IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v154y2007i1p51-6810.1007-s10479-007-0183-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing

Author

Listed:
  • Lawrence Phillips
  • Carlos Bana e Costa

Abstract

Managers in both for-profit and not-for-profit organisations continually face the task of allocating resources by balancing costs, benefits and risks and gaining commitment by a wide constituency of stakeholders to those decisions. This task is complex and difficult because many options are present, benefits and risks are rarely expressed as single objectives, multiple stakeholders with different agendas compete for limited resources, individually optimal resource allocations to organisational units are rarely collectively optimal, and those dissatisfied with the decisions taken may resist implementation. We first explain three current approaches to resource allocation taken from corporate finance, operational research and decision analysis, and we identify a common mistake organisations make in allocating resources. The paper then presents a technical process, multi-criteria portfolio analysis, for balancing the conflicting elements of the problem, and a social process, decision conferencing, which engages all the key players during the modelling process, ensuring their ownership of the model and the subsequent implementation. This socio-technical process improves communication within the organisation, develops shared understanding of the portfolio and generates a sense of common purpose about those projects that will best realise the organisation’s objectives. The paper concludes with lessons we have learned from actual practice. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Lawrence Phillips & Carlos Bana e Costa, 2007. "Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 51-68, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:154:y:2007:i:1:p:51-68:10.1007/s10479-007-0183-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-007-0183-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10479-007-0183-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-007-0183-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ralph L. Keeney, 1987. "An Analysis of the Portfolio of Sites to Characterize for Selecting a Nuclear Repository," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 195-218, June.
    2. Gerald G. Brown & Robert F. Dell & Alexandra M. Newman, 2004. "Optimizing Military Capital Planning," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 415-425, December.
    3. M. A. Quaddus & D. J. Atkinson & M. Levy, 1992. "An Application of Decision Conferencing to strategic Planning for a Voluntary Organization," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 61-71, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Phillips, Lawrence D. & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2005. "Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22742, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Robin Gregory & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1987. "A Review of the High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository Siting Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 219-223, June.
    3. Barbati, Maria & Greco, Salvatore & Kadziński, Miłosz & Słowiński, Roman, 2018. "Optimization of multiple satisfaction levels in portfolio decision analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 192-204.
    4. Donald L. Keefer & Craig W. Kirkwood & James L. Corner, 2004. "Perspective on Decision Analysis Applications, 1990–2001," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 4-22, March.
    5. Hunkar Toyoglu & Oya Ekin Karasan & Bahar Yetis Kara, 2011. "Distribution network design on the battlefield," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 188-209, April.
    6. Schilling, Martin S. & Mulford, Matthew, 2007. "In search of value-for-money in collective bargaining: an analytic-interactive mediation process," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22694, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Cigdem Z. Gurgur & Charles T. Morley, 2008. "Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company Optimizes Infrastructure Project-Portfolio Selection," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 38(4), pages 251-262, August.
    8. Michael D. Teter & Johannes O. Royset & Alexandra M. Newman, 2019. "Modeling uncertainty of expert elicitation for use in risk-based optimization," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 280(1), pages 189-210, September.
    9. Alexander J. Zolan & Michael S. Scioletti & David P. Morton & Alexandra M. Newman, 2021. "Decomposing Loosely Coupled Mixed-Integer Programs for Optimal Microgrid Design," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1300-1319, October.
    10. Rex Brown, 2005. "The Operation Was a Success but the Patient Died: Aider Priorities Influence Decision Aid Usefulness," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(6), pages 511-521, December.
    11. Gerald G. Brown & Richard E. Rosenthal, 2008. "Optimization Tradecraft: Hard-Won Insights from Real-World Decision Support," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 356-366, October.
    12. Vicki Bier, 2020. "The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2207-2217, November.
    13. Howard Kunreuther & Douglas Easterling & William Desvousges & Paul Slovic, 1990. "Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 469-484, December.
    14. Rempel, M. & Cai, J., 2021. "A review of approximate dynamic programming applications within military operations research," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).
    15. Andrew Lim & Fan Wang & Zhou Xu, 2006. "A Transportation Problem with Minimum Quantity Commitment," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(1), pages 117-129, February.
    16. Ola Svenson & Gunnar Karlsson, 1989. "Decision‐Making, Time Horizons, and Risk in the Very Long‐Term Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 385-399, September.
    17. Kangaspunta, Jussi & Liesiö, Juuso & Salo, Ahti, 2012. "Cost-efficiency analysis of weapon system portfolios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 264-275.
    18. David L. Alderson & Gerald G. Brown & W. Matthew Carlyle, 2015. "Operational Models of Infrastructure Resilience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 562-586, April.
    19. Patrick Ilg & Silke Gabbert & Hans‐Peter Weikard, 2017. "Nuclear Waste Management under Approaching Disaster: A Comparison of Decommissioning Strategies for the German Repository Asse II," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1213-1232, July.
    20. Edoardo Tosoni & Ahti Salo & Enrico Zio, 2018. "Scenario Analysis for the Safety Assessment of Nuclear Waste Repositories: A Critical Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 755-776, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:154:y:2007:i:1:p:51-68:10.1007/s10479-007-0183-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.