Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1-S2.0-S0263786398000325-Main Seleccion Portafolios PDF
1-S2.0-S0263786398000325-Main Seleccion Portafolios PDF
207216, 1999
# 1999 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0263-7863/99 $ - see front matter
PII: S0263-7863(98)00032-5
The task of selecting project portfolios is an important and recurring activity in many organiz-
ations. There are many techniques available to assist in this process, but no integrated frame-
work for carrying it out. This paper simplies the project portfolio selection process by
developing a framework which separates the work into distinct stages. Each stage accomplishes
a particular objective and creates inputs to the next stage. At the same time, users are free to
choose the techniques they nd the most suitable for each stage, or in some cases to omit or
modify a stage if this will simplify and expedite the process. The framework may be im-
plemented in the form of a decision support system, and a prototype system is described which
supports many of the related decision making activities. # 1999 Published by Elsevier Science
Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved
Keywords: Project portfolio selection, project management, integrated framework, decision support
models, based on these propositions. This integrated a project portfolio and the level of resources needed
approach can help decision maker(s) to select a project for its support. Project portfolio matrices have been
portfolio that maximizes the criteria of interest, suit- used9 to evaluate the strategic positioning of the rm,
ably balanced on both quantitative and qualitative where various criteria for a rm's position are shown
measures they choose. The approach also has pro- on one or more displays on two descriptive dimen-
vision for built-in assistance to account for dierent sions. These displays can be used by decision makers
types of resource limitations and project interdepen- to evaluate their current position and where they
dencies. Finally, a prototype decision support system is would like the rm to be in the future. Wheelwright
described for modeling, managing, and displaying pro- and Clark10 discuss a project mapping approach which
ject and portfolio information during portfolio selec- develops a strategic direction for the rm, but
tion. Khurana and Rosenthal11 discovered that the front
end planning process is often done poorly. It is clear
that the strategic direction of the rm must be deter-
Propositions for project portfolio selection mined before individual projects can be considered for
A project can be dened as ``a complex eort, usually a project portfolio; many rms do extensive prep-
less than three years in duration, made up of inter- aration and planning of strategy before considering in-
related tasks, performed by various organizations, with dividual projects.12
a well-dened objective, schedule, and budget''.6 A
project portfolio is a group of projects that are carried Proposition 1.
out under the sponsorship and/or management of a
particular organization. These projects must compete Strategic decisions concerning portfolio focus and overall
for scarce resources (people, nances, time, etc.) avail- budget considerations should be made in a broader con-
able from the sponsor, since there are usually not text that takes into account both external and internal
enough resources to carry out every proposed project business factors, before the project portfolio is selected.
which meets the organization's minimum requirements
An important operational consideration is that,
on certain criteria such as potential protability, etc.
while there are many possible methodologies that can
Project portfolio selection is the periodic activity
be used in selecting a portfolio, there is no consensus
involved in selecting a portfolio, from available project
on which are the most eective. As a consequence
proposals and projects currently underway, that meets
each organization tends to choose, for the project
the organization's stated objectives in a desirable man-
class(es) being considered, the methodologies that suit
ner without exceeding available resources or violating
its culture and that allow it to consider the project
other constraints.
attributes it believes are the most important.1, 7, 13, 14
There have been many published articles and books
Also, the methodologies most useful in developing a
on the subject of project evaluation and selection, dis-
portfolio for one class of projects may not be the best
cussing well over 100 dierent techniques.1 Certain
for another (e.g. good estimates of quantitative values
taxonomies of these techniques have appeared in the
such as costs and time may be readily available for
literature,2, 7 but for the purposes of our discussion the
certain construction projects, but qualitative judgment
process of portfolio selection uses project evaluation
is more likely to be used for development of advanced
and selection techniques in a progression of three
new products).
phases: strategic considerations, individual project evalu-
ation, and portfolio selection. Techniques used in the Proposition 2.
rst phase can assist in the determination of a strategic
focus and overall budget allocation for the portfolio, A project selection framework should be exible enough
while those in the second can be used to evaluate a so that stakeholders can choose in advance the particular
project independently of other projects. The third techniques or methodologies with which they are comfor-
phase deals with the selection of portfolios based on table, in analyzing relevant data and making choices of
candidate project parameters, including their inter- the type of projects at hand.
actions with other projects through resource con-
straints or other interdependencies. In the following, A major concern with most of the models for choos-
each phase is considered separately. The techniques ap- ing project portfolios is that they are complex and dif-
plicable to each phase are described rst, followed by cult to use, and they require large amounts of input
a series of propositions that specify requirements deal- data.1, 12 To alleviate these problems, the portfolio
ing with that phase's impact in a suitable portfolio selection process should be organized in a logical man-
selection framework, which will be described in a fol- ner so each step moves from either a top-down (stra-
lowing section. tegic considerations) or bottom-up (individual project
considerations) perspective towards an integrated con-
sideration of the projects most likely to be selected.
Strategic considerations phase However, each step should have a sound theoretical
The strategic implications of portfolio selection are basis in modeling, and should generate suitable data to
complex and varied,8, 9 and involve considerations of feed the following step. Users need access to data
factors both external and internal to the rm, includ- underlying the models, with `drill-down' capability to
ing the marketplace and the company's strengths and develop condence in the data being used and the de-
weaknesses. These considerations can be used to build cisions being made. At the same time, users should not
a broad perspective of strategic direction and focus, be overloaded with unneeded data; it should be avail-
and specic initiatives for competitive advantage. This able only when needed and requested. Users also need
strategy can be used to develop a focused objective for training in the use of techniques that specify project
208
Project portfolio selection: N P Archer and F Ghasemzadeh
parameters to be used in making decisions.15 An over- ing interdependent events, can then be used to esti-
all balance must be achieved between the need to sim- mate overall project risk. Models used in analyzing
plify and the need to generate well-founded and logical risk include Monte Carlo simulation, decision theory
solutions. and Bayesian statistical theory,2, 1921 and decision
theory combined with inuence diagram
Proposition 3. approaches.13, 22 Risk is important when considering
the inclusion of a project in a portfolio, and a porto-
To simplify the portfolio selection process, it should be lio should be `balanced' by avoiding an over-com-
organized into a number of stages, allowing decision mitment to high risk projects that may jeopardize
makers to move logically towards an integrated con- the future of the organization.
sideration of projects most likely to be selected, based . Market research approaches can be used to collect
on sound theoretical models. data for forecasting the demand for new products or
services, based on concepts or prototypes presented
Proposition 4. to potential customers, to gauge the potential mar-
Users should not be overloaded with unneeded data, but ket. Techniques used include consumer panels, focus
should be able to access relevant data when it is needed. groups, perceptual maps, and preference mapping,
among many others.23
The use of specic project evaluation techniques is
situation dependent. For example, a product develop-
Project evaluation phase
ment organization may use market research, economic
The benet derived through project evaluation return, and risk analysis to develop project character-
methods is measured in terms of each project's individ- istics that can be useful in selection exercises. Or a
ual contribution to one or more portfolio objectives government agency may use economic and cost benet
(e.g. return on investment). Evaluation on an individ- measures. Measures used may be qualitative or quanti-
ual project basis includes such methods as: tative, but regardless of which techniques are used to
. Economic return.2, 16 This includes Net Present Value derive them, a set of common measures should be used
(NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Return on so projects can be compared equitably during portfolio
Original Investment (ROI), Return on Average selection.
Investment (RAI), PayBack Period (PBP), and
Expected Value (EV). The latter allows a consider- Proposition 5.
ation of risk at various project stages, usually based
on either IRR or NPV. These techniques include Common measures should be chosen which can be calcu-
time dependency consideration of investment and lated separately for each project under consideration.
income ows. The Capital asset pricing model These will allow an equitable comparison of projects
(CAPM) can also be used.17, 18 A 1991 industry sur- during the portfolio selection process.
vey of the use of the above techniques (not including Selection of, or adjustments to, a project portfolio is
CAPM) indicated a movement towards the use of a process which recurs. Existing projects require
NPV, a moderate reduction in use of IRR, and a resources from the available pool, and therefore their
signicant reduction in the use of PBP16 when com- schedules and resource requirements interact with po-
pared to a 1978 survey. tential new projects. It is common practice to re-evalu-
. Benet/cost techniques19 involve the calculation of a ate at major `milestones'3 or `gates'1 to determine
ratio of benets to costs, where inputs may be de- whether they merit continuing development.
rived from present value calculations of both ben-
ets and costs, to transform them to the same time Proposition 6.
basis.
. Risk is a combination of the probability of an event Current projects that have reached major milestones or
(usually an undesirable occurrence) and the conse- gates should be re-evaluated at the same time as new
quences associated with that event. Every project projects being considered for selection. This allows a
has some risk associated with not meeting the objec- combined portfolio to be generated within available
tives specied for the project. To analyze project resource constraints at regular intervals due to (a) pro-
risk, a project is rst decomposed into component ject completion or abandonment, (b) new project propo-
activities, forming the project's work breakdown sals, (c) changes in strategic focus, (d) revisions to
structure (WBS). Depending on the depth of analy- available resources, and (e) changes in the environment.
sis appropriate at the point in the project's life cycle,
the WBS can range from relatively simple (e.g. The number of projects which may be proposed for
development and market activities during early feasi- the portfolio may be quite large,12 and the complexity
bility analysis of a new product) to complex (e.g. of the decision process and the amount of time
detailed breakdown of activities for the business required to choose the portfolio increases geometrically
plan prior to commitment for full scale develop- with the number of projects to be considered. In ad-
ment). Risk events relating to each activity are then dition, the likelihood of making sound business choices
identied, and their probabilities and consequences may be compromised if large numbers of projects must
estimated. Information used in estimating risk can be considered unnecessarily. For this reason, screening
be derived from expert opinion, technical data, or processes should be used to eliminate projects in
previous experience with similar projects. A model advance that are clearly decient, before the portfolio
which combines the risks from each activity, includ- selection stage of the process begins. For example,
209
Project portfolio selection: N P Archer and F Ghasemzadeh
screening may be used to eliminate projects which do and allocate resources among competing projects.29
not match the strategic focus of the rm, do not yet This technique relies on graphical representations of
have sucient information upon which to base a logi- the projects under consideration, on two dimensions
cal decision, do not meet a marginal requirement such such as the likelihood of success and expected econ-
as minimum internal rate of return, etc. omic value. This allows a representative mix of pro-
jects on the dimensions represented to be selected.
Proposition 7. . Optimization models select from the list of candidate
projects a set that provides maximum benet (e.g.
Screening should be used, based on carefully specied maximum net present value). These models are gen-
criteria, to eliminate projects from consideration before erally based on some form of mathematical pro-
the portfolio selection process is undertaken. gramming, to support the optimization process and
to include project interactions such as resource
dependencies and constraints, technical and market
Portfolio selection phase interactions, or program considerations.2, 30 Some of
these models also support sensitivity analysis,19 but
Portfolio selection involves the simultaneous compari-
most do not seem to be used extensively in prac-
son of a number of projects on particular dimensions,
tice.31 Probable reasons for disuse include the need
in order to arrive at a desirability ranking of the pro-
to collect large amounts of input data, the inability
jects. The most highly ranked projects under the evalu-
of most such models to include risk considerations,
ation criteria are then selected for the portfolio,
and model complexity. Optimization models may
subject to resource availability. Classes of available
also be used with other approaches which calculate
portfolio selection techniques include:
project benet values. For example, 0-1 integer lin-
. Ad hoc approaches such as (a) Proles,2 a crude ear programming can be used in conjunction with
form of scoring model, where limits are set for the AHP to handle qualitative measures and multiple
various attribute levels of a project, and any projects objectives, while applying resource utilization, pro-
which fail to meet these limits are eliminated (study ject interaction, and other constraints.32
of the human-computer interface aspects of such
Multiple and often conicting objectives (or criteria)
approaches have shown24 that users prefer these
may be associated with portfolio selection, and pro-
minimum eort approaches, whether or not they
jects may be highly interdependent. This could be due
give an optimal solution), and (b) Interactive selec-
to value contribution, resource utilization, or mutual
tion,7 involving an interactive and iterative process
exclusion. For example, before project C can be under-
between project champions and responsible decision
taken, projects A and B must be completed, since their
maker(s) until a choice of the best projects is made.
outputs feed project C. In addition, resource con-
. Comparative approaches include Q-Sort,25 pairwise
straints such as available capital and technical work-
comparison,2 the Analytic Hierarchy Procedure
force over the planning horizon should be considered,
(AHP),26 dollar metric, standard gamble, and succes-
including resource time dependencies.
sive comparison.27, 28 Q-Sort is the most adaptable of
these in achieving group consensus. In these
methods, rst the weights of dierent objectives are
determined, then alternatives are compared on the Proposition 8.
basis of their contributions to these objectives, and
nally a set of project benet measures is computed. Project interactions through direct dependencies or
Once the projects have been arranged on a compara- resource competition must be considered in portfolio
tive scale, the decision maker(s) can proceed from selection.
the top of the list, selecting projects until available Many portfolio selection techniques do not consider
resources are exhausted. With these techniques, both the time-dependent resource requirements of projects,2
quantitative and qualitative and/or judgment criteria and most implicitly assume that all projects selected
can be considered. A major disadvantage of Q-sort, will start immediately. This does not t the reality of
pairwise comparison and AHP is the large number project management, where projects compete for lim-
of comparisons involved, making them dicult to ited resources, should be scheduled to use resources as
use for comparing large numbers of projects. Also, smoothly as possible in time, and should be completed
any time a project is added or deleted from the list, within some planned interval.
the process must be repeated.
. Scoring models2 use a relatively small number of de-
cision criteria, such as cost, work force availability,
Proposition 9.
probability of technical success, etc., to specify pro-
ject desirability. The merit of each project is deter- Portfolio selection should take into account the time-
mined with respect to each criterion. Scores are then dependent nature of project resource consumption.
combined (when dierent weights are used for each
criterion, the technique is called `Weighted Factor One of the drawbacks of model-based optimal port-
Scoring') to yield an overall benet measure for folio selection methods2, 30 is that they may proceed to
each project. A major advantage is that projects can portfolio selection without intervention by decision
be added or deleted without re-calculating the merit maker(s) who may wish to make desirable adjustments
of other projects. to the selected portfolio.29 If the emphasis of a system
. Portfolio matrices5, 9 can be used as strategic decision is to be on decision support rather than decision mak-
making tools. They can also be used to prioritize ing, decision makers must be able to make adjust-
210
Project portfolio selection: N P Archer and F Ghasemzadeh
Proposition 10.
For example, the proportion of high risk projects straints to maximize total benet (P8, P9).32 Goal pro-
should not be too high due to the fact that failures of gramming30 may be used for multiple objectives in this
several of these projects could be dangerous to the step, if more than one objective is explicitly identied.
future of the company. On the other hand, low risk
projects may not carry the high return that is often Screening. Shown in Figure 1 following the individ-
typical of risky projects, so the expected return from ual project analysis stage. Screening may use such
the portfolio may be too low if project selection is too techniques as proles. Here, project attributes from the
conservative on the risk dimension. Balance on project previous stage are examined in advance of the regular
size is also important, because the commitment of a selection process (P6,P7), to eliminate any projects or
high proportion of resources to a few large projects inter-related families of projects which do not meet
can be catastrophic if more than one fails. And too pre-set criteria such as estimated rate of return, except
many long term projects, no matter how promising for those projects which are mandatory or required to
they are, may cause nancing or cash ow problems. support other projects still being considered. The
intent is to eliminate any non-starters and reduce the
Optimal portfolio selection. Performed in the second- number of projects to be considered simultaneously in
last stage. Here, interactions among the various pro- the Portfolio Selection stage (P7). Care should be
jects are considered, including interdependencies, com- taken to avoid setting thresholds which are too arbi-
petition for resources, and timing (P8,P9), with the trary, to prevent the elimination of projects which may
value of each project determined from a common set otherwise be very promising.
of parameters that were estimated for each project in
the previous stage. AHP, scoring models, and portfolio Individual project analysis. The fourth from last
matrices are popular among decision makers for port- stage, where a common set of parameters required for
folio selection, because they allow users to consider a the next stage is calculated separately for each project,
broad range of quantitative and qualitative character- based on estimates available from feasibility studies
istics as well as multiple objectives. However, none of and/or from a database of previously completed pro-
these techniques consider multiple resource constraints jects. Such techniques were discussed in Section 2.2.
and project interdependence. AHP, pairwise compari- For example, project risk, net present worth, return on
son, and Q-sort also become cumbersome and investment, etc. can be calculated at this point, includ-
unwieldy for larger numbers of projects. A serious ing estimated uncertainty in each of the parameter esti-
drawback of portfolio matrices is that they do not mates (P5). Scoring, benet contribution, risk analysis,
appear to meet stated objectives such as prot maximi- market research, or checklists may also be used. Note
zation,36 so this approach should not be considered for
that current projects which have reached certain mile-
the portfolio selection stage.
stones may also be re-evaluated at this time, but esti-
We suggest a two-step process for the portfolio
mates related to such projects will tend to have less
selection stage. In the rst step, the relative total ben-
uncertainty than those projects which are proposed
et is determined for each project. A comparative
but not yet underway. The output from this stage is a
approach such as Q-Sort, pairwise comparison, or
AHP, may be used in this step for smaller sets of pro- common set of parameter estimates for each project.
jects, allowing qualitative as well as quantitative For example, if the method to be used were a combi-
measures to be considered. This may involve extensive nation of net present value combined with risk analy-
work by committee members in comparing potential sis, data required would include estimates of costs and
project pairs. For large sets of projects, scoring models returns at each development stage of a product or ser-
are more suitable as these do not involve comparison vice, including the risks. Uncertainty could be in the
of large numbers of project pairs. The result of either form of likely ranges for the uncertain parameters.
of these approaches would be to establish the relative Other data needed could include qualitative variables
worth of the projects. such as policy or political measures. Quantitative out-
In the second step of this stage, all project inter- put could be each project's expected net value, risk,
actions, resource limitations, and other constraints and resource requirements over the project's time
should be included in an optimization of the overall frame, including calculated uncertainties in these par-
portfolio, based on the relative worth of each proposed ameters (P5).
project. If all the project measures could be expressed
quantitatively, the foregoing step could be omitted Pre-screening. Precedes portfolio calculations. It uses
since optimization could be performed directly in a manually applied guidelines developed in the strategy
mathematical program in the second step. In the unu- development stage, and ensures that any project being
sual case where interdependence and timing constraints considered for the portfolio ts the strategic focus of
were not important, and there is only one resource the portfolio (P1,P7). Essential requirements before the
that is binding, it might be tempting in the second step project passes this stage should also include a feasi-
to simply select the highest valued projects until avail- bility analysis and estimates of parameters needed to
able resources were used up. However, this does not evaluate each project, as well as a project champion
necessarily select an optimal portfolio (combinations who will be a source of further information. Manda-
of certain projects may produce a higher total benet tory projects are also identied at this point, since they
than individual projects with higher individual ben- will be included in the remainder of the portfolio selec-
ets). The relative worth of each project should there- tion process. Mandatory projects are projects agreed
fore be input to a computerized process, which can be upon for inclusion, including improvements to existing
a 0-1 integer linear programming model that applies products no longer competitive, projects without which
resource, timing, interdependence, and other con- the organization could not function adequately, etc.
212
Project portfolio selection: N P Archer and F Ghasemzadeh
A pre-process stage provides high level guidance to However, the set of main stages (heavy outlined boxes)
the portfolio selection process. Activities in this stage in the framework (Figure 1) can be integrated into a
appear in ovals in Figure 1. These include `Strategy Decision Support System (DSS), including a carefully
Development' (P1) (determination of strategic focus designed model management module that handles
and setting resource constraints), and `Methodology models of the many dierent types which may be cho-
Selection' (P2,P5) (choosing the techniques the organ- sen. These models require a common interface through
ization wishes to use for portfolio selection). which data may be interchanged. The system involves
Determination of strategic focus may be carried out at considerations of model representation and inte-
higher managerial levels than the portfolio selection gration.3740
committee, because it very much involves the rm's Integrated modeling approaches which have been
strategic direction. Strategy development is an unstruc- suggested include process integration.37 Process inte-
tured process which can consume a great deal of man- gration is useful when heterogeneous models (models
agerial time,12 but is critical if the portfolio selected is from dierent paradigms) are to be integrated, as in
to promote the business objectives of the rm. Only our framework. The major issues that arise during pro-
occasional adjustments will be needed for strategic cess integration are synchronization and variable corre-
guidelines developed at this point in the process, spondence. Synchronization deals with the order in
although the portfolio selection process itself recurs at which models must be executed, and timing of
regular planning intervals. dynamic interactions among the models. Variable cor-
Resource allocation to dierent project categories respondence deals with input/output relationships
also involves high level decisions which must be made among the component variables in the various models
before the portfolio selection process (P1). Choosing being used, and assuring dimensional consistency
and implementing techniques suitable to the project among these variables. In our proposed framework,
class at hand, the organization's culture, problem sol- models are not executed in parallel. They typically ter-
ving style, and project environment may also depend minate after transferring their outputs for use by sub-
upon previous experience. Methodology selection sequent models, so synchronization in this case is not
(P2,P5) should be based on committee understanding a critical issue. To handle variable correspondence, a
of, and experience with, the candidate methodologies, central database can be used. This can act rst as a
or their willingness to learn new approaches. The data repository which is open to inspection by users
methodology selection stage would not normally be during the portfolio selection process, and secondly as
repeated, unless the committee found other method- a transfer site to provide matched data for the input
ologies which were better matches to their preferences. and output variables of the various models being used.
Stages in the project portfolio selection framework
(Figure 1) are organized logically, in a manner which
allows decision makers to work through the portfolio Decision support system application
selection process logically (P3). Each stage involves From the foregoing and from Figure 1, in all process
methodology choices which are at the discretion of stages the decision makers would interact with the pro-
users (P2), in order to gain maximum acceptance and posed system, which provides supporting models and
cooperation of decision makers with the portfolio data. Data could either be input directly, generated by
selection process. Table 1 summarizes the stages in the models as they are used, or extracted from existing
framework, the associated activities, and some of the project management databases containing information
potential methodologies previously mentioned, for useful to the analysis of the candidate projects (see
each stage. Figure 1). Provision for continuous interaction between
system and decision makers is required because: (a) it
is extremely dicult to formulate explicitly in advance
Decision support systems considerations all of the preferences of the decision makers, (b) invol-
The framework we have outlined can be used for pro- vement of decision makers in the solution process in-
ject portfolio selection in an environment which is only directly motivates successful implementation of the
partially supported by computerized modeling and selected projects, and (c) interactive decision making
databases, since users are given the exibility of choos- (P10) has been accepted as the most appropriate way
ing their own techniques or models at each stage. to obtain correct preferences.14 If this interaction is to
213
Project portfolio selection: N P Archer and F Ghasemzadeh
An integrated DSS can support these activities, rst 6. Archibald, Russell D., Managing High-Technology Programs
as a model management system, and second as a repo- and Projects, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, NY, 1992.
7. Hall, D. L. and Nauda, A., An interactive approach for select-
sitory of data related to all the projects being con- ing IR&D projects. IEEE Trans. Eng. Management, 1990, 37(2),
sidered. This is clearly adaptable to a group support 126133.
system, which is essential if the system is to be used in 8. Hax, Arnoldo C. and Majluf, Nicolas S., Strategic
the real world of business, where most such decisions Management: An Integrative Perspective, Prentice-Hall,
are made by committees. The prototype described here Englewood Clifs, NJ, 1984.
9. Hax, Arnoldo and Majluf, Nicolas S., The Strategy Concept
is a demonstration of the major interactive com- and Process: A Pragmatic Approach, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall,
ponents of such a system. Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996.
Based on the results we have obtained, an extensive 10. Wheelwright, Steven C. and Clark, Kim B., Creating project
development eort is underway to implement the plans to focus product development. Harvard Business Review,
suggested framework as an integrated decision support 1992, 70(2), 7082.
system, and to test it in real decision making situ- 11. Khurana, Anil and Rosenthal, Stephen R., Integrating the
fuzzy front end of new product development. Sloan
ations. This system will include a powerful linear pro- Management Review, 1997, 38, 103120.
gramming package to generate optimal solutions, a 12. Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J. and Kleinschmidt, E. J., Portfolio
database management system as a data repository, Management for New Products, Innovation Research Centre,
modeling packages which interface with the data repo- McMaster School of Business, Hamilton, ON, 1997.
sitory, and a highly interactive and user-friendly inter- 13. Krumm, F. and Rolle, C. F., Management and application of
decision and risk analysis in Du Pont. Interfaces, 1992, 22(6),
face, programmed through a rapid application 8493.
development environment. An initial testing phase will 14. Mukherjee, Kampan, Application of an interactive method for
be to evaluate the usability and usefulness of the sys- MOLIP in project selection decision: case from Indian coal
tem in a laboratory environment, in order to eliminate mining industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ, 1994, 36, 203211.
aws in the interface design. A second phase will be to 15. Kao, Diana and Archer, Norman P., Abstraction in conceptual
demonstrate the system to users in real application en- model design. Int. J. Human Computer Systems, 1997, 46, 125
150.
vironments, to get feedback on further renements to 16. Remer, Donald S., Stokdyk, Scott B. and Van Driel,
the system's modeling capabilities. A third phase will Mike, Survey of project evaluation techniques currently used in
be to implement the system in several corporate en- industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ., 1993, 32, 103115.
vironments, and determine which renements are 17. Khan, Arshad M. and Fiorino, Donald P., The capital asset
needed to tailor it to company use. Included in this pricing model in project selection: a case study. The Engineering
Economist, 1992, 37(2), 145159.
phase will be an evaluation of the system in a group 18. Sharpe, W. F., Capital asset prices: a theory of market equili-
decision environment. brium under conditions of risk. J. Finance 1964, 425442.
From the framework we have established, it is also 19. Canada, John R. and White, John A., Capital Investment
clear that further research is needed into the generic Decision Analysis for Management and Engineering, Prentice-
requirements for decision support in project portfolio Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ, 1980.
selection, including: (a) determining which modeling 20. Hess, Sidney W., Swinging on the branch of a tree: project
selection applications. Interfaces, 1993, 23(6), 512.
techniques are preferred by decision makers, and how 21. Riggs, Jerey L., Brown, Sheila B. and Trueblood, Robert
to simplify some of the more useful techniques to P., Integration of technical, cost, and schedule risks in project
make them more acceptable, (b) nding in which situ- management. Comp. and Oper. Res., 1994, 21(5), 521533.
ations input information requirements can be sup- 22. Rzasa, Philip V., Faulkner, Terrence W. and Sousa, Nancy
ported by data gathered from existing projects, and L., Analyzing R&D portfolios at Eastman Kodak. Res. Tech.
ManagementFeb, 1990, Jan, 2732.
which inputs can be provided by estimates or values
23. Wind, Yoram, Mahajan, Vijay and Cardozo, Richard N., New
generated from economic models, and (c) examining Product Forecasting, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1981.
the scope of strategic decisions which are made outside 24. Todd, Peter and Benbasat, Izak, An experimental investigation
the purview of the portfolio selection process, to ease of the relationship between decision makers, decision aids, and
the process of portfolio selection. decision making eort. INFOR., 1993, 31(2), 80100.
25. Souder, William E., Project Selection and Economic Appraisal,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 1984.
26. Saaty, Thomas L., Rogers, Paul C. and Pell, Ricardo, Portfolio
Acknowledgements selection through hierarchies. J. Portfolio Management, 1980,
6(3), 1621.
This research was supported by a grant from the 27. Churchman, C. W. and Acko, R. L., An approximate measure
of value. Operations Res. 2, 1954.
Innovation Research Centre, Michael G. DeGroote 28. Pessemier, E. A. and Baker, N. R., Project and program de-
School of Business, McMaster University. cisions in research and development. R&D Management Vol. 2,
No. 1, 1971.
29. Morison, A. and Wensley, R., Boxing up or boxed in? A short
References history of the Boston Consulting Group share/growth matrix J.
1. Cooper, Robert G., Winning At New Products, 2nd edn. Marketing Management, 1991, 7, 105129.
Reading, Addison-Wesley, MA, 1993. 30. Santhanam, R., Muralidhar, K. and Schniederjans, M., A zero-
2. Martino, Joseph P., R&D Project Selection, Wiley, New York, one goal programming approach for information system project
NY, 1995. selection. OMEGA, 1989, 17(6), 583593.
3. Meredith, Jack R. and Mantel, Samuel J., Jr.. Project 31. Souder, W. E., Analytical eectiveness of mathematical models
Management: A Managerial Approach, 3rd edm. Wiley, New for R&D project selection. Management Science, 1973, 19(8),
York, NY, 1995. 907923.
4. Santos, B. L., Selecting information system projects: problems, 32. Ghasemzadeh, F., Iyogun, P. and Archer, N., A Zero-One ILP
solutions and challenges. Hawaii Conference on System model for project portfolio selection. Innovation Research
Sciences, 1989, pp. 11311140. Centre Working Paper, Michael G. De Groote School of
5. Roussel, P., Saad, K. and Erickson, T., Third Generation R&D: Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, 1996.
Managing the Link to Corporate Strategy, Harvard Business 33. Turban, Efraim, Decision Support and Expert Systems, 4th edn.
School Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991. Prentice Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ, 1995.
215
Project portfolio selection: N P Archer and F Ghasemzadeh
216