Sie sind auf Seite 1von 28

POM Computer Lab Portfolio Sakina Middleton MGNT 3185, TR 11:00a.m.-12:15p.m.

Table of Contents POM Computer Lab Assignment #1 .....1 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph Appendix A POM Computer Lab Assignment #2 .....2 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph Appendix A POM Computer Lab Assignment #3 .....3 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph Appendix A POM Computer Lab Assignment #4 .....4 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph Appendix A POM Computer Lab Assignment #5 .5 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph Appendix A POM Computer Lab Assignment #6 .....6 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph Appendix A

POM Computer Lab Assignment #7 .....7 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph Appendix A POM Computer Lab Assignment #8 .....8 Cover Page Explanatory Paragraph Appendix A

Explanatory Paragraph Using the Management Scientist software, I compared a two month simple moving average (SMA) forecast with an exponential smoothing forecast with an alpha of .25. The results indicated that SMA was the most accurate forecasting technique that resulted in a mean square error (MSE) of 194.21 compared to an exponential smoothing forecast MSE of 276.59. The lower the MSE, the better the forecast. Therefore, a two month SMA with a MSE of 194.21 is superior.

Explanatory Paragraph Using the Management Scientist software, I conducted a 10 week linear trend projection forecast. The results indicated that the trend equation is as follows: T = 152.8 + 0t, where T equals the trend value of the time series in period t. In the previously given linear trend equation, the first value after the equal sign (152.8) is the constant value calculated from the given 10 week period. At time period 18, the value of T from the given equation is 152.8 (T = 152.8 + 0(18) = 152.8 + 0 = 152.8). As indicated by the results, forecast for period 20 is 152.8.

Explanatory Paragraph = 4.257 + 1.651 Number of Tourists A regression analysis was conducted with Ridership as the dependent variable and Number of Tourists as the independent measure. Overall, the regression model was statistically significant (F=50.682, p=0.001). Number of Tourists was a significant predictor of Ridership. In addition, Number of Tourists was directly related to the dependent measure, Ridership. The coefficient of correlation (r) indicated a strong relationship between the predictor and Ridership (r=.914). A model fit index, the coefficient of determination (R), was .835, indicating that 83.5 percent of the variation in Ridership can be explained by Number of Tourists. Because the standard error of the estimate was 4.37596, the prediction equation was performing satisfactorily. If there are no tourists, the predicted ridership is the constant, 4.257. If 11 million tourists visit the city, the predicted ridership becomes 18,161,004.257 ( = 4.257 + 1.651 * 11,000,000).

Regression
Descriptive Statistics Mean Ridership (y) # of Tourists 22.0000 10.7500 Std. Deviation 10.27796 5.69090 Correlations N 12 12

Ridership (y) Pearson Correlation Ridership (y) # of Tourists Sig. (1-tailed) Ridership (y) # of Tourists N Ridership (y) # of Tourists Variables Entered/Removedb Variables Model 1 Entered # of Touristsa Variables Removed Method . Enter 1.000 .914 . .000 12 12

# of Tourists .914 1.000 .000 . 12 12

a. All requested variables entered. b. Dependent Variable: Ridership (y) Model Summary Adjusted R Model 1 R .914
a

R Square .835

Square .819

4.37596

ANOVAb

df 1 10 11

F 50.682

Sig. .000a

a. Predictors: (Constant), # of Tourists b. Dependent Variable: Ridership (y) Coefficientsa

Standardized Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) # of Tourists B 4.257 1.651 Std. Error 2.794 .232 .914 Coefficients Beta t 1.523 7.119 Sig. .159 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Ridership (y)

Collinearity Diagnostics

Variance Proportions Dimensi Model 1 on 1 2 Eigenvalue 1.892 .108 Condition Index 1.000 4.185 (Constant) .05 .95 # of Tourists .05 .95

a. Dependent Variable: Ridership (y)

Explanatory Paragraph Using the Management Scientist software, I developed a decision analysis for the optimistic, conservative, regret, and expected value of perfect information (EVPI) approaches with the given data. The results indicated that under the optimistic, regret, and EVPI approaches, we are to construct a large plant. Results under the conservative approach indicated that we are to do nothing; neither construct a large plant nor a small plant. With an overall result of 75% (3/4) among the four decision analysis approaches, the best outcome to maximize profits will be to build a large plant. Under the EVPI approach, the value is \$9,600.

Explanatory Paragraph Using the Management Scientist software, I developed a decision analysis for the optimistic, conservative, and regret approaches with the given data. The results indicated that under the optimistic and regret decision analysis approaches we are to redesign current practices so that workers can readily collect the information with little additional effort with costs of \$41,000 and \$16,000 respectively. Results under the conservative approach indicated that we are to hire and train two new workers at a cost of \$76,000. With an overall result of about 66.67% (2/3) among the three decision analysis approaches, the best outcome to minimize costs is to redesign current practices so that workers can readily collect the information with little additional effort.

Explanatory Paragraph The optimal solution for the maximization model was X1 = 538.418 and X2 = 253.107 with an objective function value of 7662.147. Reduced Costs values for both decision variables were zero, indicating that the variable had already attained a positive value in the optimal solution. With respect to Slack/Surplus, Constraints 1 and 3 had zero Slack and zero Surplus, respectively. Constraint 2 had 120.712 units of excess capacity while Constraint 4 had 17.881 units of Surplus. Constraint 1 had a Dual Price of 4.331, indicating that for each additional one-unit increase in the RHS \$4.33 would be added to the value of the objective function. In contrast, Constraint 3 had a Dual Price of 6.968, indicating that an additional oneunit increase in the RHS value of Constraint 3 would result in a \$6.97 increase to the value of the objective function. For X1, the optimal solution will hold for the model as long as its value is between 6.3 and 13.433; likewise, as long as the value of X2 is between 6.7 and 14.286, there is no need to resolve the maximization model. The RHS values for Constraints 2 and 4 will remain optimal as long as their values are between 479.288 to positive infinity and 117.119 to positive infinity, respectively. Finally, the RHS values for Constraints 1 and 3 will remain optimal as long as their values remain between 495.6 to 681.885 and 581.4 to 900, respectively.

Explanatory Paragraph Using the Management Scientist software, an inventory management analysis was conducted for economic order quantity, reorder point, cycle time, and annual cost. The results indicated that the optimal order quantity for TyTy Beverage Company is 549.17 cases. The reorder point for TyTy Beverage Company is 83.29 cases, indicating that when inventory reaches 83.29 cases, an order is sent for 549.17 cases with a lead time of 8 days in perfect conditions. TyTy Beverage Company has a cycle time of 52.75 days with 6.92 orders made per year. Annual inventory holding and ordering costs are \$172.99 each. Total annual cost is composed of annual inventory holding cost plus annual ordering cost, which results in a total of \$345.98.

Explanatory Paragraph Using the Management Scientist software, an inventory management analysis was conducted for a discount economic order quantity, reorder point, cycle time, and annual cost. The results indicated that the optimal order quantity from our supplier is 2,500 units. The reorder point for our company is 130 units, indicating that when inventory reaches 130 units, an order is sent for 2,500 units with a lead time of 5 days in perfect conditions. Our company has a cycle time of 96.15 days with 2.60 orders made per year. Annual inventory holding and ordering costs are \$1,246.88 and \$122.20, respectively. Annual purchase cost totals \$20,875. Total annual cost is composed of the addition of annual inventory holding cost, annual ordering cost, and annual purchasing cost, which results in a total of \$32,244.08.