In this study, an intelligent, integrated approach is presented to help educators select the best simulation software package. Selecting the best simulation software package for educational use is a complex multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problem with several potentially conflicting quantitative and qualitative criteria. In this paper, two fuzzy MCDM methods; fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP) and fuzzy VIsekriterijumska optimizacija i KOmpromisno Resenje (F-VIKOR) are integrated to evaluate educational use simulation software package alternatives. In the proposed fuzzy AHP-VIKOR approach, F-AHP is used to determine the fuzzy criteria weights and F-VIKOR is applied to rank simulation software package alternatives with respect to these criteria. A case study is given where several educational use simulation software packages in Turkey are evaluated and ranked.
AhmadS. and TaharR.M., Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A case of Malaysia, Renew. Energy. (2014).
2.
AkashB.A., MamlookR. and MohsenM.S., Multi-criteria selection of electric power plants using analytical hierarchy process, Electr Power Syst Res52 (1999), 29–35.
3.
AlomairY., AhmadI. and AlghamdiA., A review of evaluation methods and techniques for simulation packages, Proc Comput Sci62 (2015), 249–256.
4.
AnojkumarL., IlangkumaranM. and SasirekhaV., Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for pipe material selection in sugar industry, Expert Syst Appl41 (2014), 2964–2980.
5.
Aragonés-BeltránP., Chaparro-GonzálezF., Pastor-FerrandoJ.-P. and Pla-RubioA., An AHP (analytic hierarchy process)/ANP (analytic network process)-based multi-criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment projects, Energy66 (2014), 222–238.
6.
AránJ.Carrión, A.Espín Estrella, F.Aznar Dols, M.Zamorano, ToroRodríguezM. and Ramos RidaoA., Environmental decision-support systems for evaluating the carrying capacity of land areas: Optimal site selection for grid-connected photovoltaic power plants, Renew Sustain Energy Rev12 (2008), 2358–2380.
7.
ArunachalamA.P.S., IdapalapatiS. and SubbiahS., Multi-criteria decision making techniques for compliant polishing tool selection, Int J Adv Manuf Technol79 (2015), 519–530.
8.
AvikalS., MishraP.K. and JainR., A fuzzy AHP and PROMETHEE method-based heuristic for dissemasbly line balancing problems, Int J Prod Res52 (2013), 1306–1317.
9.
AwasthiA. and KannanG., Green supplier development program selection using NGT and VIKOR under fuzzy environment, Comput Ind Eng91 (2016), 100–108.
10.
AyagZ., A fuzzy ANP approach to evaluate computer simulation packages, Int J Bus Syst Res10 (2016), 332.
11.
AyağZ.,
, A fuzzy AHP-based simulation approach to concept evaluation in a NPD environment, IIE Trans37 (2005), 827–842.
12.
AyağZ. and ÖzdemirR.G., A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating machine tool alternatives, J Intell Manuf17 (2006), 179–190.
13.
AydinS. and KahramanC., Vehicle selection for public transportation using an integrated multi criteria decision making approach: A case of Ankara, J Intell Fuzzy Syst (2014).
14.
AzadehA., ShirkouhiS.N. and RezaieK., A robust decision-making methodology for evaluation and selection of simulation software package, Int J Adv Manuf Technol47 (2009), 381–393.
15.
BeltonD.J., Teaching process simulation using video-enhanced and discovery/inquiry-based learning: Methodology and analysis within a theoretical framework for skill acquisition, Educ Chem Eng17 (2016), 54–64.
16.
BhosaleV.A. and KantR., Selection of best knowledge flow practicing organisation using hybrid fuzzy AHP-VIKOR method, Int J Decis Sci Risk Manage5 (2014), 234.
17.
BrennerA., ShachamM. and CutlipM.B., Applications of mathematical software packages for modelling and simulations in environmental engineering education, Environ Model Softw20 (2005), 1307–1313.
18.
BüyüközkanG. and GörenerA., Evaluation of product development partners using an integrated AHP-VIKOR model, Kybernetes44 (2015), 220–237.
19.
BüyüközkanG. and RuanD., Evaluation of software development projects using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach, Math Comput Simul77 (2008), 464–475.
20.
ChangT.-H., Fuzzy VIKOR method: A case study of the hospital service evaluation in Taiwan, Inf Sci (NY)271 (2014), 196–212.
21.
ChoudharyD. and ShankarR., An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India, Energy42 (2012), 510–521.
22.
CochranJ.K. and ChenH.-N., Fuzzy multi-criteria selection of object-oriented simulation software for production system analysis, Comput Oper Res32 (2005), 153–168.
23.
DavisL. and WilliamsG., Evaluating and selecting simulation software using the analytic hierarchy process, Integr Manuf Syst5 (1994), 23–32.
24.
DincerH. and HaciogluU., Performance evaluation with fuzzy VIKOR and AHP method based on customer satisfaction in Turkish banking sector, Kybernetes42 (2013), 1072–1085.
25.
DuránO. and AguiloJ., Computer-aided machine-tool selection based on a fuzzy-AHP approach, Expert Syst Appl34 (2008), 1787–1794.
26.
GhadikolaeiA.S., EsboueiS.K. and AntuchevicieneJ., Applying fuzzy mcdm for financial performance evaluation of iranian companies, Technol Econ Dev Econ20 (2014), 274–291.
27.
GulM., CelikE., AydinN., Taskin GumusA. and GuneriA.F., A state of the art literature review of VIKOR and its fuzzy extensions on applications, Appl Soft Comput46 (2016), 60–89.
28.
GuptaA., SinghK. and VermaR., A critical study and comparison of manufacturing simulation softwares using analytic hierarchy process, J Eng Sci Technol (2010).
29.
HlupicV. and PaulR.J., Methodological approach to manufacturing simulation software selection, Comput Integr Manuf Syst (1996).
30.
IlangkumaranM., SasirekhaV., AnojkumarL. and RajaM.B., Machine tool selection using AHP and VIKOR methodologies under fuzzy environment, Int J Model Oper Manage2 (2012), 409.
31.
JadhavA.S. and SonarR.M., Evaluating and selecting software packages: A review, Inf Softw Technol51 (2009), 555–563.
32.
JadhavA.S. and SonarR.M., Framework for evaluation and selection of the software packages: A hybrid knowledge based system approach, J Syst Softw84 (2011), 1394–1407.
33.
JahanA., MustaphaF., IsmailM.Y., SapuanS.M. and BahraminasabM., A comprehensive VIKOR method for material selection, Mater Des32 (2011), 1215–1221.
34.
JuY. and WangA., Extension of VIKOR method for multi-criteria group decision making problem with linguistic information, Appl Math Model37 (2013), 3112–3125.
35.
KabirG. and SumiR.S., Power substation location selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and PROMETHEE: A case study from Bangladesh, Energy72 (2014), 717–730.
36.
KaraS.S. and CheikhrouhouN., A multi criteria group decision making approach for collaborative software selection problem, J Intell Fuzzy Syst (2014).
37.
KayaT. and KahramanC., Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul, Energy35 (2010), 2517–2527.
38.
KimY. and ChungE.-S., Fuzzy VIKOR approach for assessing the vulnerability of the water supply to climate change and variability in South Korea, Appl Math Model37 (2013), 9419–9430.
39.
KlirG.J., YuanB., Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications1995.
40.
KomulainenT.M., Enemark-RasmussenR., SinG., FletcherJ.P. and CameronD., Experiences on dynamic simulation software in chemical engineering education, Educ Chem Eng7 (2012), e153–e162.
41.
LiuD. and StewartT.J., Integrated object-oriented framework for MCDM and DSS modelling, Decis Support Syst (2004).
42.
LiuH.-C., YouJ.-X., FanX.-J. and ChenY.-Z., Site selection in waste management by the VIKOR method using linguistic assessment, Appl Soft Comput21 (2014), 453–461.
43.
LootsmaF.A., Fuzzy logic for planning and decision making, Appl Optim (1997).
44.
MusaniS. and JemainA.A., Ranking schools’ academic performance using a fuzzy VIKOR, J Phys Conf Ser622 (2015), 12036.
45.
NarayanamoorthyS. and GeethaS., Intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy VIKOR method for multi-criteria group decision making, Int J Pure Appl Math113 (2017), 102–112.
46.
OpricovicS., Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning, Expert Syst Appl38 (2011), 12983–12990.
47.
OpricovicS. and TzengG.-H., Fuzzy multicriteria model for postearthquake land-use planning, Nat Hazards Rev4 (2003), 59–64.
48.
OpricovicS. and TzengG.-H., Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, Eur J Oper Res156 (2004), 445–455.
49.
OpricovicS. and TzengG.-H., Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods, Eur J Oper Res178 (2007), 514–529.
50.
OpricovicS. and TzengG.H., Multicriteria planning of post-earthquake sustainable reconstruction, Comput Civ Infrastruct Eng (2002).
51.
PerçinS., Use of fuzzy AHP for evaluating the benefits of information-sharing decisions in a supply chain, J Enterp Inf Manage21 (2008), 263–284.
52.
QinJ., LiuX. and PedryczW., An extended VIKOR method based on prospect theory for multiple attribute decision making under interval type-2 fuzzy environment, Knowledge-Based Syst86 (2015), 116–130.
53.
RezaieK., RamiyaniS.S., Nazari-ShirkouhiS. and BadizadehA., Evaluating performance of Iranian cement firms using an integrated fuzzy AHP–VIKOR method, Appl Math Model38 (2014), 5033–5046.
54.
RouhaniS. and ZareA., Ravasan, Fuzzy TOPSIS evaluation approach for business process management software acquisition, Intell Autom Soft Comput23 (2016), 459–468.
55.
Ruiz-RamosE., Romero-GarcíaJ.M., EspínolaF., RomeroI., HernándezV. and CastroE., Learning and researching based on local experience and simulation software for graduate and undergraduate courses in chemical and environmental engineering, Educ Chem Eng21 (2017), 50–61.
56.
SaatyT.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill Inc., 1980.
57.
SakthivelG., IlangkumaranM., NagarajanG. and ShanmugamP., Selection of best biodiesel blend for IC engines: An integrated approach with FAHP-TOPSIS and FAHP-VIKOR, Int J Oil Gas Coal Technol6 (2013), 581.
58.
SamanliogluF. and AyaZ., A fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE II approach for evaluation of solar power plant location alternatives in Turkey, J Intell Fuzzy Syst33 (2017), 859–871.
59.
SrichettaP. and ThurachonW., Applying fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to evaluate and select product of notebook computers, Int J Model Optim (2012), 168–173.
60.
TzengG.-H., LinC.-W. and OpricovicS., Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation, Energy Policy33 (2005), 1373–1383.
61.
TzengG.-H., TengM.-H., ChenJ.-J. and OpricovicS., Multicriteria selection for a restaurant location in Taipei, Int J Hosp Manage21 (2002), 171–187.
62.
VinodhS. and JayakrishnaK., Application of hybrid MCDM approach for selecting the best tyre recycling process, Green Manuf Process Syst (2013), 103–123.
63.
WanS.-P., WangQ.-Y. and DongJ.-Y., The extended VIKOR method for multi-attribute group decision making with triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, Knowledge-Based Syst52 (2013), 65–77.
64.
WuZ., AhmadJ. and XuJ., A group decision making framework based on fuzzy VIKOR approach for machine tool selection with linguistic information, Appl Soft Comput42 (2016), 314–324.
65.
YazdaniM. and GraemlF.R., VIKOR and its applications, Int J Strateg Decis Sci5 (2014), 56–83.
66.
Yaziciİ. and KahramanC., VIKOR method using interval type two fuzzy sets, J Intell Fuzzy Syst29 (2015), 411–421.
67.
YongD., Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS, Int J Adv Manuf Technol28 (2005), 839–844.
68.
YunnaW. and GengS., Multi-criteria decision making on selection of solar– wind hybrid power station location: A case of China, Energy Convers Manage81 (2014), 527–533.
ZaidanA.A., ZaidanB.B., HussainM., HaiqiA. and MatM.L., Kiah and M. Abdulnabi, Multi-criteria analysis for OS-EMR software selection problem: A comparative study, Decis Support Syst78 (2015), 15–27.
71.
ZhuG.-N., HuJ., QiJ., GuC.-C. and PengY.-H., An integrated AHP and VIKOR for design concept evaluation based on rough number, Adv Eng Informatics29 (2015), 408–418.
