Selection of Priority Areas in Research and Development

  • V. V. TopkaEmail author


The article considers the problem of selecting priority areas in research and development based on processing expert information used as a basis for the information computing system—an automated expert evaluation system. The resulting ordering of independent innovative projects takes into account the Kemeny median approach for preference vectors and the method for minimizing the sum of their ranks. It is proposed to develop the system in the form of a resource method for selecting priority areas. The probability distribution function of the technical success of a project in this method is described by the Weibull distribution. A mathematical model is developed to maximize the feasibility of a portfolio of independent projects. The feasibility is unstable if the source data are inaccurate. An effective method is recommended for solving the formulated problem of selecting a portfolio of priority (ongoing) innovative projects. A solution is proposed to the optimization problem of determining the priority of their financing.



  1. 1.
    Yu. N. Ivanov and V. V. Tokarev, “Formalized approach to the evaluation of new technologies,” in System Research. Methodological Problems (Nauka, Moscow, 1984) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yu. N. Ivanov and V. V. Tokarev, Theoretical Economics: Range Evaluations of Innovations by Balance Models (LENAND, Moscow, 2015) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. V. Dubovskii, “Scientific and technical progress in global modeling,” in System Research. Methodological Problems (Nauka, Moscow, 1988) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foster, R. (1986). Innovation: The Attacker’s Advantage. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. V. Kazantsev, Evaluation of the Directions of STP in the Methodology of National Economic Planning (Novosibirsk, 1989) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. A. Glotov and V. V. Pavel’ev, Vector Stratification (Nauka, Moscow, 1984) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. A. Pokrovskii, Increase Research and Development Efficiency (Nauka, Moscow, 1987) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. I. Yakobson, Public Sector Economics: Fundamentals of Public Finance Theory (Aspekt Press, Moscow, 1996) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. E. Boardman, D. H. Greenberg, and A. R. Vining, Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 3rd ed. (Prentice-Hall, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, 2006).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O. I. Dranko and V. A. Irikov, “The ‘cost-effectiveness’ method as a tool for selecting priority projects of an enterprise,” Upravl. Uchet, No. 4, 15–20 (2011).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. G. Litvak, V. V. Topka, P. V. Gorskii, and P. S. Bulushev, “Automated expert evaluation system (AEES),” State Registration Certificate of Computer Program (1991).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. G. Litvak, Expert Information. Methods of Obtaining and Analysis (Radio Svyaz’, Moscow, 1982) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ch. Papadimitriou and K. Steiglitz, Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity (Dover, New York, 1998).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Kaufmann, Méthodes et modèles de la recherche opérationnelle (Dunod, Paris, 1968).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. I. Orlov, Sustainability in Socio-Economic Models (Nauka, Moscow, 1979) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Yu. Chebotarev, “Method of row sums and models leading to it,” in Problems of Computerization and Statistical Data Processing, Collection of Articles (VNIISI, Moscow, 1989), No. 3, pp. 94–110 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Yu. Chebotarev and E. Shamis, “Characterizations of scoring methods for preference aggregation,” Ann. Operat. Res. 80, 299–332 (1998).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    V. G. Gorskii, A. I. Orlov, and A. A. Gritsenko, “The method of agreement of clustered rankings,” Autom. Remote Control 61, 506 (2000).MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. C. Harrington, “Decisibility function,” Industr. Quality Control 21 (10) (1965).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. J. Dawson and C. W. Dawson, “Practical proposals for managing uncertainty and risk in project planning,” Int. J. Project Manage. 16, 299–310 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    V. V. Topka, “Lexicographic solution of two-objective project planning problem under constrained reliability index,” J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Int. 55, 877 (2014).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    F. P. Vasil’ev, Optimization Methods, new ed. (MTsNMO, Moscow, 2011), Vol. 2 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    F. P. Vasil’ev, Optimization Methods, new ed. (MTsNMO, Moscow, 2011), Vol. 1 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. N. Tikhonov and V. Ya. Arsenin, Solutions of Ill-Posed Problems (Nauka, Moscow, 1979; Halsted, New York, 1977).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. B. Bakushinskii and A. V. Goncharskii, Iterative Methods for Solving Ill-Posed Problems (Nauka, Moscow, 1989) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. B. Bakushinskii and A. V. Goncharskii, Ill-Posed Problems. Numerical Methods and Applications (Mosk. Gos. Univ., Moscow, 1989) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    A. V. Nazin and A. S. Poznyak, Adaptive Choice of Variants: Recurrent Algorithms (Nauka, Moscow, 1986) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Elkjaer, “Stochastic budget simulation,” Int. J. Project Manage. 18, 139–147 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Control Sciences, Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations