Abstract
This article presents a comparative analysis between two widely used decision-making methods, LINMAP and paired comparison method (PCM), using three different judging contexts. Decision makers ranked alternatives (for LINMAP) and criteria (for PCM) for contexts involving quantitative data only, qualitative data only, and a mix between the two. Attribute weights were calculated and final rankings of alternatives were deducted and compared to a naturalistic ranking of alternatives by the decision makers. LINMAP was found to be the closest match to a naturalistic decision-making. It was also found that incorporating qualitative data or a mixture between qualitative and quantitative data in multi-attribute decision-making problems was more consistent with the naturalistic ranking of alternatives.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
