© 2008 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Chapter 3
To accompany
Quantitative Analysis for Management, Tenth Edition,
by Render, Stair, and Hanna
Power Point slides created by Jeff Heyl
Decision Analysis
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 2
Chapter Outline
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Six Steps in Decision Making
3.3 Types of Decision-Making
Environments
3.4 Decision Making under Uncertainty
3.5 Decision Making under Risk
3.5.1 EMV
3.5.2 Sensitivity Analysis
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 3
Introduction
 What is involved in making a good
decision?
 Decision theory is an analytic and
systematic approach to the study of
decision making
 A good decision is one that is based
on logic, considers all available data
and possible alternatives, and the
quantitative approach described here
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 4
The Six Steps in Decision Making
1. Clearly define the problem at hand
2. List the possible alternatives
3. Identify the possible outcomes or states
of nature
4. List the payoff or profit of each
combination of alternatives and
outcomes
5. Select one of the mathematical decision
theory models
6. Apply the model and make your decision
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 5
Thompson Lumber Company
Step 1 –Step 1 – Define the problem
 Expand by manufacturing and
marketing a new product, backyard
storage sheds
Step 2 –Step 2 – List alternatives
 Construct a large new plant
 A small plant
 No plant at all
Step 3 –Step 3 – Identify possible outcomes
 The market could be favorable or
unfavorable
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 6
Thompson Lumber Company
Step 4 –Step 4 – List the payoffs
 Identify conditional valuesconditional values for the
profits for large, small, and no plants
for the two possible market
conditions
STATE OF NATURE
ALTERNATIVE
FAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
UNFAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
Construct a large plant 200,000 –180,000
Construct a small plant 100,000 –20,000
Do nothing 0 0
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 7
Thompson Lumber Company
Step 5 –Step 5 – Select the decision model
 Depends on the environment and amount
of risk and uncertainty
Step 6 –Step 6 – Apply the model to the data
 Solution and analysis used to help the
decision making
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 8
Types of Decision-Making
Environments
Type 1:Type 1: Decision making under certainty
 Decision maker knows with certaintyknows with certainty the
consequences of every alternative or
decision choice
Type 2:Type 2: Decision making under uncertainty
 The decision maker does not knowdoes not know the
probabilities of the various outcomes
Type 3:Type 3: Decision making under risk
 The decision maker knows theknows the
probabilitiesprobabilities of the various outcomes
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 9
Decision Making Under
Uncertainty
1. Maximax (optimistic)
2. Maximin (pessimistic)
3. Criterion of realism (Hurwicz)
4. Equally likely (Laplace)
5. Minimax regret
There are several criteria for making decisions
under uncertainty
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 10
Maximax
Used to find the alternative that maximizes
the maximum payoff
 Locate the maximum payoff for each alternative
 Select the alternative with the maximum
number
STATE OF NATURE
ALTERNATIVE
FAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
UNFAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
MAXIMUM IN
A ROW ($)
Construct a large
plant
200,000 –180,000 200,000
Construct a small
plant
100,000 –20,000 100,000
Do nothing 0 0 0
Table 3.2
MaximaxMaximax
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 11
Maximin
Used to find the alternative that maximizes
the minimum payoff
 Locate the minimum payoff for each alternative
 Select the alternative with the maximum
number
STATE OF NATURE
ALTERNATIVE
FAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
UNFAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
MINIMUM IN
A ROW ($)
Construct a large
plant
200,000 –180,000 –180,000
Construct a small
plant
100,000 –20,000 –20,000
Do nothing 0 0 0
Table 3.3
MaximinMaximin
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 12
Criterion of Realism (Hurwicz)
A weighted averageweighted average compromise between
optimistic and pessimistic
 Select a coefficient of realism α
 Coefficient is between 0 and 1
 A value of 1 is 100% optimistic
 Compute the weighted averages for each
alternative
 Select the alternative with the highest value
Weighted average = α(maximum in row)
+ (1 – α)(minimum in row)
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 13
Criterion of Realism (Hurwicz)
 For the large plant alternative using α = 0.8
(0.8)(200,000) + (1 – 0.8)(–180,000) = 124,000
 For the small plant alternative using α = 0.8
(0.8)(100,000) + (1 – 0.8)(–20,000) = 76,000
STATE OF NATURE
ALTERNATIVE
FAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
UNFAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
CRITERION
OF REALISM
(α = 0.8)$
Construct a large
plant
200,000 –180,000 124,000
Construct a small
plant
100,000 –20,000 76,000
Do nothing 0 0 0
Table 3.4
RealismRealism
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 14
Equally Likely (Laplace)
Considers all the payoffs for each alternative
 Find the average payoff for each alternative
 Select the alternative with the highest average
STATE OF NATURE
ALTERNATIVE
FAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
UNFAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
ROW
AVERAGE ($)
Construct a large
plant
200,000 –180,000 10,000
Construct a small
plant
100,000 –20,000 40,000
Do nothing 0 0 0
Table 3.5
Equally likelyEqually likely
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 15
Minimax Regret
Based on opportunity lossopportunity loss or regretregret, the
difference between the optimal profit and
actual payoff for a decision.
 Create an opportunity loss table by determining
the opportunity loss for not choosing the best
alternative
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 16
Minimax Regret
 Opportunity loss is calculated by subtracting
each payoff in the column from the best payoff in
the column STATE OF NATURE
FAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
UNFAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
200,000 – 200,000 0 – (–180,000)
200,000 – 100,000 0 – (–20,000)
200,000 – 0 0 – 0
Table 3.6
STATE OF NATURE
ALTERNATIVE
FAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
UNFAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
Construct a large plant 0 180,000
Construct a small plant 100,000 20,000
Do nothing 200,000 0
Table 3.7
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 17
Minimax Regret
 Find the maximum opportunity loss for each
alternative and pick the alternative with the
minimum number
STATE OF NATURE
ALTERNATIVE
FAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
UNFAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
MAXIMUM IN
A ROW ($)
Construct a large
plant
0 180,000 180,000
Construct a small
plant
100,000 20,000 100,000
Do nothing 200,000 0 200,000
MinimaxMinimax
Table 3.8
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 18
Decision Making Under Risk
 Decision making when there are several possible
states of nature and we know the probabilities
associated with each possible state
 Most popular method is to choose the alternative
with the highest expected monetary value (expected monetary value (EMVEMV))
native i) = (payoff of first state of nature)
x (probability of first state of nature)
+ (payoff of second state of nature)
x (probability of second state of nature)
+ … + (payoff of last state of nature)
x (probability of last state of nature)
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 19
EMV for Thompson Lumber
 Each market has a probability of 0.50
 Which alternative would give the highest EMV?
 The calculations are
rge plant) = (0.50)($200,000) + (0.50)(–$180,000)
= $10,000
mall plant) = (0.50)($100,000) + (0.50)(–$20,000)
= $40,000
o nothing) = (0.50)($0) + (0.50)($0)
= $0
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 20
EMV for Thompson Lumber
STATE OF NATURE
ALTERNATIVE
FAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
UNFAVORABLE
MARKET ($) EMV ($)
Construct a large
plant
200,000 –180,000 10,000
Construct a small
plant
100,000 –20,000 40,000
Do nothing 0 0 0
Probabilities 0.50 0.50
Table 3.9 LargestLargest EMVEMV
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 21
Expected Value of Perfect
Information (EVPI)
 EVPI places an upper bound on what you should
pay for additional information
EVPI = EVwPI – Maximum EMV
 EVwPI is the long run average return if we have
perfect information before a decision is made
EVwPI = (best payoff for first state of nature)
x (probability of first state of nature)
+ (best payoff for second state of nature)
x (probability of second state of nature)
+ … + (best payoff for last state of nature)
x (probability of last state of nature)
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 22
Expected Value of Perfect
Information (EVPI)
 Scientific Marketing, Inc. offers analysis
that will provide certainty about market
conditions (favorable)
 Additional information will cost $65,000
 Is it worth purchasing the information?
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 23
Expected Value of Perfect
Information (EVPI)
1. Best alternative for favorable state of nature is
build a large plant with a payoff of $200,000
Best alternative for unfavorable state of nature is
to do nothing with a payoff of $0
EVwPI = ($200,000)(0.50) + ($0)(0.50) = $100,000
2. The maximum EMV without additional
information is $40,000
EVPI = EVwPI – Maximum EMV
= $100,000 - $40,000
= $60,000
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 24
Expected Value of Perfect
Information (EVPI)
1. Best alternative for favorable state of nature is
build a large plant with a payoff of $200,000
Best alternative for unfavorable state of nature is
to do nothing with a payoff of $0
EVwPI = ($200,000)(0.50) + ($0)(0.50) = $100,000
2. The maximum EMV without additional
information is $40,000
EVPI = EVwPI – Maximum EMV
= $100,000 - $40,000
= $60,000
So the maximum Thompson
should pay for the additional
information is $60,000
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 25
Expected Opportunity Loss
 Expected opportunity lossExpected opportunity loss (EOL) is the
cost of not picking the best solution
 First construct an opportunity loss table
 For each alternative, multiply the
opportunity loss by the probability of that
loss for each possible outcome and add
these together
 Minimum EOL will always result in the
same decision as maximum EMV
 Minimum EOL will always equal EVPI
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 26
Expected Opportunity Loss
arge plant) = (0.50)($0) + (0.50)($180,000)
= $90,000
mall plant) = (0.50)($100,000) + (0.50)($20,000)
= $60,000
o nothing) = (0.50)($200,000) + (0.50)($0)
= $100,000
Table 3.10
STATE OF NATURE
ALTERNATIVE
FAVORABLE
MARKET ($)
UNFAVORABLE
MARKET ($) EOL
Construct a large plant 0 180,000 90,000
Construct a small
plant
100,000 20,000 60,000
Do nothing 200,000 0 100,000
Probabilities 0.50 0.50
MinimumMinimum EOLEOL
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 27
Sensitivity Analysis
 Sensitivity analysis examines how our decision
might change with different input data
 For the Thompson Lumber example
P = probability of a favorable market
(1 – P) = probability of an unfavorable market
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 28
Sensitivity Analysis
EMV(Large Plant) = $200,000P – $180,000)(1 – P)
= $200,000P – $180,000 + $180,000P
= $380,000P – $180,000
EMV(Small Plant) = $100,000P – $20,000)(1 – P)
= $100,000P – $20,000 + $20,000P
= $120,000P – $20,000
EMV(Do Nothing) = $0P + 0(1 – P)
= $0
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 29
Sensitivity Analysis
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
0
–$100,000
–$200,000
EMV Values
EMV (large plant)
EMV (small plant)
EMV (do nothing)
Point 1
Point 2
.167 .615 1
Values of P
Figure 3.1
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 30
Sensitivity Analysis
Point 1:Point 1:
EMV(do nothing) = EMV(small plant)
000200001200 ,$,$ −= P 1670
000120
00020
.
,
,
==P
00018000038000020000120 ,$,$,$,$ −=− PP
6150
000260
000160
.
,
,
==P
Point 2:Point 2:
EMV(small plant) = EMV(large plant)
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 31
Sensitivity Analysis
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
0
–$100,000
–$200,000
EMV Values
EMV (large plant)
EMV (small plant)
EMV (do nothing)
Point 1
Point 2
.167 .615 1
Values of P
Figure 3.1
BEST
ALTERNATIVE
RANGE OF P
VALUES
Do nothing Less than 0.167
Construct a small plant 0.167 – 0.615
Construct a large plant Greater than 0.615
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 32
Using Excel QM to Solve
Decision Theory Problems
Program 3.1A
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 33
Using Excel QM to Solve
Decision Theory Problems
Program 3.1B
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 34
Decision Trees
 Any problem that can be presented in a
decision table can also be graphically
represented in a decision treedecision tree
 Decision trees are most beneficial when a
sequence of decisions must be made
 All decision trees contain decision pointsdecision points
or nodesnodes and state-of-nature pointsstate-of-nature points or
nodesnodes
 A decision node from which one of several
alternatives may be chosen
 A state-of-nature node out of which one state
of nature will occur
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 35
Five Steps to
Decision Tree Analysis
1. Define the problem
2. Structure or draw the decision tree
3. Assign probabilities to the states of
nature
4. Estimate payoffs for each possible
combination of alternatives and states of
nature
5. Solve the problem by computing
expected monetary values (EMVs) for
each state of nature node
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 36
Structure of Decision Trees
 Trees start from left to right
 Represent decisions and outcomes in
sequential order
 Squares represent decision nodes
 Circles represent states of nature nodes
 Lines or branches connect the decisions
nodes and the states of nature
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 37
Thompson’s Decision Tree
Favorable Market
Unfavorable Market
Favorable Market
Unfavorable Market
Do
Nothing
Construct
Large
Plant
1
Construct
Small Plant
2
Figure 3.2
A Decision Node
A State-of-Nature Node
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 38
Thompson’s Decision Tree
Favorable Market
Unfavorable Market
Favorable Market
Unfavorable Market
Do
Nothing
Construct
Large
Plant
1
Construct
Small Plant
2
Alternative with best
EMV is selected
Figure 3.3
EMV for Node
1 = $10,000
= (0.5)($200,000) + (0.5)(–$180,000)
EMV for Node
2 = $40,000
= (0.5)($100,000)
+ (0.5)(–$20,000)
Payoffs
$200,000
–$180,000
$100,000
–$20,000
$0
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.5)
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 39
Thompson’s Complex Decision Tree
First Decision
Point
Second Decision
Point
Favorable Market (0.78)
Unfavorable Market (0.22)
Favorable Market (0.78)
Unfavorable Market (0.22)
Favorable Market (0.27)
Unfavorable Market (0.73)
Favorable Market (0.27)
Unfavorable Market (0.73)
Favorable Market (0.50)
Unfavorable Market (0.50)
Favorable Market (0.50)
Unfavorable Market (0.50)
Large Plant
Small
Plant
No Plant
6
7
ConductM
arketSurvey
Do Not Conduct Survey
Large Plant
Small
Plant
No Plant
2
3
Large Plant
Small
Plant
No Plant
4
5
1
Results
Favorable
Results
Negative
Survey
(0.45)
Survey
(0.55)
Payoffs
–$190,000
$190,000
$90,000
–$30,000
–$10,000
–$180,000
$200,000
$100,000
–$20,000
$0
–$190,000
$190,000
$90,000
–$30,000
–$10,000
Figure 3.4
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 40
Thompson’s Complex Decision Tree
Given favorable survey results,
EMV(node 2) = EMV(large plant | positive survey)
= (0.78)($190,000) + (0.22)(–$190,000) = $106,400
EMV(node 3) = EMV(small plant | positive survey)
= (0.78)($90,000) + (0.22)(–$30,000) = $63,600
EMV for no plant = –$10,000
Given negative survey results,
EMV(node 4) = EMV(large plant | negative survey)
= (0.27)($190,000) + (0.73)(–$190,000) = –$87,400
EMV(node 5) = EMV(small plant | negative survey)
= (0.27)($90,000) + (0.73)(–$30,000) = $2,400
EMV for no plant = –$10,000
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 41
Thompson’s Complex Decision Tree
Compute the expected value of the market survey,
EMV(node 1) = EMV(conduct survey)
= (0.45)($106,400) + (0.55)($2,400)
= $47,880 + $1,320 = $49,200
f the market survey is not conducted,
EMV(node 6) = EMV(large plant)
= (0.50)($200,000) + (0.50)(–$180,000) = $10,000
EMV(node 7) = EMV(small plant)
= (0.50)($100,000) + (0.50)(–$20,000) = $40,000
EMV for no plant = $0
Best choice is to seek marketing information
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 42
Thompson’s Complex Decision Tree
Figure 3.4
First Decision
Point
Second Decision
Point
Favorable Market (0.78)
Unfavorable Market (0.22)
Favorable Market (0.78)
Unfavorable Market (0.22)
Favorable Market (0.27)
Unfavorable Market (0.73)
Favorable Market (0.27)
Unfavorable Market (0.73)
Favorable Market (0.50)
Unfavorable Market (0.50)
Favorable Market (0.50)
Unfavorable Market (0.50)
Large Plant
Small
Plant
No Plant
ConductM
arketSurvey
Do Not Conduct Survey
Large Plant
Small
Plant
No Plant
Large Plant
Small
Plant
No Plant
Results
Favorable
Results
Negative
Survey
(0.45)
Survey
(0.55)
Payoffs
–$190,000
$190,000
$90,000
–$30,000
–$10,000
–$180,000
$200,000
$100,000
–$20,000
$0
–$190,000
$190,000
$90,000
–$30,000
–$10,000
$40,000$2,400$106,400
$49,200
$106,400
$63,600
–$87,400
$2,400
$10,000
$40,000
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 43
Expected Value of Sample Information
 Thompson wants to know the actual value
of doing the survey
EVSI = –
Expected value
withwith sample
information, assuming
no cost to gather it
Expected value
of best decision
withoutwithout sample
information
= (EV with sample information + cost)
– (EV without sample information)
EVSI = ($49,200 + $10,000) – $40,000 = $19,200
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 44
Sensitivity Analysis
 How sensitive are the decisions to
changes in the probabilities?
 How sensitive is our decision to the
probability of a favorable survey result?
 That is, if the probability of a favorable
result (p = .45) where to change, would we
make the same decision?
 How much could it change before we would
make a different decision?
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 45
Sensitivity Analysis
p = probability of a favorable survey
result
(1 – p) = probability of a negative survey
resultEMV(node 1) = ($106,400)p +($2,400)(1 – p)
= $104,000p + $2,400
We are indifferent when the EMV of node 1 is the
same as the EMV of not conducting the survey,
$40,000
$104,000p + $2,400= $40,000
$104,000p = $37,600
p = $37,600/$104,000 = 0.36
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 46
Bayesian Analysis
 Many ways of getting probability data
 It can be based on
 Management’s experience and intuition
 Historical data
 Computed from other data using Bayes’
theorem
 Bayes’ theorem incorporates initial
estimates and information about the
accuracy of the sources
 Allows the revision of initial estimates
based on new information
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 47
Calculating Revised Probabilities
 In the Thompson Lumber case we used these four
conditional probabilities
P (favorable market(FM) | survey results positive) = 0.78
P (unfavorable market(UM) | survey results positive) = 0.22
P (favorable market(FM) | survey results negative) = 0.27
P (unfavorable market(UM) | survey results negative) = 0.73
 The prior probabilities of these markets are
P (FM) = 0.50
P (UM) = 0.50
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 48
Calculating Revised Probabilities
 Through discussions with experts Thompson has
learned the following
 He can use this information and Bayes’ theorem
to calculate posterior probabilities
STATE OF NATURE
RESULT OF
SURVEY
FAVORABLE MARKET
(FM)
UNFAVORABLE MARKET
(UM)
Positive (predicts
favorable market
for product)
P (survey positive | FM)
= 0.70
P (survey positive | UM)
= 0.20
Negative (predicts
unfavorable
market for
product)
P (survey negative | FM)
= 0.30
P (survey negative | UM)
= 0.80
Table 3.11
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 49
Calculating Revised Probabilities
 Recall Bayes’ theorem is
)()|()()|(
)()|(
)|(
APABPAPABP
APABP
BAP
′×′+×
×
=
where
eventstwoany=BA,
AA ofcomplement=′
For this example, A will represent a favorable
market and B will represent a positive survey
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 50
Calculating Revised Probabilities
 P (FM | survey positive)
P(UM)|UM)P(P(FM)|FM)P(
FMPFMP
×+×
×
=
positivesurveypositivesurvey
positivesurvey )()|(
780
450
350
500200500700
500700
.
.
.
).)(.().)(.(
).)(.(
==
+
=
P(FM)|FM)P(P(UM)|UM)P(
UMPUMP
×+×
×
=
positivesurveypositivesurvey
positivesurvey )()|(
220
450
100
500700500200
500200
.
.
.
).)(.().)(.(
).)(.(
==
+
=
 P (UM | survey positive)
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 51
Calculating Revised Probabilities
POSTERIOR PROBABILITY
STATE OF
NATURE
CONDITIONAL
PROBABILITY
P(SURVEY
POSITIVE | STATE
OF NATURE)
PRIOR
PROBABILITY
JOINT
PROBABILITY
P(STATE OF
NATURE |
SURVEY
POSITIVE)
FM 0.70 X 0.50 = 0.35 0.35/0.45 = 0.78
UM 0.20 X 0.50 = 0.10 0.10/0.45 = 0.22
P(survey results positive) = 0.45 1.00
Table 3.12
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 52
Calculating Revised Probabilities
 P (FM | survey negative)
P(UM)|UM)P(P(FM)|FM)P(
FMPFMP
×+×
×
=
negativesurveynegativesurvey
negativesurvey )()|(
270
550
150
500800500300
500300
.
.
.
).)(.().)(.(
).)(.(
==
+
=
P(FM)|FM)P(P(UM)|UM)P(
UMPUMP
×+×
×
=
negativesurveynegativesurvey
negativesurvey )()|(
730
550
400
500300500800
500800
.
.
.
).)(.().)(.(
).)(.(
==
+
=
 P (UM | survey negative)
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 53
Calculating Revised Probabilities
POSTERIOR PROBABILITY
STATE OF
NATURE
CONDITIONAL
PROBABILITY
P(SURVEY
NEGATIVE | STATE
OF NATURE)
PRIOR
PROBABILITY
JOINT
PROBABILITY
P(STATE OF
NATURE |
SURVEY
NEGATIVE)
FM 0.30 X 0.50 = 0.15 0.15/0.55 = 0.27
UM 0.80 X 0.50 = 0.40 0.40/0.55 = 0.73
P(survey results positive) = 0.55 1.00
Table 3.13
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 54
Potential Problems Using
Survey Results
 We can not always get the necessary
data for analysis
 Survey results may be based on cases
where an action was taken
 Conditional probability information
may not be as accurate as we would
like
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 55
Utility Theory
 Monetary value is not always a true
indicator of the overall value of the
result of a decision
 The overall value of a decision is called
utilityutility
 Rational people make decisions to
maximize their utility
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 56
Heads
(0.5)
Tails
(0.5)
$5,000,000
$0
Utility Theory
Accept
Offer
Reject
Offer
$2,000,000
EMV = $2,500,000
Figure 3.6
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 57
Utility Theory
 Utility assessmentUtility assessment assigns the worst outcome
a utility of 0, and the best outcome, a utility of 1
 A standard gamblestandard gamble is used to determine utility
values
 When you are indifferent, the utility values are
equal
Expected utility of alternative 2 =
Expected utility of alternative 1
Utility of other outcome = (p)
(utility of best outcome, which is 1)
+ (1 – p)(utility of the worst
outcome, which is 0)
Utility of other outcome = (p)
(1) + (1 – p)(0) = p
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 58
Standard Gamble
Best Outcome
Utility = 1
Worst Outcome
Utility = 0
Other Outcome
Utility = ?
(p)
(1 – p)
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Figure 3.7
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 59
Investment Example
 Jane Dickson wants to construct a utility curve
revealing her preference for money between $0
and $10,000
 A utility curve plots the utility value versus the
monetary value
 An investment in a bank will result in $5,000
 An investment in real estate will result in $0 or
$10,000
 Unless there is an 80% chance of getting $10,000
from the real estate deal, Jane would prefer to
have her money in the bank
 So if p = 0.80, Jane is indifferent between the bank
or the real estate investment
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 60
Investment Example
Figure 3.8
p = 0.80
(1 – p) = 0.20
Invest in
Real Estate
Invest in Bank
$10,000
U($10,000) = 1.0
$0
U($0.00) = 0.0
$5,000
U($5,000) = p = 1.0
Utility for $5,000 = U($5,000) = pU($10,000) + (1 – p)U($0)
= (0.8)(1) + (0.2)(0) = 0.8
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 61
Investment Example
Utility for $7,000 = 0.90
Utility for $3,000 = 0.50
 We can assess other utility values in the same way
 For Jane these are
 Using the three utilities for different dollar amounts,
she can construct a utility curve
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 62
Utility Curve
U ($7,000) = 0.90
U ($5,000) = 0.80
U ($3,000) = 0.50
U ($0) = 0
Figure 3.9
1.0 –
0.9 –
0.8 –
0.7 –
0.6 –
0.5 –
0.4 –
0.3 –
0.2 –
0.1 –
| | | | | | | | | | |
$0 $1,000 $3,000 $5,000 $7,000 $10,000
Monetary Value
Utility
U ($10,000) = 1.0
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 63
Utility Curve
 Jane’s utility curve is typical of a risk
avoider
 A risk avoider gets less utility from greater risk
 Avoids situations where high losses might
occur
 As monetary value increases, the utility curve
increases at a slower rate
 A risk seeker gets more utility from greater risk
 As monetary value increases, the utility curve
increases at a faster rate
 Someone who is indifferent will have a linear
utility curve
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 64
Utility Curve
Figure 3.10
Monetary Outcome
Utility
Risk
Avoider
R
isk
Indifference
Risk
Seeker
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 65
Utility as a
Decision-Making Criteria
 Once a utility curve has been developed
it can be used in making decisions
 Replace monetary outcomes with utility
values
 The expected utility is computed instead
of the EMV
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 66
Utility as a
Decision-Making Criteria
 Mark Simkin loves to gamble
 He plays a game tossing thumbtacks in
the air
 If the thumbtack lands point up, Mark wins
$10,000
 If the thumbtack lands point down, Mark
loses $10,000
 Should Mark play the game (alternative 1)?
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 67
Utility as a
Decision-Making Criteria
Figure 3.11
Tack Lands
Point Up (0.45)
Alternative 1
Mark Plays the Game
Alternative 2
$10,000
–$10,000
$0
Tack Lands
Point Down (0.55)
Mark Does Not Play the Game
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 68
Utility as a
Decision-Making Criteria
 Step 1– Define Mark’s utilities
U (–$10,000) = 0.05
U ($0) = 0.15
U ($10,000) = 0.30
 Step 2 – Replace monetary values with
utility values
E(alternative 1: play the game) = (0.45)(0.30) + (0.55)(0.05)
= 0.135 + 0.027 = 0.162
E(alternative 2: don’t play the game) = 0.15
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 69
Utility as a
Decision-Making Criteria
Figure 3.12
1.00 –
0.75 –
0.50 –
0.30 –
0.25 –
0.15 –
0.05 –
0 –| | | | |
–$20,000 –$10,000 $0 $10,000 $20,000
Monetary Outcome
Utility
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 70
Utility as a
Decision-Making Criteria
Figure 3.13
Tack Lands
Point Up (0.45)
Alternative 1
Mark Plays the Game
Alternative 2
0.30
0.05
0.15
Tack Lands
Point Down (0.55)
Don’t Play
Utility
E = 0.162

More Related Content

PDF
165662191 chapter-03-answers-1
PPTX
unbalanced transportation problem
DOC
PPT
Scheduling and sequencing
PPT
Toyota Motor Manufacturing (Tmm)
PDF
simplex method for operation research .pdf
DOCX
Assembly Line Balancing -Example
165662191 chapter-03-answers-1
unbalanced transportation problem
Scheduling and sequencing
Toyota Motor Manufacturing (Tmm)
simplex method for operation research .pdf
Assembly Line Balancing -Example

What's hot (20)

PPTX
Toyota Logistics
PPT
03 decision analysis
PDF
3. linear programming senstivity analysis
PPTX
Aggregate planning
PPTX
Operations Management : Line Balancing
DOCX
84804502 operations-management-case-study
PDF
Decision tree example problem
PDF
Queuing Theory - Operation Research
PPT
Chap16 decision making
DOC
DOCX
Queuing theory
PPTX
Sequential Models - Meaning, assumptions, Types and Problems
PPTX
Least Cost Method - operation research
PPTX
Aggregate Planning
PPTX
Process layout operations management
PDF
Solutions manual for operations research an introduction 10th edition by taha...
PPT
Markov analysis
PDF
Queueing theory
DOC
Facility location
PPT
Rsh qam11 ch03 ge
Toyota Logistics
03 decision analysis
3. linear programming senstivity analysis
Aggregate planning
Operations Management : Line Balancing
84804502 operations-management-case-study
Decision tree example problem
Queuing Theory - Operation Research
Chap16 decision making
Queuing theory
Sequential Models - Meaning, assumptions, Types and Problems
Least Cost Method - operation research
Aggregate Planning
Process layout operations management
Solutions manual for operations research an introduction 10th edition by taha...
Markov analysis
Queueing theory
Facility location
Rsh qam11 ch03 ge
Ad

Similar to Render03 140622012601-phpapp02 (1) (20)

PPT
QA Chaptnbvnb mnn bnvcbncbver 4 (2) (2).ppt
PPT
ch03 - Decision Analysis of Quantitative Analysis.ppt
PDF
Decision Theory
PPT
Bba 3274 qm week 4 decision analysis
PPT
Decision theory
PPT
Chapter3
PDF
Heizer om10 mod_a
PDF
Decision Theory Notes operations research.pdf
PPT
modA.ppt operation management slide for business
PPTX
Decision theory
PPTX
Decision theory
PPT
Unit i-2-dt
PPTX
Ppt on decision theory
PPTX
Decision theory
PPT
DecisionMaking.pAdd more information to your uploadAdd more information to yo...
PPT
Operations Research chapter 5.- decision theory ppt
PPT
Business Statistics 17th ED Chapter_20.ppt
PPTX
Decision analysis
PPT
Rsh qam11 ch03
PDF
Decision Analysis.pdf
QA Chaptnbvnb mnn bnvcbncbver 4 (2) (2).ppt
ch03 - Decision Analysis of Quantitative Analysis.ppt
Decision Theory
Bba 3274 qm week 4 decision analysis
Decision theory
Chapter3
Heizer om10 mod_a
Decision Theory Notes operations research.pdf
modA.ppt operation management slide for business
Decision theory
Decision theory
Unit i-2-dt
Ppt on decision theory
Decision theory
DecisionMaking.pAdd more information to your uploadAdd more information to yo...
Operations Research chapter 5.- decision theory ppt
Business Statistics 17th ED Chapter_20.ppt
Decision analysis
Rsh qam11 ch03
Decision Analysis.pdf
Ad

More from Firas Husseini (20)

PDF
Ali M Fadel CV
PPT
Transportation problems1
PDF
Slides for ch08
PDF
Slides for ch07
PDF
Slides for ch06
PDF
Slides for ch05
PPT
Rsh qam11 ch10 ge
PPT
Rsh qam11 ch09 ge
PPT
Rsh qam11 ch08 ge
PPT
Rsh qam11 ch07 ge
PPT
Rsh qam11 ch06 ge
PPT
Rsh qam11 ch05 ge
PPT
Rsh qam11 ch04 ge
PPT
Rsh qam11 ch02
PPT
Rsh qam11 ch01
PDF
Render03 140622012601-phpapp02
PDF
Render01edited 121120194704-phpapp02
PPT
Render 09
PDF
Quantitativeanalysisfordecisionmaking 13427543542352-phpapp02-120719222252-ph...
PDF
Chp12networksmodel 121128084640-phpapp01
Ali M Fadel CV
Transportation problems1
Slides for ch08
Slides for ch07
Slides for ch06
Slides for ch05
Rsh qam11 ch10 ge
Rsh qam11 ch09 ge
Rsh qam11 ch08 ge
Rsh qam11 ch07 ge
Rsh qam11 ch06 ge
Rsh qam11 ch05 ge
Rsh qam11 ch04 ge
Rsh qam11 ch02
Rsh qam11 ch01
Render03 140622012601-phpapp02
Render01edited 121120194704-phpapp02
Render 09
Quantitativeanalysisfordecisionmaking 13427543542352-phpapp02-120719222252-ph...
Chp12networksmodel 121128084640-phpapp01

Recently uploaded (20)

DOCX
FINALS-BSHhchcuvivicucucucucM-Centro.docx
PDF
Introduction to Generative Engine Optimization (GEO)
PDF
533158074-Saudi-Arabia-Companies-List-Contact.pdf
PPTX
basic introduction to research chapter 1.pptx
PPTX
IITM - FINAL Option - 01 - 12.08.25.pptx
PDF
1911 Gold Corporate Presentation Aug 2025.pdf
PDF
TyAnn Osborn: A Visionary Leader Shaping Corporate Workforce Dynamics
PPTX
interschool scomp.pptxzdkjhdjvdjvdjdhjhieij
PPTX
2 - Self & Personality 587689213yiuedhwejbmansbeakjrk
DOCX
Center Enamel A Strategic Partner for the Modernization of Georgia's Chemical...
PDF
Satish NS: Fostering Innovation and Sustainability: Haier India’s Customer-Ce...
PPTX
TRAINNING, DEVELOPMENT AND APPRAISAL.pptx
PPTX
Slide gioi thieu VietinBank Quy 2 - 2025
PDF
income tax laws notes important pakistan
PPTX
Slide gioi thieu VietinBank Quy 2 - 2025
PDF
Chapter 2 - AI chatbots and prompt engineering.pdf
PDF
ICv2 White Paper - Gen Con Trade Day 2025
DOCX
Center Enamel Powering Innovation and Resilience in the Italian Chemical Indu...
PDF
NISM Series V-A MFD Workbook v December 2024.khhhjtgvwevoypdnew one must use ...
PPTX
svnfcksanfskjcsnvvjknsnvsdscnsncxasxa saccacxsax
FINALS-BSHhchcuvivicucucucucM-Centro.docx
Introduction to Generative Engine Optimization (GEO)
533158074-Saudi-Arabia-Companies-List-Contact.pdf
basic introduction to research chapter 1.pptx
IITM - FINAL Option - 01 - 12.08.25.pptx
1911 Gold Corporate Presentation Aug 2025.pdf
TyAnn Osborn: A Visionary Leader Shaping Corporate Workforce Dynamics
interschool scomp.pptxzdkjhdjvdjvdjdhjhieij
2 - Self & Personality 587689213yiuedhwejbmansbeakjrk
Center Enamel A Strategic Partner for the Modernization of Georgia's Chemical...
Satish NS: Fostering Innovation and Sustainability: Haier India’s Customer-Ce...
TRAINNING, DEVELOPMENT AND APPRAISAL.pptx
Slide gioi thieu VietinBank Quy 2 - 2025
income tax laws notes important pakistan
Slide gioi thieu VietinBank Quy 2 - 2025
Chapter 2 - AI chatbots and prompt engineering.pdf
ICv2 White Paper - Gen Con Trade Day 2025
Center Enamel Powering Innovation and Resilience in the Italian Chemical Indu...
NISM Series V-A MFD Workbook v December 2024.khhhjtgvwevoypdnew one must use ...
svnfcksanfskjcsnvvjknsnvsdscnsncxasxa saccacxsax

Render03 140622012601-phpapp02 (1)

  • 1. © 2008 Prentice-Hall, Inc. Chapter 3 To accompany Quantitative Analysis for Management, Tenth Edition, by Render, Stair, and Hanna Power Point slides created by Jeff Heyl Decision Analysis © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  • 2. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 2 Chapter Outline 3.1 Introduction 3.2 The Six Steps in Decision Making 3.3 Types of Decision-Making Environments 3.4 Decision Making under Uncertainty 3.5 Decision Making under Risk 3.5.1 EMV 3.5.2 Sensitivity Analysis
  • 3. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 3 Introduction  What is involved in making a good decision?  Decision theory is an analytic and systematic approach to the study of decision making  A good decision is one that is based on logic, considers all available data and possible alternatives, and the quantitative approach described here
  • 4. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 4 The Six Steps in Decision Making 1. Clearly define the problem at hand 2. List the possible alternatives 3. Identify the possible outcomes or states of nature 4. List the payoff or profit of each combination of alternatives and outcomes 5. Select one of the mathematical decision theory models 6. Apply the model and make your decision
  • 5. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 5 Thompson Lumber Company Step 1 –Step 1 – Define the problem  Expand by manufacturing and marketing a new product, backyard storage sheds Step 2 –Step 2 – List alternatives  Construct a large new plant  A small plant  No plant at all Step 3 –Step 3 – Identify possible outcomes  The market could be favorable or unfavorable
  • 6. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 6 Thompson Lumber Company Step 4 –Step 4 – List the payoffs  Identify conditional valuesconditional values for the profits for large, small, and no plants for the two possible market conditions STATE OF NATURE ALTERNATIVE FAVORABLE MARKET ($) UNFAVORABLE MARKET ($) Construct a large plant 200,000 –180,000 Construct a small plant 100,000 –20,000 Do nothing 0 0
  • 7. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 7 Thompson Lumber Company Step 5 –Step 5 – Select the decision model  Depends on the environment and amount of risk and uncertainty Step 6 –Step 6 – Apply the model to the data  Solution and analysis used to help the decision making
  • 8. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 8 Types of Decision-Making Environments Type 1:Type 1: Decision making under certainty  Decision maker knows with certaintyknows with certainty the consequences of every alternative or decision choice Type 2:Type 2: Decision making under uncertainty  The decision maker does not knowdoes not know the probabilities of the various outcomes Type 3:Type 3: Decision making under risk  The decision maker knows theknows the probabilitiesprobabilities of the various outcomes
  • 9. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 9 Decision Making Under Uncertainty 1. Maximax (optimistic) 2. Maximin (pessimistic) 3. Criterion of realism (Hurwicz) 4. Equally likely (Laplace) 5. Minimax regret There are several criteria for making decisions under uncertainty
  • 10. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 10 Maximax Used to find the alternative that maximizes the maximum payoff  Locate the maximum payoff for each alternative  Select the alternative with the maximum number STATE OF NATURE ALTERNATIVE FAVORABLE MARKET ($) UNFAVORABLE MARKET ($) MAXIMUM IN A ROW ($) Construct a large plant 200,000 –180,000 200,000 Construct a small plant 100,000 –20,000 100,000 Do nothing 0 0 0 Table 3.2 MaximaxMaximax
  • 11. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 11 Maximin Used to find the alternative that maximizes the minimum payoff  Locate the minimum payoff for each alternative  Select the alternative with the maximum number STATE OF NATURE ALTERNATIVE FAVORABLE MARKET ($) UNFAVORABLE MARKET ($) MINIMUM IN A ROW ($) Construct a large plant 200,000 –180,000 –180,000 Construct a small plant 100,000 –20,000 –20,000 Do nothing 0 0 0 Table 3.3 MaximinMaximin
  • 12. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 12 Criterion of Realism (Hurwicz) A weighted averageweighted average compromise between optimistic and pessimistic  Select a coefficient of realism α  Coefficient is between 0 and 1  A value of 1 is 100% optimistic  Compute the weighted averages for each alternative  Select the alternative with the highest value Weighted average = α(maximum in row) + (1 – α)(minimum in row)
  • 13. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 13 Criterion of Realism (Hurwicz)  For the large plant alternative using α = 0.8 (0.8)(200,000) + (1 – 0.8)(–180,000) = 124,000  For the small plant alternative using α = 0.8 (0.8)(100,000) + (1 – 0.8)(–20,000) = 76,000 STATE OF NATURE ALTERNATIVE FAVORABLE MARKET ($) UNFAVORABLE MARKET ($) CRITERION OF REALISM (α = 0.8)$ Construct a large plant 200,000 –180,000 124,000 Construct a small plant 100,000 –20,000 76,000 Do nothing 0 0 0 Table 3.4 RealismRealism
  • 14. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 14 Equally Likely (Laplace) Considers all the payoffs for each alternative  Find the average payoff for each alternative  Select the alternative with the highest average STATE OF NATURE ALTERNATIVE FAVORABLE MARKET ($) UNFAVORABLE MARKET ($) ROW AVERAGE ($) Construct a large plant 200,000 –180,000 10,000 Construct a small plant 100,000 –20,000 40,000 Do nothing 0 0 0 Table 3.5 Equally likelyEqually likely
  • 15. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 15 Minimax Regret Based on opportunity lossopportunity loss or regretregret, the difference between the optimal profit and actual payoff for a decision.  Create an opportunity loss table by determining the opportunity loss for not choosing the best alternative
  • 16. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 16 Minimax Regret  Opportunity loss is calculated by subtracting each payoff in the column from the best payoff in the column STATE OF NATURE FAVORABLE MARKET ($) UNFAVORABLE MARKET ($) 200,000 – 200,000 0 – (–180,000) 200,000 – 100,000 0 – (–20,000) 200,000 – 0 0 – 0 Table 3.6 STATE OF NATURE ALTERNATIVE FAVORABLE MARKET ($) UNFAVORABLE MARKET ($) Construct a large plant 0 180,000 Construct a small plant 100,000 20,000 Do nothing 200,000 0 Table 3.7
  • 17. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 17 Minimax Regret  Find the maximum opportunity loss for each alternative and pick the alternative with the minimum number STATE OF NATURE ALTERNATIVE FAVORABLE MARKET ($) UNFAVORABLE MARKET ($) MAXIMUM IN A ROW ($) Construct a large plant 0 180,000 180,000 Construct a small plant 100,000 20,000 100,000 Do nothing 200,000 0 200,000 MinimaxMinimax Table 3.8
  • 18. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 18 Decision Making Under Risk  Decision making when there are several possible states of nature and we know the probabilities associated with each possible state  Most popular method is to choose the alternative with the highest expected monetary value (expected monetary value (EMVEMV)) native i) = (payoff of first state of nature) x (probability of first state of nature) + (payoff of second state of nature) x (probability of second state of nature) + … + (payoff of last state of nature) x (probability of last state of nature)
  • 19. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 19 EMV for Thompson Lumber  Each market has a probability of 0.50  Which alternative would give the highest EMV?  The calculations are rge plant) = (0.50)($200,000) + (0.50)(–$180,000) = $10,000 mall plant) = (0.50)($100,000) + (0.50)(–$20,000) = $40,000 o nothing) = (0.50)($0) + (0.50)($0) = $0
  • 20. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 20 EMV for Thompson Lumber STATE OF NATURE ALTERNATIVE FAVORABLE MARKET ($) UNFAVORABLE MARKET ($) EMV ($) Construct a large plant 200,000 –180,000 10,000 Construct a small plant 100,000 –20,000 40,000 Do nothing 0 0 0 Probabilities 0.50 0.50 Table 3.9 LargestLargest EMVEMV
  • 21. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 21 Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI)  EVPI places an upper bound on what you should pay for additional information EVPI = EVwPI – Maximum EMV  EVwPI is the long run average return if we have perfect information before a decision is made EVwPI = (best payoff for first state of nature) x (probability of first state of nature) + (best payoff for second state of nature) x (probability of second state of nature) + … + (best payoff for last state of nature) x (probability of last state of nature)
  • 22. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 22 Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI)  Scientific Marketing, Inc. offers analysis that will provide certainty about market conditions (favorable)  Additional information will cost $65,000  Is it worth purchasing the information?
  • 23. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 23 Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) 1. Best alternative for favorable state of nature is build a large plant with a payoff of $200,000 Best alternative for unfavorable state of nature is to do nothing with a payoff of $0 EVwPI = ($200,000)(0.50) + ($0)(0.50) = $100,000 2. The maximum EMV without additional information is $40,000 EVPI = EVwPI – Maximum EMV = $100,000 - $40,000 = $60,000
  • 24. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 24 Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) 1. Best alternative for favorable state of nature is build a large plant with a payoff of $200,000 Best alternative for unfavorable state of nature is to do nothing with a payoff of $0 EVwPI = ($200,000)(0.50) + ($0)(0.50) = $100,000 2. The maximum EMV without additional information is $40,000 EVPI = EVwPI – Maximum EMV = $100,000 - $40,000 = $60,000 So the maximum Thompson should pay for the additional information is $60,000
  • 25. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 25 Expected Opportunity Loss  Expected opportunity lossExpected opportunity loss (EOL) is the cost of not picking the best solution  First construct an opportunity loss table  For each alternative, multiply the opportunity loss by the probability of that loss for each possible outcome and add these together  Minimum EOL will always result in the same decision as maximum EMV  Minimum EOL will always equal EVPI
  • 26. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 26 Expected Opportunity Loss arge plant) = (0.50)($0) + (0.50)($180,000) = $90,000 mall plant) = (0.50)($100,000) + (0.50)($20,000) = $60,000 o nothing) = (0.50)($200,000) + (0.50)($0) = $100,000 Table 3.10 STATE OF NATURE ALTERNATIVE FAVORABLE MARKET ($) UNFAVORABLE MARKET ($) EOL Construct a large plant 0 180,000 90,000 Construct a small plant 100,000 20,000 60,000 Do nothing 200,000 0 100,000 Probabilities 0.50 0.50 MinimumMinimum EOLEOL
  • 27. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 27 Sensitivity Analysis  Sensitivity analysis examines how our decision might change with different input data  For the Thompson Lumber example P = probability of a favorable market (1 – P) = probability of an unfavorable market
  • 28. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 28 Sensitivity Analysis EMV(Large Plant) = $200,000P – $180,000)(1 – P) = $200,000P – $180,000 + $180,000P = $380,000P – $180,000 EMV(Small Plant) = $100,000P – $20,000)(1 – P) = $100,000P – $20,000 + $20,000P = $120,000P – $20,000 EMV(Do Nothing) = $0P + 0(1 – P) = $0
  • 29. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 29 Sensitivity Analysis $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 0 –$100,000 –$200,000 EMV Values EMV (large plant) EMV (small plant) EMV (do nothing) Point 1 Point 2 .167 .615 1 Values of P Figure 3.1
  • 30. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 30 Sensitivity Analysis Point 1:Point 1: EMV(do nothing) = EMV(small plant) 000200001200 ,$,$ −= P 1670 000120 00020 . , , ==P 00018000038000020000120 ,$,$,$,$ −=− PP 6150 000260 000160 . , , ==P Point 2:Point 2: EMV(small plant) = EMV(large plant)
  • 31. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 31 Sensitivity Analysis $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 0 –$100,000 –$200,000 EMV Values EMV (large plant) EMV (small plant) EMV (do nothing) Point 1 Point 2 .167 .615 1 Values of P Figure 3.1 BEST ALTERNATIVE RANGE OF P VALUES Do nothing Less than 0.167 Construct a small plant 0.167 – 0.615 Construct a large plant Greater than 0.615
  • 32. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 32 Using Excel QM to Solve Decision Theory Problems Program 3.1A
  • 33. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 33 Using Excel QM to Solve Decision Theory Problems Program 3.1B
  • 34. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 34 Decision Trees  Any problem that can be presented in a decision table can also be graphically represented in a decision treedecision tree  Decision trees are most beneficial when a sequence of decisions must be made  All decision trees contain decision pointsdecision points or nodesnodes and state-of-nature pointsstate-of-nature points or nodesnodes  A decision node from which one of several alternatives may be chosen  A state-of-nature node out of which one state of nature will occur
  • 35. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 35 Five Steps to Decision Tree Analysis 1. Define the problem 2. Structure or draw the decision tree 3. Assign probabilities to the states of nature 4. Estimate payoffs for each possible combination of alternatives and states of nature 5. Solve the problem by computing expected monetary values (EMVs) for each state of nature node
  • 36. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 36 Structure of Decision Trees  Trees start from left to right  Represent decisions and outcomes in sequential order  Squares represent decision nodes  Circles represent states of nature nodes  Lines or branches connect the decisions nodes and the states of nature
  • 37. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 37 Thompson’s Decision Tree Favorable Market Unfavorable Market Favorable Market Unfavorable Market Do Nothing Construct Large Plant 1 Construct Small Plant 2 Figure 3.2 A Decision Node A State-of-Nature Node
  • 38. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 38 Thompson’s Decision Tree Favorable Market Unfavorable Market Favorable Market Unfavorable Market Do Nothing Construct Large Plant 1 Construct Small Plant 2 Alternative with best EMV is selected Figure 3.3 EMV for Node 1 = $10,000 = (0.5)($200,000) + (0.5)(–$180,000) EMV for Node 2 = $40,000 = (0.5)($100,000) + (0.5)(–$20,000) Payoffs $200,000 –$180,000 $100,000 –$20,000 $0 (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5)
  • 39. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 39 Thompson’s Complex Decision Tree First Decision Point Second Decision Point Favorable Market (0.78) Unfavorable Market (0.22) Favorable Market (0.78) Unfavorable Market (0.22) Favorable Market (0.27) Unfavorable Market (0.73) Favorable Market (0.27) Unfavorable Market (0.73) Favorable Market (0.50) Unfavorable Market (0.50) Favorable Market (0.50) Unfavorable Market (0.50) Large Plant Small Plant No Plant 6 7 ConductM arketSurvey Do Not Conduct Survey Large Plant Small Plant No Plant 2 3 Large Plant Small Plant No Plant 4 5 1 Results Favorable Results Negative Survey (0.45) Survey (0.55) Payoffs –$190,000 $190,000 $90,000 –$30,000 –$10,000 –$180,000 $200,000 $100,000 –$20,000 $0 –$190,000 $190,000 $90,000 –$30,000 –$10,000 Figure 3.4
  • 40. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 40 Thompson’s Complex Decision Tree Given favorable survey results, EMV(node 2) = EMV(large plant | positive survey) = (0.78)($190,000) + (0.22)(–$190,000) = $106,400 EMV(node 3) = EMV(small plant | positive survey) = (0.78)($90,000) + (0.22)(–$30,000) = $63,600 EMV for no plant = –$10,000 Given negative survey results, EMV(node 4) = EMV(large plant | negative survey) = (0.27)($190,000) + (0.73)(–$190,000) = –$87,400 EMV(node 5) = EMV(small plant | negative survey) = (0.27)($90,000) + (0.73)(–$30,000) = $2,400 EMV for no plant = –$10,000
  • 41. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 41 Thompson’s Complex Decision Tree Compute the expected value of the market survey, EMV(node 1) = EMV(conduct survey) = (0.45)($106,400) + (0.55)($2,400) = $47,880 + $1,320 = $49,200 f the market survey is not conducted, EMV(node 6) = EMV(large plant) = (0.50)($200,000) + (0.50)(–$180,000) = $10,000 EMV(node 7) = EMV(small plant) = (0.50)($100,000) + (0.50)(–$20,000) = $40,000 EMV for no plant = $0 Best choice is to seek marketing information
  • 42. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 42 Thompson’s Complex Decision Tree Figure 3.4 First Decision Point Second Decision Point Favorable Market (0.78) Unfavorable Market (0.22) Favorable Market (0.78) Unfavorable Market (0.22) Favorable Market (0.27) Unfavorable Market (0.73) Favorable Market (0.27) Unfavorable Market (0.73) Favorable Market (0.50) Unfavorable Market (0.50) Favorable Market (0.50) Unfavorable Market (0.50) Large Plant Small Plant No Plant ConductM arketSurvey Do Not Conduct Survey Large Plant Small Plant No Plant Large Plant Small Plant No Plant Results Favorable Results Negative Survey (0.45) Survey (0.55) Payoffs –$190,000 $190,000 $90,000 –$30,000 –$10,000 –$180,000 $200,000 $100,000 –$20,000 $0 –$190,000 $190,000 $90,000 –$30,000 –$10,000 $40,000$2,400$106,400 $49,200 $106,400 $63,600 –$87,400 $2,400 $10,000 $40,000
  • 43. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 43 Expected Value of Sample Information  Thompson wants to know the actual value of doing the survey EVSI = – Expected value withwith sample information, assuming no cost to gather it Expected value of best decision withoutwithout sample information = (EV with sample information + cost) – (EV without sample information) EVSI = ($49,200 + $10,000) – $40,000 = $19,200
  • 44. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 44 Sensitivity Analysis  How sensitive are the decisions to changes in the probabilities?  How sensitive is our decision to the probability of a favorable survey result?  That is, if the probability of a favorable result (p = .45) where to change, would we make the same decision?  How much could it change before we would make a different decision?
  • 45. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 45 Sensitivity Analysis p = probability of a favorable survey result (1 – p) = probability of a negative survey resultEMV(node 1) = ($106,400)p +($2,400)(1 – p) = $104,000p + $2,400 We are indifferent when the EMV of node 1 is the same as the EMV of not conducting the survey, $40,000 $104,000p + $2,400= $40,000 $104,000p = $37,600 p = $37,600/$104,000 = 0.36
  • 46. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 46 Bayesian Analysis  Many ways of getting probability data  It can be based on  Management’s experience and intuition  Historical data  Computed from other data using Bayes’ theorem  Bayes’ theorem incorporates initial estimates and information about the accuracy of the sources  Allows the revision of initial estimates based on new information
  • 47. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 47 Calculating Revised Probabilities  In the Thompson Lumber case we used these four conditional probabilities P (favorable market(FM) | survey results positive) = 0.78 P (unfavorable market(UM) | survey results positive) = 0.22 P (favorable market(FM) | survey results negative) = 0.27 P (unfavorable market(UM) | survey results negative) = 0.73  The prior probabilities of these markets are P (FM) = 0.50 P (UM) = 0.50
  • 48. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 48 Calculating Revised Probabilities  Through discussions with experts Thompson has learned the following  He can use this information and Bayes’ theorem to calculate posterior probabilities STATE OF NATURE RESULT OF SURVEY FAVORABLE MARKET (FM) UNFAVORABLE MARKET (UM) Positive (predicts favorable market for product) P (survey positive | FM) = 0.70 P (survey positive | UM) = 0.20 Negative (predicts unfavorable market for product) P (survey negative | FM) = 0.30 P (survey negative | UM) = 0.80 Table 3.11
  • 49. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 49 Calculating Revised Probabilities  Recall Bayes’ theorem is )()|()()|( )()|( )|( APABPAPABP APABP BAP ′×′+× × = where eventstwoany=BA, AA ofcomplement=′ For this example, A will represent a favorable market and B will represent a positive survey
  • 50. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 50 Calculating Revised Probabilities  P (FM | survey positive) P(UM)|UM)P(P(FM)|FM)P( FMPFMP ×+× × = positivesurveypositivesurvey positivesurvey )()|( 780 450 350 500200500700 500700 . . . ).)(.().)(.( ).)(.( == + = P(FM)|FM)P(P(UM)|UM)P( UMPUMP ×+× × = positivesurveypositivesurvey positivesurvey )()|( 220 450 100 500700500200 500200 . . . ).)(.().)(.( ).)(.( == + =  P (UM | survey positive)
  • 51. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 51 Calculating Revised Probabilities POSTERIOR PROBABILITY STATE OF NATURE CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY P(SURVEY POSITIVE | STATE OF NATURE) PRIOR PROBABILITY JOINT PROBABILITY P(STATE OF NATURE | SURVEY POSITIVE) FM 0.70 X 0.50 = 0.35 0.35/0.45 = 0.78 UM 0.20 X 0.50 = 0.10 0.10/0.45 = 0.22 P(survey results positive) = 0.45 1.00 Table 3.12
  • 52. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 52 Calculating Revised Probabilities  P (FM | survey negative) P(UM)|UM)P(P(FM)|FM)P( FMPFMP ×+× × = negativesurveynegativesurvey negativesurvey )()|( 270 550 150 500800500300 500300 . . . ).)(.().)(.( ).)(.( == + = P(FM)|FM)P(P(UM)|UM)P( UMPUMP ×+× × = negativesurveynegativesurvey negativesurvey )()|( 730 550 400 500300500800 500800 . . . ).)(.().)(.( ).)(.( == + =  P (UM | survey negative)
  • 53. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 53 Calculating Revised Probabilities POSTERIOR PROBABILITY STATE OF NATURE CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY P(SURVEY NEGATIVE | STATE OF NATURE) PRIOR PROBABILITY JOINT PROBABILITY P(STATE OF NATURE | SURVEY NEGATIVE) FM 0.30 X 0.50 = 0.15 0.15/0.55 = 0.27 UM 0.80 X 0.50 = 0.40 0.40/0.55 = 0.73 P(survey results positive) = 0.55 1.00 Table 3.13
  • 54. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 54 Potential Problems Using Survey Results  We can not always get the necessary data for analysis  Survey results may be based on cases where an action was taken  Conditional probability information may not be as accurate as we would like
  • 55. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 55 Utility Theory  Monetary value is not always a true indicator of the overall value of the result of a decision  The overall value of a decision is called utilityutility  Rational people make decisions to maximize their utility
  • 56. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 56 Heads (0.5) Tails (0.5) $5,000,000 $0 Utility Theory Accept Offer Reject Offer $2,000,000 EMV = $2,500,000 Figure 3.6
  • 57. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 57 Utility Theory  Utility assessmentUtility assessment assigns the worst outcome a utility of 0, and the best outcome, a utility of 1  A standard gamblestandard gamble is used to determine utility values  When you are indifferent, the utility values are equal Expected utility of alternative 2 = Expected utility of alternative 1 Utility of other outcome = (p) (utility of best outcome, which is 1) + (1 – p)(utility of the worst outcome, which is 0) Utility of other outcome = (p) (1) + (1 – p)(0) = p
  • 58. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 58 Standard Gamble Best Outcome Utility = 1 Worst Outcome Utility = 0 Other Outcome Utility = ? (p) (1 – p) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Figure 3.7
  • 59. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 59 Investment Example  Jane Dickson wants to construct a utility curve revealing her preference for money between $0 and $10,000  A utility curve plots the utility value versus the monetary value  An investment in a bank will result in $5,000  An investment in real estate will result in $0 or $10,000  Unless there is an 80% chance of getting $10,000 from the real estate deal, Jane would prefer to have her money in the bank  So if p = 0.80, Jane is indifferent between the bank or the real estate investment
  • 60. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 60 Investment Example Figure 3.8 p = 0.80 (1 – p) = 0.20 Invest in Real Estate Invest in Bank $10,000 U($10,000) = 1.0 $0 U($0.00) = 0.0 $5,000 U($5,000) = p = 1.0 Utility for $5,000 = U($5,000) = pU($10,000) + (1 – p)U($0) = (0.8)(1) + (0.2)(0) = 0.8
  • 61. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 61 Investment Example Utility for $7,000 = 0.90 Utility for $3,000 = 0.50  We can assess other utility values in the same way  For Jane these are  Using the three utilities for different dollar amounts, she can construct a utility curve
  • 62. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 62 Utility Curve U ($7,000) = 0.90 U ($5,000) = 0.80 U ($3,000) = 0.50 U ($0) = 0 Figure 3.9 1.0 – 0.9 – 0.8 – 0.7 – 0.6 – 0.5 – 0.4 – 0.3 – 0.2 – 0.1 – | | | | | | | | | | | $0 $1,000 $3,000 $5,000 $7,000 $10,000 Monetary Value Utility U ($10,000) = 1.0
  • 63. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 63 Utility Curve  Jane’s utility curve is typical of a risk avoider  A risk avoider gets less utility from greater risk  Avoids situations where high losses might occur  As monetary value increases, the utility curve increases at a slower rate  A risk seeker gets more utility from greater risk  As monetary value increases, the utility curve increases at a faster rate  Someone who is indifferent will have a linear utility curve
  • 64. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 64 Utility Curve Figure 3.10 Monetary Outcome Utility Risk Avoider R isk Indifference Risk Seeker
  • 65. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 65 Utility as a Decision-Making Criteria  Once a utility curve has been developed it can be used in making decisions  Replace monetary outcomes with utility values  The expected utility is computed instead of the EMV
  • 66. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 66 Utility as a Decision-Making Criteria  Mark Simkin loves to gamble  He plays a game tossing thumbtacks in the air  If the thumbtack lands point up, Mark wins $10,000  If the thumbtack lands point down, Mark loses $10,000  Should Mark play the game (alternative 1)?
  • 67. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 67 Utility as a Decision-Making Criteria Figure 3.11 Tack Lands Point Up (0.45) Alternative 1 Mark Plays the Game Alternative 2 $10,000 –$10,000 $0 Tack Lands Point Down (0.55) Mark Does Not Play the Game
  • 68. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 68 Utility as a Decision-Making Criteria  Step 1– Define Mark’s utilities U (–$10,000) = 0.05 U ($0) = 0.15 U ($10,000) = 0.30  Step 2 – Replace monetary values with utility values E(alternative 1: play the game) = (0.45)(0.30) + (0.55)(0.05) = 0.135 + 0.027 = 0.162 E(alternative 2: don’t play the game) = 0.15
  • 69. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 69 Utility as a Decision-Making Criteria Figure 3.12 1.00 – 0.75 – 0.50 – 0.30 – 0.25 – 0.15 – 0.05 – 0 –| | | | | –$20,000 –$10,000 $0 $10,000 $20,000 Monetary Outcome Utility
  • 70. © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3 – 70 Utility as a Decision-Making Criteria Figure 3.13 Tack Lands Point Up (0.45) Alternative 1 Mark Plays the Game Alternative 2 0.30 0.05 0.15 Tack Lands Point Down (0.55) Don’t Play Utility E = 0.162