An Intelligent Approach to Evaluating CAD Software Packages Through Hesitant Fuzzy AHP

dc.authoridAyağ, Zeki/0000-0003-4078-2804
dc.authorwosidAyağ, Zeki/IWD-9525-2023
dc.contributor.authorAyağ, Zeki
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-19T15:13:10Z
dc.date.available2023-10-19T15:13:10Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.department-temp[Ayag, Zeki] Kadir Has Univ, Fac Engn & Nat Sci, Dept Ind Engn, TR-34083 Istanbul, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.abstractThe evaluation of computer-aided design (CAD) packages among the rising number of alternatives in the market has been a critical process for companies because it directly affects the performance of their design/engineering-related activities in a new product development (NPD) as well as in R&D departments. Moreover, it is seen as an important step towards the computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM) environment. On the other hand, the evaluation process of CAD software packages is a multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem in the presence of sets of alternatives and evaluation criteria, which should be solved using one of the MCDM methods in the current literature. Therefore, in this study, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), successfully implemented in both academic research and practices, is used for CAD software selection problem. The method is also used with the group decision-making approach to reach a more reliable solution. Additionally, due to the fact that the crisp pairwise comparison in the traditional AHP method seems to be insufficient and imprecise to capture the right judgments of decision makers (DMs), the hesitant fuzzy linguistic term-sets are integrated with the AHP approach (the hesitant F-AHP) to model the vagueness and uncertainty on judgments of the DMs. This proposed approach is also supported with a user-friendly Excel template that provides an effective tool for companies to evaluate and rank CAD software packages without many tiresome fuzzy comparisons and complex calculations. Moreover, in the paper, a numerical example is presented to demonstrate the effectiveness and applicability of the proposed approach to potential readers and practitioners. In this example, five CAD software options are evaluated based on six criteria by three DMs; and the best alternative is determined.en_US
dc.identifier.citation0
dc.identifier.doi10.1142/S0219686722500056en_US
dc.identifier.endpage335en_US
dc.identifier.issn0219-6867
dc.identifier.issn1793-6896
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85117219443en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3
dc.identifier.startpage317en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1142/S0219686722500056
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12469/5621
dc.identifier.volume21en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000820589900003en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/A
dc.institutionauthorAyag, Zeki
dc.khas20231019-WoSen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWorld Scientific Publ Co Pte Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Systemsen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectGroup Decision-MakingEn_Us
dc.subjectSelectionEn_Us
dc.subjectLocationEn_Us
dc.subjectSystemEn_Us
dc.subjectGroup Decision-Making
dc.subjectCAD software package selectionen_US
dc.subjectSelection
dc.subjecthesitant fuzzy logicen_US
dc.subjectLocation
dc.subjectanalytic hierarchy processen_US
dc.subjectSystem
dc.subjectmultiple-criteria decision-makingen_US
dc.titleAn Intelligent Approach to Evaluating CAD Software Packages Through Hesitant Fuzzy AHPen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication08cbab4b-8ed5-48fe-bb67-0488cc0af5a3
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery08cbab4b-8ed5-48fe-bb67-0488cc0af5a3

Files