Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To accompany
Quantitative Analysis for Management, Tenth Edition,
by Render, Stair, and Hanna 2008 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Power Point slides created by Jeff Heyl 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Introduction
Table 7.2
100
This Axis Represents the Constraint T 0
80
Number of Chairs
60
40 This Axis Represents the
Constraint C 0
20
| | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 T
(T = 0, C = 80)
60
40
(T = 60, C = 0)
20
| | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 T
60
(30, 40) (70, 40)
40
20
(30, 20)
| | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 T
100 (T = 0, C = 100)
80
Number of Chairs
Painting/Varnishing Constraint
60
40
Carpentry Constraint
20 Feasible
Region
| | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 T
60
$2,100 = $70T + $50C
(0, 42)
40
(30, 0)
20
| | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 T
60
3
40
20
1 | | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 T
4
Figure 7.9 Number of Tables
Table 7.3
Program 7.1A
Program 7.1B
Program 7.1C
Program 7.1D
Table 7.4
Pounds of Brand 2
solution region
15
The optimal Feasible Region
solution will lie at a
10
on of the corners
as it would in a Ingredient B Constraint
maximization 5
Ingredient A Constraint
b
problem
0 | | | | c | |
5 10 15 20 25 X1
Figure 7.10 Pounds of Brand 1
2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 46
Holiday Meal Turkey Ranch
We solve for the values of the three corner points
Point a is the intersection of ingredient constraints
C and B
4X1 + 3X2 = 48
X1 = 3
Substituting 3 in the first equation, we find X2 = 12
Solving for point b with basic algebra we find X1 =
8.4 and X2 = 4.8
Solving for point c we find X1 = 18 and X2 = 0
Pounds of Brand 2
cents, it is clear
15
improvement is
possible
10
Program 7.3
Assignment Problems
Involve determining the most efficient way to
assign resources to tasks
Objective may be to minimize travel times or
maximize assignment effectiveness
Assignment problems are unique because they
have a coefficient of 0 or 1 associated with
each variable in the LP constraints and the
right-hand side of each constraint is always
equal to 1
Effectiveness ratings
CLIENTS CASE
CORPORATE
LAWYER DIVORCE MERGER EMBEZZLEMENT EXHIBITIONISM
Adams 6 2 8 5
Brooks 9 3 5 8
Carter 4 8 3 4
Darwin 6 7 6 4
The LP formulation is
6X=
Maximize effectiveness 11 + 2X12 + 8X13 + 5X14 + 9X21 + 3X22
+ 5X23 + 8X24 + 4X31 + 8X32 + 3X33 + 4X
+ 6X41 + 7X42 + 6X43 + 4X44
subject to X11 + X21 + X31 + X41 = 1 (divorce case)
X12 + X22 + X32 + X42 = 1 (merger)
X13 + X23 + X33 + X43 = 1 (embezzlement)
X14 + X24 + X34 + X44 = 1 (exhibitionism)
X11 + X12 + X13 + X14 = 1 (Adams)
X21 + X22 + X23 + X24 = 1 (Brook)
X31 + X32 + X33 + X34 = 1 (Carter)
X41 + X42 + X43 + X44 = 1 (Darwin)
2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 54
Employee Scheduling Applications
Program 8.4
2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 55
Four Special Cases in LP
8
6
Region Satisfying
4 Third Constraint
2
0 | | | | | | | | | |
2 4 6 8 X1
X1 5
15
X2 10
10
Feasible Region
5
X1 + 2X2 15
0 | | | | |
5 10 15 X1
Figure 7.13
2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 60
Four Special Cases in LP
Redundancy
A redundant constraint is one that does not
affect the feasible solution region
One or more constraints may be more binding
This is a very common occurrence in the real
world
It causes no particular problems, but
eliminating redundant constraints simplifies
the model
10
X1 + X2 20
Feasible
5
Region
0 | | | | | |
Figure 7.14 5 10 15 20 25 30 X1
2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 62
Four Special Cases in LP
6 A
Optimal Solution Consists of All
5 Combinations of X1 and X2 Along
Maximize 3X1 + 2X2 the AB Segment
Subj. To: 6X1 + 4X2 < 24 4
X1 <3 3 Isoprofit Line for $8
X1, X 2 > 0
2
B Isoprofit Line for $12
1 Feasible Overlays Line Segment AB
Region
0 | | | | | | | |
Figure 7.15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X1
0 | | | | | |
10 20 30 40 50 60 X1
Figure 7.16 c = (20, 0) (CD players)
2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 69
Changes in the
Objective Function Coefficient
In real-life problems, contribution rates in the
objective functions fluctuate periodically
Graphically, this means that although the feasible
solution region remains exactly the same, the
slope of the isoprofit or isocost line will change
We can often make modest increases or
decreases in the objective function coefficient of
any variable without changing the current optimal
corner point
We need to know how much an objective function
coefficient can change before the optimal solution
would be at a different corner point
0 | | c | | | |
10 20 30 40 50 60 X1
Figure 7.17
Program 7.5A
Program 7.5B
Figure 7.18
X2 (a)
60 If the electricians hours are changed from 80 to
100, the new optimal solution is (0,25) with profit
of $3,000. The extra 20 hours resulted in an
increase in profit of $600 or $30/hour
40
Constraint Representing 60 Hours of
Audio Technicians Time Resource
a
25
20 b Changed Constraint Representing 100 Hours
of Electricians Time Resource
| c | | |
0 20 40 50 60 X1
Figure 7.19
c | | | |
0 20 30 40 60 X1
Figure 7.19
X2 (c)
60
Changed Constraint Representing 240 Hours
of Electricians Time Resource
40
Constraint
Representing
20 60 Hours of Audio
Technicians
Time Resource
| | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
X1
Figure 7.19
Program 7.5A
Program 7.5B
Table 7 6.67 10