Quantitative Model of the National Defense Index Based on Dynamic Systems and RFAHP

Authors

  • Resti Oktaviani National Defense University
  • Yanif Dwi Kuntjoro The Republic of Indonesia Defense University
  • Eltanin Lionel Purba The Republic of Indonesia Defense University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63210/jp3.v3i1.224

Keywords:

National Defense Index, RFAHP method, dynamic modeling

Abstract

The modeling of the National Defense Index is conducted to produce a measurement system that is objective, quantifiable, transparent, and adaptive to the dynamics of emerging threats. This study aims to develop a quantitative National Defense Index model based on a Dynamic System approach and the Robust Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process. The development of this model is motivated by the absence of a mathematically grounded measurement framework capable of representing the condition of national defense while supporting policy evaluation and strategic decision-making.The Robust Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process method is employed to address uncertainty, subjectivity, and complexity in the multi-criteria weighting process, while the Dynamic System approach is utilized to capture the continuous evolution of defense conditions. The research data were obtained from assessments by approximately 10 respondents across more than 150 sub-criteria derived from three primary defense dimensions: national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national security. The research procedure includes the identification of criteria and sub-criteria, determination of weights, data collection, score calculation, and index aggregation. The results indicate that the proposed model is capable of generating a more representative, structured, and applicable numerical measure for assessing national defense conditions. Based on simulation results, the National Defense Index value is 0.604531081, which falls within the moderate category. This finding suggests that the current national defense condition still requires strengthening in several strategic aspects. Therefore, the developed National Defense Index model can serve as a decision-support tool for policy evaluation, budget planning, personnel needs assessment, and the development of defense systems in a more measurable and adaptive manner.

References

Buzan, B. (1991). People, states and fear: An agenda for international security studies in the post-Cold War era. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2

Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. MIT Press.

Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Torrisi, G. (2019). On the methodological framework of composite indices: A review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Social Indicators Research, 141(1), 61–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9

Husein, F. K. A., Nandita, A. K., Chrisanto, C., & Rachmawati, R. N. (2023). Conceptual model measurement of total people’s defence and security system readiness. Jurnal Pertahanan. https://jurnal.idu.ac.id

Keller, P., & Kleine-Brockhoff, T. (2026). Measuring what matters: Introducing the national security & resilience index (NSRI). German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP).

Kuntjoro, Y. D. (2009). Metode fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (SFAHP) (Disertasi doktoral, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember).

Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/std/42495745.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264043466-en

Republik Indonesia. (2002). Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2002 tentang pertahanan negara. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill.

Saaty, T. L. (1993). Decision making for leaders: The analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. RWS Publications.

Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill.

Tkachenko, V., et al. (2024). Justification of the approach to the optimal selection of performance indicators of the defense sector. Social Development and Security. https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2024.14.1.5

United Nations. (2004). A more secure world: Our shared responsibility: Report of the high-level panel on threats, challenges and change. https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/59/565

Weissmann, M. (2021). Conceptualizing and countering hybrid threats and hybrid warfare. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349496635

Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-8

Published

2026-06-30

How to Cite

Oktaviani, R., Kuntjoro, Y. D., & Purba, E. L. (2026). Quantitative Model of the National Defense Index Based on Dynamic Systems and RFAHP. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Pertahanan, 3(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.63210/jp3.v3i1.224