Advertisement

Applying Decision Tree in Food Industry – A Case Study

  • James Mugridge
  • Yi Wang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 484)

Abstract

Managers Naked Necessities LTD has to make a decision as to whether the company should open a café selling hot food, or just cold snacks. The company also has the option to carry on trading as it is and not open a café. When faced with a decision such as this, the management should first identify whether the decision to be made is a qualitative or quantitate decision. This will influence the tools and models that should be used to make the decision. This is a financial decision and concerns numerical data, therefore a quantitative approach is advised. A decision tree can be a clear way to represent complex data in a simple graphical form. The calculations involved can be used to create scenarios and outcomes of the decision. If clear objectives of the decision have been established by the management, the decision making process can me made relatively simple by using a decision tree. The management should be advised that one of the main criticisms of the decision tree model is that it is prone to bias during the probability phase of the model. Managers should be aware of this issue. Literature suggests that as much historical, numerical data should be ascertained as possible to put into the calculations. The literature suggests that by using more numerical data, it will increase the validity of the results of the model.

Keywords

Decision tree Decision making Critical analysis Business decision 

References

  1. 1.
    Bonnet, J., Le Pape, N., Nelson, T.: The route to high growth: patterns of financial and operational decisions for new firms in France. Contemp. Entrepreneurship 40(2), 95–110 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hou, I., Huang, C., Tsai, H., Lo, Y.: Research on decision making regarding high-business-strategy café menu selection. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 7(2), 89 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Papazov, E.: A “Reverse” approach to coordination of strategic and tactical financial decisions for small business growth. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 156(1), 161–165 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Love, H., Roper, S.: SME innovation, exporting and growth: a review of existing evidence. Int. Small Bus. J. 33(1), 28–48 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brynjolfsson, E., McElheran, K.: The rapid adoption of data-driven decision-making. Am. Econ. Rev. 106(5), 133–139 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van der Kleij, M., Vermeulen, A., Schildkamp, K., Eggen, J.: Integrating data-based decision making, assessment for learning and diagnostic testing in formative assessment. Assess. Educ. Principles Policy Pract. 22(3), 324–343 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bieber, C., Müller, G., Blumenstiel, K., Schneider, A., Richter, A., Wilke, S., Hartmann, M., Eich, W.: Long-term effects of a shared decision-making intervention on physician–patient interaction and outcome in fibromyalgia: a qualitative and quantitative 1 year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ. Counsel. 63(3), 357–366 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Munthe-Kaas, H., Carlsen, B., Colvin, J., Gülmezoglu, M., Noyes, J., Booth, A., Garside, R., Rashidian, A.: Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses. PLoS Med. 12(10), 18–30 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Teale, M., Dispenza, V., Flynn, J., Currie, D.: Management Decision Making, pp. 10–24. Pearson Education Ltd., London (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ai, J., Brockett, L., Wang, T.: Optimal enterprise risk management and decision making with shared and dependent risks. J. Risk Insur. 84(4), 1127–1169 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kakeneno, R., Brugha, M.: Usability of Nomology-based methodologies in supporting problem structuring across cultures: the case of participatory decision-making in Tanzania rural communities. CEJOR 25(2), 393–415 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tillal, E., Zahir, I., Ray, P., Love, P.: Quantitative and qualitative decision-making methods in simulation modelling. Manag. Decis. 40(1), 64–73 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gawlik, R.: Encompassing the work-life balance into early career decision-making of future employees through the analytic hierarchy process. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. Ser. 594 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Galanc, T., Kolwzan, W., Pieronek, J., Skowronek-Gradziel, A.: Logic and risk as qualitative and quantitative dimensions of decision-making process. Oper. Res. Decisions 26(3), 21–42 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiuyong, L., Saisai, M., Thuc, L., Lin, L., Jixue, L.: Causal decision trees. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 29(2), 257–271 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gepp, A., Kumar, K., Bhattacharya, S.: Business failure prediction using decision trees. J. Forecast. 29(6), 536–555 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Ville, B.: Decision trees. Comput. Stat. 5(6), 448–455 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Correa, A., Djamila, B., Ottersten, B.: Example-dependent cost-sensitive decision trees. Expert Syst. Appl. 42(19), 6609–6619 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aharoni, Y.: The foreign investment decision process. In: International Business Strategy, pp. 24–34. Routledge (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kang, N., Feinberg, M., Papalambros, Y.: Integrated decision making in electric vehicle and charging station location network design. J. Mech. Des. 137(6), 61402 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huysmans, J., Dejaeger, K., Mues, C., Vanthienen, J., Baesens, B.: An empirical evaluation of the comprehensibility of decision table, tree and rule based predictive models. Decis. Support Syst. 51(1), 141–154 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mays, N., Pope, C., Popay, J.: Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 10(1), 6–20 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sim, Y., Teh, S., Ismail, I.: Improved boosted decision tree algorithms by adaptive apriori and post-pruning for predicting obstructive sleep apnea. Adv. Sci. Lett. 24(3), 1680–1684 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hodgkinson, P., Maule, J., Bown, J., Pearman, D., Glaister, W.: Further reflections on the elimination of framing bias in strategic decision making. Strateg. Manag. J. 23(11), 1069–1076 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The School of BusinessPlymouth UniversityPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations