MODEL KEPUTUSAN

buku –
BELAJAR MUDAH RISET OPERASIONAL

BUSTANUL ARIFIN NOER

Email: bus4arifin@gmail.com
WA 08175080186
 BUSTANUL ARIFIN NOER

• S1 Teknik Industri ITB – Bandung

• S2 Teknik dan Manajemen Industri ITB - Bandung
• S3 Ilmu Manajemen FEB Universitas Brawijaya – Malang

Departemen Manajemen Bisnis ITS Surabaya

1–2

MB - ITS BUSTANUL ARIFIN NOER

 CIMOSA BUSINESS PROCESS MAPPING
Manage Process

Set Set Direct

Direction Strategy Business

HR IT Develop Get
Process Process Product Order

Fin/Accoun. Maintenance Fulfill Support

Process Process Order Product

Core Process 1–3

Support Process

MB - ITS BUSTANUL ARIFIN NOER

1–3
 1–4

MB - ITS BUSTANUL ARIFIN NOER

1–4
 TE
U O 7
Q -0
M

…. andai HURUF adalah ANGKA …… jadikan %

 TE then
O 7
QU -0
M
H-A-R-D-W-O-R- K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%

K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%

A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%
 TE
U O 7
Q -0
M
Therefore, one can conclude with
mathematical certainty that:

While HARD WORK and

KNOWLEDGE will get you
close, ATTITUDE will get you
there!
 Example: Decision Making Process

Develop
Identify alternatives
a problem

Identify
decision
criteria

Allocate
weights to the
Criteria
its.ac.id/mb @mb.its @mb_its
8/31/22
Mempersiapkan Pemimpin Bisnis Masa Depan 11
 Example: Decision Making Process …

10 8 6 4 3

Analyze Alternatives

Select an Alternative

its.ac.id/mb @mb.its @mb_its

8/31/22
Mempersiapkan Pemimpin Bisnis Masa Depan 12
MISAL …. ADA 2 ALTERNATIF DAN 3 KRITERIA

Alternative
Kriteria-1 Kriteria-2 Kriteria-3
Alternatif-1 H11 H12 H13
Alternatif-2 H21 H22 H23

Hasil atau GAIN dari tiap alternatif

pada tiap kriteria … Hij

1 alternatif  YA atau TIDAK

2 atau lebih alternatif  A atau B atau C … dst
MCDM ….. tolok ukur (cara mengambil
keputusan)

(1) Dominasi
(2) Leksikografi
(3) Penghampiran atau tingkat aspirasi
 Dominasi ….

 Sidoarjo …. Hanya unggul pada kriteria JARAK (30 km)

 Mojokerto …. Unggul pada kriteria HARGA (480 juta) dan LUAS (3.200 m2)
 Gresik … Tidak ada yang unggul dari ketiga kriterinya

 TIDAK ADA DOMINASI !!

LEKSIKOGRAFI ….

 Tentukan urutan (preferensi) dari kriteria

Misal : Harga > Luas > Jarak …… terpilih Mojokerto (hanya kriteria HARGA dan LUAS)

Misal: Luas > Jarak > Harga ….. terpilih Mojokerto (hanya kriteria LUAS)

Misal: Jarak > Harga > Luas ……. Terpilih Sidoarjo (hanya kriteria JARAK)
PENGHAMPIRAN (TINGKAT
ASPIRASI)

 Tentukan target atau

batasan dari tiap kriteria
 Periksa pemenuhan tiap
alternatif
 Pilih alternatif yang
memenuhi tiap batasan
(target)!
 KEPUTUSAN DALAM KETIDAKPASTIAN ….

…. Pilihan keputusan ….
 Maximax (optimistik)
 Maximin (pesimistik)
 Hurwicz (ada bobot untuk maximax dan maximin)
 Equal Likelihood atau Laplace (bobot sama untuk maximax dan maximin)
 Minimax Regret (hati-hati)
 Nilai Ekspektasi (nilai harapan dari semua kondisi ekonomi)
 Chapter Topics

■ Components of Decision Making

■ Decision Making without Probabilities
■ Decision Making with Probabilities
■ Decision Analysis with Additional Information
■ Utility

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-18

Decision Analysis
Components of Decision Making
■ A state of nature is an actual event that may occur in the future.
■ A payoff table is a means of organizing a decision situation,
presenting the payoffs from different decisions given the various
states of nature.

12-19
 Decision Analysis
Decision Making Without Probabilities

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-20

Decision Analysis
Decision Making without Probabilities

Table 12.2
Decision-Making Criteria
maximax maximin minimax
minimax regret Hurwicz equal likelihood
12-21
Decision Making without Probabilities
Maximax Criterion
In the maximax criterion the decision maker selects the decision
that will result in the maximum of maximum payoffs; an
optimistic criterion.

Table 12.3 Payoff Table Illustrating a Maximax Decision

12-22
Decision Making without Probabilities
Maximin Criterion
In the maximin criterion the decision maker selects the decision that
will reflect the maximum of the minimum payoffs; a pessimistic
criterion.

12-23
Decision Making without Probabilities
Minimax Regret Criterion
Regret is the difference between the payoff from the best
decision and all other decision payoffs.
The decision maker attempts to avoid regret by selecting the
decision alternative that minimizes the maximum regret.

12-24
Decision Making without Probabilities
Hurwicz Criterion
The Hurwicz criterion is a compromise between the maximax
and maximin criterion.
A coefficient of optimism, , is a measure of the decision
maker’s optimism.
The Hurwicz criterion multiplies the best payoff by  and the
worst payoff by 1- ., for each decision, and the best result is
selected.
Decision Values
Apartment building $50,000(.4) + 30,000(.6) = 38,000
Office building $100,000(.4) - 40,000(.6) = 16,000
Warehouse $30,000(.4) + 10,000(.6) = 18,000
12-25
Decision Making without Probabilities
Equal Likelihood Criterion

The equal likelihood ( or Laplace) criterion multiplies the

decision payoff for each state of nature by an equal weight, thus
assuming that the states of nature are equally likely to occur.
Decision Values
Apartment building $50,000(.5) + 30,000(.5) = 40,000
Office building $100,000(.5) - 40,000(.5) = 30,000
Warehouse $30,000(.5) + 10,000(.5) = 20,000

12-26
Decision Making without Probabilities
Summary of Criteria Results
■ A dominant decision is one that has a better payoff than another
decision under each state of nature.
■ The appropriate criterion is dependent on the “risk” personality
and philosophy of the decision maker.
Criterion Decision (Purchase)
Maximax Office building
Maximin Apartment building
Minimax regret Apartment building
Hurwicz Apartment building
Equal likelihood Apartment building
12-27
Decision Making without Probabilities
Solution with QM for Windows (1 of 3)

12-28
Decision Making without Probabilities
Solution with QM for Windows (2 of 3)

12-29
Decision Making without Probabilities
Solution with QM for Windows (3 of 3)

12-30
Decision Making without Probabilities
Solution with Excel

12-31
Decision Making with Probabilities
Expected Value
Expected value is computed by multiplying each decision outcome under
each state of nature by the probability of its occurrence.

EV(Apartment) = $50,000(.6) + 30,000(.4) = 42,000

EV(Office) = $100,000(.6) - 40,000(.4) = 44,000
EV(Warehouse) = $30,000(.6) + 10,000(.4) = 22,000

12-32
 Decision Making with Probabilities
Expected Opportunity Loss
■ The expected opportunity loss is the expected value of the regret for each
decision.
■ The expected value and expected opportunity loss criterion result in the
same decision.

EOL(Apartment) = $50,000(.6) + 0(.4) = 30,000

EOL(Office) = $0(.6) + 70,000(.4) = 28,000
EOL(Warehouse) = $70,000(.6) + 20,000(.4) = 50,000

12-33
Expected Value Problems
Solution with QM for Windows

12-34
Expected Value Problems
Solution with Excel and Excel QM (1 of 2)

12-35
Expected Value Problems
Solution with Excel and Excel QM (2 of 2)

12-36
Decision Making with Probabilities
Expected Value of Perfect Information

■ The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) is the

maximum amount a decision maker would pay for additional
information.

■ EVPI equals the expected value given perfect information

minus the expected value without perfect information.

■ EVPI equals the expected opportunity loss (EOL) for the best
decision.

12-37
Decision Making with Probabilities
EVPI Example (1 of 2)

12-38
Decision Making with Probabilities
EVPI Example (2 of 2)
■ Decision with perfect information:
$100,000(.60) + 30,000(.40) = $72,000

■ Decision without perfect information:

EV(office) = $100,000(.60) - 40,000(.40) = $44,000

EVPI = $72,000 - 44,000 = $28,000

EOL(office) = $0(.60) + 70,000(.4) = $28,000

12-39
Decision Making with Probabilities
EVPI with QM for Windows

12-40
Decision Making with Probabilities
Decision Trees (1 of 4)
A decision tree is a diagram consisting of decision nodes
(represented as squares), probability nodes (circles), and
decision alternatives (branches).

12-41
Decision Making with Probabilities
Decision Trees (2 of 4)

12-42
Decision Making with Probabilities
Decision Trees (3 of 4)
■ The expected value is computed at each probability node:
EV(node 2) = .60($50,000) + .40(30,000) = $42,000
EV(node 3) = .60($100,000) + .40(-40,000) = $44,000
EV(node 4) = .60($30,000) + .40(10,000) = $22,000

■ Branches with the greatest expected value are selected.

12-43
Decision Making with Probabilities
Decision Trees (4 of 4)

12-44
Decision Making with Probabilities
Decision Trees with QM for Windows

12-45
Decision Making with Probabilities
Decision Trees with Excel and TreePlan (1 of 4)

Exhibit 12.10

12-46
Decision Making with Probabilities
Decision Trees with Excel and TreePlan (2 of 4)

12-47
Decision Making with Probabilities
Decision Trees with Excel and TreePlan (3 of 4)

12-48
Decision Making with Probabilities
Decision Trees with Excel and TreePlan (4 of 4)

12-49
Decision Making with Probabilities
Sequential Decision Trees (1 of 4)
■ A sequential decision tree is used to illustrate a situation
requiring a series of decisions.

■ Used where a payoff table, limited to a single decision, cannot

be used.

■ Real estate investment example modified to encompass a ten-

year period in which several decisions must be made:

12-50
Decision Making with Probabilities
Sequential Decision Trees (2 of 4)

12-51
 Decision Making with Probabilities
Sequential Decision Trees (3 of 4)

■ Decision is to purchase land; highest net expected value

($1,160,000).

■ Payoff of the decision is $1,160,000.

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-52

Decision Making with Probabilities
Sequential Decision Trees (4 of 4)

12-53
 Sequential Decision Tree Analysis
Solution with QM for Windows

Exhibit 12.14
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-54
 Sequential Decision Tree Analysis
Solution with Excel and TreePlan

Exhibit 12.15
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-55
 Decision Analysis with Additional Information
Bayesian Analysis (1 of 3)
■ Bayesian analysis uses additional information to alter the
marginal probability of the occurrence of an event.
■ In real estate investment example, using expected value
criterion, best decision was to purchase office building with
expected value of $444,000, and EVPI of $28,000.

Table
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-56
 Decision Analysis with Additional Information
Bayesian Analysis (2 of 3)
■ A conditional probability is the probability that an event will
occur given that another event has already occurred.
■ Economic analyst provides additional information for real
estate investment decision, forming conditional probabilities:
g = good economic conditions
p = poor economic conditions
P = positive economic report
N = negative economic report
P(Pg) = .80 P(NG) = .20
P(Pp) = .10 P(Np) = .90

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-57

 Decision Analysis with Additional Information
Bayesian Analysis (3 of 3)
■ A posterior probability is the altered marginal probability of an
event based on additional information.
■ Prior probabilities for good or poor economic conditions in real
estate decision:
P(g) = .60; P(p) = .40
■ Posterior probabilities by Bayes’ rule:
(gP) = P(PG)P(g)/[P(Pg)P(g) + P(Pp)P(p)]
= (.80)(.60)/[(.80)(.60) + (.10)(.40)] = .923
■ Posterior (revised) probabilities for decision:
P(gN) = .250P(pP) = .077 P(pN) = .750

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-58

 Decision Analysis with Additional Information
Decision Trees with Posterior Probabilities (1 of 4)

Decision tree with posterior probabilities differ from earlier

versions in that:
■ Two new branches at beginning of tree represent report
outcomes.

■ Probabilities of each state of nature are posterior

probabilities from Bayes’ rule.

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-59

 Decision Analysis with Additional Information
Decision Trees with Posterior Probabilities (2 of 4)

Figure 12.6 Decision Tree with Posterior Probabilities

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-60
 Decision Analysis with Additional Information
Decision Trees with Posterior Probabilities (3 of 4)

EV (apartment building) = $50,000(.923) + 30,000(.077)

= $48,460
EV (strategy) = $89,220(.52) + 35,000(.48) = $63,194

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-61

 Decision Analysis with Additional Information
Decision Trees with Posterior Probabilities (4 of 4)

Figure 12.7 Decision Tree Analysis

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-62

 Decision Analysis with Additional Information
Computing Posterior Probabilities with Tables

Table 12.12 Computation of Posterior Probabilities

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-63
 Decision Analysis with Additional Information
Computing Posterior Probabilities with Excel

Exhibit 12.16
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-64
 Decision Analysis with Additional Information
Expected Value of Sample Information

■ The expected value of sample information (EVSI) is the

difference between the expected value with and without
information:
For example problem, EVSI = $63,194 - 44,000 = $19,194
■ The efficiency of sample information is the ratio of the expected
value of sample information to the expected value of perfect
information:
efficiency = EVSI /EVPI = $19,194/ 28,000 = .68

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-65

 Decision Analysis with Additional Information
Utility (1 of 2)

Table 12.13 Payoff Table for Auto Insurance

Example

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-66

 Decision Analysis with Additional Information
Utility (2 of 2)
Expected Cost (insurance) = .992($500) + .008(500) = $500
Expected Cost (no insurance) = .992($0) + .008(10,000) = $80
Decision should be do not purchase insurance, but people
almost always do purchase insurance.
■ Utility is a measure of personal satisfaction derived from money.
■ Utiles are units of subjective measures of utility.
■ Risk averters forgo a high expected value to avoid a low-
probability disaster.
■ Risk takers take a chance for a bonanza on a very low-
probability event in lieu of a sure thing.

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-67

 Decision Analysis
Example Problem Solution (1 of 9)

States of Nature
Good Foreign Competitive Poor Foreign Competitive
Decision
Conditions Conditions
Expand $ 800,000 $ 500,000
Maintain Status Quo 1,300,000 -150,000
Sell now 320,000 320,000

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-68

 Decision Analysis
Example Problem Solution (2 of 9)
a. Determine the best decision without probabilities using the 5
criteria of the chapter.
b. Determine best decision with probabilities assuming .70
probability of good conditions, .30 of poor conditions. Use
expected value and expected opportunity loss criteria.
c. Compute expected value of perfect information.
d. Develop a decision tree with expected value at the nodes.
e. Given following, P(Pg) = .70, P(Ng) = .30, P(Pp) = 20,
P(Np) = .80, determine posterior probabilities using Bayes’
rule.
f. Perform a decision tree analysis using the posterior probability
obtained in part e.

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-69

 Decision Analysis
Example Problem Solution (3 of 9)
Step 1 (part a): Determine decisions without probabilities.
Maximax Decision: Maintain status quo
Decisions Maximum Payoffs
Expand $800,000
Status quo 1,300,000 (maximum)
Sell 320,000
Maximin Decision: Expand
Decisions Minimum Payoffs
Expand $500,000 (maximum)
Status quo -150,000
Sell 320,000

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-70

 Decision Analysis
Example Problem Solution (4 of 9)
Minimax Regret Decision: Expand
Decisions Maximum Regrets
Expand $500,000 (minimum)
Status quo 650,000
Sell 980,000
Hurwicz ( = .3) Decision: Expand
Expand $800,000(.3) + 500,000(.7) = $590,000
Status quo $1,300,000(.3) - 150,000(.7) = $285,000
Sell $320,000(.3) + 320,000(.7) = $320,000

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-71

 Decision Analysis
Example Problem Solution (5 of 9)
Equal Likelihood Decision: Expand
Expand $800,000(.5) + 500,000(.5) = $650,000
Status quo $1,300,000(.5) - 150,000(.5) = $575,000
Sell $320,000(.5) + 320,000(.5) = $320,000
Step 2 (part b): Determine Decisions with EV and EOL.
Expected value decision: Maintain status quo
Expand $800,000(.7) + 500,000(.3) = $710,000
Status quo $1,300,000(.7) - 150,000(.3) = $865,000
Sell $320,000(.7) + 320,000(.3) = $320,000

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-72

 Decision Analysis
Example Problem Solution (6 of 9)
Expected opportunity loss decision: Maintain status quo
Expand $500,000(.7) + 0(.3) = $350,000
Status quo 0(.7) + 650,000(.3) = $195,000
Sell $980,000(.7) + 180,000(.3) = $740,000
Step 3 (part c): Compute EVPI.
EV given perfect information = 1,300,000(.7) + 500,000(.3) =
$1,060,000
EV without perfect information = $1,300,000(.7) - 150,000(.3) =
$865,000
EVPI = $1.060,000 - 865,000 = $195,000

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-73

 Decision Analysis
Example Problem Solution (7 of 9)
Step 4 (part d): Develop a decision tree.

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-74

 Decision Analysis
Example Problem Solution (8 of 9)

Step 5 (part e): Determine posterior probabilities.

P(gP) = P(Pg)P(g)/[P(Pg)P(g) + P(Pp)P(p)]
= (.70)(.70)/[(.70)(.70) + (.20)(.30)] = .891

P(pP) = .109

P(gN) = P(Ng)P(g)/[P(Ng)P(g) + P(Np)P(p)]

= (.30)(.70)/[(.30)(.70) + (.80)(.30)] = .467

P(pN) = .533

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-75

 Decision Analysis
Example Problem Solution (9 of 9)
Step 6 (part f): Decision tree analysis.

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 12-76