IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/navres/v48y2001i1p18-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing and optimizing a portfolio of R&D projects

Author

Listed:
  • George J. Beaujon
  • Samuel P. Marin
  • Gary C. McDonald

Abstract

A mathematical formulation of an optimization model designed to select projects for inclusion in an R&D portfolio, subject to a wide variety of constraints (e.g., capital, headcount, strategic intent, etc.), is presented. The model is similar to others that have previously appeared in the literature and is in the form of a mixed integer programming (MIP) problem known as the multidimensional knapsack problem. Exact solution of such problems is generally difficult, but can be accomplished in reasonable time using specialized algorithms. The main contribution of this paper is an examination of two important issues related to formulation of project selection models such as the one presented here. If partial funding and implementation of projects is allowed, the resulting formulation is a linear programming (LP) problem which can be solved quite easily. Several plausible assumptions about how partial funding impacts project value are presented. In general, our examples suggest that the problem might best be formulated as a nonlinear programming (NLP) problem, but that there is a need for further research to determine an appropriate expression for the value of a partially funded project. In light of that gap in the current body of knowledge and for practical reasons, the LP relaxation of this model is preferred. The LP relaxation can be implemented in a spreadsheet (even for relatively large problems) and gives reasonable results when applied to a test problem based on GM's R&D project selection process. There has been much discussion in the literature on the topic of assigning a quantitative measure of value to each project. Although many alternatives are suggested, no one way is universally accepted as the preferred way. There does seem to be general agreement that all of the proposed methods are subject to considerable uncertainty. A systematic way to examine the sensitivity of project selection decisions to variations in the measure of value is developed. It is shown that the solution for the illustrative problem is reasonably robust to rather large variations in the measure of value. We cannot, however, conclude that this would be the case in general. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 48: 18–40, 2001

Suggested Citation

  • George J. Beaujon & Samuel P. Marin & Gary C. McDonald, 2001. "Balancing and optimizing a portfolio of R&D projects," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 18-40, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:48:y:2001:i:1:p:18-40
    DOI: 10.1002/1520-6750(200102)48:13.0.CO;2-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6750(200102)48:13.0.CO;2-7
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/1520-6750(200102)48:13.0.CO;2-7?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kyparisis, George J. & Gupta, Sushil K. & Ip, Chi-Ming, 1996. "Project selection with discounted returns and multiple constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 87-96, October.
    2. Avinash K. Dixit & Robert S. Pindyck, 1994. "Investment under Uncertainty," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 5474.
    3. Bruce Hoadley & Paul Katz & Amir Sadrian, 1993. "Improving the Utility of the Bellcore Consortium," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 27-43, February.
    4. William M. Burnett & Barry G. Silverman & Dominic J. Monetta, 1993. "R&D Project Appraisal at the Gas Research Institute: Part II," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 41(6), pages 1020-1032, December.
    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. Çağlar, Musa & Gürel, Sinan, 2019. "Impact assessment based sectoral balancing in public R&D project portfolio selection," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 68-81.
    2. José García & Paola Moraga & Broderick Crawford & Ricardo Soto & Hernan Pinto, 2022. "Binarization Technique Comparisons of Swarm Intelligence Algorithm: An Application to the Multi-Demand Multidimensional Knapsack Problem," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-20, September.
    3. Hongbo Li & Rui Chen & Xianchao Zhang, 2022. "Uncertain Public R&D Project Portfolio Selection Considering Sectoral Balancing and Project Failure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-13, November.
    4. Lai, Xiangjing & Hao, Jin-Kao & Yue, Dong, 2019. "Two-stage solution-based tabu search for the multidemand multidimensional knapsack problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(1), pages 35-48.
    5. Al-Shihabi, Sameh, 2021. "A Novel Core-Based Optimization Framework for Binary Integer Programs- the Multidemand Multidimesional Knapsack Problem as a Test Problem," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).
    6. Arnaud Fréville & SaÏd Hanafi, 2005. "The Multidimensional 0-1 Knapsack Problem—Bounds and Computational Aspects," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 195-227, October.
    7. Dalton Garcia Borges de Souza & Erivelton Antonio dos Santos & Nei Yoshihiro Soma & Carlos Eduardo Sanches da Silva, 2021. "MCDM-Based R&D Project Selection: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-34, October.

    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. Ben Abdallah, Skander & Lasserre, Pierre, 2016. "Asset retirement with infinitely repeated alternative replacements: Harvest age and species choice in forestry," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 144-164.
    2. Oscar Gutiérrez & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda, 2011. "Real options with unknown-date events," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 171-198, May.
    3. Timothy Erickson & Toni M. Whited, 2000. "Measurement Error and the Relationship between Investment and q," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(5), pages 1027-1057, October.
    4. Arve, Malin & Zwart, Gijsbert, 2023. "Optimal procurement and investment in new technologies under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    5. Shively, Gerald E., 2001. "Price thresholds, price volatility, and the private costs of investment in a developing country grain market," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 399-414, August.
    6. Marks, Phillipa & Marks, Brian, 2007. "Spectrum Allocation, Spectrum Commons and Public Goods: the Role of the Market," MPRA Paper 6785, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Stern, Nicholas, 2018. "Public economics as if time matters: Climate change and the dynamics of policy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 4-17.
    8. Krause, M.U., 2002. "Inter-Industry Wage Differentials and Job Flows," Discussion Paper 2002-3, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    9. Wong, Kit Pong & Yi, Long, 2013. "Irreversibility, mean reversion, and investment timing," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 770-775.
    10. Pierre‐Richard Agénor, 2004. "Macroeconomic Adjustment and the Poor: Analytical Issues and Cross‐Country Evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 351-408, July.
    11. Atal, Vidya & Bar, Talia & Gordon, Sidartha, 2016. "Project selection: Commitment and competition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 30-48.
    12. Yonggu Kim & Keeyoung Shin & Joseph Ahn & Eul-Bum Lee, 2017. "Probabilistic Cash Flow-Based Optimal Investment Timing Using Two-Color Rainbow Options Valuation for Economic Sustainability Appraisement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-16, October.
    13. Bergendahl, Goran, 2005. "Models for investment in electronic commerce--financial perspectives with empirical evidence," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 363-376, August.
    14. Prelipcean, Gabriela & Boscoianu, Mircea, 2019. "Aspect Regarding the Design of Active Strategies for Venture Capital Financing – the Flexible Adjustment for Romania as a Frontier Capital Market," Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (2019), Rovinj, Croatia, in: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Rovinj, Croatia, 12-14 September 2019, pages 187-196, IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb.
    15. Wong, Kit Pong, 2011. "Progressive taxation and the intensity and timing of investment," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(1-2), pages 100-108, January.
    16. Chahim, M. & Hartl, R.F. & Kort, P.M., 2011. "The Deterministic Impulse Control Maximum Principle in Operations Research : Necessary and Sufficient Optimality Conditions (replaces CentER DP 2011-052)," Discussion Paper 2011-133, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    17. Unterschultz, James R., 2000. "New Instruments For Co-Ordination And Risk Sharing Within The Canadian Beef Industry," Project Report Series 24046, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    18. Waters, James, 2015. "Optimal design and consequences of financial disclosure regulation: a real options approach," MPRA Paper 63369, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Meade, Richard, 2006. "Valuing the Impact of Climate Change Policies on Forestry," Working Paper Series 19068, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    20. Yoon, Byung-Sam & Brorsen, B. Wade, 2005. "Can Multiyear Rollover Hedging Increase Mean Returns?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 65-78, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download 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:wly:navres:v:48:y:2001:i:1:p:18-40. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6750 .

    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.