Range of Optimality

The range of optimality tells us how much we can adjust the coefficients of the objective function
without changing the optimal solution. For Food A, the objective coefficient is 1, and its range of
optimality is from 2 to 4. This means that as long as its cost stays within this range, the current solution
remains the best option. However, if it drops below 2, Food A might become less significant in the
solution. Similarly, if it rises above 4, Food A would likely become more cost-efficient, altering the
balance between Food A and Food B.

For Food B, the story is similar but with a slightly narrower range. Its objective coefficient is 8,
and its range is from 1.5 to 3. Staying within this range means the solution stays optimal. But if the cost
per unit goes below 1.5, Food B might start to dominate the solution. On the flip side, if it goes above 3,
Food B might lose some of its appeal compared to Food A.

This gives us flexibility in pricing or costing Food A and Food B, which is useful for decision-
making. For example, we could try to negotiate a lower cost for Food A to make it more favorable in the
mix.

Range of Feasibility

The range of feasibility focuses on the constraints and how much we can tweak the right-hand
side (RHS) values without breaking the solution. Let’s start with the calories constraint. Its RHS is
currently 10, and the range of feasibility is from 9 to 18. This means we can reduce the required calories
slightly or increase it significantly without any issues. The shadow price of 1 shows that every additional
unit of calories within this range would reduce the total cost by 1 unit. This is great to know if we’re
considering increasing the calorie limit.

For the minerals constraint, the RHS is 9, with a range of 6 to 10. Like calories, we have some
room to adjust this requirement. Again, the shadow price of 1 means that extra minerals will reduce
costs by 1 per unit, up to the upper limit of 10. Below 6, the solution becomes infeasible.

Now, for the vitamins constraint, the situation is a bit different. The RHS is 8, and the range of
feasibility stretches from a massive -1E+30 to 17. However, the shadow price is 0, which tells us that
changes in the vitamin requirement (within this range) won’t affect the total cost. In fact, we currently
have a slack of 9, meaning there’s more than enough vitamins available, and adding more won’t make
any difference.

Conclusion

From the results, the optimal solution suggests producing 1 unit of Food A and 8 units of Food B,
leading to a minimum cost of 19. Both the calorie and mineral constraints are binding, meaning they’re
fully utilized, leaving no room for adjustment. Meanwhile, the vitamins constraint has extra capacity,
which explains why it has no impact on the cost.

This analysis is incredibly helpful for planning. It tells us which resources are being fully utilized
(calories and minerals) and which ones we have surplus of (vitamins). If we were to consider changes to
our constraints or costs, we’d want to focus on the ones that directly impact the solution—like calories
and minerals. It also allows us to explore “what-if” scenarios. For instance, what if the cost of Food B
increases? Or what if we need to tighten the calorie requirement? Knowing the ranges makes it easier to
plan for these adjustments without overcomplicating things.

Overall, this sensitivity analysis gives us a clear roadmap for managing costs and resources while
maintaining an optimal and feasible solution. It’s like having a safety net that tells us how much room
we have to maneuver without breaking anything.
 Basing on the sensitivity report, the range of optimality for Food A is between ₱2 and ₱4. This
indicates that a food can be purchased, specifically for Food A between ₱2 and ₱4 from the original cost
of ₱3 per unit, and the optimal solution will still result as 1 for Food A and 8 for Food B. Provided,
however, while the optimal solution remains, the optimal value or cost of ₱19 will move depending on
direction of such change in the cost per unit purchased. Meanwhile, the range of optimality for Food B is
between ₱1.5 and ₱3. The same rule applies to the optimal solution, optimal value, and adjusted cost
per unit of Food A.

The range of optimality tells us how much we can adjust the coefficients of the objective function
without changing the optimal solution. Basing on the sensitivity report, for Food A, the objective
coefficient is 1, and its range of optimality is from ₱2 to ₱4. This means that as long as its cost stays
within this range, the current solution remains the same, but with a slight change in the optimal value.
Such change depends on how much increase or decrease will be made. However, if cost of Food A drops
below 2, Food A might become less significant in the solution. Similarly, if it rises above 4, Food A would
likely become more cost-efficient, altering the balance between Food A and Food B.
To best illustrate the effects, let’s try to solve this scenario. The original cost per unit of Food A
and Food B are ₱3 and ₱2, respectively, and the dietician wants to purchase at a minimum cost of ₱3.5
from Food A and ₱2.5 for Food B. Given that the change in the cost per unit is within their respective
ranges of optimality, the optimal solution will still be at (1,8) or 1 Food A and 8 Food B will be
purchased. Change the original cost of ₱3 with ₱3.5, and ₱2 with ₱2.5, delete the value of the decision
variables, and run the excel solver to verify the answer.
Case 1. Increase in the objective coefficient, within range of optimality

Earlier, we tried increasing the cost per food, it is now time to try the other direction of changes
in values. Let’s say that the dietician, upon careful consideration, as well as the computation of the
estimated costs for the foods, he found out that the original cost of ₱3 from Food A and ₱2 from Food B
can still be minimized resulting to a lower cost, thus he decided to decrease the estimated cost per unit
to ₱2.5 for Food A and ₱1.5 for Food B. Since the decrease is still within the range of optimality, the
optimal solution will remain at (1,8), while there will be some changes in the optimal value. To verify
such changes, change the values originally entered with the adjusted values and run the excel solver.
Case 2. Decrease in the objective coefficient, within the range of
optimality

Now that we have already tried increased and decreased the original objective coefficient (cost
per unit) with the values within their respective range of optimality, this time, we will make an increase
or decrease in the objective coefficient but with values not within the respective range of optimality per
unit. From the original cost per Food A of ₱3, replace it with ₱5. While the original cost per Food B of ₱2
will be replaced with ₱1.
Case 3. Changes in the objective coefficient, outside the range of
optimality

By ignoring the range of optimality, we can conclude that the changes, whether increase or
decrease, in the objective coefficients (cost per unit) will result to different optimal solution and optimal
value, given that the adjusted values are not within the range of optimality provided by the sensitivity
report. From the original optimal solution of (1,8), the new solution now provides for 0 unit of Food A
and 10 units of Food B. Although the new result provides for a lower cost for both foods, this will not
guarantee that the objective of the dietician to minimize cost will be attained. It must be considered that
the dietician wants to intake at least 8 units of vitamins, 9 units of minerals, and 10 calories to maintain
his diet. Thus, the importance of the range of optimality.
 This visual shows the summarized information of the decisions that can be made from the given
set data. In this problem, the optimal solution is (1,8) which yields the minimum cost for Food A and
Food B, ₱19.

The RANGE OF FEASIBILITY, on the other hand, refers to the range at which the right-hand side
(RHS) can be changed, and the shadow price or dual value is applicable. In simpler words, the range of
feasibility is the range over which the shadow price is applicable, where the shadow price is the change
in value of the optimal solution per unit increase in the RHS. If the range of optimality allows us to
change the values of the objective coefficients of the unknown in the problem, the range of feasibility
allows us to manipulate the values in the right-hand side column, for which it is the available resources
for the constraints of the problem. For our calories constraint, its range of feasibility is from 9 to 18. This
means that for every ₱1 added or removed from the available resources (in the RHS), there is a
corresponding ₱1 (shadow price) increase or decrease on the optimal cost. Subsequently, the optimal
solution will change.

Let’s say that the farmer has ₱15 available calories. Without running the excel solver, we can
easily compute for the optimal value of ₱8,324 [₱8,400 𝑂𝑝𝑡𝑆𝑜𝑙 − ((₱2,400 𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑅𝐻𝑆 − ₱2,324) ∗ ₱1
𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑤 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒)]. To verify our answer, we will now run the excel solver by changing the values
required.