The paper "Utility Approach and Analytical Hierarchy Process for Juzi’ s Decision Analysis " is a perfect example of a business case study. This paper describes a decision analysis of Juzi’ s implementation decisions under uncertainty. It uses a utility approach to construct a utility function for two persons for each criterion and secondly, it uses the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to find the appropriate weights for each criterion. Utility Approach Introduction A business case analysis was carried out in the previous assignment to determine the alternatives to fill a capability gap for Juzi Accessories (Juzi Online n. d.).
From the business case analysis, the company’ s options to make a decision regarding increasing its visibility and profitability were evaluated based on four parts of its corporate strategy that included dominating the jewelry market, expanding globally, global recognition and customer satisfaction as well as branching out into new sectors (Wen-feim 2004). From the evaluations of its strategic option, it was determined that Juzi should implement the best available options. The three options include: Sales and marketing power: Investing in marketing and public relations to achieve the much-needed global acceptance, which would consequently make inroads for future expansion plans. Production: Dealing in a range of product lines to ensure it appeals to the wider and more demanding global market Frontier expansion Analysis of the capability of the options with reference to performance, risk analysis and economic analysis concluded that implementing a ‘ dynamic marketing strategy’ was the most preferable option.
The option integrates vibrant sales and marketing power and investing in marketing and public relations. It was viewed as the best possible option that is most likely to ensure more profitability and visibility of the company as it satisfied the majority of the assessed criteria (Assel 1985).
The utility approach model will be applied in this paper to create a utility function for two people for the above options to satisfy the company’ s visibility and profitability objectives (Linkov and Steeven n. d).
Assel, Henry. 1985. Marketing Management Strategy and Action. Boston: Kent Publishing Company.
Bordley, R. & LiCalzi, M. 2000. "Decision analysis using targets instead of utility functions." Journal of Economic Literature Classiﬁcation, DEF 23, 53 – 74
Fraser, C. & Hite, R. 1988. “An Adaptive Utility Approach for Improved Use of Marketing Models.” Journal of Marketing. Vol. 52, No. 4 , pp. 96-103
Juzi Online, n.d. Juzi [Online] Retrieved from [http://www.juzionline.com/about-us-pg-1?osCsid=7dkvs8k6mkcr3jekol8cb97dk7] 31 May 2013
Labiosa, W, Leckie1, J, Mumley, T., Rytuba,J and Bernknopf, R. A Decision Analysis Approach To Tmdl Implementation Decisions: Mercury Tmdls In The San Francisco Bay Area. (Onlone) Retrieved from: [http://eil.stanford.edu/publications/bill_labiosa/TMDL03_final_draft_0903.pdf]
Linkov, I. & Steeven, J. n.d. Chapter 35 Appendix A: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. (Online) retrieved from: [http://www.epa.gov/cyano_habs_symposium/monograph/Ch35_AppA.pdf]
Triantaphyllou, E. & Mann, S. 1995. “Using The Analytic Hierarchy Process For Decision Making In Engineering Applications: Some Challenges.” International Journal Of Industrial Engineering. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 35-44,
Wen-feim, Uva. April 2004. Managing Marketing Risks. [Online] Retrieved from [http://hortmgt.dyson.cornell.edu/pdf/smart_marketing/uva4-04.pdf pg 1,2] Accessed 30 May 2013