AIS is easy to install/uninstall in
certain environments
AIS is easy to move to other
sites where software has been
built or specified
Timeliness AIS operates according to the
applicable schedule
Table 2 is the result of the identification of per-
formance indicators after comparing the performance
indicators obtained from performance prism with the
performance indicators of ISO / IEC 25010. Merging
the two models produces more complete performance
indicators. These performance indicators will then be
assessed by distributing questionnaires to competent
respondents. The results of this questionnaire are the
average values of each performance indicator.
4.3.5 AHP Weighting
At this stage, the AHP is weighted three times, the
steps and weighting calculations refer to the AHP
rules and formulas (Saaty, 2008). The weighting party
is competent. It understands AIS, which in this case,
is the Head of the IT Unit because the weighted cri-
teria must be weighted according to company needs
(Arianto and Partiwi, 2009). Weightings carried out
include:
1. Weighting among key stakeholders to determine
the weight of interests of key stakeholders,
2. Weighting between 5 facets of Performance Prism
for each key stakeholder, to determine the impor-
tance of the 5 facets of Performance Prism for
each key stakeholder.
3. Weighting between performance indicators each
stakeholder, this is to determine the weight of each
performance indicator of each key stakeholder.
The weighting is based on interviews with the
Head of IT Unit. Furthermore, the calculation is done
based on AHP rules and formulas. The weighting
of performance indicators and critical stakeholders is
carried out to provide performance values based on
the weight of their respective interests. While the
weighting of 5 performance prism facets is used as a
reference for future performance improvement if per-
formance indicators that have poor performance are
found.
4.3.6 Test Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability tests are done to avoid incon-
sistent answers from respondents. SPSS can deter-
mine whether the answers given by respondents are
appropriate to be included in the calculation or not.
The rules used are as follows:
1. Kaplan and Saccuzo reliability test (1993), if
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ≥ 0.77, the results
of the questionnaire can be said to be reliable.
2. Test the validity of the Product Moment (Pear-
son Correlation) method, if the value of Corrected
Item - Total Correlation > 0.3 then the data can be
said to be valid whereas if the Pearson Correlation
value ≤ 0.3 then it is considered invalid
4.3.7 Scoring Value with OMAX
At this stage, a comparison of real performance in-
dicator data obtained earlier through a questionnaire
with a maximum target (level 10) and the worst pos-
sible condition (level 0). The calculation uses the
OMAX formula (Riggs, 1981), which has been ap-
plied to the system built to help with the calculation.
The real situation is obtained from the results of rep-
resentative questionnaires from each key stakeholder.
The result is a score (level) for each performance in-
dicator using the interval formula in OMAX. The re-
sults of performance indicators will be seen in the
Traffic Light System in the form of colors that de-
scribe the state of AIS performance. The results of the
performance values of each performance indicator are
classified into the Traffic Light system according to
the amount of each performance and in the form of 3
colors, namely red, yellow, and green. Because what
is used in the performance appraisal is a Likert scale,
the maximum target (level 10) and the worst condi-
tions that may occur (level 0) are determined based
on the upper and lower limits of the Likert Scale. The
results of this traffic light system will show which per-
formance indicators have been achieved, which have
not been achieved as well as indicators that are far
from the target and thus require recommendations for
improvement.
4.4 Conclussion
At stage is concluded the answers to initial prob-
lem formulation and provide suggestions based on
the results of the analysis that has been done. The
conclusion is the final stage in the study, where the
overall results of the discussion and data processing
have been carried out. The conclusion also discusses
whether or not the problem was raised, or a new prob-
lem arises that can be used as a suggestion for further
research.
CONRIST 2019 - International Conferences on Information System and Technology
216