Decision Support System to Determine of School that Should be

Renovated in Dairi Region with Using Profile Matching Method

Farah Diba1, Astri Syahputri1, Nisma Novita Hasibuan1, Indah Pratiwi1,

Azmi Thoyib1, Sri Primadayani1, Muhammad Zarlis1, Dedy Hartama1
1
North Sumatera University, Faculty of Computer Science and Informatics
Engineering, Medan – Indonesia

Email: dibafarah0317@gmail.com

Abstract. This study is about the determination of elementary schools that be a priority to
renovated based on primary and secondary damage. The damaging aspect will give
consideration to the government and the National School Renovation Program to determine
which schools are entitled to be renovated based on the level of damage happened. That
program to be disturb because of many schools are operating in Dairi Districts and need many
the workforces and a long time in recording and the school's selection of each region.
Therefore, by using a Decision Support System that is Profile Matching Method is suitable can
give comparison based on damage and condition every school. So that it can be easy for the
selection process and give a conclusion which of schools that be a priority to handled by the
government.

Introduction
Dairi districts are one of the small districts in North Sumatera Province. The capital is
Sidikalang. In this era globalization, Dairi districts are still a crisis in the education sector, especially
the education of elementary schools. Education services are still minimal in remote areas around Dairi.
There are still many things that need to be corrected, especially by the government as one of the
educational facilitators. Most the schools need educational facilities and infrastructure to support the
learning process. As the condition of buildings, roofs, walls, and floors, those are still not feasible to
be used as a place for teaching and learning such as the condition of schools in other areas.
In this case, the government has concrete steps, more attention and intensive supervision of
education in remote areas around Dairi. One of them is the National School Renovation Program. It is
a government program that intends to accelerate and equalize the quality of primary school education
in all areas. The government will more easily distribute funds to facilitate and improve schools
conditions that are not suitable for users.
Many schools in remote areas around Dairi make it difficult for the government to register and
choose schools that are the priorities for school construction. In this study, the priority aspect of the
renovation is based on damage and conditions not feasible for the school to operate. The damage is
divided in two part, that are primary damage (severely damaged) and secondary damage (slightly
damaged). Both of them will be used in calculating the profile matching method. The profile matching
method is used to compare the damage of each school around in the Dairi region. The results of
damage calculations from each school are in the form of weights, also called gap values. If the results
of the gap value are greater than the gap value of other schools, so the schools get severely damaged.
The results of the damage calculation can also provide school information that must be prioritized for
renovation in government programs. The results of the damage calculation can also provide school
information that must be prioritized for renovation by government programs.

1
Jl. Abdul Hakim No.1, Padang Bulan, Medan Baru, Kota Medan, Sumatera Utara 20222
The final result of this study is to obtain information on school rankings based on primary and
secondary damage to the calculation of the profile matching method.

2. Methodology
2.1 Decision Support System
The decision support system is a system of producing information that referred at a particular
problem that must be solved by the manager and can assist managers in decision making (Raymond
Mc Leod, Jr., 1995: 348). It is an integral part of the overall system of the organization. Decision
support systems are interactive information systems that provide modeling, information, and
manipulation of data. This system is built to support a solution to a problem or to evaluate an
opportunity. There are several processes that must be done to produce good decisions. According to
Julius Hermawan (2002: 3), the decision-making process is carried out in several steps them are:
1. Searching Stage (Intelligence)
This stage studies the reality that occurs in making decisions. Then it can be identified the problem
that occurs and can be analyzed from the system to the sub-system. Then the output of the problem
statement document is obtained.
2. Design Stage
At this stage learn about the analysis of all problem solving by making a model that can represent
the condition of the reality of the problem. The output of this stage is an alternative solution.
3. Choice Stage
In this stage, decision making by choosing one alternative problem solving that is made at the
design stage is the most appropriate action to overcome the problem that is happening. At this
stage, the solution and implementation plan for the problem are obtained.
4. Implementation Stage
In the next of the decision-making process, a series of solving actions are carried out in the choice
stage. The success of the implementation of this decision was answered by the problem that
occurred, while the failure was marked by the existence of a problem that was being tried to be
resolved. From this stage, the results and solutions to these problems are obtained.

2.2 Profile Matching Method

The profile matching method is a mechanism for decision making by assuming the level of
damage that occurs in a school. In this method, the identification of school damage will be identified.
It is based on two aspects that are severe damage and minor damage. Then the identification process is
continued with the analysis process by the renovation team using the predetermined criteria valuation.
So that we get the weight which is the value conclusion of a problem. The following are some stages
and formulations of calculations using the profile matching method.
1. Weighting
At this stage, the weight values of each aspect will be determined by using the results of the
determined values for each aspect. The input from this weighting process is the difference between
primary damage (core factor) and secondary damage (secondary factor).
2. Grouping Core and Secondary Factor
After the criteria gap value is determined, then each criterion is grouped again into two groups,
namely core factors and secondary factors.
a. Core Factor (Primary Damage)
Core factors are the most prominent aspects (competencies) or aspects of school damage so that
they can provide an analysis of the renovation team to choose which schools should be
prioritized in the National School Renovation Program. To calculate the core factor will use the
formula :

∑ NC
NCF = (1)
∑ IC
 Information :
NCF: Average of a core factor value
NC: Total number of core factor values
IC: Number of core factor items

b. Secondary Factor (Secondary Damage)

Secondary factors are supporting factors or the condition of schools that experience lightly
damage. Secondary factors are also items other than the core factor aspect. To calculate the
second factor a formula can be used:

∑ NS
NCF = (2)
∑ IS

Information :
NSF: Average of a secondary factor value
NS: Total number of co secondary refactor values
IS: Number of secondary factor items

3. Analysis of the Current Problem

3.1 Problem Analysis
Problem analysis is a process of collecting, observing and implementing the reality. The
analysis can be used as a reference for solving problems with several alternatives and criteria used. To
determine which schools are suitable for renovation in Dairi district, there are several criteria in the
National School Renovation Program as a consideration in a selection based on school damage. These
criteria become one of the factors in supporting decision making. The criteria for consideration are:
1. Primary Damage
2. Secondary Damage
Therefore, the Profile Matching method is used to select problems. Thus, the system built is
expected to be able to assist the National School Renovation Program in the process of selecting
schools that will become a government priority school.

3.2 System Algorithm

System algorithm is the steps to solve a problem in achieving its intended purpose. So that a
clear and orderly system algorithm is needed in the completion of software design.

3.2.1 Determining Criteria

There are two criteria used in this study. They are primary damage criteria which have three
sub-criteria and secondary damage criteria which have four sub-criteria. Table 1-2 is a criterion that
will be used as a reference in decision making to determine which schools are feasible of being
renovated.
 Table 1. Main Criteria
Criteria Code Sub Criteria Criteria
A1 Wall
Primary Damage
A2 Roof
(Core Factor)
A3 Floor

Table 2. Supporting Criteria

Criteria Code Sub Criteria Criteria
B1 Foundation
B2 Structure Secondary Damage
B3 Ceiling (Secondary Factor)
B4 Utilities

Based on the main criteria and supporting criteria, the value of each school damage criteria is
obtained in the form of weights, i.e.

Table 3. School Damage Criteria Value

Information Value
Very lightly damaged 1
Lightly damaged 2
Moderately damaged 3
Severely damaged 4
Very severely damaged 5

3.2.2 Alternative Data and Alternative Values

The following is the valuation of primary damage (Core Factor) that has been given by the
renovation team to seven schools around the Dairi region as follows:

Table 4. Valuation of Renovation Team Based on Primary Damage

Primary Damaged
No Schools Name
A1 A2 A3
1 SDN Lau Lubuk Moderately Very severely Very lightly
2 SDN Kuta Jungak Moderately Severely Lightly
3 SDN Jambu Melling Very lightly Very lightly Lightly
4 SDN Mungkur Lightly Very lightly Very lightly
5 SDN Kecupak Very lightly Very lightly Very lightly
6 SDN Bakal Julu Very lightly Very lightly Very lightly
7 SDN Batangari Severely Very lightly Lightly

In this table 5 will be shown the valuation of the renovation team based on the data of secondary
damage criteria ( Secondary Factor) as follows:
 Table 5. Valuation of Renovation Team Based on Secondary Damage
Secondary Damage
No Schools Name
B1 B2 B3 B4
1 SDN Lau Lubuk Very lightly Very lightly Moderately Moderately
2 SDN Kuta Jungak Very lightly Very lightly Lightly Very lightly
3 SDN Jambu Mbellang Very lightly Very lightly Lightly Very lightly
4 SDN Mungkur Very lightly Very lightly Very lightly Very lightly
5 SDN Kecupak Very lightly Very lightly Very lightly Very lightly
6 SDN Bakal Julu Very lightly Very lightly Very lightly Very lightly
7 SDN Batangari Very lightly Very lightly Very lightly Very lightly

After knowing the damage data, the next step is to change the data to a value based on supporting
criteria information.

Table 6. Alternative Value of Primary Damage (Core Factor)

Primary Damage
No Schools Name
A1 A2 A3
1 SDN Lau Lubuk 3 5 1
2 SDN Kuta Jungak 3 4 2
3 SDN Jambu Mbellang 1 1 2
4 SDN Mungkur 2 1 1
5 SDN Kecupak 1 1 1
6 SDN Bakal Julu 1 1 1
7 SDN Batangari 4 1 2

Table 7. Alternative Value of Secondary Damage (Secondary Factor)

Secondary Damage
No Schools Name
B1 B2 B3 B4
1 SDN Lau Lubuk 1 1 3 3
2 SDN Kuta Jungak 1 1 2 1
3 SDN Jambu Mbellang 1 1 2 1
4 SDN Mungkur 1 1 1 1
5 SDN Kecupak 1 1 1 1
6 SDN Bakal Julu 1 1 1 1
7 SDN Batangari 1 1 1 1

3.2.3 GAP Mapping

The damage value is obtained from the results of research scores by the renovation team. In
table 8 there is an achievement value (profile value) which is the minimum value of damage that the
school must have in order to become a government priority for renovation, as follows:

Table 8. Value of Achieving Primary Damage

Primary Damage
Profile Value
(Core Factor)
A1 Wall 5
A2 Roof 4
A3 Floor 3
 Table 9. Value of Achieving Secondary Damage
Secondary Damage
Profile Value
(Core Factor)
B1 Foundation 2
B2 Structure 3
B3 Ceiling 5
B4 Utilities 4

After obtaining the profile value and damage value from each school, then the calculation of the
GAP value. The formula for finding GAP can be formulated in the formula below :

GAP = Criteria Value – Profile Value

Table 10. Value of Primary Damage GAP

Primary Damage
No Schools Name
A1 A2 A3
1 SDN Lau Lubuk 3 5 1
2 SDN Kuta Jungak 3 4 2
3 SDN Jambu Mbellang 1 1 2
4 SDN Mungkur 2 1 1
5 SDN Kecupak 1 1 1
6 SDN Bakal Julu 1 1 1
7 SDN Batangari 4 1 2
Profile Value 5 4 3
1 SDN Lau Lubuk -2 1 -2
2 SDN Kuta Jungak -2 0 -1
3 SDN Jambu Mbellang -4 -3 -1
Nilai
4 SDN Mungkur -3 -3 -2
GAP
5 SDN Kecupak -4 -3 -2
6 SDN Bakal Julu -4 -3 -2
7 SDN Batangari 3 5 1
 Table 11. Value of Secondary Damage GAP
Secondary Damage
No Schools Name
B1 B2 B3 B4
1 SDN Lau Lubuk 1 1 3 3
2 SDN Kuta Jungak 1 1 2 1
3 SDN Jambu Mbellang 1 1 2 1
4 SDN Mungkur 1 1 1 1
5 SDN Kecupak 1 1 1 1
6 SDN Bakal Julu 1 1 1 1
7 SDN Batangari 1 1 1 1
Profile Value 4 3 5 4
1 SDN Lau Lubuk -3 -2 -2 -1
2 SDN Kuta Jungak -3 -2 -3 -3
3 SDN Jambu Mbellang -3 -2 -3 -3
Nilai
4 SDN Mungkur -3 -2 -4 -3
GAP
5 SDN Kecupak -3 -2 -4 -3
6 SDN Bakal Julu -3 -2 -4 -3
7 SDN Batangari -3 -2 -4 -3

After getting the GAP value, the next step is to find the weight of each value. Weight values are
obtained from the table of weight values below:

Table 12. GAP Weight Value

No Difference Value Weight Information
There is no difference (school damage
1 0 5
according to program requirements)
2 1 4.5 School damage is over 1 level
3 -1 4 School damage lacks 1 level
4 2 3.5 School damage is over 2 level
5 -2 3 School damage lacks 3 level
6 3 2.5 School damage is over 3 level
7 -3 2 School damage lacks 3 level
8 4 1.5 School damage is over 4 level
9 -4 1 School damage lacks 4 level
Based on the GAP mapping table, the following values are obtained:

Table 13. Weight Value of Primary Damage Aspect

Primary Damage
No Schools Name
A1 A2 A3
1 SDN Lau Lubuk 3,5 4,5 3,5
2 SDN Kuta Jungak 3,5 5 4
3 SDN Jambu Mbellang 1 2 4
4 SDN Mungkur 2 2 2
5 SDN Kecupak 1 2 3
6 SDN Bakal Julu 1 2 3
7 SDN Batangari 4 2 4
 Table 14. Weight Value of Secondary Damage Aspect
Secondary Damage
No Schools Name
B1 B2 B3 B4
1 SDN Lau Lubuk 2 3 3 4
2 SDN Kuta Jungak 2 3 2 2
3 SDN Jambu Mbellang 2 3 2 2
4 SDN Mungkur 2 3 1 2
5 SDN Kecupak 2 3 1 2
6 SDN Bakal Julu 2 3 1 2
7 SDN Batangari 2 3 1 2

3.2.4 Calculation of Core and Secondary Factor

To find the Core factor value, the sum of the weight values for each aspect of school damage
will be averaged later after the next step is to find the final result. The final result is the multiplication
of the average value with a 65% core factor weight. The total weight of 65% comes from the main
factors that are very influential in making decisions. While the weight of the second factor is 35%
which is a supporting factor in making decisions. Following is the calculation table to find the core
factor and the final results.

Table 15. Core Factor Calculation and Final Value

Primary Damage
No Schools Name Average Final Value
A1 A2 A3
1 SDN Lau Lubuk 3,5 4,5 3,5 3,83 3,82*65% = 2.49
2 SDN Kuta Jungak 3,5 5 4 4,17 4,17*65% = 2.17
3 SDN Jambu Mbellang 1 2 4 2,33 2,33*65% = 1,52
4 SDN Mungkur 2 2 2 2 2*65% = 1,3
5 SDN Kecupak 1 2 3 2 2*65% = 1,3
6 SDN Bakal Julu 1 2 3 2 2*65% = 1,3
7 SDN Batangari 4 2 4 3,33 3,33*65% = 2,17

Table 16. Secondary Factor Calculation and Final Value

Secondary Damage
No Schools Name Average Final Value
B1 B2 B3 B4
1 SDN Lau Lubuk 2 3 3 4 3 3*35% = 1.4
2 SDN Kuta Jungak 2 3 2 2 2,25 2,25*35% = 0,7
3 SDN Jambu Mbellang 2 3 2 2 2,25 2,25*35% = 0,7
4 SDN Mungkur 2 3 1 2 2 2*35% = 0,7
5 SDN Kecupak 2 3 1 2 2 2*35% = 0,7
6 SDN Bakal Julu 2 3 1 2 2 2*35% = 0,7
7 SDN Batangari 2 3 1 2 2 2*35% = 0,7

After getting the final value from each factor, the next step is to find the final total value to get
the decision on which school is feasible to be renovated and become the priority of development by
government programs. The formula for finding the final total value is to add up each factor, the
following results from the final value:
 Table 17. Secondary Factor Calculation and Final Value
Core Factor Secondary Factor
No Schools Name Total Final Value
Value Value
1 SDN Lau Lubuk 2,49 1,4 3,89
2 SDN Kuta Jungak 2,71 0,7 3,41
3 SDN Jambu Mbellang 1,52 0,7 2,22
4 SDN Mungkur 1,3 0,7 2
5 SDN Kecupak 1,3 0,7 2
6 SDN Bakal Julu 1,3 0,7 2
7 SDN Batangari 2,17 0,7 2,87

After getting the final grade from each school, the next step is ranking. In this case, if the value
≥ 3.40 then the school is feasible of renovation, and if the value ≤ 2.99 then the school is not feasible
and does not become a priority for renovation.

Table 18. Ranking

No Schools Name Total Final Value Eligibility Limit ≥ 3.40
1 SDN Lau Lubuk 3,89 Feasible
2 SDN Kuta Jungak 3,41 Feasible
3 SDN Jambu Mbellang 2,22 Not Feasible
4 SDN Mungkur 2 Not Feasible
5 SDN Kecupak 2 Not Feasible
6 SDN Bakal Julu 2 Not Feasible
7 SDN Batangari 2,87 Not Feasible

From the table above, it can be seen that schools are feasible of being renovated in government
programs are SDN Lau Lubuk and SDN Kuta Jungak.

3. Conclusion
Based on the results of the implementation and analysis carried out on the decision support
system to determine which schools are suitable for renovation in Dairi district, conclusions can be
drawn on the application of the profile matching method that is very helpful in decision support
systems to determine which schools are suitable for renovation by the government.
With this system, the government can more easily channel funds and can run the National
School Renovation Program, especially in remote areas such as in Dairi District. Of the 7 schools that
were taken into consideration, SDN Lau Lubuk and Kuta Jungck SDN were obtained as schools that
were prioritized and entitled to be renovated because they had severely damaged school conditions.
With the feasibility value of SDN Lau Lubuk is 3.89 and the feasibility value of Kuta Jungak
Elementary School is 3.41.
4. References
[1] Turban, Efrain and Aronson, Jay, 2001, Decision Support System and Intelligent System,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey
[2] Elie Raad, Richard Chbeir, Albert Dipanda, “User profile matching in social networks.
Network-Based Information Systems" (NBiS), Sep 2010, Japan. pp.297-304, 2014
[3] Lamadon, T., Lise, J., Meghir, C., Robin, J.M.,2014.Matching, sorting, firm productivity and
wages.Mimeo. University College London.
[4] Alkan, A. 2002. A class of multi-partner matching markets with a strong lattice structure. Econ.
Theory 19. 737-746.
[5] Sonmez. T. 1997. Manipulation via capacities in two-sided matching markets. J. Econ. Theory
77. 197-204.