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 isb)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

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

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

Scenario 3 Ben Gibson, the purchasing manager at Coastal Products, was reviewing purchasing expenditures for packaging materials with Jeff Joyner. Ben was particularly disturbed about the amount spent on corrugated boxes purchased from Southeastern Corrugated. Ben said, I dont like the salesman from that company. He comes around here acting like he owns the place. He loves to tell us about his fancy car, house, and vacations. It seems to me he must be making too much money off of us! Jeff responded that he heard Southeastern Corrugated was going to ask for a price increase to cover the rising costs of raw material paper stock. Jeff further stated that Southeastern would probably ask for more than what was justified simply from rising paper stock costs. After the meeting, Ben decided he had heard enough. After all, he prided himself on being a results-oriented manager. There was no way he was going to allow that salesman to keep taking advantage of Coastal Products. Ben called Jeff and told him it was time to rebid the corrugated contract before Southeastern came in with a price increase request. Who did Jeff know that might be interested in the business? Jeff replied he had several companies in mind to include in the bidding process. These companies would surely come in at a lower price, partly because they used lower-grade boxes that would probably work well enough in Coastal Products process. Jeff also explained that these suppliers were not serious contenders for the business. Their purpose was to create competition with the bids. Ben told Jeff to make sure that Southeastern was well aware that these new suppliers were bidding on the contract. He also said to make sure the suppliers knew that price was going to be the determining factor in this quote, because he considered corrugated boxes to be a standard industry item. Is Ben Gibson acting legally? Is he acting ethically? Why or why not?
Scenario 3 Ben Gibson, the purchasing manager at Coastal Products, was reviewing purchasing expenditures for packaging materials with Jeff Joyner. Ben was particularly disturbed about the amount spent on corrugated boxes purchased from Southeastern Corrugated. Ben said, I dont like the salesman from that company. He comes around here acting like he owns the place. He loves to tell us about his fancy car, house, and vacations. It seems to me he must be making too much money off of us! Jeff responded that he heard Southeastern Corrugated was going to ask for a price increase to cover the rising costs of raw material paper stock. Jeff further stated that Southeastern would probably ask for more than what was justified simply from rising paper stock costs. After the meeting, Ben decided he had heard enough. After all, he prided himself on being a results-oriented manager. There was no way he was going to allow that salesman to keep taking advantage of Coastal Products. Ben called Jeff and told him it was time to rebid the corrugated contract before Southeastern came in with a price increase request. Who did Jeff know that might be interested in the business? Jeff replied he had several companies in mind to include in the bidding process. These companies would surely come in at a lower price, partly because they used lower-grade boxes that would probably work well enough in Coastal Products process. Jeff also explained that these suppliers were not serious contenders for the business. Their purpose was to create competition with the bids. Ben told Jeff to make sure that Southeastern was well aware that these new suppliers were bidding on the contract. He also said to make sure the suppliers knew that price was going to be the determining factor in this quote, because he considered corrugated boxes to be a standard industry item. As the Marketing Manager for Southeastern Corrugated, what would you do upon receiving the request for quotation from Coastal Products?
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 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?
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?
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 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?
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…
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…
Bloom's Jeans is searching for new suppliers, and DebbieBloom, the owner, has narrowed her choices to two sets. Debbie isvery concerned about supply disruptions, so she has chosen to usethree suppliers no matter what. For option l, the suppliers are wellestablished and located in the same country. Debbie calculates the" unique-event" risk for each of them to be 4%. She estimates theprobability of a nationwide event that would knock out all three suppliersto be 2.5%. For option 2, the suppliers are newer but located inthree different countries. Debbie calculates the " unique-event" riskfor each of them to be 20%. She estimates the "super-event" probabilitythat would knock out all three of these suppliers to be 0.4%.Purchasing and transportation costs would be $1 ,000,000 per yearusing option 1 and $1,0 I 0,000 per year using option 2. A total disruptionwould create an annualized loss of$500,000.a) What is the probability that all three suppliers will be disru pled using option 1?b) What…
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?