IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i3p217-d64733.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of a Resource Allocation Model Using Competitive Advantage

Author

Listed:
  • Sangwon Lee

    (Department of Interaction Science, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul 03063, Korea)

  • Suneung Ahn

    (Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Hanyang University, Ansan 15588, Korea)

  • Changsoon Park

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hanyang University, Ansan 15588, Korea)

  • You-Jin Park

    (School of Business Administration, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Korea)

Abstract

In general, during decision making or negotiations, the investor and the investee may often have different opinions which result in conflicts. So, an objective standard to mitigate potential conflicts between investors and investees should be provided since it is highly important that rational decisions must be made when choosing investments from various options. However, the models currently used come with some problems for several reasons, for instance, the arbitrariness of the evaluator, the difficulty in understanding the relationships that exist among the various investment options (that is, alternatives to investments), inconsistency in priorities, and simply providing selection criteria without detailing the proportion of investment in each option or evaluating only a single investment option at a time without considering all options. Thus, in this research, we present a project selection model which can enable reasonable resource allocation or determination of return rates by considering the core competencies for various investment options. Here, core competency is based on both performance and ability to create a competitive advantage. For this, we deduce issue-specific structural power indicators and analyze quantitatively the resource allocation results based on negotiation power. Through this, it is possible to examine whether the proposed project selection model considers core competencies or not by comparing several project selection models currently used. Furthermore, the proposed model can be used on its own, or in combination with other methods. Consequently, the presented model can be used as a quantitative criterion for determining behavioral tactics, and also can be used to mitigate potential conflicts between the investor and the investee who are considering idiosyncratic investments, determined by an interplay between power and core competency.

Suggested Citation

  • Sangwon Lee & Suneung Ahn & Changsoon Park & You-Jin Park, 2016. "Development of a Resource Allocation Model Using Competitive Advantage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-13, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:3:p:217-:d:64733
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/3/217/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/3/217/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eugene E. Ezebilo & Mohammed Elsafi & Larisa Garkava-Gustavsson, 2013. "On-Farm Diversity of Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera L) in Sudan: A Potential Genetic Resources Conservation Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, January.
    2. Larry G. Epstein & Stanley E. Zin, 2013. "Substitution, risk aversion and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: A theoretical framework," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 12, pages 207-239, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Jiuh-Biing Sheu, 2014. "Green Supply Chain Collaboration for Fashionable Consumer Electronics Products under Third-Party Power Intervention—A Resource Dependence Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(5), pages 1-44, May.
    4. Saúl Torres Ortega & Nick Hanley & Pedro Diaz Simal, 2014. "A Proposed Methodology for Prioritizing Project Effects to Include in Cost-Benefit Analysis Using Resilience, Vulnerability and Risk Perception," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-22, November.
    5. Rebecca J. Wolfe & Kathleen L. Mcginn, 2005. "Perceived Relative Power and its Influence on Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 3-20, January.
    6. Hall, John & Hofer, Charles W., 1993. "Venture capitalists' decision criteria in new venture evaluation," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 25-42, January.
    7. Khorramshahgol, Reza & Moustakis, Vassilis S., 1988. "Delphic hierarchy process (DHP): A methodology for priority setting derived from the Delphi method and analytical hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 347-354, December.
    8. Susanne Emmer & Claudia Klüppelberg & Ralf Korn, 2001. "Optimal Portfolios with Bounded Capital at Risk," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(4), pages 365-384, October.
    9. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1995. "Using AHP for resource allocation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 410-417, January.
    10. Corts, Kenneth S., 2006. "The interaction of task and asset allocation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 887-906, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Augustinas Maceika & Andrej Bugajev & Olga Regina Šostak & Tatjana Vilutienė, 2021. "Decision Tree and AHP Methods Application for Projects Assessment: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-33, May.

    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. Buss, Adrian, 2013. "Capital controls and international financial stability: a dynamic general equilibrium analysis in incomplete markets," Working Paper Series 1578, European Central Bank.
    2. Gordon J. Alexander & Alexandre M. Baptista, 2004. "A Comparison of VaR and CVaR Constraints on Portfolio Selection with the Mean-Variance Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(9), pages 1261-1273, September.
    3. Hansen, Lars Peter, 2013. "Uncertainty Outside and Inside Economic Models," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2013-7, Nobel Prize Committee.
    4. Athanasopoulos, George & de Carvalho Guillén, Osmani Teixeira & Issler, João Victor & Vahid, Farshid, 2011. "Model selection, estimation and forecasting in VAR models with short-run and long-run restrictions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 164(1), pages 116-129, September.
    5. Mumtaz, Haroon & Theodoridis, Konstantinos, 2017. "Common and country specific economic uncertainty," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 205-216.
    6. Benigno, Pierpaolo & Paciello, Luigi, 2014. "Monetary policy, doubts and asset prices," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 85-98.
    7. Karen K. Lewis, 2011. "Global Asset Pricing," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 435-466, December.
    8. Stefano d¡¦Addona, 2018. "Rational Ignorance in Long-run Risk Models," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 17(1), pages 43-54, June.
    9. Karantounias, Anastasios G., 2023. "Doubts about the model and optimal policy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    10. Basso, Henrique S. & Jimeno, Juan F., 2021. "From secular stagnation to robocalypse? Implications of demographic and technological changes," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 833-847.
    11. Fujii, Masaaki & Takahashi, Akihiko, 2019. "Solving backward stochastic differential equations with quadratic-growth drivers by connecting the short-term expansions," Stochastic Processes and their Applications, Elsevier, vol. 129(5), pages 1492-1532.
    12. Benjamin Eden, 2004. "Substitution and Risk Aversion: Is Risk Aversion Important for Understanding Asset Prices?," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0422, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    13. Aase, Knut K., 2023. "Optimal spending of a wealth fund in the discrete time life cycle model," Discussion Papers 2023/7, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    14. Bommier, Antoine & Lanz, Bruno & Zuber, Stéphane, 2015. "Models-as-usual for unusual risks? On the value of catastrophic climate change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-22.
    15. Petru Lucian Curşeu & Sandra Schruijer, 2008. "The Effects of Framing on Inter-group Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 347-362, July.
    16. Epstein, Larry G. & Zin, Stanley E., 2001. "The independence axiom and asset returns," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 8(5), pages 537-572, December.
    17. Toshiaki Ogawa & Masato Ubukata & Toshiaki Watanabe, 2020. "Stock Return Predictability and Variance Risk Premia around the ZLB," IMES Discussion Paper Series 20-E-09, Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan.
    18. Michal Pakos & Hui Chen, 2008. "Asset Pricing with Uncertainty About the Long Run," 2008 Meeting Papers 295, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    19. Kevin E. Beaubrun-Diant & Julien Matheron, 2008. "Rentabilités d'actifs et fluctuations économiques : une perspective d'équilibre général dynamique et stochastique," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(2), pages 35-63.
    20. René Garcia & Richard Luger & Eric Renault, 2000. "Asymmetric Smiles, Leverage Effects and Structural Parameters," Working Papers 2000-57, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:3:p:217-:d:64733. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.