IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i15p5909-d388278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framework for Selecting Manufacturing Simulation Software in Industry 4.0 Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Davide Cafasso

    (Department of Chemical, Materials and Industrial Production Engineering (DICMAPI), University of Naples “Federico II”, Piazzale V. Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy)

  • Cosimo Calabrese

    (Department of Chemical, Materials and Industrial Production Engineering (DICMAPI), University of Naples “Federico II”, Piazzale V. Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy)

  • Giorgia Casella

    (Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Parma, viale G.P. Usberti 181/A, 43124 Parma, Italy)

  • Eleonora Bottani

    (Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Parma, viale G.P. Usberti 181/A, 43124 Parma, Italy)

  • Teresa Murino

    (Department of Chemical, Materials and Industrial Production Engineering (DICMAPI), University of Naples “Federico II”, Piazzale V. Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy)

Abstract

Even though the use of simulation software packages is widespread in industrial and manufacturing companies, the criteria and methods proposed in the scientific literature to evaluate them do not adequately help companies in identifying a package able to enhance the efficiency of their production system. Hence, the main objective of this paper is to develop a framework to guide companies in choosing the most suitable manufacturing simulation software package. The evaluation framework developed in this study is based on two different multi-criteria methods: analytic hierarchy process (AHP) integrated with benefits, opportunities, costs, risks (BOCR) analysis and the best-worst method (BWM). The framework was developed on the basis of the suggestions from the literature and from a panel of experts, both from academia and industry, trying to capture all the facets of the software selection problem. For testing purposes, the proposed approach was applied to a mid-sized enterprise located in the south of Italy, which was facing the problem of buying an effective simulation software for Participatory Design. From a practical perspective, the application showed that the framework is effective in identifying the most suitable simulation software package according to the needs of the company. From a theoretical point of view, the multi-criteria methods suggested in the framework have never been applied to the problem of selecting simulation software; their usage in this context could bring some advantages compared to other decision-making tools.

Suggested Citation

  • Davide Cafasso & Cosimo Calabrese & Giorgia Casella & Eleonora Bottani & Teresa Murino, 2020. "Framework for Selecting Manufacturing Simulation Software in Industry 4.0 Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-33, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:5909-:d:388278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/5909/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/5909/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jerry Banks & Eduardo Aviles & James R. McLaughlin & Robert C. Yuan, 1991. "The Simulator: New Member of the Simulation Family," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 76-86, April.
    2. Eleonora Bottani & Piera Centobelli & Teresa Murino & Ehsan Shekarian, 2018. "A QFD-ANP Method for Supplier Selection with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks Considerations," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 911-939, May.
    3. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    4. Indre Siksnelyte-Butkiene & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Dalia Streimikiene, 2020. "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) for the Assessment of Renewable Energy Technologies in a Household: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    5. Govindan, Kannan & Shankar, K. Madan & Kannan, Devika, 2020. "Achieving sustainable development goals through identifying and analyzing barriers to industrial sharing economy: A framework development," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    6. Ali Azadeh & Salman Nazari-Shirkouhi & Homa Samadi & Amin Nazari-Shirkouhi, 2014. "An integrated fuzzy group decision making approach for evaluation and selection of best simulation software packages," International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 18(2), pages 256-282.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    2. Chen, Faan & Li, Yaxin & Feng, Qianqian & Dong, Zehao & Qian, Yiming & Yan, Yi & Ho, Mun S. & Ma, Qianchen & Zhang, Dashan & Jin, Yuanzhe, 2023. "Road safety performance rating through PSI-PRIDIT: A planning tool for designing policies and identifying best practices for EAS countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    3. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Zhou, Ligang & Qin, Jindong & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "An analytical framework for the best–worst method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    4. Gupta, Himanshu & Yadav, Avinash Kumar & Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Khan, Sharfuddin Ahmed & Sharma, Shashi Chandra, 2022. "Strategies to overcome barriers to innovative digitalisation technologies for supply chain logistics resilience during pandemic," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    5. Kumar, Anil & Luthra, Sunil & Mangla, Sachin Kumar & Garza-Reyes, Jose Arturo & Kazancoglu, Yigit, 2023. "Analysing the adoption barriers of low-carbon operations: A step forward for achieving net-zero emissions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    6. Sadia Samar Ali & Rajbir Kaur & Shahbaz Khan, 2023. "Evaluating sustainability initiatives in warehouse for measuring sustainability performance: an emerging economy perspective," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 324(1), pages 461-500, May.
    7. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Qin, Jindong & Zhou, Ligang & Mardani, Abbas & Deveci, Muhammet, 2022. "An integrated multi-criteria decision-making and multi-objective optimization model for socially responsible portfolio selection," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    8. Alptekin Ulutaş & Ayşe Topal & Dragan Pamučar & Željko Stević & Darjan Karabašević & Gabrijela Popović, 2022. "A New Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on a Novel Grey WISP and Grey BWM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    9. James J. H. Liou & Perry C. Y. Liu & Huai-Wei Lo, 2020. "A Failure Mode Assessment Model Based on Neutrosophic Logic for Switched-Mode Power Supply Risk Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Junnan Wu & Xin Liu & Dianqi Pan & Yichen Zhang & Jiquan Zhang & Kai Ke, 2023. "Research on Safety Evaluation of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Based on Improved Best-Worst Method and Fuzzy Comprehensive Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, May.
    11. McCown, R. L., 2002. "Changing systems for supporting farmers' decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 179-220, October.
    12. Zarei, Esmaeil & Khan, Faisal & Abbassi, Rouzbeh, 2021. "Importance of human reliability in process operation: A critical analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    13. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Paul, Ananna & Shukla, Nagesh & Trianni, Andrea, 2023. "Modelling supply chain sustainability challenges in the food processing sector amid the COVID-19 outbreak," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).
    15. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    16. Pushparenu Bhattacharjee & Syed Abou Iltaf Hussain & V. Dey & U. K. Mandal, 2023. "Failure mode and effects analysis for submersible pump component using proportionate risk assessment model: a case study in the power plant of Agartala," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 14(5), pages 1778-1798, October.
    17. Dilupa Nakandala & Yung Po Tsang & Henry Lau & Carman Ka Man Lee, 2022. "An Industrial Blockchain-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Framework for Global Freight Management in Agricultural Supply Chains," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-23, September.
    18. Martín-García, Jaime & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Arriaza, Manuel, 2024. "Conversion to organic farming: Does it change the economic and environmental performance of fruit farms?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    19. Zeng, Shouzhen & Zhou, Jiamin & Zhang, Chonghui & Merigó, José M., 2022. "Intuitionistic fuzzy social network hybrid MCDM model for an assessment of digital reforms of manufacturing industry in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    20. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:5909-:d:388278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.