IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Evaluación y clasificación de las técnicas utilizadas por las organizaciones, en las últimas décadas, para seleccionar proyectos = Evaluation and classification of the techniques used by organizations in the last decades to select projects

  • Fernández Carazo, Ana


    (Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

  • Gómez Núñez, Trinidad


    (Departamento de Economía Aplicada (Matemáticas). Universidad de Málaga)

  • Guerrero Casas, Flor M.


    (Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

  • Caballero Fernández, Rafael


    (Departamento de Economía Aplicada (Matemáticas). Universidad de Málaga)

Registered author(s):

    La metodología empleada por las organizaciones empresariales para distribuir su presupuesto y seleccionar qué proyectos, entre todos los posibles candidatos, deben ser ejecutados para cubrir sus necesidades ha evolucionado mucho desde que dichas organizaciones empezaron a apoyar sus decisiones de selección en algún modelo matemático. El propósito de este trabajo es realizar un análisis descriptivo y comparativo de las diferentes técnicas empleadas a lo largo del tiempo, incorporando un pequeño ejemplo que clarifique su funcionamiento y poniendo de manifiesto tanto sus ventajas como sus inconvenientes. En alguna medida, estos inconvenientes fueron motivando su evolución hacia técnicas cada vez m´as complejas y completas hasta llegar a nuestros días. Nuestro estudio ha permitido observar, por un lado, que la evolución de las organizaciones ha llevado a que cambie sustancialmente el problema de selección, pasando de seleccionarse proyectos a seleccionarse y planificar carteras de proyectos y, por otro lado, que el problema aún no está solucionado, ya que es necesario lograr un modelo global que resuelva cualquier problema de selección y planificación temporal de cartera de proyectos. = The methodology used by business organizations to distribute their budget and select which projects –among all potential candidates– must be carried out to satisfy their needs has changed considerably since the organizations started to support their selection decisions in a mathematical model. The purpose of this paper is to provide a descriptive and comparative analysis of the different techniques used over time; we also present a small example to clarify their function, and thereby we show both its advantages and disadvantages. These drawbacks were the principal cause of their evolution towards more completed and sophisticated techniques. This study highlights two aspects: first, the evolution of the organizations has changed the problem of selection from project selection to portfolio selection and scheduling, and secondly, the problem is not solved yet, and we need a global model to resolve whatever problem of project portfolio scheduling and selection.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration in its journal Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa = Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration.

    Volume (Year): 5 (2008)
    Issue (Month): 1 (June)
    Pages: 67-115

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:pab:rmcpee:v:5:y:2008:i:1:p:67-115
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    Carretera de Utrera km.1, 41013 Sevilla

    Phone: + 34 954 34 8913
    Fax: + 34 954 34 9339
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Heidenberger, Kurt, 1996. "Dynamic project selection and funding under risk: A decision tree based MILP approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 284-298, December.
    2. Cho, Keun-Tae & Kwon, Cheol-Shin, 2004. "Hierarchies with dependence of technological alternatives: A cross-impact hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 420-432, July.
    3. James H. Lorie & Leonard J. Savage, 1955. "Three Problems in Rationing Capital," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28, pages 229.
    4. H. Martin Weingartner, 1966. "Capital Budgeting of Interrelated Projects: Survey and Synthesis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(7), pages 485-516, March.
    5. Norman Baker & James Freeland, 1975. "Recent Advances in R&D Benefit Measurement and Project Selection Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(10), pages 1164-1175, June.
    6. Eilat, Harel & Golany, Boaz & Shtub, Avraham, 2006. "Constructing and evaluating balanced portfolios of R&D projects with interactions: A DEA based methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(3), pages 1018-1039, August.
    7. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    8. Mike Wright & Ken Robbie, 1999. "Introduction," Chapters, in: Management Buy-outs and Venture Capital, chapter 1 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Matthew J. Liberatore & George J. Titus, 1983. "The Practice of Management Science in R&D Project Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(8), pages 962-974, August.
    10. J. E. Stiglitz, 1999. "Introduction," Economic Notes, Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, vol. 28(3), pages 249-254, November.
    11. William W. Cooper & Kyung Sam Park & Gang Yu, 1999. "IDEA and AR-IDEA: Models for Dealing with Imprecise Data in DEA," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(4), pages 597-607, April.
    12. Hartmann, Marcus & Hassan, Ali, 2006. "Application of real options analysis for pharmaceutical R&D project valuation--Empirical results from a survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 343-354, April.
    13. Mavrotas, G. & Diakoulaki, D. & Caloghirou, Y., 2006. "Project prioritization under policy restrictions. A combination of MCDA with 0-1 programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 296-308, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pab:rmcpee:v:5:y:2008:i:1:p:67-115. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Publicación Digital - UPO)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.