Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A robust decision-making methodology for evaluation and selection of simulation software package

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Today, simulation has a broad range of applications from solving service problems to analyzing manufacturing problems such as warehousing and logistic systems. Simulation has become a popular methodology and selecting an appropriate simulation software package is one of the decisions that any industrial engineer may face at work. As a result, numerous types of simulation software packages have been developed for modeling simulation problems. The increasing variety of simulation software packages in the software market makes the selection of an appropriate simulation software package a critical decision. Selecting an inappropriate software package will be followed by many negative consequences. This paper will present a robust decision-making methodology based on Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) for evaluating and selecting the appropriate simulation software package. The robust decision method aggregates the experts’ judgments for the criteria weights and the suitability of simulation software alternatives. The FAHP is used to prioritize and evaluate existing alternatives based on the proposed criteria for choosing the proper simulation software. The proposed methodology is applied to selecting the appropriate simulation software as an experiment and results are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bank J (1995) Software for simulation. Proceedings of the 1995 Winter Simulation Conference, Virginia, USA, 32–38

  2. Hlupic V, Paul RJ (1993) Simulation software in manufacturing environments: a users’ survey. J Comput Inf Technol 1(3):205–212

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hlupic V, Irani Z, Paul RJ (1999) Evaluation framework for simulation software. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 15(5):366–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jadhav AS, Sonar RM (2009) Evaluating and selecting software packages: a review. Inf Softw Technol 51(3):555–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Law AM, Haider SW (1989) Selecting simulation software for manufacturing applications: practical guidelines and software survey. Ind Eng 34:33–46

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bovone M, De Ferrari V, Manuelli R (1989) How to choose a useful simulation software. Proceedings of the 1989 European Simulation Multiconference, Rome, Italy, 39–43

  7. Davis L, Williams G (1994) Evaluation and selecting simulation software using the analytic hierarchy process. Integr Manuf Syst 5(1):23–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Banks J, Aviles E, McLaughlin JR, Yuan RC (1991) The simulator: new member of the simulation family. Interfaces 21(2):76–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hlupic V (1997) Simulation software selection using SimSelect. Simulation 69(4):231–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hlupic V, Paul RJ (1996) Methodological approach to manufacturing simulation software selection. Comput Integrated Manuf Syst 9(1):49–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Banks J (1991) Selecting simulation software. Proceedings of the 1991 Winter Simulation Conference, Arizona, USA, 15–20

  12. Cochran JK, Chen HN (2005) Fuzzy multi-criteria selection of object-oriented simulation software for production system analysis. Comput Oper Res 32:153–168

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Law AM, McComas MG (1992) How to select simulation software for manufacturing applications. Ind Eng 24(7):29–35

    Google Scholar 

  14. Holder K (1990) Selecting simulation software. OR Insight 3(4):19–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mackulak GT, Cochran JK, Savory PA (1994) Ascertaining important features for industrial simulation environments. Simulation 63:211–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hlupic V, Paul RJ (1995) A critical evaluation of four manufacturing simulators. Int J Prod Res 33(10):2757–2766

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Nikoukaran J, Hlupic V, Paul RJ (1999) A hierarchical framework for evaluating simulation software. Simul Pract Theory 7:219–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Saaty TL (1986) Axiomatic foundation of the analytical hierarchy process. Manage Sci 32(7):841–855

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structure. J Math Psychol 15:234–228

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Zadeh L (1965) Fuzzy sets. Information Control 8:338–353

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Laarhoven PJM, Pedrycz W (1983) A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst 11:229–241

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95:649–655

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Chang CW, Wu CR, Lin CT, Chen HC (2008) Evaluating and controlling silicon wafer slicing quality using fuzzy analytical hierarchy and sensitivity analysis. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 36:322–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Au KF, Wong WK, Zeng XH (2006) Decision model for country site selection of overseas clothing plants. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 29:408–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dura O, Aguilo J (2008) Computer-aided machine-tool selection based on a Fuzzy-AHP approach. Expert Syst Appl 34:1787–1794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Haq AN, Kannan G (2006) Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for evaluating and selecting a vendor in a supply chain model. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 29:826–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaufmann A, Gupta M (1988) Fuzzy mathematical models in engineering and management science. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchal analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17:233–247

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Liou TS, Wang MJJ (1992) Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy Sets Syst 50(3):247–255

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, Center of Excellence for Intelligent Based Experimental Mechanics, Department of Engineering Optimization Research, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    A. Azadeh

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    S. Nazari Shirkouhi & K. Rezaie

Authors
  1. A. Azadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Nazari Shirkouhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Rezaie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Azadeh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Azadeh, A., Shirkouhi, S.N. & Rezaie, K. A robust decision-making methodology for evaluation and selection of simulation software package. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 47, 381–393 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-009-2205-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-009-2205-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation