An application of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in formulating priority strategy for enhancing creative industry competitiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is aimed to analyze the variables of external environment, organizational resources, organizational capabilities, and business competitiveness. The study priorities strategy and programs as basic for developing the competitiveness of creative industry in Indonesia. The number of respondents who participated in this survey was 200, while the key informants were 10 people. Method of analysis involved descriptive statistics, and analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Then, data were processed by using both IBM SPSS 24, and Expert Choice 11. The results show that creative industry competitiveness has relatively declined during covid-19 pandemic. Although external environment support, organizational resources, and organizational capabilities were at good shape. The priority strategy for competitiveness development should be focused on strengthen the organizational capabilities by considering the dynamics of external environmental factors and internal resource capacity. Then, the priority programs developed sequentially are increasing partnerships with suppliers, distributors and customers, analyzing social and economic aspects, developing human resource capacity, and using information and communication technology in products and services. In addition, another important program is strengthening the supply chain system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".