Address the following requirements:
Develop a decision tree for the case described.
Explain the process of developing a decision tree, draw the decision tree (include the decision tree in an appendix showing chance nodes, probabilities, outcomes, expected values, and net expected value).
Defend your final decision based on your decision tree.
Case for consideration—An operations manager for a cereal producer is faced with a choice of:
A large-scale investment (A) to purchase a new cooker which could produce a substantial pay-off in terms of increased revenue net of costs but requires an investment of 3,750,000 Saudi Riyal. After extensive market research it is thought that there is a 40% chance that a pay-off of 9,375,000 Saudi Riyal will be realized, but there is a 60% chance that it will be only 3,000,000 Saudi Riyal.
A smaller scale project (B) to refurbish an existing cooker. At 1,875,000 Saudi Riyal, this option is less costly but produces a lower pay-off. Again, extensive research data suggests a 30% chance of a gain of 3,750,000 Saudi Riyal but a 70% chance of it being only 1,875,000 Saudi Riyal.
Continuing the present operation without change (C) which cost nothing, but produces no pay-off.
giver and the receiver, because true international volunteering for development is an exchange of knowledge as well as skill. As stated in the UN criteria for volunteering, it should always benefit someone other than the volunteer, thus it’s also important to remember that local people working with organisations who seek volunteers, are well aware that the volunteer will bring essential ingredients to the partnership. A 1999 study in Nepal showed that more than half of the local people interviewed, said that they definitely felt that international UN Volunteers had made a contribution that could not have been provided by the locals (Devereux, 2008ː362). ELI’s website’s front page statement says that they are allowing volunteers to work ‘side by side with locals’, which shows an acknowledgement of the importance of working with local institutions. They explain how their biggest expense is to their foreign partners on the ground; ‘we emphasize a fair fee for local peoples services, which helps the local economy and raises the quality of life.’ They also explain that host organisations must ‘have the means to meet your needs’ – and since ‘in the third world, that alone is a huge and costly challenge (eliabroad.org)’ volunteers are expected to pay up to $3000 per project, depending on where it is. For example volunteering in Uganda on a microfinance project costs $1520 for a 12 week placement, and volunteers on this project are required to stay for a minimum of 6 weeks. The fact that ELI are offering placements in microfinance is a major cause for concern and requires a deeper, more critical analysis. First of all it is important to understand what microfinance is and its history. 30 years ago the international development community was elated with the prospect of a new, market-affirming solution to ending poverty in developing countries. Us-educated Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus’ idea of microfinance would, in his words “rapidly eradicate endemic poverty and under-development by creating jobs, raising incomes and include previously excluded groups (notably women) in economic activity’ (Bateman, 2015:1). The UN backed microfinance, nominating 2005 as the ‘Year of Microcredit’ and then United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan stated that “microfinance has proved its value, in many countries, as a weapon against poverty and hunger. It really can change peoples’ lives for the better” (un.org). Yunus believed his goal would be reached by bringing capitalism to the poor, and in 1983 established his “bank for the poor”; the Grameen Bank. For the neoliberal orientated WorldBank and USAID, the ideology behind microfinance resonated with their obsession of promoting self-help, individualism and entrepreneurship as the on>GET ANSWER