Linear Programming

Applications
1. Marketing Applications
2. Manufacturing Applications
3. Employee Scheduling Applications
4. Financial Applications
5. Ingredient Blending Applications
6. Other Linear Programming Applications

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Learning Objectives
After completing this chapter, students will be able to:
1. Formulate and solve LP problems with Excel Solver in
marketing.
2. Formulate and solve LP problems with Excel Solver in
production.
3. Formulate and solve LP problems with Excel Solver in
the scheduling of employees.
4. Formulate and solve LP problems with Excel Solver in
finance.
5. Formulate and solve LP problems with Excel Solver in
the blending of ingredients.
6. Formulate and solve LP problems with Excel Solver in
revenue management.

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Introduction

• The graphical method of LP is useful for

understanding how to formulate and solve small
LP problems
• Many types of problems can be solved using LP
• Principles developed here are applicable to larger
problems

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Marketing Applications

• Linear programming models have been used in

the advertising field as a decision aid in selecting
an effective media mix
• Media selection LP problems can be approached
from two perspectives
– Maximize audience exposure
– Minimize advertising costs

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Case Study: Win Big Gambling Club (1 of 4)

• Club promotes gambling junkets to the Bahamas

– $8,000 per week to spend on advertising
– Goal is to reach the largest possible
high-potential audience
– Media types and audience figures shown below
– Place at least five radio spots per week
– No more than $1,800 can be spent on radio
advertising each week

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Win Big Gambling Club (2 of 4)

• Advertising options

AUDIENCE COST MAXIMUM

REACHED PER PER AD ADS PER
MEDIUM AD ($) WEEK
TV spot (1 minute) 5,000 800 12
Daily newspaper
8,500 925 5
(full-page ad)
Radio spot (30
seconds, prime 2,400 290 25
time)
Radio spot (1
2,800 380 20
minute, afternoon)

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Win Big Gambling Club (3 of 4)

• Problem formulation
X1 = number of 1-minute TV spots taken each week
X2 = number of daily newspaper ads taken each week
X3 = number of 30-second prime-time radio spots taken each week
X4 = number of 1-minute afternoon radio spots taken each week
Objective:
Maximize audience coverage = 5,000X1 + 8,500X2 + 2,400X3 + 2,800X4
Subject to X1 ≤ 12(max TV spots/wk)
X2 ≤ 5 (max newspaper ads/wk)
X3 ≤ 25(max 30-sec radio spots/wk)
X4 ≤ 20(max 1-min radio spots/wk)
800X1 + 925X2 + 290X3 + 380X4 ≤ $8,000 (weekly advertising
budget)
X3 + X4 ≥ 5 (min radio spots contracted)
290X3 + 380X4 ≤ $1,800 (max dollars spent on radio)
X 1, X 2, X 3, X 4 ≥ 0

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Win Big Gambling Club (4 of 4)

Solution
X1 = 1.97 TV spots
X2 = 5 newspaper ads
X3 = 6.2 30-second radio spots
X4 = 0 1-minute radio spots

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (1 of 2)

PROGRAM 1. Win Big Solution in Excel 2016

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (2 of 2)

PROGRAM 1. Win Big Solution in Excel 2016

Solver Parameter Inputs and Selections Key Formulas

Set Objective: F6 bl
By Changing cells: B5:E5 a
n
To: Max k Copy F6 to F9:F15
Subject to the Constraints:
F9:F14 <= H9:H14
F15 >= H15
Solving Method: Simplex LP
☑ Make Variables Non-Negative

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Case Study 2: Management Sciences
Association (MSA) (1 of 5)
• MSA is a marketing research firm
• Several requirements for a statistical validity
1. Survey at least 2,300 U.S. households
2. Survey at least 1,000 households whose heads
are ≤ 30 years old
3. Survey at least 600 households whose heads
are between 31 and 50
4. Ensure that at least 15% of those surveyed live
in a state that borders Mexico
5. Ensure that no more than 20% of those
surveyed who are 51 years of age or over live in
a state that borders Mexico
Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Management Sciences Association (2 of 5)

• MSA decides to conduct all surveys in person

• Estimates of the costs of reaching people in each
age and region category
• Goal is to meet the sampling requirements at the
least possible cost
COST PER PERSON SURVEYED ($)
REGION AGE ≤ 30 AGE 31-50 AGE ≥ 51

State bordering Mexico $7.50 $6.80 $5.50

State not bordering Mexico $6.90 $7.25 $6.10

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Management Sciences Association (3 of 5)

• Decision variables
X1 = number of 30 or younger and in a border state
X2 = number of 31-50 and in a border state
X3 = number 51 or older and in a border state
X4 = number 30 or younger and not in a border state
X5 = number of 31-50 and not in a border state
X6 = number 51 or older and not in a border state

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Management Sciences Association (4 of 5)

Objective function
Minimize total interview costs = $7.50X1 + $6.80X2 + $5.50X3
+ $6.90X4 + $7.25X5 +
$6.10X6
subject to
X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5 + X6 ≥ 2,300 (total households)
X1 + X4 ≥ 1,000 (households 30 or younger)
X2 + X5 ≥ 600 (households 31-50)
X1 + X2 + X3 ≥0.15(X1 + X2+ X3 + X4 + X5 + X6) (border states)
X3 ≤ 0.20(X3 + X6) (limit on age group 51+ who can live in border
state)
X 1, X 2, X 3, X 4, X 5, X 6 ≥ 0

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Management Sciences Association (5 of 5)

• Optimal solution will cost $15,166

REGION AGE ≤ 30 AGE 31-50 AGE ≥ 51

State bordering Mexico 0 600 140
State not bordering Mexico 1,000 0 560

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (1 of 14)

PROGRAM 2 MSA Solution in Excel 2016

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (2 of 14)
PROGRAM 2 MSA Solution in Excel 2016

Solver Parameter Inputs and Key Formulas

Selections
Set Objective: H5 b
By Changing cells: B4:G4 la
n
To: Min
k Copy H5 to H8:H12
Subject to the Constraints:
H8:H11 <= J8:J11
H12 >= J12
Solving Method: Simplex LP
☑ Make Variables Non-Negative

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Manufacturing Applications (1 of 2)

• Production Mix
– LP can be used to plan the optimal mix of products to
manufacture
– Company must meet a myriad of constraints
▪ Financial concerns
▪ Sales demand
▪ Material contracts
▪ Union labor demands
– Primary goal is to generate the largest profit possible

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Case Study 3: Fifth Avenue Industries (1 of
6)
• Produces four varieties of ties
– Expensive all-silk
– All-polyester
– Two are polyester-cotton or silk-cotton blends
• Cost and availability of the three materials used in the
production process

COST PER YARD MATERIAL AVAILABLE

MATERIAL ($) PER MONTH (YARDS)
Silk 24 1,200
Polyester 6 3,000
Cotton 9 1,600

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Fifth Avenue Industries (2 of 6)

• The firm has contracts with several major department store

chains
– Contracts require a minimum number of ties
– May be increased if demand increases
• Goal is to maximize monthly profit
• Decision variables
X1 = number of all-silk ties produced per month
X2 = number all-polyester ties
X3 = number of blend 1 polyester-cotton ties
X4 = number of blend 2 silk-cotton ties

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Fifth Avenue Industries (3 of 6)

TABLE 1 Data for Fifth Avenue Industries

MONTHL
SELLIN Y MONTH MATERIAL
G PRICE CONTRA LY REQUIRED
VARIETY PER TIE CT DEMAN PER TIE MATERIAL
OF TIE ($) MINIMUM D (YARDS) REQUIREMENTS
5,00 7,0
All silk 19.24 0.125 100% silk
0 00
All 10,0 14,
8.70 0.08 100% polyester
polyester 00 000
Poly-cotton 13,0 16, 50% polyester – 50%
9.52 0.10
blend 1 00 000 cotton
Silk-cotton 5,00 8,5
10.64 0.11 60% silk – 40% cotton
blend 2 0 00

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Fifth Avenue Industries (4 of 6)

• Establish profit per tie

PROFIT
POLY-ESTE COTTON MATERIAL SELLING
SILK REQ’D COST R REQ’D COST REQ’D COST COST PRICE
blank blank blank blank blank blank blank blank

All-silk X1
blank blank blank blank

0.125 $24.00 $3.00 $19.24 $16.24

blank blank blank blank blank blank blank blank

All-polyester X2
blank blank blank

blank 0.08 $6 $0.48 $8.70 $8.22

blank blank blank blank blank blank blank blank

Poly-cotton blend X3
blank

blank 0.05 $6 0.05 $9 $0.75 $9.52 $8.77

blank blank blank blank blank blank blank blank

Silk-cotton blend X4
blank blank

0.066 $24.00 0.044 $9 $1.98 $10.64 $8.66

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Fifth Avenue Industries (5 of 6)

Objective function
Maximize profit = $16.24X1 + $8.22X2 + $8.77X3 + $8.66X4
Subject to 0.125X1 + 0.066X4 ≤ 1200 (yds of silk)
0.08X2 + 0.05X3 ≤ 3,000 (yds of polyester)
0.05X3 + 0.44X4 ≤ 1,600 (yds of cotton)
X1 ≥ 5,000 (contract min for silk)
X1 ≤ 7,000 (contract min)
X2 ≥ 10,000 (contract min for all polyester)
X2 ≤ 14,000 (contract max)
X3 ≥ 13,000 (contract min for blend 1)
X3 ≤ 16,000 (contract max)
X4 ≥ 5,000 (contract min for blend 2)
X4 ≤ 8,500 (contract max)
X1, X2, X3, X4 ≥ 0

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Fifth Avenue Industries (6 of 6)

• Optimal solution will result in a profit of $412,028

per month

TIE QUANTITY PER MONTH

All-Silk 5,112
All-Polyester 14,000
Poly-Silk 16,000
Silk-Cotton 8,500

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (3 of 14)

PROGRAM 3 Fifth Avenue Solution in Excel 2016

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (4 of 14)

PROGRAM 3 Fifth Avenue Solution in Excel 2016

Solver Parameter Inputs and Selections Key Formulas

Set Objective: F6 bl
By Changing cells: B5:E5 a
n
To: Max
k Copy F6 to F9:F19
Subject to the Constraints:
F9:F15 <= H9:H15
F16:F19 >= H16:H19
Solving Method: Simplex LP
☑ Make Variables Non-Negative

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Manufacturing Applications (2 of 2)
• Production Scheduling
– Low-cost production schedule
▪ Period of weeks or months
– Important factors include
▪ Labor capacity
▪ Inventory and storage costs
▪ Space limitations
▪ Product demand
▪ Labor relations
– With more than one product, the scheduling process
can be quite complex
– The problem resembles the product mix model for each
time period in the future

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Case Study 4: Greenberg Motors (1 of 12)
• Manufactures two different electric motors for sale under
contract to Drexel Corp
– Orders placed three times a year for four months at a
time
– Demand varies month to month
– Develop a production plan for the next four months

TABLE 2 Four-Month Order Schedule for Electrical Motors

MODEL JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL

GM3A 800 700 1,000 1,100
GM3B 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,400

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (2 of 12)

• Production planning must consider four factors

1. Produce the required number of motors each
month and ensure the desired ending
inventory
2. Desire to keep inventory carrying costs down
3. No-lay-off policy, minimize fluctuations in
production levels
4. Warehouse limitations

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (3 of 12)

• Basic data

CARRYING LABOR HRS PRODUCTION

MOTOR ENDING INV COST REQ’D COST PER UNIT
GM3A 450 $0.36 1.3 $20
GM3B 300 $0.26 0.9 $15

2,240 ≤ Desired labor hrs per month ≤ 2,560

Maximum total inventory space available = 3,300 units
Labor cost increases 10% March 1

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
 Greenberg Motors (4 of 12)
• Model formulation
Objective
Minimize total cost (production plus inventory carrying cost)
Constraints
4 demand constraints (1 constraint for each of 4 months) for GM3A
4 demand constraints (1 constraint for each of 4 months) for GM3B
2 constraints (1 for GM3A and 1 for GM3B) for the inventory at the
end of April
4 constraints for minimum labor hours (1 constraint for each month)
4 constraints for maximum labor hours (1 constraint for each
month)
4 constraints for inventory storage capacity each month

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (5 of 12)

• Objective function – production costs

Ai = Number of model GM3A motors produced in month i

(i = 1, 2, 3, 4 for January – April)
Bi = Number of model GM3B motors produced in month i

Cost of production = $20A1 + $20A2 + $22A3 + $22A4

+ $15B1 + $15B2 + $16.50B3 +$16.50B4

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (6 of 12)

• Objective function – inventory carrying costs

Iai = Units of GM3A left in inventory at the end of

month i (i = 1, 2, 3, 4 for January – April)
Ibi = Units of GM3B left in inventory at the end of
month i (i = 1, 2, 3, 4 for January – April)

Cost of carrying inventory = $0.36IA1 + $0.36IA2

+ $0.36IA3 + 0.36IA4+ $0.26IB1 + $0.26IB2 +
$0.26IB3 + $0.26IB4

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (7 of 12)

• Complete objective function

Minimize costs = $20A1 + $20A2 + $22A3 + $22A4

+ $15B1 + $15B2 + $16.50B3 +
$16.50B4+ $0.36IA1 + $0.36IA2 +
$0.36IA3 + 0.36IA4+ $0.26IB1 +
$0.26IB2 + $0.26IB3 + $0.26IB4

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (8 of 12)

• End of month inventory is calculated using

• Rearranged to create a standard format for a constraint

equation

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (9 of 12)
• The demand constraints
A1 − IA1 = 800 (demand for GM3A in Jan)
IA1 + A2 − IA2 = 700 (demand for GM3A in Feb)
IA2 + A3 − IA3 = 1,000 (demand for GM3A in Mar)
IA3 + A4 − IA4 = 1,100 (demand for GM3A in Apr)
B1 − IB1 = 1,000 (demand for GM3B in Jan)
IB1 + B2 − IB2 = 1,200 (demand for GM3B in Feb)
IB2 + B3 − IB3 = 1,400 (demand for GM3B in Mar)
IB3 + B4 − IB4 = 1,400 (demand for GM3B in Apr)
IA4 = 450 (inventory of GM3A at end of Apr)
IB4 = 300 (inventory of GM3B at end of Apr)
Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (10 of 12)

• The labor hour constraints

1.3A1 + 0.9B1 ≥ 2,240(min labor hrs in Jan)

1.3A2 + 0.9B2 ≥ 2,240(min labor hrs in Feb)
1.3A3 + 0.9B3 ≥ 2,240(min labor hrs in Mar)
1.3A4 + 0.9B4 ≥ 2,240(min labor hrs in Apr)
1.3A1 + 0.9B1 ≤ 2,560(max labor hrs in Jan)
1.3A2 + 0.9B2 ≤ 2,560(max labor hrs in Feb)
1.3A3 + 0.9B3 ≤ 2,560(max labor hrs in Mar)
1.3A4 + 0.9B4 ≤ 2,560(max labor hrs in Apr)

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (11 of 12)

• The storage constraints

IA1 + IB1 ≤ 3,300 (storage capacity in Jan)

IA2 + IB2 ≤ 3,300 (storage capacity in Feb)
IA3 + IB3 ≤ 3,300 (storage capacity in Mar)
IA4 + IB4 ≤ 3,300 (storage capacity in Apr)
All variables ≥ 0 (nonnegativity constraints)

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (5 of 14)
PROGRAM 4 Greenberg Motors Solution in Excel 2016

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (6 of 14)
PROGRAM 4 Greenberg Motors Solution in Excel
2016
Solver Parameter Inputs and Selections Key Formulas
Set Objective: F5
By Changing cells: B4:Q4
To: Min
Copy formula in R5 to R8:R17
Subject to the Constraints: Copy formula in R5 to R19:R26
R19:R22 >= T19:T22 Copy formula in R5 to R28:R31
R23:R26 <= T23:T31
R28:R31 <= T28:T31
R8:R17 = T8:T17
Solving Method: Simplex LP
☑ Make Variables Non-Negative

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (12 of 12)
TABLE 3 Solution to Greenberg Motors Problem

PRODUCTION
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL
SCHEDULE
1,75
Units GM3A produced 1,277 223 792
8
Units GM3B produced 1,000 2,522 78 1,700

Inventory GM3A carried 477 0 758 450

Inventory GM3B carried 0 1,322 0 300

2,35
Labor hours required 2,560 2,560 2,560
5

• Total cost for this four month period is about $169,295

• Complete model has 16 variables and 22 constraints

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Case Study 5 Employee Scheduling
Applications
• Labor Planning
– Address staffing needs over a particular time
– Especially useful when there is some flexibility
in assigning workers that require overlapping or
interchangeable talents

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Hong Kong Bank (1 of 6)
• Hong Kong Bank of Commerce and Industry requires
between 10 and 18 tellers depending on the time of
day
• The bank wants a schedule that will minimize total
personnel costs
– Lunch time from noon to 2 pm is generally the
busiest
– Bank employs 12 full-time tellers, many part-time
workers
– Part-time workers must put in exactly four hours
per day, can start anytime between 9 am and 1
pm, and are inexpensive
Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Hong Kong Bank (2 of 6)

– Full-time workers work from 9 am to 3 pm and

have 1 hour for lunch
– Part-time hours are limited to a maximum of
50% of the day’s total requirements
– Part-timers earn $8 per hour on average
– Full-timers earn $100 per day on average
– It will release one or more of its full-time tellers
if it is profitable to do so

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Hong Kong Bank (3 of 6)
• Labor requirements

TABLE 4. Hong Kong Bank of Commerce and Industry

TIME PERIOD NUMBER OF TELLERS REQUIRED

9 am – 10 am 10
10 am – 11 am 12
11 am – Noon 14
Noon – 1 pm 16
1 pm – 2 pm 18
2 pm – 3 pm 17
3 pm – 4 pm 15
4 pm – 5 pm 10

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Hong Kong Bank (4 of 6)
• Variables
F = full-time tellers
P1 = part-timers starting at 9 am (leaving at 1 pm)
P2 = part-timers starting at 10 am (leaving at 2 pm)
P3 = part-timers starting at 11 am (leaving at 3 pm)
P4 = part-timers starting at noon (leaving at 4 pm)
P5 = part-timers starting at 1 pm (leaving at 5 pm)

• Objective
Minimize total daily personnel cost = $100F + $32(P1 + P2 + P3 + P4 +
P5)

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Hong Kong Bank (5 of 6)
• Constraints
F + P1 blank blank blank blank ≥ 10 (9 am – 10 am needs)

F + P1 + P2 blank blank blank ≥ 12 (11 am – noon needs)

0.5F + P1 + P2 + P3 blank blank ≥ 14 (1 pm – 2 pm needs)

0.5F + P1 + P2 + P3 + P4 blank ≥ 16 (noon – 1 pm needs)

F blank + P2 + P3 + P4 + P5 ≥ 18 (1 pm – 2 pm needs)

F blank blank + P3 + P4 + P5 ≥ 17 (2 pm – 3 pm needs)

F blank blank blank + P4 + P5 ≥ 15 (3 pm – 4 pm needs)

F blank blank blank blank + P5 ≥ 10 (4 pm – 5 pm needs)

F blank blank blank blank blank ≤ 12 (12 full-time tellers)

blank 4P1 + 4P2 + 4P3 + 4P4 + 4P5 ≤ 0.50(112) (max 50% part-timers)

F, P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 ≥ 0 (nonnegativity)

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (7 of 14)
PROGRAM 5 Labor Planning Solution in Excel
2016

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (8 of 14)

PROGRAM 5 Labor Planning Solution in Excel

2016
Solver Parameter Inputs and Selections Key Formulas
Set Objective: H6
By Changing cells: B5:G5
To: Min
Copy H6 to H9:H18
Subject to the Constraints:
H9:H16 >= J9:J16
H17:H18 <= J17:J18
Solving Method: Simplex LP
☑ Make Variables Non-Negative

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Hong Kong Bank (6 of 6)

• Alternate solutions are possible for this problem

• Each has the same total cost −$1,448/day

Blank SOLUTION 1 SOLUTION 2

Full-Time Tellers 10 10
P1 Tellers 0 6
P2 Tellers 7 1
P3 Tellers 2 2
P4 Tellers 5 5
P5 Tellers 0 0
Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Financial Applications

• Portfolio Selection
– Bank, investment funds, and insurance
companies often have to select specific
investments from a variety of alternatives
– Overall objective is generally to maximize the
potential return on the investment given a set
of legal, policy, or risk restraints

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Case Study 6: International City Trust (1 of
5)

• International City Trust (ICT) invests in short-term trade

credits, corporate bonds, gold stocks, and construction
loans
• The board of directors has placed limits on how much can
be invested in each area

INTEREST MAXIMUM INVESTMENT

INVESTMENT RETURN ($1,000,000s)
Trade credit 7 1.0
Corporate bonds 11 2.5
Gold stocks 19 1.5
Construction
15 1.8
loans

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
International City Trust (2 of 5)

• ICT has $5 million to invest and wants to

accomplish two things
– Maximize the return on investment over the
next six months
– Satisfy the diversification requirements set by
the board
• The board has also decided that at least 55% of
the funds must be invested in gold stocks and
construction loans and no less than 15% be
invested in trade credit

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
International City Trust (3 of 5)

• Variables
X1 = dollars invested in trade credit
X2 = dollars invested in corporate bonds
X3 = dollars invested in gold stocks
X4 = dollars invested in construction loans

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
International City Trust (4 of 5)
• Formulation
Maximize dollars of interest earned = 0.07X1 + 0.11X2 +
0.19X3 + 0.15X4
subject to : X1 ≤ 1,000,000
X2 ≤ 2,500,000
X3 ≤ 1,500,000
X4 ≤ 1,800,000
X3 + X4 ≥ 0.55(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4)
X1 ≥ 0.15(X1 + X2 + X3 + X4)
X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 ≤ 5,000,000
X 1, X 2, X 3, X 4 ≥ 0

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (9 of 14)
PROGRAM 6 ICT Portfolio Solution in Excel 2016

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (10 of 14)
PROGRAM 6 ICT Portfolio Solution in Excel 2016

Solver Parameter Inputs and Selections Key Formulas

Set Objective: F5
By Changing cells: B4:E4
To: Min
Copy F5 to F8:F14
Subject to the Constraints:
F8:F11 <= H8:H11
F12:F13 >= H12:H13
F14 <= H14
Solving Method: Simplex LP
☑ Make Variables Non-Negative

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
International City Trust (5 of 5)

• Optimal solution
– Make the following investments
X1 = $750,000
X2 = $950,000
X3 = $1,500,000
X4 = $1,800,000
– Total interest earned = $712,000

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Truck Loading Problem
• Truck Loading Problem
– Deciding which items to load on a truck so as
to maximize the value of a load shipped
– Goodman Shipping has to ship the following
six items
ITEM VALUE ($) WEIGHT (POUNDS)
1 22,500 7,500
2 24,000 7,500
3 8,000 3,000
4 9,500 3,500
5 11,500 4,000
6 9,750 3,500

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Case Study 7: Goodman Shipping (1 of 3)

• The objective is to maximize the value of items

loaded into the truck
• The truck has a capacity of 10,000 pounds
• Decision variable
Xi = proportion of each item i loaded on the
truck

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Goodman Shipping (2 of 3)
• Formulation
Maximize load value = $22,500X1 + $24,000X2 + $8,000X3 + $9,500X4
+ $11,500X5 + $9,750X6

subject to
7,500X1 + 7,500X2 + 3,000X3
+ 3,500X4 + 4,000X5 + 3,500X6 ≤ 10,000 lb
capacity
X1 ≤ 1
X2 ≤ 1
X3 ≤ 1
X4 ≤ 1
X5 ≤ 1
X6 ≤ 1
X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6 ≥ 0

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (11 of 14)
PROGRAM 7. Goodman Truck Loading Solution in
Excel 2016

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (12 of 14)

PROGRAM 7. Goodman Truck Loading Solution in

Excel 2016
Solver Parameter Inputs and Selections Key Formulas
Set Objective: H5
By Changing cells: B4:G4
To: Min
Copy H5 to H8:H14
Subject to the Constraints:
H8:H14 <= H8:H11
Solving Method: Simplex LP
☑ Make Variables Non-Negative

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Goodman Shipping (3 of 3)
• Goodman Shipping raises an interesting issue
– The solution calls for one third of Item 1 to be
loaded on the truck
– What if Item 1 cannot be divided into smaller
pieces?
• Rounding down leaves unused capacity on the truck
and results in a value of $24,000
• Rounding up is not possible since this would exceed
the capacity of the truck
• Using integer programming, the solution is to load
one unit of Items 3, 4, and 6 for a value of $27,250
Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Ingredient Blending Applications (1 of 2)

• Diet Problems
– One of the earliest LP applications
– Used to determine the most economical diet
for hospital patients
– This is also known as the feed mix problem

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Case Study 8: Whole Food Nutrition
Center (1 of 4)
• Uses three bulk grains to blend a natural cereal
• Advertises that the cereal meets the U.S. Recommended
Daily Allowance (USRDA) for four key nutrients
• Select the blend that will meet the requirements at the
minimum cost

NUTRIENT USRDA
Protein 3 units
Riboflavin 2 units
Phosphorus 1 unit
Magnesium 0.425 unit

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Whole Food Nutrition Center (2 of 4)
• Variables

XA = pounds of grain A in one 2-ounce serving of cereal

XB = pounds of grain B in one 2-ounce serving of cereal
XC = pounds of grain C in one 2-ounce serving of cereal

TABLE 5 Whole Food’s Natural Cereal Requirements

COST PER PROTEIN RIBOFLAVI PHOSPHORO MAGNESIU
GRAI POUND (UNITS/LB N US M
N (CENTS) ) (UNITS/LB) (UNITS/LB) (UNITS/LB)
A 33 22 16 8 5
B 47 28 14 7 0
C 38 21 25 9 6

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Whole Food Nutrition Center (3 of 4)

• Formulation
Minimize total cost of mixing a 2-ounce serving = $0.33XA +
$0.47XB + $0.38XC
subject to

22XA + 28XB + 21XC ≥ 3 (protein units)

16XA + 14XB + 25XC ≥ 2 (riboflavin units)
8XA + 7XB + 9XC ≥ 1 (phosphorous units)
5XA + 0XB + 6XC ≥ 0.425 (magnesium units)
XA + XB + XC = 0.125 (total mix)
X A, X B, X C ≥ 0

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (12 of 14)
PROGRAM 8. Whole Food Diet Solution in Excel 2016

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (2 of 3)

This solution is in pounds of grain

Expressed as ounces/serving, the optimal mix is:
0.4 oz Grain A
0.8 oz Grain B
0.8 oz Grain C

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (3 of 3)

PROGRAM 8. Whole Food Diet Solution in Excel 2016

Solver Parameter Inputs and Key Formulas

Selections
Set Objective: E6
By Changing cells: B5:D5
To: Min
Copy E6 to E9:E13
Subject to the Constraints:
E9:E12 >= G9:G12
E13 = G13
Solving Method: Simplex LP
☑ Make Variables Non-Negative

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Ingredient Blending Applications (2 of 2)

• Ingredient Mix and Blending Problems

– Diet and feed mix problems are special cases
of a more general class of problems known as
ingredient or blending problems
– Blending problems arise when decisions must
be made regarding the blending of two or more
resources to produce one or more product
– Resources may contain essential ingredients
that must be blended so that a specified
percentage is in the final mix

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Case Study 9: Low Knock Oil Company (1
of 5)

• Company produces two grades of cut-rate gasoline for

industrial distribution
• Regular and economy grades created by blending two
different types of crude oil
• The crude oil differs in cost and in its content of crucial
ingredients

CRUDE OIL INGREDIENT INGREDIENT COST/BARREL

TYPE A (%) B (%) ($)
X100 35 55 30.00
X220 60 25 34.80

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Low Knock Oil Company (2 of 5)

• Variables

X1 = barrels of crude X100 blended to

produce the refined regular
X2 = barrels of crude X100 blended to
produce the refined economy
X3 = barrels of crude X220 blended to
produce the refined regular
X4 = barrels of crude X220 blended to
produce the refined economy

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Low Knock Oil Company (3 of 5)

• Formulation

Minimize cost = $30X1 + $30X2 + $34.80X3 +

$34.80X4
subject to bl blank blank b blank blank
an la
k n
k
X1 + X3 blank ≥ 25,000 (demand for regular)
blank X2 blank + X4 ≥ 32,000 (demand for
economy)

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Low Knock Oil Company (4 of 5)

45% of each barrel of regular must be ingredient A

(X1 + X3) = total amount of crude blended to produce regular
Thus,
0.45(X1 + X3) = minimum amount of ingredient A required
But
0.35X1 + 0.60X3 = amount of ingredient A in regular
So
0.35X1 + 0.60X3 ≥ 0.45X1 + 0.45X3
or
− 0.10X1 + 0.15X3 ≥ 0 (A in regular constraint format)

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Low Knock Oil Company (5 of 5)

• Formulation
Minimize cost = $30X1 + $30X2 + $34.80X3 + $34.80X4

subject to blank blank blank bl blank blank

a
n
k
X1 blank + X3 blank ≥ 25,000 (demand for regular)
blank X2 blank + X4 ≥ 32,000 (demand for economy)
−0.10X1 blank + blank ≥ 0 (ingredient A in
0.15X3 regular)
blank 0.05X blank −0.25X4 ≤ 0 (ingredient B in
2
economy)
blank blank blank X 1, X 2, X 3, X 4 ≥ 0 (nonnegativity)

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (13 of 14)
PROGRAM 9. Low Knock Oil Solution in Excel 2016

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel 2016 (14 of 14)

PROGRAM 9. Low Knock Oil Solution in Excel 2016

Solver Parameter Inputs and Key Formulas

Selections
Set Objective: F6
By Changing cells: B5:E5
To: Min
Copy F6 to F9:F12
Subject to the Constraints:
F9:F11 >= H9:H11
F12 <= H12
Solving Method: Simplex LP
☑ Make Variables Non-Negative
Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Other LP Applications (1 of 3)

• Revenue Management
– Developed by American Airlines
– Differential pricing of seats to generate
additional revenue
– How many seats to make available to each
type of passenger
– Adopted by hotel industry

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Other LP Applications (2 of 3)
• Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)
– Measure efficiency of similar operating units
– Can be used when there is no single objective
to be optimized
▪ Identify inputs and outputs
▪ Develop constraints for each unit in the
system
– Objective is to minimize the resources
required to generate specific levels of output
– Identify areas where improvement might be
possible
Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Other LP Applications (3 of 3)

• Transportation, Transshipment, Assignment

Problems
– Very widely used in business
– Special purpose algorithms have been
developed
– Allow more rapid solution of these types of
problems

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Copyright

Copyright © 2018, 2015, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved