FYP Presentation slide about Mobile Devices Selection System

1. MOBILE DEVICES SELECTION SYSTEM
BASED ON ANALYTIC HIERARCHY
PROCESS (AHP)
PRESENTED BY:
NAME : YONG ENG WEI
MATRIC NO. : BTCL15039547

2. CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION

3. 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
• Mobile devices is important in people’s daily life.
• Since there is more and more company that provide laptop and
smartphone products with different specification and
functionality, this has caused many people struggle in choosing
the suitable model for their daily use due to lack of knowledge
in this field.
• Mobile Devices Selection System using AHP is developed and
design to help users determined the category of suitable laptops
and smartphones for daily use.

4. 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
• Usage of laptop and smartphone have increasing gradually.
• Too many models in market.
• Users have too much choice which cause them feel struggle
when buying a new laptop or smartphone.

5. 1.3 OBJECTIVE
• To study how analytical hierarchy process (AHP) assists user in
making decision when buying mobile devices.
• To design a system that can select suitable mobile devices for
user.
• To implement a web-services for mobile devices’ selection
using analytical hierarchy process (AHP).

6. 1.4 SCOPE
• USERS
 User able to use the selection system. User will need to answer some
questions. This question will help user to find out which type of laptop
and mobile phone is suitable for user’s daily use.
 User able to search and review all models of laptops and smartphones in
the system.
 User can find out specification of mobile devices by reviewing all models
of laptop and smartphone.
• ADMINISTRATOR
 Admin is able to log in and update products and question that using for
decision making.

7. 1.5 LIMITATION
• Users cannot buy any product through the system.

8. 1.6 EXPECTED RESULT
• User can be recommended with suitable laptops and
smartphones based on their answer on specific criteria.
• User can search for all the models of laptop and smartphone
provided in the system.
• User can review specification of all the models of laptop and
smartphone provided in the system.
• Admin able perform Create, Read, Update, Delete (CRUD).

9. CHAPTER 3 : PROJECT
METHODOLOGY

10. 3.1 JUSTIFICATION OF METHODOLOGY
Iterative and Incremental Development Model

11. 3.2 SYSTEM REQUIREMENT
Software

12. 3.2 SYSTEM REQUIREMENT
Hardware

13. 3.3 ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS
Fundamental Scale for Pairwise Comparisons

14. 3.3.1 SELECTION OF CRITERIA & SUB-CRITERIA

15. • Alternative for laptop:-
1. Gaming
2. Power Use
3. Artist
4. Education
5. Average Use
• Alternative for smartphone:-
1. Gaming
2. Business
3. Photography
4. Average Use
3.3.2 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE

16. 3.3.3 PAIRWISE COMPARISON BETWEEN CRITERIA
Pairwise comparison between 3 criteria for laptop
Pairwise comparison between 3 criteria for smartphone

17. 3.3.3 PAIRWISE COMPARISON BETWEEN SUB-CRITERIA
If user choose Pro Gamer,

18. 3.3.3 PAIRWISE COMPARISON BETWEEN SUB-CRITERIA
If user choose Games,

19. 3.3.3 PAIRWISE COMPARISON BETWEEN SUB-CRITERIA
If user choose Indoor,

20. 3.3.4 PAIRWISE COMPARISON BETWEEN
TYPES OF LAPTOP FOR EACH SUB-CRITERIA
Pairwise comparison between types of laptop for Professional Gamer

21. 3.3.5 NORMALIZATION OF COMPARISON MATRIX
COMPARISON BETWEEN CRITERIA

22. 3.3.6 NORMALIZATION OF COMPARISON MATRIX COMPARISON
BETWEEN SUB-CRITERIA

23. 3.3.6 NORMALIZATION OF COMPARISON MATRIX COMPARISON
BETWEEN SUB-CRITERIA

24. 3.3.6 NORMALIZATION OF COMPARISON MATRIX COMPARISON
BETWEEN SUB-CRITERIA

25. 3.3.7 NORMALIZATION OF COMPARISON MATRIX
COMPARISON BETWEEN TYPES OF LAPTOP FOR EACH
SUBCRITERIA
Normalization of Comparison Matrix comparison between types of laptop for
Professional Gamer

26. 3.3.8 RESULT ANALYSIS – LOCAL PRIORITY

27. 3.3.8 RESULT ANALYSIS – GLOBAL PRIORITY

28. 3.3.8 RESULT ANALYSIS – FINAL RESULT

29. 3.3.9 RANKING

30. 3.4 CONTEXT DIAGRAM

31. 3.5 DATA FLOW DIAGRAM (DFD)

32. 3.5.1 DFD LVL 1 FOR LOGIN PROCESS

33. 3.5.2 DFD LVL 1 FOR MANAGE PRODUCT

34. 3.5.3 DFD LVL 1 FOR MANAGE CRITERIA

35. 3.5.4 DFD LVL 1 FOR ANSWER CRITERIA

36. 3.6 ENTITY RELATIONSHIP DIAGRAM