IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pqs/wpaper/222011.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Multicriteria decision aiding in project planning using dynamic programming and simulation

Author

Listed:
  • Boguslaw Nowak

    (University of Economics in Katowice)

  • Maciej Nowak

    (University of Economics in Katowice)

  • Tadeusz Trzaskalik

    (University of Economics in Katowice)

Abstract

The concept of “project planning” is not uniformly understood. Some authors reduce it to scheduling – determining the dates for performing schedule activities and deadlines for reaching milestones. In this paper, as Nicholas and Steyn (2008) we assume that planning is a process that includes a number of phases and starts shortly after business need, contract request, or request for proposal has been received. We propose a methodology, that can be used for solving problems that the decision maker (DM) is faced when basic assumptions defining the project are made. According to A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (2004) project management is accomplished through processes that can be aggregated into five groups: initiating process group, planning process group, executing process group, monitoring and controlling group, and closing process group. As our approach refers to early stages of project life cycle, it can be used in both initiating processes, as well as planning ones. Although we do not focus on scheduling, the decisions considered here determine the project’s profitability and define the framework for preparing a project schedule. A variety of decisions have to be made while project scope is defined and project plan is prepared. Selection of a new project or a group of projects, as well as decisions how to implement them involve prediction and comparison of future outcomes. In real world, however, these values are not known with certainty. Thus, the DM faced with such decision, has also to face some degree of uncertainty. Moreover, while evaluating project’s options,he/she has to take into account multiple criteria. Although financial analysis plays the key role in project planning, other issues are also important. The purpose for project is to achieve a set of objectives, that cannot be attained by standard operational work. Projects are, therefore, utilized as a means of achieving organization’s strategic plan. As profitability is not the only goal considered when the strategy is formulated, so various criteria should be taken into account when alternate ways of project completion are compared. The aim of this paper is to present a simple, yet comprehensive, methodology for project planning that permits the consideration of both multiple criteria and risk. Our approach combines dynamic programming, simulation, stochastic dominance rules and lexicographic approach. The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 describes the project planning process and defines problems considered in this paper. Next section gives a literature overview. In section 3 new methodology for project planning decisions is introduced. Section 4 presents a numerical example. We finish with some conclusions and suggestions for future research in the last section.

Suggested Citation

  • Boguslaw Nowak & Maciej Nowak & Tadeusz Trzaskalik, 2011. "Multicriteria decision aiding in project planning using dynamic programming and simulation," RePAd Working Paper Series UQO-DSA-wp2202011, Département des sciences administratives, UQO.
  • Handle: RePEc:pqs:wpaper:222011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.repad.org/ca/qc/uq/uqo/dsa/222011.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sidney W. Hess, 1993. "Swinging on the Branch of a Tree: Project Selection Applications," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 5-12, December.
    2. Eric Wong & George Norman & Roger Flanagan, 2000. "A fuzzy stochastic technique for project selection," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 407-414.
    3. 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.
    4. Martel, Jean M. & d'Avignon, Gilles R., 1982. "Projects ordering with multicriteria analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 56-69, May.
    5. Richard F. Hespos & Paul A. Strassmann, 1965. "Stochastic Decision Trees for the Analysis of Investment Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(10), pages 244-259, August.
    6. G. Edward Fox & Norman R. Baker, 1985. "Project Selection Decision Making Linked to a Dynamic Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(10), pages 1272-1285, October.
    7. Hadar, Josef & Russell, William R, 1969. "Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 25-34, March.
    8. Daniel Granot & Dror Zuckerman, 1991. "Optimal Sequencing and Resource Allocation in Research and Development Projects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(2), pages 140-156, February.
    9. Dominique Foray, 2006. "The Economics of Knowledge," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262562235, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fernández Carazo, Ana & Gómez Núñez, Trinidad & Guerrero Casas, Flor M. & Caballero Fernández, Rafael, 2008. "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," Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa = Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, vol. 5(1), pages 67-115, June.
    2. Zaras, Kazimierz, 2001. "Rough approximation of a preference relation by a multi-attribute stochastic dominance for determinist and stochastic evaluation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 305-314, April.
    3. Nowak, Maciej, 2004. "Preference and veto thresholds in multicriteria analysis based on stochastic dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 339-350, October.
    4. Yan-Ping Jiang & Hai-Ming Liang & Minghe Sun, 2014. "A method based on the ideal and nadir solutions for stochastic MADM problems," Working Papers 0178mss, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    5. Scott A. Shane & Karl T. Ulrich, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: Technological Innovation, Product Development, and Entrepreneurship in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 133-144, February.
    6. Oliver Linton & Esfandiar Maasoumi & Yoon-Jae Wang, 2002. "Consistent testing for stochastic dominance: a subsampling approach," CeMMAP working papers 03/02, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    7. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    8. Brent A. Gloy & Timothy G. Baker, 2002. "The Importance of Financial Leverage and Risk Aversion in Risk-Management Strategy Selection," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1130-1143.
    9. Balázs Lengyel & Vladislav Cadil, 2009. "Innovation Policy Challenges in Transition Countries: Foreign Business R&D in the Czech Republic and Hungary," Transition Studies Review, Springer;Central Eastern European University Network (CEEUN), vol. 16(1), pages 174-188, May.
    10. Basso, Antonella & Peccati, Lorenzo A., 2001. "Optimal resource allocation with minimum activation levels and fixed costs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(3), pages 536-549, June.
    11. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Michel M. Denuit & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2010. "A General Index of Absolute Risk Attitude," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 712-715, April.
    13. David J. Pannell, 1991. "Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(4), pages 361-383, August.
    14. Chateauneuf, Alain & Cohen, Michele & Meilijson, Isaac, 2004. "Four notions of mean-preserving increase in risk, risk attitudes and applications to the rank-dependent expected utility model," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 547-571, August.
    15. Lizyayev, Andrey & Ruszczyński, Andrzej, 2012. "Tractable Almost Stochastic Dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 448-455.
    16. Arvanitis, Stelios & Scaillet, Olivier & Topaloglou, Nikolas, 2020. "Spanning tests for Markowitz stochastic dominance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 217(2), pages 291-311.
    17. Gollier, Christian, 2021. "A general theory of risk apportionment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    18. Miller-Hooks, Elise & Mahmassani, Hani, 2003. "Path comparisons for a priori and time-adaptive decisions in stochastic, time-varying networks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 67-82, April.
    19. Franklin G. Mixon Jr. & Richard J. Cebula, 2022. "Property Rights Freedom and Innovation: Eponymous Skills in Women's Gymnastics," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 23(4), pages 407-430, May.
    20. Xiao, Yu & Fukuda, Daisuke, 2015. "On the cost of misperceived travel time variability," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 96-112.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Project management; Multicriteria decision;

    JEL classification:

    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General

    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:pqs:wpaper:222011. 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: Christian Calmes (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dsuqoca.html .

    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.