Chapter 3

Linear Programming: Sensitivity Analysis

and Interpretation of Solution
 Introduction to Sensitivity Analysis
 Graphical Sensitivity Analysis
 Sensitivity Analysis: Computer Solution
 Simultaneous Changes

Slide
1
 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 the manager who
must operate in a dynamic environment with imprecise
estimates of the coefficients.
 Sensitivity analysis allows him to ask certain what-if
questions about the problem.

Slide
2
 Example 1

 LP Formulation

Max z = 5x1 + 7x2

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

x1, x2 > 0

Slide
3
 Example 1

 Graphical Solution
x2
8
x1 + x2 < 8
Max 5x1 + 7x2
7

6
x1 < 6
5
Optimal:
4
x1 = 5, x2 = 3, z = 46
3

2
2x1 + 3x2 < 19
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
x1

Slide
4
 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.

Slide
5
 Example 1

 Changing Slope of Objective Function

5 5
4

3
Feasible 4
2
Region 3
1
1 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
x1

Slide
6
 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.
 The slope of an objective function line, Max c1x1 + c2x2, is
-c1/c2, and the slope of a constraint, a1x1 + a2x2 = b, is
-a1/a2.

Slide
7
 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

Slide
8
 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

Slide
9
 Example 1

 Range of Optimality for c1 and c2

Adjustable Cells
Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
$B$8 X1 5.0 0.0 5 2 0.333333333
$C$8 X2 3.0 0.0 7 0.5 2

Constraints
Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
$B$13 #1 5 0 6 1E+30 1
$B$14 #2 19 2 19 5 1
$B$15 #3 8 1 8 0.333333333 1.666666667

Slide
10
 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
dual price.
 The range of feasibility is the range over which the dual
price is applicable.
 As the RHS increases, other constraints will become
binding and limit the change in the value of the
objective function.

Slide
11
 Dual Price

 Graphically, a dual 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 dual price is equal to the difference in the values of
the objective functions between the new and original
problems.
 The dual price for a nonbinding constraint is 0.
 A negative dual price indicates that the objective
function will not improve if the RHS is increased.

Slide
12
 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.

Slide
13
 A Cautionary Note
on the Interpretation of Dual Prices
 Resource cost is sunk
The dual price is the maximum amount you should be
willing to pay for one additional unit of the resource.
 Resource cost is relevant
The dual price is the maximum premium over the
normal cost that you should be willing to pay for one
unit of the resource.

Slide
14
 Example 1

 Dual Prices
Constraint 1: Since x1 < 6 is not a binding constraint,
its dual 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
dual price = znew - zold = 48 - 46 = 2.

Slide
15
 Example 1

 Dual 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. Hence, the
dual price is znew - zold = 47 - 46 = 1.

Slide
16
 Example 1

 Dual Prices
Adjustable Cells
Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
$B$8 X1 5.0 0.0 5 2 0.333333333
$C$8 X2 3.0 0.0 7 0.5 2

Constraints
Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
$B$13 #1 5 0 6 1E+30 1
$B$14 #2 19 2 19 5 1
$B$15 #3 8 1 8 0.333333333 1.666666667

Slide
17
 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.

Slide
18
 Example 1

 Range of Feasibility
Adjustable Cells
Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
$B$8 X1 5.0 0.0 5 2 0.333333333
$C$8 X2 3.0 0.0 7 0.5 2

Constraints
Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
$B$13 #1 5 0 6 1E+30 1
$B$14 #2 19 2 19 5 1
$B$15 #3 8 1 8 0.333333333 1.666666667

Slide
19
 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 below. A supplier delivers 100 pounds of
the aluminum alloy and 80 pounds of the steel alloy
weekly. How many Deluxe and Professional frames
should Olympic produce each week?
Aluminum Alloy Steel Alloy
Deluxe 2 3
Professional 4 2

Slide
20
 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.

Slide
21
 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

Slide
22
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

 Partial Spreadsheet Showing Problem Data

A B C D
1 Material Requirements Amount
2 Material Deluxe Profess. Available
3 Aluminum 2 4 100
4 Steel 3 2 80
5 Profit/Bike 10 15

Slide
23
 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

Slide
24
 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

Slide
25
 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?

Slide
26
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

 Sensitivity Report
Adjustable Cells
Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
$B$8 Deluxe 15 0 10 12.5 2.5
$C$8 Profess. 17.500 0.000 15 5 8.333333333

Constraints
Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
$B$13 Aluminum 100 3.125 100 60 46.66666667
$B$14 Steel 80 1.25 80 70 30

Slide
27
 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. Since 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.

Slide
28
 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?

Slide
29
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

 Range of Optimality
Adjustable Cells
Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
$B$8 Deluxe 15 0 10 12.5 2.5
$C$8 Profess. 17.500 0.000 15 5 8.333333333

Constraints
Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
$B$13 Aluminum 100 3.125 100 60 46.66666667
$B$14 Steel 80 1.25 80 70 30

Slide
30
 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. Since 6 is outside this range, the
optimal solution would change.

Slide
31
 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%.

Slide
32
 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?
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.

Slide
33
 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%.

Slide
34
 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?

Slide
35
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

 Range of Feasibility and Sunk Costs

Adjustable Cells
Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
$B$8 Deluxe 15 0 10 12.5 2.5
$C$8 Profess. 17.500 0.000 15 5 8.333333333

Constraints
Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
$B$13 Aluminum 100 3.125 100 60 46.66666667
$B$14 Steel 80 1.25 80 70 30

Slide
36
 Example 2: Olympic Bike Co.

 Range of Feasibility and Sunk Costs

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

Slide
37
 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?
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.

Slide
38
 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

Slide
39
 Example 3

 The Management Scientist Output

OBJECTIVE FUNCTION VALUE = 27.000

Variable Value Reduced Cost

x1 1.500 0.000
x2 2.000 0.000

Constraint Slack/Surplus Dual Price

1 2.500 0.000
2 0.000 -0.600
3 0.000 -4.500

Slide
40
 Example 3

 The Management Scientist Output (Continued)

OBJECTIVE COEFFICIENT RANGES

Variable Lower Limit Current Value Upper Limit
x1 0.000 6.000 12.000
x2 4.500 9.000 No Upper Limit

RIGHTHAND SIDE RANGES

Constraint Lower Limit Current Value Upper Limit
1 5.500 8.000 No Upper Limit
2 15.000 30.000 55.000
3 0.000 2.000 4.000

Slide
41
 Example 3

 Optimal Solution

According to the output:

x1 = 1.5
x2 = 2.0
Objective function value = 27.00

Slide
42
 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?

Slide
43
 Example 3

OBJECTIVE COEFFICIENT RANGES

Variable Lower Limit Current Value Upper Limit
x1 0.000 6.000 12.000
x2 4.500 9.000 No Upper Limit

RIGHTHAND SIDE RANGES

Constraint Lower Limit Current Value Upper Limit
1 5.500 8.000 No Upper Limit
2 15.000 30.000 55.000
3 0.000 2.000 4.000

Slide
44
 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. Since 4 is within this range, the
optimal solution will not change. However, the optimal
total cost will be affected: 6x1 + 9x2 = 4(1.5) + 9(2.0) =
$24.00.

Slide
45
 Example 3

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

Slide
46
 Example 3

OBJECTIVE COEFFICIENT RANGES

Variable Lower Limit Current Value Upper Limit
x1 0.000 6.000 12.000
x2 4.500 9.000 No Upper Limit

RIGHTHAND SIDE RANGES

Constraint Lower Limit Current Value Upper Limit
1 5.500 8.000 No Upper Limit
2 15.000 30.000 55.000
3 0.000 2.000 4.000

Slide
47
 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.

Slide
48
 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?
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%. Since this does not
exceed 100% the optimal solution would not change.

Slide
49
 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?

Slide
50
 Example 3

OBJECTIVE COEFFICIENT RANGES

Variable Lower Limit Current Value Upper Limit
x1 0.000 6.000 12.000
x2 4.500 9.000 No Upper Limit

RIGHTHAND SIDE RANGES

Constraint Lower Limit Current Value Upper Limit
1 5.500 8.000 No Upper Limit
2 15.000 30.000 55.000
3 0.000 2.000 4.000

Slide
51
 Example 3

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

Slide
52