A Comparative Study between GLP and GBWM

Table 11

Comparative criteria weight ranking result.

Criteria	GBWM technique				GLP technique
	Weight of level #1	Weight of level #2	Overall weight	Rank	Weight of level #1	Weight of level #2	Overall weight	Rank
D1	[0.260–0.261]			2	[0.261–0.361]			2
C1		[0.619–0.619]	[0.161–0.161]	3		[0.437–0.537]	[0.114–0.194]	1
C2		[0.274–0.476]	[0.071–0.124]	4		[0.284–0.384]	[0.074–0.139]	5
C3		[0.105–0.171]	[0.027–0.044]	9		[0.127–0.227]	[0.033–0.082]	9
D2	[0.618–0.624]			1	[0.449–0.549]			1
C4		[0.101–0.112]	[0.062–0.069]	6		[0.158–0.258]	[0.071–0.142]	4
C5		[0.128–0.167]	[0.079–0.104]	5		[0.106–0.206]	[0.047–0.113]	7
C6		[0.067–0.071]	[0.041–0.044]	8		[0.086–0.186]	[0.039–0.102]	8
C7		[0.303–0.363]	[0.187–0.226]	1		[0.183–0.283]	[0.082–0.155]	3
C8		[0.279–0.285]	[0.172–0.178]	2		[0.215–0.315]	[0.096–0.173]	2
D3	[0.096–0.114]			3	[0.138–0.238]			3
C9		[0.174–0.290]	[0.016–0.033]	11		[0.226–0.326]	[0.031–0.078]	11
C10		[0.242–0.242]	[0.023–0.027]	10		[0.395–0.495]	[0.054–0.118]	6
C11		[0.582–0.582]	[0.056–0.066]	7		[0.227–0.327]	[0.031–0.078]	10