An Approach To Evaluate Cam Software Alternatives
Loading...

Date
2020
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
Open Access Color
Green Open Access
No
OpenAIRE Downloads
OpenAIRE Views
Publicly Funded
No
Abstract
The selection process for the best computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) software among a set of potential number of alternatives in market has been critical issue for most companies that aim to make their design/manufacturing-related activities automated. Because this selection process is very vital for companies because a wrong decision might put them into a difficult position in terms of economical, market share and time spent. Therefore, today's companies have used different multiple-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for the evaluation study of CAM software alternatives to make this complex process easily applicable and not time-consuming. Among the MCDM methods in literature, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method has been widely used for various MCDM problems in both academic researches and industrial practices. However, in some cases, because of the vagueness and uncertainty on the judgments of decision maker(s), the crisp pair wise comparison in the conventional AHP seems to be insufficient and imprecise to capture the right judgments of decision maker(s). Therefore, a fuzzy logic method is integrated in the pair wise comparison of AHP to make up for this deficiency in the conventional AHP, called as fuzzy AHP. Moreover, the proposed approach is also realized on a case study.
Description
Keywords
ANALYTIC-HIERARCHY-PROCESS, MULTICRITERIA DECISION-MAKING, FUZZY-AHP, SELECTION, SYSTEM, SELECTION, MULTICRITERIA DECISION-MAKING, FUZZY-AHP, ANALYTIC-HIERARCHY-PROCESS, SYSTEM
Fields of Science
0211 other engineering and technologies, 0202 electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering, 02 engineering and technology
Citation
WoS Q
Q2
Scopus Q
Q1

OpenCitations Citation Count
3
Source
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
Volume
33
Issue
5
Start Page
504
End Page
514
PlumX Metrics
Citations
Scopus : 2
Captures
Mendeley Readers : 10
SCOPUS™ Citations
3
checked on Feb 17, 2026
Web of Science™ Citations
1
checked on Feb 17, 2026
Page Views
8
checked on Feb 17, 2026
Downloads
45
checked on Feb 17, 2026
Google Scholar™


