Answer and Explanation:
The computation of composite score for each location is shown below:-
Composite score for A is
= 0.15 × 89 + .20 × 75 + 0.18 × 92 + 0.27 × 92 + 0.10 × 93 + 0.10 × 90
= 88.05
Composite score for B is
= 0.15 × 78 + .20 × 93 + 0.18 × 90 + 0.27 × 93 + 0.10 × 97 + 0.10 × 96
= 90.91
Composite score for C is
= 0.15 × 84 + .20 × 98 + 0.18 × 87 + 0.27 × 82 + 0.10 × 84 + 0.10 × 95
= 87.90
Therefore for computing the composite score for each location we simply multiply weight with A location and in the same manner of A, B and C
b. The maximum composite score from A, B and C is B
Answer:
False
Explanation:
"Cash-to-cash Analysis and Management" by<em> Hutchinson, Farris and Anders</em> talks about the availability of the<em> financial data</em> and <em>computer technology</em> in assisting a business when it comes to determining its <u>cash-to-cash position </u><em><u>(C2C)</u></em><em>,</em> as well as the <em>benchmarks</em> needed for comparison.
Cash-to-cash analysis was difficult in the past, however, it is easier nowadays. The supply chain is even examined at a broader view than before. C2C efficiency is possible by utilizing the<em> readily available</em> financial date and computer technology. So, this makes the statement above as "false."
So, this explains the answer.
Answer:
1. AirEurope should produce if it wants to maximize its profit.
2. False
Explanation:
New payoffs after subsidy:
Aircraft/ AirEurope Produce Not Produce
Produce -3 , <u>6</u> 75 , 0
Not Produce 0 , 74 0 , 0
With a $9 million subsidy, regardless of whether Aircraft produces or not, AirEurope should<u> produce</u> if it wants to maximize its profit.
The statement is false (Aircraft would earn a negative payoff if it enters).
