The market research team working on this project creates this payoff matrix that represents the scaled values that customers give to the different levels of service and the corresponding payoffs for the telecom company:
You recognize that the payoff matrix is not the best way to analyze this scenario.You will construct a game tree to model the scenario and perform backwards induction to find the optimum strategy, explaining all of your reasoning along the way.
Slide 1
Explain why a game tree must be used in this scenario instead of a payoff matrix.
Identify who will go first in the game
Calculate the probability of getting a satisfied client based off of your prior work history at G& B Consulting.Show all work.
Explain how you found your solution.
Slide 2
Draw the game tree that represents the scenario using the payoff matrix given above.
Identify and explain any non-credible threats.
Using your prior work history, calculate the probability of getting at least 85% of clients giving you high customer satisfaction ratings.
Explain how you found your solution.
Slide 3
Redraw the game tree with any non-credible threats removed.
Identify and explain where the first step of backwards induction will occur.
Interpret your results from slide 2 and use them to make an argument on why you would be good for the position.
Slide 4
Using the game tree from slide 3, perform the first step of backwards induction.
Explain your reasoning behind the step you took.
Using the payoff matrix shown above, determine if the manufacturer has a dominant strategy.Show and explain all steps.
Using the payoff matrix shown above, determine if the competitor has a dominant strategy.Show and explain all steps.
Sample Solution
cle 166 TFEU which allowed the court to apply Art. 18 TFEU . The requirement of 5 years of residency in the UK amounts to indirect discrimination to nationality in this case. This requirement largely impacts those citizens who move from other Member States which is also a fundamental freedom of EU citizens. The ESC, in my opinion, must refer questions about the local authorityâs refusal to grant Bjarne a school place to the Court of Justice of the European Union as legally, it is requirement to receive and have an education until the age of 18 in London. The authorityâs refusal of this has not only breached this legal requirement but it has also breached Bjarneâs Article 18 TFEU rights as well which include protection from discrimination of nationality. The fact that Bjarne has special needs means that his schooling options are already limited and the requirement of 6 years residency in the UK is purely discriminatory to any EU citizens who move to another Member State. The freedom to move and reside freely in another Member State is one of the fundamental freedoms of the EU and the authority here are clearly breaching it. The reason the ESC must refer the questions about the local authorityâs actions is because the residency requirement is a direct breach of his rights and it should be brought to the Court of Justice that such requirements in order to attend a special needs school should be abolished in all Member States. Especially because Bjarne is still a child and its within his rights to be in full time education at his age anyway. He should have been attending school from a much younger age. Under Article 24 (1) of the Directive 2004/38 he also has the right to equal treatment of the nationals of the host Member State which he is not receiving. This area of law is not developed enough as the scope of EU law suggests that students should be treated equally, however, it doesnât specify the difference between ânormalâ and disabled students either. If the Court of Justice looked at this issue as well as the qu>
cle 166 TFEU which allowed the court to apply Art. 18 TFEU . The requirement of 5 years of residency in the UK amounts to indirect discrimination to nationality in this case. This requirement largely impacts those citizens who move from other Member States which is also a fundamental freedom of EU citizens. The ESC, in my opinion, must refer questions about the local authorityâs refusal to grant Bjarne a school place to the Court of Justice of the European Union as legally, it is requirement to receive and have an education until the age of 18 in London. The authorityâs refusal of this has not only breached this legal requirement but it has also breached Bjarneâs Article 18 TFEU rights as well which include protection from discrimination of nationality. The fact that Bjarne has special needs means that his schooling options are already limited and the requirement of 6 years residency in the UK is purely discriminatory to any EU citizens who move to another Member State. The freedom to move and reside freely in another Member State is one of the fundamental freedoms of the EU and the authority here are clearly breaching it. The reason the ESC must refer the questions about the local authorityâs actions is because the residency requirement is a direct breach of his rights and it should be brought to the Court of Justice that such requirements in order to attend a special needs school should be abolished in all Member States. Especially because Bjarne is still a child and its within his rights to be in full time education at his age anyway. He should have been attending school from a much younger age. Under Article 24 (1) of the Directive 2004/38 he also has the right to equal treatment of the nationals of the host Member State which he is not receiving. This area of law is not developed enough as the scope of EU law suggests that students should be treated equally, however, it doesnât specify the difference between ânormalâ and disabled students either. If the Court of Justice looked at this issue as well as the qu>
