IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v9y2006i4p331-357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Extending the START framework: Computation of optimal capability development portfolios using a decision theory approach

Author

Listed:
  • A. Elfes
  • C. R. Weisbin
  • R. Manvi
  • V. Adumitroaie
  • W. P. Lincoln
  • K. Shelton

Abstract

Space program managers and decision‐makers must make strategic investment decisions regarding R&D on technologies, capabilities, missions, and programs, while under a variety of constraints. These constraints include limited budgets, infrastructure, and time restrictions, as well as programmatic and institutional priorities. Acquiring, analyzing, and synthesizing the large amount of information required for a rational decision poses an enormous challenge. To address these challenges, the authors have developed analytical methodologies and computational systems to support strategic decision‐makers within NASA: the START (STrategic Assessment of Risk and Technology) approach, a methodology allowing the quantitative assessment of technologies, capabilities, missions, scenarios and programs in support of human decision‐makers. Supporting the START methodology, new analytical formulations were added, addressing additional decision issues intrinsic to space programs. These include: (1) a utility‐based assessment of capabilities and technologies; (2) modeling dependencies between capabilities and/or between capabilities and programmatic goals; (3) modeling the impact of partial versus complete funding; (4) compute temporally optimal portfolios for staging funding over time; and (5) provide a robustness assessment of the analysis results. We also assess the results, and present sensitivity analysis procedures for validating the START results. We present two case studies; a study conducted for NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD), and an analysis for NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD). We conclude with the next steps in the evolution of the START methodology. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.* Syst Eng 9:331–357, 2006

Suggested Citation

  • A. Elfes & C. R. Weisbin & R. Manvi & V. Adumitroaie & W. P. Lincoln & K. Shelton, 2006. "Extending the START framework: Computation of optimal capability development portfolios using a decision theory approach," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 331-357, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:9:y:2006:i:4:p:331-357
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.20060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20060
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.20060?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. Madjid Tavana, 2003. "CROSS: A Multicriteria Group-Decision-Making Model for Evaluating and Prioritizing Advanced-Technology Projects at NASA," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 40-56, June.
    2. Clifford C. Petersen, 1967. "Computational Experience with Variants of the Balas Algorithm Applied to the Selection of R&D Projects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(9), pages 736-750, May.
    3. Gerald G. Brown & Robert F. Dell & Heath Holtz & Alexandra M. Newman, 2003. "How US Air Force Space Command Optimizes Long-Term Investment in Space Systems," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1-14, August.
    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. Michael J. Pennock, 2015. "Defense Acquisition: A Tragedy of the Commons," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 349-364, July.
    2. Charles R. Weisbin & Joseph Mrozinski & William Lincoln & Alberto Elfes & Kacie Shelton & Hook Hua & Jeffrey H. Smith & Virgil Adumitroaie & Robert Silberg, 2010. "Lunar architecture and technology analysis driven by lunar science scenarios," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 217-231, September.
    3. L. Robin Keller & Craig W. Kirkwood & Nancy S. Jones, 2010. "Assessing stakeholder evaluation concerns: An application to the Central Arizona water resources system," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 58-71, March.

    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. Hanafi, Said & Freville, Arnaud, 1998. "An efficient tabu search approach for the 0-1 multidimensional knapsack problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(2-3), pages 659-675, April.
    2. Matteo Fischetti & Ivana Ljubić & Michele Monaci & Markus Sinnl, 2019. "Interdiction Games and Monotonicity, with Application to Knapsack Problems," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 390-410, April.
    3. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Bert De Reyck & Zeger Degraeve, 2008. "An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Improving European Air Traffic Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1395-1409, August.
    4. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    5. Yuji Nakagawa & Ross J. W. James & César Rego & Chanaka Edirisinghe, 2014. "Entropy-Based Optimization of Nonlinear Separable Discrete Decision Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(3), pages 695-707, March.
    6. Jafarzadeh, M. & Tareghian, H.R. & Rahbarnia, F. & Ghanbari, R., 2015. "Optimal selection of project portfolios using reinvestment strategy within a flexible time horizon," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(2), pages 658-664.
    7. José García & Paola Moraga & Matias Valenzuela & Hernan Pinto, 2020. "A db-Scan Hybrid Algorithm: An Application to the Multidimensional Knapsack Problem," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22, April.
    8. Hung, Chih-Young & Lee, Wen-Yi, 2016. "A proactive technology selection model for new technology: The case of 3D IC TSV," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 191-202.
    9. Yalçın Akçay & Haijun Li & Susan Xu, 2007. "Greedy algorithm for the general multidimensional knapsack problem," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 17-29, March.
    10. Freville, Arnaud, 2004. "The multidimensional 0-1 knapsack problem: An overview," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(1), pages 1-21, May.
    11. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    12. Gregory S. Parnell & Rudolph E. Butler & Stephen J. Wichmann & Mike Tedeschi & David Merritt, 2015. "Air Force Cyberspace Investment Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 81-95, June.
    13. Tavana, Madjid & Mina, Hassan & Santos-Arteaga, Francisco J., 2023. "A general Best-Worst method considering interdependency with application to innovation and technology assessment at NASA," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    14. Gerald G. Brown & Robert F. Dell & Alexandra M. Newman, 2004. "Optimizing Military Capital Planning," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 415-425, December.
    15. Kunikazu Yoda & András Prékopa, 2016. "Convexity and Solutions of Stochastic Multidimensional 0-1 Knapsack Problems with Probabilistic Constraints," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 41(2), pages 715-731, May.
    16. Woiler, Samsão, 1969. "Enumeração implícita aplicada à seleção de investimentos," RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, FGV-EAESP Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (Brazil), vol. 9(4), October.
    17. Karabulut, ArmaÄŸan Aloe & Udias, Angel & Vigiak, Olga, 2019. "Assessing the policy scenarios for the Ecosystem Water Food Energy (EWFE) nexus in the Mediterranean region," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 231-240.
    18. 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.
    19. Lokketangen, Arne & Glover, Fred, 1998. "Solving zero-one mixed integer programming problems using tabu search," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(2-3), pages 624-658, 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:syseng:v:9:y:2006:i:4:p:331-357. 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)1520-6858 .

    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.