Quantitative Analysis for Management
Fourteenth Edition
Chapter 8
Linear Programming
Applications
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Learning Objectives
After completing this chapter, students will be able to:
8.1 Formulate and solve LP problems with Excel Solver in
marketing.
8.2 Formulate and solve LP problems with Excel Solver in
production.
8.3 Formulate and solve LP problems with Excel Solver in the
scheduling of employees.
8.4 Formulate and solve LP problems with Excel Solver in
finance.
8.5 Formulate and solve LP problems with Excel Solver in the
blending of ingredients.
8.6 Formulate and solve LP problems with Excel Solver in
revenue management.
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Introduction
• The graphical method of LP is useful for understanding
how to formulate and solve small LP problems
• Many types of problems can be solved using LP
• Principles developed here are applicable to larger
problems
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Win Big Gambling Club (1 of 2)
• Club promotes gambling junkets to the Bahamas
– $8,000 per week budget
– Goal is to reach the largest possible high-potential audience
– Place at least five radio spots per week
– No more than $1,800 can be spent on radio advertising each week
Audience Reached Cost Per Maximum Ads Per
Medium Per Ad Ad ($) Week
TV sport (1 minute) 5,000 800 12
Daily newspaper (full-page ad) 8,500 925 5
Radio spot (30 seconds, prime time) 2,400 290 25
Radio spot (1 minute, afternoon) 2,800 380 20
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Win Big Gambling Club (2 of 2)
• Problem formulation
X1 number of 1-minute TV spots taken each week
X 2 number of daily newspaper ads taken each week
X 3 number of 30-second prime-time radio spots taken each week
X 4 number of 1-minute afternoon radio spots taken each week
Objective:
Maximize audience coverage Subject to 5,000 X1 8,500 X 2 2,400 X 3 2,800 X 4
X1 12 (max TV spots/wk)
X 2 5 (max newspaper ads/wk)
X 3 25 (max 30-sec radio spots/wk)
X 4 20 (max 1-min radio spots/wk)
800 X1 925 X 2 290 X 3 380 X 4 $8,000 (weekly advertising budget)
X 3 X 4 5 (min radio spots contracted)
290 X 3 380 X 4 $1,800 (max dollars spent on radio) X1 , X 2 , X 3 , X 4 0
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel (1 of 8)
Program 8.1 Win Big Solution in Excel
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Management Sciences Association (1 of 4)
• MSA is a marketing research firm
• Several requirements for a statistical validity
1. Survey at least 2,300 U.S. households
2. Survey at least 1,000 households whose heads are
30 years old
3. Survey at least 600 households whose heads are between
31 and 50
4. Ensure that at least 15% of those surveyed live in a state
that borders Mexico
5. Ensure that no more than 20% of those surveyed who are
51 years of age or over live in a state that borders Mexico
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Management Sciences Association (2 of 4)
• MSA decides to conduct all surveys in person
• Estimates of the costs of reaching people in each age
and region category
• Goal is to meet the sampling requirements at the least
possible cost
Cost Per Person Cost Per Person Cost Per Person
Surveyed ($) Surveyed ($) Surveyed ($)
Age lesser than or equals 30
Age 31 to 50 Age greater than or equals 51
Age 30 Age 31 50 Age 51
Region
State bordering Mexico $7.50 $6.80 $5.50
State not bordering Mexico $6.90 $7.25 $6.10
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Management Sciences Association (3 of 4)
• Decision variables
X1 number of 30 or younger and in a border state
X 2 number of 31–50 and in a border state
X 3 number 51 or older and in a border state
X 4 number 30 or younger and not in a border state
X 5 number of 31–50 and not in a border state
X 6 number 51 or older and not in a border state
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Management Sciences Association (4 of 4)
Objective function
Minimize total interview costs $7.50 X1 $6.80 X 2 $5.50 X 3
$6.90 X 4 $7.25 X 5 $6.10 X 6
subject to
X1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 2,300 (total households)
X1 X4 1,000 (households 30 or younger)
X2 X5 600 (households 31–50)
X1 X2 X3 0.15( X1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 ) (border states)
X3 0.20( X 3 X 6 ) (limit on age group 51+ who can live in
border state)
X1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 0
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel (2 of 8)
Program 8.2 MSA Solution in Excel
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Manufacturing Applications
• Production mix
– LP can be used to plan the optimal mix of products to
manufacture
– Company must meet a myriad of constraints
▪ Financial concerns
▪ Sales demand
▪ Material contracts
▪ Union labor demands
– Primary goal is to generate the largest profit possible
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Fifth Avenue Industries (1 of 5)
• Produces four varieties of ties
– Expensive all-silk
– All-polyester
– Two are polyester-cotton or silk-cotton blends
• Cost and availability of the three materials used in the
production process
Material Cost Per Yard ($) Material Available Per Month (Yards)
Silk 24 1,200
Polyester 6 3,000
Cotton 9 1,600
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Fifth Avenue Industries (2 of 5)
The firm has contracts with several major department store chains
Selling Monthly Monthly Material Material
Price Per Contract Demand Required Per Requirements
Variety Of Tie Tie ($) Minimum Tie (Yards)
All-silk 19.24 5,000 7,000 0.125 100% silk
All-polyester 8.70 10,000 14,000 0.08 100% polyester
Poly–cotton 9.52 13,000 16,000 0.10 50% polyester–50%
combination cotton
Silk–cotton combination 10.64 5,000 8,500 0.11 60% silk–40%
cotton
X1 number of all-silk ties produced per month
X 2 number of all polyester(!) ties
X 3 number of blend 1 polyester-cotton ties
X 4 number of blend 2 silk-cotton ties
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Fifth Avenue Industries (3 of 5)
Establish profit per tie
Profit Sale price material quantity material cost
X1 $19 0.125 $24 $16.24
X 2 $8.70 0.08 $6 $8.22
X 3 $9.52 0.05 $6 0.05 $9 $8.77
X 4 $10.64 $1.98 $8.66
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Fifth Avenue Industries (4 of 5)
Objective function
Maximize profit $16.24 X1 $8.22 X 2 $8.77 X 3 $8.66 X 4
Subject to 0.125 X1 0.066 X 4 1200 (yards of silk)
0.08 X 2 0.05 X 3 3,000 (yards of polyester)
0.05 X 3 0.44 X 4 1,600 (yards of cotton)
X1 5,000 (contract min for silk)
X1 7,000 (contract min)
X 2 10,000 (contract min for all polyester)
X 2 14,000 (contract max)
X 3 13,000 (contract min for blend 1)
X 3 16,000 (contract max)
X 4 5,000 (contract min for blend 2)
X 4 8,500 (contract max)
X1, X 2 , X 3 , X 4 0
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Fifth Avenue Industries (5 of 5)
Optimal solution will result in a profit of $412,028 per month
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (1 of 12)
• Manufactures two different electric motors for sale under contract to
Drexel Corp
– Orders placed three times a year for four months at a time
– Demand varies month to month
– Develop a production plan for the next four months
Table 8.2 Four-Month Order Schedule for Electrical Motors
Model January February March April
GM3A 800 700 1,000 1,100
GM3B 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,400
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (2 of 12)
• Production planning must consider four factors
1. Produce the required number of motors each month
and ensure the desired ending inventory
2. Desire to keep inventory carrying costs down
3. No-lay-off policy, minimize fluctuations in production
levels
4. Warehouse limitations
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (3 of 12)
• Basic data
Motor Ending INV Carrying Cost Labor HRS Req’d Production Cost Per Unit
GM3A 450 $0.36 1.3 $20
GM3B 300 $0.26 0.9 $15
2,240 Desired labor hours per month 2,560
Maximum total inventory space available 3,300 units
Labor cost increases 10% March 1
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (4 of 12)
Model formulation
Objective
Minimize total cost (production plus inventory carrying cost)
Constraints
4 demand constraints (1 constraint for each of 4 months) for G M3A
4 demand constraints (1 constraint for each of 4 months) for G M3B
2 constraints (1 for GM3A and 1 for GM3B) for the inventory at the end
of April
4 constraints for minimum labor hours (1 constraint for each month)
4 constraints for maximum labor hours (1 constraint for each month)
4 constraints for inventory storage capacity each month
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (5 of 12)
• Objective function—production costs
A i Number of model GM3A motors produced in month i
(i = 1, 2, 3, 4 for January–April)
B i Number of model GM3B motors produced in month I
Cost of production $20 A1 $20 A2 $22 A3 $22 A4
$15B1 $15B2 $16.50B3 $16.50B4
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (6 of 12)
• Objective function—inventory carrying costs
lai Units of GM3A left in inventory at the end of month i
(i = 1, 2, 3, 4 for January–April)
lbi Units of GM3B left in inventory at the end of month
i (i = 1, 2, 3, 4 for January–April)
Cost of carrying inventory $0.36IA1 $0.36IA2 $0.36IA3
0.36IA4 $0.26IB1 $0.26IB2 $0.26IB3 $0.26IB4
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (7 of 12)
• Complete objective function
Minimize costs $20 A1 $20 A2 $22 A3 $22 A4
$15B1 $15B2 $16.50B3
$16.50B4 $0.36IA1 $0.36IA2
$0.36IA3 0.36IA4 $0.26IB1
$0.26IB2 $0.26IB3 $0.26IB4
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (8 of 12)
End-of-month inventory is calculated using
Inventory at Inventory at Current Sales to
the end of
the end of
month's Drexel this
this month last month production month
Rearranged to create a standard format for a constraint
equation
Inventory at Current Inventory at Sales to
the end of
month's the end of
Drexel this
last month production this month month
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (9 of 12)
The demand constraints
A 1 IA1 800 (demand for GM3A in Jan)
IA1 A 2 IA 2 700 (demand for GM3A in Feb)
IA 2 A3 IA 3 1,000 (demand for GM3A in Mar)
IA3 A 4 IA 4 1,000 (demand for GM3A in Apr)
B1 IB1 1,000 (demand for GM3B in Jan)
IB1 B 2 IB 2 1,200 (demand for GM3B in Feb)
IB 2 B 3 IB 3 1,400 (demand for GM3B in Mar)
IB 3 B 4 IB 4 1,400 (demand for GM3B in Apr)
IA 4 450 (inventory of GM3A at end of Apr)
IB 4 300 (inventory of GM3B at end of Apr)
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (10 of 12)
The labor hour constraints
1.3 A1 0.9B1 2,240 (min labor hours in Jan)
1.3 A2 0.9B2 2,240 (min labor hours in Feb)
1.3 A3 0.9B3 2,240 (min labor hours in Mar)
1.3 A4 0.9B4 2,240 (min labor hours in Apr)
1.3 A1 0.9B1 2,560 (max labor hours in Jan)
1.3 A2 0.9B2 2,560 (max labor hours in Feb)
1.3 A3 0.9B3 2,560 (max labor hours in Mar)
1.3 A4 0.9B4 2,560 (max labor hours in Apr)
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (11 of 12)
The storage constraints
IA1 IB1
3,000 (storage capacity in Jan)
IA2 IB2
3,000 (storage capacity in Feb)
IA3 IB3
3,000 (storage capacity in Mar)
IA4 IB4
3,000 (storage capacity in Apr)
All variables 0 (nonnegativity constraints)
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel (3 of 8)
Program 8.4 Greenberg Motors Solution in Excel
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Greenberg Motors (12 of 12)
Table 8.3 Solution to Greenberg Motors Problem
Production Schedule January February March April
Units of GM3A produced 1,277 223 1,758 792
Units of GM3B produced 1,000 2,522 78 1,700
Inventory of G M3A carried 477 0 758 450
Inventory of G M3B carried 0 1,322 0 300
Labor hours required 2,560 2,560 2,355 2,560
• Total cost for this four-month period is about $169,295
• Complete model has 16 variables and 22 constraints
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Hong Kong Bank Scheduling (1 of 5)
• Hong Kong Bank requires between 10 and 18 tellers
• The bank wants to minimize total costs
– Lunch time from noon to 2 pm is generally the busiest
– Bank employs 12 full-time tellers, many part-time
workers
– Part-time workers must put in exactly four hours per
day, can start anytime between 9 am and 1 pm, and
are inexpensive
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Hong Kong Bank Scheduling (2 of 5)
– Full-time workers work from 9 am to 3 pm and have 1
hour for lunch
– Part-time hours are limited to a maximum of 50% of
the day’s total requirements
– Part-timers earn $8 per hour on average
– Full-timers earn $100 per day on average
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Hong Kong Bank Scheduling (3 of 5)
• Labor requirements
Table 8.4 Hong Kong Bank of Commerce and Industry
Time Period Number Of Tellers Required
9 AM–10 AM 10
10 AM–11 AM 12
11 AM–Noon 14
Noon–1 PM 16
1 PM–2 PM 18
2 PM–3 PM 17
3 PM–4 PM 15
4 PM–5 PM 10
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Hong Kong Bank Scheduling (4 of 5)
• Variables
F = full-time tellers
P1 part-timers starting at 9 am (leaving at 1 pm)
P2 part-timers starting at 10 am (leaving at 2 pm)
P3 part-timers starting at 11 am (leaving at 3 pm)
P4 part-timers starting at noon (leaving at 4 p m)
P5 part-timers starting at 1 pm (leaving at 5 pm)
• Objective
Minimize total daily personnel cost
$100F $32(P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 )
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Hong Kong Bank Scheduling (5 of 5)
Constraints
F P1 10 (9 AM 10AM needs)
F P1 P2 12 (10 AM 11 AM needs)
0.5 F P1 P2 P3 14 (11 AM Noon needs)
0.5 F P1 P2 P3 P4 16 (Noon 1 PM needs)
F P2 P3 P4 P5 18 (1 PM 2 PM needs)
F P3 P4 P5 17 (2 PM 3 PM needs)
F P4 P5 15 (3 PM 4 PM needs)
F P5 10 (4 PM 5 PM needs)
F 12
4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 0.50(10 12 14 16 18 17 15 10)
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel (4 of 8)
Program 8.5 Labor Planning Solution in Excel
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
International City Trust Portfolio (1 of 4)
• International City Trust (ICT) invests in a number of
instruments
• The board places limits on each area
Investment Interest Return Maximum Investment $1,000,000s
Trade credits 7% 1.0
Corporate bonds 11% 2.5
Gold stocks 19% 1.5
Construction loans 15% 1.8
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
International City Trust Portfolio (2 of 4)
• ICT has $5 million to invest. They want to:
– Maximize the return on investment over the next six
months
– Satisfy the diversification requirements set by the
board
• The board has also decided:
– At least 55% of the funds must be invested in gold
stocks and construction loans
– No less than 15% be invested in trade credit
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
International City Trust Portfolio (3 of 4)
• Variables
X1 dollars invested in trade credit
X 2 dollars invested in corporate bonds
X 3 dollars invested in gold stocks
X 4 dollars invested in construction loans
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
International City Trust Portfolio (4 of 4)
• Formulation
Maximize dollars of interest earned 0.07 X1 0.11X 2
0.19 X 3 0.15 X 4
subject to: X1 1,000,000
X2 2,500,000
X3 1,500,000
X4 1,800,000
X3 X 4 0.55( X1 X 2 X 3 X 4 )
X1 0.15( X1 X 2 X 3 X 4 )
X1 X 2 X 3 X 4 5,000,000
X1, X 2 , X 3 , X 4 0
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel (5 of 8)
Program 8.6 ICT Portfolio Solution in Excel
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Goodman Shipping (1 of 3)
• Maximize the value shipped
– Goodman Shipping has to ship the following six items
Item Value ($) Weight (Pounds)
1 22,500 7,500
2 24,000 7,500
3 8,000 3,000
4 9,500 3,500
5 11,500 4,000
6 9,750 3,500
Truck capacity is 10,000 pounds
Let X i proportion of each item i loaded
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Goodman Shipping (2 of 3)
• Formulation
Maximize load value $22,500 X1 $24,000 X 2 $8,000 X 3 $9,500 X 4
$11,500 X 5 $9,750 X 6
subject to
7,500 X1 7,500 X 2 3,000 X 3
3,500 X 4 4,000 X 5 3,500 X 6 10,000lb
capacity X1 1
X2 1
X3 1
X4 1
X5 1
X6 1
X1, X 2 , X 3 , X 4 , X 5 , X 6 , 0
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel (6 of 8)
Program 8.7 Goodman Truck Loading Solution in Excel
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Goodman Shipping (3 of 3)
• Goodman Shipping raises an interesting issue
– The solution calls for one third of Item 1 to be loaded
on the truck
– What if Item 1 cannot be divided into smaller pieces?
• Rounding down leaves unused capacity on the truck and
results in a value of $24,000
• Rounding up is not possible since this would exceed the
capacity of the truck
• Using integer programming, the solution is to load one
unit of Items 3, 4, and 6 for a value of $27,250
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Whole Food Nutrition Center Blending
Problem (1 of 3)
• Use three bulk grains to blend a natural cereal
• Cereal must meet USRDA for four key nutrients
• Meet the requirements at the minimum cost
Nutrient USRDA
Protein 3 units
Riboflavin 2 units
Phosphorus 1 unit
Magnesium 0.425 unit
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Whole Food Nutrition Center Blending
Problem (2 of 3)
• Variables
X A pounds of grain A in one 2-ounce serving of cereal
XB pounds of grain B in one 2-ounce serving of cereal
XC pounds of grain C in one 2-ounce serving of cereal
Table 8.5 Whole Food’s Natural Cereal Requirements
Cost Per Protein Riboflavin Phosphorus Magnesium
Grain Pound (Cents) (Units/LB) (Units/LB) (Units/LB) (Units/LB)
A 33 22 16 8 5
B 47 28 14 7 0
C 38 21 25 9 6
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Whole Food Nutrition Center Blending
Problem (3 of 3)
Minimize cost of a 2-ounce $0.33 X A $0.47 X B $0.38 X C
serving
subject to
22 X A 28 X B 21X C 3 (protein units)
16 X A 14 X B 25 X C 2 (riboflavin units)
8 X A 7 X B 9 X C 1 (phosphorous units)
5 X A 0 X B 6 XC 0.425 (magnesium units)
XA XB XC 0.125 (total mix)
X A , X B , X C 0
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel (7 of 8)
Program 8.8 Whole Food Diet Solution in Excel
This solution is in pounds of grain
Expressed as ounces/serving, the optimal mix is:
0.4 oz Grain A
0.8 oz Grain B
0.8 oz Grain C
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Low Knock Oil Blending Problem (1 of 3)
• Company produces two grades of cut-rate gasoline by
blending two different types of crude oil
• The crude oil differs in cost and in its content of crucial
ingredients
Crude Oil Type Ingredient A (%) Ingredient B (%) Cost/Barrel ($)
X100 35 55 30.00
X220 60 25 34.80
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Low Knock Oil Blending Problem (2 of 3)
X1 barrels of crude X100 blended for refined regular
X 2 barrels of crude X100 blended for refined economy
X 3 barrels of crude X220 blended for refined regular
X 4 barrels of crude X220 blended for refined economy
Min Cost $30 X1 $30 X 2 $34.80 X 3 $34.80 X 4
Subject to
X1 X 3 25,000 plus the percentage
X 2 X 4 32,000 constraints
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Low Knock Oil Blending Problem (3 of 3)
At least 45% of each barrel of regular must be A
Therefore, 0.45 X1 X 3 minimum A
But 0.35 X1 0.60 X 3 amount of A in refined regular
So, 0.35 X1 0.60 X 3 0.45 X1 0.45 X 3
0.10 X1 0.15 X 3 0 ingredient of A in regular gas
What is the ingredient B in economy constraint?
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Solution in Excel (8 of 8)
Program 8.9 Low Knock Oil Solution in Excel
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Other LP Applications
• Revenue Management—Airlines and Hotels
– Differential pricing of seats/rooms to generate
additional revenue
• Data Envelopment Analysis
– Minimize resources used
– Compare efficiency of similar units
• Transportation, Transshipment, and Assignment—
Logistics
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Copyright
This work is protected by United States copyright laws and is
provided solely for the use of instructors in teaching their
courses and assessing student learning. Dissemination or sale of
any part of this work (including on the World Wide Web) will
destroy the integrity of the work and is not permitted. The work
and materials from it should never be made available to students
except by instructors using the accompanying text in their
classes. All recipients of this work are expected to abide by these
restrictions and to honor the intended pedagogical purposes and
the needs of other instructors who rely on these materials.
Copyright © 2024, 2018, 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
