Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-Criteria Decision Making Using AHP to Select the Best CAD Software

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the Second International Scientific Conference “Intelligent Information Technologies for Industry” (IITI’17) (IITI 2017)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 680))

Abstract

One of the important questions that design and manufacturing firms face is which CAD software to use in their product development and realization activities. However, selecting the right CAD software is not a simple task due to the many criteria involved in the selection process such as package cost, ease of use, software popularity, features on offer, and system requirements. What makes it more challenging is the availability of a large number of commercial packages in the market. This constitutes a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem that is addressed in this study using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Because CAD software can be very specialized and vary significantly depending on the area of application, this study is limited to CAD software intended for mechanical design applications. The most popular packages in this regard include CATIA®, Pro/ENGINEER, SOLIDWORKS, and Inventor®.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. Decis. Anal. (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Do, J.Y., Kim, D.K.: AHP-based evaluation model for optimal selection process of patching materials for concrete repair: focused on quantitative requirements. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater 6, 87–100 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berrittella, M., La Franca, L., Zito, P.: An analytic hierarchy process for ranking operating costs of low cost and full service airlines. J. Air Transp. Manag. 15, 249–255 (2009). Elsevier Ltd.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Caputo, A.C., Pelagagge, P.M., Salini, P.: AHP-based methodology for selecting safety devices of industrial machinery. Saf. Sci. 53, 202–218 (2013). Elsevier Ltd.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Demirtas, N., Tuzkaya, U.R., Seker, S.: Project management methodology selection using SWOT-fuzzy AHP. Lect. Notes Eng. Comput. Sci. p. 1121–1126 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Al, K.M.: Selecting the appropriate project delivery method using AHP. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20, 464 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brent, A.C., Rogers, D.E.C., Ramabitsa-Siimane, T.S.M., Rohwer, M.B.: Application of the analytical hierarchy process to establish health care waste management systems that minimise infection risks in developing countries. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 181, 403–424 (2007)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Vidal, L.A., Sahin, E., Martelli, N., Berhoune, M., Bonan, B.: Applying AHP to select drugs to be produced by anticipation in a chemotherapy compounding unit. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 1528–1534 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Danner, M., Hummel, J.M., Volz, F., van Manen, J.G., Wiegard, B., Dintsios, C.-M., et al.: Integrating patients’ views into health technology assessment: analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 27, 369–375 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Liberatore, M.J., Nydick, R.L.: The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 189, 194–207 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Gumus, A.T.: Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 4067–4074 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Albert, G., Musicant, O., Oppenheim, I., Lotan, T.: Which smartphone’s apps may contribute to road safety? An AHP model to evaluate experts’ opinions. Transp. Policy 50, 54–62 (2016). Elsevier

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ho, W.: Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - a literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 186, 211–228 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Zaidan, A.A., Zaidan, B.B., Al-Haiqi, A., Kiah, M.L.M., Hussain, M., Abdulnabi, M.: Evaluation and selection of open-source EMR software packages based on integrated AHP and TOPSIS. J. Biomed. Inf. 53, 390–404 (2015). Elsevier Inc.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dorado, R., Gómez-Moreno, A., Torres-Jiménez, E., López-Alba, E.: An AHP application to select software for engineering education. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 22, 200–208 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Eldrandaly, K.: GIS software selection: a multi criteria decision making approach. Appl. GIS 3, 1–17 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Saaty, R.W.: The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Math. Model. 9, 161–176 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan

    Omar Bataineh, Dina Abu Hjeelah & Sereen Arabiat

Authors
  1. Omar Bataineh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dina Abu Hjeelah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sereen Arabiat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omar Bataineh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Scientific Network for Innovation and Research Excellence, Machine Intelligence Research Labs (MIR labs), Auburn, Washington, USA

    Ajith Abraham

  2. Rostov State Transport University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

    Sergey Kovalev

  3. Bauman Moscow State Technical University, Moscow, Russia

    Valery Tarassov

  4. VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic

    Vaclav Snasel

  5. Department Electrical Power Engineering, Technical University of Varna, Varna, Bulgaria

    Margreta Vasileva

  6. Rostov State Transport University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

    Andrey Sukhanov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bataineh, O., Hjeelah, D.A., Arabiat, S. (2018). Multi-Criteria Decision Making Using AHP to Select the Best CAD Software. In: Abraham, A., Kovalev, S., Tarassov, V., Snasel, V., Vasileva, M., Sukhanov, A. (eds) Proceedings of the Second International Scientific Conference “Intelligent Information Technologies for Industry” (IITI’17). IITI 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 680. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68324-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68324-9_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68323-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68324-9

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation