1. Run the analysis multiple times using the suggestions provided by the board members.

Monte waited patiently for the board of directors of AgroPest International to absorb his presentation. The company, which produced agricultural fertilisers and pesticides, had a new CEO who values evidence-based decision making. The board of directors were used to presentations that relied on instinct and theory. They were not used to what they just saw, which was a decision tree with probabilities, expected values, and return to risk ratios. They just wanted to hear how staying with the old pesticide was the best idea because that's what they were comfortable with. But Monte had just shown that the best decision based on evidence would be to go with the new pesticide. He knew there were concerns with the new product being delayed for release because it was still in development. But the current product might get banned due to health concerns! Shouldn't that be reason enough? He shook his head and leaned back to wait for the comments to begin.

"Well, I'll start," said John, one of the older board members. "This new product mumbo jumbo doesn't make sense to me. But I vehemently disagree with your numbers for the current product. Yes, there are health concerns, but they are being blown out of proportion by those hippies. It's way too high at 30%. It needs to go down." He looked at a sheet in front of him. "Yes, that's more reasonable: a 20% chance of an out-and-out ban, all other assumptions saying the same."

"Yeah, and even if there were a ban, the current product still has value. We can sell it in other countries that have more favourable 'regulations'. Even with a ban, it must be worth $300,000 at least," added Pete, a close friend of John's. "With a banned value of $300,000 plus John's belief in the smaller chance of a ban, surely we're better off with the current product.".

Marla cleared her throat, "You both have a better handle on the current product, but as I've been working on the new product, I'd like us to be more conservative with our estimates. I can live with Pete's valuation of the current product, if banned, at $300,000. I can also live with John's belief that there is only a 20% probability of the current product being banned. But the value of the new product based on different sales conditions seems a bit high. They shouldall be reduced by $100,000 just to play it safe. Hmmm ... I also think the probability of high sales is very optimistic. We should lower it to 50% regardless of whether there is a delay or not. I would rather we err on the side of caution."

Steve piped up, "I agree with everything said so far, except on the overly optimistic chance of a delay for the new product. I think your probabilities about a delay are backwards, Monte. Let's be realistic. With a new product, we know that a delay is likely. It should be a 60% chance of a delay. So, let's go with John's 20% probability of a ban; Steve's valuation of the current product being worth $300,000, if banned; and Marla's two suggestions of 50% probability of high salesand reduction in value of the new product by $100,000. But let's change the probability of a new product delay to 60%.

Monte made notes on what was said. He ran different analyses based on each individual suggestion and a combination of suggestions. After a few moments, he let out a sigh of relief, "If we makeallof your changes, the evidence still looks like it favours going with the new product. Let me explain."