obtained with a value of 86.25, while
the lowest value was obtained with a value of 66.6.
Keywords
ranking, performance, simple additive weighting, employee, improve
1. Introduction
Employee performance appraisal is a measuring tool used to evaluate employee performance. Performance
appraisals are also used to assess the success of company or agency targets, assist in making promotion,
dismissal, transfer decisions and provide feedback for employees on how their supervisors or superiors perform
assessments. (Mujiastuti et al. 2017)
Each company or agency has a standard for evaluating the performance of their respective employees. The
assessment is determined by the respective criteria according to the characteristics of the company. Employees
are a supporting factor in a company, because, with employees who have company qualification standards, the
company's productivity must be maintained and increasing. (Naution et al. 2020)
One method of decision support system (DSS) or decision support system is simple additive weighting (SAW).
This method is a weighted numbering method in which the pre-determined assessment criteria are assigned a
weighted value of each which then the value of each of these sums will produce the performance value of each
employee. (Sholeh et al. 2021)
The SAW method is one of the most widely used decision support system methods. A study conducted by R.
Dedek Cahyadi Panjaitan et al compared the use of the SAW method with the weight product ( WP) method for
the case of selecting extracurricular activities. From this research, it is known that the SAW method is more
relevant for the decision-making system in the selection of extracurricular activities. (Panjaitan et al. 2021).
The SAW method is also used in the selection of participants for the BI Entrepreneurship Program (WUBI). In
Erawan's research, the process of selecting the WUBI program using the SAW method is explained. four criteria
to be considered are business survey, innovation, creativity, and financial management. By implementing SAW
in the selection of WUBI programs, it can help the decision-making process to get WUBI participants with
quality objectively. (Erawan et al. 2018)
The recommendation system for house selection can also be done using the SAW method. In Sofi Nur
Rochmawati's research, SAW was applied in the selection of houses, with the SAW method it can be seen the
right house recommendations for people who want to buy a house. (Rochmawati and Marisa 2018)
In this study, the application of the SAW method will be carried out to evaluate the performance of employees
in companies or agencies. The criteria used are attendance, behavior, task load, and employee work results.
© IEOM Society International
1157
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Industrial & Mechanical Engineering and Operations
Management, Dhaka, Bangladesh, December 26-27, 2022
2. Method
Employee performance appraisal is a form of decision support system (DSS). The calculation of this employee
performance appraisal uses the simple additive weighting (SAW) method. SAW is also known as weighted
addition. The steps in performing the SAW method are as follows:
1. Formulate criteria.
2. Formulate attributes in each criterion
3. Give the value of each alternative on each criterion
4. Make a suitability rating of each alternative on each criterion
5. Create a decision matrix based on criteria
6. Perform matrix normalization. Matrix normalization can be made with the following equation
𝑋𝑋 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (1)
𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 𝑗𝑗
If the criteria have a cost attribute, then the normalization of the matrix uses the equation below:
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑋𝑋 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (2)
𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =
𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 𝑗𝑗
Where :
𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = Normalized performance rating
𝑋𝑋 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = Row and column matrix
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 𝑗𝑗 = Highest value of each row and column
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑋𝑋 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = The lowest value of each row and column
7. Ranking. The ranking results are obtained from the addition of the multiplication of the row elements of
the normalized matrix with the preference weights that correspond to the matrix column elements. Here are
the games used for ranking:
𝑛𝑛 (3)
𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 = � 𝑊𝑊𝑗𝑗 𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖 𝑗𝑗
𝑗𝑗=𝑖𝑖
Where :
𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 = Rank for each alternative
𝑊𝑊𝑗𝑗 = Weight value for each criterion
𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖 𝑗𝑗 = Normalized performance rating value
3. Results and Discussion
In accordance with the steps described in the previous section, the first step taken in using the first simple
additive weighting method is to determine the criteria or references used in the evaluation of the weighting.
say decision. The criteria used in this study are as in Table 1.
Table 1. Criteria Data
No Criteria Code Weight
1 Absence/attendance CC1 30
2 Behavior CC2 20
3 Workload (quantity) CC3 25
4 Realization of work (quality) CC4 25
The following is an explanation of each criterion:
1. Attendance/attendance is obtained through a recapitulation conducted within one month. The less alpha,
permission, or illness an employee has, the higher the rating.
2. Behavior is the number of warning letters (SP) obtained by employees. The less SP the employee gets, the
higher the score he gets.
3. The workload is the amount of work obtained by the fencer from the company. The more jobs you get, the
higher the score you get
4. Work realization is the percentage of the amount of work completed by the employee from the workload
given. The higher the presentation, the higher the score will be.
© IEOM Society International
1158
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Industrial & Mechanical Engineering and Operations
Management, Dhaka, Bangladesh, December 26-27, 2022
After forming the criteria, the next step is to assign attributes to each criterion. The cost attribute is given if the
smallest value is the best value, while the benefit attribute will be given if the highest value is the best value.
Table 2 is a table of criteria attributes
Table 2. Criteria Attributes
No Criteria Code Attribute
1 Absence/attendance CC1 Benefits
2 Behavior CC2 Cost
3 Workload (quantity) CC3 Benefits
4 Realization of work (quality) CC4 Benefits
The next step is to assign a value to each criterion. The provision of criteria limits can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3. Data Crips
No Criteria Crisp Mark
1 Absence/attendance <=70% 1
>70 % and <=80% 2
>80% and <=90% 3
>90% and 100% 4
2 Behavior No SP 1
SP1 2
SP2 3
SP3 4
3 Workload (quantity) <=2 jobs 1
> 4 and <=5 jobs 2
>6 and <=9 jobs 3
>10 jobs 4
4 Realization of work (quality) <=70% 1
>70% and <=80% 2
>80% and <=90% 3
>90% and <=100% 4
Then create employee value data based on predetermined criteria. Data were taken within one month. Looks like
in Table 4.
Table 4. Employee Value Data
Criteria
No Name Job
Presence Behavior Workload
Realization
1 Sa'diyah 90% SP1 7 90%
2 Ervi 95% TSP 8 80%
3 Bakhri 90% TSP 6 95%
4 Kiwil 80% TSP 5 95%
5 Yudi 90% SP1 6 90%
6 Yasir 95% TSP 9 85 %
7 Ershad 85 % TSP 7 95%
8 Ainul 95% TSP 8 95%
9 Mostopha 90% SP2 7 90%
10 Rizky 85 % TSP 11 80%
Based on the table of crips data above, the next step is to make a suitability rating for each alternative on each
criterion.
© IEOM Society International
1159
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Industrial & Mechanical Engineering and Operations
Management, Dhaka, Bangladesh, December 26-27, 2022
Table 5. Compatibility Rating
Criteria
No Name Job
Presence Behavior Workload
Realization
1 Sa'diyah 3 2 3 3
2 Ervi 4 1 3 2
3 Bakhri 3 1 3 4
4 Kiwil 3 1 2 4
5 Yudi 3 2 3 3
6 Yasir 4 1 3 3
7 Ershad 3 1 3 4
8 Ainul 4 1 3 4
9 Mostopha 3 3 3 3
10 Rizky 3 1 3 2
rating table is then made into the matrix form below:
3 2 3 3
4 1 3 2
3 1 3 4
3 1 2 4
3 2 3 3
4 1 3 3
3 1 3 4
3 1 3 4
3 3 3 3
3 1 3 2
Next is the matrix normalization process. Here is the matrix normalization process, per criteria. Matrix
normalization can be done using formula number one above.
3 3
𝑅𝑅11 = = = 0,75
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 (3,4,3,3,3,4,3,3,3,3) 4
Table 6. Matrix Normalization
No Name Criteria
Presence Behavior Workload Job
Realization
1 Sa'diyah 0.75 0.67 1 0.75
2 Ervi 1 0.33 1 0.5
3 Bakhri 0.75 0.33 1 1
4 Kiwil 0.75 0.33 0.67 1
5 Yudi 0.75 0.67 1 0.75
6 Yasir 1 0.33 1 0.75
7 Ershad 0.75 0.33 1 1
8 Ainul 1 0.33 1 1
9 Mostopha 0.75 1 1 0.75
10 Rizky 0.75 0.33 1 0.5
From the calculations above, the following matrix can be obtained:
© IEOM Society International
1160
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Industrial & Mechanical Engineering and Operations
Management, Dhaka, Bangladesh, December 26-27, 2022
0,75 0,67 1 0,75
1 0,33 1 0,5
0,75 0,33 1 1
0,75 0,33 0,67 1
0,75 0,67 1 0,75
1 0,33 1 0,75
0,75 0,33 1 1
1 0,33 1 1
0,75 1 1 0,75
0,75 0,33 1 0,5
Next is the ranking process. In this process, the weight of the criteria that have been determined previously is
multiplied with each row of the normalized matrix. Here are the results of the ranking.
Table 7. Ranking results
Criteria
No Name CC1 CC2 CC3 CC4 Total Ranking
1 Sa'diyah 0.75 0.67 1 0.75 79.65 5
2 Ervi 1 0.33 1 0.5 74.1 8
3 Bakhri 0.75 0.33 1 1 79.1 7
4 Kiwil 0.75 0.33 0.67 1 70.85 9
5 Yudi 0.75 0.67 1 0.75 79.65 4
6 Yasir 1 0.33 1 0.75 80.35 3
7 Ershad 0.75 0.33 1 1 79.1 6
8 Ainul 1 0.33 1 1 86.6 1
9 Mostopha 0.75 1 1 0.75 86.25 2
10 Rizky 0.75 0.33 1 0.5 66.6 10
The ranking results can be presented as follows:
0.5 1
Rizky 0.33 0.75
0.67 1
Kiwil 0.33 0.75
0.5 1
Ervi 0.33 1
1
1
Bakhri 0.33 0.75
1
1
Irsyad 0.33 0.75
0.75 1
Sa’diyah 0.67 0.75
0.75 1
Yudi 0.67 0.75
0.75 1
Yasir 0.33 1
0.75 1
Mustofa 1
0.75
1
1
Ainul 0.33 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
CC4 CC3 CC2 CC1
Figure 1. Ranking results
© IEOM Society International
1161
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Industrial & Mechanical Engineering and Operations
Management, Dhaka, Bangladesh, December 26-27, 2022
Based on the table above, it was concluded that the employee named Ainul got the best rank with a score of
86.25, then the lowest employee named Rizky with a score of 66.6.
5. Conclusion
The conclusions obtained from this research are as follows:
1. The Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method, can be applied to perform a performance appraisal by
applying four (4) criteria, namely attendance, behavior, workload, and work realization.
2. From the results of research trials, it can produce a ranking of employee ratings. The employee ranking
results are in the following order: Ainul, Mustofa, Yasir, Yudi, Sa'diyah, Irsyad, Bakhri, Ervi, Kiwil, and
Rizky. With the highest score on behalf of Ainul with a value of 86.25. While the lowest value in the name
of Rizky with a value of 66.6.
3. The reference value or ranking that has been obtained can be used as a reference for evaluating employees
objectively in giving bonuses, giving promotions, or giving sanctions to employees.
References
Erawan, P., Alawiyah, T. and Ratningsih, Implementation of the SAW Method in the Information System for
the Selection of WUB Participants, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 146–50, 2018.
Mujiastuti, R., Komariyah, N. and Hasbi, M., Employee Performance Appraisal System Using Simple Additive
Weighting Method, Journal of Information Systems, Information Technology and Computers, vol. 9, no.
2, pp. 133–41, [Link]://[Link].
Naution, M. I., Fadlil, A. and Sunardi, Selecting the Best Employees Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process
Method.” Series of Proceedings of the National Seminar on Informatics Dynamics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 190–
93, 2020. [Link]
Panjaitan, D. C., Juliansa, H., Yanto, R., Comparison of Saw and Wp Methods in Decision Support Systems in
Cases of Selection of Extracurricular Activities, Binary Scientific Journal STMIK Bina Nusantara Jaya
Lubuklinggau, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 30–38, 2021.
Rochmawati, S. N. and Marisa, F., Web-Based Home Recommendation System Using SAW Method At
[Link], JOINTECS (Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science), vol. 3, no. 2 pp.
95–98, 2018.
Sholeh, M. B. , Prehanto, D. R. and Kunci, K., Employee Performance Assessment of the Central Bureau of
Statistics Using the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) Method, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2021.
Biographies
Hery Mustofa is lecture at Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang, Jl. Walisongo No.3-5, Tambakaji,
Kec. Ngaliyan, Kota Semarang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia. Courses that are taught include Self Management,
International Business, Export-import, Business Execution, Entrepreneur Project, Economic Statistics and
International Marketing.
Syaiful Bakhri is lecture at Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang, Jl. Walisongo No.3-5, Tambakaji,
Kec. Ngaliyan, Kota Semarang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia. Courses that are taught include Self Management,
International Business, Export-import, Business Execution, Entrepreneur Project, Economic Statistics and
International Marketing.
© IEOM Society International
1162