Advertisement

Project portfolio selection and scheduling optimization based on risk measure: a conditional value at risk approach

  • Vijaya DixitEmail author
  • Manoj Kumar Tiwari
S.I. : Project Management and Scheduling 2018
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

Project portfolios are considered “powerful strategic weapons” for implementing corporate strategy. Projects are exposed to different types of risks. Studies on project portfolio optimization have addressed risks either by maximizing the expected net present value or including constraints that place an upper bound on portfolio risk score. However, no study has attempted to minimize the risk of severe low returns by adopting a risk-averse measure. The present study contributes by addressing this research gap and utilizes a risk measure conditional value at risk (CVaR) for decision making. The present paper considers a case study of a dairy firm. It captures financial risk in the form of uncertain project cash inflows and evaluates strategic alignment scores and risk scores for technical, schedule, economic and political, organizational, and statutory clearance risks of projects using an analytical hierarchy process. Further, it formulates three project portfolio selection and scheduling models namely, risk-neutral (max_E), risk-averse (max_CVaR) and combined compromise (max_E_CVaR) models. A comparison of results shows that the max_CVaR model ensures that the lowest return in the worst scenario is maximized to the greatest extent possible, thereby yielding high returns even when the confidence levels are low. The model exploits the diversification approach for risk management and its portfolios contain at least one project from each project category (derivative, platform and breakthrough). The results obtained using max_E_CVaR model can be utilized by decision makers to select and schedule project portfolios according to their risk appetite and acceptable trade-off between risk-averse and risk-neutral objectives.

Keywords

Conditional-value-at-risk Diversification Project portfolio Net present value Risk-averse Risk-neutral 

Notes

References

  1. Abbassi, M., Ashrafi, M., & Tashnizi, E. S. (2014). Selecting balanced portfolios of R&D projects with interdependencies: A cross-entropy based methodology. Technovation, 34(1), 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, G. J., & Baptista, A. M. (2003). CVaR as a measure of Risk: Implications for Portfolio Selection.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, S., Coleman, T. F., & Li, Y. (2006). Minimizing CVaR and VaR for a portfolio of derivatives. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(2), 583–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999). An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carazo, A. F., Gómez, T., Molina, J., Hernández-Díaz, A. G., Guerrero, F. M., & Caballero, R. (2010). Solving a comprehensive model for multiobjective project portfolio selection. Computers & Operations Research, 37(4), 630–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlsson, C., Fullér, R., Heikkilä, M., & Majlender, P. (2007). A fuzzy approach to R&D project portfolio selection. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 44(2), 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiang, I. R., & Nunez, M. A. (2013). Strategic alignment and value maximization for IT project portfolios. Information Technology and Management, 14(2), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cleland, D. I., & Ireland, L. R. (1999). Project management: strategic design and implementation (Vol. 4). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Davoudpour, H., Rezaee, S., & Ashrafi, M. (2012). Developing a framework for renewable technology portfolio selection: A case study at a R&D center. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 4291–4297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dias, A. (2016). The economic value of controlling for large losses in portfolio selection. Journal of Banking & Finance, 72, S81–S91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doerner, K., Gutjahr, W. J., Hartl, R. F., Strauss, C., & Stummer, C. (2004). Pareto ant colony optimization: A metaheuristic approach to multiobjective portfolio selection. Annals of Operations Research, 131(1–4), 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang, C., Liao, X., & Xie, M. (2016). A hybrid risks-informed approach for the selection of supplier portfolio. International Journal of Production Research, 54(7), 2019–2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fernandez, E., Gomez, C., Rivera, G., & Cruz-Reyes, L. (2015). Hybrid metaheuristic approach for handling many objectives and decisions on partial support in project portfolio optimisation. Information Sciences, 315, 102–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fliedner, T., & Liesiö, J. (2016). Adjustable robustness for multi-attribute project portfolio selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 252(3), 931–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gemici-Ozkan, B., Wu, S. D., Linderoth, J. T., & Moore, J. E. (2010). OR PRACTICE—R&D project portfolio analysis for the semiconductor industry. Operations Research, 58(6), 1548–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghapanchi, A. H., Tavana, M., Khakbaz, M. H., & Low, G. (2012). A methodology for selecting portfolios of projects with interactions and under uncertainty. International Journal of Project Management, 30(7), 791–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghassemi, A., & Amalnick, M. (2018). NPD project portfolio selection using reinvestment strategy in competitive environment. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 9(1), 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghorbani, S., & Rabbani, M. (2009). A new multi-objective algorithm for a project selection problem. Advances in Engineering Software, 40(1), 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glover, F., Kelly, J. P., & Laguna, M. (1998). The OptQuest approach to Crystal Ball simulation optimization. Graduate School of Business. University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  20. Gülpınar, N., & Çanakoḡlu, E. (2017). Robust portfolio selection problem under temperature uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 256(2), 500–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, N. G., Long, D. Z., Qi, J., & Sim, M. (2015). Managing underperformance risk in project portfolio selection. Operations Research, 63(3), 660–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hassanzadeh, F., Nemati, H., & Sun, M. (2014). Robust optimization for interactive multiobjective programming with imprecise information applied to R&D project portfolio selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 238(1), 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hu, Q. J., & Szmerekovsky, J. (2017). Project portfolio selection: A newsvendor approach. Decision Sciences, 48(1), 176–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huang, D., Zhu, S., Fabozzi, F. J., & Fukushima, M. (2010). Portfolio selection under distributional uncertainty: A relative robust CVaR approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 203(1), 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iman, R. L., & Conover, W. J. (1982). A distribution-free approach to inducing rank correlation among input variables. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 11(3), 311–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Inzunza, A., Moreno, R., Bernales, A., & Rudnick, H. (2016). CVaR constrained planning of renewable generation with consideration of system inertial response, reserve services and demand participation. Energy Economics, 59, 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laguna, M. (1997). Optimization of complex systems with OptQuest. A White Paper from OptTek Systems, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Liesiö, J., Mild, P., & Salo, A. (2007). Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(3), 1488–1505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu, Y., & Liu, Y. K. (2017). Distributionally robust fuzzy project portfolio optimization problem with interactive returns. Applied Soft Computing, 56, 655–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lopes, Y. G., & de Almeida, A. T. (2015). Assessment of synergies for selecting a project portfolio in the petroleum industry based on a multi-attribute utility function. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 126, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martinsuo, M. (2013). Project portfolio management in practice and in context. International Journal of Project Management, 31(6), 794–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Merzifonluoglu, Y. (2015). Risk averse supply portfolio selection with supply, demand and spot market volatility. Omega, 57, 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meskendahl, S. (2010). The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success—A conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 807–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nguyen, D. T., & Le, L. B. (2015). Risk-constrained profit maximization for microgrid aggregators with demand response. IEEE Transactions on smart grid, 6(1), 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ogryczak, W., & Ruszczynski, A. (2002). Dual stochastic dominance and related mean-risk models. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 13(1), 60–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palisade corporation. (2010). Guide to using RISKOptimizer simulation optimization for microsoft excel. http://www.palisade.com/riskoptimizer/. Accessed 21 June 2018.
  37. Perez, F., & Gomez, T. (2016). Multiobjective project portfolio selection with fuzzy constraints. Annals of Operations Research, 245(1–2), 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pflug, G. C. (2000). Some remarks on the value-at-risk and the conditional value-at-risk. In S. P. Uryasev (Ed.), Probabilistic constrained optimization (pp. 272–281). Boston, MA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pourahmadi, K., Nouri, S., & Yaghoubi, S. (2015). A scenario based project portfolio selection. Management Science Letters, 5(9), 883–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rabbani, M., Bajestani, M. A., & Khoshkhou, G. B. (2010). A multi-objective particle swarm optimization for project selection problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rockafellar, R. T., & Uryasev, S. (2002). Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(7), 1443–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rockafellar, R. T., Uryasev, S., & Zabarankin, M. (2006). Master funds in portfolio analysis with general deviation measures. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(2), 743–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sawik, T. (2013). Selection of resilient supply portfolio under disruption risks. Omega, 41(2), 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sawik, T. (2014). Joint supplier selection and scheduling of customer orders under disruption risks: Single vs. dual sourcing. Omega, 43, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shakhsi-Niaei, M., Torabi, S. A., & Iranmanesh, S. H. (2011). A comprehensive framework for project selection problem under uncertainty and real-world constraints. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61(1), 226–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shenhar, A. J., Poli, M., & Lechler, T. (2000). A new framework for strategic project management. Management of Technology VIII, University of Miami, Miami, FL.Google Scholar
  47. Solak, S., Clarke, J. P. B., Johnson, E. L., & Barnes, E. R. (2010). Optimization of R&D project portfolios under endogenous uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(1), 420–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vilkkumaa, E., Liesiö, J., & Salo, A. (2014). Optimal strategies for selecting project portfolios using uncertain value estimates. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(3), 772–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizing product development: quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  50. Yang, F., Song, S., Huang, W., & Xia, Q. (2015). SMAA-PO: Project portfolio optimization problems based on stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. Annals of Operations Research, 233(1), 535–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yao, H., Li, Z., & Lai, Y. (2013). Mean–CVaR portfolio selection: A nonparametric estimation framework. Computers & Operations Research, 40(4), 1014–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yu, L., Wang, S., Wen, F., & Lai, K. K. (2012). Genetic algorithm-based multi-criteria project portfolio selection. Annals of Operations Research, 197(1), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of Management RanchiJharkhandIndia
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Engineering and ManagementIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations