Multi-Criteria Decision Support for Smart Manufacturing Innovation Ecosystems Toward Industry 6.0
Keywords:
ELECTRE, MCDM, Manufacturing InnovationAbstract
The transition towards Industry 6.0 demands the evolution of intelligent manufacturing systems beyond automation and digitalization towards integrated, human-centric, and resilient innovation ecosystems. The assessment of ecosystem readiness in the face of such complexity is essentially a multi-criteria decision problem with conflicting objectives and structural risk constraints. This study proposes a non-compensatory multi-criteria decision support system using the ELECTRE method to evaluate the readiness of Smart Manufacturing Innovation Ecosystems in Indonesia. Seven industry 6.0-oriented criteria are considered, including technology infrastructure readiness, digital connectivity, human capital capability, sustainability, governance, cybersecurity, and investment costs. The structured decision matrix is normalized, weighted, and processed using concordance-discordance analysis to obtain an outranking dominance relationship between the decision alternatives. The results show that ecosystem readiness varies, with regions with balanced digital, governance, and cybersecurity readiness exhibiting structural dominance, while regions with lower digital readiness but lower investment costs are vetoed due to non-compensatory decision rules. Sensitivity analysis shows that the ranking of decision alternatives remains robust with moderate weight/threshold changes. The ELECTRE-based non-compensatory decision approach is more appropriate than compensatory approaches in evaluating strategic industrial constraints pertinent to the industry 6.0 transition. The study’s contribution is the operationalization of industry 6.0 principles within a decision support system framework, providing policy-relevant prioritization results pertinent to the smart manufacturing development strategy in Indonesia.
References
[1] Madsen, D. Ø.; Slåtten, K.; Berg, T. (2025). From Industry 4.0 to Industry 6.0: Tracing the Evolution of Industrial Paradigms Through the Lens of Management Fashion Theory, Systems, Vol. 13, No. 5, 387. doi:10.3390/systems13050387
[2] Verma, A.; Prasad, V. K.; Kumari, A.; Bhattacharya, P.; Srivastava, G.; Fang, K.; Wang, W.; Gadekallu, T. R. (2025). Industry 6.0: Vision, technical landscape, and opportunities, Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 130, 139–174. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2025.08.040
[3] Fernández-Miguel, A.; Ortíz-Marcos, S.; Jiménez-Calzado, M.; Fernández del Hoyo, A. P.; García-Muiña, F.; Settembre-Blundo, D. (2026). A data-driven and cognitive analytics framework for sustainable supply chain transformation in industry 6.0, Supply Chain Analytics, Vol. 13, 100197. doi:10.1016/j.sca.2026.100197
[4] Fitrianti, E.; Annur, S.; Afriantoni. (2024). Revolusi Industri 4.0: Inovasi dan Tantangan dalam Pendidikan di Indonesia, Journal of Education and Culture, Vol. 4, No. 1, 28–35. doi:10.58707/jec.v4i1.860
[5] Rendra Kurniawan; Muhammad Yasin. (2025). Dampak Revolusi Industri 4.0 Terhadap Kesiapan Indonesia, MENAWAN?: Jurnal Riset Dan Publikasi Ilmu Ekonomi, Vol. 3, No. 1, 195–205. doi:10.61132/menawan.v3i1.1181
[6] Purba, Nabillah, Mhd Yahya, Nurbaiti, M. K. (2021). REVOLUSI INDUSTRI 4.0?: PERAN TEKNOLOGI DALAM EKSISTENSI PENGUASAAN BISNIS DAN IMPLEMENTASINYA, Jurnal Perilaku Dan Strategi Bisnis Vol.9, Vol. 9, No. 2, 91–98
[7] Fesa Kristianto; Ulfia, Y. N.; Galih Prakoso. (2025). Framework for Digital Transformation in Industry 4.0: Insights Data Driven Analysis in the Indonesia Manufacture Sector, Journal of Advances in Information and Industrial Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 45–60. doi:10.52435/jaiit.v7i1.630
[8] Tan, H. S. R.; Andhika, A.; Ariyanti, F. D.; Soebandrija, K. E. N. (2019). Pengembangan Model Pengukuran Kesiapan Industri 4.0 Untuk Perusahaan Manufaktur di Indonesia, Jurnal PASTI, Vol. 13, No. 2, 106. doi:10.22441/pasti.2019.v13i2.001
[9] Afshari, A.; Mojahed, M.; Yusuff, R. (2010). Simple additive weighting approach to personnel selection problem, International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 5, 511–515. doi:10.7763/IJIMT.2010.V1.89
[10] Karande, P.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Chakraborty, S. (2016). A study on the ranking performance of some MCDM methods for industrial robot selection problems, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, Vol. 7, No. 3, 399–422. doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2016.1.001
[11] Akmaludin, A.; Sihombing, E. G.; Rinawati, R.; Handayanna, F.; Sari Dewi, L.; Arisawati, E. (2023). Generation 4.0 of the programmer selection decision support system: MCDM-AHP and ELECTRE-elimination recommendations, International Journal of Advances in Applied Sciences, Vol. 12, No. 1, 48. doi:10.11591/ijaas.v12.i1.pp48-59
[12] Zer, P. P. P. A. N. W. F. I. R. H.; Masitha; Windarto, A. P.; Wanto, A. (2019). Analysis of the ELECTRE Method on the Selection of Student Creativity Program Proposals, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1255, No. 1. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1255/1/012011
[13] Mimis, M.; El Hajji, M.; Es-saady, Y.; Oueld Guejdi, A.; Douzi, H.; Mammass, D. (2019). A Framework for Smart Academic Guidance Using Educational Data Mining, Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1379–1393. doi:10.1007/s10639-018-9838-8
[14] Pulselli, R. M.; Marchi, M.; Neri, E.; Marchettini, N.; Bastianoni, S. (2019). Carbon Accounting Framework for Decarbonisation of European City Neighbourhoods, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 208, 850–868. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.102
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dhanar Intan Surya Saputra, Dian Utami Sutiksno, Robbi Rahim
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
