Chapter 21

Decision Analysis

Learning Objectives

1. Learn how to describe a problem situation in terms of decisions to be made, chance events and
consequences.

2. Understand how the decision alternatives and chance outcomes are combined to generate the
consequence.

3. Be able to analyze a simple decision analysis problem from both a payoff table and decision tree point
of view.

4. Be able to determine the potential value of additional information.

5. Learn how new information and revised probability values can be used in the decision analysis
approach to problem solving.

6. Understand what a decision strategy is.

7. Learn how to evaluate the contribution and efficiency of additional decision making information.

8. Be able to use a Bayesian approach to computing revised probabilities.

9. Understand the following terms:

decision alternatives expected value of perfect information (EVPI)

consequence chance event decision strategy
states of nature expected value of sample information (EVSI)
payoff table Bayesian revision
decision tree prior probabilities
expected value approach posterior probabilities

21 - 1
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Chapter 21

Solutions:

1. a.
s1
250
d1 s2
100

s3
25

s1
100

d2 s2
100

s3
75

b. EV(d1) = .65(250) + .15(100) + .20(25) = 182.5

EV(d2) = .65(100) + .15(100) + .20(75) = 95

The optimal decision is d1

2. a. EV(d1) = 0.5(14) + 0.2(9) + 0.2(10) + 0.1(5) = 11.3

EV(d2) = 0.5(11) + 0.2(10) + 0.2(8) + 0.1(7) = 9.8
EV(d3) = 0.5(9) + 0.2(10) + 0.2(10) + 0.1(11) = 9.6
EV(d4) = 0.5(8) + 0.2(10) + 0.2(11) + 0.1(13) = 9.5

Recommended decision: d1

b. The best decision in this case is the one with the smallest expected value; thus, d4, with an expected
cost of 9.5, is the recommended decision.

3. a. EV(own staff) = 0.2(650) + 0.5(650) + 0.3(600) = 635

EV(outside vendor) = 0.2(900) + 0.5(600) + 0.3(300) = 570
EV(combination) = 0.2(800) + 0.5(650) + 0.3(500) = 635

The optimal decision is to hire an outside vendor with an expected annual cost of $570,000.

b. EVwPI = .2(650) + .5(600) + .3(300) = 520

EVPI = 520  570 = 50 or $50,000

4. a. The decision to be made is to choose the type of service to provide. The chance event is the level of
demand for the Myrtle Air service. The consequence is the amount of quarterly profit. There are
two decision alternatives (full price and discount service). There are two outcomes for the chance
event (strong demand and weak demand).

b. EV(Full) = 0.7(960) + 0.3(–490) = 525

EV(Discount) = 0.7(670) + 0.3(320) = 565

Optimal Decision: Discount service

21 - 2
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 Decision Analysis

c. EV(Full) = 0.8(960) + 0.2(–490) = 670

EV(Discount) = 0.8(670) + 0.2(320) = 600

Optimal Decision: Full price service

5. a. There is only one decision to be made: whether or not to lengthen the runway. There are only two
decision alternatives. The chance event represents the choices made by Air Express and DRI
concerning whether they locate in Potsdam. Even though these are decisions for Air Express and
DRI, they are chance events for Potsdam.

The payoffs and probabilities for the chance event depend on the decision alternative chosen. If
Potsdam lengthens the runway, there are four outcomes (both, Air Express only, DRI only, neither).
The probabilities and payoffs corresponding to these outcomes are given in the tables of the problem
statement. If Potsdam does not lengthen the runway, Air Express will not locate in Potsdam so we
only need to consider two outcomes: DRI and no DRI. The approximate probabilities and payoffs
for this case are given in the last paragraph of the problem statements.

The consequence is the estimated annual revenue.

b. Runway is Lengthened

New New
Air Express Center DRI Plant Probability Annual Revenue
Yes Yes 0.3 $600,000
Yes No 0.1 $150,000
No Yes 0.4 $250,000
No No 0.2 -$200,000

EV(Runway is Lengthened)= 0.3($600,000) + 0.1($150,000) + 0.4($250,000) – 0.2($200,000)

= $255,000

c. EV(Runway is Not Lengthened) = 0.6($450,000) + 0.4($0) = $270,000

d. The town should not lengthen the runway.

e. EV(Runway is Lengthened)= 0.4(600,000) + 0.1($150,000) + 0.3($250,000) – 0.2(200,000)

= $290,000

The revised probabilities would lead to the decision to lengthen the runway.

6. a. The decision is to choose what type of grapes to plant, the chance event is demand for the wine and
the consequence is the expected annual profit contribution. There are three decision alternatives
(Chardonnay, Riesling and both). There are four chance outcomes: (W,W); (W,S); (S,W); and (S,S).
For instance, (W,S) denotes the outcomes corresponding to weak demand for Chardonnay and strong
demand for Riesling.

b. In constructing a decision tree, it is only necessary to show two branches when only a single grape is
planted. But, the branch probabilities in these cases are the sum of two probabilities. For example,
the probability that demand for Chardonnay is strong is given by:

P(Strong demand for Chardonnay) = P(S,W) + P(S,S)

= 0.25 + 0.20
= 0.45

21 - 3
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Chapter 21

W eak for Chardonnay

20
0.55
Plant Chardonnay
2 EV = 42.5

Strong for Chardonnay

70
0.45

W eak for Chardonnay, W eak for Riesling

22
0.05

W eak for Chardonnay, Strong for Riesling

40
0.50
Plant both grapes
1 3 EV = 39.6

Strong for Chardonnay, W eak for Riesling

26
0.25

Strong for Chardonnay, Strong for Riesling

60
0.20

W eak for Riesling

25
0.30

Plant Riesling
4 EV = 39

Strong for Riesling

45
0.70

c. EV(Plant Chardonnay) = 0.55(20) +0.45(70) = 42.5

EV(Plant both grapes) = 0.05(22) + 0.50(40) + 0.25(26) + 0.20(60) = 39.6
EV(Plant Riesling) = 0.30(25) + 0.70(45) = 39.0

Optimal decision: Plant Chardonnay grapes only.

d. This changes the expected value in the case where both grapes are planted and when Riesling only is
planted.

EV(Plant both grapes) = 0.05(22) + 0.50(40) +0.05(26) + 0.40(60) = 46.4

EV(Plant Riesling) = 0.10(25) + 0.90(45) = 43.0

We see that the optimal decision is now to plant both grapes. The optimal decision is sensitive to
this change in probabilities.

21 - 4
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 Decision Analysis

e. Only the expected value for node 2 in the decision tree needs to be recomputed.

EV(Plant Chardonnay) = 0.55(20) + 0.45(50) = 33.5

This change in the payoffs makes planting Chardonnay only less attractive. It is now best to plant
both types of grapes. The optimal decision is sensitive to a change in the payoff of this magnitude.

7. a. EV(Small) = 0.1(400) + 0.6(500) + 0.3(660) = 538

EV(Medium) = 0.1(–250) + 0.6(650) + 0.3(800) = 605
EV(Large) = 0.1(–400) + 0.6(580) + 0.3(990) = 605

Best decision: Build a medium or large-size community center.

Note that using the expected value approach, the Town Council would be indifferent between
building a medium-size community center and a large-size center.

b. The Town's optimal decision strategy based on perfect information is as follows:

If the worst-case scenario, build a small-size center

If the base-case scenario, build a medium-size center
If the best-case scenario, build a large-size center

Using the consultant's original probability assessments for each scenario, 0.10, 0.60 and 0.30, the
expected value of a decision strategy that uses perfect information is:

EVwPI = 0.1(400) + 0.6(650) + 0.3(990) = 727

In part (a), the expected value approach showed that EV(Medium) = EV(Large) = 605.
Therefore, EVwoPI = 605 and EVPI = 727 – 605 = 122

The town should seriously consider additional information about the likelihood of the three
scenarios. Since perfect information would be worth $122,000, a good market research study could
possibly make a significant contribution.

c. EV(Small) = 0.2(400) + 0.5(500) + 0.3(660) = 528

EV(Medium) = 0.2(–250) + 0.5(650) + 0.3(800) = 515
EV(Large) = 0.2(–400) + 0.5(580) + 0.3(990) = 507

Best decision: Build a small-size community center.

d. If the promotional campaign is conducted, the probabilities will change to 0.0, 0.6 and 0.4 for the
worst case, base case and best case scenarios respectively.

EV(Small) = 0.0(400) + 0.6(500) + 0.4(660) = 564

EV(Medium) = 0.0(–250) + 0.6(650) + 0.4(800) = 710
EV(Large) = 0.0(–400) + 0.6(580) + 0.4(990) = 744

In this case, the recommended decision is to build a large-size community center. Compared to the
analysis in Part (a), the promotional campaign has increased the best expected value by $744,000 –
605,000 = $139,000. Compared to the analysis in part (c), the promotional campaign has increased
the best expected value by $744,000 – 528,000 = $216,000.

21 - 5
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Chapter 21

Even though the promotional campaign does not increase the expected value by more than its cost
($150,000) when compared to the analysis in part (c), it appears to be a good investment. That is, it
eliminates the risk of a loss, which appears to be a significant factor in the mayor's decision-making
process.

8. a.

Profit
Payoff
s1
100
d1
6
s2
300
F
3
s1
400
d2
7
s2
200
Market
2
Research s1
100
d1
8
s2
300
U
4
s1
400
d2
9
s2
200
1
s1
100
d1
10
s2
300
No Market
5
Research s1
400
d2
11
s2
200

b. EV(node 6) = 0.57(100) + 0.43(300) = 186

EV(node 7) = 0.57(400) + 0.43(200) = 314
EV(node 8) = 0.18(100) + 0.82(300) = 264
EV(node 9) = 0.18(400) + 0.82(200) = 236
EV(node 10) = 0.40(100) + 0.60(300) = 220
EV(node 11) = 0.40(400) + 0.60(200) = 280

21 - 6
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 Decision Analysis

EV(node 3) = Max(186,314) = 314 d2

EV(node 4) = Max(264,236) = 264 d1
EV(node 5) = Max(220,280) = 280 d2

EV(node 2) = 0.56(314) + 0.44(264) = 292

EV(node 1) = Max(292,280) = 292

 Market Research
If Favorable, decision d2
If Unfavorable, decision d1

9. The decision tree is as shown in the answer to problem 16a. The calculations using the decision tree
in problem 16a with the probabilities and payoffs here are as follows:

a,b. EV(node 6) = 0.18(600) + 0.82(–200) = –56

EV(node 7) = 0
EV(node 8) = 0.89(600) + 0.11(–200) = 512
EV(node 9) = 0
EV(node 10) = 0.50(600) + 0.50(–200) = 200
EV(node 11) = 0

EV(node 3) = Max(–56,0) = 0 d2
EV(node 4) = Max(512,0) = 512 d1
EV(node 5) = Max(200,0) = 200 d1

EV(node 2) = 0.55(0) + 0.45(512) = 230.4

Without the option, the recommended decision is d1 purchase with an expected value of $200,000.

With the option, the best decision strategy is

If high resistance H, d2 do not purchase
If low resistance L, d1 purchase
Expected Value = $230,400

c. EVSI = $230,400 – $200,000 = $30,400. Since the cost is only $10,000, the investor should
purchase the option.

10. a. Outcome 1 ($ in 000s)

Bid -$200
Contract -2000
Market Research -150
High Demand +5000
$2650

21 - 7
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Chapter 21

Outcome 2 ($ in 000s)

Bid -$200
Contract -2000
Market Research -150
Moderate Demand +3000
$650

b. EV(node 8) = 0.85(2650) + 0.15(650) = 2350

EV(node 5) = Max(2350, 1150) = 2350 Decision: Build
EV(node 9) = 0.225(2650) + 0.775(650) = 1100
EV(node 6) = Max(1100, 1150) = 1150 Decision: Sell
EV(node 10) = 0.6(2800) + 0.4(800)= 2000
EV(node 7) = Max(2000, 1300) = 2000 Decision: Build

EV(node 4) = 0.6 EV(node 5) + 0.4 EV(node 6) = 0.6(2350) + 0.4(1150) = 1870

EV(node 3) = MAX (EV(node 4), EV(node 7)) = Max (1870, 2000) = 2000
Decision: No Market Research

EV(node 2) = 0.8 EV(node 3) + 0.2 (–200) = 0.8(2000) + 0.2(–200) = 1560

EV(node 1) = MAX (EV(node 2), 0) = Max (1560, 0) = 1560

Decision: Bid on Contract

Decision Strategy:

Bid on the Contract

Do not do the Market Research
Build the Complex
Expected Value is $1,560,000

c. Compare Expected Values at nodes 4 and 7.

EV(node 4) = 1870 Includes $150 cost for research

EV(node 7) = 2000

Difference is 2000 – 1870 = $130

Market research cost would have to be lowered $130,000 to $20,000 or less to make undertaking the
research desirable.

21 - 8
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 Decision Analysis

11. a.

s1
-100
d1 s2
6 50
s3
150
Favorable
3
s1
d2 100
s2
7 100
s3
100
Agency
2
s1
-100
d1 s2
8 50
s3
150
Unfavorable
4
s1
d2 100
s2
9 100
s3
1 100

s1
-100
d1 s2
10 50
s3
150
No Agency
5
s1
d2 100
s2
11 100
s3
100
b. Using node 5,

EV(node 10) = 0.20(–100) + 0.30(50) + 0.50(150) = 70

EV(node 11) = 100

Decision Sell Expected Value = $100

c. EVwPI = 0.20(100) + 0.30(100) + 0.50(150) = $125

EVPI = $125 – $100 = $25

d. EV(node 6) = 0.09(–100) + 0.26(50) + 0.65(150) = 101.5

EV(node 7) = 100
EV(node 8) = 0.45(–100) + 0.39(50) + 0.16(150) = –1.5
EV(node 9) = 100

21 - 9
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Chapter 21

EV(node 3) = Max(101.5,100) = 101.5 Produce

EV(node 4) = Max(–1.5,100) = 100 Sell

EV(node 2) = 0.69(101.5) + 0.31(100) = 101.04

If Favorable, Produce
If Unfavorable, Sell EV = $101.04

e. EVSI = $101.04 – 100 = $1.04 or $1,040.

f. No, maximum Hale should pay is $1,040.

g. No agency; sell the pilot.

12. a.
s1
3500
d1 s2
6 1000
s3
Normal -1500
3 s1
7000
d2 s2
7 2000
s3
W ait -9000
2 s1
3500
d1 s2
8 2000
s3
-1500
Cold s1
4
7000
d2 s2
9 2000
s3
1 -9000
s1
3500
d1 s2
10 2000
s3
Don't W ait -1500
5 s1
7000
d2 s2
11 2000
s3
-9000

b. Using Node 5,

EV(node 10) = 0.4(3500) + 0.3(1000) + 0.3(–1500) = 1250

EV(node 11) = 0.4(7000) + 0.3(2000) + 0.3(–9000) = 700

Decision: d1 Blade attachment Expected Value $1250

c. EVwPI = 0.4(7000) + 0.3(2000) + 0.3(–1500) = $2950

EVPI = $2950 – $1250 = $1700

21 - 10
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 Decision Analysis

d. EV(node 6) = 0.35(3500) + 0.30(1000) + 0.35(–1500) = 1000

EV(node 7) = 0.35(7000) + 0.30(2000) + 0.35(–9000) = –100
EV(node 8) = 0.62(3500) + 0.31(1000) + 0.07(–1500) = 2375
EV(node 9) = 0.62(7000) + 0.31(2000) + 0.07(–9000) = 4330

EV(node 3) = Max(1000,–100) = 1000 d1 Blade attachment

EV(node 4) = Max(2375,4330) = 4330 d2 New snowplow

If normal, blade attachment

If unseasonably cold, snowplow $1666

The expected value of this decision strategy is the expected value of node 2.

EV(node 2) = 0.8(1000) + 0.2(4330) = 1666

Recommend: Wait until September and follow the decision strategy.

13. a. EV(1 lot) = 0.3(60) + 0.3(60) + 0.4(50) = 56

EV(2 lots) = 0.3(80) + 0.3(80) + 0.4(30) = 60
EV(3 lots) = 0.3 (100) + 0.3(70) + 0.4(10) = 55

Decision: Order 2 lots Expected Value $60,000

21 - 11
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Chapter 21

b. The following decision tree applies.

s1
60
d1 s2
6 60
s3
50
s1
d2 80
Excellent s2
3 7 80
s3
30
s1
d3 100
s2
8 70
s3
V.P. Prediction 10
2 s1
60
d1 s2
9 60
s3
50
s1
d2 80
Very Good s2
4 10 80
s3
30
s1
d3 100
s2
1 11 70
s3
10
s1
60
d1 s2
12 60
s3
50
s1
d2 80
No V.P. Prediction s2
5 13 80
s3
30
s1
d3 100
s2
14 70
s3
10

Calculations

EV(node 6) = 0.34(60) + 0.32(60) + 0.34(50) = 56.6

EV(node 7) = 0.34(80) + 0.32(80) + 0.34(30) = 63.0
EV(node 8) = 0.34(100) + 0.32(70) + 0.34(10) = 59.8
EV(node 9) = 0.20(60) + 0.26(60) + 0.54(50) = 54.6
EV(node 10) = 0.20(80) + 0.26(80) + 0.54(30) = 53.0
EV(node 11) = 0.20(100) + 0.26(70) + 0.54(10) = 43.6
EV(node 12) = 0.30(60) + 0.30(60) + 0.40(50) = 56.0
EV(node 13) = 0.30(80) + 0.30(80) + 0.40(30) = 60.0
EV(node 14) = 0.30(100) + 0.30(70) + 0.40(10) =55.0

21 - 12
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 Decision Analysis

EV(node 3) = Max(56.6,63.0,59.8) = 63.0 2 lots

EV(node 4) = Max(54.6,53.0,43.6) = 54.6 1 lot
EV(node 5) = Max(56.0,60.0,55.0) = 60.0 2 lots

EV(node 2) = 0.70(63.0) + 0.30(54.6) = 60.5

EV(node 1) = Max(60.5,60.0) = 60.5 Prediction

Optimal Strategy:
If prediction is excellent, 2 lots
If prediction is very good, 1 lot

c. EVwPI = 0.3(100) + 0.3(80) + 0.4(50) = 74

EVPI = 74 – 60 = 14
EVSI = 60.5 – 60 = 0.5

The EVPI is $14,000, but the V.P's recommendation is only valued at EVSI = $500. This indicates
additional information is probably worthwhile. The ability of the consultant to forecast market
conditions should be considered.

14.
State of Nature P(sj) P(I  sj) P(I  sj) P(sj  I)
s1 0.2 0.10 0.020 0.1905
s2 0.5 0.05 0.025 0.2381
s3 0.3 0.20 0.060 0.5714
1.0 P(I) = 0.105 1.0000

15. a. EV(d1) = 0.8(15) + 0.2(10) = 14.0

EV(d2) = 0.8(10) + 0.2(12) = 10.4
EV(d3) = 0.8(8) + 0.2(20) = 10.4

Decision d1 Expected Value 14

b. EVwPI = 0.8(15) + 0.2(20) = 16

EVPI = 16 – 14 = 2

c. Indicator I

Prior Conditional Joint Posterior

State of Nature Probabilities Probabilities Probabilities Probabilities
State s1 0.8 0.20 0.16 0.52
State s2 0.2 0.75 0.15 0.48
P(I) = 0.31 1.00

EV(d1) = 0.5161(15) + 0.4839(10) = 12.6

EV(d2) = 0.5161(10) + 0.4839(12) = 11.0
EV(d3) = 0.5161(8) + 0.4839(20) = 13.8

If indicator I occurs, decision d3 is recommended.

21 - 13
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Chapter 21

16. a,b. The revised probabilities are shown on the branches of the decision tree.
s1 0.98 30
d1
7
s2 0.02
0.695C 30
3 s1 0.98
25
d2
8
s2 0.02
45
s1 0.79
30
d1
9
s2 0.21
30
W eather Check 0.215O
2 4 s1 0.79
25
d2
10
s2 0.21
45
s1 0.00
30
d1
11
s2 1.00
0.09R 30
5 s1 0.00
25
d2
12
1 s2 1.00
45
s1 0.85
30
d1
13
s2 0.15
No W eather Check 30
6 s1 0.85
25
d2
14
s2 0.15
45

EV(node 7) = 30
EV(node 8) = 0.98(25) + 0.02(45) = 25.4
EV(node 9) = 30
EV(node 10) = 0.79(25) + 0.21(45) = 29.2
EV(node 11) = 30
EV(node 12) = 0.00(25) + 1.00(45) = 45.0
EV(node 13) = 30
EV(node 14) = 0.85(25) + 0.15(45) = 28.0

EV(node 3) = Min(30,25.4) = 25.4 Expressway

EV(node 4) = Min(30,29.2) = 29.2 Expressway
EV(node 5) = Min(30,45) = 30.0 Queen City
EV(node 6) = Min(30,28) = 28.0 Expressway

EV(node 2) = 0.695(25.4) + 0.215(29.2) + 0.09(30.0) = 26.6

EV(node 1) = Min(26.6,28) = 26.6 Weather

21 - 14
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 Decision Analysis

c. Strategy:

Check the weather, take the expressway unless there is rain. If rain, take Queen City Avenue.

Expected time: 26.6 minutes.

17. a. d1 = Manufacture component s1 = Low demand

d2 = Purchase component s2 = Medium demand
s3 = High demand

s1
-20
.35
d1 s2
2 40
.35
s3
100
.30
1
s1
10
.35
d2 s2
3 45
.35
s3
70
.30

EV(node 2) = (0.35)(–20) + (0.35)(40) + (0.30)(100) = 37

EV(node 3) = (0.35)(10) + (0.35)(45) + (0.30)(70) = 40.25

Recommended decision: d2 (purchase component)

b. Optimal decision strategy with perfect information:

If s1 then d2

If s2 then d2

If s3 then d1

Expected value of this strategy is 0.35(10) + 0.35(45) + 0.30(100) = 49.25

EVPI = 49.25 – 40.25 = 9 or $9,000

c. If F – Favorable

State of Nature P(sj) P(F  sj) P(F  sj) P(sj  F)

s1 0.35 0.10 0.035 0.0986
s2 0.35 0.40 0.140 0.3944
s3 0.30 0.60 0.180 0.5070
P(F) = 0.355

21 - 15
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Chapter 21

If U - Unfavorable

State of Nature P(sj) P(U  sj) P(U  sj) P(sj  U)

s1 0.35 0.90 0.315 0.4884
s2 0.35 0.60 0.210 0.3256
s3 0.30 0.40 0.120 0.1860
P(U) = 0.645

The probability the report will be favorable is P(F ) = 0.355

d. Assuming the test market study is used, a portion of the decision tree is shown below.

s1
-20
d1 s2
4 40

s3
100
F
2
s1
10

d2 s2
5 45

s3
70
1
s1
-20
d1 s2
6 40

s3
100
U
3
s1
10

d2 s2
7 45

s3
70
Summary of Calculations

Node Expected Value

4 64.51
5 54.23
6 21.86
7 32.56

21 - 16
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 Decision Analysis

Decision strategy:

If F then d1 since EV(node 4) > EV(node 5)

If U then d2 since EV(node 7) > EV(node 6)

EV(node 1) = 0.355(64.51) + 0.645(32.56) = 43.90 = EVwSI

e. EVSI = EVwSI – EVwoSI = 43.90 – 40.25 = 3.65 or $3,650

18. a. The expected value for the Large-Cap Stock mutual fund is as follows:

EV = 0.1(35.3) + 0.3(20.0) + 0.1(28.3) + 0.1(10.4) + 0.4(–9.3) = 9.68

Repeating this calculation for each of the mutual funds provides the following expected annual
returns:

Mutual Fund Expected Annual Return

Large-Cap Stock 9.68
Mid-Cap Stock 5.91
Small-Cap Stock 15.20
Energy/Resources Sector 11.74
Health Sector 7.34
Technology Sector 16.97
Real Estate Sector 15.44

The Technology Sector provides the maximum expected annual return of 16.97%. Using this
recommendation, the minimum annual return is –20.1% and the maximum annual return is 93.1%.

b. The expected annual return for the Small-Cap Stock mutual fund is 15.20%. The Technology Sector
mutual fund recommended in part (a) has a larger expected annual return. The difference is 16.97%
– 15.20% = 1.77%.

c. The annual return for the Technology Sector mutual fund ranges from –20.1% to 93.1% while the
annual return for the Small-Cap Stock ranges from 6.0% to 33.3%. The annual return for the
Technology Sector mutual fund shows the greater variation in annual return. It is considered the
investment with the more risk. It does have a higher expected annual return, but only by 1.77%.
d. This is a judgment recommendation and opinions may vary. The higher risk Technology Sector
mutual fund only has a 1.77% higher expected annual return. We believe the lower risk, Small-Cap
Stock mutual fund would be the preferred recommendation for most investors.

19. a. The decision is to choose the best lease option; there are three alternatives. The chance event is the
number of miles driven. There are three possible outcomes.

b. The payoff table for is shown below. To illustrate how the payoffs were computed, we show how to
compute the total cost of the Forno Automotvie lease assuming Warren drives 15,000 miles per year.

Total Cost = (Total Monthly Charges) + (Total Additional Mileage Cost)

= 36($299) + $0.15(45,000 – 36,000)
= $10,764 + $1350
= $12,114

21 - 17
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Chapter 21

Annual Miles Driven

Dealer 12,000 15,000 18,000
Forno Automotive $10,764 $12,114 $13,464
Midtown Motors $11,160 $11,160 $12,960
Hopkins Automotive $11,700 $11,700 $11,700

c. EV (Forno Automotive) = 0.5($10,764) + 0.4($12,114) + 0.1($13,464) = $11,574

EV (Midtown Motors) = 0.5($11,160) + 0.4($11,160) + 0.1($12,960) = $11,340
EV (Hopkins Automotive) = 0.5($11,700) + 0.4($11,700) + 0.1($11,700) = $11,700

Best Decision: Midtown Motors

d. EV (Forno Automotive) = 0.3($10,764) + 0.4($12,114) + 0.3($13,464) = $12,114

EV (Midtown Motors) = 0.3($11,160) + 0.4($11,160) + 0.3($12,960) = $11,700
EV (Hopkins Automotive) = 0.3($11,700) + 0.4($11,700) + 0.3($11,700) = $11,700

Best Decision: Midtown Motors or Hopkins Automotive

With these probabilities, Warren would be indifferent between the Midtown Motors and Hopkins
Automotive leases. However, if the probability of driving 18,000 miles per year goes up any further,
the Hopkins Automotive lease will be the best.

20. a. EV(node 4) = 0.5(34) + 0.3(20) + 0.2(10) = 25

EV(node 3) = Max(25,20) = 25 Decision: Build

EV(node 2) = 0.5(25) + 0.5(–5) = 10

EV(node 1) = Max(10,0) = 10 Decision: Start R&D

Optimal Strategy:

Start the R&D project

If it is successful, build the facility

Expected value = $10M

b. At node 3, payoff for sell rights would have to be $25M or more. In order to recover the $5M R&D
cost, the selling price would have to be $30M or more.

21 - 18
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 Decision Analysis

21. a.
Success
750
0.75
Accept
7
Failure
-250
0.25
Favorable
4
0.7

Reject
0

Review
2 Success
750
0.417
Accept
8
Failure
-250
0.583
Unfavorable
5
0.3

Reject
0
1

Success
750
0.65
Accept
6
Failure
-250
0.35
Do Not Review
3

Reject
0

b. EV (node 7) = 0.75(750) + 0.25(–250) = 500

EV (node 8) = 0.417(750) + 0.583(–250) = 167

Decision (node 4)  Accept EV = 500

Decision (node 5)  Accept EV = 167

EV(node 2) = 0.7(500) + 0.3(167) = $400

Note: Regardless of the review outcome F or U, the recommended decision alternative is to accept
the manuscript.

EV(node 3) = .65(750) + .35(–250) = $400

The expected value is $400,000 regardless of review process. The company should accept the
manuscript.

c. The manuscript review cannot alter the decision to accept the manuscript. Do not do the manuscript
review.

21 - 19
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Chapter 21

d. Perfect Information.

If s1, accept manuscript $750

If s2, reject manuscript –$250

EVwPI = 0.65(750) + 0.35(0) = 487.5

EVwoPI = 400

EVPI = 487.5 – 400 = 87.5 or $87,500.

A better procedure for assessing the market potential for the textbook may be worthwhile.

21 - 20
© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.