PHASE 8 - Present the results of the problems proposed in the final project:

PRESENTED BY:

Jhon Fredy Villalba Code:1121858006

Lucero Ramirez Code:

Yenny Maritza Ortiz Guaneme Code: 20.933.324

PRESENTED TO: Paula Andrea Carvajal

TEORIA DE LAS DECISIONES

212066_2

UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL ABIERTA Y A DISTANCIA UNAD

PROGRAMA: INGENIERIA INDUSTRIAL

DICIEMBRE 2018
 INTRODUCCION

Este trabajo tiene como propósito plasmar por medio de los

ejercicios
vistos lo aprendido por medio de las unidades correspondientes al curso de
teorías
de las decisiones Contiene la solución de los ejercicios de
problemas
la solución de los ejercicios de problemas con un entorno de riesgo, de decisión
en
incertidumbre utilizando los métodos de Laplace, Ward, hurwicz y savage,
problemas de decisión en incertidumbre hallando el punto silla y condiciones
del mercado
y por último problema de decisión de Márkov, ejercicios desarrollados usando el
software de Excel y el complemento de volver realizados de forma colaborativa
para la materia teoría de las decisiones de la universidad Nacional Abierta y a
Distancia.
Problem 1. Decisions under a risk environment:

A company dedicated to manufacturing different turned parts must decide whether to manufacture a new product at its main plant,
or if it buys it from an outside supplier. The profits depend on the demand of the product. Table 10 shows projected profits, in
millions of pesos.

Table 1. Decision process for the commercialization of the product

States of nature
Demand
Decision alternative Demand low
Demand High
average - Demand High - utility
low-utility Medium -
utility
utility
Manufacture 35 37 38 40
Subcontract 33 35 36 38
Buy 38 40 41 43
Lease 40 42 43 44
Probabilities Ʃ = 1 0,23 0,21 0,25 0,31

According to the corresponding information in Table 1 and the Predicted Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) theory, the Expected
Value of Sample Information (EVMI) and Decision Trees, respond:

a. Use EVPI to determine if the company should try to get a better estimate of the demand.
 DEMAND LOW UTILITY 0,23 35 8,05
MANUFACTUR DEMAND LOW AVERAGE
NODO 2
E UTILITY 0,21 37 7,77 37,72
Demand High Medium -
 
utility 0,25 38 9,5
  DEMAND HIGHT UTILITY 0,31 40 12,4
 
  DEMAND LOW UTILITY 0,23 33 7,59
SUBCONTRAC DEMAND LOW AVERAGE
NODO 3
T UTILITY 0,21 35 7,35 35,72
Demand High Medium -
 
utility 0,25 36 9
  DEMAND HIGHT UTILITY 0,31 38 11,78
 
  DEMAND LOW UTILITY 0,23 38 8,74
NOD DEMAND LOW AVERAGE
BUY NODO 4
O1 UTILITY 0,21 40 8,4 40,72
Demand High Medium -
utility 0,25 41 10,25
  DEMAND HIGHT UTILITY 0,31 43 13,33
 
  DEMAND LOW UTILITY 0,23 40 9,2
DEMAND LOW AVERAGE
LEASE NODO 5
UTILITY 0,21 42 8,82
Demand High Medium -
 
utility 0,25 43 10,75 42,41
  DEMAND HIGHT UTILITY 0,31 44 13,64
  

VEIP: |VEcIP - VEsIP| VEsIP: Expected value without perfect information

VEcIP: Expected value with perfect information EVwPI -       EVwoPI
42,41 35,72 = 6,69
NODO 3 37,72
42,41Millions of
NODO 1
dollars

NODO 4 35,72

NODO 5 40,72

NODO 6 42,41

b. A test market study of potential product demand is expected to report a favorable (F) or unfavorable (U) condition. The
relevant conditional probabilities are:

P(F/low) = 0,3 P(D/low) = 0,7    

P(F/low average) = P(D/ low average) =
0,36 0,64    
P(F/high medium) = P(D/ high medium) =    
0,28 0,72
P(F/high) = 0,5 P(D/high) = 0,5    

Favorabilidad

Probabilidades Probabilidades
Estado de la naturaleza Probabilidades previas Probabilidad condicional conjuntas posteriores
P(F/low) 0,23 0,3 0,069 0,186688312
P(F/low)
Average)   0,21 0,36 0,0756 0,204545455
P(F/high
medium)   0,25 0,28 0,07 0,189393939
P(F/high) 0,31 0,5 0,155 0,419372294
0,3696

Desfavorabilida
d  

Probabilidades Probabilidades
Estado de la naturaleza Probabilidades previas Probabilidad condicional conjuntas posteriores
P(F/low) 0,23 0,7 0,161 0,255393401
P(F/low)
Average)   0,21 0,64 0,1344 0,21319797
P(F/high
medium)   0,25 0,72 0,18 0,285532995
P(F/high) 0,31 0,5 0,155 0,245875635
0,6304

Problem 2. Decision in uncertainty:

The company is thinking of acquiring machinery with new technology to carry out its workshop work. The purchase will be decided
according to several alternatives presented by the seller (adaptability), this to facilitate the implementation in the workshop. The
decision variables presented below represent the cost of adaptation that will arise after acquiring the machinery and training the
workers in their use. Table 11 shows the costs in millions of currency units per technology.

  Event
Fits
Does Fits
Alternative successfull Fits well
not fit acceptably
y
Technology 1 780 810 818 860
Technology 2 880 820 855 820
Technology 3 830 875 878 900
Technology 4 630 872 812 910

Determine the optimal size of the premises to be purchased, using the methods of LAPLACE, WALD, HURWICZ AND SAVAGE.
Hurwicz Alpha 0,70.
Laplace
Does Fits Fits
Alternative Fits well VM
not fit acceptably successfully
Technology 1 780 810 818 860  
Technology 2 880 820 855 820  
Technology 3 830 875 878 900  
Technology 4 630 872 812 910  
           

Does Fits Fits

Alternative Fits well VM
not fit acceptably successfully
Technology 1 195 202,5 204,5 215 817
Technology 2 220 205 213,75 205 843,75
Technology 3 207,5 218,75 219,5 225 870,75
Technology 4 157,5 218 203 227,5 806

WALD
Mald or
pessimistic
Does Fits Fits
Alternative Fits well VM
not fit acceptably successfully
Technology 1 780 810 818 860 780
Technology 2 880 820 855 820 820
Technology 3 830 875 878 900 830
Technology 4 630 872 812 910 620

HURWICZ
Optimistc
Does Fits Fits
Alternative Fits well VM
not fit acceptably successfully
Technology 1 780 810 818 860 860
Technology 2 880 820 855 820 880
Technology 3 830 875 878 900 900
Technology 4 630 872 812 910 910

HURWICZ
A1 0,7*860+0,3*780=836
A2 0,7*880+0,3*820=862
A3 0,7*900+0,3*830=879
A4 0,7*910+0,3*630=826

Fits Fits
Does
Alternative acceptabl successfull Fits well VM
not fit
y y
Technology 1 780 810 818 860 836
Technology 2 880 820 855 820 862
Technology 3 830 875 878 900 879
Technology 4 630 872 812 910 826

SAVAGE

Fits Fits
Does
Alternative acceptabl successfull Fits well  
not fit
y y
 Technology 1 780 810 818 860  
Technology 2 880 820 855 820  
Technology 3 830 875 878 900  
Technology 4 630 872 812 910  

Fits Fits
Does
Alternative acceptabl successfull Fits well
not fit
y y
(880-
(875- (878- (910-
Technology 1 780)=10
810)=65 818)=60 860)=50
0 100
(880- (875- (875- (910-
Technology 2
880)=0 820)=55 855)=23 820)=90 90
(880- (875- (910-
Technology 3 (878-878)=0
830)=50 875)=0 900)=10 50
(880-
(875- (878-
Technology 4 630)=25 (910-910)=0
872)=3 812)=66
0 250

Problem 3. Decision in uncertainty:

 PLAYER B
65 82 72 65 68
PLAYER A

78 89 56 89 81
92 86 83 64 72
89 88 76 67 75
67 59 89 65 79

A and B

Find the saddle point of the data given below in table 12 for players A and B.

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q6 MinZ=V
0,11 0 0,39 0,49 0 1 74,71
 
PLAYER 1 Min-max
65 82 72 65 68 65
PLAYER 2

78 89 56 89 81 56
92 86 83 64 72 64
89 88 76 67 75 67
67 59 89 65 79 59
Max-Min 92 89 89 89 81
MaxZ=V 74,71 VE 74,71 74,75 74,71 74,71 78,92

P1 0
p2 0,41
p3 0,13
p4 0
p5 0,46
Ʃ 1

Problem 4. Decision in uncertainty:

In order to determine the decision conditions in the market, the Game Theory will be used, using the graphical solution of the type
(2 x N) and (2 x M) to estimate the strategy and value of the game for the following data:

Table 4. Data for matrix strategy mxn

Strategy P1+P2= P2=1-P1

P1+P2=1 1
Remplazamos p2  

P1 + P2= 1
V/e = 5p1 + 4p2
V/e= 5p1 + 4(1-p1)
V/e= 5p1 + 4 – 4p1
V/e= 1p1 + 4

P1+P2=
Strategy B1 1 P2=1-P1
P1 + P2= 1
V/e= 6p1 + 3p2 V/e Strategy A2, B1
V/e= 6p1 + 3(1-p1) A= 1P1+4
V/e= 6p1 + 3-3P1 B= 3p1+3
V/e= 3p1 + 3 1p1+4=-3p1+3
1p1+4p1= 3-3

Plan Strategy A1 -3p1=3

P1= -1
Yes = 1 V/e= 5
Yes = 0 V/e= 4 P1= -1
 Plan Strategy B1 P2= 1 – p1 = 1-(-1)
P2= 2
Yes = 1 V/e= 6 Valor del juego:
Yes = 0 V/e= 3 V/e = -1p1+1= -1(-1/3)+1
1,33333333
If the player loses “4/3” won 1.3
Plan Strategy A1
For Row Player
Yes = 1 V/e= 5 Strategy A1:
Yes = 0 V/e= 6 Q1+Q2=1 Q2=1-Q1
V/e = 5Q1 + 6Q2
V/e = 5Q1 + 6(1-Q1)
Plan Strategy B2 V/e = 5Q1 + 6 - 6Q1
Yes = 1 V/e= 4 V/e = -1Q1 + 6
Yes = 0 V/e= 3
Strategy 1B:
Valor del
Q1+Q2=1 Q2=1-Q1
juego:
V/e = -1Q1+1= 1(3)+1 V/e = 4Q1 + 3Q2
V/e = 4Q1 + 3(1-Q1)
Balance game
V/e = 4Q1 + 3 - 3Q1
4
V/e = 1Q1 + 3
Problem 5. Markov decision problem:

An insurance company charges its customers according to their accident history. If you have not had accidents the last two years
are charged US $ 6000 (State 1); If you have had an accident in each of the last two years you will be charged $ 6300 (State 2). If
you had accidents the first of the last two years US $ 5800 (State 3). The probabilities of the state according to historical data of
three years are:

STATES E1 E2 E3
E1 0,18 0,42 0,4
E2 0,35 0,25 0,4
E3 0,2 0,15 0,65

Determine what the average payment that the company will receive according to the data in the table.

STATES E1 E2 E3 TOTAL
E1 0,18 0,42 0,4 1
E2 0,35 0,25 0,4 1
E3 0,2 0,15 0,65 1

The average payment that the company, is of

   5.9642

p*q=
EC1 0,18W + 0,35X + 0,20Y = W
EC2 0,42W + 0,25X + 0,15Y = X
EC3 0,4W + 0,4X + 0,65Y = Y
EC4 W+X+Y=1

EC1 -0,82W + 0,35X + 0,2Y - W = 0

EC2 0,42W - 0,75X + 0,15Y - X = 0
EC3 0,4W + 0,4X - 0,35Y - Y = 0
EC4 W + X + Y -1= 0

MATRIX OF COEFFICIENTS
W X Y INDEPENDENT
-0,82 0,35 0,20 0 = 0,000
0,42 -0,75 0,15 0 = 0,000
0,40 0,40 -0,35 0 = 0,000
1 1 1 -1 = 0,000

E0 E1 E2
W X Y

0,23077 0,23590 0,53333

 $ 6.000 $ 6.300 $ 5.800

Average
Paymen $ 8.671
t

Problem 6. Markov decision problem:

Suppose you get 6 types of Jeans brands in the Colombian market: Brand 1, Brand 2, Brand 3, Brand 4, Brand 5 and Brand 6. The
following table shows the odds that you continue to use the same brand or change it.

STATE BRAND 1 BRAND 2 BRAND 3 BRAND 4 BRAND 5 BRAND 6

BRAND 1 0,21 0,18 0,13 0,23 0,15 0,1
BRAND 2 0,13 0,16 0,2 0,14 0,19 0,18
BRAND 3 0,15 0,14 0,17 0,16 0,15 0,23
BRAND 4 0,16 0,16 0,15 0,19 0,17 0,17
BRAND 5 0,16 0,19 0,13 0,14 0,16 0,22
BRAND 6 0,15 0,19 0,16 0,18 0,15 0,17
At present, brand, have the following percentages in market share respectively (19%, 18%, 17%, 15%, 19% y 12%) during week 4.

STATE BRAND1 BRAND2 BRAND3 BRAND4 BRAND5 BRAND6

BRAND1 0,21 0,18 0,13 0,23 0,15 0,1
BRAND2 0,13 0,16 0,2 0,14 0,19 0,18
BRAND3 0,15 0,14 0,17 0,16 0,15 0,23
BRAND4 0,16 0,16 0,15 0,19 0,17 0,17
BRAND5 0,16 0,19 0,13 0,14 0,16 0,22
BRAND6 0,15 0,19 0,16 0,18 0,15 0,17

P4 0,19 0,18 0,17 0,15 0,19 0,12

P5 0,1612 0,1697 0,156 0,1728 0,1621 0,1782

(16,12%, 16,97%, 15,60%, 17,28%, 16,21%, 17,82%)

BRAND1 16,12%
BRAND2 16,97%
BRAND3 15,60%,
BRAND4 17,28%
BRAND5 16,21%
BRAND6 17,82%
 CONCLUSIONES


 BIBLIOGRAFIAS

- Gilboa, I. (2001). A Theory of Case-Based Decisions. Camdridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press Editorial. Retrieved from:
http://bibliotecavirtual.unad.edu.co:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xww&AN=72982&lang=es&site=ehost-live

Rokach, L. (2008). Data Mining With Decision Trees: Theory And Applications, Bern,
Switzerland: H. Bunke, University Bern, Switzerland. Retrieved from:
http://bibliotecavirtual.unad.edu.co:2051/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=236037&lang=es&site=eds-live

Narahari, Y. (2014). Game Theory And Mechanism Design. New Jersey, USA: IISc
Lecture Notes Series. Retrieved from:
http://bibliotecavirtual.unad.edu.co:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xww&AN=752585&lang=es&site=ehost-live

Joyce, J. (1999). The Foundations of Causal Decision Theory. Camdridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press Editorial. Retrieved from:
http://bibliotecavirtual.unad.edu.co:2051/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=228167&lang=es&site=eds-live