Case Study of Sophie

Table of Contents
Case Study of Sophie ................................................................................................................. 1

1 Case Problem: ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Scope: .......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background Research: ............................................................................................. 2

1.3 Problem Domain: ..................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Module Selection Strategy: ..................................................................................... 2

1.4.1 Prioritizing Content Interest:................................................................................ 2

1.4.2 Considering Instructor Reputation: ...................................................................... 3

1.4.3 Managing Timing Preferences: ............................................................................ 3

1.4.4 Balancing Core and Industry-Based Modules: .................................................... 3

2 Literature Review: .......................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Weighted Average Models: ...................................................................................... 3

2.2 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): ............................................................ 4

2.3 Decision Support Systems (DSS): ........................................................................... 4

2.4 Optimization Algorithms: ........................................................................................ 4

2.5 Simulation Models:.................................................................................................. 5

2.6 Industry-Based Module Integration: ........................................................................ 5

3 Problem modelling: ......................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Objective:................................................................................................................. 6
 3.2 Decision Variables: .................................................................................................. 6

3.3 Objective Function: ................................................................................................. 6

3.4 Constraints: .............................................................................................................. 6

3.5 Binary Variable Constraint: ..................................................................................... 7

4 Problem solving: ............................................................................................................. 7

4.1 Model Implementation: ........................................................................................... 7

4.2 Experiment Description: .......................................................................................... 8

4.3 Evidence of Approach: ............................................................................................ 8

5 Evaluation of the solution: .............................................................................................. 8

5.1 Objective Function Optimization: ........................................................................... 8

5.2 Constraint Satisfaction:............................................................................................ 9

5.3 Practical Decision Values: ....................................................................................... 9

5.4 Interpretation of Coefficients:.................................................................................. 9

5.5 Real-world Applicability: ...................................................................................... 10

6 Reflection: ..................................................................................................................... 10

Appendix:............................................................................................................................. 12

List of Figures

Figure 1 Solver Parameters ...................................................................................................... 12

Figure 2 Co Efficient of Objective Function ........................................................................... 12

Figure 3 Constraints of Model ................................................................................................. 12

Figure 4 LHS and RHS Values ................................................................................................ 13

Figure 5 Optimal Solution ....................................................................................................... 13

1 Case Problem:

Sophie, who is studying Finance at the University of London and is in her third year, is having

trouble deciding which five classes to take over the next semester. There is a class on Business

Strategy, as well as a class on International Finance, a topic that is particular to the industry, as

well as two optional finance courses. There are primarily three things that worry Sophie: the

content of the classes, the credibility of the teachers, and the flexibility of the timetable. Due

to the fact that she works part-time, she is unable to enrol in early classes. In order to make an

informed decision, Sophie has gathered information on the many component parts of the

module, taking into consideration factors such as her level of interest in the subject matter, the

reputation of the instructors, and the amount of time she has available.

1.1 Project Scope:

This project aims to develop a decision support system (DSS) that will assist first-year college

students like Sophie in selecting the courses that would best prepare them for their chosen

major. The DSS will include weighted average models, multi-criteria decision analysis, and

optimisation algorithms, and it will provide individualised recommendations based on

preferences for content, instructor reputation, and time constraints. In addition to that, the

system will incorporate simulation models for speculating on the possible outcomes. A course

that is focused on a certain sector emphasises the integration of networking opportunities,

internships, and hands-on experience. Through the dissemination of a user-friendly decision-

making tool, the ultimate objective of the project is to provide students access to a learning

environment that is adaptable to their individual needs and personally fulfilling.

1.1 Background Research:

Students sometimes confront challenges that are similar to those that were outlined above when

it comes to choosing the academic program that they will be pursuing. It is standard practice to

place a high focus on criteria such as the subject matter of the course, the standing of the

instructor, and the accessibility of the sessions. The learning outcomes for students are most

likely to be favourable when their instructors discover a means to strike a balance between the

academic interests of the students and the practical concerns they face in their daily lives. In

addition, there is a push in higher education toward integrating what is taught in the classroom

with what is done in professional practice; as a result, the significance that is placed on

industry-based courses as well as internships makes perfect sense.

1.2 Problem Domain:

The breadth of this issue include the difficult decisions that students have to make on the order

in which they take their classes. This choice is tough because it is complicated not just by

subjective factors like course interest and teacher reputation, but also by objective factors like

the quantity of time that is available. The situation in which Sophie finds herself is an example

of the difficulties of this option. The difficult element is making sure that not only Sophie's

academic and personal goals, but also those of the school where she is enrolled, are met by the

courses that she selects.

1.3 Module Selection Strategy:

1.3.1 Prioritizing Content Interest:

Sophie should provide higher ratings to courses that pertain to her academic interests, since

this may improve both her learning outcomes and her level of engagement with the material.

1.3.2 Considering Instructor Reputation:

Modules taught by well-regarded lecturers should obtain better scores. Sophie may use student

feedback and recommendations to evaluate teachers' credibility.

1.3.3 Managing Timing Preferences:

Since Sophie has a part-time job and must schedule her studies around her shifts, she should

try to avoid taking lessons first thing in the morning.

1.3.4 Balancing Core and Industry-Based Modules:

Sophie has to make sure she gets a well-rounded education in finance by choosing programs

that cover both fundamentals and those specific to the field.

2 Literature Review:

Students in colleges and universities have a challenging decision when trying to choose which

classes to enroll in, and as a result, a wide variety of theoretical frameworks and practical

strategies have been researched in an effort to assist these students in making the most informed

choices. An in-depth review of the published literature on the subject of "Sophie's dilemma"

may be able to provide some insight on the approaches that are presently being taken in the

academic community to find solutions to problems of this kind.

2.1 Weighted Average Models:

When evaluating and contrasting the many characteristics of the available modules, weighted

average models are often used. The production of weighted scores in academic literature often

makes use of mathematical models, very similar to Sophie's way of providing different amounts

of weight to different factors such as content, instructor repute, and amount of time. Students
are better equipped to make decisions that are well-informed with the assistance of these

models since they take into consideration both personal and objective factors.

2.2 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA):

Another method that sees considerable use in the educational decision-making process is called

multi-criteria decision analysis. Decision makers are able to consider a multitude of

considerations concurrently with the assistance of MCDA. Students have the option to evaluate

and contrast different modules based on a wide range of factors, such as their level of interest

in the topic, the standing of the instructor, and the availability of available time slots. Given

that Sophie is interested in doing an exhaustive analysis, the MCDA seems like the most logical

method for reaching a conclusion.

2.3 Decision Support Systems (DSS):

The use of decision support systems in schools as a means of assisting students in becoming

better decision makers is becoming more common. These systems incorporate data obtained

from a variety of sources, including the preferences of individual students, their historical

performance, and the comments provided by their respective instructors. Students like Sophie

are able to more easily traverse the complexity of module selection with the assistance of DSS,

which uses a combination of data analytics and machine learning algorithms to give

individualized recommendations.

2.4 Optimization Algorithms:

Optimization algorithms have shown to be helpful in identifying effective solutions to

scheduling problems for students who have restricted time owing to responsibilities such as

part-time employment. These algorithms provide a solution that is as good as it gets by boosting
utility while adhering to a predetermined list of constraints. It may be beneficial for Sophie to

use such algorithms to match her module choices with the timetables she has selected and the

commitments she has outside the university.

2.5 Simulation Models:

Students are given a dynamic approach to decision-making via the use of simulation models.

This is accomplished by modelling a number of different scenarios and comparing the

outcomes to one another. The way that students feel about the classes they have chosen might

be affected by the weights and preferences they assign to different factors. By using this

strategy, it's possible that Sophie will be able to find a more favourable balance between the

level of interest she has in the subject matter, the calibre of the class, and her own schedule.

2.6 Industry-Based Module Integration:

Academic literature places a strong emphasis on the incorporation of real-world experiences,

such as internships and practical projects, in order to address the one-of-a-kind need for an

industry-based module. Students like Sophie who are trying to bridge the gap between what

they learn in the classroom and what they can use in the real world might benefit from decision-

making models that include the relevance of the industrial sector.

The analysis of relevant literature indicates a wide variety of models and approaches that have

been used to find solutions to issues pertaining to educational decision-making, most notably

in the context of module selection. Students who are experiencing similar issues may benefit

from the creation of a complete framework thanks to the contributions made by weighted

average models, multi-criteria decision analysis, decision support systems, optimization

algorithms, simulation models, and industry-based module integration, amongst other things.

In order for Sophie to make a module selection for her third year at the University of London
that is both well-informed and gratifying, she should take inspiration from the aforementioned

strategies and then customize that plan so that it corresponds with her priorities and the

limitations she faces.

3 Problem modelling:

3.1 Objective:

Maximize Overall rating

3.2 Decision Variables:

xij = 1 if Sophie selects Module i

xi = 0 otherwise

3.3 Objective Function:

Max Z = ∑ R i ∗ x_i
i

Where:

R i = Rating factor for module i

Max Z = 4.3 ∗ x1 + 3.8 ∗ x2 + 3.5 ∗ x3 + 3.5 ∗ x4 + 4.6 ∗ x5 + 2.7 ∗ x6 + 3.5 ∗ x7 + 3.3

∗ x8 + 4.4 ∗ x9 + 3.1 ∗ x10 + 3.7 ∗ x11 + 3.5 ∗ x12 + 3 ∗ x13 + 3.7 ∗ x14

+ 3.6 ∗ x15 + 3.9 ∗ x16 + 3.2 ∗ x17 + 3.4 ∗ x18 + 3 ∗ x19 + 3.5 ∗ x20

3.4 Constraints:
Sophie must select exactly one industry-based module:

𝐱 𝟗 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟎 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟏 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟐 ≤ 𝟏

Sophie must select exactly one business modules:

𝐱𝟏 + 𝐱𝟐 + 𝐱𝟑 + 𝐱𝟒 + 𝐱𝟓 + 𝐱𝟔 ≤ 𝟏

Sophie must select exactly one international finance module:

𝐱𝟕 + 𝐱𝟖 ≤ 𝟏

Sophie must select exactly two modules out of Data Analysis, Risk Management, and Options,

future and swaps and Markets:

𝐱 𝟏𝟑 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟒 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟓 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟔 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟕 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟖 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟗 + 𝐱 𝟐𝟎 ≤ 𝟐

Each module can only be selected once:

𝐱 𝟏 + 𝐱 𝟐 + 𝐱 𝟑 + 𝐱 𝟒 + 𝐱 𝟓 + 𝐱 𝟔 + 𝐱 𝟕 + 𝐱 𝟖 ≤ 𝐱 𝟗 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟎 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟏 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟐 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟑 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟒 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟓 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟔

+ 𝐱 𝟏𝟕 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟖 + 𝐱 𝟏𝟗 + 𝐱 𝟐𝟎 = 𝟓

3.5 Binary Variable Constraint:

xij = 0 or 1

This mathematical model adheres to university standards and limits while maximising the

overall rating of Sophie's chosen courses, taking into consideration her preferences of content,
teacher reputation, and scheduling. It gives a methodical strategy for optimising Sophie's

choice of modules during the third year of her education at the University of London.

4 Problem solving:

4.1 Model Implementation:

A mathematical model was built and implemented in Excel with the intention of supporting

Sophie in making the best educated choice possible on the courses that she should study as part

of her education. The conclusions, which are presented in Excel format, comprise the

coefficients of the objective function, decision values for each module, and the answer to the

question of how Sophie may pick the most appropriate modules.

4.2 Experiment Description:

The model was used to figure out which of Sophie's classes would be the most advantageous

for her to attend after taking into consideration both her own objectives and the needs of the

educational establishment. According to the findings, Sophie ought to select certain portions

of Business Computing, International Finance, Intergenerational Computing, Data Analysis in

Finance, and Web Design for Non-profit Organisations in order to maximise her total grade

while still satisfying all of the standards that have been provided. This is the best way for her

to accomplish both of these goals. The value of the goal function, which is 5, demonstrates the

highest amount of fulfilment that can be attained when Sophie's preferences are taken into

consideration. Sophie is able to make well-informed judgements on the course selection for her

third year thanks to the use of Excel, which provides a tool that is not only functional but also

systematic in nature.

4.3 Evidence of Approach:

See appendix.

5 Evaluation of the solution:

The solution analysis demonstrates that Sophie's ideal module selection, which was discovered

by the mathematical model, aligns with her priorities of content interest, instructor repute, and

time preferences. These priorities were determined by the solution to the problem. This was

decided upon as a result of the fact that the best possible module selection coincided with the

answer. When the following important factors are taken into account, the evaluation of the

solution is favourable:

5.1 Objective Function Optimization:

The objective function, the purpose of which is to get the greatest possible average rating for

the modules that Sophie has selected, yielded a value of 5, which was the desired outcome.

This illustrates how effective the optimisation model is by demonstrating that Sophie's chosen

modules are well-aligned with her preferences. This is shown by the fact that the model has

been successful.

5.2 Constraint Satisfaction:

The solution takes into account all of the constraints that were presented, so ensuring that

Sophie would fulfil the requirements necessary to enrol at her chosen institution. We were able

to successfully fulfil all of the limitations that were connected to the selection of industry-based

modules, business modules, international finance modules, and the total number of modules.

This was accomplished.

5.3 Practical Decision Values:

Sophie has some helpful insights into the best options she can make thanks to the decision

values that correlate to each module in the programme. Notably, the decision values for

selected modules are binary, which means that they are either 0 or 1, indicating unambiguous

recommendations for the inclusion or removal of modules based on the calculations of the

model. This is an important aspect of the design.

5.4 Interpretation of Coefficients:

The contribution given by the coefficients of the objective function, which show the ratings of

each module, may help increase one's understanding of the weighting that is allotted to each

module. This is because the coefficients represent the ratings of the modules. The information

that is going to be shown below may help with the assessment of the significance of the

contribution that each module makes to the overall level of satisfaction.

5.5 Real-world Applicability:

In order to show that the solution is usable in the real world, it illustrates its usefulness by

providing Sophie with a method for picking modules that is both quantifiable and feasible.

During the third year of Sophie's studies at the University of London, she is required to make

judgements that are well informed. The decision values and the objective function score give

her with the pragmatic guidance she needs to make these decisions.

The assessment of the solution reveals that the model is able to efficiently optimise Sophie's

module selection while also taking into consideration her particular needs, requirements, and

limitations. When it comes to assisting university students with the decision-making processes,

the reliability and applicability of the mathematical model is strengthened when it is combined

with the practical interpretation of the findings and the fulfilment of all stated restrictions.
6 Reflection:

My part in the projects was developing the mathematical model to address Sophie's problem

with module selection. I constructed the choice variables, objective function, and constraints

to account for Sophie's worries regarding course prerequisites, instructor reputation, and time

limitations. Sophie's module optimisation was aided by the model I constructed in Excel, which

gave a methodical picture of the decision-making process. Sophie benefited from my work

since I analysed the coefficients, decision values, and objective function and interpreted the

results so that she could make an educated decision.

The model and its approach to a solution were quite useful in determining which courses to

enrol in. The programme was able to swiftly calculate the optimal combination of courses that

would boost Sophie's satisfaction since it took into account both her preferences and the needs

of her institution. Because of the practical and user-friendly nature of Excel, students had a

much easier time visualising and understanding the effects of their selections. I learned more

about the potential applications of mathematical models to enlighten real-world choices. The

project hammered home the need of taking a comprehensive approach, with equal emphasis on

quantitative and qualitative factors. Also, I was able to refine my skills in problem formulation,

model design, and result interpretation thanks to the experience I gained while working on this

project. In conclusion, working on this project provided a fantastic opportunity to acquire skills

and knowledge that will be invaluable in academic and professional pursuits down the road.
Appendix:

Figure 1 Solver Parameters

Module BS101 BS101 BS101 BS101 BS101 BS101 FIN 300 FIN 300 CS101 CS101 CS102 CS102 FIN 315
Rating 4.3 3.8 3.5 3.5 4.6 2.7 3.5 3.3 4.4 3.1 3.7 3.5 3
Decision Values x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9 x10 x11 x12 x13
R*X 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2
Solution (X) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1
Objective Function 5

Figure 2 Co Efficient of Objective Function

Figure 3 Constraints of Model

Figure 4 LHS and RHS Values

Figure 5 Optimal Solution