Johnson Chemicals is considering two options for its supplier portfolio. Option 1 uses two local suppliers. Each has a “unique-event” risk of 5%, and the probability of a “superevent” that would disable both at the same time is estimated to be 1.5%. Option 2 uses two suppliers located in different countries. Each has a “unique-event” risk of 13%, and the probability of a“super-event” that would disable both at the same time is estimatedto be 0.2%. a) What is the probability that both suppliers will be disruptedusing option 1?b) What is the probability that both suppliers will be disruptedusing option 2?c) Which option would provide the lowest risk of a total shutdown?

Johnson Chemicals is considering two options for its supplier portfolio. Option 1 uses two local suppliers. Each has a “unique-event” risk of 5%, and the probability of a “superevent” that would disable both at the same time is estimated to be 1.5%. Option 2 uses two suppliers located in different countries. Each has a “unique-event” risk of 13%, and the probability of a“super-event” that would disable both at the same time is estimatedto be 0.2%. a) What is the probability that both suppliers will be disruptedusing option 1?b) What is the probability that both suppliers will be disruptedusing option 2?c) Which option would provide the lowest risk of a total shutdown?

Practical Management Science

6th Edition

ISBN:9781337406659

Author:WINSTON, Wayne L.

Publisher:WINSTON, Wayne L.

Chapter9: Decision Making Under Uncertainty

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 30P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Johnson Chemicals is considering two options for its supplier portfolio. Option 1 uses two local suppliers. Each has a "unique-event" risk of 5%, and the probability of a "superevent" that would disable both at the same time is estimated to be 1.5%. Option 2 uses two suppliers located in different countries. Each has a "unique-event" risk of 13%, and the probability of a "super-event" that would disable both at the same time is estimated to be 0.2%.
Machado Construction is considering two options for its supplier portfolio. Option 1 uses two local suppliers. Each has a "unique-event" risk of 8%, and the probability of a "super-even" that would disable both at the same time is estimated to be 2.5%. Option 2 uses two suppliers located in different countries. Each has a "unique-event" risk of 18%, and the probability of a "super-event" that would disable both at the same time is estimated to be 1.2%. (a) What is the probability that both suppliers will be disrupted using option 1? (b) What is the probability that both suppliers will be disrupted using option 2? (c) Which option would provide the lowest risk of a total shutdown?
Risk manager Camila De Leon of Johnson Chemicals is considering two options for the firm's supplier portfolio. Option 1 uses two local suppliers. Each has a "unique-event" risk of 5.8%, and the probability of a "super-event" that would disable both at the same time is estimated to be 1.3%. Option 2 uses two suppliers located in different countries. Each has a "unique-event" risk of 14%, and the probability of a "super-event" that would disable both at the same time is estimated to be .24%. a) The probability that both suppliers will be disrupted using option 1 is b)Similarly, determine the probability of a total disruption for option 2. c) Which option would provide the lowest risk of a total shutdown?
Risk manager Camila De Leon of Johnson Chemicals is considering two options for the firm's supplier portfolio. Option 1 uses two local suppliers. Each has a "unique-event" risk of 5.8%, and the probability of a "super-event" that would disable both at the same time is estimated to be 1.3%. Option 2 uses two suppliers located in different countries. Each has a "unique-event" risk of 14%, and the probability of a "super-event" that would disable both at the same time is estimated to be .24%.
Johnson Chemicals is considering two options for itssupplier portfolio. Option 1 uses two local suppliers. Each has a “unique-event” risk of 5%, and the probability of a “super-event” that would disable both at the same time is estimated to be 1.5%. Option 2 uses two suppliers located in different countries.Each has a “unique-event” risk of 13%, and the probability of a “super-event” that would disable both at the same time is esti-mated to be 0.2%. a) What is the probability that both suppliers will be disruptedusing option 1?b) What is the probability that both suppliers will be disruptedusing option 2?c) Which option would provide the lowest risk of a total shutdown?
Kryoneriperfume company is considering the followingtwo alternatives for the supply of vetiver oil (an essential oil used inhigh-end perfumes). Alternative one is to use two suppliers locatedin Haiti where half of the world’s vetiver oil comes from. Each has a “unique-event” risk of 5%, and the probability of a “super-event” that would disable both at the same time is estimated to be 15%, due to Haiti’s vulnerability to earthquakes (remember theearthquake in 2010). Alternative 2 is to use two suppliers locatedin Japan (another main producer of vetiver oil) where each has a“unique-event” risk of 1%, and the probability of a “super-event”that would disable both at the same time is estimated to be 2%, dueto Japan’s exceptionally great infrastructure developed after 1995Kobe earthquake. Estimate which alternative seems best?
Johnson Chemicals is considering two options for itssupplier portfolio. Option I uses two local suppliers. Each hasa " unique-event" risk of 5%, and the probability of a " superevent"that would disable both at the same time is estimated to be1.5%. Option 2 uses two suppliers located in different countries.Each has a "unique-event" risk of 13%, and the probability of a"super-event" that would disable both at the same time is estimatedto be 0.2%.a) What is the probability that both suppliers will be disrupted using option I?b) What is the probability that both suppliers will be disrupted using option 2?c) Which option would provide the lowest risk of a total shutdown?
A businessman must decide whether to open a new mini grocery branch or simply extend the number of hours of its operation on its existing branch with a payoff of Php150,000. According to his friend, demand at a new location can either be low or high, which he probabilities are estimated to be 35% and 65%, respectively. If a new branch is opened and demand proves to be high, the businessman may choose to operate 24hrs (payoff is Php350, 000) or to operate 12hrs (payoff is Php200,000). If a new branch is opened and demand proves to be low, there is no need to operate on a 24-hr basis but instead, they will just stick to 12-hr operation with payoff of Php100,000 or enhance marketing strategy through advertising. Projected response to advertising may either be favorable or not favorable, with estimated probabilities of 40% and 60%, respectively. If demand is favorable, the payoff grows to Php310,000 and if the response in unfavorable, the payoff is Php120,000. The cost of advertising…
Cheryl Druehl Retailers, Inc., must decide whether to build a small or a large facility at a new location in Fairfax. Demand at the location will either be low or high, with probabilities 0.3 and 0.7,respectively. If Cheryl builds a small facility and demand proves to be high, she then has the option of expanding the facility. If a small facility is built and demand proves to be high, and then the retailer expands the facility, the payoff is $230,000. If a small facility is built and demand proves to be high, but Cheryl then decides not to expand the facility, the payoff is $203,000. If a small facility is built and demand proves to be low, then there is no option to expand and the payoff is $250,000. If a large facility is built and demand proves to be low, Cheryl then has the option of stimulating demand through local advertising. If she does not exercise this option, then the payoff is $40,000. If she does exercise the advertising option, then the response to…
Bloom's Jeans is searching for new suppliers, and Debbie Bloom, the owner, has narrowed her choices to two sets. Debbie is very concerned about supply disruptions, so she has chosen to use three suppliers no matter what. For option 1, the suppliers are well-established and located in the same country. Debbie calculates the "unique-event" risk for each of them to be 5%. She estimates the probability of a nationwide event that would knock out all three suppliers to be 2.3%. For option 2, the suppliers are newer but located in three different countries. Debbie calculates the "unique-event" risk for each of them to be 19%. She estimates the "super-event" probability that would knock out all three of these suppliers to be 0.3%. Purchasing and transportation costs would be $1,050,000 per year using option 1 and $1,060,000 per year using option 2. A total disruption would create an annualized loss of $550,000. Part 2 a) The probability that all three suppliers will be…
Cheryl Druehl Retailers, Inc., must decide whether to build a small or a large facility at a new location in Fairfax. Demand at the location will either be low or high, with probabilities 0.3 and 0.7, respectively. If Cheryl builds a small facility and demand proves to be high, she then has the option of expanding the facility. If a small facility is built and demand proves to be high, and then the retailer expands the facility, the payoff is $290,000. If a small facility is built and demand proves to be high, but Cheryl then decides not to expand the facility, the payoff is $253,000. If a small facility is built and demand proves to be low, then there is no option to expand and the payoff is $220,000. If a large facility is built and demand proves to be low, Cheryl then has the option of stimulating demand through local advertising. If she does not exercise this option, then the payoff is $45,000. If she does exercise the advertising option, then the response to…
1. Kirsten is trying to decide where to go for her well-earned vacation. She would like to camp, but if the weather is bad, she will have to go to a motel. Given the costs and probabilities of bad weather given below, which destination should she choose? Camping cost Motel cost Probability of bad weather Nevada $21.2 $80.9 0.2 Oregon $15.9 $84.6 0.4 California $30 $95 0.1 a. California, because its EMV = $33.14 b. Nevada, because its EMV = $33.14 c. California, because its EMV = $36.5 d. Any of the 3 choices. e. Oregon, because its EMV = $43.38 f. Nevada, because its EMV = $43.38 g. None of the 3 choices. h. Oregon, because its EMV is $36.50.