Abstract :

PTKP Coal Mining Company, a prominent player in the Indonesian coal mining industry, faces operational challenges in optimizing its power generation capacity following the termination of a contract with the national electricity company in 2020. This study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative insights from interviews with key stakeholders and quantitative data analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), to provide a comprehensive and structured framework for project prioritization and resource allocation. The qualitative results reveal a multifaceted approach to addressing the company’s operational challenges, focusing on improving asset utilization, reassessing operational strategies, optimizing operational flexibility, and adapting to load changes. The AHP analysis offers a robust decision-making framework, considering multiple criteria such as economic feasibility, strategic alignment, regulatory compliance, technical feasibility, and environmental impact. The prioritization of projects showcases the strategic significance of each initiative, with Project E emerging as the top priority, followed by Project G, and Projects B, H, and M forming the middle tier. This structured approach enables PTKP Coal Mining Company to navigate complex challenges, remain agile in changing market conditions, and effectively leverage its assets and capabilities to achieve its objectives and drive long-term success. The study highlights the strengths of the AHP methodology in guiding strategic planning and resource distribution while shaping decision-making processes across the organization. However, the research also acknowledges limitations, such as the reliance on a small sample size, the focus on a single company, and the emphasis on the prioritization phase. Future research directions are proposed to address these limitations and further enhance the understanding and effectiveness of structured decision-making approaches in the energy sector and beyond, ultimately contributing to the alignment of corporate strategies with broader societal goals and sustainable development.

---

Keywords :

analytical hierarchy process, Decision Analysis, power generation optimization, project prioritization, resource allocation

---

References :

1. Agarwal, J. D., Agarwal, Y., & Agarwal, A. (2022). Ranking World Economies based on Fintech Vertical Opportunity Index (FVOI). Finance India, 36(4), 1173–1191. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85148757778&partnerID=40&md5=669d3300edbf0f9a045da3a826c663c6
2. Åkerblad, L., Seppänen-Järvelä, R., & Haapakoski, K. (2021). Integrative Strategies in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820957125
3. Asadabadi, M. R., Chang, E., & Saberi, M. (2019). Are MCDM methods useful? A critical review of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Analytic Network Process (ANP). Cogent Engineering, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2019.1623153
4. Asadikia, A., Rajabifard, A., & Kalantari, M. (2021). Systematic prioritisation of SDGs: Machine learning approach. World Development, 140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105269
5. Cammarano, A., Perano, M., Michelino, F., Del Regno, C., & Caputo, M. (2022). SDG-Oriented Supply Chains: Business Practices for Procurement and Distribution. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031325
6. Dvir, A. J. S. and D. (2004). Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. Project Management Journal, 7(3).
7. Emovon, I., & Oghenenyerovwho, O. S. (2020). Application of MCDM method in material selection for optimal design: A review. Results in Materials, 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinma.2020.100115
8. Freeman, R. E., Dmytriyev, S. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2021). Stakeholder Theory and the Resource-Based View of the Firm. Journal of Management, 47(7). https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206321993576
9. Graham, Robert. J., & Englund, Randall. L. (2004). Creating an environment for successful projects. In Jossey-Bass Awiiley Imprint (Issue December).
10. Gray, C. F., & Larson, E. W. (2011). Project Management: The Managerial Process: Fifth edition. In McGraw-Hill.
11. Gyani, J., Ahmed, A., & Haq, M. A. (2022). MCDM and Various Prioritization Methods in AHP for CSS: A Comprehensive Review. In IEEE Access (Vol. 10). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3161742
12. Hudaefi, F. A. (2020). How does Islamic fintech promote the SDGs? Qualitative evidence from Indonesia. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-05-2019-0058
13. Ikram, M., Zhang, Q., & Sroufe, R. (2020). Developing integrated management systems using an AHP-Fuzzy VIKOR approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2501
14. Jaskari, M. M., & Syrjälä, H. (2023). A Mixed-Methods Study of Marketing Students’ Game-Playing Motivations and Gamification Elements. Journal of Marketing Education, 45(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/02734753221083220
15. Jones, I. (2022). Research Methods for Sports Studies. In Research Methods for Sports Studies. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003195467
16. Kerzner, Harold., & Saladis, F. P. (2009). Project management workbook and PMP/CAPM exam study guide. In PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASYSTEMS APPROACH TO PLANNING SCHEDULIN AND CONTROL (Vol. 10).
17. Kraus, P., Stokes, P., Tarba, S. Y., Rodgers, P., Dekel-Dachs, O., Britzelmaier, B., & Moore, N. (2022). The ambidextrous interaction of RBV-KBV and regional social capital and their impact on SME management. Journal of Business Research, 142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.047
18. Lyu, L., Wu, W., Hu, H., & Huang, R. (2019). An evolving regional innovation network: collaboration among industry, university, and research institution in China’s first technology hub. Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(3), 659–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9620-x
19. Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Nor, K. M. D., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., & Valipour, A. (2015). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications – A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. In Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja (Vol. 28, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139
20. McGahan, A. M. (2021). Integrating Insights From the Resource-Based View of the Firm Into the New Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Management, 47(7). https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320987282
21. Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., & Mantel Jr., S. J. (2017). Project Management: A Strategic Managerial Approach, Enhanced eText. In Business & Economics.
22. Sequeira, M., Hilletofth, P., & Adlemo, A. (2021). AHP-based support tools for initial screening of manufacturing reshoring decisions. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.1108/JGOSS-07-2020-0037
23. Serrador, P., & Turner, R. (2015). The relationship between project success and project efficiency. Project Management Journal, 46(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21468
24. Sukaatmadja, I. P. G., Yasa, N. N. K., Rahyuda, H., Setini, M., & Dharmanegara, I. B. A. (2021). Competitive advantage to enhance internationalization and marketing performance woodcraft industry: A perspective of resource-based view theory. Journal of Project Management. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2020.9.002
25. Taherdoost, H., & Madanchian, M. (2023). Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods and Concepts. Encyclopedia, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010006
26. Timans, R., Wouters, P., & Heilbron, J. (2019). Mixed methods research: what it is and what it could be. Theory and Society, 48(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-019-09345-5
27. Wysocki, R. K. (2019). Effective Project Management: Traditional, Agile, Extreme, Hybrid, Eighth Edition. In Effective Project Management: Traditional, Agile, Extreme, Hybrid, Eighth Edition. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119562757