Strategic Decision-Making for Low-Sulfur Gasoline Production at RU III Plaju Using an Integrated AHP–TOPSIS Framework for the Pre-Feasibility Gate in Support of Indonesia's Net Zero Emissions 2060
Downloads
Indonesia’s energy transition toward Net Zero Emissions (NZE) 2060 requires the refining sector to improve fuel quality while maintaining energy security and economic sustainability. One of the critical challenges faced by PT Kilang Pertamina Internasional Refinery Unit III (RU III) Plaju is the inability to consistently produce low-sulfur gasoline that meets Euro IV/V standards due to limited desulfurization capability. This condition creates a strategic decision challenge involving technical, economic, regulatory, and sustainability considerations. This study aims to determine the most feasible strategic alternative for low-sulfur gasoline production at RU III Plaju by developing an integrated decision-making framework for the pre-feasibility stage. The research applies a sequential mixed-methods approach combining SWOT analysis, IFE–EFE matrix evaluation, TOWS analysis, and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) using the AHP–TOPSIS framework. Expert judgments from refinery managers, engineers, and technical specialists were used to evaluate strategic alternatives based on strategic viability, economic viability, technical compliance, and regulatory sustainability criteria. The results indicate that the construction of a Hydrodesulfurization/Gasoline Sulfur Handling (HDS/GSH) unit is the optimal alternative, achieving the highest TOPSIS closeness coefficient of 0.8481. Sensitivity analysis confirms the robustness of this ranking under variations in criteria weights. The study concludes that the proposed AHP–TOPSIS framework provides a transparent, systematic, and reliable approach for strategic investment decisions, supporting RU III Plaju’s long-term competitiveness and Indonesia’s NZE 2060 objectives.
Afrane, S., Ampah, J. D., Agyekum, E. B., Amoh, P. O., Yusuf, A. A., Fattah, I. M. R., Agbozo, E., Elgamli, E., Shouran, M., Mao, G., & Kamel, S. (2022). Integrated AHP-TOPSIS under a fuzzy environment for the selection of waste-to-energy technologies in Ghana: A performance analysis and socio-enviro-economic feasibility study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), Article 8428. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148428
Amiri, A. A., Wahid, M. N., Al-Buraiki, A. S., & Al-Sharafi, A. (2024). A strategic multi-criteria decision-making framework for renewable energy source selection in Saudi Arabia using AHP-TOPSIS. Renewable Energy, 236, Article 121523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.121523
Burke, P. J., Widnyana, J., Anjum, Z., Aisbett, E., Resosudarmo, B., & Baldwin, K. G. H. (2019). Overcoming barriers to solar and wind energy adoption in two Asian giants: India and Indonesia. Energy Policy, 132, 1216–1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.055
Chaube, S., Kumar, A., Kumar Singh, M., & Kotecha, K. (2024). An overview of multi-criteria decision analysis and the applications of AHP and TOPSIS methods. International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, 9(3), 581–615. https://doi.org/10.33889/IJMEMS.2024.9.3.030
Cohen, A. J., Brauer, M., Burnett, R., Anderson, H. R., Frostad, J., Estep, K., … Forouzanfar, M. H. (2017). Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution: An analysis of data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2015. The Lancet, 389(10082), 1907–1918. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30505-6
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
David, F. R., David, F. R., & David, M. E. (2020). Strategic management: A competitive advantage approach, concepts and cases (17th ed., Global Edition). Pearson Education.
Dinh, Q.-T. (2025). Optimal maintenance strategy selection for oil and gas industry equipment using a combined analytical hierarchy process–technique for order of preference by similarity to an ideal solution: A case study in the oil and gas industry. Processes, 13(5), Article 1389. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13051389
Forman, E., & Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 108(1), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00244-0
Halff, A., Younes, L., & Boersma, T. (2019). The likely implications of the new IMO standards on the shipping industry. Energy Policy, 126, 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.033
Heggelund, G. M. (2021). China’s climate and energy policy: At a turning point? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 21(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-021-09528-5
Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications—A state-of-the-art survey. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
Institute for Essential Services Reform. (2024). Impact analysis of fuel quality standards. IESR.
Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Minyak dan Gas Bumi Nomor 110.K/MG.01/DJM/2022 tentang Standar dan Mutu (Spesifikasi) Bahan Bakar Minyak Jenis Bensin (Gasoline) RON 91 dan RON 95 yang Dipasarkan di Dalam Negeri. (2022). Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral Republik Indonesia.
Khajeh Hoseini, L., Jalilzadeh Yengejeh, R., Mahmoudie, A., Mohammadi Rouzbehani, M., & Sabz Alipour, S. (2021). Prioritization of effective strategic parameters in the removal of VOCs from the ROP system by using AHP: A case study of Abadan Oil Refinery. Journal of Health Sciences & Surveillance System, 9(3), 199–205. https://doi.org/10.30476/jhsss.2021.90008.1175
Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., & Kajanus, M. (2000). Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis—A hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics, 1(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(99)00004-0
Lebepe, P., & Mathaba, T. N. D. (2025). Enhancing energy resilience in enterprises: A multi-criteria approach. Sustainable Energy Research, 12(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-025-00148-0
Nguyen Ngoc, H., Mohammed Abdelkader, E., Al-Sakkaf, A., Alfalah, G., & Zayed, T. (2024). A hybrid AHP-MAUT model for assessing competitiveness of construction companies: A case study of construction companies in Vietnam and Canada. Construction Innovation, 24(5), 1320–1353. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-11-2022-0299
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill.
Sadeghbeigi, R. (2020). Fluid catalytic cracking handbook: An expert guide to the practical operation, design, and optimization of FCC units (4th ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.
Shafiq, I., Shafique, S., Akhter, P., Yang, W., & Hussain, M. (2022). Recent developments in alumina supported hydrodesulfurization catalysts for the production of sulfur-free refinery products: A technical review. Catalysis Reviews, 64(1), 1–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/01614940.2020.1780824
Syuhada, G., Akbar, A., Hardiawan, D., Pun, V., Darmawan, A., Heryati, S. H. A., Siregar, A. Y. M., Kusuma, R. R., Driejana, R., Ingole, V., Kass, D., & Mehta, S. (2023). Impacts of air pollution on health and cost of illness in Jakarta, Indonesia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), Article 2916. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20042916
Triantaphyllou, E., & Sánchez, A. (1997). A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods. Decision Sciences, 28(1), 151–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01306.x
Weihrich, H. (1982). The TOWS matrix—A tool for situational analysis. Long Range Planning, 15(2), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(82)90120-0
Copyright (c) 2026 Irza Afrianto, Utomo Sarjono Putro
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
