Conditional Stochastic Dominance in Project Portfolio Selection

  • Samuel B. Graves
  • Jeffrey L. Ringuest
  • Andrés L. Medaglia
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 58)


In Chapter 5 we described a method for deciding which projects to add to or remove from an existing portfolio. That treatment was restrictive in that it required knowledge of the decision maker’s utility function. This chapter moves toward a more practical methodology for the selection of projects to add to or remove from an existing portfolio. The analysis uses the criterion of conditional stochastic dominance to make selection recommendations. This criterion takes into account the effect of a given project on the risk and return of the existing portfolio. We use a methodology previously employed to analyze stock portfolios, however, we apply it using simulation, in an R&D portfolio context. We apply the methodology to the portfolios of two actual companies and find that it generates priorities very close to those developed by internal company heuristics. We show that this methodology can be applied appropriately in these circumstances and that its recommendations are consistent with observed decision maker behavior. These results provide further evidence that a manager should not consider project selection decisions in isolation, but, following the methodology recommended here, should take into account the context of the existing portfolio.


Portfolio Return Project Selection Cumulative Probability Distribution Project Portfolio Stock Portfolio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Clark, K., Chew, W & Fujimoto, T. (1987). Product development in the world auto industry. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 729–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clemen, R. T. (1996). Making hard decisions: An introduction to decision analysis, Second Edition. Belmont, California: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  3. George, J., & James, A. (1993). Personality, affect and behavior in groups revisited: Comment on aggregation, levels of analysis, and a recent application of within and between analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 798–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Graves, S. B., & Ringuest, J.L. (1996). Evaluating a portfolio of R&D investments. High Technology Management Research, 7(1), 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Green S. & Welsh, M. A. (1985). Survey used in A Prospective Study of Industrial Innovation. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati College of Business Administration.Google Scholar
  6. Keefer, D. & Bodily, S.E. (1983). Three-point approximations for continuous random variables. Management Science, 29, 595–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Khandwalla, P. (1976) The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  8. J. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Shalit H. & Yitzhaki, S. (1984). Mean-Gini, portfolio theory, and the pricing of risky assets. Journal of Finance, 39(5), 1449–1468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shalit H. & Yitzhaki, S. (1994). Marginal conditional stochastic dominance. Management Science, 40(5), 670–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shalit, H. (1996a). Beating the S&P 500: A dynamic application of MCSD. Working Paper, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.Google Scholar
  12. Shalit, H. (1996b). Finding better securities while holding portfolio’s. Working Paper, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel B. Graves
    • 1
  • Jeffrey L. Ringuest
    • 1
  • Andrés L. Medaglia
  1. 1.Boston CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations