FASE II: TEMA 6

AAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBB

1
 Slides by

John
Loucks
St. Edward’s
University
 Chapter 8: LP - Sensitivity Analysis
and Interpretation of Solution

• Introduction to Sensitivity Analysis

• Objective Function Coefficients
• Right-Hand Sides
• Limitations of Classical Sensitivity
Analysis

3
Introduction to Sensitivity Analysis

• In the previous chapter we discussed:

• objective function value
• values of the decision variables
• reduced costs
• slack/surplus
• In this chapter we will discuss:
• changes in the coefficients of the objective
function
• changes in the right-hand side value of a
constraint

4
Introduction to Sensitivity Analysis

• Sensitivity analysis (or post-optimality

analysis) is used to determine how the
optimal solution is affected by changes, within
specified ranges, in:
• the objective function coefficients
• the right-hand side (RHS) values
• Sensitivity analysis is important to a manager
who must operate in a dynamic environment
with imprecise estimates of the coefficients.
• Sensitivity analysis allows a manager to ask
certain what-if questions about the problem.

5
 Example 1

• LP
Formulation
Max 5x1 + 7x2

s.t. x1 < 6
2x1 + 3x2 < 19
x1 + x2 < 8

x1, x2 > 0

6
 Example 1

• Graphical
Solution
x2
x1 + x2 < 8
8 Max 5x1 + 7x2
7
6 x1 < 6
5
Optimal Solution:
4 x1 = 5, x2 = 3

3
2x1 + 3x2 < 19
2
1
x1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7
 Objective Function Coefficients

• Let us consider how changes in the objective

function coefficients might affect the optimal
solution.
• The range of optimality for each coefficient
provides the range of values over which the
current solution will remain optimal.
• Managers should focus on those objective
coefficients that have a narrow range of optimality
and coefficients near the endpoints of the range.

8
 Example 1

• Changing Slope of Objective Function

x2 Coincides with
8 x1 + x2 < 8
7 constraint line
6 Objective function

5 5 line for 5x1 + 7x2

4 Coincides with
2x1 + 3x2 < 19
3 Feasible
4 constraint line
2 Region
3
1
1 2
x1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9
 Range of Optimality

• Graphically, the limits of a range of

optimality are found by changing the
slope of the objective function line within
the limits of the slopes of the binding
constraint lines.
• Slope of an objective function line, Max
c1x1 + c2x2, is -c1/c2, and the slope of a
constraint, a1x1 + a2x2 = b, is -a1/a2.

10
 Example 1

• Range of Optimality for c1

The slope of the objective function line is -c1/c2.
The slope of the first binding constraint, x1 + x2
= 8, is -1 and the slope of the second binding
constraint, x1 + 3x2 = 19, is -2/3.
Find the range of values for c1 (with c2 staying 7)
such that the objective function line slope lies
between that of the two binding constraints:
-1 < -c1/7 < -2/3
Multiplying through by -7 (and reversing the
inequalities):
14/3 < c1 < 7

11
 Example 1

• Range of Optimality for c2

Find the range of values for c2 ( with c1 staying
5) such that the objective function line slope lies
between that of the two binding constraints:
-1 < -5/c2 < -2/3

Multiplying by -1: 1 > 5/c2 > 2/3

Inverting, 1 < c2/5 < 3/2

Multiplying by 5: 5 < c2 < 15/2

12
Sensitivity Analysis: Computer Solution

Software packages such as LINGO and Microsoft Excel

provide the following LP information:
 Information about the objective function:
• its optimal value
• coefficient ranges (ranges of optimality)
 Information about the decision variables:
• their optimal values
• their reduced costs
 Information about the constraints:
• the amount of slack or surplus
• the dual prices
• right-hand side ranges (ranges of feasibility)
 Example 1

 Range of Optimality for c1 and c2

Variable Cells
Model Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Variable Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
X1 X1 5.000 0.000 5.000 2.000 0.333
X2 X2 3.000 0.000 7.000 0.500 2.000

Constraints
Constraint Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Number Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
1 1 5.000 0.000 6.000 1E+30 1.000
2 2 19.000 2.000 19.000 5.000 1.000
3 3 8.000 1.000 8.000 0.333 1.667
 Right-Hand Sides

• Let us consider how a change in the right-hand

side for a constraint might affect the feasible
region and perhaps cause a change in the
optimal solution.
• The improvement in the value of the optimal
solution per unit increase in the right-hand side
is called the shadow price.
• The range of feasibility is the range over which
the shadow price is applicable.
• As the RHS increases, other constraints will
become binding and limit the change in the
value of the objective function.

15
 Shadow Price

• Graphically, a shadow price is determined

by adding +1 to the right hand side value
in question and then resolving for the
optimal solution in terms of the same two
binding constraints.
• The shadow price for a nonbinding
constraint is 0.
• A negative shadow price indicates that
the objective function will not improve if
the RHS is increased.

16
 Relevant Cost and Sunk Cost

• A resource cost is a relevant cost if the amount

paid for it is dependent upon the amount of the
resource used by the decision variables.
• Relevant costs are reflected in the objective
function coefficients.
• A resource cost is a sunk cost if it must be paid
regardless of the amount of the resource
actually used by the decision variables.
• Sunk resource costs are not reflected in the
objective function coefficients.

17
 Cautionary Note on the
Interpretation of Shadow Prices
• Resource Cost is Sunk
The shadow price is the maximum amount
you should be willing to pay for one
additional unit of the resource.
• Resource Cost is Relevant
The shadow price is the maximum premium
over the normal cost that you should be
willing to pay for one unit of the resource.

18
 Example 1

• Shadow Prices
Constraint 1: Since x1 < 6 is not a binding constraint,
its shadow price is 0.
Constraint 2: Change the RHS value of the second
Constraint to 20 and resolve for the optimal point
determined by the last two constraints:
2x1 + 3x2 = 20 and x1 + x2 = 8.
The solution is x1 = 4, x2 = 4, z = 48. Hence, the
shadow price = znew - zold = 48 - 46 = 2.

19
 Example 1

• Shadow Prices
Constraint 3: Change the RHS value of the third
constraint to 9 and resolve for the optimal point
determined by the last two constraints: 2x1 + 3x2 =
19
and x1 + x2 = 9.
The solution is: x1 = 8, x2 = 1, z = 47.
The shadow price is znew - zold = 47 - 46 = 1.

20
 Example 1

• Shadow Prices
Variable Cells
Model Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Variable Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
X1 X1 5.000 0.000 5.000 2.000 0.333
X2 X2 3.000 0.000 7.000 0.500 2.000

Constraints
Constraint Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Number Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
1 1 5.000 0.000 6.000 1E+30 1.000
2 2 19.000 2.000 19.000 5.000 1.000
3 3 8.000 1.000 8.000 0.333 1.667

21
 Range of Feasibility

• The range of feasibility for a change in the right

hand side value is the range of values for this
coefficient in which the original dual price remains
constant.
• Graphically, the range of feasibility is determined
by finding the values of a right hand side
coefficient such that the same two lines that
determined the original optimal solution continue
to determine the optimal solution for the problem.

22
 Example 1

• Range of
Feasibility
Variable Cells
Model Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Variable Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
X1 X1 5.000 0.000 5.000 2.000 0.333
X2 X2 3.000 0.000 7.000 0.500 2.000

Constraints
Constraint Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Number Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
1 1 5.000 0.000 6.000 1E+30 1.000
2 2 19.000 2.000 19.000 5.000 1.000
3 3 8.000 1.000 8.000 0.333 1.667

23
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

Olympic Bike is introducing two new lightweight

bicycle frames, the Deluxe and the Professional, to
be
made from special aluminum and steel alloys. The
anticipated unit profits are $10 for the Deluxe and
$15 for
the Professional.
The number of pounds of each alloy needed per
frame is summarized on the next slide.

24
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

A supplier delivers 100 pounds of the aluminum alloy

and 80 pounds of the steel alloy weekly.

Aluminum Alloy Steel Alloy

Deluxe 2 3
Professional 4 2

How many Deluxe and Professional frames should

Olympic produce each week?
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Model Formulation
• Verbal Statement of the Objective Function
Maximize total weekly profit.
• Verbal Statement of the Constraints
Total weekly usage of aluminum alloy < 100
pounds.
Total weekly usage of steel alloy < 80 pounds.
• Definition of the Decision Variables
x1 = number of Deluxe frames produced weekly.
x2 = number of Professional frames produced
weekly.

26
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Model Formulation
(continued)
Max 10x1 + 15x2 (Total Weekly Profit)

s.t. 2x1 + 4x2 < 100 (Aluminum Available)

3x1 + 2x2 < 80 (Steel Available)

x1, x2 > 0

27
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Partial Spreadsheet Showing Solution

A B C D
6 Decision Variables
7 Deluxe Professional
8 Bikes Made 15 17.500
9
10 Maximized Total Profit 412.500
11
12 Constraints Amount Used Amount Avail.
13 Aluminum 100 <= 100
14 Steel 80 <= 80

28
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Optimal Solution

According to the output:

x1 (Deluxe frames) = 15
x2 (Professional frames) = 17.5
Objective function value = $412.50

29
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Range of Optimality

Question
Suppose the profit on deluxe frames is increased
to $20. Is the above solution still optimal? What
is the value of the objective function when this
unit profit is increased to $20?

30
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Sensitivity
Report
Variable Cells
Model Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Variable Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
X1 Deluxe 15.000 0.000 10.000 12.500 2.500
X2 Profes. 17.500 0.000 15.000 5.000 8.333

Constraints
Constraint Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Number Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
1 Alum. 100.000 3.125 100.000 60.000 46.667
2 Steel 80.000 1.250 80.000 70.000 30.000

31
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Range of Optimality

Answer
The output states that the solution remains optimal
as long as the objective function coefficient of x1 is
between 7.5 and 22.5. Because 20 is within this
range, the optimal solution will not change. The
optimal profit will change: 20x1 + 15x2 = 20(15) +
15(17.5) = $562.50.

32
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Range of Optimality

Question
If the unit profit on deluxe frames were $6 instead
of $10, would the optimal solution change?

33
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Range of
Optimality
Variable Cells
Model Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Variable Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
X1 Deluxe 15.000 0.000 10.000 12.500 2.500
X2 Profes. 17.500 0.000 15.000 5.000 8.333

Constraints
Constraint Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Number Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
1 Alum. 100.000 3.125 100.000 60.000 46.667
2 Steel 80.000 1.250 80.000 70.000 30.000

34
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Range of Optimality

Answer
The output states that the solution remains optimal
as long as the objective function coefficient of x1 is
between 7.5 and 22.5. Because 6 is outside this
range, the optimal solution would change.

35
 Simultaneous Changes

• Range of Optimality and 100%

Rule
The 100% rule states that simultaneous changes in
objective function coefficients will not change the
optimal solution as long as the sum of the percentages
of the change divided by the corresponding maximum
allowable change in the range of optimality for each
coefficient does not exceed 100%.

36
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Range of Optimality and 100% Rule

Question
If simultaneously the profit on Deluxe
frames was raised to $16 and the profit
on Professional frames was raised to
$17, would the current solution be
optimal?

37
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

 Range of Optimality and 100% Rule

Answer
If c1 = 16, the amount c1 changed is 16 - 10 = 6 .
The maximum allowable increase is 22.5 - 10 = 12.5,
so this is a 6/12.5 = 48% change. If c2 = 17, the
amount that c2 changed is 17 - 15 = 2. The maximum
allowable increase is 20 - 15 = 5 so this is a 2/5 = 40%
change. The sum of the change percentages is 88%.
Since this does not exceed 100%, the optimal solution
would not change.
 Simultaneous Changes

• Range of Feasibility and 100% Rule

The 100% rule states that simultaneous changes in
right-hand sides will not change the dual prices as
long as the sum of the percentages of the changes
divided by the corresponding maximum allowable
change in the range of feasibility for each right-hand
side does not exceed 100%.

39
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Range of Feasibility and Sunk Costs

Question
Given that aluminum is a sunk cost, what is the
maximum amount the company should pay for
50 extra pounds of aluminum?

40
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Range of Feasibility and Sunk Costs

Variable Cells
Model Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Variable Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
X1 Deluxe 15.000 0.000 10.000 12.500 2.500
X2 Profes. 17.500 0.000 15.000 5.000 8.333

Constraints
Constraint Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Number Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
1 Alum. 100.000 3.125 100.000 60.000 46.667
2 Steel 80.000 1.250 80.000 70.000 30.000

41
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Range of Feasibility and Sunk Costs

Answer
Because the cost for aluminum is a sunk cost,
the shadow price provides the value of extra
aluminum. The shadow price for aluminum is
$3.125 per pound and the maximum allowable
increase is 60 pounds. Because 50 is in this
range, the $3.125 is valid. Thus, the value of 50
additional pounds is = 50($3.125) = $156.25.

42
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

• Range of Feasibility and Relevant Costs

Question
If aluminum were a relevant cost, what is the
maximum amount the company should pay for
50 extra pounds of aluminum?

43
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

 Range of Feasibility and Relevant Costs

Answer
If aluminum were a relevant cost, the shadow
price would be the amount above the normal price of
aluminum the company would be willing to pay. Thus
if initially aluminum cost $4 per pound, then additional
units in the range of feasibility would be worth $4 +
$3.125 = $7.125 per pound.
 Example 3

• Consider the following linear program:

Min 6x1 + 9x2 ($ cost)

s.t. x1 + 2x2 < 8

10x1 + 7.5x2 > 30
x2 > 2

x1, x2 > 0

45
 Example 3

 Sensitivity Report

Variable Cells
Model Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Variable Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
X1 X1 1.500 0.000 6.000 6.000 6.000
X2 X2 2.000 0.000 9.000 1E+30 4.500

Constraints
Constraint Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Number Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
1 1 5.500 2.500 8.000 1E+30 2.500
2 2 30.000 -0.600 30.000 25.000 15.000
3 3 2.000 -4.500 2.000 2.000 2.000

46
 Example 3

• Optimal Solution

According to the output:

x1 = 1.5
x2 = 2.0
Objective function value = 27.00

47
 Example 3

• Range of Optimality

Question
Suppose the unit cost of x1 is decreased to $4.
Is the current solution still optimal? What is
the value of the objective function when this
unit cost is decreased to $4?

48
 Example 3

 Sensitivity Report

Variable Cells
Model Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Variable Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
X1 X1 1.500 0.000 6.000 6.000 6.000
X2 X2 2.000 0.000 9.000 1E+30 4.500

Constraints
Constraint Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Number Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
1 1 5.500 2.500 8.000 1E+30 2.500
2 2 30.000 -0.600 30.000 25.000 15.000
3 3 2.000 -4.500 2.000 2.000 2.000

49
 Example 3

• Range of Optimality

Answer
The output states that the solution remains
optimal as long as the objective function coefficient
of x1 is between 0 and 12. Because 4 is within this
range, the optimal solution will not change.
However, the optimal total cost will change:
6x1 + 9x2 = 4(1.5) + 9(2.0) = $24.00.

50
 Example 3

• Range of Optimality

Question
How much can the unit cost of x2 be
decreased without concern for the optimal
solution changing?

51
 Example 3

 Sensitivity Report

Variable Cells
Model Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Variable Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
X1 X1 1.500 0.000 6.000 6.000 6.000
X2 X2 2.000 0.000 9.000 1E+30 4.500

Constraints
Constraint Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Number Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
1 1 5.500 2.500 8.000 1E+30 2.500
2 2 30.000 -0.600 30.000 25.000 15.000
3 3 2.000 -4.500 2.000 2.000 2.000

52
 Example 3

• Range of Optimality

Answer
The output states that the solution remains
optimal as long as the objective function
coefficient of x2 does not fall below 4.5.

53
 Example 3

• Range of Optimality and 100% Rule

Question
If simultaneously the cost of x1 was
raised to $7.5 and the cost of x2 was
reduced to $6, would the current solution
remain optimal?

54
 Example 3

 Sensitivity Report

Variable Cells
Model Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Variable Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
X1 X1 1.500 0.000 6.000 6.000 6.000
X2 X2 2.000 0.000 9.000 1E+30 4.500

Constraints
Constraint Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Number Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
1 1 5.500 2.500 8.000 1E+30 2.500
2 2 30.000 -0.600 30.000 25.000 15.000
3 3 2.000 -4.500 2.000 2.000 2.000

55
 Example 3

• Range of Optimality and 100% Rule

Answer
If c1 = 7.5, the amount c1 changed is 7.5 - 6 =
1.5. The maximum allowable increase is 12 - 6
= 6, so this is a 1.5/6 = 25% change. If c2 = 6,
the amount that c2 changed is 9 - 6 = 3. The
maximum allowable decrease is 9 - 4.5 = 4.5, so
this is a 3/4.5 = 66.7% change. The sum of the
change percentages is 25% + 66.7% = 91.7%.
Because this does not exceed 100%, the optimal
solution would not change.

56
 Example 3

• Range of Feasibility

Question
If the right-hand side of constraint 3 is
increased by 1, what will be the effect on
the optimal solution?

57
 Example 3

 Sensitivity Report

Variable Cells
Model Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Variable Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
X1 X1 1.500 0.000 6.000 6.000 6.000
X2 X2 2.000 0.000 9.000 1E+30 4.500

Constraints
Constraint Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Number Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
1 1 5.500 2.500 8.000 1E+30 2.500
2 2 30.000 -0.600 30.000 25.000 15.000
3 3 2.000 -4.500 2.000 2.000 2.000

58
 Example 3

• Range of Feasibility

Answer
A shadow price represents the improvement in the
objective function value per unit increase in the
right-hand side. A negative shadow price
indicates a negative improvement in the objective,
which in this problem means an increase in total
cost because we're minimizing. Since the RHS
remains within the range of feasibility, there is no
change in the optimal solution. However, the
objective function value increases by $4.50.

59
Changes in Constraint Coefficients

 Classical sensitivity analysis provides no information

about changes resulting from a change in the
coefficient of a variable in a constraint.
 We must change the coefficient and rerun the model
to learn the impact the change will have on the
solution.

60
 Non-intuitive Shadow Prices

 Constraints with variables naturally on both the left-

hand and right-hand sides often lead to shadow
prices that have a non-intuitive explanation.

61
Example 2: Olympic Bike Co. (Revised)

Recall that Olympic Bike is introducing two new

lightweight bicycle frames, the Deluxe and the
Professional, to be made from special aluminum and
steel alloys. The objective is to maximize total profit,
subject to limits on the availability of aluminum and
steel.
Let us now introduce an additional constraint. The
number of Deluxe frames produced (x1) must be greater
than or equal to the number of Professional frames
produced (x2) .
x1 > x2

62
Example 2: Olympic Bike Co. (Revised)

 Model Formulation (continued)

Max 10x1 + 15x2 (Total Weekly Profit)

s.t. 2x1 + 4x2 < 100 (Aluminum Available)

3x1 + 2x2 < 80 (Steel Available)
x1 - x2 > 0 (Product Ratio)

x1, x2 > 0

63
Example 2: Olympic Bike Co. (Revised)

 Sensitivity Report (Revised)

Variable Cells
Model Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Variable Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
X1 Deluxe 16.000 0.000 10.000 12.500 10.000
X2 Profes. 16.000 0.000 15.000 1E+30 8.333

Constraints
Constraint Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Number Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
1 Alum. 96.000 0.000 100.000 1E+30 4.000
2 Steel 80.000 5.000 80.000 3.333 80.000
3 Ratio 0.000 -5.000 0.000 26.667 2.500

64
Example 2: Olympic Bike Co. (Revised)

 Shadow Price for Constraint #3

The interpretation of the shadow price -5.00 is
correctly stated as follows:

“If we are forced to produce 1 more Deluxe frame

over and above the number of Professional frames
produced, total profits will decrease by $5.00.”

65
Example 2: Olympic Bike Co. (Revised Again)

We might instead be interested in what happens if we

change the coefficient on x2.
For instance, what if management required Olympic
to produce a number of Deluxe frames that is at least
110% of the number of Professional frames produced?
In other words, the constraint would change to
x1 > 1.1x2

The shadow price does not tell us what will happen in

this case. We need to resolve the problem with this new
constraint.

66
End of Chapter 8

67
 Puntos a Tratar:

• Objetivo:

1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
68
 AAAAAAAAAABBBBBBB

1.1. XXXXXXZZZZZZ

69