Use of Ergonomics and Analytical Hierarchy Process Model for Selection of Cities of Small Medium Enterprises

Fish Smoking is a traditional method that has long been used in fisheries. The use of fish smoking devices can have a negative impact on human health which results in the entry of smoke into the eyes, lungs, and skin. In order not to be harmful to human health, ergonomic and healthy fish smoking devices are used. This study analyzes the prioritization of Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) groups in the use of fish smoking devices to reduce the risk of health problems. The approach method used in this analysis uses the Ergonomics and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method to determine the priorities of SMEs groups in the use of fish smoking devices. The criteria in this analysis are Ergonomics (Safe, Comfortable, Healthy), Health, Education Level, Community Participation, Motivation, Habits, and Resistance. The results of the analysis found that priority choices in percentage include E, A, B, D, and C regencies. It is hoped that with the holding of Diffusion Technology Results of Innovation Products (DTHPI), the use of modern fish smoking devices that are more ergonomic, healthy, and practical can help improve the welfare of SMEs.


Introduction
Indonesia is recognized as one of the countries rich in the diversity of fish and marine resources.Its strategic geographic location between the Pacific and Indian Oceans positions Indonesia with abundant potential for marine resources, surrounded by islands that offer beautiful landscapes.The estimated total potential fish resources across the 11 Fisheries Management Areas of the Republic of Indonesia are projected to reach 12.01 million tons per year, with a permitted total allowable catch (TAC) of about 8.6 million tons per year (Kepmen KP, 19/2022).With abundant fish resources, Indonesia holds the potential for a significant fishing community.The Ministry of Home Affairs records that the number of fishermen in Indonesia is approximately 1.27 million people by the end of 2022.This demonstrates that

Use of Ergonomics and Analytical Hierarchy Process Model for Selection of Cities of Small Medium Enterprises
Eko Nurmianto 1 , S H Kusuma 2 , M Nurif 3 , M D Kurniawan 4 , F N Nurmianto 3 , K A Nugraha 2  Traditional smoking tools is a method that has been long used in the fishing industry.The fish smoking process takes a considerable amount of time, up to 12 hours per day.This can be considered inefficient as it doesn't add significant value for the fishermen.Moreover, traditional smoking tools has adverse effects on human health due to the production of substances that can potentially cause illnesses over time.Therefore, there is a need to further address traditional smoking methods by adopting safer and more modern approaches for the sake of health.The development of modern smoking tools is aimed at assisting Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) in coastal areas and increasing efficiency.The innovation behind this modern smoking tools involves reducing smoke by integrating several smoke-reducing functions to ensure safety, comfort, and health for users, while also enhancing the efficiency of the fish smoking process.Research Objectives: a.To determine which MSE among the MSEs perform well in several cities. b.To select the criteria for identifying successful MSEs.c.To enchance the performance of MSEs for better outcomes.

Literatur Review
Local Economic Development Based on Fisheries for the Self-Sufficiency of Poteran Island, Sumenep Regency, which was previously conducted by Adjie Pamungkas, Aries Sulisetyono, and Eko Nurmianto in 2016 [1].The earlier study explained that many fishermen still use traditional smoking tools [2].They have grown accustomed to this traditional method as it has been utilized for years.However, this tools has negative health implications, as it can lead to various health issues for humans.The smoke generated by this tools can hinder breathing and visibility on the streets.Consequently, the previous researchers developed an innovation in the form of modern smoking tools to assist MSEs in several cities in using this tool.

Methodology
The selection of a Multi-Criteria Decision Method to address specific issues is a problem of multicriteria decision-making without a clear-cut solution.Choosing one method over another is often done arbitrarily due to the lack of standardized rules [3].The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been used to determine the priority of existing criteria and alternatives.It is recommended for ranking problems with scores [4].
The AHP method has piqued the interest of numerous researchers, mainly due to its sound mathematical nature and the fact that the required input data is relatively easily obtainable [5].Its simplicity is marked by comparing pairs of alternatives according to specific criteria [6].Furthermore, this method has gained popularity and is user-friendly due to the development of various software programs.The most renowned ones are Expert Choice [7] and Super Decisions [8].In this study, we utilized Expert Choice version 11 software, which is a decision-making tool based on multi-criteria decision-making and implements AHP by calculating relative weights instead of manual calculations.
Additionally, there exists a method that can be employed to assess ergonomic risk factors, namely the Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) method [9].

Result
In the selection of criteria in this AHP analysis, it was found that the criteria with the highest results are Ergonomics, Healthy, Education, Motivate, Habits, and Resistance. Figure 2 and Table 1 illustrate the combined results of the AHP analysis based on responses from the participants.From Figure 2, it can be concluded that the criterion with the highest priority is Ergonomics, with a result of (0.419), which is the highest value among the other criteria.Figure 3 indicates that the alternative with the highest priority is E, with a result of (0.392), which is the highest value among the other alternatives.

Sensitive Analysis
The final determination of alternative priorities is influenced by the weights assigned to criteria.
Sensitivity analysis is conducted to analyze "what if" scenarios, aiming to assess how the final results would change with varying criterion weights [8].Sensitivity analysis is crucial in understanding the effects of changing the weights of main criteria on alternative rankings.The sensitivity analysis results are depicted in Figure 4.In Scenario 1, the most influential criterion is Education, indicating its significant role compared to the other criteria with relatively lower values.Similarly, in Scenario 2, the most influential criterion is Participation.In Scenario 3, the most influential criterion is Habits.

Scenario 1: Sensitivity analysis concerning the Education
In Scenario 1, it can be observed that in terms of relative importance to the goal, the alternatives remain unchanged.City E still ranks first in determining the priority of MSEs in various cities, with a value of 38.1%.City A retains the second position with a value of 22%, followed by City B at 15.2% for the third position, City C maintaining the fourth position with a value of 10,6%, City D remaining at the fifth position with 6.2%, followed by City F at 4.8%, and finally, City G at the last position with a value of 3.2%.

Scenario 2 : Sensitivity analysis concerning the Participate
In Scenario 2, it can be seen that in terms of relative importance to the goal, the alternatives remain unchanged.City E still ranks first in determining the priority of MSEs in various cities, with a value of 39.5%.City A retains the second position with a value of 22,4%, followed by City B at 14,3% for the third position, City C maintaining the fourth position with a value of 10.4%, City D remaining at the fifth position with 4.3%, followed by City F at 4,3%, and finally, City G at the last position with a value of 3.1%.

Scenario 3 : Sensitivity analysis concerning the Habit
In Scenario 3, it can be observed that in terms of relative importance to the goal, the alternatives remain unchanged.City E still ranks first in determining the priority of MSEs in various cities, with a value of 38.2%.City A retains the second position with a value of 20.8%, followed by City B at 15.7% for the third position, City C maintaining the fourth position with a value of 11.3%, City D remaining at the fifth position with 6.5%, followed by City F at 4.2%, and finally, City G at the last position with a value of 3.3%.This indicates that after conducting 3 scenarios, there have been no changes in the alternative rankings.This study represents the first endeavor to apply Ergonomics and AHP in the determination and selection of MSEs using fish smoking equipment across various cities in Indonesia.As a pioneering implementation, this study furnishes decision-makers with a methodology that takes into account criteria from the perspective of fish smoking equipment innovation and societal habits, resulting in accurate and targeted rankings in accordance with the objectives of this study.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Presents the AHP Hierarchy Structure for Determaining the Best MSEs in Various Cities

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Prioritization Results of Fish Smoking Tools Criteria

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Sensitivity analysis -initial scenario (data provided by Expert Choice software) It's evident that there are three distinct scenarios, follows: a. Scenario 1 : Sensitivity analysis concerning the Education b.Scenario 2 : Sensitivity analysis concerning the Participate c. Scenario 3 : Sensitivity analysis concerning the Habit Table 4 illustrates how the scores of each criteria change to assess the extent of impact when those criteria undergo modifications.

Table 1 .
Results of Each Critera

Figure 3 .
Alternative Prioritization Results of Fish Smoking Tools

Table 2 .
shows the final AHP results, where the Alternative has the highest score.

Table 3 .
Final AHP Results for Fish Smoking Tools Alternative Prioritazion Final Result Priority