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. M. Saisana & A. Saltelli & S. Tarantola, 2005. "Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(2), pages 307-323, March.
    4. 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. Marianna Valente & Federico Caviggioli & Lara Agostini, 2025. "Space Economy and Sustainability: A Systematic Review," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(4), pages 4922-4959, August.
    4. 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. Matthias Firgo & Fabian Gabelberger & Andreas Reinstaller & Yvonne Wolfmayr, 2024. "Assessing Regional Production Potential to Strengthen the Security of Supply in Strategic Products," WIFO Working Papers 670, WIFO.
    2. Andrea Saltelli, 2007. "Composite Indicators between Analysis and Advocacy," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 81(1), pages 65-77, March.
    3. Rajko Tomaš, 2022. "Measurement of the Concentration of Potential Quality of Life in Local Communities," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 79-109, August.
    4. Aleksandra Maksimovska & Aleksandar Stojkov, 2019. "Composite Indicator of Social Responsiveness of Local Governments: An Empirical Mapping of the Networked Community Governance Paradigm," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 669-706, July.
    5. Cherchye, Laurens & Knox Lovell, C.A. & Moesen, Wim & Van Puyenbroeck, Tom, 2007. "One market, one number? A composite indicator assessment of EU internal market dynamics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 749-779, April.
    6. Panagiotis Ravanos & Giannis Karagiannis, 2023. "Correction: A VEA Benefit-of-the-Doubt Model for the HDI," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 170(2), pages 793-796, November.
    7. Janina Isabel Steinert & Lucie Dale Cluver & G. J. Melendez-Torres & Sebastian Vollmer, 2018. "One Size Fits All? The Validity of a Composite Poverty Index Across Urban and Rural Households in South Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 51-72, February.
    8. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Marco Marozzi & Mario Bolzan, 2018. "An Index of Household Accessibility to Basic Services: A Study of Italian Regions," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 1237-1250, April.
    10. Di Zio, Simone & Bolzan, Mario & Marozzi, Marco, 2021. "Classification of Delphi outputs through robust ranking and fuzzy clustering for Delphi-based scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Drago, Carlo & Gatto, Andrea, 2022. "Policy, regulation effectiveness, and sustainability in the energy sector: A worldwide interval-based composite indicator," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    13. Renata Pelissari & Sarah Ben Amor & Álvaro Oliveira D’Antona & Eduardo José Marandola Júnior & Leonardo Tomazeli Duarte, 2024. "A semi-supervised multi-criteria sorting approach to constructing social vulnerability composite indicators," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 337(1), pages 235-260, June.
    14. M. Benito & R. Romera, 2011. "Improving quality assessment of composite indicators in university rankings: a case study of French and German universities of excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 153-176, October.
    15. Rosalia Castellano & Antonella Rocca, 2017. "The dynamic of the gender gap in the European labour market in the years of economic crisis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 1337-1357, May.
    16. Brad Carter & Claus Rinner, 2014. "Locally weighted linear combination in a vector geographic information system," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 343-361, July.
    17. 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.
    18. Paola Costantini & Marielle Linting & Giovanni C. Porzio, 2010. "Mining performance data through nonlinear PCA with optimal scaling," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 85-101, January.
    19. Carmen García-Peña & Moneyba González-Medina & Jose Manuel Diaz-Sarachaga, 2021. "Assessment of the Governance Dimension in the Frame of the 2030 Agenda: Evidence from 100 Spanish Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-21, May.
    20. Qingyun Du & Yanxia Wang & Fu Ren & Zhiyuan Zhao & Hongqiang Liu & Chao Wu & Langjiao Li & Yiran Shen, 2014. "Measuring and Analysis of Urban Competitiveness of Chinese Provincial Capitals in 2010 under the Constraints of Major Function-Oriented Zoning Utilizing Spatial Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-26, May.

    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.