# Case Problem “Julia’s Food Booth”

Assignment #3: Case Problem “Julia’s Food Booth”

Complete the “Julia’s Food Booth” case problem on page 109 of the text. Address each of the issues A – D according the instructions given.

• (A) Formulate and solve an L.P. model for this case.
• (B) Evaluate the prospect of borrowing money before the first game.
• (C) Evaluate the prospect of paying a friend \$100/game to assist.
• (D) Analyze the impact of uncertainties on the model.

The assignment will be graded using the associated rubric.

 Outcome Assessed: Create sensitivity analysis on linear programming model parameters Communicate issues in Management Science Grading Rubric for Assignment – Assignment #4 Case ProblemThere are 12 points in each of the five criteria for a total of 60 points possible
 Criteria 0 Unacceptable (0 points) 1 Developing (6 points) 2 Competent (9 points) 3 Exemplary (12 points) 1. Formulate an LP model for this case. (Part A). Did not submit or LP model is not sufficiently attempted and does not demonstrate a. recognizable attempt to model this case. LP model is partially correct, but has errors in the objective function or constraints. Described with 70 – 79% accuracy, clarity, and completeness. LP model has objective function and most constraints correctly specified. Described with 80 – 89% accuracy, clarity, and completeness. LP model has objective function and all constraints fully and correctly specified. Described with 90 – 100% accuracy, clarity, and completeness. 2. Solve the linear programming model formulated in Criterion 1 (Part A) Did not submit or did not solve the linear programming model accurately. Solved the linear programming model with 70 – 79% accuracy. Solved the linear programming model with 80 – 89% accuracy. Solved the linear programming model with 90 – 100% accuracy. 3. Evaluate the prospect of borrowing money before the first game. (Part B). Did not submit or did not evaluate accurately. Evaluated and explained with 70 – 79% accuracy. Evaluated and explained with 80 – 89% accuracy. Evaluated and explained with 90 – 100% accuracy. 4. Evaluate the prospect of paying a friend \$100/game to assist. (Part C) Did not submit or did not evaluate accurately. Evaluated and explained with 70 – 79% accuracy. Evaluated and explained with 80 – 89% accuracy. Evaluated and explained with 90 – 100% accuracy. 5. Analyze the impact of uncertainties in the model. (Part D) Did not submit or did not analyze accurately. Analyzed the impact with 70 – 79% accuracy, logic, and completeness. Analyzed the impact with 80 – 89% accuracy, logic, and completeness. Analyzed the impact with 90 – 100% accuracy, logic, and completeness.