REVISED

M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 17

C H A P T E R

Decision Analysis

TEACHING SUGGESTIONS
Teaching Suggestion 3.1: Using the Steps of the Decision-Making Process. The six steps used in decision theory are discussed in this chapter. Students can be asked to describe a decision they made in the last semester, such as buying a car or selecting an apartment, and describe the steps that they took. This will help in getting students involved in decision theory. It will also help them realize how this material can be useful to them in making important personal decisions. Teaching Suggestion 3.2: Importance of Dening the Problem and Listing All Possible Alternatives. Clearly dening the problem and listing the possible alternatives can be difcult. Students can be asked to do this for a typical decisionmaking problem, such as constructing a new manufacturing plant. Role-playing can be used to make this exercise more interesting. Many students get too involved in the mathematical approaches and do not pay enough attention to the importance of carefully dening the problem and considering all possible alternatives. These initial steps are important. Students need to realize that if they do not carefully dene the problem and list all alternatives, most likely their analyses will be wrong. Teaching Suggestion 3.3: Categorizing Decision-Making Types. Decision-making types are discussed in this chapter; decision making under certainty, risk, and uncertainty are included. Students can be asked to describe an important decision they had to make in the past year and categorize the decision type. A good example can be a nancial investment of $1,000. In-class discussion can help students realize the importance of decision theory and its potential use. Teaching Suggestion 3.4: Starting the EVPI Concept. The material on the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) can be started with a discussion of how to place a value on information and whether or not new information should be acquired. The use of EVPI to place an upper limit on what you should pay for information is a good way to start the section on this topic. Teaching Suggestion 3.5: Starting the Decision-Making Under Uncertainty Material. The section on decision-making under uncertainty can be started with a discussion of optimistic versus pessimistic decision makers. Students can be shown how maximax is an optimistic approach, while maximin is a pessimistic decision technique. While few people use these techniques to solve real problems, the concepts and general approaches are useful.

Teaching Suggestion 3.6: Decision Theory and Life-Time Decisions. This chapter investigates large and complex decisions. During ones life, there are a few very important decisions that have a major impact. Some call these life-time decisions. Students can be asked to carefully consider these life-time decisions and how decision theory can be used to assist them. Life-time decisions include decisions about what school to attend, marriage, and the rst job. Teaching Suggestion 3.7: Popularity of Decision Trees Among Business Executives. Stress that decision trees are not just an academic subject; they are a technique widely used by top-level managers. Everyone appreciates a graphical display of a tough problem. It claries issues and makes a great discussion base. Harvard business students regularly use decision trees in case analysis. Teaching Suggestion 3.8: Importance of Accurate Tree Diagrams. Developing accurate decision trees is an important part of this chapter. Students can be asked to diagram several decision situations. The decisions can come from the end-of-chapter problems, the instructor, or from student experiences. Teaching Suggestion 3.9: Diagramming a Large Decision Problem Using Branches. Some students are intimidated by large and complex decision trees. To avoid this situation, students can be shown that a large decision tree is like having a number of smaller trees or decisions that can be solved separately, starting at the end branches of the tree. This can help students use decision-making techniques on larger and more complex problems. Teaching Suggestion 3.10: Using Tables to Perform Bayesian Analysis. Bayesian analysis can be difcult; the formulas can be hard to remember and use. For many, using tables is the most effective way to learn how to revise probability values. Once students understand how the tables are used, they can be shown that the formulas are making exactly the same calculations.

ALTERNATIVE EXAMPLES
Alternative Example 3.1: Goleb Transport George Goleb is considering the purchase of two types of industrial robots. The Rob1 (alternative 1) is a large robot capable of performing a variety of tasks, including welding and painting. The Rob2 (alternative 2) is a smaller and slower robot, but it has all the capabilities

17

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 18

18

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

of Rob1. The robots will be used to perform a variety of repair operations on large industrial equipment. Of course, George can always do nothing and not buy any robots (alternative 3). The market for the repair could be either favorable (event 1) or unfavorable (event 2). George has constructed a payoff matrix showing the expected returns of each alternative and the probability of a favorable or unfavorable market. The data are presented below:
EVENT 1 Probability Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 0.6 50,000 30,000 0 EVENT 2 0.4 40,000 20,000 0

The Hurwicz approach uses a coefcient of realism value of 0.7, and a weighted average of the best and the worst payoffs for each alternative is computed. The results are as follows: Weighted average (alternative 1) ($50,000)(0.7) ($40,000)(0.3) $23,000 Weighted average (alternative 2) ($30,000)(0.7) ($20,000)(0.3) $15,000 Weighted average (alternative 3) 0 The decision would be alternative 1. The minimax regret decision minimizes the maximum opportunity loss. The opportunity loss table for Goleb is as follows:
Alternatives Rob1 Rob2 Nothing Favorable Market 0 20,000 50,000 Unfavorable Market 40,000 20,000 0 Maximum in Row 40,000 20,000 50,000

This problem can be solved using expected monetary value. The equations are presented below: EMV (alternative 1) ($50,000)(0.6) ($40,000)(0.4) $14,000 EMV (alternative 2) ($30,000)(0.6) ($20,000)(0.4) $10,000 EMV (alternative 3) 0 The best solution is to purchase Rob1, the large robot. Alternative Example 3.2: George Goleb is not condent about the probability of a favorable or unfavorable market. (See Alternative Example 3.1.) He would like to determine the equally likely (Laplace), maximax, maximin, coefcient of realism (Hurwicz), and minimax regret decisions. The Hurwicz coefcient should be 0.7. The problem data are summarized below:
EVENT 1 Probability Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 0.6 50,000 30,000 0 EVENT 2 0.4 40,000 20,000 0

The alternative that minimizes the maximum opportunity loss is the Rob2. This is due to the $20,000 in the last column in the table above. Rob1 has a maximum opportunity loss of $40,000, and doing nothing has a maximum opportunity loss of $50,000. Alternative Example 3.3: George Goleb is considering the possibility of conducting a survey on the market potential for industrial equipment repair using robots. The cost of the survey is $5,000. George has developed a decision tree that shows the overall decision, as in the gure on the next page. This problem can be solved using EMV calculations. We start with the end of the tree and work toward the beginning computing EMV values. The results of the calculations are shown in the tree. The conditional payoff of the solution is $18,802. Alternative Example 3.4: George (in Alternative Example 3.3) would like to determine the expected value of sample information (EVSI). EVSI is equal to the expected value of the best decision with sample information, assuming no cost to gather it, minus the expected value of the best decision without sample information. Because the cost of the survey is $5,000, the expected value of the best decision with sample information, assuming no cost to gather it, is $23,802. The expected value of the best decision without sample information is found on the lower branch of the decision tree to be $14,000. Thus, EVSI is $9,802. Alternative Example 3.5: This example reveals how the conditional probability values for the George Goleb examples (above) have been determined. The probability values about the survey are summarized in the following table:
Results of Survey Positive (P) Negative (N) Favorable Market (FM) P(P | FM) 0.9 P(N | FM) 0.1 Unfavorable Market (UM) P(P | UM) 0.2 P(N | UM) 0.8

The Laplace (equally likely) solution is computed averaging the payoffs for each alternative and choosing the best. The results are shown below. Alternatives 1 and 2 both give the highest average return of $5,000. Average (alternative 1) [$50,000 ($40,000)]/2 $5,000 Average (alternative 2) [$30,000 ($20,000)]/2 $5,000 Average (alternative 3) 0 The maximin decision (pessimistic) maximizes the minimum payoff outcome for every alternative: these are 40,000; 20,000; and 0. Therefore, the decision is to do nothing. The maximax decision (optimistic) maximizes the maximum payoff for any alternative: these maximums are 50,000; 30,000; and 0. Therefore, the decision is to purchase the large robot (alternative 1).

Using the values above and the fact that P(FM) 0.6 and P(UM) 0.4, we can compute the conditional probability values of a favorable or unfavorable market given a positive or negative

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 19

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

19

First Decision Point

Second Decision Point Favorable Market (0.871) 2 Unfavorable Market (0.129) Favorable Market (0.871) 3 Unfavorable Market (0.129)

0 ,39 33 Ro b1

$45,000 $45,000 $25,000 $25,000

Rob2
y ve (0 .6 2)

Su

1
8 $1
ey ct urv u d tS on e C ark M

lts le su rab e R vo Fa

$5,000

2 80

Favorable Market (0.158)

8) .3 (0 ey rv ts Su sul tive Re ega N

$45,000 $45,000 $25,000 $25,000

4
Ro b1

Unfavorable Market (0.842) Favorable Market (0.158)

Rob2

Unfavorable Market (0.842)

$5,000 $5,000
Do ey rv Su ct du on tC No

Favorable Market (0.60)

$1

0 ,00
Ro b1

$50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $0

Unfavorable Market (0.40) Favorable Market (0.60)

Rob2

Unfavorable Market (0.40)

Figure for Alternative Example 3.3 survey result. The calculations are presented in the following two tables. Probability revision given a positive survey result
State of Nature FM UM Total Conditional Probability 0.9 0.2 Prior Prob. 0.6 0.4 Joint Prob. 0.54 0.08 0.62 Posterior Probability 0.54/0.62 0.871 0.08/0.62 0.129 1.00

Alternative Example 3.6: In the section on utility theory, Mark Simkin used utility theory to determine his best decision. What decision would Mark make if he had the following utility values? Is Mark still a risk seeker? U($10,000) 0.8 U($0) 0.9 U($10,000) 1 Using the data above, we can determine the expected utility of each alternative as follows: U(Mark plays the game) 0.45(1) 0.55(0.8) 0.89 U(Mark doesnt play the game) 0.9 Thus, the best decision for Mark is not to play the game with an expected utility of 0.9. Given these data, Mark is a risk avoider.

Probability given a negative survey result

State of Nature FM UM Total Conditional Probability 0.1 0.8 Prior Prob. 0.6 0.4 Joint Prob. 0.06 0.32 0.38 Posterior Probability 0.06/0.38 0.158 0.32/0.38 0.842 1.00

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 20

20

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

SOLUTIONS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS

3-1. The purpose of this question is to make students use a personal experience to distinguish between good and bad decisions. A good decision is based on logic and all of the available information. A bad decision is one that is not based on logic and the available information. It is possible for an unfortunate or undesirable outcome to occur after a good decision has been made. It is also possible to have a favorable or desirable outcome occur after a bad decision. 3-2. The decision-making process includes the following steps: (1) dene the problem, (2) list the alternatives, (3) identify the possible outcomes, (4) evaluate the consequences, (5) select an evaluation criterion, and (6) make the appropriate decision. The rst four steps or procedures are common for all decision-making problems. Steps 5 and 6, however, depend on the decision-making model. 3-3. An alternative is a course of action over which we have complete control. A state of nature is an event or occurrence in which we have no control. An example of an alternative is deciding whether or not to take an umbrella to school or work on a particular day. An example of a state of nature is whether or not it will rain on a particular day. 3-4. The basic differences between decision-making models under certainty, risk, and uncertainty depend on the amount of chance or risk that is involved in the decision. A decision-making model under certainty assumes that we know with complete condence the future outcomes. Decision-making-under-risk models assume that we do not know the outcomes for a particular decision but that we do know the probability of occurrence of those outcomes. With decision making under uncertainty, it is assumed that we do not know the outcomes that will occur, and furthermore, we do not know the probabilities that these outcomes will occur. 3-5. The techniques discussed in this chapter used to solve decision problems under uncertainty include maximax, maximin, equally likely, coefcient of realism, and minimax regret. The maximax decision-making criterion is an optimistic decision-making criterion, while the maximin is a pessimistic decision-making criterion. 3-6. For a given state of nature, opportunity loss is the difference between the payoff for a decision and the best possible payoff for that state of nature. It indicates how much better the payoff could have been for that state of nature. The minimax regret and the minimum expected opportunity loss are the criteria used with this. 3-7. Alternatives, states of nature, probabilities for all states of nature and all monetary outcomes (payoffs) are placed on the decision tree. In addition, intermediate results, such as EMVs for middle branches, can be placed on the decision tree. 3-8. Using the EMV criterion with a decision tree involves starting at the terminal branches of the tree and working toward the origin, computing expected monetary values and selecting the best alternatives. The EMVs are found by multiplying the probabilities of the states of nature times the economic consequences and summing the results for each alternative. At each decision point, the best alternative is selected. 3-9. A prior probability is one that exists before additional information is gathered. A posterior probability is one that can be computed using Bayes Theorem based on prior probabilities and additional information.

3-10. The purpose of Bayesian analysis is to determine posterior probabilities based on prior probabilities and new information. Bayesian analysis can be used in the decision-making process whenever additional information is gathered. This information can then be combined with prior probabilities in arriving at posterior probabilities. Once these posterior probabilities are computed, they can be used in the decision-making process as any other probability value. 3-11. The expected value of sample information (EVSI) is the increase in expected value that results from having sample information. It is computed as follows: EVSI (expected value with sample information) (cost of information) (expected value without sample information) 3-12. The overall purpose of utility theory is to incorporate a decision makers preference for risk in the decision-making process. 3-13. A utility function can be assessed in a number of different ways. A common way is to use a standard gamble. With a standard gamble, the best outcome is assigned a utility of 1, and the worst outcome is assigned a utility of 0. Then, intermediate outcomes are selected and the decision maker is given a choice between having the intermediate outcome for sure and a gamble involving the best and worst outcomes. The probability that makes the decision maker indifferent between having the intermediate outcome for sure and a gamble involving the best and worst outcomes is determined. This probability then becomes the utility of the intermediate value. This process is continued until utility values for all economic consequences are determined. These utility values are then placed on a utility curve. 3-14. When a utility curve is to be used in the decision-making process, utility values from the utility curve replace all monetary values at the terminal branches in a decision tree or in the body of a decision table. Then, expected utilities are determined in the same way as expected monetary values. The alternative with the highest expected utility is selected as the best decision. 3-15. A risk seeker is a decision maker who enjoys and seeks out risk. A risk avoider is a decision maker who avoids risk even if the potential economic payoff is higher. The utility curve for a risk seeker increases at an increasing rate. The utility curve for a risk avoider increases at a decreasing rate. 3-16. a. Decision making under uncertainty. b. Maximax criterion. c. Sub 100 because the maximum payoff for this is $300,000.
Favorable 300,000 250,000 75,000 Row Unfavorable Maximum Row Minimum

Equipment Sub 100 Oiler J Texan

200,000 100,000 18,000

300,000 250,000 75,000

200,000 100,000 18,000

3-17. Using the maximin criterion, the best alternative is the Texan (see table above) because the worst payoff for this ($18,000) is better than the worst payoffs for the other decisions. 3-18. a. Decision making under riskmaximize expected monetary value.

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 21

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

21

b. EMV (Sub 100) 0.7(300,000) 0.3(200,000) 150,000 EMV (Oiler J) 0.7(250,000) 0.3(100,000) 145,000 EMV (Texan) 0.7(75,000) 0.3(18,000) 47,100 Optimal decision: Sub 100. c. Ken would change decision if EMV(Sub 100) is less than the next best EMV, which is $145,000. Let X payoff for Sub 100 in favorable market. (0.7)(X) (0.3)(200,000) 145,000 0.7X 145,000 60,000 205,000 X (205,000)/0.7 292,857.14 The decision would change if this payoff were less than 292,857.14, so it would have to decrease by about $7,143. 3-19. a. The expected value (EV) is computed for each alternative. EV(stock market) 0.5(80,000) 0.5(20,000) 30,000 EV(Bonds) 0.5(30,000) 0.5(20,000) 25,000 EV(CDs) 0.5(23,000) 0.5(23,000) 23,000 Therefore, he should invest in the stock market. b. EVPI EV(with perfect information) (Maximum EV without P, I) [0.5(80,000) 0.5(23,000)] 30,000 51,500 30,000 21,500 Thus, the most that should be paid is $21,500. 3-20. The opportunity loss table is
Good Economy 0 50,000 57,000 Poor Economy 43,000 3,000 0

3-22. a. Expected value with perfect information is 1,400(0.4) 900(0.4) 900(0.2) 1,100; the maximum EMV without the information is 900. Therefore, Allen should pay at most EVPI 1,100 900 $200. b. Yes, Allen should pay [1,100(0.4) 900(0.4) 900(0.2)] 900 $80. 3-23. a. Opportunity loss table
Strong Market Large Medium Small None 0 250,000 350,000 550,000 Fair Market 19,000 0 29,000 129,000 Poor Market 310,000 100,000 32,000 0 Max. Regret 310,000 250,000 350,000 550,000

b. Minimax regret decision is to build medium. 3-24.

Stock (Cases) 11 12 13 Probabilities

a.
Demand (Cases) 11 385 329 273 0.45 12 385 420 364 0.35 13 385 420 455 0.20 EMV 38512. 379.05 341.25

b. Stock 11 cases. c. If no loss is involved in excess stock, the recommended course of action is to stock 13 cases and to replenish stock to this level each week. This follows from the following decision table.
Stock (Cases) 11 12 13 Demand (Cases) 11 385 385 385 12 385 420 420 13 385 420 455 EMV 385 404.25 411.25

Alternative Stock Market Bonds CDs

3-25.
Manufacture (Cases) 6 7 8 9 Probabilities 0.1 Demand (Cases) 6 300 255 210 165 0.3 7 300 350 305 260 0.5 8 300 350 400 355 9 300 350 400 450 0.1 EMV 300 340.5 352.5 317

EOL(Stock Market) 0.5(0) 0.5(43,000) 21,500* This minimizes EOL. EOL(Bonds) 0.5(50,000) 0.5(3,000) 26,500 EOL(CDs) 0.5(57,000) 0.5(0) 28,500 3-21. a.
Market Condition Good 1,400 900 0.4 Fair 800 900 0.4 Poor 0 900 0.2 EMV 880 900

Alternative Stock market Bank deposit

John should manufacture 8 cases of cheese spread. 3-26. Cost of produced case $5. Cost of purchased case $16. Selling price $15.

Probabilities of market conditions

b. Best decision: deposit $10,000 in bank.

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 22

22

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

Money recovered from each unsold case $3.

Supply (Cases) 100 200 300 Probabilities Demand (Cases) 100 100(15) 100(5) 1000 100(15) 100(3) 200(5) 800 100(15) 200(3) 300(5) 600 0.3 200 200(15) 100(5) 100(16) 900 200(15) 200(5) 2000 200(15) 100(3) 300(5) 1800 0.4 300 300(15) 100(5) 200(16) 800 300(15) 200(5) 100(16) 1900 300(15) 300(5) 3000 0.3 EMV 900 1610 1800

b. Produce 300 cases each day. 3-27. a. The table presented is a decision table. The basis for the decisions in the following questions is shown in the table below.
EQUALLY LIKELY Row Average 20,000 30,000 30,000 55,000 CRIT. OF REALISM Weighted Average 38,000 60,000 72,000 208,000

MARKET Decision Alternatives Small Medium Large Very Large Good 50,000 80,000 100,000 300,000 Fair 20,000 30,000 30,000 25,000 Poor 10,000 20,000 40,000 160,000

MAXIMAX Row Maximum 50,000 80,000 100,000 300,000

MAXIMIN Row Minimum 10,000 20,000 40,000 160,000

b. Maximax decision: Very large station. c. Maximin decision: Small station. d. Equally likely decision: Very large station. e. Criterion of realism decision: Very large station. f. Opportunity loss table:
MARKET Decision Alternatives Small Medium Large Very Large Good Market 250,000 220,000 200,000 0 Fair Market 10,000 0 0 5,000 Poor Market 0 10,000 30,000 150,000 MINIMAX Row Maximum 250,000 220,000 200,000 150,000

Minimax regret decision: Very large station. 3-28. EMV for node 1 0.5(100,000) 0.5(40,000) $30,000. Choose the highest EMV, therefore construct the clinic.
Payoff Favorable Market (0.5)
ct tru ns nic o C Cli

$100,000 $40,000

1 Unfavorable Market (0.5)

$30,000
Do N oth i ng

EMV for no clinic is $0

$0

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 23

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

23

3-29.

a.
Payoff Favorable Market (0.82) CONSTRUCT 2 Unfavorable Market (0.18) $95,000 $45,000

5) ey .5 rv e (0 $69,800 u S bl a r vo Fa DO NOT CONSTRUCT

$5,000

1 t y uc ve $36,140 nd Sur o C et k ar M
Ne

Favorable Market (0.11) CONSTRUCT 3 Unfavorable Market (0.89)

$95,000 $45,000

5) ey .4 rv (0 Su tive ga

$36,140

$5,000 DO NOT CONSTRUCT $5,000

b. EMV(node 2) (0.82)($95,000) (0.18)($45,000) 77,900 8,100 $69,800 EMV(node 3) (0.11)($95,000) (0.89)($45,000) 10,450 $40,050 $29,600 EMV(node 4) $30,000 EMV(node 1) (0.55)($69,800) (0.45)($5,000) 38,390 2,250 $36,140 The EMV for using the survey $36,140. EMV(no survey) (0.5)($100,000) (0.5)($40,000) $30,000 The survey should be used. c. EVSI ($36,140 $5,000) $30,000 $11,140. Thus, the physicians would pay up to $11,140 for the survey.

Do tC No on du ct Su rv ey
$30,000 $0 DO NOT CONSTRUCT CONSTRUCT CLINIC 4 Favorable Market (0.5) Unfavorable Market (0.5) $100,000 $40,000

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 24

24

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

3-30.
Favorable Market Large Shop 2 No Shop
e bl ra o y v e Fa urv S

Unfavorable Market

Favorable Market Small Shop 3 Unfavorable Market

1
k ar ey M urv S et

U Su nfa rv vo ey ra b

Favorable Market Large Shop 4

le

Unfavorable Market

No Shop Favorable Market

Su

Small Shop
rv

5
ey

Unfavorable Market

Favorable Market Large Shop 6 No Shop Favorable Market Small Shop 7 Unfavorable Market Unfavorable Market

3-31. a. EMV(node 2) (0.9)(55,000) (0.1)($45,000) 49,500 4,500 $45,000 EMV(node 3) (0.9)(25,000) (0.1)(15,000) 22,500 1,500 $21,000 EMV(node 4) (0.12)(55,000) (0.88)(45,000) 6,600 39,600 $33,000 EMV(node 5) (0.12)(25,000) (0.88)(15,000) 3,000 13,200 $10,200 EMV(node 6) (0.5)(60,000) (0.5)(40,000) 30,000 20,000 $10,000 EMV(node 7) (0.5)(30,000) (0.5)(10,000) 15,000 5,000 $10,000 EMV(node 1) (0.6)(45,000) (0.4)(5,000) 27,000 2,000 $25,000 Since EMV(market survey) > EMV(no survey), Jerry should conduct the survey. Since EMV(large shop | favorable survey) is larger than both EMV(small shop | favorable survey) and EMV(no shop | favorable survey), Jerry should build a large shop if the survey is favorable. If the survey is unfavorable, Jerry should build nothing since EMV(no shop | unfavorable survey) is larger than both EMV(large shop | unfavorable survey) and EMV(small shop | unfavorable survey).

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 25

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

25

$45,000 Large Shop 2 $45,000 No Shop

Favorable Market (0.9) Unfavorable Market (0.1)

Payoff $55,000 $45,000 $5,000

le 6) ab 0. or y ( v e Fa urv S
$25,000 1

$21,000 Small Shop 3

Favorable Market (0.9) Unfavorable Market (0.1)

$25,000 $15,000

t ke ar ey M urv S

U Su nfa rv vo ey ra (0 ble .4 )

$33,000 Large Shop 4 $5,000 No Shop $10,200

Favorable Market (0.12) $55,000 Unfavorable Market (0.88) $45,000 $5,000

Favorable Market (0.12) $25,000 Unfavorable Market (0.88) $15,000

Su

Small Shop
rv

5
ey

$10,000 Large Shop 6 $10,000 No Shop

Favorable Market (0.5) Unfavorable Market (0.5)

$60,000 $40,000 $0

$10,000 Small Shop 7

Favorable Market (0.5) $30,000 Unfavorable Market (0.5) $10,000

b. If no survey, EMV 0.5(30,000) 0.5(10,000) $10,000. To keep Jerry from changing decisions, the following must be true: EMV(survey) EMV(no survey) Let P probability of a favorable survey. Then, P[EMV(favorable survey)] (1 P) [EMV(unfavorable survey)] EMV(no survey) This becomes: P(45,000) (1 P)(5,000) $10,000 Solving gives 45,000P 5,000 5,000P 10,000 50,000P 15,000 P 0.3 Thus, the probability of a favorable survey could be as low as 0.3. Since the marketing professor estimated the probability at 0.6, the value can decrease by 0.3 without causing Jerry to change his decision. Jerrys decision is not very sensitive to this probability value.

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 26

26

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

3-32.
Payoff $8,500 A3 $8,500 A4 A5 2 $500 3 (0.9) (0.1) (0.9) (0.1) $12,000 $23,000 $2,000 $13,000 $3,000

$2,750

) n 5 i o 0. at le ( rm b fo ra In avo F

e or M on r i e t A 1 ath ma G for In

In U for nf m av at or ion ab le (0 .

$9,000 A3 $3,000 A4 4 $7,000 5 A5

(0.4) (0.6) (0.4) (0.6)

$12,000 $23,000 $2,000 $13,000 $3,000

5)

A1: gather more information A2: do not gather more information A3: build quadplex A4: build duplex A5: do nothing EMV(node 2) 0.9(12,000) 0.1(23,000) 8,500 EMV(node 3) 0.9(2,000) 0.1(13,000) 500 EMV(get information and then do nothing) 3,000 EMV(node 4) 0.4(12,000) 0.6(23,000) 9,000 EMV(node 5) 0.4(2,000) 0.6(13,000) 7,000 EMV(get information and then do nothing) 3,000 EMV(node 1) 0.5(8,500) 0.5(-3,000) 2,750 EMV(build quadplex) 0.7(15,000) 0.3(20,000) 4,500 EMV(build duplex) 0.7(5,000) 0.3(10,000) 500 EMV(do nothing) 0 Decisions: do not gather information; build quadplex. 3-33. I1: favorable research or information I2: unfavorable research S1: store successful S2: store unsuccessful

r n he io at at G rm ot fo A 2 o N e In D or M
$4,500

$4,500 A3 A4 A5 6 $500 7

(0.7) (0.3) (0.7) (0.3)

$15,000 $20,000 $5,000 $10,000 $0

P(S1) 0.5; P(S2) 0.5 P(I1 | S1) 0.8; P(I2 | S1) 0.2 P(I1 | S2) 0.3; P(I2 | S2) 0.7 a. P(successful store | favorable research) P(S1 | I1)

P ( S1 | I1 ) = P ( S1 | I1 ) =

P ( I1 | S1 ) P ( S1 ) P ( I1 | S1 ) P ( S1 ) + P ( I1 | S2 ) P ( S2 ) 0.8(0.5) = 0.73 0.8(0.5) + 0.3(0.5)

b. P(successful store | unfavorable research) P(S1 | I2)

P ( S1 | I 2 ) =

P ( I 2 | S1 ) P ( S1 ) P ( I 2 | S1 ) P ( S1 ) + P ( I 2 | S2 ) P ( S2 ) 0.2(0.5) = 0.22 0.2(0.5) + 0.7(0.5)

P ( S1 | I 2 ) =

c. Now P(S1) 0.6 and P(S2) 0.4

P ( S1 | I1 ) = P ( S1 | I 2 ) =

0.8(0.6 ) = 0.8 0.8(0.6 ) + 0.3(0.4 ) 0.2(0.6 ) = 0.3 0.2(0.6 ) + 0.7(0.4 )

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 27

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

27

3-34.

I1: favorable survey or information I2: unfavorable survey S1: facility successful S2: facility unsuccessful

b. EMV(A) 10,000(0.2) 2,000(0.3) (5,000)(0.5) 100 EMV(B) 6,000(0.2) 4,000(0.3) 0(0.5) 2,400 Fund B should be selected. c. Let X payout for Fund A in a good economy. EMV(A) EMV(B) X(0.2) 2,000(0.3) (5,000)(0.5) 2,400 0.2X 4,300 X 4,300/0.2 21,500 Therefore, the return would have to be $21,500 for Fund A in a good economy for the two alternatives to be equally desirable based on the expected values.

P(S1) 0.3; P(S2) 0.7 P(I1 | S1) 0.8; P(I2 | S1) 0.2 P(I1 | S2) 0.3; P(I2 | S2) 0.7 P(successful facility | favorable survey) P(S1 | I1)

P ( S1 | I1 ) = P ( S1 | I1 ) =

P ( I1 | S1 ) P ( S1 ) P ( I1 | S1 ) P ( S1 ) + P ( I1 | S2 ) P ( S2 ) 0.8(0.3) = 0.533 0.8(0.3) + 0.3(0.7)

P ( I 2 | S1 ) P ( S1 ) P ( I 2 | S1 ) P ( S1 ) + P ( I 2 | S2 ) P ( S2 )

P(successful facility | unfavorable survey) P(S1 | I2)

P ( S1 | I 2 ) =

P ( S1 | I 2 ) =

0.2(0.3) = 0.109 0.2(0.3) + 0.7(0.7)

3-35.

a.
Good economy 0.2 Fair economy 0.3 10,000 2,000 5,000

Fund A Poor economy 0.5

Good economy 0.2 Fund B Fair economy 0.3 Poor economy 0.5

6,000 4,000 0

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 28

28

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

3-36.

a.
Payoff Favorable Market Survey Favorable 1 Survey Unfavorable Produce Razor 4 Produce Razor 3 Unfavorable Market $95,000 $65,000 $5,000 $95,000 $65,000 $5,000 $80,000 $80,000 $20,000 $80,000 $80,000 $20,000 $100,000 $60,000 $0

Do Not Produce Razor Favorable Market Unfavorable Market

ey

tS

urv

Do Not Produce Razor Favorable Market

nd

uc

Study Favorable 2 Study

Ne ith er Te st

Produce Razor

Co

Unfavorable Market

Conduct Pilot Study

Do Not Produce Razor Favorable Market Produce Razor 6 Unfavorable Market

Unfavorable

Do Not Produce Razor Favorable Market Produce Razor 7 Unfavorable Market

Do Not Produce Razor

b.

S1: survey favorable S2: survey unfavorable S3: study favorable S4: study unfavorable S5: market favorable S6: market unfavorable

EMV(node 5) 80,000(0.89) (80,000)(0.11) 62,400 EMV(node 6) 80,000(0.18) (80,000)(0.82) 51,200 EMV(node 7) 100,000(0.5) (60,000)(0.5) 20,000 EMV(conduct survey) 59,800(0.45) (5,000)(0.55) 24,160 EMV(conduct pilot study) 62,400(0.45) (20,000)(0.55) 17,080 EMV(neither) 20,000 Therefore, the best decision is to conduct the survey. If it is favorable, produce the razor. If it is unfavorable, do not produce the razor. 3-37. The following computations are for the decision tree that follows. EU(node 3) 0.95(0.78) 0.5(0.22) 0.85 EU(node 4) 0.95(0.27) 0.5(0.73) 0.62 EU(node 5) 0.9(0.89) 0(0.11) 0.80 EU(node 6) 0.9(0.18) 0(0.82) 0.16 EU(node 7) 1(0.5) 0.55(0.5) 0.78 EU(conduct survey) 0.85(0.45) 0.8(0.55) 0.823 EU(conduct pilot study) 0.80(0.45) 0.7(0.55) 0.745 EU(neither test) 0.81 Therefore, the best decision is to conduct the survey. Jim is a risk avoider.

P ( S5 | S1 ) =

0.7(0.5) = 0.78 0.7(0.5) + 0.2(0.5)

P(S6 | S1) 1 0.778 0.222

P ( S5 | S2 ) =

0.3(0.5) = 0.27 0.3(0.5) + 0.8(0.5)

P(S6 | S2) 1 0.27 0.73

P ( S5 | S3 ) =

0.8(0.5) = 0.89 0.8(0.5) + 0.1(0.5) 0.2(0.5) = 0.18 0.2(0.5) + 0.9(0.5)

P(S6 | S3) 1 0.89 0.11

P ( S5 | S 4 ) =

P(S6 | S4) 1 0.18 0.82 c. EMV(node 3) 95,000(0.78) (65,000)(0.22) 59,800 EMV(node 4) 95,000(0.27) (65,000)(0.73) 21,800

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 29

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

29

Utility 0.85 Survey 0.82 1 Survey

ey

Market Favorable (0.78) Market Unfavorable (0.22)

Produce Razor

0.95 0.5 0.8 0.95 0.5 0.8 0.9 0 0.7 0.9 0 0.7 1 0.55 0.81

Favorable (0.45)

Do Not Produce Razor 0.62 Produce Razor 4 Market Favorable (0.27) Market Unfavorable (0.73)

tS

Unfavorable (0.55)

urv

Do Not Produce Razor 0.80 Market Favorable (0.89) Market Unfavorable (0.11)

nd

uc

Study Favorable (0.45)

Produce Razor

Co

Conduct 0.745 Pilot 2 Study

Do Not Produce Razor 0.16 Market Favorable (0.18) Market Unfavorable (0.82)

Study
Ne ith er Te st

Produce Razor

Unfavorable (0.55)

Do Not Produce Razor 0.78 Produce Razor 7 Market Favorable (0.5) Market Unfavorable (0.5)

Do Not Produce Razor

3-38.

a. P(good economy | prediction of good economy)

P(poor economy | prediction of poor economy)

0.8(0.6 ) = 0.923 0.8(0.6 ) + 0.1(0.4 ) 0.1(0.4 ) = 0.077 0.8(0.6 ) + 0.1(0.4 ) 0.2(0.6 ) = 0.25 0.2(0.6 ) + 0.9(0.4 ) 0.9(0.6 ) = 0.75 0.2(0.6 ) + 0.9(0.4 )

0.9(0.3) = 0.659 0.2(0.7) + 0.9(0.3)

P(poor economy | prediction of good economy)

3-39. The expected value of the payout by the insurance company is EV 0(0.999) 100,000(0.001) 100 The expected payout by the insurance company is $100, but the policy costs $200, so the net gain for the individual buying this policy is negative ($100). Thus, buying the policy does not maximize EMV since not buying this policy would have an EMV of 0, which is better than $100. However, a person who buys this policy would be maximizing the expected utility. The peace of mind that goes along with the insurance policy has a relatively high utility. A person who buys insurance would be a risk avoider.

P(good economy | prediction of poor economy)

P(poor economy | prediction of poor economy)

b. P(good economy | prediction of good economy)

0.8(0.7) = 0.949 0.8(0.7) + 0.1(0.3)

P(poor economy | prediction of good economy)

0.1(0.3) = 0.051 0.8(0.7) + 0.1(0.3)

P(good economy | prediction of poor economy)

0.2(0.7) = 0.341 0.2(0.7) + 0.9(0.3)

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 30

30

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

3-40.
Payoff U = 0.8118 Construct 2 Clinic Do Not Construct Clinic U = 0.1089 Construct 3 Clinic Do Not Construct Clinic U = 0.55 Construct Clinic 4 Favorable Market (0.5) Unfavorable Market (0.5) Favorable Market (0.11) Unfavorable Market (0.89) Favorable Market (0.82) Unfavorable Market (0.18) $95,000 $45,000 $5,000 $95,000 $45,000 $5,000 $100,000 $40,000 $0 Utility 0.99 0 0.7 0.99 0 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.9

Survey U = 0.76 ct du t 1 n e Co ark M Favorable (0.55)

Survey Unfavorable (0.45)

EU(node 2) (0.82)(0.99) (0.18)(0) 0.8118 EU(node 3) (0.11)(0.99) (0.89)(0) 0.1089 EU(node 4) 0.5(1) 0.5(0.1) 0.55 EU(node 1) (0.55)(0.8118) (0.45)(0.7000) 0.7615 EU(no survey) 0.9 The expected utility with no survey (0.9) is higher than the expected utility with a survey (0.7615), so the survey should be not used. The medical professionals are risk avoiders. 3-41. EU(large plant | survey favorable) 0.78(0.95) 0.22(0) 0.741
Utility
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

EU(small plant | survey favorable) 0.78(0.5) 0.22(0.1) 0.412 EU(no plant | survey favorable) 0.2 EU(large plant | survey negative) 0.27(0.95) 0.73(0) 0.2565 EU(small plant | survey negative) 0.27(0.5) 0.73(0.10) 0.208 EU(no plant | survey negative) 0.2 EU(large plant | no survey) 0.5(1) 0.5(0.05) 0.525 EU(small plant | no survey) 0.5(0.6) 0.5(0.15) 0.375 EU(no plant | no survey) 0.3 EU(conduct survey) 0.45(0.741) 0.55(0.2565) 0.4745 EU(no survey) 0.525 Johns decision would change. He would not conduct the survey and build the large plant. 3-42. a. Expected travel time on Broad Street 40(0.5) 15(0.5) 27.5 minutes. Broad Street has a lower expected travel time.
Expressway 30 Minutes, U = 0.7 Congestion (0.5) Broad Street 1 No Congestion (0.5) 40 Minutes, U = 0.2 15 Minutes, U = 0.9

D o N c du on C y ot rve Su t

Do Not Construct Clinic

b. Expected utility on Broad Street 0.2(0.5) 0.9(0.5) 0.55. Therefore, the expressway maximizes expected utility. c. Lynn is a risk avoider.

10

20 Time (minutes)

30

40

3-43. Selling price $20 per gallon; manufacturing cost $12 per gallon; salvage value $13; handling costs $1 per gallon; and advertising costs $3 per gallon. From this information, we get: marginal prot selling price minus the manufacturing, handling, and advertising costs marginal prot $20 $12 $1 $3 $4 per gallon If more is produced than is needed, a marginal loss is incurred. marginal loss $13 $12 $1 $3 $3 per gallon In addition, there is also a shortage cost. Coren has agreed to fulll any demand that cannot be met internally. This requires that Coren purchase chemicals from an outside company. Because the cost of obtaining the chemical from the outside company is $25 and the price charged by Coren is $20, this results in shortage cost $5 per gallon In other words, Coren will lose $5 for every gallon that is sold that has to be purchased from an outside company due to a shortage.

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 31

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

31

a. A decision tree is shown below:

Decision Tree (0.2) Demand (0.3) $1,500 Stock 500 $1,800 Stock 1,000 $3,300 Stock 1,500 (0.2) (0.3) (0.4) Stock 2,000 $2,400 (0.1) (0.2) (0.3) (0.4) (0.1) 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 (0.4) (0.1) (0.2) (0.3) (0.4) (0.1) 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 $2,000 = (500)(4) $500 = (500)(4) (500)(5) $3,000 = (500)(4) (1,000)(5) $5,500 = (500)(4) (1,500)(5) $500 = (500)(4) (500)(3) $4,000 = (1,000)(4) $1,500 = (1,000)(4) (5)(500) $1,000 = (1,000)(4) (5)(1,000) $1,000 = (500)(4) (3)(1,000) $2,500 = (1,000)(4) (3)(500) $6,000 = (1,500)(4) $3,500 = (1,500)(4) (5)(500) $2,500 = (500)(4) (3)(1,500) $1,000 = (1,000)(4) (3)(1,000) $4,500 = (1,500)(4) (3)(500) $8,000 = (2,000)(4)

b. The computations are shown in the following table. These numbers are entered into the tree above. The best decision is to stock 1,500 gallons. Table for Problem 3-43
Demand Stock 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 EMV $1,500 $1,800 $3,300 $2,400 $4,800 EVwPI 500 2,000 1,000 500 1,500 1,000 2,000 2,500 Maximum 2,000 Probabilities 0.2 500 3,000 5,500 4,000 1,500 1,000 2,500 6,000 3,500 1,000 4,500 8,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 0.3 0.4 0.1
a Sm

Decision TreeNo Survey (0.15) (0.40)

50 00 0,0

$500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $200,000 $700,000 $800,000 $200,000 $400,000

(0.45) (0.15) (0.40) (0.45)

ll $

Medium $670,000

La

rge

$5

80

,00

(0.15) (0.40)

c. EVwPI (0.2)(2,000) (0.3)(4,000) (0.4)(6,000) (0.1)(8,000) $4,800 EVPI EVwPI EMV $4,800 $3,300 $1,500 3-44. If no survey is to be conducted, the decision tree is fairly straightforward. There are three main decisions, which are building a small, medium, or large facility. Extending from these decision branches are three possible demands, representing the possible states of nature. The demand for this type of facility could be either low (L), medium (M), or high (H). It was given in the problem that the probability for a low demand is 0.15. The probabilities for a medium and a high demand are 0.40 and 0.45, respectively. The problem also gave monetary consequences for building a small, medium, or large facility when the demand could be low, medium, or high for the facility. These data are reected in the following decision tree.

(0.45) $1,000,000

With no survey, we have: EMV(Small) 500,000; EMV(Medium) 670,000; and EMV(Large) 580,000. The medium facility, with an expected monetary value of $670,000, is selected because it represents the highest expected monetary value. If the survey is used, we must compute the revised probabilities using Bayes theorem. For each alternative facility, three revised probabilities must be computed, representing low, medium, and high demand for a facility. These probabilities can be computed using tables. One table is used to compute the probabilities for low survey results, another table is used for

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 32

32

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

medium survey results, and a nal table is used for high survey results. These tables are shown below. These probabilities will be used in the decision tree that follows. For low survey resultsA1:
State of Nature B1 B2 B3 P(Bi) 0.150 0.400 0.450 P(Ai | Bj) P(Bj and Ai) 0.105 0.160 0.045 0.310 P(Bj | Ai) 0.339 0.516 0.145 0.700 0.400 0.100 P(A1)

Decision TreeSurvey L Small M H L Medium M H 450,000 450,000 450,000 150,000 650,000 750,000 250,000 350,000 950,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 150,000 650,000 750,000 250,000 350,000 950,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 L Medium M H L Large M H 150,000 650,000 750,000 250,000 350,000 950,000

For medium survey resultsA2:

State of Nature B1 B2 B3 P(Bi) 0.150 0.400 0.450 P(Ai | Bj) P(Bj and Ai) 0.030 0.200 0.135 0.365 P(Bj | Ai) 0.082 0.548 0.370

L Large
$49 Low 5,000 (0.3 10)

0.200 0.500 0.300 P(A2)

M H L

For high survey resultsA3:

State of Nature B1 B2 B3 P(Bi) 0.150 0.400 0.450 P(Ai | Bj) P(Bj and Ai) 0.015 0.040 0.270 0.325 P(Bj | Ai) 0.046 0.123 0.831

Small

M H L

0.100 0.100 0.600 P(A3)

$646,000 Medium (0.365)

Medium

M H L

When survey results are low, the probabilities are P(L) 0.339; P(M) 0.516; and P(H) 0.145. This results in EMV(Small) 450,000; EMV(Medium) 495,000; and EMV(Large) 233,600. When survey results are medium, the probabilities are P(L) 0.082; P(M) 0.548; and P(H) 0.378. This results in EMV (Small) 450,000; EMV(Medium) 646,000; and EMV(Large) 522,800. When survey results are high, the probabilities are P(L) 0.046; P(M) 0.123; and P(H) 0.831. This results in EMV(Small) 450,000; EMV(Medium) 710,100; and EMV(Large) 821,000. If the survey results are low, the best decision is to build the medium facility with an expected return of $495,000. If the survey results are medium, the best decision is also to build the medium plant with an expected return of $646,000. On the other hand, if the survey results are high, the best decision is to build the large facility with an expected monetary value of $821,000. The expected value of using the survey is computed as follows: EMV(with Survey) 0.310(495,000) 0.365(646,000) 0.325(821,000) 656,065 Because the expected monetary value for not conducting the survey is greater (670,000), the decision is not to conduct the survey and to build the medium-sized facility.

Large
,000 $821 .325) (0 High

M H L

Small

M H

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 33

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

33

3-45.

a.
Payoff $75,000 1
w w nto n

Succeed (0.5)

$250,000

Dont Succeed (0.5) Succeed (0.6)

$100,000 $300,000

Do

$140,000 Mall
Tra ffic Cir cle No Gr oc er yS to

2 Dont Succeed (0.4) Succeed (0.75) $100,000 $400,000

$250,000
re

3 Dont Succeed (0.25) $200,000 $0

Mary should select the trafc circle location (EMV $250,000). b. Use Bayes Theorem to compute posterior probabilities. | SRP) = 0.22 P(SD | SRP) = 0.78; P(SD P(SM | SRP) = 0.84; P(SC | SRP) = 0.91; P(SD | SRN) = 0.27; P(SM | SRN) = 0.36; P(SC | SRN) = 0.53; Example computations: P( SM | SRP) = 0.16 | SRP) = 0.09 P(SC | SRN) = 0.73 P(SD P(SM | SRN) = 0.64 | SRN) = 0.47 P(SC

EMV(8) $75,000 EMV(9) $140,000 EMV(10) $250,000 EMV(no grocery C) $0 EMV(A) (best of four alternatives) $316,000 EMV(B) (best of four alternatives) $88,000 EMV(C) (best of four alternatives) $250,000 EMV(1) (0.6)($316,000) (0.4)($88,000) $224,800 EMV(D) (best of two alternatives) $250,000 c. EVSI [EMV(1) cost] (best EMV without sample information) $254,800 $250,000 $4,800.

P ( SM | SRP ) =

P ( SRP | SM ) P ( SM ) P ( SRP | SM ) P ( SM ) + P ( SRP | SM ) P ( SM )

0.7(0.6 ) P ( SM | SRP ) = = 0.84 0.7(0.6 ) + 0.2(0.4 ) P ( SC | SRN ) = 0.3(0.75) = 0.53 0.3(0.75) + 0.8(0.25)

These calculations are for the tree that follows: EMV(2) $171,600 $28,600 $143,000 EMV(3) $226,800 $20,800 $206,000 EMV(4) $336,700 $20,700 $316,000 EMV(no grocery A) $30,000 EMV(5) $59,400 $94,900 $35,500 EMV(6) $97,200 $83,200 $14,000 EMV(7) $196,100 $108,100 $88,000 EMV(no grocery B) $30,000

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 34

34

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

First Decision Point

Second Decision Point Downtown 2 Mall SD (0.78) SD (0.22) SM (0.84) 3 SM (0.16) SC (0.91) Circle 4 SC (0.09)

Payoff $220,000 $130,000 $270,000 $130,000 $370,000 $230,000 $30,000 SD (0.27) 5 Mall SD (0.73) SM (0.36) 6 SM (0.64) SC (0.53) $220,000 $130,000 $270,000 $130,000 $370,000 $230,000 $30,000 SD (0.5) 8 Mall SD (0.5) SM (0.6) 9 SM (0.4) SC (0.75) Circle 10 SC (0.25) $250,000 $100,000 $300,000 $100,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0

ts ul es .6) R (0 ey e rv itiv u S os P
1

No Grocery Store

t ke ar M se ey a h rv rc Su u P
D

lts su ) Re (0.4 ey e rv tiv Su ega N

B

Downtown

Do

No

tP

ur c

Circle

ha se

SC (0.47)

M ar

No Grocery Store

ke tS

ur v

ey

Downtown

No Grocery Store

3-46. a. Sue can use decision tree analysis to nd the best solution. The results are presented below. In this case, the best decision is to get information. If the information is favorable, she should build the retail store. If the information is not favorable, she should not build the retail store. The EMV for this decision is $29,200. In the following results (using QM for Windows), Branch 1 (12) is to get information, Branch 2 (13) is the decision to not get information, Branch 3 (24) is favorable information, Branch 4 (25) is unfavorable information, Branch 5 (38) is the decision to build the retail store and get no information, Branch 6 (317) is the decision to not build the retail store and to get no information, Branch 7 (46) is the decision to build the retail store given favorable information, Branch 8 (411) is the decision to not build given favorable information, Branch 9 (69) is a good market given favorable

information, Branch 10 (610) is a bad market given favorable information, Branch 11 (57) is the decision to build the retail store given unfavorable information, Branch 12 (514) is the decision not to build the retail store given unfavorable information, Branch 13 (712) is a successful retail store given unfavorable information, Branch 14 (713) is an unsuccessful retail store given unfavorable information, Branch 15 (815) is a successful retail store given that no information is obtained, and Branch 16 (816) is an unsuccessful retail store given no information is obtained.

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 35

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

35

b. The suggested changes would be reflected in Branches 4 and 5. The decision stays the same, but the EMV increases to $46,000. The results are provided in the tables that follow: Results for 3-46. a.
Start Node Start Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Branch 9 Branch 10 Branch 11 Branch 12 Branch 13 Branch 14 Branch 15 Branch 16 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 6 5 5 7 7 8 8 Ending Node 1 2 3 4 5 8 17 6 11 9 10 7 14 12 13 15 16 Branch Probability 0 0 0 0.6 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 Prot (End Node) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 80,000 100,000 0 20,000 80,000 100,000 100,000 80,000 Use Branch? Yes Node Type Decision Chance Decision Decision Decision Chance Final Chance Final Final Final Chance Final Final Final Final Final Node Value 29,200 29,200 28,000 62,000 20,000 28,000 0 62,000 20,000 80,000 100,000 64,000 20,000 80,000 100,000 100,000 80,000

Yes Yes

Yes

Results for 3-46. b.

Start Node Start Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Branch 9 Branch 10 Branch 11 Branch 12 Branch 13 Branch 14 Branch 15 Branch 16 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 6 5 5 7 7 8 8 Ending Node 1 2 3 4 5 8 17 6 11 9 10 7 14 12 13 15 16 Branch Probability 0 0 0 0.7 0.3 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 Prot (End Node) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 80,000 100,000 0 20,000 80,000 100,000 100,000 80,000 Use Branch? Yes Node Type Decision Chance Decision Decision Decision Chance Final Chance Final Final Final Chance Final Final Final Final Final Node Value 37,400 37,400 28,000 62,000 20,000 28,000 0 62,000 20,000 80,000 100,000 64,000 20,000 80,000 100,000 100,000 80,000

Yes Yes

Yes

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 36

36

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

c. Sue can determine the impact of the change by changing the probabilities and recomputing EMVs. This analysis shows the decision changes. Given the new probability values, Sues best decision is build the retail store without getting additional information. The EMV for this decision is $28,000. The results are presented below: Results for 3-46. c.
Start Node Start Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Branch 9 Branch 10 Branch 11 Branch 12 Branch 13 Branch 14 Branch 15 Branch 16 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 6 5 5 7 7 8 8 Ending Node 1 2 3 4 5 8 17 6 11 9 10 7 14 12 13 15 16 Branch Probability 0 0 0 0.6 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 Prot (End Node) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 80,000 100,000 0 20,000 80,000 100,000 100,000 80,000 Use Branch? Node Type Decision Chance Decision Decision Decision Chance Final Chance Final Final Final Chance Final Final Final Final Final Node Value 28,000 18,400 28,000 44,000 20,000 28,000 0 44,000 20,000 80,000 100,000 64,000 20,000 80,000 100,000 100,000 80,000

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

d. Yes, Sues decision would change from her original decision. With the higher cost of information, Sues decision is to not get the information and build the retail store. The EMV of this decision is $28,000. The results are given below: Results for 3-46. d.
Start Node Start Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Branch 9 Branch 10 Branch 11 Branch 12 Branch 13 Branch 14 Branch 15 Branch 16 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 6 5 5 7 7 8 8 Ending Node 1 2 3 4 5 8 17 6 11 9 10 7 14 12 13 15 16 Branch Probability 0 0 0 0.6 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 Prot (End Node) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 70,000 110,000 0 30,000 70,000 110,000 100,000 80,000 Use Branch? Node Type Decision Chance Decision Decision Decision Chance Final Chance Final Final Final Chance Final Final Final Final Final Node Value 28,000 19,200 28,000 52,000 30,000 28,000 0 52,000 30,000 70,000 110,000 74,000 30,000 70,000 110,000 100,000 80,000

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 37

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

37

e. The expected utility can be computed by replacing the monetary values with utility values. Given the utility values in the problem, the expected utility is 0.62. The utility table represents a risk seeker. The results are given below: Results for 3-46. e.
Start Node Start Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Branch 9 Branch 10 Branch 11 Branch 12 Branch 13 Branch 14 Branch 15 Branch 16 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 6 5 5 7 7 8 8 Ending Node 1 2 3 4 5 8 17 6 11 9 10 7 14 12 13 15 16 Branch Probability 0 0 0 0.6 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 Prot (End Node) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.1 0.4 0 0 0.1 0.4 0 1 0.05 Use Branch? Ending Node 1 2 3 4 5 8 17 6 11 9 10 7 14 12 13 15 16 Node Type Decision Chance Decision Decision Decision Chance Final Chance Final Final Final Chance Final Final Final Final Final Node Value 0.62 0.256 0.62 0.36 0.1 0.62 0.20 0.36 0.1 0.4 0 0.08 0.1 0.4 0 1 0.05

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

f. This problem can be solved by replacing monetary values with utility values. The expected utility is 0.80. The utility table given in the problem is representative of a risk avoider. The results are presented below: Results for 3-46. f.
Start Node Start Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Branch 9 Branch 10 Branch 11 Branch 12 Branch 13 Branch 14 Branch 15 Branch 16 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 6 5 5 7 7 8 8 Ending Node 1 2 3 4 5 8 17 6 11 9 10 7 14 12 13 15 16 Branch Probability 0 0 0 0.6 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 Prot (End Node) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0.6 0.9 0 0 0.6 0.9 0 1 0.4 Use Branch? Node Type Decision Chance Decision Decision Decision Chance Final Chance Final Final Final Chance Final Final Final Final Final Node Value 0.80 0.726 0.80 0.81 0.60 0.76 0.80 0.81 0.60 0.90 0.00 0.18 0.60 0.90 0.00 1.00 0.40

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

3-47. a. The decision table for Chris Dunphy along with the expected prots or expected monetary values (EMVs) for each alternative are shown on the next page.

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 38

38

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

Table for Problem 3-47a Return in $1,000:

Event 1 Number of Watches 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 Probability Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 8 Alternative 9 0.100 100,000 90,000 85,000 80,000 65,000 50,000 45,000 30,000 20,000 Event 2 0.200 110,000 120,000 110,000 120,000 100,000 100,000 95,000 90,000 85,000 Event 3 0.500 120,000 140,000 135,000 155,000 155,000 160,000 170,000 165,000 160,000 Event 4 0.100 135,000 155,000 160,000 170,000 180,000 190,000 200,000 230,000 270,000 Event 5 0.100 140,000 170,000 175,000 180,000 195,000 210,000 230,000 245,000 295,000

Expected prot:
Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Expected Prot 119,500 135,500 131,500 144,500 141,500 145,000 151,500 151,000 155,500 best alternative

For this decision problem, Alternative 9 gives the highest expected prot of $155,500. b. The expected value with perfect information is $175,500, and the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) is $20,000. c. The new probability estimates will give more emphasis to event 2 and less to event 5. The overall impact is shown below. As you can see, stocking 400,000 watches is now the best decision with an expected value of $140,700. Return in $1,000:
EVENT 1 Probability Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 8 Alternative 9 0.100 100,000 90,000 85,000 80,000 65,000 50,000 45,000 30,000 20,000 EVENT 2 0.280 110,000 120,000 110,000 120,000 100,000 100,000 95,000 90,000 85,000 EVENT 3 0.500 120,000 140,000 135,000 155,000 155,000 160,000 170,000 165,000 160,000 EVENT 4 0.100 135,000 155,000 160,000 170,000 180,000 190,000 200,000 230,000 270,000 EVENT 5 0.020 140,000 170,000 175,000 180,000 195,000 210,000 230,000 245,000 295,000

Expected prot:
Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Expected Prot 117.100 131,500 126,300 139,700 133,900 136,200 140,700 best alternative: stock 400,000 watches 138,600 138,700

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 39

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

39

d. Stocking 400,000 is still the best alternative. The results are shown below.

Return in $1,000:
Event 1 Probability Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 8 Alternative 9 0.100 100,000 90,000 85,000 80,000 65,000 50,000 45,000 30,000 20,000 Event 2 0.280 110,000 120,000 110,000 120,000 100,000 100,000 95,000 90,000 85,000 Event 3 0.500 120,000 140,000 135,000 155,000 155,000 160,000 170,000 165,000 160,000 Event 4 0.100 135,000 155,000 160,000 170,000 180,000 190,000 200,000 230,000 270,000 Event 5 0.020 140,000 170,000 175,000 180,000 195,000 210,000 230,000 245,000 340,000

Expected prot
Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Expected Prot 117,100 131,500 126,300 139,700 133,900 136,200 140,700 best alternative: stock 400,000 watches 138,600 139,600

b. Back roads (minimum time used). c. Expected time with perfect information: 15 1/2 + 25 1/3 + 30 1/6 = 20.83 minutes Time saved is 313; minutes. 3-51. a. EMV can be used to determine the best strategy to minimize costs. The QM for Windows solution is shown on the next page. The best decision is to go with the partial service (maintenance) agreement.

3-48.

a. Decision under uncertainty. b.

Population Same Population Grows 150,000 60,000 0 Row Average 32,500 7,500 0

Large wing Small wing No wing

85,000 45,000 0

c. Best alternative: large wing. 3-49. a. Note: This problem can also be solved using marginal analysis.
Population Same Large wing Small wing No wing 85,000 45,000 0 Population Grows 150,000 60,000 0 Weighted Average with = 0.75 91,250 33,750 0

b. Best decision: large wing. c. No. 3-50. a.

No Mild Severe Expected Congestion Congestion Congestion Time Tennessee Back roads Expressway Probabilities 15 20 30 30 25 30 45 35 30 25 24.17 30 (10 days)/ (60 days) = 1/6

(30 days)/ (20 days)/ (60 days) = 1/2 (60 days) = 1/3

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 40

40

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

Solution to 3-51a
Expected Value ($) Probabilities 0.2 Maint. Cost ($) No Service Agreement Partial Service Agreement Complete Service Agreement Column best 3,000 1,500 500 0.8 No Maint. Cost ($) 0 300 500 600 540 500 500 0 0 500 0 3,000 1,500 500 500 Row Minimum ($) Row Maximum ($)

The minimum expected monetary value is 500 given by Complete Service Agreement b. The new probability estimates dramatically change Sims decision. The best decision given this new information is to still go with the complete service or maintenance policy with an expected cost of $500. The results are shown below. Solution to 3-51b
Needs Repair ($) Probabilities No Service Agreement Partial Service Agreement Complete Service Agreement Column best 0.8 3,000 1,500 500 Does Not Need Repair ($) 0.2 0 300 500 2,400 1,260 500 500 Expected Value ($)

3-52. We can use QM for Windows to solve this decision making under uncertainty problem. We have made up probability values, which will be ignored in the analysis. As you can see, the maximax decision is Option 4, and the maximum decision is Option 1. To compute the equality likely decision, we used equal probability values of 0.25 for each of the four scenarios. As seen below, the equally likely decision, which is the same as the EMV decision in this case, is Option 3. Solution to 3-52
Expected Value ($) Probabilities 0.25 Judge ($) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Column best 5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 0.25 Trial ($) 5,000 5,000 7,000 15,000 0.25 Court ($) 5,000 2,000 1,000 10,000 0.25 Arbitration ($) 5,000 0 5,000 20,000 5,000 4,250 5,750 3,750 5,750 5,000 0 5,000 20,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 30,000 Row Minimum ($) Row Miximum ($)

The maximum expected monetary value is 5,750 given by Option 3. The maximum is 5,000 given by Option 1. The maximax is 30,000 given by Option 4.

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 41

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

41

SOLUTION TO STARTING RIGHT CASE

This is a decision-making-under-uncertainty case. There are two events: a favorable market (event 1) and an unfavorable market (event 2). There are four alternatives, which include do nothing (alternative 1), invest in corporate bonds (alternative 2), invest in preferred stock (alternative 3), and invest in common stock (alternative 4). The decision table is presented below. Note that for alternative 2, the return in a good market is $30,000 (1 0.13)5 $55,273. The return in a good market is $120,000 (4 x $30,000) for alternative 3, and $240,000 (8 x $30,000) for alternative 4. Payoff table
Event 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 0 55,273 120,000 240,000 Event 2 0 10,000 15,000 30,000 Laplace Average Value 0.0 22,636.5 152,500.0 105,000.0 Minimum 0 10,000 15,000 30,000 Maximum 0 55,273 120,000 240,000 Hurwicz Value 0.00 2,819.97 150.00 300.00

Regret table
Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Event 1 240,000 184,727 120,000 0 Event 2 0 10,000 15,000 30,000 Maximum Regret 240,000 184,727 120,000 30,000

6 MonthAdopt the 6-month program: if a competitors product is available at the end of 6 months, then copy; otherwise proceed with research and development. 8 MonthAdopt the 6-month program: proceed for 8 months; if no competition at 8 months, proceed; otherwise stop development. Success or failure of development effort: OkDevelopment effort ultimately a success NoDevelopment effort ultimately a failure Column: S Sales revenue RResearch and development expenditures EEquipment costs IIntroduction to market costs Market size and Revenues:
Without Competition SSubstantial (P 0.1) MModerate (P 0.6) LLow (P 0.3) $800,000 $600,000 $500,000 With Competition $400,000 $300,000 $250,000

a. Sue Pansky is a risk avoider and should use the maximin decision approach. She should do nothing and not make an investment in Starting Right. b. Ray Cahn should use a coefcient of realism of 0.11. The best decision is to do nothing. c. Lila Battle should eliminate alternative 1 of doing nothing and apply the maximin criterion. The result is to invest in the corporate bonds. d. George Yates should use the equally likely decision criterion. The best decision for George is to invest in common stock. e. Pete Metarko is a risk seeker. He should invest in common stock. f. Julia Day can eliminate the preferred stock alternative and still offer alternatives to risk seekers (common stock) and risk avoiders (doing nothing or investing in corporate bonds).

SOLUTIONS TO INTERNET CASES

Drink-at-Home, Inc. Case
Abbreviations and values used in the following decision trees: Normalproceed with research and development at a normal pace.

Competition: C6Competition at end of 6 months (P .5) No C6No competition at end of 6 months (P .5) C8Competition at end of 8 months (P .6) No C8No competition at end of 8 months (P .4) C12Competition at end of 12 months (P .8) No C12No competition at end of 12 months (P .2)

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 42

42

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

Drink-at-Home. Inc. Case (continued)

Mkt S (.1) C12 (.8) Ok (.9) M (.6) L (.3) S (.1) No C12 (.2) No (.1) (Stop) C8 (.6) S (.1) M (.6) L (.3)

Normal

400 100 100 150 = 50 300 100 100 150 = 50 250 100 100 150 = 100 800 100 100 150 = 450 600 100 100 150 = 250 500 100 100 150 = 150 100 = 100

8 Month No C8 (.4)

Ok (.9)

M (.6) L (.3) S (.1)

No (.1)
nth 6 Mo

M (.6) L (.3) S (.1)

80 = 80 400 140 100 150 = 10 300 140 100 150 = 90 250 140 100 150 = 140 800 140 100 150 = 410 600 140 100 150 = 210 500 140 100 150 = 110 400 90 100 150 = 300 90 100 150 = 250 90 100 150 = 400 100 100 150 = 300 100 100 150 = 800 100 100 150 = 600 100 100 150 = 500 100 100 150 = 100 60 40 90 50 50 450 250 150

C6 (.5)

M (.6) L (.3) S (.1) C12 (.8) Ok (.9) M (.6) L (.3) S (.1) No C12 (.2) No (.1) M (.6) L (.3)

250 100 100 150 = 100

No C6 (.5)

= 100

Mkt S (.1) C12 (.8) Ok (.9) Normal No (.1) (Stop) C8 (.6) 8 Month No C8 (.4) No (.1)
6 Mo nth

M (.6) L (.3) S (.1)

No C12 (.2)

M (.6) L (.3)

50 50 100 450 250 150 100

Ok (.9)

S (.1) M (.6) L (.3) S (.1) M (.6) L (.3) S (.1)

80 10 90 140 410 210 110 60 40 90 50 50 100 450 250 150 100

C6 (.5)

M (.6) L (.3) S (.1) C12 (.8) Ok (.9) M (.6) L (.3) S (.1) No C12 (.2) No (.1) M (.6) L (.3)

No C6 (.5)

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 43

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

43

Drink-at-Home, Inc. Case (continued)

Mkt S (.1) C12 (.8) Ok (.9) Normal 6.4 No (.1) (Stop) C8 (.6) S (.1) 8 Month 74.2 (74.2) No C8 (.4) Ok (.9) 95 No (.1) 200 C6 (.5) 45 C 12 (.8) Ok (.9) No C6 (.5) (19.3) No (.1) 55 240 No C12 (.2)
6 Mo

M (.6) L (.3) S (.1) M (.6) L (.3)

55 (4) 240 No C12 (.2)

50 50 100 450 250 150 100 80 10 90 140 410 210 110 60 40 90 50 50 100 450 250 150 100

M (.6) L (.3) S (.1) M (.6) L (.3) S (.1) M (.6) L (.3) S (.1) M (.6) L (.3) S (.1) M (.6) L (.3)

The optimal program is to adopt the 6-month program

Ruth Jones Heart By-Pass Operation Case

Prob. One Year Two Years .50 .20 .20 .10 Years 1 2 5 8 Expected Rate .50 .40 1.00 .80 2.7 years

N o Su Byrg pa er ss y

nth
Su e rg ry

Five Years Eight Years

0 Years One Year Five Years Ten Years Fifteen Years Twenty Years Twenty-five Years

.05 .45 .20 .13 .08 .05 .04

0 1 5 10 15 20 25

0.0 .45 1.00 1.30 1.20 1.00 1.00 5.95 years

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 44

44

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

Expected survival rate with surgery (5.95 years) exceeds the nonsurgical survival rate of 2.70 years. Surgery is favorable.

Ski Right Case

a. Bob can solve this case using decision analysis. As you can see, the best decision is to have Leadville Barts make the helmets and have Progressive Products do the rest with an expected value of $2,600. The nal option of not using Progressive, however, was very close with an expected value of $2,500.
EXPECTED VALUE

POOR Probabilities Option 1PP Option 2LB and PP Option 3TR and PP Option 4CC and PP Option 5LB, CC, and TR With Perfect Information 0.1 5,000 10,000 15,000 30,000 60,000 5,000

AVERAGE 0.3 2,000 4,000 10,000 20,000 35,000 2,000

GOOD 0.4 2,000 6,000 7,000 10,000 20,000 25,000

EXCELLENT 0.2 5,000 12,000 13,000 30,000 55,000 55,000

700 2,600 900 1,000 2,500 17,900

The maximum expected monetary value is 2,600 given by Option 2 LB and PP. b and c. The opportunity loss and the expected value of perfect information is presented below. The EVPI is $15,300. Expected value with perfect information 17,900 Expected monetary value 2,600 Expected value of perfect information 15,300 Opportunity loss table
POOR MARKET Probabilities Option 1PP Option 2LB and PP Option 3TR and PP Option 4CC and PP Option 5LB, CC, and TR 0.1 0 5,000 10,000 25,000 55,000 AVERAGE 0.3 0 2,000 8,000 18,000 33,000 GOOD 0.4 18,000 14,000 13,000 10,000 0 EXCELLENT 0.2 50,000 43,000 42,000 25,000 0

d. Bob was logical in approaching this problem. However, there are other alternatives that might be considered. One possibility is to sell the idea and the rights to produce this product to Progressive Products for a xed amount.

STUDY TIME CASE

Raquel must decide which of the three cases (1, 2, or 3) to study, and how much time to devote to each. We will assume that it is equally likely (a 1/3 chance) that each case is chosen. If she misses at most 8 points (lets assume she is correct in thinking that) on the other parts of the exam, scoring 20 points or more on this part will give her an A for the course. Scoring 0 or 12 points on this portion of the exam will

REVISED
M03_REND6289_10_IM_C03.QXD 5/7/08 3:48 PM Page 45

CHAPTER 3

DECISION ANALYSIS

45

result in a grade of B for the course. The table below gives the different possibilities points and grade in the course.
Case 1 on Exam Study 1, 2, 3 Study 1,2 Study 1,3 Study 2,3 Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 12 B 20 A 20 A 0B 25 A 0B 0B Case 2 on Exam 12 B 20 A 0B 20 A 0B 25 A 0B Case 3 on Exam 12 B 0B 20 A 20 A 0B 0B 25 A EV 12 40/3 40/3 40/3 25/3 25/3 25/3 Grade in Course B A 2/3 chance or B 1/3 chance A 2/3 chance or B 1/3 chance A 2/3 chance or B 1/3 chance A 1/3 chance or B 2/3 chance A 1/3 chance or B 2/3 chance A 1/3 chance or B 2/3 chance

Thus, Raquel should study 2 cases since this will give her a 2/3 chance of an A in the course. Notice that this also has the highest expected value. This is a situation in which the values (points) are not always indicative of the importance of the result since 0 or 12 results in a B for the course, and 20 or 25 results in an A for the course.