Skip to main content
Log in

Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Managers in both for-profit and not-for-profit organisations continually face the task of allocating resources by balancing costs, benefits and risks and gaining commitment by a wide constituency of stakeholders to those decisions. This task is complex and difficult because many options are present, benefits and risks are rarely expressed as single objectives, multiple stakeholders with different agendas compete for limited resources, individually optimal resource allocations to organisational units are rarely collectively optimal, and those dissatisfied with the decisions taken may resist implementation. We first explain three current approaches to resource allocation taken from corporate finance, operational research and decision analysis, and we identify a common mistake organisations make in allocating resources. The paper then presents a technical process, multi-criteria portfolio analysis, for balancing the conflicting elements of the problem, and a social process, decision conferencing, which engages all the key players during the modelling process, ensuring their ownership of the model and the subsequent implementation. This socio-technical process improves communication within the organisation, develops shared understanding of the portfolio and generates a sense of common purpose about those projects that will best realise the organisation’s objectives. The paper concludes with lessons we have learned from actual practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bana e Costa, C. A. (2001). The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to support the search for less conflicting policy options in a multi-actor context: case study. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 10, 111–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa, C. A., Costa-Lobo, M. L., Ramos, I. A. J., Vansnick, J.-C. (2002). Multicriteria approach for strategic town planning: the case of Barcelos. In D. Bouyssou, E. Jacquet-Lagreze, P. Perny, R. Slowinsky, D. Vanderpooten, & P. Vincke (Eds.), Aiding decisions with multiple criteria: essays in honour of Bernard Roy (pp.  429–456). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C., & Marcus, A. J. (1995). Fundamentals of corporate finance. New York: McGraw–Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. G., Dell, R. F., & Newman, A. M. (2004). Optimizing military capital planning. Informs, 34(6), 415–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemen, R. T. (1996). Making hard decisions; an introduction to decision analysis. Belmont: Duxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Built to last: successful habits of visionary companies. London: Century Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq, A., Van de Ven, A., & Gustafson, D. (1974). Group techniques for program planning. Glenview: Scott Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L. (1987). An analysis of the portfolio of sites to characterize for selecting a nuclear repository. Risk Analysis, 7(2), 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decisionmaking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keisler, J. M. (2005). The value of assessing weights in multi-attribute portfolio decision analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, in press.

  • MacFarlane, F. (1997). New survey highlights issues in portfolio management. CMR International News, 15, 8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. D. (1984). A theory of requisite decision models. Acta Psychologica, 56, 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. D. (1990). Requisite decision modelling for technological projects. In C. Vlek & G. Cvetkovich (Eds.), Social decision methodology for technological projects (pp. 95–110). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. D. (1992). Gaining corporate commitment to change. In C. Holtham (Ed.), Executive information systems and decision support (pp. 79–96). London: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quaddus, M. A., Atkinson, D. J., & Levy, M. (1992). An application of decision conferencing to strategic planning for a voluntary organization. Interfaces, 22(6), 61–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision analysis. Reading: Addison–Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1999). Process consultation revisited: building the helping relationship. Reading: Addison–Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, P., & Keelin, T. (1998). How SmithKline Beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions. Harvard Business Review, 76(2), 45–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treasury, H. M. (2003). The green book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence D. Phillips.

Additional information

The authors want to thank Allergan and FCT (Portuguese Science Foundation) for their support.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Phillips, L.D., Bana e Costa, C.A. Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Ann Oper Res 154, 51–68 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-007-0183-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-007-0183-3

Keywords

Navigation