3.8K views

Uploaded by Aditya Upgade

- Hart Venture Capital
- Scottsville Textile Mill
- O.R Case study
- Hart Venture Capital
- Hart Venture Capital
- C10 12ed Quantitative Data
- Chp 4 Environment Protection Pg 211
- Linear Programming
- Hart Venture Capital
- Quan Case Study-Lawsuit Defense Strategy
- jd.doc
- Production Strategy
- Management science
- An Introduction to Management Science (13th Edition) – Anderson, Sweeney, Williams, Camm and Martin (2012)
- Investment Strategy
- 5320 Assignment
- Case Study 2 Forecasting Sales
- The Darby Company Case
- Taylch07
- Taylor Chapter 6 Transportation

You are on page 1of 18

Chapter 4

Linear Programming Applications

x2 = units of product 2 produced

s.t.

x1 + 0.35x2 ≤ 100 Dept. A

0.30x1 + 0.20x2 ≤ 36 Dept. B

0.20x1 + 0.50x2 ≤ 50 Dept. C

x1, x2 ≥ 0

b. The dual price for Dept. A is $15.79, for Dept. B it is $47.37, and for Dept. C it is $0.00. Therefore

we would attempt to schedule overtime in Departments A and B. Assuming the current labor

available is a sunk cost, we should be willing to pay up to $15.79 per hour in Department A and up

to $47.37 in Department B.

xB = hours of overtime in Dept. B

xC = hours of overtime in Dept. C

s.t.

x1 + 0.35x2 - xA ≤ 100

0.30x1 + 0.20x2 - xB ≤ 36

0.20x1 + 0.50x2 - xC ≤ 50

xA ≤ 10

xB ≤ 6

xC ≤ 8

x1, x2, xA, xB, xC ≥ 0

x1 = 87.21

Chapter 4

x2 = 65.12

Profit = $3341.34

Overtime

Dept. A 10 hrs.

Dept. B 3.186 hrs

Dept. C 0 hours

x2 = units of product 2

b1 = labor-hours Dept. A

b2 = labor-hours Dept. B

s.t.

6x1 + 8x2 - 1b1 = 0

12x1 + 10x2 - 1b2 = 0

1b1 + 1b2 ≤ 900

x2 = the number of officers scheduled to begin at noon

x3 = the number of officers scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m.

x4 = the number of officers scheduled to begin at 8:00 p.m.

x5 = the number of officers scheduled to begin at midnight

x6 = the number of officers scheduled to begin at 4:00 a.m.

Min x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 + x6

The constraints require the total number of officers of duty each of the six four-hour periods to be at

least equal to the minimum officer requirements. The constraints for the six four-hour periods are

as follows:

Time of Day

8:00 a.m. - noon x1 + x6 ≥ 5

noon to 4:00 p.m. x1 + x2 ≥ 6

Linear Programming Applications

8:00 p.m. - midnight x3 + x4 ≥ 7

midnight - 4:00 a.m. x4 + x5 ≥ 4

4:00 a.m. - 8:00 a.m. x5 + x6 ≥ 6

x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6 ≥ 0

x2 = 3 begin at noon

x3 = 7 begin at 4:00 p.m.

x4 = 0 begin at 8:00 p.m.

x5 = 4 begin at midnight

x6 = 2 begin at 4:00 a.m.

2

s.t.

x11 + x1 + x13 = 1000

2

x21 + x22 + x23 = 800

x11 + x21 ≤ 600

x1 + x22 ≤ 1000

2

x13 + x23 ≤ 800

Solution:

Supplier

1 2 3

Component 2 0 0 800

Purchase Cost = $20,400

FP = number of frames purchased

SM = number of supports manufactured

SP = number of supports purchased

TM = number of straps manufactured

TP = number of straps purchased

Chapter 4

s.t.

3.5FM + 1.3SM + 0.8TM ≤ 21,000

2.2FM + 1.7SM ≤ 25,200

3.1FM + 2.6SM + 1.7TM ≤ 40,800

FM + FP ≥ 5,000

SM + SP ≥ 10,000

TM + TP ≥ 5,000

FM, FP, SM, SP, TM, TP ≥ 0.

Solution:

Manufacture Purchase

Frames 5000 0

Supports 2692 7308

Straps 0 5000

c. Subtract values of slack variables from minutes available to determine minutes used. Divide by 60

to determine hours of production time used.

Constraint

1 Cutting: Slack = 0 350 hours used

2 Milling: (25200 - 9623) / 60 = 259.62 hours

3 Shaping: (40800 - 18300) / 60 = 375 hours

d. Nothing, there are already more hours available than are being used.

e. Yes. The current purchase price is $51.00 and the reduced cost of 3.577 indicates that for a

purchase price below $47.423 the solution may improve. Resolving with the coefficient of FP =

45 shows that 2714 frames should be purchased.

OPTIMAL SOLUTION

-------------- --------------- ------------------

FM 2285.714 0.000

FP 2714.286 0.000

SM 10000.000 0.000

SP 0.000 0.900

TM 0.000 0.600

TP 5000.000 0.000

Linear Programming Applications

-------------- --------------- ------------------

1 0.000 2.000

2 3171.429 0.000

3 7714.286 0.000

4 0.000 -45.000

5 0.000 -14.100

6 0.000 -7.500

x21 = amount of women's model in month 1

x12 = amount of men's model in month 2

x22 = amount of women's model in month 2

s11 = inventory of men's model at end of month 1

s21 = inventory of women's model at end of month 1

s12 = inventory of men's model at end of month 2

s22 = inventory of women's model at end of month

s.t.

20 + x11 - s11 = 150

or

x11 - s11 = 130 Satisfy Demand [1]

or

x21 - s21 = 95 Satisfy Demand [2]

s21 + x22 - s22 = 150 Satisfy Demand [4]

s12 ≥ 25 Ending Inventory [5]

s22 ≥ 25 Ending Inventory [6]

Women’s = 1.6 + 1.0 = 2.6

3.5 x11 + 2.6 x21 ≤ 1100 Month 1

[8]

3.5 x11 + 2.6 x21 - 3.5 x12 - 2.6 x22 ≤ 100 Labor Smoothing for

[9]

Chapter 4

-3.5 x11 - 2.6 x21 + 3.5 x12 + 2.6 x22 ≤ 100 Month 2 [10]

The optimal solution is to produce 193 of the men's model in month 1, 162 of the men's model in

month 2, 95 units of the women's model in month 1, and 175 of the women's model in month 2.

Total Cost = $67,156

Inventory Schedule

Month 2 25 Men's 25 Women's

Labor Levels

Month 1 922.25 hours

Month 2 1022.25 hours

b. To accommodate this new policy the right-hand sides of constraints [7] to [10] must be changed to

950, 1050, 50, and 50 respectively. The revised optimal solution is given.

x11 = 201

x21 = 95

x12 = 154

x22 = 175 Total Cost = $67,175

We produce more men's models in the first month and carry a larger men's model inventory; the

added cost however is only $19. This seems to be a small expense to have less drastic labor force

fluctuations. The new labor levels are 1000, 950, and 994.5 hours each month. Since the added

cost is only $19, management might want to experiment with the labor force smoothing restrictions

to enforce even less fluctuations. You may want to experiment yourself to see what happens.

Bookshelf B1R B2R

Floor F1R F2R

Bookshelf B1O B2O

Floor F1O F2O

Labor costs per unit

Bookshelf .7 (22) = 15.40 .7 (33) = 23.10

Linear Programming Applications

IF = Month 1 ending inventory for floor model

Objective function

+ 23.10 B1O + 23.10 B2O + 33 F1O + 33 F2O

+ 10 B1R + 10 B2R + 12 F1R + 12 F2R

+ 10 B1O + 10 B2O + 12 F1O + 12 F2O

+ 5 IB + 5 IF

or

+ 33.10 B1O + 33.10 B2O + 45 F1O + 45 F2O

+ 5 IB + 5 IF

s.t.

.7 B1R + 1 F1R ≤ 2400 Regular time: month 1

.7 B2R + 1 F2R ≤ 2400 Regular time: month 2

.7B1O + 1 F1O ≤ 1000 Overtime: month 1

.7B2O + 1 F2O ≤ 1000 Overtime: month 2

B1R + B1O - IB = 2100 Bookshelf: month 1

IB + B2R + B2O = 1200 Bookshelf: month 2

F1R + F1O - IF = 1500 Floor: month 1

IF + F2R + F2O = 2600 Floor: month 2

OPTIMAL SOLUTION

-------------- --------------- ------------------

B1R 2100.000 0.000

B2R 1200.000 0.000

F1R 930.000 0.000

F2R 1560.000 0.000

B1O 0.000 0.000

B2O 0.000 0.000

F1O 610.000 0.000

F2O 1000.000 0.000

IB 0.000 1.500

IF 40.000 0.000

-------------- --------------- ------------------

1 0.000 11.000

2 0.000 16.000

3 390.000 0.000

4 0.000 5.000

Chapter 4

5 0.000 -33.100

6 0.000 -36.600

7 0.000 -45.000

8 0.000 -50.000

OBJECTIVE COEFFICIENT RANGES

------------ --------------- --------------- ---------------

B1R 23.900 25.400 25.400

B2R No Lower Limit 25.400 25.400

F1R 34.000 34.000 36.143

F2R 34.000 34.000 50.000

B1O 33.100 33.100 No Upper Limit

B2O 33.100 33.100 No Upper Limit

F1O 40.000 45.000 45.000

F2O No Lower Limit 45.000 45.000

IB 3.500 5.000 No Upper Limit

IF 0.000 5.000 7.143

------------ --------------- --------------- ---------------

1 2010.000 2400.000 3010.000

2 2010.000 2400.000 2440.000

3 610.000 1000.000 No Upper Limit

4 610.000 1000.000 1040.000

5 1228.571 2100.000 2657.143

6 1142.857 1200.000 1757.143

7 890.000 1500.000 1890.000

8 2560.000 2600.000 2990.000

M = number of windows manufactured in March

A = number of windows manufactured in April

Im = increase in production level necessary during month m

Dm = decrease in production level necessary during month m

sm = ending inventory in month m

s.t.

9000 + F - s1 = 15,000 February Demand

or

(1) F1 - s1 = 6000

Linear Programming Applications

or

(4) F - I1 + D1 = 15,000

or

(5) M - F - I2 + D2 = 0

or

(6) A - M - I3 + D3 = 0

Production Level 12,000 14,000 16,500

Increase in Production 0 2,000 2,500

Decrease in Production 3,000 0 0

Ending Inventory 6,000 3,500 0

X4R = Yards of fabric 4 on regular looms

X5R = Yards of fabric 5 on regular looms

X1D = Yards of fabric 1 on dobbie looms

X2D = Yards of fabric 2 on dobbie looms

X3D = Yards of fabric 3 on dobbie looms

X4D = Yards of fabric 4 on dobbie looms

X5D = Yards of fabric 5 on dobbie looms

Y1 = Yards of fabric 1 purchased

Y2 = Yards of fabric 2 purchased

Y3 = Yards of fabric 3 purchased

Y4 = Yards of fabric 4 purchased

Y5 = Yards of fabric 5 purchased

Chapter 4

Manufactured Purchased

1 0.33 0.19

2 0.31 0.16

Fabric 3 0.61 0.50

4 0.73 0.54

5 0.20 0.00

Regular Dobbie

1 — 0.21598

2 — 0.21598

Fabric 3 0.1912 0.1912

4 0.1912 0.1912

5 0.2398 0.2398

+ 0.33X1D + 0.31X2D + 0.61X3D + 0.73X4D + 0.20X5D

+ 0.19Y1 + 0.16Y2 + 0.50Y3 + 0.54Y4

or

+ 0.66X1D + 0.55X2D + 0.49X3D + 0.51X4D + 0.50X5D

+ 0.80Y1 + 0.70Y2 + 0.60Y3 + 0.70Y4 + 0.70Y5

Constraints:

Regular Looms:

0.192X3R + 0.1912X4R + 0.2398X5R ≤ 21600

Dobbie Looms:

0.21598X1D + 0.21598X2D + 0.1912X3D + 0.1912X4D + 0.2398X5D ≤ 5760

Demand Constraints

X1D + Y1 = 16500

X2D + Y2 = 22000

X3R + X3D + Y3 = 62000

X4R + X4D + Y4 = 7500

X5R + X5D + Y5 = 62000

Linear Programming Applications

OPTIMAL SOLUTION

-------------- --------------- ------------------

X3R 27711.29297 0.00000

X4R 7500.00000 0.00000

X5R 62000.00000 0.00000

X1D 4669.13672 0.00000

X2D 22000.00000 0.00000

X3D 0.00000 0.01394

X4D 0.00000 0.01394

X5D 0.00000 0.01748

Y1 11830.86328 0.00000

Y2 0.00000 0.01000

Y3 34288.70703 0.00000

Y4 0.00000 0.08000

Y5 0.00000 0.06204

Constraint Slack/Surplus Dual Prices

-------------- --------------- ------------------

1 0.00000 0.57531

2 0.00000 0.64821

3 0.00000 0.19000

4 0.00000 0.17000

5 0.00000 0.50000

6 0.00000 0.62000

7 0.00000 0.06204

------------ --------------- --------------- ---------------

X3R 0.50000 0.61000 0.62394

X4R 0.71606 0.73000 No Upper Limit

X5R 0.18252 0.20000 No Upper Limit

X1D 0.31426 0.33000 0.34000

X2D 0.30000 0.31000 No Upper Limit

X3D No Lower Limit 0.61000 0.62394

X4D No Lower Limit 0.73000 0.74394

X5D No Lower Limit 0.20000 0.21748

Y1 0.18000 0.19000 0.20574

Y2 No Lower Limit 0.16000 0.17000

Y3 0.48606 0.50000 0.61000

Y4 No Lower Limit 0.54000 0.62000

Y5 No Lower Limit 0.00000 0.06204

------------ --------------- --------------- ---------------

Chapter 4

2 4751.55957 5760.00000 8315.23047

3 4669.13672 16500.00000 No Upper Limit

4 10169.13672 22000.00000 26669.13672

5 27711.29297 62000.00000 No Upper Limit

6 0.00000 7500.00000 35211.29297

7 34660.54688 62000.00000 84095.07813

Regular Dobbie

Looms Looms Purchased

1 4669 11831

2 22000

Fabric 3 27711 34289

4 7500

5 62000

Note: This change is within the Right-Hand Side Ranges for Constraint 2.

For example, fabric one on the dobbie loom shares ranges of 0.31426 to 0.34 for the profit maximization

model or 0.64426 to 0.67 for the cost minimization model.

Note here that since demand for the fabrics is fixed, both the profit maximization and cost minimization

models will provide the same optimal solution. However, the interpretation of the ranges for the objective

function coefficients differ for the two models. In the profit maximization case, the coefficients are profit

contributions. Thus, the range information indicates how price per unit and cost per unit may vary

simultaneously. That is, as long as the net changes in price per unit and cost per unit keep the profit

contributions within the ranges, the solution will remain optimal. In the cost minimization model, the

coefficients are costs per unit. Thus, the range information indicates that assuming price per unit remains

fixed how much the cost per unit may vary and still maintain the same optimal solution.

1. Let tij = number of temporary employees hired under option i (i = 1, 2, 3) in month j (j = 1 for

January, j = 2 for February and so on)

The following table depicts the decision variables used in this case problem.

Linear Programming Applications

Option 1 t11 t12 t13 t14 t15 t16

Option 2 t21 t22 t23 t24 t25

Option 3 t31 t32 t33 t34

1 $2000 $875 $2875

2 $4800 $875 $5675

3 $7500 $875 $8375

+ 5675(t21 + t22 + t23 + t24 + t25)

+ 8375(t31 + t32 + t33 + t34)

t11 = number of temporary employees hired under Option 1 (one-month contract) in January

t21 = number of temporary employees hired under Option 2 (two-month contract) in January

t31 = number of temporary employees hired under Option 3 (three-month contract) in January

t12 , t22 and t32 are the number of temporary employees hired under Options 1, 2 and 3 in February.

But, temporary employees hired under Option 2 or Option 3 in January will also be available to satisfy

February needs.

Note: The following table shows the decision variables used in this constraint

Option 1 t12

Option 2 t21 t22

Option 3 t31 t32

Option 1 t13

Option 2 t22 t23

Option 3 t31 t32 t33

Chapter 4

Option 1 t14

Option 2 t23 t24

Option 3 t32 t33 t34

Option 1 t15

Option 2 t24 t25

Option 3 t33 t34

Option 1 t16

Option 2 t25

Option 3 t34

Option 1 0 1 0 0 6 0

Option 2 3 0 0 0 0

Option 3 7 12 0 14

2.

Option Number Hired Contract Cost Training Cost Total Cost

1 7 $14,000 $6,125 $20,125

2 3 $14,400 $2,625 $17,025

3 33 $247,500 $28,875 $276,375

Total: $275,900 $37,625 $313,525

3. Hiring 10 full-time employees at the beginning of January will reduce the number of temporary employees

needed each month by 10. Using the same linear programming model with the right-hand sides of 0, 13, 9,

16, 10 and 4, provides the following schedule for temporary employees:

Option 1 0 4 0 0 3 0

Option 2 0 0 0 3 0

Linear Programming Applications

Option 3 0 9 0 4

1 7 $14,000 $6,125 $20,125

2 3 $14,400 $2,625 $17,025

3 13 $97,500 $11,375 $108,875

Total: 23 $146,025

Salary: 10(6)(168)($16.50) = $166,320

Total Cost = $146,025 + $8750 + $166,320 = $321,095

Hiring 10 full-time employees is $321,095 - $313,525 = $7,570 more expensive than using temporary

employees. Do not hire the 10 full-time employees. Davis should continue to contract with WorkForce to

obtain temporary employees.

4. With the lower training costs, the costs per employee for each option are as follows:

1 $2000 $700 $2700

2 $4800 $700 $5500

3 $7500 $700 $8200

Resolving the original linear programming model with the above costs indicates that Davis should hire all

temporary employees on a one-month contract specifically to meet each month's employee needs. Thus, the

monthly temporary hire schedule would be as follows: January - 10; February - 23; March - 19; April - 26;

May - 20; and June - 14. The total cost of this strategy is $302,400. Note that if training costs were any

lower, this would still be the optimal hiring strategy for Davis.

A linear programming model can be used to determine how much coal to buy from

each of the mining companies and where to ship it. Let

xij = tons of coal purchased from supplier i and used by generating unit j

The objective function minimizes the total cost to buy and burn coal. The objective

function coefficients, cij , are the cost to buy coal at mine i, ship it to generating unit j,

and burn it at generating unit j. Thus, the objective function is ∑ ∑ cij xij . In computing

the objective function coefficients three inputs must be added: the cost of the coal,

the transportation cost to the generating unit, and the cost of processing the coal at

the generating unit.

There are two types of constraints: supply constraints and demand constraints. The

supply constraints limit the amount of coal that can be bought under the various

Chapter 4

contracts. For the fixed-tonnage contracts, the constraints are equalities. For the

variable-tonnage contracts, any amount of coal up to a specified maximum may be

purchased. Let Li represent the amount that must be purchased under fixed-tonnage

contract i and Si represent the maximum amount that can be purchased under

variable-tonnage contract i. Then the supply constraints can be written as follows:

∑x

j

ij = Li for all fixed-tonnage contracts

∑x

j

ij ≤ Si for all variable-tonnage contracts

The demand constraints specify the number of mWh of electricity that must be

generated by each generating unit. Let aij = mWh hours of electricity generated by a

ton of coal purchased from supplier i and used by generating unit j, and Dj = mWh of

electricity demand at generating unit j. The demand constraints can then be written

as follows:

∑a

i

ij ijx = Dj for all generating units

Note: Because of the large number of calculations that must be made to compute the

objective function and constraint coefficients, we developed an Excel spreadsheet

model for this problem. Copies of the data and model worksheets are included after

the discussion of the solution to parts (a) through (f).

1. The number of tons of coal that should be purchased from each of the mining

companies and where it should be shipped is shown below:

#5 #7 Beckjord East Bend Zimmer

RAG 0 0 61,538 288,462 0

Peabody 217,105 11,278 71,617 0 0

American 0 0 0 0 275,000

Consol 0 0 33,878 0 166,122

Cyprus 0 0 0 0 0

Addingto

n 0 200,000 0 0 0

Waterloo 0 0 98,673 0 0

The total cost to purchase, deliver, and process the coal is $53,407,243.

2. The cost of the coal in cents per million BTUs for each generating unit is as follows:

#5 #7 d Bend r

111.84 136.97 127.24 103.85 114.51

3. The average number of BTUs per pound of coal received at each generating unit is

shown

below:

Linear Programming Applications

#5 #7 d Bend r

13,300 12,069 12,354 13,000 12,468

4. The sensitivity report shows that the shadow price per ton of coal purchased from

American Coal Sales is -$13 per ton and the allowable increase is 88,492 tons. This

means that every additional ton of coal that Cinergy can purchase at the current price

of $22 per ton will decrease cost by $13. So even paying $30 per ton, Cinergy will

decrease cost by $5 per ton. Thus, they should buy the additional 80,000 tons; doing

so will save them $5(80,000) = $400,000.

5. If the energy content of the Cyprus coal turns out to be 13,000 BTUs per ton the

procurement plan changes as shown below:

#5 #7 Beckjord East Bend Zimmer

RAG 0 0 61,538 288,462 0

Peabody 36,654 191,729 71,617 0 0

American 0 0 0 0 275,000

Consol 0 0 33,878 0 166,122

Cyprus 0 0 85,769 0 0

Addington 200,000 0 0 0 0

Waterloo 0 0 0 0 0

#5 #7 d Bend r

21 20 20 18 19

The East Bend unit is the least cost producer at the margin ($18 per mWh), and the

allowable increase is 160,000 mWh. Thus, Cinergy should sell the 50,000 mWh over

the grid. The additional electricity should be produced at the East Bend generating

unit. Cinergy’s profit will be $12 per mWh.

The Excel data and model worksheets used to solve the Cinergy coal allocation

problem are as follows:

Chapter 4

- Hart Venture CapitalUploaded byrubinsch
- Scottsville Textile MillUploaded byadz1179
- O.R Case studyUploaded byAkshay Vyas
- Hart Venture CapitalUploaded byJoyce Kwok
- Hart Venture CapitalUploaded bySapna Shah
- C10 12ed Quantitative DataUploaded byAdam Lo
- Chp 4 Environment Protection Pg 211Uploaded bygorgory_3
- Linear ProgrammingUploaded byVinay George
- Hart Venture CapitalUploaded byJD_04
- Quan Case Study-Lawsuit Defense StrategyUploaded byBeAutiful You
- jd.docUploaded byNor Yaacob
- Production StrategyUploaded byJD_04
- Management scienceUploaded byDalia Joy Chan
- An Introduction to Management Science (13th Edition) – Anderson, Sweeney, Williams, Camm and Martin (2012)Uploaded byTaposh Roy
- Investment StrategyUploaded byAjay Yadav
- 5320 AssignmentUploaded byCharlotte Ellen
- Case Study 2 Forecasting SalesUploaded bykinggomzy
- The Darby Company CaseUploaded byLuckyKee
- Taylch07Uploaded byYat Kunt Chan
- Taylor Chapter 6 TransportationUploaded byAinnz Abiggaill
- MS Case 2Uploaded byDalia Joy Chan
- 9B_Global_Shipping_at_Erken_Apparel_InternationalUploaded byAshish Gupta
- Case Problem Tri-State CorpUploaded byCasandra Farfan Seclen
- Darby Case ReportUploaded byrichiedevil666s
- Exhibits Dakota Office ProductsUploaded bymelissabz
- assn2Uploaded byapi-26315128
- ORUploaded byVarun Markandeya
- Distribution System Design for the Darby CompanyUploaded bymacharlatejas
- [Peter S. Rose, Sylvia C. Hudgins] Bank ManagementUploaded byAsad Khan
- Case Study Analysis2Uploaded byMaviel Maratas Sarsaba

- (1)Add Math projectUploaded byAmr
- graphical method math statistics computation calculus algebra management scienceUploaded byChristine Reyes
- Lmi MethodUploaded bylokesh1308
- Optimum Allocation of Agricultural Land to the Vegetable CropsUploaded byDian Abiyoga
- Atswa Quantitative AnalysisUploaded byMalami Bamalli
- Computer Simulated Plant Design for Waste Minimization & Pollution PreventionUploaded byAndreea Florea
- Lin Prog with Excel.pdfUploaded byjudaswashere
- 2 LINEAR PROGRAMMING.pptxUploaded byArifdho Yanata
- Complex ZonotopeUploaded byArvind Adimoolam
- Decision Making Final PPT(2)Uploaded byTanu Chaturvedi
- PMSO syllabusUploaded byuvesh shaikh
- 127077_Management_science_corrected_on13April2016.pdfUploaded byRagillia Zaoldyeck
- Linear Programming of Basic Economic Parameters Used at Reengineering in SmallUploaded byIAEME Publication
- lecture 1Uploaded bysuprajaconjeti
- COMPREHENSIVE ASSIGNMENT FOUR.docUploaded byJasiz Philipe Ombugu
- Production Planning via Integer Linear ProgrammingUploaded bymariana
- tmp_12416-rDEA1672864967Uploaded bySullivan James
- Linear ProgrammingUploaded byTon Janaban
- Multiple Stage ProductionUploaded bydr_hsn57
- Cost Minimization of MaxCity ClinicUploaded byGaurav Arora
- MAT540 Quiz Chapter 3Uploaded byKarakaradu McFarlane
- Syllabi of B.voc. (Retail Management) 2014-15Uploaded byBikalpa Bora
- Problem 4Uploaded byGursharan Singh
- 1007.4063Uploaded byVigneshwar Natesan
- Optimization Basic ConceptsUploaded byjyothis_joy8315
- Business Administrtion Operation Research.pdfUploaded byNagrathna Poojari
- linear programming explanationUploaded byNiranjan Gupta
- 3-D Shape.pptUploaded byHew Leefun
- II-Sem SyllUploaded byjsrevathy
- Duality OptUploaded bySidney Lins