A location analysis for Temponi Controls, a small manufacturer of parts for high

Question

A location analysis for Temponi Controls, a small manufacturer of parts for high-technology cable systems, has been narrowed down to 4 locations. Temponi will need to train assemblers, testers, & robotics maintainers in local training centers. Cecilia Temponi, the president, has asked each potential site to offer training programs, tax breaks, and other industrial incentives. The critical factors, their weights, and the ratings for each location are shown in the following table. High scores represent favorable values. Locations Factor Weight Akron,OH Biloxi, MS Carthage,TX Denver,CO Labor availability .15 90 80 90 80 Tech school quality .10 95 75 65 85 Operating cost . 30 80 85 95 85 Land & construction cost . 15 60 80 90 70 Industrial incentives . 20 90 75 85 60 Labor cost . 10 75 80 85 75 a) compute the composite (weighted average) rating for each location. b) which site would you choose. c) would you reach the same conclusion if the weights for operating cost & labor cost were reversed? Recompute as necessary and explain.

Explanation / Answer

Of course I think Vintage rating should be taken into account for Composite Rating, but I also wonder if Composite shouldn't be a weighted average based on the number of matches played in each format. This way, a player's strength would not be hidden simply because they have not played much of a given format. Of course, this might be the intent of Composite - if you haven't played much of a format, they want Composite to be lower since it assesses strength across "all" formats. Still, the Weighted Composite might have a use to look at "Player Strength" independant of format diversity. Here's how I would go about it. Given: V = Vintage Rating VM = Vintage Matches C = Constructed Rating CM = Constructed Matches L = Limited Rating LM = Limited Matches Weighted Composite = ((V * VM) + (C * CM) + (L * LM)) / (VM + CM + LM) Mine looks like so: ((1929 * 111) + (1668 * 85) + (1837 * 301)) (111 + 85 + 301) = 1828 Obviously, my lower Constructed rating pulls me down - but not as much as a non-weighted calculation would, since I have played less Constructed than other formats. My Limited Rating dominates my Weighted Composite, since I have played so many more Limited matches than any other format.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.