Valuing Research and Development Projects in Energy Markets

  • Peter Schäfer
Part of the Management for Professionals book series (MANAGPROF)


In this chapter we highlight the importance of appropriately valuing research and development investments. We identify specific characteristics of research and development projects, such as irreversibility, uncertainty and managerial flexibility. In Sect. 2.2 we suggest valuation tools that are able to take these characteristics into account in order to valuate projects in research and development. In Sect. 2.3 we present a case study. The case study analyzes the decision process in the development of the Siemens H-class Gas Turbine. It illustrates how companies make their decisions about research and development projects in practice.


  1. Amram, M., & Kulatilaka, N. (1999). Real options – Managing strategic investment in an uncertain world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  2. Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973). The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 8(3), 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ceseña, E. M., Mutale, J., & Rivas-Dávalos, F. (2013). Real options theory applied to electricity generation projects: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 19, 573–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper, R. G. (2002). Top oder Flop in der Produktentwicklung. Weinheim: Erfolgsstrategien: von der Idee zum Launch.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The stage-gate idea-to-launch process – Update, what’s new, and NexGen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixit, A. K., & Pindyck, R. S. (1994). Investment under uncertainty. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fernandes, B., Cunha, J., & Ferreira, P. (2011). The use of real options approach in energy sector investments. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9), 4491–4497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, W. (2011). Siemens H-class gas turbine, For pioneering efficiency with world class flexibility.Google Scholar
  9. Fischer, W. J., & Nag, P. (2011, December 13–15). H-class high performance siemens gas turbine sgt-8000h series. Las Vegas, NV: Power-Gen International.Google Scholar
  10. Friedl, G. (2001). Sequentielle Investitionsentscheidungen unter Unsicherheit. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedl, G. (2003). Bewertung von Investitionen in die Entwicklung neuer Produkte mit Hilfe des Realoptionsansatzes. In U. Hommel et al. (Eds.), Realoptionen in der Unternehmenspraxis. Wert schaffen durch Flexibilität (Vol. 2, pp. 377–397). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Granig, P. (2007). Innovationsbewertung – Potentialprognose und-steuerung durch Ertrags- und Risikosimulation. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  13. IHS Energy. (2016). IHS long-term planning and energy scenarios.Google Scholar
  14. Merton, R. C. (1973). Theory of rational option pricing. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 4, 141–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ratliff, P., Garbett, P., & Fischer, W. (2007). SGT5-8000H Größerer Kundennutzen durch die neue Gasturbine von Siemens. Sonderdruck aus FBG Power Tech.Google Scholar
  16. Smith, J. E., & Nau, R. F. (1995). Valuing risky projects: Option pricing theory and decision analysis. Management Science, 41(5), 795–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Trigeorgis, L. (1996). Real options – Managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Trigeorgis, L., & Reuer, J. J. (2016). Real options theory in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 38, 42–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TUM School of Management, TU MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations