Application of Simplified QFD for Selecting 3D-CAD FOSS in Mechanical Engineering Education: A Case Study in Private Educational Institution

Chatchawan Sornsiri; Soonthorn Wongsen; Vit Wanvijit

doi:10.65205/jcct.2026.e4187

Authors

Chatchawan Sornsiri Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Rajapark Institute, Bangkok 32000, Thailand
Soonthorn Wongsen Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Rajapark Institute, Bangkok 32000, Thailand
Vit Wanvijit Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Rajapark Institute, Bangkok 32000, Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.65205/jcct.2026.e4187

Keywords:

3D-CAD FOSS, Software Selection, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Simplified QFD

Abstract

The aim of this research was to present a selection method for “Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS)” type of three-dimensional computer-aided design (3D-CAD) by using the Simplified Quality Function Deployment (Simplified QFD). The research was conducted into 4 tasks: searching for the alternative 3D-CAD FOSS which have been popular used among makerspace communities, extracting appropriate criteria used for selecting 3D-CAD FOSS from research literature and makerspace communities, brainstorming to select the most suitable software by using QFD matrix among 11 stakeholders from top executive down to student representative of Rajapark Institute, and validating the selected software by real teaching experiment. Teaching experiment was performed on a sample of 8 undergraduate students who enrolled in the elective subject of “Computer for Mechanical System Design” from academic year of 2025. With three alternative 3D-CAD FOSS (namely FreeCAD, Blender and Autodesk 123D Design) that were brainstormed and selected by using the simplified QFD, FreeCAD is the most suitable software with a maximum score of 31. Results from student questionnaires after teaching experiment pointed out that students were more positive on FreeCAD than Autodesk 123D Design and Blender respectively.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aytac, A., & Deniz, V. (2005). Quality Function Deployment in Education: A Curriculum Review. Quality & Quantity, 39(4), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-004-6814-8

Brussee, W. (2004). Statistics for Six Sigma Made Easy. McGraw-Hill.

Castro, H., Putnik, G., Castro, A., & Fontana, R. D. B. (2019). Open Design Initiatives: An Evaluation of CAD Open Source Software. Procedia CIRP, 84, 1116–1119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.08.001

Chan, L.-K., & Wu, M.-L. (2002). Quality Function Deployment: A Literature Review. European Journal of Operational Research, 143(3), 463–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00178-9

Creality. (2026). Creality Print V7.1.1.4472 for Windows [Computer Software]. https://www.creality.com/download#sparkx

Di Donato, D., & Abita, M. (2019). Low-Cost 4D BIM Modelling: A Comparison Between FreeCAD and Commercial Software. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLII-2-W17, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W17-107-2019

Fusiripong, P., & Nuansomsri, C. (2022, May 13). Identifying Evaluation Criteria for 3D Software Selection: A Case Study in Private Educational Institution. The 13th Hatyai National and International Conference, 436-472. Hat Yai University.

Gaha, R., Nicolet, P.-M., Bricogne, M., & Eynard, B. (2021). Teaching Experiments for Engineering Education Based on Cloud CAD Software. Proceedings of the Design Society, 1, 2951–2960. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.556

Hebebci, M. T., & Maya Hebebci, G. (2021, November 11-14). Evaluation of 3D Design Applications in STEM Education. International Conference on Studies in Education and Social Sciences, 28-39. ISTES Organization.

International Organization for Standardization. (2001). Software Engineering-Product Quality-Part 1: Quality Model (ISO/IEC 9126-1:2001). https://www.iso.org/standard/22749.html

International Organization for Standardization. (2023). Systems and Software Engineering-Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) Quality-in-Use Model (ISO/IEC 25019:2023). https://www.iso.org/standard/35733.html

Junk, S., & Kuen, C. (2016). Review of Open Source and Freeware CAD Systems for Use with 3D-Printing. Procedia CIRP, 50, 430–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.174

Kantaros, A., Diegel, O., Piromalis, D., Tsaramirsis, G., Khadidos, A. O., Khadidos, A. O., Khan, F. Q., & Jan, S. (2022). 3D Printing: Making an Innovative Technology Widely Accessible through Makerspaces and Outsourced Services. Materials Today: Proceedings, 49, 2712–2723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.09.074

Le, A., Hashemi, A., Ottensmeyer, M., & Sabet, H. (2025). Flexible and Generic Framework for Complex Nuclear Medicine Scanners Using FreeCAD/GDML Workbench. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 23(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14733/cadaps.2026.1-18

Okudan, G. E. (2009). A Methodology for Optimum Selection of Solid Modeling Software. The Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 68(3). https://doi.org/10.18260/edgj.v68i3.36

OpenSCAD. (2026). The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller [Computer Software]. https://openscad.org/downloads.html

Özsoy, H. Ö. (2020). Evaluation of 3D Modeling Programs for Industrial Design Use. Journal of Polytechnic, 23(4), 1153-1166. https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.481241

Prasad, K., & Chakraborty, S. (2016). A QFD-Based Decision-Making Model for Computer-Aided Design Software Selection. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 7(2), 49-58. https://doi.org/10.24867/ijiem-2016-2-107

Print N Repeat. (2026, April 13). Which “FREE” CAD Software is Actually the Best? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRCjsGVQq7s

Rosenberger, M. (2026). Welcome to rattleCAD 4.0 [Computer Software]. https://www.rattlecad.com

Tutorialfied. (2026, January 31). Top 5 Best Free CAD Software for Students 2026 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH7RJnSq6Lc