Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Operations Research
There are various definitions of operations Research. The earliest definition given by Mores and
Kimball is operations research is a scientific method of providing operations quantitative basis for
executives to take decisions under their control.
According to Miller and Starry operations research is defined as the application of decimal theory. It
uses a scientific, mathematical, or logical means to cope with the problems that confront the executive
when he tries to achieve the objective going rationally in dealing with his decision problems.
The operations Research of America also defined Operations Research as an experimental and applied
science devoted to observing, understanding and predicting to behavior of purposeful man machine
systems, and operation research workers are actively engaged in applying this knowledge to practical
problem in business, Government and society.
The common ideas emerged out of all such definitions are:
the use of the scientific method,
study of the complex relationships, and
provision of a basis for decision making.
By combining these main attributes it can be possible to a generate a definition as operation Research
values the planned approach scientific method and an inter disciplinary term in order to represent
Industrial Activities
Industrial plant location and sister selections, finance planning, product and process planning,
purchasing, bid and vendor evaluation, Inventory control, maintenance management and replacement,
etc.
Engineering Activities
Technology forecasting, evaluation and management, project management of Turnkey projects, system
evaluation and preparation of tender, value engineering and selection of components, time study and
activity sampling, etc.
Minimization of cost
Primary concern of management is to minimize cost. Various operation Research techniques are
developed to meet this some of these techniques are linear programming (LP), assignment Algorithm,
transpiration algorithm, etc.
Maximization of profit
Success and survival of industry and business depend on their ability to make profit. Operation
Research has recognized this function and accordingly developed a number of techniques. For instance,
some of them are Linear programming (LP), assignment Algorithm, transportation algorithm, etc.
2. Determine assumptions
It is advisable to clearly identify the basic assumption, which would be considered in the given
problem, before the formulation of a mathematical frame work. These assumptions are usually
generated on the basis of the terms listed below:
input, pout, processor objectives, constraints,
Independent variables, which are uncontrollable and they are considered the predictors of the
objective of the problem.
Dependent variables, which are controllable,
Types of Models
There are four basic types of model used in operations Research, namely physical [Iconic] models,
analogue models, symbolic [mathematical] models, and characteristic models.
Analogue Model
These models use one set of properties to represent another set of properties. They are abstract models
mostly reveling inter and intra relationships between two or more parameters. For example, an
economic system can be modeled by the use of a hydraulic system, where the flows represent the
dynamic nature of the real system. Some examples are histograms, frequency tables, is Chichewa cause
effect diagrams, flow charts, string diagrams, an others they are also called dynamic models because
output dependent variable changes when imputes independent variables are altered. Analogue models
are preferred to iconic models because they permit a degree of manipulation and experimentation.
Characteristic Models
These are models based on a certain character which under focus. There are several types under
characteristic models. These are explained briefly below:
Combination model
This is a combination of two or three models discussed above viz, physical plus analogue, physical plus
symbolic, analogue plus symbolic, or the combination of physical, analogue, and symbolic, variance
analysis table using frequency distribution and probability formulae is an example of the combination
model of all the three models discussed above.
Quantitative model
Here outputs are calculated for various inputs an both are shown against each other in physical form.
For example, Clarks table, here the physical quantities are exhibited and hence the name.
Qualitative model
Here the parameters and attributes are measured not in quantitative form but in qualitative form. A
typical example is the Go and Not go gauge.
Functional model
Here the models are built up based on certain functions or purposes. Examples are Economic model of
two year plan, business model of corporate plan, Blue print of a building; Circuit diagram of a design,
etc.
Simulation model
Models built up on simulation are as simulation mode. Examples are Markov chain in market forecast
and Monte carol simulation in queuing theory.
Production Management
Some of the specific problems observed under this functional area are sitting and location factory
layout, product planning ,process planning, technology selection, facility planning work station design,
capacity planning product mix and precaution planning and control. The respective applications of
operations research techniques of the above problems are location dynamics, Break even analysis, and
Transpiration, routing, Travel charts, profitability analysis, product line analysis, line of Balance LOB
Routing, forced design matrix bid evolution capital investment, selection of plant, line balancing Break
even analysis Decision tree, LP simplex and LP graphic sequence assignment scheduling.
Quality Management
Some of the specific problems observed under quality management are inward goods, inspection of
outward goods, process inspection. The respective applications of operations Research Techniques of
the above problems are statistical and probability curves, statistical and probability curves, and
statistical frequency distributions.
Service Industry
Some of the specific problems observed under service industry are optimum efficiency and aiding time
saving. The respective applications of operations Research Techniques of the above problems are
queuing theory, and Monte carol simulation.
Maintenance Management
Some of the specific problems observed under maintenance management are maximization of
utilization and minimization of cost. The respective applications of operations Research Techniques of
the above problems are Replacement theory and statistical DCF.
Project Management
Some of the specific problems observed udder this functional areas are time estimate, minimization of
time, and maximization of cost. The respective applications of operations Research Techniques of the
above problems are statistics and frequency distribution, PERT and CPM.
Limitations of Operations Research
Information Gap
Operations research involves lots of mathematical manipulations, uses various theories like game
theory, probability theory, queuing theory, etc. unless the manager has specific knowledge in
mathematics, he or she will not be able to appreciate and understood the philoshy and working based
on operations research rules and principles. Hence there is an inaction gap existing between most
managers and operations Research.
Finite Variables
Operations Research deals with finite number of variables. Most of them are concerned on two sets of
variables namely independent variables decision variables or parameters and dependent variables
decision or predictor variables in actual situation there are a huge number of variables which influence
the input the processor and consequently the output, which are not usually considered.
Limited Number of Constraints
Operations Research can solve problems having a limited number of constraints. In practices there are
unlimited numbers of constraints.
Single Objective Function
Operations Research deals with a single objective function. It does not focus on sub optimizations. In
practice more than one objective function exists.
CHAPTER TWO
FURTHER ON LINEAR PROGRAMMING PROBLEM
Linear programming is the one that is concerned with finding the maximum or minimum value of a
linear objective function of the form:
Z c1 x1 c 2 x 2 c n x n
x1 , x 2 , , x n 0
where x1 , x 2 , , x n are decision variables that represent unknowns of the problem. Decision
variables are defined in terms of numbers, amount or quantities subject problem constraints in the form
of linear inequalities and equations.
It is the system constraints that define the feasible solution and the objective function will be used in
evaluating them for the purpose of selecting the optimum solution.
The feasible solution where optimizes the objective function is called an optimal solution and value of
Z for optimum solution is called optimum value. If a linear programming problem has an optimal
solution this solution must occur at one or more of the corner points of the feasible solution space.
Existence of Solution
If S is bounded, then Z is said to have both a maximum and a minimum values over space s.
If S is unbounded and all the coefficient of the decision variables in the objective function Z are
positive, then the objective function Z is said to have a minimum value over S but no minimum
value over S.
A geometric approach to linear programming problems is a relatively clear cut technique for
determining the optimal solution to a certain linear programming problem [LPM]. Practically, this
method can be used to solve problems that involve two decision variables. However, most LP
applications involve stations that have more than two decision variables, so graphical LP approach
cannot be used to solve them. Even so, much can be gained from studying this approach. It provides a
visual portrayal of many important concepts of models and solutions.
Example 1.1.1:
A retired couple has up to Br. 30,000 they wish to invest in fixed income securities. Their broker
recommends investing in two funds. Growth Mutual Fund [GMF] yielding 12% and the other Bond
Mutual Fund [BMF] paying 15% After some considerations he couple decide to invest at most Br.
12,000 in the Bond Mutual Fund and at least Br. 6000 in the Growth mutual fund. They also want the
amount invested in the Growth Mutual Fund to exceed or equal to the amount invested in the second
fund. What should the broker recommend if the couple quite naturally want to maximize their return on
this investment?
Solution:
The problem above is typical of a linear programming problem. It requires that a certain linear
expression, the return, be maximized. Furthermore, the problem requires that the maximum be
achieved under certain restrictions or constrains, each of which are linear inequalities involving the
variables.
Step 2: Construction the objective function and identify the conditions specified by the problem
[constraints]
The quantity to be maximized is return on investment, which will be denote by Z, is;
Z 0.12 x1 0.15 x 2
The conditions specified by the problem classified as problem and non negative contrarians are:
Up to Br. 30,000 available to invest x1 x 2 30,000
x1 0 and x 2 0
x1 x2 30,000
x 12,000
2
x1 6,000
x1 x2
x1 0
x 2 0
Example 1.1.2:
Maximize Z 60 x1 30 x 2
Inspection: 2 x1 1x 2 22
All variables ≥ 0
Determine the optimal solution using the graphic method.
Solution:
Step 1: Building a system that contains all the problem and non-negative constraints
4 x1 10 x 2 100
2 x 1x 22
1 2
3x1 3x2 39
x 0
1
x2 0
Step 2: Plot each of the constraints and determine feasible solution space that contains all of the
points that satisfy the entire system given in Step 1
The profit at each corner point can be determined by substituting the coordinates of the corner points
into the objective function. The corner points (9, 4) and (11, 0) represents the optimal solution because
they yield the largest profit.
In the case of minimization problems the optimum being the point with the smallest possible value of
the objective functions, instead of the largest.
Example 1.2.1:
The reclamation of land for urban purposes cost Br. 400 per acre [1 acre = 4,046.86 m 2] and for
agricultural uses, Br 300 the primal problem is that the reclamation agency wishes to minimize the total
cost of reclaiming the land: Z 400 x1 300 x 2
Where x1 = the number of acres of urban land and x2 = the number of acres of agricultural land.
Although this equation can be minimized by setting both x1 and x2 at zero, that is, reclaiming
nothing, the problem derives from a number of constraints due to three different groups.
The first is an urban group, which insists that at least 4000 acres of land be reclaimed for urban
purposes. The second group is concerned with agriculture and says that at least 5000 acres of must be
reclaimed for agricultural uses. Finally, the third group is concerned only with reclamation and is quite
Step 2: Building a system that contains all the problem and non negative constraints
x1 4000
x 5000
2
x1 x2 10000
x 0
1
x2 0
Step 3: Plot each of the constituents and determine feasible solution space that contains all of the
points that satisfy the entire system given in Step 2
If 4000 acres are devoted to urban purposes, 6000 acres of land to agriculture uses, the cost is
minimum, which is Br. 3,400,000.
Example 1.2.1:
The production manager of a company has developed this linear programming model:
Minimize Z 6 x1 9 x 2
Subject to
1. 10 x1 4 x 2 400
2. x 2 14
all variables ≥ 0
Graph the problem and determine where the optimal solution point is on the graph.
Solution:
Step 2: Building a system that constrains all the problem and non-negative constraints
10 x1 4 x2 400
x 14
2
x1 0
x2 0
Step 3: Plot each of the constraints and determine feasible solution space that contains all of the
points that satisfy the entire system given in Step 2
Public Service College of Oromia Page 22
Operations Research
The graph reveals that the feasible solution space has exactly two corner points with coordinates
(0,100) and (34.4, 14) by the rules discussed under the graphic methodology it is possible to test the
optimality of the objective function at the indicated cornet points. That is
Table 1.2.2: Extreme point solutions
Corner Points Values of the Objective Function [ Z 60 x1 30 x 2 ]
(0,100) Br. 900
(34.4, 14) Br. 332.4
Thus, the optimal (minimum) value of the given objective function is obtained to be Br. 332.4 this
minimum value is obtained when x1 and x2 are taking on values 34.4 and 14, respectively.
Example 1.3.1:
Find the maximum value of Z 4 x1 3 x 2
Subject to the constraints
A: x1 x 2 6
B: x1 2 x 2 4
All variables ≥ 0
Solution:
Step 2: Building a system that contains all the problem and non-negative constraints
x1 x2 6
x 2x 4
1 2
x1 0
x2 0
Step 3: Plot each of the constraints and determine feasible solution space that contains all of the
points that satisfy the entire system given in Step 2
The graph reveals that no combination of x1 and x2 can simultaneously satisfy both constraints, and
there is no feasible solution space for the entire system. Hence, the problem is said to have no feasible
solution [Infeasible].
Example 1.3.2:
Maximize Z 3x1 2 x 2
Subject to the constraints
1. x1 x 2 1
2. x1 x 2 3
All variables ≥0
Solution:
Step 2: Building a system that contains all the problem and non-negative constraints
x1 x2 1
x x 3
1 2
x1 0
x2 0
Step 3: Plot each of the constraints and determine feasible solutions space that contains all of the
points that satisfy the entree system given is Step 2
Example 1.3.3:
Maximize Z 10 x1 12 x 2
Subject to the constraints
1. 2 x1 3 x 2 60
2. 2 x1 x 2 20
3. x 2 25
All variables ≥0
Solution:
Step 2: Building a system that contains all the problem and non negative constraints
2 x1 3x2 60
2 x x 20
1 2
x1 0
x2 0
Step 3: Plot each of the constraints and determine feasible solution space that contains all of the
points that satisfy the entire system given in Step 2.
The graph reveals that the second constraint of the given LP problem [ 2 x1 x 2 20 ] is more restrictive
than the other redundant constraints.
Thus the optimal maximum values of the given objective function are obtained to be Br. 660; this
maximum value is obtained at two different corner points of the feasible solution space, viz. (11, 0) and
(9, 4). This shows that the given problem has multiple optimal solutions. All the points that are found
between the two will yield the land undue of the objective function.
Subject to
a11 x1 a12 x 2 a1n x n b1
a 21 x1 a 22 x 2 a 2 n x n b2
.................................................
a m1 x1 a m 2 x1 a mn x1 bm
x1 , x 2 , , x n 0
In order to be able to refer the simplex tableau, the following notations will be used:
C j = coefficient of the jth variable in the objective function
th
bi = right hand side value of the i constraint
Now let’s see how the first simplex table is developed. We begin by drawing the outline of our tableau
and listing the variables in the model across the top of the tableau. Next, we fill in the parameters of the
model in the appropriate rows and columns. Note that there are m rows, one for each constraint. Next,
we add two columns on left side of the tableau. The first column is a list of the basic variables, it is
called the Basis. The other column indicates the corresponding coefficients of the basic variables in the
objective function. Note that the last column on the right is called the quantity or the current value. [See
Table 2.1.1]
It was recalled that in the course mathematics for management, to solve a maximization linear
programming problem using simplex method first one has to change the structural constraints to linear
equations by using Slack Variables and formulate a simplex table of the next kind.
Slack variables are positive constants added to operational constraints, which are linear inequalities, to
convert them to linear equations.
There are two rows needed at the bottom of the tableau in order to complete it. The first is a Z row and
the second is a C-Z row. The entries across the row Z are determined column by column. For each
column, the Z value is obtained by adding the product of each of the numbers in the column and their
respective entries in the column C. The values in the row C-z are calculated column by column. For
each column, the value in row Z is subtracted from the C value in the top row.
Now let me remember you the basic techniques of simplex method through Example 3.1.1.
Example 2.1.1:
A small company manufactures three different electronic components for computers. Component A
requires 2 hours of fabrication and 1 hour of assembly, component B requires 1 hour of fabrication and
2 hours of assembly; and component C requires 2 hours of fabrication and 2 hours of assembly. The
company has up to 1000 labor-hours of fabrication time and 800 labor-hours of assembly time available
per week. The profit on each component, A, B and C, is $7, $9 and $10, respectively. How many
components of each type should the company manufacture each week in order to maximize its profit?
What is the maximum profit?
Solution:
Step 1: Formulation of the mathematical model called LPM
Let x 1 = the number of A component:
x 2 = the number of B component; and
x 3 = the number of C component.
x 1 0, x 2 0, x 3 0
Step 2: Set conversion of the constraints and objected function and form a standardized system
of linear equations.
To convert our inequalities into equations, we need to introduce slack variables s1 and s 2 .
Transforming the original problem in to a standardized system gives us:
2 x 1 + x 2 + 2 x 3 + 1 s 1 + 0 s 2 = 1000
x 1 + 2 x 2 + 2 x 3 + 0 s 1 + 1 s 2 = 800
7 x 1 + 9 x 2 + 10 x 3 + 0 s1 + 0 s 2 = p
Step 3: Finding an initial solution and use an initial simplex tableau to show the relationship
between these variables and their corresponding values
We need to select the origin (0, 0) as our initial solution so that the decision variables x1 and x 2 are
our initial non basic variables, while the slack variables s1 and s 2 are our initial basic variables.
Thus, we have:
x1 x 2 0 with s1 1000, s 2 800 , and Z 0
Step 4: Checking for the optimality of the objective function and if not, choosing an incoming
and leaving variables
Note that for a maximization problem the objective function is said tot have an optimal maximum value
if all the entries along the row C-Z are non-positive.
Incoming Variable
The presence of positive figures along the row C – Z is a signal for the existence of an incoming
variable. A variable which is attached with the most positive value [a value that is far away form 0]
along the row C – Z is called an incoming variable and a column that contains an incoming variable is
Leaving Variable
A variable which is attached with the smallest non negative ratio of the current values [Quantities] to
the corresponding pivot column values is called a leaving variable and the row that contains a leaving
variable is known as a pivot row. Note that this ratio represents the upper limits on the number of units
x3 we can introduce, we obviously must select the controlling one. From the standardized system we
have:
s 1 = 1000 - 2 x 1 - x 2 - 2 x 3
s 2 = 800 - x 1 - 2 x 2 - 2 x 3
Since x1 and x 2 are to remain at zero, we saw that the first and the second equation restricted the
increase of x3 to no more than 500 and 400, respectively because all our variables are constrained to
be non negative. The controlling condition, then was that x3 could not be by more than 400, so that
s 2 should leave the basis when x3 enters. This procedure for selection is shown in Table 3.1.3; the
shadowed row indicates the pivot row and the shadowed column indicates the pivot column. The point
of intersection of the pivot column and pivot row is said to be Pivotal Point.
Table 2.1.3:
7 9 10 0 0
Basics C Quantity
x1 x2 x3 s1 s2
s1 0 2 1 2 1 0 1000
s2 0 1 2 2 0 1 800
Z 0 0 0 0 0 0
C–Z 7 9 10 0 0
x1 is the incoming variable because it is the variable which is attached with the most positive entry of
the row C – Z, and the column that contains the decision variable x1 of Table 3.1.4 will be considered
as a pivot column.
s 1 is the leaving variable because it is the only variable which is attached with the smallest non
negative ratio of the current values [Quantities] to the corresponding pivot column values, and the row
that contains s 1 of Table 3.1.4 will be considered as a pivot row.
is the leaving variable, and the row that contains x3 will be considered as a pivot row. Now let’s get a
1 at the pivotal point [ 2 3[ x3 ] x3 ]. Then we add 1 times the new pivot row to the old x 1 row
[that is, 1x 2 x1 x1 ]. See Table 3.1.6.
We have now reached at the optimal solution. The maximum profit is $4800, and this maximum is
sad to be maintained when 400 A components, 200 B components, and 0 C components are
manufactured and sold.
Note that since x3 , s1 , and s 2 are non basic variables , we have:
x3 s1 s 2 0
1. x1 x 2 7
2. 9 x1 5 x 2 45
3. 2 x1 x 2 8
Step 2: Form a standardized system of linear equations
1 2 [ x 2 ] s 2 s 2 and 1 2 [ x 2 ] x1 x1
This is our final tableau. The maximum value of the objective function is 135, and it is achieved when
x 0, x 2 9, s1 2, s 2 0 and s3 1.
Example 2.3.1:
Minimize Z 5 x1 4 x 2 3x3
Subject to the constraints
1. x1 x 2 x3 100
2. 2 x1 x 2 50
All variables ≥ 0
Solution:
We need to change the problem from
Minimizing Z 5 x1 4 x 2 3x3
to
Maximizing Z * 5 x1 4 x 2 3x3
Step 1: Put each problem constraint with ≤
x1 x 2 x3 100
2 x1 x 2 50
Step 2: Introduce non negative slack variables to form the standardized system of equations
After the slack variables s1 0 , and s2 0 have been introduced the system would be obtained as:
This is the final simplex tableau. Since the maximum value of Z* = -350, the minimum value of the
objective function Z = 350. This occurs when:
x1 25, x 2 0, and x3 75
2.4. Minimization Problem with Mixed Constraints and the Big M Method
Earlier we presented a method to solve minimization problems. Similarly, it possible to carry out
computation for minimization problem with mixed constraints.
The simplex method requires that all constraints be in what is called standard form. For constraints that
are ≤ can be put into standard form by adding non negative slack variables on the lesser part.
Constraints with=and ≥can also be handled without changing them in a standard form a bit differently.
Note that we saw in the previous sections, origin serves as a convenient starting point for the formation
of initial solution in for some LP problems. Hence there is a conflict between using the origin as a
starting point and a constraint with= which do not permit any slack variable. This disparity is avoided
in simplex a procedures by the introduction of non negative Artificial Variables. These variables are
somewhat analogous to slack variables in that they are added equality constraints. However, they have
no physical interpretation; they merely serve as a device to enable us to use the simplex process.
During the simplex process, any artificial variables are quickly eliminated from the solution. This will
be illustrated in the subsequent examples.
Unlike a ≤ constraint, a ≥ constraint is never allowed to have a value that is less than the minimum
amount designated by the constraints. However, it can have a value that exceeds the designated
amount. That excess can be thought of as a surplus. To allow for that possibility, a non negatives
Surplus Variable is subtracted from each ≥ constraint. This will be illustrated in the following two
examples.
Note that with the surplus variable subtracted, the constraint becomes equality. As before, to allow for
initial solutions that will be less than that amount, an artificial variable must also be introduced. This
will be illustrated in the coming examples.
A vital issue in incorporating surplus and artificial variables in LP problems is how they are represented
in the objective function. Surplus variables are handled in exactly the same that slack variables are.
They are assigned coefficients of zero in the objective function. Assignment of coefficient for artificial
variables depends on the type of the problem [maximization or minimization]. In either case, we are
using artificial variables to facilitate solution and we do not want them to appear in the final solution.
Consequently, assigning objective function coefficients for artificial variables depends on whether the
goal is to maximize or minimize. In maximization problems, assigning a large negative contribution
will ensure that artificial variable will not appear in the optimal solution mix. Conversely, in a
minimization problem, assigning a large positive cost will have a similar effect. Although it would be
acceptable to arbitrarily select a large negative or positive coefficient for the artificial variable in the
objective function, it is more common to simply designate the coefficient with large M this will be
illustrated in the following examples.
Example 2.4.1:
Maximize Z 6 x1 8 x 2
Subject to the constraints
1. x 2 4
2. x1 x 2 9
3. 6 x1 2 x 2 24
All variables ≥ 0
Step 1: Introduce non negative slack, surplus, and artificial variables to form the standardized
system of equations
After that slack variable s1 0 , artificial variable A2 0 , surplus variable s 3 0 and artificial
variable A3 0 have been introduced, the system would be obtained as:
Note: Coefficient of an artificial variable in an objective function for a maximization problem is –M.
1 [ x1 ] A2 A2
The maximum value of the objective function Z = 540 this occurs when x1 20, x 2 5 and x3 5
2.5. Special Issues on Simplex Procedures
Sometimes in solving LP problems various conditions, which are relatively easy to recognize them in a
simplex procedure, occur that make the problem unusual, and in some cases, impossible to solve. In
this sub section the special issues, viz. unbounded solutions, degeneracy, multiple optimal solutions,
and infusibility on simplex procedures will be presented.
Unbounded Solutions
A solution is unbounded if the objective function can be improved without limit. Recall that when are
trying to identify a leaving variable using the phase II pivoting strategy in a simplex procedure, we
make use of the rations of the current values to the corresponding entries of the pivot column. a
variable which is attached with smallest non negative ratio will leave the solution mix. the issue of
unbounded solution arises when there are no positive rations. a negative ratio means that increasing the
variable which is attached with that negative ratio would increase resource. A zero ratio means that
increasing the variable which is attached with that negative ratio would not use any resource.
Example 2.5.1:
Maximize Z 2 x1 3x 2
Solution:
Step 1: Introduce non negative slack variables to form the standardized system of equations
After the slack variables, say s1 0 and s 2 0 have been introduced, the standardized system of
equations will be obtained as:
Degeneracy
The basic logic of simplex method is to improve the solution in subsequent iteration. When subsequent
iteration shows limitation of existing rule to proceed further we say Degeneracy has occurred.
Degeneracy might occur right in the initial simplex tableau. This normally happens when the number of
In the process of developing the next simplex tableau for a tableau that is not optimal, the leaving
variable must be identified. A variable which is attached with smallest non negative ratio will leave tae
solution mix. In some cases, the decision on selecting the pivot row becomes very difficult under the
following cases. Initial simplex tableau has zero current value for one of the initial basic variable or
there might be a tie for the lowest non negative ratio.
In the first case it is difficult to obtain optimum solution because the pivoting strategy does not change
the value of the objective function. In the second case it is sufficient to simply select one of the tied
leaving variables arbitrarily and keep on doing the computation.
If this doesn’t work and cycling occurs apply the following rules:
1. Re-arrange the coefficients of all the variables in the constraints in the initial simplex tableau so
that the table starts with an identity matrix.
2. Recalculate minimum ration for each row by picking up a numerator, which the next value in
the row. Repeat the technique till smallest non negative ratio is obtained.
Example 2.5.2:
Maximize Z 2 x1 3 x 2 10 x3
Subject to the constraints
1. x1 2 x3 0
2. x 2 x3 3
All variables ≥ 0
Solution:
Step 1: Introduce non negative slack variables to form the standardized system of equations
After the slack variables, say s1 0 and s 2 0 have been introduced, the standardized system of
equations will be obtained as:
The table reveals that the Z value has not improved. This is the indication of the existence of
degeneracy. This is happen because of the number of constraints which is less than the number of
decision variables in the objective function. Note that optimum solution will out one of the decision
variables as being zero.
The maximum value of the objective faction Z = 3 and it occurs when x1 0, x 2 1, and x3 0
Example 2.5.3:
Maximize Z 0.75 x1 150 x 2 0.02 x3 6 x 4
Subject to the constraints
1. 0.25 x1 60 x 2 0.04 x3 9 x 4 0
2. 0.5 x1 90 x 2 0.02 x3 3x 4 0
3. x3 1
All variables ≥ 0
Solution:
Step 1: Introduce non negative slack variables to form the standardized system of equations
After the slack variables, say s1 0 , s 2 0 and s 3 0 have been introduced, the standardized system
of equations will be obtained as:
Step 3: Phase II pivoting rule tells us that x 1 is an incoming variable and a tie for leaving the solution
mix was observed in between the basics, s 1 and, see Table 2.5.4. This is because both of these
variables are attached with the smallest non negative ratio of the current values to the corresponding
entries of the pivot column, that is, 0. Hence, recalculation of minimum ratio for each row by picking
up a numerator [the next value in the row] will be needed.
Step 4: The pivot column is the column that contains x 1 due to the most positive value across the row
C-Z and the pivot row contains s 2 due to eh smallest non negative ratio of the s 1 column entries to
the corresponding entries of the pivot column. After pivoting, we can the second simplex tableau
shown below, Table 2.5.5.
Step 3: Tables 2.5.5 discloses that the z value has not improved. This indicates again that the existence
of Degeneracy. Phase II pivoting rule tells us that x3 is an incoming variable because it is the only
variable which is attaché with the most positive value across the row c-z and a tie for leaving the
solution mix was observed in between the basics s 1 and x 1 for these variables are attached with the
smallest non negative ratio of the current values to the corresponding entries of the pivot column, that
is, 0. Hence, recalculation of minimum ratio for each row by picking up a numerator [the next value in
the row] will be needed.
Step 4: The pivot column is the column that contains x3 due to the most positive value across the row
C-Z and the pivot row is the row that contains s 3 due to the smallest non negative ratio of the s 2
column entries to the corresponding entries of the pivot column. After pivoting we get the final simplex
tableau, table 2.5.6.
The maximum value of the objective function Z = 0.05 and it is obtained when x 1 = 0.04
Multiple Optimal Solutions
As we have seen under special issues on geometric procedures when an LP problem has an optimal
solution which is not unique, the problem is said to have multiple optimal solutions. In a graphical
method finding a multiple solution is obvious. In the case of simplex method the existence of multiple
optimal solutions can be discovered by examining the entries along the row C-Z of the final simplex
table. When all the non basic variables have zero values across the C-Z row of the final simplex table,
it can be considered as a signal for the existence of a multiple optimal solution. The presence of these
Public Service College of Oromia Page 52
Operations Research
zeros implies that the variables can be brought into the solution mix without increasing or decreasing
the value of the objective function.
The other optimal solution of the problem can simply be determined by given a chance for those non
basic decision variables to come into the solution mix and then, finding the leaving variable as usual.
Example 2.5.4:
Given below are the LP model and its associated final simplex table. Determine the alternate optimal
solution of the problem.
Maximize Z 6 x1 4 x 2
1. 2 x1 x 2 2
2. x1 x 2 2 x1-x2≤2
3. 3 x1 2 x 2 9
All variables ≥ 0
Table 2.5.7: Final simplex tableau
6 4 0 0 0
Basics C Quantity
x1 x2 s1 s2 s3
s1 0 0 0 1 1.4 0.2 6.6
x1 6 1 0 0 0.4 0.2 2.6
x2 4 0 1 0 -0.6 0.2 0.6
Z 6 4 0 0 2 18
C–Z 0 0 0 0 -2
Solution:
Because there is a zero in row C-Z along the non basic variable s 2 column, it is an indication for the
existence of an alternate optimal solution.
Hence, we can consider s 2 as incoming variable and look forward in determining the leaving variable
using the phase II pivoting strategy. The leaving variable becomes s 1 due to the smallest non negative
ratio of the quantities to s 2 column entries. After pivoting, we can get the alternate optimal solution
simplex tableau, Table 2.5.8.
Table 2.5.8: Alternate final simplex tableau
6 4 0 0 0
Basics C Quantity
x1 x2 s1 s2 s3
s1 0 0 0 0.71 1 0.1 4.17
Infeasibility
This is the case in which we get minimum or maximum value of the objective function even before all
the decision variables are taking a placement in the basic variables column Basics. The optimal
solutions obtained at such a situation are called Optimum Basic Infeasible Solutions. Conversely,
when optimum is reached in which the all the decision variables are place along the basic variable
column, the situation is said to be Optimum Basic Feasible Solution.
Note that in a big m method infeasibility is said to exist when artificial variables presented in the final
simplex tables across the basic variable column.
Given below is the LP model show that the solution obtained at the end of the optimality analysis is
Optimum Basic Infeasible Solutions [OBIS]
Maximize Z 4 x1 3 x 2
Subject to the constraints
1. 3x1 4 x 2 6
2. 5 x1 6 x 2 15
All variables ≥ 0
Solution:
Left as an exercise
Introduction
one of the most important discoveries in the early development of linear programming were the
concept of duality and its many important ramifications. This discovery revealed that every linear
programming problem has associated with it another linear programming problem called the dual. The
relationships between the dual problem and the original problem (called the primal) prove to be
extremely useful in a variety of ways.
3.1 Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis or post optimality carries the LP analysis beyond the determination of the optimal
solution it begins with the final simplex tableau. Its purpose is to explore how changes in any of the
parameters of a problem, such as the coefficients of the constraints, coefficients of the objective
function, or the right hand side values, would affect the solution. This kind of analysis can be quite
beneficial to a decision maker in a number of ways. For instance, a manager may want to consider
obtaining an additional amount of some scarce resource that might be available, in which case the
manager would want to know the answers to questions such as:
Will an increase in the right hand side of these constraints affect the objective function?
If so, how much of the resource can be used?
Given the answer to the preceding question, what will be the received optimal solution?
Conversely, the decision maker might be facing a situation in which the amount of a scarce
resource available is less than the original amount, in which case the issue would be:
Will the decrease level of the resource have an impact on the value of the objective function?
If yes, how much of an impact will it have, and what will be the revised optimal solution?
Therefore, the second step is to construct a range of feasibility for each and every RHS values of the
existing constraints of the LP model. The key to computing the range of feasibility for the constraints
lies in the final simplex table of the optimal analysis. Purposely, the entries in the body of the final
simplex tableau in each slack column must be used to compute the range of feasibility for the
corresponding constraint.
Example 1.1.1:
Given below is the LP model and the associated final simplex tableau of the optimality analysis Table
1.1.1. Identify the shadow prices and determine the range of feasibility.
Maximize Z 3 x1 4 x 2
1. 3 x1 5 x 2 15
2. 2 x1 x 2 8
3. x 2 2
All variables ≥ 0
Public Service College of Oromia Page 56
Operations Research
Solution:
The shadow prices are entries along row Z which fall under the three slack variables s 1 , s 2 and s 3 .
These values are 0.714, 0.428, and 0, respectively.
0.714 is marginal value; it indicates the impact that a one unit change in the RHS value [15] of the first
problem constraint would have on the value of the objective function. That is, the value of the objective
function [14.138] would be increased into 14.138 + 0.714 = 14.852 if the level of RHS value of the first
problem constraint is increased by one unit.
Analysis on the RHS of the first constraint:
Quantity = Q s1 Q s1
3.57 -0.143 -24.6
1.143 -0.286 -3.99
0.857 0.286 3.00
The lower and upper limit of the range of feasibility over which the RHS of the first constraint can
change is given as follows:
Lower Limit = 15 – 3 = 12. This indicates the THS value of the first constraint can be decreased by 3
units before it hits the lower limit of the range of feasibility.
Upper Limit = 15 – [-3.99] = 18.99. This indicates the THS value of the first constraint can be
increased by 3.99 units before it reaches the upper limit of the range of feasibility.
Therefore, 12 ≤ b1 ≤ 18.99 is said to be the range of resource 1 over which the shadow price 0.714 per
unit is valid.
The lower and upper limit of the range of feasibility over which the THS of the second constraint can
change is obtained to be:
Lower Limit = 8 – 2.67 = 5.33. This indicates the RHS value of the second constraint can be decreased
by 2.67 units before it hits the lower limit of the range of feasibility.
Upper Limit = 8 – [-2] = 10. This indicates the RHS value of the second constraint can be increased by
2 units before it reaches the upper limit of the range of feasibility.
Therefore, 5.33 ≤ b2 ≤ 10 is said to be the range of resource 2 over which the shadow price 0.428 per
unit is valid.
Find the range of feasibility over which the right hand side value of the third constraint would change
and give a brief explanation on the resulting figure.
Note that the third constraint is not scarce. It is not important to construct the ROF for this one since
the shadow price is zero.
There are two cases to consider: changes for the coefficient of a decision variable that is not currently
in the solution mix [Non Basic Decision Variable], and changes for the coefficient of decision variable
that is currently in the solution mix [Basic Decision Variable].
Range of Insignificance
If a decision variable is not currently in solution mix in maximization problem, its coefficient in the
objective function would have to increase by an amount that exceeds its corresponding value along the
Z row in the final simplex tableau in order for it to end up as a basic variable in the optimal solution
mix. That is, in order for the variable to be included in the optimal solution, its coefficient in the
objective function will have to change from the existing coefficient to a new coefficient level. The new
coefficient level should always exceed the corresponding value of the non basic decision variable along
the row Z.
The upper limit of such arrange is given in the Z-row under the non basic decision variable column,
which is 0 ≤ C j [new] ≤ Z j
Where
C j [new] is the new coefficient of the jth non basic decision variable, and
Zj is the corresponding value of the jth non basic decision variable column along the Z row.
Example 1.1.2;
Given the final simplex tableau in Table 1.1.2, determine the range over which the coefficient of the
non basic decision variable x 2 in the objective function could change without changing the optimal
solution mix.
Solution:
Because x2 is not in the solution mix, its coefficient in the objective function would need to increase in
order for it to come into solution. The amount of increase must be greater than its corresponding value
along the row C-Z, which -0.842.
Therefore, its existing coefficient in the objective function must be increase by more than Br.0.842.
Because its current value is Br. 4.5, as indicated at the top of Table 4.2, the current solution mix will
remain optimal as long as its coefficient in the objective function does not exceed Br. 4.5 + Br. 0.842,
or Br. 5.342. For the reason that an increase would be needed to bring it into the solution mix, any
lesser value than Br. 5.342 of its coefficient in the objective function would keep it out of the solution
mix. Hence, the range of insignificance for x2 is Br. 5.342 or less. That is - <C2[new] <5.342.
Range of Optimality
The range over which the coefficient of a basic decision variable can change without shifting the
optimal solutions of the basic decision variables is called its Range of Optimality.
For variables which are in the solution mix, the determination of the range of optimality requires the
entries along the row C – Z and the corresponding row values of the basic decision variable in question
in the body of the final simplex tableau. In order to form the range of optimality one has to carefully
consider the following events:
The entries along the row C – Z should be indentified;
The values in row C – Z must be divided by the corresponding row values of the basic decision
variable in question. The will result in a series of ratios. The positive ratio closest to zero will
indicate the amount of allowable increase to the current value and the negative ratio closest to
zero will indicate the amount of allowable decrease from the current value and
Finally, the lower and upper limits of the range should be determined accordingly this rule
applies for both Maximization and Minimization problem.
Lower Limit = Existing coefficient of the basic decision variable in question plus the negative
ratio nearer to zero.
Upper Limit = Existing coefficient of the basic decision variable in question plus the positive
ratio nearer to zero.
Example 1.1.3:
A firm makes four products. Each product requires material, labor, and machine time. A LP model has
been developed to describe the situation: Determine the range of optimality for the decision variables in
the solution mix.
Maximize 12 x1 10 x 2 15 x3 11x 4
Subject to
A: 5 x1 3x 2 4 x3 2 x 4 240 pounds [Material]
All variables ≥ 0
Solution:
For variables which are in the solution mix, the determination of the range of optimality requires the
entries along the row C – Z and the corresponding row values of the basic decision variable in question
in the body of the final simplex tableau.
Analysis on the coefficient of x3 in the objective function:
x1 x2 x3 x4 s1 s2 s3
C–Z -0.8 -8.6 0 0 0 -0.6 -4.6
x3 -1.2 -1.4 1 0 0 -0.4 0.6
C Z x3 0.67 6.14 0 Undefined Undefined 1.5 -7.67
The lower and upper limit of the range of optimality over which coefficient of the basic decision
variable x3 can change is obtained to be:
Lower Limit = 15 + [-7.67] = 7.33. This indicates the coefficient of x3 can be decreased by Br. 7.67
before it hits the lower limit of the range of optimality.
Upper Limit = 15 + [0.67] = 15.67. This indicates the coefficient of x3 can be increased by Br. 0.67
before it reaches the upper limit of the range of optimality.
Therefore, 7.33 ≤ C 3 ≤ 15.67 is said to be the range of optimality over which the profit per unit of
product three is valid.
The lower and upper limit of the range of optimality for which the coefficient of the basic decision
variable x 4 in an objective function can change is found to be:
Upper Limit = 11 + [11.5] = 22.5. This indicates the coefficient of x 4 can be increased by Br. 11.5
before it reaches the upper limit of the range of optimality.
Therefore, 10.71 ≤ C 4 ≤ 22.5 is said to be the range of optimality over which the profit per unit of
product three is valid.
3.2 Duality
Every Linear Programming problem [LP problem] can have two forms and each LP problem is
associated with another LP problem which is called the dual of the original LP problem. The original
LP problem is called the Primal. If the Dual is stated as a given problem the Primal becomes its Dual
and vice-versa.
The solution of one contains the solution of the other. In other words when optimum solutions of
Primal is known, the solution of Dual is also obtained from the very same optimum tableau.
Analysis of the Dual will enable a manager to evaluate the potential impact of a new product, and it can
be used to determine the marginal values of resources [that is, constraints]. In relation to a new product,
a manager would want to know what impact adding a new product would have on the solution mix and
the profits impact. Similarly, a manager can refer to a Dual solution to determine how much profit
would be represented by one unit of each resource.
3.2.1. Formulation of the Dual
All LP problems formulated directly from the descriptions of the original problem can be classified as
Primal problems. On the other hand, an alternative formulation of the problem that requires the
existence of the Primal is known as the Dual.
Analysis of the Dual can enable manager to evaluate a potential of a new product, and it can be used to
determine the marginal value of recourses [constraints]. It also helps the manager to decide which of
several alternative uses of resources is more profitable.
Let’s know consider how the Dual problem can be formulated from the Primal.
x1 , x 2 , , x n 0 s1 , s 2 , , s n 0
The characteristics of the Dual formulation illustrated in Table 4.2.1 are expressed in the following
words:
1. If the Primal is maximization problem, the Dual will be a minimization problem and vice versa.
2. Right Hand Side values of the constraints in the primal become coefficients of the objective
function in the Dual and vice-versa.
3. Coefficients of the constraints of the Dual are the TRANSPOSE of coefficients of constraints in
the Primal and vice-versa. That is, column a ij of the Primal become row a ij of the Dual.
4. The ≤ problem constraints of the Primal become ≥ problem constraints of the Dual and vice-versa.
5. If the Primal is a maximization problem, then the decision variables of the Primal problem
become the surplus variables in the Dual problem and vice-versa.
6. If the Primal is a minimization problem, then the decision variables of the Primal Problem
become the slack variable in the Dual problem.
Note that in order to transform a Primal problem in to its Dual, it is easier if all constraints in a
maximization problem are of the ≤ type, and in a minimization problem every constraints is or the ≥
type.
Example 2.1.1: Formulate the dual of the Primal problem given below:
Maximize
Z 60 x1 50 x 2
All variables ≥ 0
Solution:
First let’s lay down the given primal problem as it was set in the standard form show in Table 2.1.1.
Then, it advisable to carefully follow the characteristics listed above to form the corresponding Dual
problem.
Example 2.1.2: Formulate the dual of the Primal problem given below
Minimize Z 50 x1 80 x 2
Subject to the constraints
3x1 5 x 2 45
4 x1 2 x 2 16
6 x1 6 x 2 39
All variables ≥ 0
Solution:
Note that to change the direction of a constraint, multiply both side of the constraint by –
For example, we have
1. 3x1 5 x 2 45 3 x1 5 x 2 45
All variables ≥ 0
Opportunity Cost
In a minimization problem slack variables in Dual [namely x1 and x 2 of Example 2.1.2] measures the
opportunity loss involved in producing items [ x1 and x 2 of Example 2.1.2] in Primal.
CHAPTER FOUR
TRANSPORTATION AND ASSIGNMENT PROBLEMS
The technique which will be implemented in finding the optimal solutions and optimal value for a
transportation problem is very similar to simplex method. The overview of the method of finding
optimality is reviewed as shown below:
Constructing a transportation model.
Find an initial feasible solution. Initial feasible solution can be determined via North West
Corner Rule (method) Row Minimum Rule Method, Column Minimum Rule Method. Table
Minimum Rule (Method, minimum cost method) or Vogel’s Assumption method.
Checking for optimality. Optimality will be checked using one of the methods listed below:
Stepping Stone method or Modified Distribution [MoDi] method;
If initial feasible solution is optimal, stop computing. Otherwise, find improved solution; and
Repeat 3 and 4 still you get the optimal solution and value.
Transportation techniques have several advantages, among these some of them are: Reduce distribution
and transportation costs; Improve competitiveness of products; Assist proper location of ware houses,
new production plants, and etc.
Transportation problems are usually applied to distribution type problems, in which supplies of goods
that are found at different origins are to be distributed to different destination. It involves a set of
sending locations, which are referred to Origins, and a set of receiving locations that are refereed to as
Destinations.
Public Service College of Oromia Page 67
Operations Research
4.1.1. Formulation of the Transportation Models
In order to design a transportation technique one needs to have the following fundamental information,
namely:
Maximum availability of quantity [capacity] at various origins;
Maximum requirements of quantity [order] at different destination; and
Cost or profit of transportation of a unit item from each origin to every destination.
A table that reveals a clear relationship between the above three information is a Transportation Table.
In any transportation table one can easily perceive that there are sections for the origins [capacities], for
the destinations [orders, and unit transportation costs of each origin – destination routes.
Examples 1.1.1:
HHH Company has 3 factories A.B and C which supply items to retailers X, Y and Z. Monthly factory
capacities are 50, 15 and 55 at Factory A, Factory B, and Factory C, respectively. Monthly retailers
requirements at X, Y and Z are 25, 50 and 45, respectively. Unit item transportation costs in Birr are
given below in Table 1.1.1.
Table 1.1.1: Transportation costs per unit item
To
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From
Factory A Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory B Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory C Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
The transportation table of the above problem would be designed to relate the capacities of the factories
[origins], monthly requirements of the retailers [destinations] and the unit transportation costs, and it
will have the following shape:
In order to formulate an LP model for such a transportation problem first we need a variable to each
cell of the table to represent quantity on every route. For an HHH Company this can be illustrated in
Table 1.1.3.
Table 1.1.3: Transportation table showing xij quantities shipped from Origin I to destination j
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50
x.11 x.12 x.13
Br. 12 Br. 11 Br. 15
Factory B 15
x.21 x.22 x.23
Br. 12 Br. 14 Br. 15
Factory C 55
x.21 x.32 x.33
Demand Quantity 25 50 45 120
The main objective of this transportation problem is minimizing the total transportation cost.
Accordingly, the objective function of the problem is mathematically given as:
A number of different approaches can be used to determine an initial feasible solution. Five of these
methods are described below:
Example 1.2.1: Find an initial feasible solution to the transportation problem given above in the HHH
Company using North-West Corner method.
Solution:
The sequence of the allocation using the North-West Corner method would be presented as:
Begin with cell A – X , allocate 25 units that is the lower of the row supply 50 units and the
column demand 25 units;
Stay in Row A and move to the next RHS cell A – Y, where the current row supply is 25 units
and column demand is 50 units, allocate 25 units to this cell, which exhaust the current row
supply and leave 25 units in the total of Column Y.
Stay in Column Y and move down to the cell B – Y, where the row supply is 15 units and the
current column demand 25 units, allocate 15 units [the lower of the two], which exhaust the row
supply and leave 10 units in the total of Column Y;
Stay in Column Y and move down to the cell C – Y, where the row supply is 55 units and the
current column demand 10 units, allocate 10 units [the lower of the two], which exhaust the
column demand and leave 45 units in the total of Row C; and
Table 1.2.1: Initial Feasible Solution for HHH Co. using the North – West Corner method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50
25 [1st] 25 [2nd]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B rd
15
15 [3 ]
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C th th
55
10 [4 ] 45 [5 ]
Demand Quantity 25 50 45 120
Multiplying the quantities in the completed cells by the corresponding cell’s unit transportation costs
and then adding them will yield the total transportation cost of the problem. That is, Total
Transportation Cost, T is given by:
T = 12(25) + 20(25) + 11(15) +14(10) +8(45)
= Br. 1465
The cell with lowest cell in the first row is A – X. Consequently, we need to allocate 25 units [the lesser
of the row supply and the column demand] to this cell. Because this exhausts the demand of Retailer X,
we cross out the cells in that column and adjust the remaining row and column total. This has been
illustrated in Table 1.2.2a.
Demand Quantity 25 0 50 45 95
Of the remaining rows, cell A – Z has the lowest unit cost along the first row. Consequently, we need to
allocate 25 units [the lesser of the row supply and the column demand] to this cell. Because this
exhausts the supply capacity of Factory A, we cross out the cells in that row and adjust the remaining
row and column total. This has been illustrated in Table 1.2.2b.
Table 1.2.2b: 25 units are allocated to cell A – Z using the Row – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50 25 0
25 [1st] 25 [2nd]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B 15
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C 55
Demand Quantity 25 0 50 45 20 70
Of the remaining rows, cell B – Z has the lowest unit cost along the first row. Consequently, we need to
allocate 15 units [the lesser of the row supply and the column demand] to this cell. Because this
exhausts the supply capacity of Factory B, we cross out the cells in that row and adjust the remaining
row and column total. This has been illustrated in Table 1.2.2c.
Table 1.2.2c: 15 units are allocated to cell B – Z using the Row – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50 25 0
25 [1st] 25 [2nd]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B rd
15 0
15 [3 ]
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C 55
Demand Quantity 25 0 50 45 20 5 55
Table 1.2.2d: 5 units are allocated to cell C – Z using the Row – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50 25 0
25 [1st] 25 [2nd]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B rd
15 0
15 [3 ]
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C th
55 50
5 [4 ]
Demand Quantity 25 0 50 45 20 5 0 50
Finally, we remain with one cell viz. cell C – Y. Consequently, we need to allocate 50 units [the lesser
of the row supply and the column demand] to this cell. Because this exhausts both the supply Factory C
and demand of Retailer Z, we cross out the cells in that row and column. Adjusting the remaining row
and column total gives the final table, Table 1.2.2e.
Table 1.2.2e: 50 units are allocated to cell C – Y using the Row – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50 25 0
25 [1st] 25 [2nd]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B rd
15 0
15 [3 ]
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C th th
55 50 0
50 [5 ] 5 [4 ]
Demand Quantity 25 0 50 0 45 20 5 0 0
Table 1.2.2: Initial Feasible Solution for HHH Co. using the Row – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Factory A Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Solution:
The sequence of the allocation using the Column-Minimum method would be presented as follows:
The cell with the lowest cell in the first column is A – X. Consequently, we need to allocate 25 units
[the lesser of the row supply and the column demand] to this cell. Because this exhausts the demand of
Retailer X, we cross out the cells in that column and adjust the remaining row and column totals,
accordingly. This has been illustrated in Table 1.2.3a.
Table 1.2.3a: 25 units are allocated to cell C-Y using the Column – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50 25
25 [1st]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B 15
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C 55
Demand Quantity 25 0 50 45 95
Demand Quantity 25 0 50 35 45 80
Of the remaining columns, cell C-Y has the lowest unit cost along the first column. Consequently, we
need to allocate 35 units [the lesser of the row supply and the column demand] to this cell. Because this
exhausts the demand of Retailer Y, we cross out the cells in that column and adjust the remaining row
and column total. This has been illustrated in Table 1.2.3c.
Table 1.2.3c: 35 units are allocated to cell C-Y using the Column – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50 25
25 [1st]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B nd
15 0
15 [2 ]
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C nd
55 20
35 [2 ]
Demand Quantity 25 0 50 35 0 45 45
Of the remaining column, cell C – Z has the lowest unit cost. Consequently, we need to allocate 20
units [the lesser of the row supply and the column demand] to this cell. Because this exhausts the
supply of Factory C, we cross out the cells in that row and adjust the remaining row and column total.
This has been illustrated in Table 1.2.3d.
Table 1.2.3d: 20 units are allocated to cell C-Z using the Column – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50 25
25 [1st]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B nd
15 0
15 [2 ]
Finally, we remain with one cell viz. cell A – Z. Consequently, we need to allocate 25 units [the lesser
of the row supply and column demand] to this cell. Because this exhausts both the supply Factory A
and demand of Retailer Z, we cross out the cells in that row and column. Adjusting the remaining row
and column total gives the final table, Table 1.2.3e.
Table 1.2.3e: 25 units are allocated to cell A – Z using the Column – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50 25 0
25 [1st] 25 [5th]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B nd
15 0
15 [2 ]
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C rd th
55 20 0
35 [3 ] 20 [4 ]
Demand Quantity 25 0 50 35 0 45 25 0 0
Table 1.2.3: Initial Feasible Solution for HHH Co. using the Column – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50
25 [1st] 25 [5th]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B nd
15
15 [2 ]
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C rd th
55
35 [3 ] 20 [4 ]
Demand Quantity 25 50 45 120
The cell with lowest cost in the table is X – A. Consequently, we allocate 15 units [the lesser of the row
supply and the column demand] to this cell. Because this exhausts the supply capacity of factory B, we
cross out the cells in that row and adjust the remaining row and column total. This has been illustrated
in Table 1.2.4a.
Table 1.2.4a: 15 units are allocated to cell B – Z using the Table – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B st
15 0
15 [1 ]
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C 55
Of the remaining cells, cell C – Z has the lowest unit cost. Consequently, we need to allocate 30 units
[the lesser of the row supply and the column demand] to this cell. Because this exhausts the demand of
Retailer Z, we cross out the cells in that column and adjust the remaining row and column total. This
has been illustrated in Table5.2.4b.
Table 1.2.4b: 30 unit are allocated to cell C - Z using the Table – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Of the remaining cells, cell A – X has the lowest unit cost. Consequently, we need to allocate 25 units
[the lesser of the row supply and the column demand] to this cell. Because this exhausts the demand of
Retailer X, we cross out the cells in that column and adjust the remaining row and column total. This
has been illustrated in Table 1.2.4c.
Table 1.2.4c: 25 units are allocated to cell A – X using the Table – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50 25
25 [1st]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B st
15 0
15 [1 ]
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C 55 25
30 [2nd]
Demand Quantity 25 0 50 45 30 0 50
Of the remaining cells, cell C – Y has the lowest unit cost. Consequently, we need to allocate 25 units
[the lesser of the row supply and the column demand] to this cell. Because this exhausts the supply
capacity of Factory C, we cross out the cells in the row and adjust the remaining row and column total.
This has been illustrated in Table 5.2.4d.
Table 1.2.4d: 25 units are allocated to cell C – Y using the Table – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50 25
25 [3rd]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B st
15 0
15 [1 ]
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C th nd
55 25 0
25 [4 ] 30 [2 ]
Demand Quantity 25 0 50 25 45 30 0 25
Finally, we remain with one cell viz. cell A – Y. Consequently, we need to allocate 25 units [the lesser
of the row supply and the column demand] to this cell. Because this exhausts both the supply capacity
Table 1.2.4e: 25units are allocated to cell C – Y using Table – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50 25 0
25 [3rd] 25 [5th]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B st
15 0
15 [1 ]
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C 55 25 0
25 [4th] 30 [2nd]
Demand Quantity 25 0 50 25 0 45 30 0 0
Table 1.2.4: Initial Feasible solution for HHH Co. using the Table – Minimum method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50
25 [3rd] 25 [5th]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B 15
15 [1st]
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C th nd
55
25 [4 ] 30 [2 ]
Demand Quantity 25 50 45 120
Find an initial feasible solution to the transportation problem given in there HHH Company using the
Penalty Rule method.
[Hint: Use each row minimum and the next minimum costs to create your penalties]
Example 1.3.1:
Consider an initial feasible solution obtained using the North West Corner Rule Method for the HHH
Company. Apply the Stepping Stone Method to evaluate the solution for optimality. Is the solution
optimal?
Table 1.3.1: Initial Feasible Solution for HHH Co. using the North – West Corner method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50
25 [1st] 25 [2nd]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B rd
15
15 [3 ]
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C 55
10 [4th] 45 [5th]
Demand Quantity 25 50 45 120
Solution:
We know that the solution is not optimal because the table Minimum Rule and the Vogel’s Assumption
methods have generated initial feasible solutions that have a lower total transportation cost. Hence, it
will be advisable to evaluate the North – West Corner solution for optimality. Note that only the
unoccupied cells should be evaluated.
Let’s begin with the empty cell A-Z. We start by placing a + sign in the cell, which indicates for the
reallocation of one unit to the cell. In order to maintain the column total 45 units, we must subtract one
unit from the occupied cell C-Z. This has been showed by – sign in the cell. Since we have taken away
one unit from row C, we need to compensate by adding one unit in the occupied cell C- Y. This will be
designated by a + sign in the cell. Similarly, we need to compensate for the addition of one unit to
column Y by subtracting a unit from cell A-Y. This will be designated by-sign in the cell. Because we
initially added a unit to cell A-Z, this subtraction compensates the row total 50 units. Then, we can
trace a completed path as shown above.
Therefore, the cell cost evaluation of empty cell A-Z yields a net change of +1 on the initial total
transportation cost.
Table 1.3.3: Cell cost evaluation of the empty cell A-Z
+Effect -Effect
Br. 20 Br. 20
Br. 9 Br. 8
+ Br. 29 -Br. 28
That is, net impact +Br. 29 – Br. 28 = +1. This means that reallocation of a unit item to the empty cell
A-Z would cause the initial transportation cost to increase by Br. 1. Consequently, such a reallocation
would not be desirable.
Similarly, the cell cost evaluations of the remaining empty cells are obtained and shown in the
following successive tables.
Table 1.3.4: Cell cost evaluation of the empty cell B-X
+Effect -Effect
Br. 20 Br. 12
Br. 9 Br. 11
+ Br. 29 Br. 23
That is, net impact + Br. 29 – Br. 23 = +6. This means that each reallocation of unit item to the empty
cell B – X would cause the initial transportation cost to increase by Br. 6. Consequently, such a
reallocation would not be desirable.
That is, net impact + Br. 40 – Br. 26 = + 14. This means that each reallocation a unit item to the empty
cell C – X would cause the initial transportation cost to increase by Br. 14. Accordingly, such a
reallocation would not be desirable.
The negative values of the cell cost evaluations of the empty cells A-Z, B-Y and B-Z indicate that
modified solution is possible.
Where
ri = the index number of the ith row;
Note that the process of assigning index numbers always begin by assigning a value zero as an index
number for the first row in a given transportation table.
We can now apply the following formula to determine the cell cost evaluation of an empty cell:
eij cij ri k j
Where
eij = The cell cost evaluation of an empty cell found along the ith row and the jth column;
cij = The unit transportation cost of an empty cell that is being evaluated.
Example 1.3.2: Consider an initial feasible solution obtained using the North West Corner Rule
Method for the HHH Company. Apply the MoDi Method to evaluate the solution for optimality.
Table 1.3.7: Initial Feasible Solution for HHH Co. using the North – West Corner method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Factory A Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
50
Once the row index number of the first row is assumed to have a zero value, it will be very simple to
find the column index numbers for all occupied cells in that row and vice versa.
The index number for the first column [ k1 ] can be determined based on the fact r1 k1 c11 which
implies 0 k1 12 , so k1 12 . Similarly, using the occupied cell, A-Y, the index number of the
second column [ k 2 ] is determined to be, r1 k 2 c12 that implies 0 k 2 20 , k 2 20 . Knowing k 2
will enable us to determine the index numbers of the second row [ r2 ] and the third row [ r3 ] using
the completed cells B-Y and C-Y, respectively. Thus, r2 k 2 c 22 r2 20 11 , so r2 9 , and r3
r3 k 2 c32 r3 20 14 so that r3 6 . In the same the knowledge of r3 will also enable us to
determine the index number of the third column k 3 using the completed cell C-Z. Hence, r3 k 3 c33
8 k 3 8 , k3 14 .
Table 1.3.8: Index number for initial North – West Corner solution to HHH Company
k1 12 k 2 20 k 3 14
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
r1 0 Factory A
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
50
25 [1st] 25 [2nd]
r2 9 Factory B
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
15
15 [3rd ]
r3 6 Factory C
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
55
10 [4th] 45 [5th]
Demand Quantity 25 50 45 120
Cell cost evaluation will also be carried out using the formula eij cij ri k j . Therefore, the cell cost
evaluation of the empty cell found along the first row and the third column, which is denoted by e13 ,
is obtained to be e13 c13 r1 k 3 e13 15 0 14 1 . Similarly, the cell cost evaluation of the
empty cell found along the second row and the first column, which is denoted by e21 , , is obtained to
be e21 c 21 r2 k1 e21 9 [9] 12 6 ; the cell cost evaluation of the empty cell found along
the second row and the third column, which is denoted by e23 , is obtained to be e21 c 23 r2 k 3
e21 4 [9] 14 1 ; and the cell cost evaluation of the empty cell found along the third row and
Note that these results agree with the cell cost evaluations computed earlier using the stepping stone
method. When all cell cost evaluations are positive or zero, an optimal feasible solution is said to be
obtained. If one or more negative cell cost evaluation is obtained, the empty cell with the most negative
cell cost evaluation will be brought into solution because that route has the largest potential for
improvement per unit.
Example 1.4.1:
Consider an initial feasible solution obtained using the North West Corner (Rule) Method for the HHH
Company. Find the modified solution and apply the MoDi Method to evaluate the resulting solution for
optimality.
Table 1.4.1: Initial Feasible solution for HHH Co. using the North – West Corner method
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50
25 [1st] 25 [2nd]
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4
Factory B 15
15 [3rd ]
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C th th
55
10 [4 ] 45 [5 ]
Demand Quantity 25 50 45 120
From the entire occupied cell involved in the stepping stone path of cells with the negative cell cost
evaluation are cell B-Y and C-Z. Subtracting the smallest quantity of the minus sign labeled cells in the
path form all the cells labeled by the – sign in the path, and adding this same quantity on all the cells
which are labeled by the + sign in the path yields the reallocation which will be shown in Table 1.4.3.
Table 1.4.3: Distribution plan after reallocation of 15 units for HHH Company
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
Br. 12 Br. 20 Br. 15
Factory A 50
25 25
Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 4 15
Factory B
15
Br. 20 Br. 14 Br. 8
Factory C 55
20 30
Demand Quantity 25 50 45 120
Hence, the cell cost evaluation of the empty cell found along the first row and the third column, which
is denoted by e13 , is obtained to be e13 c13 r1 k 3 e13 15 0 14 1 . Similarly, the cell
cost evaluation of the empty cell found along the second row and the first column is obtained to be
e21 9 [10] 12 7 ; the cell cost evaluation of the empty cell found along the second row and the
second column is obtained to be e22 11 [10] 20 1 ; and the cell cost evaluation of the empty
cell found along the third row and the first column is obtained to e31 20 [6] 12 14 e31 = 20-(-
6)-12 = +14.
Hence, optimal feasible solution is said to be obtained because the MoDi method make known that cell
cost evaluations are positive.
4. 1.5. Special Issues on Transportation Problems
A number of special issues are discussed in this section in order to round out your understanding of the
transportation model.
Alternate Optimal Solution
In the case of transportation problem the existence of an alternate optimal solution is signaled by an
empty cell cost evaluation which is equal to zero. It is possible to find out the alternate solution of a
transportation problem if there is one by reallocating the maximum possible number of quantities
around the stepping stone path for the empty cell having a cell cost evaluation of zero.
Example 1.5.1: A company manufacturing T.V. sets has three plants with capacity of 100,200, and 200
units respectively. Company supplies T.V. sets to three show rooms which have demands of 50,150, and
300 respectively. The manager of the three plants has estimated the cost per unit to ship over each of
the possible routes as follow:
Using intuitive Method one can easily obtain the following initial feasible solution.
Try to get an initial feasible solution using the techniques discussed above.
Table 1.5.3: Initial feasible solution of the T.V. Company using the intuitive Approach
To
SR - I SR - II SR - III Supply
From
Br. 4 Br. 2 Br. 8
Plant A 100
50 50
Br. 5 Br. 1 Br. 9
Plant B 200
150 50
Br. 7 Br. 6 Br. 3
Plant C 200
200
Demand 50 150 300 500
Both the Stepping Stone and MoDi methods of empty cell cost evaluations of the empty cells via.
A – II, B – I, C – I, and C – II, yields +2, 0, +8, and +11, respectively. Note that cell cost evaluations
are indicators of optimal solutions. At this stage possibly the manager knows that optimal solutions are
obtained, and the minimum cost of transportation is obtained to be:
C = (50 x 4) + (50x8) + (150x1) + (50x9) + (200x3) = Br. 1,800
Since the existence of a zero cell cost evaluation of an empty cell is a signal for an alternate optimal
solution, this problem is said to have other optimal solutions other than the earlier mentioned. This will
Note that the + signs in the path indicate units to be added and the – signs indicate units to be taken
away.
The allowable quantity reallocated to the empty cell B – I along this path will be determined based on
the limit on subtraction, which is the smallest quantity in a negative position along the cell path. There
are two quantities in negative position along the cell path 50 and 50. Thus, any one of these quantities
[since they are equal] should be shifted in the following manner: subtract 50 units from each cell on the
cell path with a – sign, and add this same amount on to the quantity of each cell on the path with a +
sign. The result is shown in Table 5.5.5.
Table 1.5.5: Distribution plan after reallocation of 50 units to the cell B-I
To
SR - I SR - II SR - III Supply
From
Br. 4 Br. 2 Br. 8
Plant A 100
100 +
Br. 5 Br. 1 Br. 9
Plant B 200
50 150
Br. 7 Br. 6 Br. 3
Plant C 200
200
Demand 50 150 300 500
As a check, note that the total transportation cost is the same as before, Br. 1800.
That is, C = (100x8) + (50x5) + (150x1) + (200x3) = Br. 1,800
Degeneracy
A transportation problem is said to be degenerate when there are too few number of occupied cells to
enable all the empty cells to be evaluated. In the stepping stone method degeneracy has been
The purpose of delta is to enable evaluation of the remaining empty cells. The choice of location for the
delta on some empty cells may be unsuitable if they do not enable the cell cost evaluations of the
remaining empty cells. Moreover, the delta will not be placed in an empty cell which later turns out to
be in a negative position of the stepping stone path because it will remain the smallest quantity in the
negatively labeled cells of the path and shifting this extremely smallest quantity around the cell path to
determine the modified solution will leave the solution virtually unchanged.
The technique can be illustrated for degenerate alternate solution of the above example as follows:
Example 1.5.2: Show that the alternate solution of the T.V. Company stated above is degenerate, and
check whether this solution is optimal.
Solution:
A quick check of alternate solution of the above example [ Example 1.5.1] will reveal that the solution
is degenerate, and it can easily be checked out by comparing the number of the completed cells in the
alternate solutions table [See Table 1.5.5] and the sum of the number of rows and columns of the
transportation table.
By default feasible solution is said to basic if the number of completed cells of a transportation table is
one less than the sum of its number of rows and columns. In this particular case the number of occupied
cells is 4 while the required number of completed cells is [3+3-1].
Obviously some modification has to be made in order to determine if a given solution is optimal. The
modification is to treat the empty cell A-1 as a completed cell by placing a [].
The resulting index numbers generated using MoDi method and the improvement potential for empty
cells based on in cell A – I are shown in Table 1.5.6, and this confirms that the solution is optimal.
Example 1.5.3: Consider the same example given above. Suppose that in the T.V. company problem A
– III was suddenly unavailable because of recent weather conditions. Prevent that route from appearing
in the final solution and develop an optimal solution for the problem.
Solution: One rule of thumb would be to assign a unit transportation cost that is 10 times the largest
cost in the table to the prohibited cell, A – III. Thus, since the largest cost is Br. 9, a new unit cost of Br.
90 could be assigned instead of the original unit cost Br. 8. Then, the revised problem could be solved
using one of the methods stated above for initial feasible solutions and checked for optimality using
MoDi method and carried our possible reallocations using stepping stone method for modified
solutions. Having done this leads us to have the optimal solutions shown in the following table, Table
1.5.7.
Table 1.5.7: Optimal solutions for T.V. Company problem with unacceptable route
Public Service College of Oromia Page 91
Operations Research
k1 4 k2 2 k 3 10
To Supply
Retailer X Retailer Y Retailer Z
From Quantity
r1 0 Br. 4 Br. 2 Br. 15
Factory A 100
50 50 +80
r2 1 Br. 5 Br. 1 Br. 4
Factory B 200
+2 100 100
r3 7 Br. 7 Br. 14 Br. 3
Factory C 200
+10 +11 200
Demand Quantity 50 150 300 500
Quantities in dummy routes in the optimal solution are not shipped. Rather, they serve to point out
which supplier will hold the excess supply, and how much, or which destination will not receive its
total demand, and how much it will be short.
Example 1.5.4: Let us consider the Y.V. Company Problem. Suppose that Plant C has experienced an
equipment breakdown, and it will be able to supply only 120 T.V. sets for a period of time. Hence, total
supply will be 80 units less than total demand. This will require adding a dummy origin with a supply
of 80 television sets. The modified transportation table is shown in Table 1.5.8, and the final solution in
Table 1.5.9. Note that in the case dummy the intuitive method considers the smallest non – zero unit
cost in the table.
Solution:
Table 1.5.8: A dummy origin is added to make up 80 units
To
SR - I SR - II SR - III Supply
From
Br. 4 Br. 2 Br. 8
Plant A 100
The solution indicating that show room III will be short of 80 units until the equipment is repaired.
Maximization
Some transportation problem deal on profits or revenues rather than costs, in such cases, the objective
is to maximize. Such problems can be handled by adding one additional step at the start. Identify the
cell with the largest profit and subtract all the other cell profits from that value. Then replace all the cell
profits with the resulting values. These values reflect the opportunity loses that would be incurred by
using routes with unit profits that are less than the largest unit profit. Replace the original profits with
these lose and solve the problem in a usual way for a minimum opportunity loses solution.
Example 1.5.5: A steal company is concerned with the problem of distributing imported ore from four
ports to four steel mills situated thought the country. The supplies of ores arriving at ports, say I , II, III
and IV, in a week in tons are 125,250,175 and 100, respectively. The demand at the four steel miles, say
A.B,C, and D per week in tons are 100 ,400,90 and 60, respectively. Due to differences in row
materials and transportation costs, profit per unit [in thousands] differ, and given in Table 5.5.10.
Determine the maximum profit of the company.
Solution:
First let’s construct a transportation table to show the clear relationship that we are given in between
the ports capacity, the demand which were asked by the steel miles, and unit profit across each and
every route. This has been presented in the table given below.
Table 1.5.11: Transportation table of Steal Company
To
Mill - A Mill - B Mill - C Mill - D Supply
From
Br. 90 Br. 100 Br. 120 Br. 110
Port I 125
Br. 100 Br. 105 Br. 130 Br. 117
Port II 250
Br. 111 Br. 109 Br. 110 Br. 120
Port III 275
Br. 130 Br. 125 Br. 108 Br. 113
Port IV 100
Demand 100 400 90 60 500
Now we are expected to construct transportation table contains opportunity loses in each and every
route. This would be carried out by subtracting all the other cell profits from the largest cell profit and
replacing all the resulting values. This has been shown in Table 1.5.12.
The set of assignment that minimizes the opportunity losses will also maximize the profit. The next
steps are the same steps that would be required if the problem was minimization.
The negative cell cost evolutions indicate that improved solutions are possible, and hence Cell II-D will
be brought into solution because that route has the largest potential for improvement per unit. The
improved optimal solution is presented in Table 1.5.14.
Note that the maximum profit of the company is obtained to be Br. 73,795. That is, P =
(124x100)+(100x105)+(90x130)+(60x117)+(175x109)+(100x130)= Br. 73,795
To fit the definition of an assignment problem, these kinds of applications need to be formulated in a
way that satisfies the following assumptions. The number of assignees and the number of tasks are the
same. (This number is denoted by n.)
2. Each assignee is to be assigned to exactly one task.
3. Each task is to be performed by exactly one assignee.
4. There is a cost cij associated with assignee i (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) performing task j ( j = 1, 2, . . . , n).
5. The objective is to determine how all n assignments should be made to minimize the total cost.
Any problem satisfying all these assumptions can be solved extremely efficiently by algorithms
designed specifically for assignment problems.
The first three assumptions are fairly restrictive. Many potential applications do not quite satisfy these
assumptions. However, it often is possible to reformulate the problem to make it fit. For example,
dummy assignees or dummy tasks frequently can be used for this purpose. We illustrate these
formulation techniques in the examples.
4.2.1. Basic Assumption in Assignment Problems
Assignment problems are special cases of linear programming problems just like transportation
problems. Assignment problems are characterized by giving a task to most appropriate person so as to
optimize the objective function like minimizing a cost or maximizing a profit or revenue. Hence
assignment problems are highly dependent on a one for one matching.
Example 2.1.1: A manager may be faced with the task of assigning four operators to four bulldozers,
one operator for one bulldozer. A manager has prepared a table that shows the operation cost of each
four bulldozers by each of the four operators as shown below. According to table 6.1.1 Bulldozer 1 will
cost Br. 70 if it is operated by Operator A, and so on. The manager has stated that his objective is to
develop a set of operator assignment that will minimize the total cost of getting all bulldozers operated.
It is further required that the bulldozers be operated simultaneously.
Example 2.1.2: A manager may be faced with the task of assigning four jobs to four machines, one job
for one machine. A manager has prepared a table that shows the profit of performing each four jobs by
each of the four machines as it is given below. According to Table 6.1.2 Job 1 will raise the profit by
Br. 70 if it is performed by machine A, and so on. The manager has stated that his objective is to
develop a set of operator assignment that will minimize the total cost of getting all bulldozers operated.
It is further required that the bulldozers be operated simultaneously.
Example 2.1.3:A manager may be faced with the task of assigning four jobs to four machines, one job
for one machine. A manager has prepared a table that shows the profit of performing each four jobs by
each of the four machines as it is given below. According to table 6.1.2. job 1 will raise the profit by Br.
70 if it is performed by machine A, and so on. the manager has stated that his objective is to develop as
et of operator assignment that will minimize the total cost of getting all bulldozers operated. It is further
required that the bulldozers be operated simultaneously.
Let xij of the above table represent the assignment of Operator i to Bulldozer j. If no assignment is made
xij = 0 , and if assignment is made xij = 1.
The main objective of this problem is minimizing the total assignment cost. Accordingly, the objective
function of the problem will mathematically be given as:
Minimize T = 70x11 + 80x12 + 75x13 + 64x12 + 55x21 + 58x22 + 54x24+. . .+ 62x41 + 60x42 + 70x44
Subject to:
Seeing the constraints, it is clear that the sum of quantities in any row or column must be the same as to
one because of one item of a group should be matched exactly with only one item of the other.
Consequently, each of the constraints will be presented as follows:
When further reduction are not possible because there is a zero in every row and column, we do the
following: subtract the minimum uncovered value of your final matrix from every other uncovered
Public Service College of Oromia Page 99
Operations Research
value, and add that same minimum amount on values lie at the point of intersections of two covering
lines.
Example 2.3.1 Consider the problem given in Example 2.1.1. Identify the optimal assignment using
the method stated above.
Table 2.3.1: Operator costs for each possible pairing [Cost Matrix]
Bulldozer Row
Minimum
1 2 3 4
Operator A Br. 70 Br. 80 Br. 75 Br. 64 Br. 64
Operator B Br. 55 Br. 52 Br. 58 Br. 54 Br. 52
Operator C Br. 58 Br. 56 Br. 64 Br. 68 Br. 56
Operator D Br. 62 Br. 60 Br. 67 Br. 70 Br. 60
Solution:
Step 1: Row Reduction
Identifying the minimum value in each row, subtract these values from all values in their corresponding
row, and developing a new assignment matrix using the resulting figures yields:
Table 2.3.2: Operator opportunity costs across the row for each possible pairing
Bulldozer
1 2 3 4
Operator A Br. 6 Br. 16 Br. 11 Br. 0
Operator B Br. 3 Br. 0 Br. 6 Br. 2
Operator C Br. 2 Br. 0 Br. 8 Br. 12
Operator D Br. 2 Br. 0 Br. 7 Br. 10
Column Minimum Br. 2 Br. 0 Br. 6 Br. 0
Table 2.3.3: Operator opportunity costs across the column for each possible pairing
Bulldozer
1 2 3 4
Operator A Br. 4 Br. 16 Br. 5 Br. 0
Operator B Br. 1 Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 2
Operator C Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 2 Br. 12
Operator D Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 1 Br. 10
Step 3: Checking for Optimality
Bulldozer
1 2 3 4
Operator A Br. 4 Br. 16 Br. 5 Br. 0
Operator B Br. 1 Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 2
Operator C Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 2 Br. 12
Operator D Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 1 Br. 10
Since the minimum number of straight covering lines is equal to the number of rows or the number of
column of the matrix, optimal assignment is possible. It is possible to begin making assignment by
identifying a row or column that has only one zero. Note that doing this would avoid confusion in
making the assignment. Nominees are Row A, Column 3 and Column 4, because each has only zero.
Suppose we take Row A. We can denote the assignment of Operator A to Bulldozer 4 by shading the 0
opportunity cost at the intersection. Next we might select column 3. We can denote the assignment of
operator B to Bulldozer 3 by shading the zero opportunity cost at the intersection. Finally, we can shade
the remaining zero in columns 1 and 2, to complete the assignment. The assignments are shown in
Table 2.3.5.
Table 2.3.5: Optimal Assignments
Bulldozer
1 2 3 4
Operator A Br. 4 Br. 16 Br. 5 Br. 0
Operator B Br. 1 Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 2
Operator C Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 2 Br. 12
Operator D Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 1 Br. 10
This is a case for alternate optimal assignment. Why?
The total cost of the assignments can be determined by referring to the original cost table, and hence, it
is obtained to be:
A–4 Br. 64
B–3 Br. 58
C–1 Br. 58
D–2 Br. 60
Br. 240
It is informative to note that this cost is equal to the sum of the row and the column reduction costs.
That is, the sum of the row reduction amounts was Br. 64 + Br. 52 56 + Br. 60 = Br. 231 [see Table
Employee Row
A B C D Minimum
Job 1 Br. 15 Br. 20 Br. 18 Br. 24 15
Job 2 Br. 12 Br. 17 Br. 16 Br. 15 12
Job 3 Br. 14 Br. 15 Br. 19 Br. 17 14
Job 4 Br. 11 Br. 14 Br. 12 Br. 13 11
Solution:
Step 1: Row Reduction
Identifying the minimum value in each row, subtract these values from all values in their corresponding
row, and developing a new assignment matrix using the resulting figures yields:
Table 2.3.7: Job opportunity costs across the row for each possible pairing
Employee
A B C D
Job 1 Br. 0 Br. 5 Br. 3 Br. 9
Job 2 Br. 0 Br. 5 Br. 4 Br. 3
Job 3 Br. 0 Br. 1 Br. 5 Br. 3
Job 4 Br. 0 Br. 3 Br. 1 Br. 2
Column
0 1 1 2
Minimum
Employee
A B C D
Public Service College of Oromia Page 102
Operations Research
Job 1 Br. 0 Br. 4 Br. 2 Br. 7
Job 2 Br. 0 Br. 4 Br. 3 Br. 1
Job 3 Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 4 Br. 1
Job 4 Br. 0 Br. 2 Br. 0 Br. 0
Step 3: Checking for Optimality
Construct minimum number of horizontal or vertical lines to cover all the zeros appeared in the final
matrix and check whether the minimum number of horizontal or vertical lines used to cover the zeros
of the matrix is equal to the number of rows or not. Otherwise, go for further reduction.
Table 2.3.9: Line test for optimality of the assignment problem
Employee
A B C D
Job 1 Br. 0 Br. 4 Br. 2 Br. 7
Job 2 Br. 0 Br. 4 Br. 3 Br. 1
Job 3 Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 4 Br. 1
Job 4 Br. 0 Br. 2 Br. 0 Br. 0
Now, if the minimum number of covering lines is equal to the number of rows or the number of column
of the matrix, optimal assignment is possible. In this case, apparently, an optimal assignment is not
possible because only three lines were necessary.
We must, therefore, make further reductions. Further row and column reductions are not possible
because there is a zero in every row and column. To get around this, we do the following:
1. Subtract the smallest uncovered cost [Br. 1], from every other uncovered cost; and
2. Add that same amount to costs that lie at an intersection of two covering lines.
This is done in Table 2.3.10. The rationale for this is: subtracting the smallest uncovered cost reveals
the next smallest increment in opportunity costs, whereas adding that amount to intersections removes
those assignments from consideration.
Employee
A B C D
Job 1 Br. 0 Br. 3 Br. 1 Br. 6
Job 2 Br. 0 Br. 3 Br. 2 Br. 0
Job 3 Br. 1 Br. 0 Br. 4 Br. 1
Job 4 Br. 1 Br. 2 Br. 0 Br. 0
Employee
A B C D
Job 1 Br. 0 Br. 3 Br. 1 Br. 6
Job 2 Br. 0 Br. 3 Br. 2 Br. 0
Job 3 Br. 1 Br. 0 Br. 4 Br. 1
Job 4 Br. 1 Br. 2 Br. 0 Br. 0
Since the minimum number of straight covering lines is equal to the number of rows or the number of
column of the matrix, optimal assignment is possible. It is possible to begin making assignment by
identifying a row or column that has only one zero.
Table 2.3.12: Optimal assignment table
Employee
A B C D
Job 1 Br. 0 Br. 3 Br. 1 Br. 6
Job 2 Br. 0 Br. 3 Br. 2 Br. 0
Job 3 Br. 1 Br. 0 Br. 4 Br. 1
Job 4 Br. 1 Br. 2 Br. 0 Br. 0
The total cost of the assignment can be determined by refereeing to the original cost table. The total
cost is:
1–A Br. 15
2–B Br. 15
3–C Br. 15
4–D Br. 12
Br. 57
Example 2.4.1: Consider the problem given in example 6.1.12. Identify the optimal assignment.
Solution
Step 1: construction of an Opportunity Loss Table
Identifying the maximum value in each column, subtracting all values in each column form the
corresponding column maximum, the opportunity loss table is presented in Table 6.1.10
Since the minimum number covering lines is equal to the number of rows of the matrix optimal
assignment is reached. It is possible to begin assignment by identifying a row or column that has only
one zero. Nominees are Column D, and Row 4, because each has only one zero. Suppose we take
Column D, we can denote the assignment of Machine D to Job 1 by shading the 0 opportunity loss at
Public Service College of Oromia Page 106
Operations Research
the intersection. Next we might select Row 4. We can don’t the assignment of Job 4 to Machine A by
shading the zero opportunity loss at the intersection. Finally, we can shade the remaining zero in
columns B and C, to complete the assignment. The assignments are shown in Table 2.4.5.
Table 2.4.5: Optimal Assignments
Machine
A B C D
Job 1 Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 1 Br. 0
Job 2 Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 6
Job 3 Br. 1 Br. 5 Br. 0 Br. 7
Job 4 Br. 0 Br. 4 Br. 3 Br. 7
The total profit of the assignments can be determined by referring to the original profit table, and
hence, it is obtained to be:
1–D Br. 24
2–B Br. 17
3–C Br. 19
4–A Br. 11
Br. 71
It is informative to note that this cost is equal to the sum of the column maximum profits minus the
sum of row reduction losses. That is, the sum of the column maximum amounts was Br. 15 + Br. 20
+ Br. 19 + Br. 24 = Br. 78 [see Table 2.4.1],and the sum of the row reduction losses was Br. 0 +
Br.3 + Br. 0 + Br. 4 = Br. 7 [ see Table 2.4.2]. Thus, the difference the two total was Br. 78 – Br. 7 =
Br. 71, which agrees with amount presently determined.
Note that it is also possible to arrive at, the same solution if we approach the problem as a minimization
problem after multiplying every entry of the matrix by negative one [-1]. Because Maximization Z =
Minimization [-Z]. Try this by yourself. Take the following matrix as your initial matrix.
Table 2.4.6: Job profits table after the entries are multiplied by – 1
Machine
A B C D
Job 1 - Br. 15 - Br. 20 - Br. 18 - Br. 14
Job 2 - Br. 12 - Br. 17 - Br. 16 - Br. 15
Job 3 - Br. 14 - Br. 15 - Br. 19 - Br. 17
Job 4 - Br. 11 - Br. 14 - Br. 12 - Br. 13
Unequal Number of Rows and Columns
The assumptions considered in the above sections require an equal number of rows and columns.
However, there are some problems having unequal number of rows and columns. To handle such a
Solution:
Since the number of column is one less than the number rows we need to add a dummy column to
make balance number rows and columns. This is be presented in Table 2.4.8.
Table 2.4.8: Costs for each possible pairing after a dummy column inserted
Job
A B C D E F
Machine 1 2.5 5 1 6 1 0
Machine 2 2 5 1.5 7 3 0
Machine 3 3 6.5 2 8 3 0
Machine 4 3.5 7 2 9 4.5 0
Machine 5 4 7 3 9 6 0
Machine 6 6 9 5 10 6 0
Column Minimum 2 5 1 6 1 0
The solution is not optimal because the minimum number of covering lines is not equal to the number
of rows of the matrix. Hence, we need to find a modified solution. Since further reductions are not
possible because there is a zero in every row and column. Subtracting the minimum uncovered value,
which is 1, from every other uncovered value, and adding that same minimum amount on values lie at
point of intersections of two covering lines yield:
Table 2.4.11: Modified solutions
Job
A B C D E F
Machine 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 1
Machine 2 0 0 0.5 1 2 1
Machine 3 0 0.5 0 1 1 0
Machine 4 0.5 1 0 2 2.5 0
Machine 5 1 1 1 2 4 0
Machine 6 3 3 3 3 4 0
The modified solution is not optimal because the minimum number covering lines is not equal to the
number of rows of the matrix. Hence, we need to further reduce the matrix. Hence, we need to subtract
the minimum in covered value, which is still 1, from every other uncovered value, and add that same
minimum amount on values lie at the point of intersections of two covering lines.
The second modified solution is not optimal. Following the same procedure once again, we will arrive
at the following third modified solution.
Solution:
Table 2.4.16: Costs for each possible pairing after a dummy row inserted
Machine Row
A B C D
Minimum
Job 1 Br. 15 Br. 19 Br. 12 Br. 16 12
Job 2 Br. 23 Br. 21 Br. 18 Br. 17 17
Job 3 Br. 20 Br. 16 Br. 11 Br. 19 11
Dummy Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 0 Br. 0 0
Table 2.4.17: Costs for each possible pairing after a dummy row inserted
Machine
A B C D
Job 1 Br. 3 Br. 7 Br. 0 Br. 4
Job 2 Br. 6 Br. 4 Br. 1 Br. 0
The solutions are not optimal because the minimum number covering lines is not equal to the number
of rows of the matrix. Hence, we need to find a modified solution. Since further reductions are not
possible because there is a zero in every row and column. Subtracting the minimum uncovered value,
which is 3, from every other uncovered value, and adding that same minimum amount on values lie at
the point of intersections of two covering lines gives modified solution given below.
Now it is possible to begin assignment by identifying a row or column that has only one zero.
Nominees are Row 2, Row 3, and Column B because each has only one zero. Suppose we take Row 2.
We can denote the assignment of Job 2 to Machine D by shading the 0 opportunity cost at the
Column B. We can denote the assignment of machine B to Job 4 by shading the zero opportunity cost
at the intersection. Finally, we can shade the remaining zero in column A to complete the assignment.
The assignments are shown in Table 2.4.20.
The minimum cost of the assignments can be determined by referring to the original cost table. And
hence it is obtained to be.
1–A Br. 15
2–D Br.17
3–C Br.11
Br.43
Subsequently, Job 4 was not assigned because it was assigned to imaginary machine 2.
It is possible to see now the obtained minimum cost is equal to the sum fo the row reduction costs, the
column reduction costs and the reduction amounts for the modified solutions. The sum of the row
reduction amounts was Br. 12 + Br. 17 + Br. 11 = Br. 40, the sum of the column reduction amounts was
Br. 0, and the sum of the reduction amounts for the modified solutions was Br. 3. Thus, the total
reduction was Br. 40 + Br.0 + Br.3 = Br.43, which agrees with amount presently determined.
Multiple Optimal Solutions
In some cases, multiple optimal solutions is possible to a given assignment problem. This condition can
be easily recognized when making the optimal assignments. No unique zero will exist at some point,
resulting more than the choice for assignment. It should e noted that all alternate solutions yield the
same value for the objective function.
Example 2.4.4: Consider the optimal table of example 6.1.5. Determine the alternate optimal solution
of the problem and show whether those solutions yield the value of the objective factions or not.
Original Optimal Solution and associated value Alternate Optimal Solution and associated value
1–D Br.6 1–D Br.6
2–A Br.2 2–B Br.5
3–E Br.3 3–E Br.3
4–C Br.2 4–C Br.2
5–B Br.7 5–A Br.4
Br.20 Br.20
Undesirable Assignment
In certain occasions, a particular mach is undesirable. When such a restraint is present a letter is often
placed in the assignment table in the position that would represent the pairing and the usually procedure
would be implemented except that the letter is ignored throughout the analysis.
Example 2.4.5: Determine the optimal set of assignments for the following cost table if the assignment
2-C is unacceptable.
Table 2.4.22: Costs for each possible paring
Employee
A B C D
Job 1 Br. 6 Br. 12 Br. 7 Br. 15
Job 2 Br. 11 Br. 8 Br. 11 Br. 7
Job 3 Br. 16 Br. 14 Br. 15 Br. 12
Job 4 Br. 9 Br. 9 Br. 11 Br. 6
Solution
Table 2.4.23: Costs for each pairing after a letter M is placed at the unacceptable pairing
Employee Row
A B C D Minimum
Job 1 Br. 6 Br. 12 Br. 7 Br. 15 Br. 6
The solutions are not optimal because the minimum number covering lines is not equal to the number
of rows of the matrix. Hence, we need to fine a modified solution. Since further reductions are not
possible because there is a zero in every row and column, subtracting the minimum uncovered value,
Public Service College of Oromia Page 115
Operations Research
which is 2, form every other uncovered value, and adding that same minimum amount on values lie at
the point of intersections of two covering lines gives modified solutions given below.
Table 2.4.27: Modified solutions
Employee
A B C D
Job 1 Br. 0 Br. 7 Br. 0 Br. 11
Job 2 Br. 2 Br. 0 M Br. 0
Job 3 Br. 2 Br. 1 Br. 0 Br. 0
Job 4 Br. 1 Br. 2 Br. 4 Br. 0
Now it is possible to begin assignment by identifying a row or column that has only one zero.
Nominees are Row 4, column A, and column b because each has only one zero. Suppose we take Raw.
4 we can denote the assignment of Job 4 to employee 4 by shading the 0 opportunity cost at the
interaction. Next we might select column a. we can denote the assignment of Employee A to Job 1 by
shading the zero opportunity cost at the intersection. Then we need to select column b. we can denote
the assignment of employee b to Job 2 by shading the zero opportunity cost at the intersection. Finally,
we can shade the remaining zero in columns B and C to complete that assignment. The assignments are
shown in Table 2.5.28.
The minimum cost of the assignments can be determined by referring to the original cost table, and
hence, it is obtained to be:
1–A Br. 6
2–B Br.8
3–C Br.15
4–D Br.6
Br.35
Public Service College of Oromia Page 116
Operations Research