SENSITIVITY

ANALYSIS
 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Sensitivity analysis is a technique used to determine the performance of each
process and how varied weight values of the attributes: Economics, Manufacturability,
Sustainability, Environmental Impact and Safety will impact the chosen process. This is
done to compare the response of various process upon changing conditions. The Single
Factor and the Two Factor Analysis are employed in this analysis.

Table 1. Worst-Case and Best-Case Benchmark for each Attribute

BEST BEST BEST BEST BEST
ATTRIBUTES WORST
ECON. MANU. SUST. ENVI. SAFETY
Economics 11.94 16.08 13.71 16.08 16.08 16.08
Manufacturability 16.77 16.77 20.00 16.77 16.77 16.77
Sustainability 9.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00
Environmental
9.00 15.00 9.00 15.00 15.00 15.00
Impact
Safety 11.40 15.00 11.40 15.00 15.00 15.00

The worst case benchmark are the lowest weighted scores from each attribute
while the best score benchmark for each attribute are designated by the process with the
highest weighted score in that attribute. Table 1 shows the worst case and best case
benchmark for each attribute based on the scores used in the process selection.

Table 2. Score and Weight of Attributes

LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES SCORE WEIGHT
IMPORTANCE
Economics 1 100 0.31
Manufacturability 2 99.38 0.31
Sustainability 3 60.27 0.19
Environmental Impact 4 40.18 0.12
Safety 5 25.45 0.08
TOTAL 325.27 1.00

The level of importance of each attribute had been predetermined based on the
significance of each attribute to the process. Economics was deemed the most significant
attribute and is scored as 100. The scores for the succeeding attributes are calculated by
getting of the difference of the best value and the value of the considered attribute divided
by the difference of the best value and worst value for that attribute multiplied by one
hundred. The scores for each attribute is are presented in Table 2.

Table 3. Process Choice

ATTRIBUTES P1 P2 P3
Economics 0.79 1.00 0.00
Manufacturability 1.00 0.00 0.09
Sustainability 1.00 1.00 0.00
Environmental Impact 0.00 1.00 1.00
Safety 0.00 1.00 0.67
TOTAL 0.54556 0.82108 0.34510
CHOSEN PROCESS P2

The three proposed process were rated from 0 to 1. The process with the highest
score for each attribute was rated as 1. On the other hand, the attribute that has the lowest
score is rated as 0. The rate of the process in between the highest and the lowest is computed
by the difference of the highest score and the middle score divided by the difference of the
middle score and the lowest score. The corresponding rate for each process for each
attribute is shown in Table 3.
 Sensitivity Analysis
Single - Factor
Method
Single-Factor Sensitivity Analysis
In Single Factor Analysis one of the attributes is changed while the others are
kept at baseline values to see its effect of this attribute to the choice of process. This is done
for each attribute. The Threshold Values identify the value of the attribute in which the
decision changes.

Table 4. Sensitivity Analysis of Best-Economics Score

BEST ECONOMICS
SCORE CHOICE
10 P1
20 P1
30 P1
40 P1
50 P1
60 P1
70 P1
80 P1
90 P1
100 P1
200 P2
300 P2
400 P2
500 P2
600 P2
700 P2
800 P2
900 P2
1000 P2
*Base Case score is 100
Table 4 shows that from score 10 to 100 for Economics the chosen process is
Process 1. However, at score 200 the choice shifts to Process 2. Further increasing the score
of Economics up until 100 the model still chooses Process 2. This suggests that the most
economic process is Process 2.
 Table 5. Threshold Values for Sensitivity Analysis of Best-Economics Score
BEST ECONOMICS
SCORE CHOICE
100 P1
110 P1
120 P1
130 P1
140 P1
150 P1
160 P1
170 P2
180 P2
190 P2
200 P2

Table 5 shows that at Economics value of 164 the choice of process changes from
Process 1 to Process 2.

Table 6. Ranking at Threshold Values for Sensitivity Analysis of Best- Economics Score
LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES SCORE WEIGHT
IMPORTANCE
Economics 1 170 0.43
Manufacturability 2 99.38 0.25
Sustainability 3 60.27 0.15
Environmental Impact 4 40.18 0.10
Safety 5 25.45 0.06
TOTAL 395.27 1.00

Varying the values for Economics while holding the other attributes constant shows
that Process 2 garnered the highest score which may be attributed to the fact that the raw
materials of Process 1 cost twice to quadruple times less than the other two processes.
Economics attribute garnered 43% of the total score followed by manufacturability at 25%,
sustainability at 15%, and environmental impact at 10% and lastly, safety at 6%. The
ranking may be considered ideal because it assures that the production is earning enough
profit, the main goal of production. Based on the weight calculated, it would be expected
that this ranking would choose a process that is:
1. High revenue due to its high economic score percentage.
 2. Low cost with high quality output due relatively high manufacturability score
percentage.
3. No extensive safety and environmental procedure due to low safety and
environmental score percentage.

Table 7. Sensitivity Analysis of Best-Manufacturability Score

BEST MANUFACTURBILITY
SCORE CHOICE
10 P2
20 P2
30 P2
40 P2
50 P2
60 P2
70 P2
80 P1
90 P1
100 P1
200 P1
300 P1
400 P1
500 P1
600 P1
700 P1
800 P1
900 P1
1000 P1
*Base score 99.38
Table 7 shows that from score 10 to 70 the chosen process is Process 2. However,
at 80 to 1000 taking only into consideration the attribute Manufacturability the chosen
process is Process 1. This suggest that at high Manufacturability score the process of choice
is Process 1.
 Table 8. Threshold Values for Sensitivity Analysis of Best-Manufacturability Score
BEST MANUFACTURBILITY
SCORE CHOICE
70 P2
71 P2
72 P2
73 P2
74 P2
75 P2
76 P2
77 P1
78 P1
79 P1
80 P1

Table 8 shows that at threshold value of 77 the process choice changed from
Process 2 to Process 1.

Table 9. Ranking at Threshold Values for Sensitivity Analysis of Best-Manufacturability

Score
LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES IMPORTANCE SCORE WEIGHT
Economics 1 100 0.32
Manufacturability 2 87.00 0.28
Sustainability 3 60.27 0.19
Environmental Impact 4 40.18 0.13
Safety 5 25.45 0.08
TOTAL 312.89 1.00

Ranking of attributes at the threshold value of Manufacturability shows that the

highest weight is Economics at 32%, followed by Manufacturability at 28%, Sustainability
at 19%, Environmental Impact at 13% and Safety at 13%.
 Table 10. Sensitivity Analysis of Best-Sustainability Score
BEST SUSTAINABILITY
SCORE CHOICE
10 P1
20 P1
30 P1
40 P1
50 P1
60 P1
70 P1
80 P1
90 P1
100 P1
200 P2
300 P2
400 P2
500 P2
600 P2
700 P2
800 P2
900 P2
1000 P2
*Base score 60.27
Table 10 shows that a Sustainability score of 200 the chosen process changes from
Process 1 to Process 2. Moreover, increasing the value further to 1000 the model still
chooses Process 2 as the best process. It can be assumed that at an analysis considering
sustainability and holding other attributes constant the most sustainable process is Process
2.

Table 11. Threshold Values for Sensitivity Analysis of Best-Sustainability Score

BEST SUSTAINABILITY
SCORE CHOICE
110 P1
120 P1
130 P1
140 P1
150 P1
160 P1
170 P2
180 P2
190 P2
 200 P2

Table 10 shows that at Sustainability value of 170 the choice of process changes
from Process 1 to Process 2. And continuously chooses Process 2 upon further increased
value.

Table 12. Ranking at Threshold Values for Sensitivity Analysis of Best-Sustainability

Score
LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES SCORE WEIGHT
IMPORTANCE
Economics 1 100.00 0.39
Manufacturability 2 99.38 0.23
Sustainability 3 170 0.39
Environmental Impact 4 40.18 0.09
Safety 5 25.45 0.06
TOTAL 435.00 1.16

Table 11 shows the ranking of attributes at increased score of Sustainability. At this

condition the weight percentage of Sustainability increased from 19% to 39% tying with
Economics. This leaves Manufacturability at 23%, Environmental Impact at 9% and Safety
at 6%. Based on the weight calculated, the expected process would have:
1. Low cost due to low raw material cost as suggested by the high sustainability score
percentage.
2. High revenue due to high economic percentage.
3. Compromised safety and environmental conditions based on score percentage less
than 10%.

Table 13. Sensitivity Analysis of Best-Environmental Impact Score

BEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SCORE CHOICE
10 P1
20 P1
30 P1
40 P1
50 P1
60 P1
 70 P2
80 P2
90 P2
100 P2
120 P2
140 P2
160 P2
180 P2
200 P2
300 P2
400 P2
500 P2
600 P2
700 P2
800 P2
900 P2
1000 P2
*Base score 40.18
Table 12 show that variation of Environmental Impact value at scores between 60
and 70 changes the chosen process. Further increase up until a score of 1000 results to
constant choice of Process 2.

Table 14. Threshold Values for Sensitivity Analysis of Best-Environmental Impact Score
BEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SCORE CHOICE
60 P1
61 P1
62 P2
63 P2
64 P2
65 P2
66 P2
67 P2
68 P2
69 P2
70 P2

Table 14 shows that the process choice changes at score 62 of the Environmental
Impact.
 Table 15. Ranking at Threshold Values for Sensitivity Analysis of Best-Environmental
Impact Score
LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES SCORE WEIGHT
IMPORTANCE
Economics 2 100.00 0.18
Manufacturability 1 99.38 0.29
Sustainability 4 60.27 0.17
Environmental Impact 3 62 0.18
Safety 5 25.45 0.07
TOTAL 347.09 0.89

Table 15 shows that at threshold value of 62 for Environmental Impact the weight
garnered is 18% which ties with Economics and almost the same as sustainability.
Moreover, the highest weighted attribute is Manufacturability at 29% and the lowest is
Safety at 7%. Based on this analysis the process that would be chosen:
1. Produces high quality product due to high scored Manufacturability.
2. Generates enough profit, sustainable and environmental friendly.
3. Unsafe because of low weighted score on safety: below 10%.

Table 16. Sensitivity Analysis of Best-Safety Score

BEST SAFETY
SCORE CHOICE
10 P1
20 P1
30 P1
40 P1
50 P2
60 P2
70 P2
80 P2
90 P2
100 P2
120 P2
140 P2
160 P2
180 P2
200 P2
300 P2
400 P2
500 P2
 600 P2
700 P2
800 P2
900 P2
1000 P2
*Best score is 25.45
Table 16 shows the shift in choice at score 50 from Process 1 to Process 2. The best
process based on evaluation considering Safety as the only attribute is Process 2. Further
increasing of the score up to 1000 does not change the chosen process. Thus the best
process in terms of Safety is Process 2.

Table 17. Threshold Values for Sensitivity Analysis of Best-Safety Score

BEST SAFETY
SCORE CHOICE
40 P1
41 P1
42 P1
43 P1
44 P1
45 P1
46 P1
47 P1
48 P1
49 P1
50 P2

Table 17 shows the threshold value for the sensitivity analysis of best-safety
score.

Table 18. Ranking at Threshold Values for Sensitivity Analysis of Best-Safety Score
LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES SCORE WEIGHT
IMPORTANCE
Economics 3 100.00 0.14
Manufacturability 1 99.38 0.28
Sustainability 2 60.27 0.17
Environmental Impact 5 40.18 0.11
Safety 4 50 0.14
TOTAL 349.82 0.86
 The table shows that at threshold value of 50 for Safety the most important attribute
is Manufacturability at weighted score of 28% followed by Sustainability at 17%.
Economics and Safety are at a tie at 14% while Environmental Impact is weighed as 11%.
The process that would be chosen based on this analysis would produce:

1. Product in line with chosen specification due to high scored Manufacturability.

2. Sustainable process
3. Poor revenue due to low Economic score

Based on Single Factor Analysis of each attribute, Process 2 has been identified
as the best process for the Production of Sodium Tripolyphosphate.
Sensitivity Analysis
Two - Factor
Method
Two-Factor Sensitivity Analysis

Two Factor Sensitivity Analysis provides insight on the outcome upon changing
a combination of any two attributes.

Table 19. Economics Manufacturability Sensitivity Analysis

Economics Score
Manufacturability
100 120 140 160 180 200 400 600 800 1000
Score
100 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
120 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2
140 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2
160 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2
180 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2
200 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2
400 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
600 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
800 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
1000 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
*Economics Base Case Score is 100
*Manufacturability Base Case Score is 99.38

Analysis of Economics-Manufacturability combination shows that Process 1 is an

appropriate choice at first. However, in the long run and at increase values of both
Economic and Manufacturability shows that the best option is Process 2.

Table 20. Threshold Values for Economics Manufacturability Sensitivity Analysis

Economics Score
Manufacturability
160 170 180 190 200 400 550 700 850 1000
Score
100 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
105 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
110 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
115 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
120 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
125 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
130 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
135 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
 140 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
145 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
150 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2
155 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2
160 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2
165 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2
170 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2
175 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2
180 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2
185 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2
190 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2
195 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2
200 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2

Table 20 shows the threshold values at which Process 1 would change to Process 2
based on the Economics Manufacturability combination. It is shown in this table that the
shift starts at values 170 100 and continues to shift as the scores are increased.

Table 21. Ranking for Economics-Manufacturability at Threshold Values

LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES SCORE WEIGHT
IMPORTANCE
Economics 1 170.00 0.43
Manufacturability 2 100.00 0.25
Sustainability 3 60.27 0.15
Environmental Impact 4 40.18 0.10
Safety 5 25.45 0.06
TOTAL 395.89 1.00

Ranking of the level of importance of each attribute while varying Economics and
Manufacturability and holding other attributes constant shows that the chosen process is
Process 2. As Economics increase from 31% to 43%, Manufacturability decreases from
31% to 25%. This shift in the process choice to Process 2 is in line with the base ranking,
with increased level of importance for Economics. However, higher return of revenue is
achieved in the expense of Safety and Environmental Impact where scores were decreased
by 2%. Although the main goal of the production is to produce revenue it is still must
maintain a balance in the process it utilizes, thus Process 2 appropriate however its
weighted score must be that which shows balance to all the attributes mentioned.
 Table 22. Economics-Sustainability Sensitivity Analysis

Economics Score
Sustainability
100 120 140 160 180 200 400 600 800 1000
Score
100 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
120 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
140 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
160 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
180 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
200 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
400 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
600 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
800 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
1000 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
*Economics Base Case Score is 100
*Sustainability Base Case Score is 60.27

Table 22 shows that at Economics value of 100 to 160 with corresponding

Sustainability value of 100 to 1000 and even higher, the chosen process is constantly
Process 1. Though passing the 160 score mark for Economics and continuous increase
even up to 1000 shows that the chosen process shifts to Process 2 with the corresponding
Sustainability value of 100 to 1000.

Table 23. Threshold Values for Economics-Sustainability Sensitivity Analysis

Economics Score
Sustainability
160 170 180 190 200 400 550 700 850 1000
Score
100 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
150 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
200 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
250 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
300 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
350 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
400 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
450 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
500 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
550 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
 600 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
650 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
700 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
750 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
800 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
850 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
900 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
950 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
1000 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2

Table 23 shows the exact value where Process 1 changes to Process 2 based on
Economics Sustainability combination. At exactly Economics score 170 up to 1000 with
corresponding Sustainability value of 100 to 1000 the resulting process is Process 2.

Table 24. Ranking for Economics-Sustainability at Threshold Values

LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES SCORE WEIGHT
IMPORTANCE
Economics 1 170.00 0.39
Manufacturability 2 99.38 0.23
Sustainability 3 100.00 0.23
Environmental Impact 4 40.18 0.09
Safety 5 25.45 0.06
TOTAL 435.00 1.00

Table 24 shows the new ranking of the level of importance after Economics -
Sustainability score variation. The weight as Process 1 shifts to Process 2 are as follows;
Economics increases to 39% from 31%, followed by Manufacturability and Sustainability
tied at 23%, Environmental Impact at a decreased value of 9% and Safety also at a
decreased weight of 6%. The new ranking obtained is similar to the base ranking where
Economics has the highest weigh however, it jeopardizes the overall safety of the workers
and the environment at a lower weight designated to Environmental Impact and Safety.
Again, although Process 2 is the best choice it should still possess a balance value for all
the attributes considered.
 Table 25. Economics Environmental Impact Sensitivity Analysis

Economics Score
Environmental
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Impact Score
10 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2
20 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2
30 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2
40 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2
50 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2
60 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2
70 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
80 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
90 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
100 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
*Economics Base Case Score is 100
*Environmental Impact Base Case Score is 40.18

Table 25 shows that at varying Economic Environmental Impact conditions

Process 1 shifts to Process 2 at increased values of the two independent variable.

Table 26. Threshold Values for Economics Environmental Impact Sensitivity Analysis

Economics Score
Environmental
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Impact Score
70 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
71 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
72 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
73 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
74 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
75 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
76 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
77 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
78 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
79 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
80 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
81 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
82 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
83 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
84 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
 85 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
86 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
87 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
88 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
89 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
90 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
91 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
92 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
93 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
94 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
95 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
96 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
97 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
98 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
99 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
100 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2

Table 26 shows that Process 2 is the appropriate choice of process for changing
Economics Environmental Impact conditions.

Table 27. Ranking for Economics Environmental Impact at Threshold Values

LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES SCORE WEIGHT
IMPORTANCE
Economics 1 20.00 0.07
Manufacturability 5 99.38 0.36
Sustainability 2 60.27 0.22
Environmental Impact 4 70.00 0.25
Safety 3 25.45 0.09
TOTAL 275.09 1.00

At modified scores of Economics and Safety the appropriate process is Process 2.

The attributes are ranked as Manufacturability at 35%, Environmental Impact at 25%,
Sustainability at 22%, Safety at 9% and Economics at 7%.

Table 28. Economics-Safety Sensitivity Analysis

Economics Score
Safety
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Score
10 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
 20 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
30 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
40 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2
50 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
60 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
70 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
80 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
90 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
100 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
*Economics Base Case Score is 100
*Safety Base Case Score is 40.18

Table 28 shows the shift on the process choice at increased value of Economics
Safety combination. The shift starts at score 100 40.

Table 29. Threshold Values for Economics Safety Sensitivity Analysis

Economics Score
Safety
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Score
40 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2
42 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2
44 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2
46 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2
48 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
50 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
52 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
54 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
56 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
58 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
60 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
62 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
64 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
66 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
68 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
70 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
72 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
74 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
76 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
78 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
80 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
82 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
84 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
 86 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
88 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
90 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
92 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
94 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
96 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
98 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
100 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2

At Table 29 the exact threshold value at which Process 1 changes to Process 2 is

shown.

Table 30. Ranking for Economics Safety at Threshold Values

LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES SCORE WEIGHT
IMPORTANCE
Economics 1 10.00 0.04
Manufacturability 5 99.38 0.37
Sustainability 2 60.27 0.23
Environmental Impact 4 40.18 0.15
Safety 3 58.00 0.22
TOTAL 267.82 1.00

Table 30 shows that ranking the Economic Safety combination shows that the
most significance attribute is Manufacturability at 37%, Sustainability at 23%, Safety at
22%, Environmental Impact at 15% and Economics at 4%. The process is chosen is at very
low economic value which is not acceptable.

Table 31. Manufacturability - Sustainability Sensitivity Analysis

Manufacturability Score
Sustainability
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Score
10 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
20 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
30 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
40 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
50 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
60 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
70 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
 80 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
90 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
100 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
*Manufacturability Base Case Score is 99.38
*Sustainability Base Case Score is 60.27

Table 32. Threshold Values for Manufacturability - Sustainability Sensitivity Analysis

Manufacturability Score
Sustainability
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Score
10 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
15 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
20 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
25 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
30 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
35 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
40 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
45 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
50 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
55 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
60 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
65 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
70 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
75 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
80 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
85 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
90 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
95 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
100 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1

Table 32 shows that at Manufacturability score 10 to 80 with corresponding

Sustainability score of 10 to 100, the prominent process of choice is Process 2. However,
a uniform shift starts at Manufacturability score of 90 to 100 with corresponding
Sustainability score of 10 to 100.

Table 33. Ranking for Manufacturability - Sustainability at Threshold Values

LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES SCORE WEIGHT
IMPORTANCE
Economics 1 100.00 0.29
Manufacturability 80.00 0.23
 Sustainability 2 100.00 0.29
Environmental Impact 4 40.18 0.12
Safety 3 25.45 0.07
TOTAL 345.63 1.00

The varied values of Manufacturability Sustainability score shows that the most
important attribute would be both Economics and Sustainability at 29% followed by
Manufacturability at 23%, Environmental Impact at 12% and Safety at 7%.

Table 34. Environmental Impact - Safety Sensitivity Analysis

Environmental Impact Score

Safety
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Score
10 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2
20 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
30 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
40 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
50 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
60 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
70 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
80 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
90 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
100 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
* Environmental Impact Base Case Score is 40.18
*Safety Base Case Score is 25.45
At Environmental Impact Safety score of 10 70 shift from Process 1 to Process
2 appears. Continuous increase of the Environmental Impact Safety scores shows the
consistent choice of Process 2 as the appropriate process.

Table 35. Threshold Values for Environmental Impact - Safety Sensitivity Analysis

Environmental Impact Score

Safety
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Score
60 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2
62 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
64 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
66 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
 68 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
70 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
72 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
74 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
76 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
78 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
80 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
82 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
84 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
86 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
88 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
90 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
92 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
94 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
96 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
98 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2

Table 35 shows the threshold value where at Environmental Impact Safety score
10 70 the chosen process is no longer Process 1 but is now Process 2.

Table 36. Ranking for Environmental Impact - Safety at Threshold Values

LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES SCORE WEIGHT
IMPORTANCE
Economics 1 100.00 0.29
Manufacturability 5 99.38 0.29
Sustainability 2 60.27 0.18
Environmental Impact 4 10.00 0.03
Safety 3 70.00 0.21
TOTAL 339.65 1.00

Economics and Manufacturability ties at most important attribute weighted as 29%

at varied Environmental Impact Safety score. Safety follows at 21%, then Sustainability
at 18% and finally Environmental Impact at 3%. This ranking shows that the best
Economics and Manufacturability are obtained at the risk of the Environmental Impact of
the process which is unacceptable.
 Table 37. Manufacturability - Environmental Impact Sensitivity Analysis

Manufacturability Score
Environmental
Impact 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Score
10 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
20 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1 P1
30 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
40 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
50 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1
60 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
70 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
80 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
90 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
100 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
*Manufacturability Base Case Score is 99.38
*Environmental Impact Base Case Score is 40.18

Table 37 shows the shift from Process 2 to Process 1 at varying Manufacturability

- Environmental Impact values.

Table 38. Threshold Values for Manufacturability - Environmental Impact Sensitivity

Analysis
Manufacturability Score
Environmental
Impact 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Score
12 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
14 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1 P1
16 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1 P1
18 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1 P1
20 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1 P1
22 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1 P1
24 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
26 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
28 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
30 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
32 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
34 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
36 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
38 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
 40 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
42 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P2 P1 P1
44 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1
46 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1
48 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1
50 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1

Table 38 shows that at threshold value of 60 12 for Manufacturability -

Environmental Impact the choice of process shifts from Process 2 to Process 1.

Table 39. Ranking for Manufacturability - Environmental Impact at Threshold Values

MANUFACTURABILITY-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES IMPORTANCE SCORE WEIGHT
Economics 1 100.00 0.39
Manufacturability 5 60.00 0.23
Sustainability 2 60.27 0.23
Environmental Impact 4 12 0.05
Safety 3 25.45 0.10
TOTAL 257.71 1.00
ATTRIBUTES P1 P2 P3
Economics 0.79 1.00 0.00
Manufacturability 1.00 0.00 0.06
Sustainability 1.00 1.00 0.00
Environmental Impact 0.00 1.00 1.00
Safety 0.00 1.00 0.67
TOTAL 0.77406 0.76718 0.12738
CHOSEN PROCESS P1

The analysis of Manufacturability - Environmental Impact combination shows that

the highest ranked attribute is Economics at 39%, then a tie between Manufacturability and
Environmental Impact at 23%, Safety at 10% and Environmental Impact at 5%. This shows
increased Economics values but at lowered Environmental Impact and Safety values.

Table 40. Manufacturability - Safety Sensitivity Analysis

Manufacturability Score
Safety 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
 Score
10 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
20 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
30 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
40 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
50 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1
60 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
70 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
80 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
90 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
100 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
*Manufacturability Base Case Score is 99.38
*Safety Base Case Score is 25.45

Table 40 shows that at 10 80 value of Manufacturability Safety score shows a

gradual shift from Process 2 to Process 1.

Table 41. Threshold Values for Manufacturability - Safety Sensitivity Analysis

Manufacturability Score
Safety
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Score
10 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
11 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
12 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
13 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
14 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
15 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
16 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
17 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
18 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
19 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1
20 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
21 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
22 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
23 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
24 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
25 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
26 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
27 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
28 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
29 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1
 30 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1

The threshold value at which Process 2 shifts to Process 1 is shown in this table.
Process is the prominent choice until a gradual shift to Process 1.

Table 42. Ranking for Manufacturability - Safety at Threshold Values

MANUFACTURABILITY-SAFETY
LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES IMPORTANCE SCORE WEIGHT
Economics 1 100.00 0.33
Manufacturability 5 80.00 0.27
Sustainability 2 60.27 0.20
Environmental Impact 4 40.18 0.13
Safety 3 19 0.06
TOTAL 299.45 1.00
ATTRIBUTES P1 P2 P3
Economics 0.79 1.00 0.00
Manufacturability 1.00 0.00 0.06
Sustainability 1.00 1.00 0.00
Environmental Impact 0.00 1.00 1.00
Safety 0.00 1.00 0.67
TOTAL 0.73297 0.73284 0.19368
CHOSEN PROCESS P1

Table 42 shows that the new ranking for the analysis of Manufacturability Safety
combination increases the weight of Economics to 33%. Manufacturability is at 27%,
Sustainability at 20%, Environmental Impact at 13% and Safety at 6%. The weight
assigned to each attribute is an acceptable due to lowered Safety score putting workers at
a compromised condition.

Table 43. Sustainability Environmental Impact Sensitivity Analysis

Sustainability Score
Environmental
Impact 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Score
10 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
20 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
 30 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
40 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
50 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
60 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
70 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
80 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
90 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
100 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
*Sustainability Base Case Score is 60.27
*Environmental Impact Base Case Score is 40.18

Table 43 shows that a solid change in the process choice occurs at Sustainability
score of 50 -100 with the corresponding Environmental Impact Score of 60 100.

Table 44. Threshold Values for Sustainability Environmental Impact Sensitivity

Analysis

Sustainability Score
Environmental
Impact 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Score
60 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
62 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
64 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
66 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
68 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
70 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
72 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
74 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
76 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
77 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
78 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
80 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
82 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
84 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
86 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
88 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
90 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
92 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
94 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
96 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
98 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
100 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
 Table 44 shows that a solid choice pf Process 2 is made at varying Sustainability
Environmental Impact combination.

Table 45. Ranking for Sustainability Environmental Impact at Threshold Values

SUSTAINABILITY-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES IMPORTANCE SCORE WEIGHT
Economics 1 100.00 0.30
Manufacturability 5 99.38 0.30
Sustainability 2 50 0.15
Environmental Impact 4 60.00 0.18
Safety 3 25.45 0.08
TOTAL 334.82 1.00
ATTRIBUTES P1 P2 P3
Economics 0.79 1.00 0.00
Manufacturability 1.00 0.00 0.06
Sustainability 1.00 1.00 0.00
Environmental Impact 0.00 1.00 1.00
Safety 0.00 1.00 0.67
TOTAL 0.68273 0.70319 0.24897
CHOSEN PROCESS P2

Table 45 shows that Economics and Manufacturability ties at 30% highest rank at
varied Sustainability Environmental Impact score. Environmental Impact is slightly
lowered at 18% while Sustainability is slightly higher at 15% and Safety is held constant
at 8%.

Table 46. Sustainability Safety Sensitivity Analysis

Sustainability Score
Safety
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Score
10 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
20 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
30 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
40 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2
50 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2
60 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
70 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
 80 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
90 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
100 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
*Sustainability Base Case Score is 60.27
*Safety Base Case Score is 25.45
A uniform shift on process choice is shown in Table 46 for the analysis of
Sustainability Safety.

Table 47. Threshold Values for Sustainability Safety Sensitivity Analysis

Sustainability Score
Safety
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Score
30 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
33 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
36 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
39 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
40 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
43 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
46 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
49 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
52 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
55 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
58 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
61 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
64 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
67 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
70 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
73 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
76 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
79 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
82 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
85 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
88 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
91 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
94 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
97 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
100 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2

Table 47 shows the solid change from Process 1 to Process 2 at threshold value of
39 for Safety and 10 to 100 for Sustainability.
 Table 48. Ranking for Sustainability - Safety at Threshold Values
SUSTAINABILITY-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
LEVEL OF
ATTRIBUTES IMPORTANCE SCORE WEIGHT
Economics 1 100.00 0.35
Manufacturability 5 99.38 0.34
Sustainability 2 10 0.03
Environmental Impact 4 40.18 0.14
Safety 3 40.00 0.14
TOTAL 289.56 1.00
ATTRIBUTES P1 P2 P3
Economics 0.79 1.00 0.00
Manufacturability 1.00 0.00 0.06
Sustainability 1.00 1.00 0.00
Environmental Impact 0.00 1.00 1.00
Safety 0.00 1.00 0.67
TOTAL 0.65133 0.65679 0.25295
CHOSEN PROCESS P2

Table 48 shows that the weighted value of both Economics and Manufacturability
increases to 35% and 34% respectively while Environmental Impact and Safety ties at 14%
and Sustainability drops to 3% weighted value. The analysis is obviously inappropriate due
to forsaken Sustainability.
 SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The sensitivity analysis for the process aims to identify and justify the appropriate
process for the Production of Sodium Tripolyphospate. Three processes namely the
Hoechst Knapsack Process (Process 1), Spray Kiln Process (Process 2) and Production
of Sodium Tripolyphosphate from Sodium Sesquicarbonate and Anhydrous Phosphoric
Acid (Process 3) were evaluated against five chosen attributes. At either increasing or
lowering the base score values we were able to project the response of each process to
changes in the attributes. In the presented analysis above, Single - factor and Two Factor
analysis is done.

Table 49. Single - Factor Sensitivity Analysis Summary

SCORE ECON. MANUF. SUSTAIN. SAFETY ENVI.
IMPACT
10 P1 P2 P1 P1 P1
20 P1 P2 P1 P1 P1
30 P1 P2 P1 P1 P1
40 P1 P2 P1 P1 P1
50 P1 P2 P1 P1 P2
60 P1 P2 P1 P1 P2
70 P1 P2 P1 P2 P2
80 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2
90 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2
100 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2
110 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2
150 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2
200 P2 P1 P2 P2 P2
210 P2 P1 P2 P2 P2
220 P2 P1 P2 P2 P2
1000 P2 P1 P2 P2 P2

Based on Single factor Sensitivity Analysis it may observed that generally only
Process 1 and Process 2 vie for the process to be utilized. Each base score for each attribute
are changed with values ranging from 0% up to 1000%. Considering the Economics
attribute the process choice shifts from Process 1 to Process 2 at Economics score of 200.
When Manufacturability score is raised Process 2 shifts to Process 1 while Process 1
changes to Process 2 for Sustainability, Safety and environmental Impact at increased score
of 200, 70 and 50 respectively. This indicate that in the long run, Process 2 is more
appropriate than Process 1 as the route for the Production of Sodiume Tripolpyphosphate.

Table 50. Two - Factor Sensitivity Analysis Summary

ATTRIBUTES MANUF. SUSTAIN. SAFETY ENVI.
IMPACT
Process changes Process Process changes Process changes
from P1 to P2 at changes from from P1 to P2 at from P1 to P2 at
43% Economics P1 to P2 at 22% Safety and 7% Economics
ECON. and 25% 23% 4% Economics. and 25%
Manufacturabili Sustainability Environmental
ty. and 39% Impact.
Economics.
Process Process changes Process changes
changes from from P2 to P1 at from P2 to P1 at
MANUF. P2 to P1 at 27% 23%
23% Manufacturabilit Manufacturabilit
Manufacturabil y and 6% y and 5%
ity and 29% Environmental Environmental
Sustainability. Impact. Impact.
Process changes Process changes
from P1 to P2 at from P1 to P2 at
14% Safety and 15%
SUSTAIN. 3% Sustainability
Sustainability. and 18%
Environmental
Impact.
. Process changes
from P1 to P2 at
21% Safety and
SAFETY 3%
Environmental
Impact.

At variation of a combination of the attributes considered the choice of process

behaves differently. Analysis using Two Factor revealed that change occurs when the
scores are deviated from the base scores in the all combinations. Process 2 is the chosen
process for all combination except for Manufacturability Sustainability which suggests
Process 1 over Process 2 at increased Sustainability and lowered Manufacturability
compared to base scores.

In conclusion, using the sensitivity analysis as basis for choosing a process for the
optimum production of Sodium Tripolyphosphate bearing in mind that the most important
attribute considered is Economics and considering that other attributes must still be in a
balance with each other the chosen process is Process 2.