Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory RPM – Robust Portfolio Modeling for Project Selection Pekka Mild, Juuso Liesiö and Ahti Salo.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Teknillinen korkeakoulu Systeemianalyysin laboratorio 1 Graduate school seminar Rank-Based DEA-Efficiency Analysis Samuli Leppänen Systems.

Advertisements

Developing the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for the Forest-Based Sector Technology Platform (FTP) RPM-Analysis Ahti Salo, Totti Könnölä and Ville Brummer.

MANAGEMENT OF ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGEMENT

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Robust Portfolio Modeling for Scenario-Based Project Appraisal Juuso Liesiö, Pekka Mild.

Measuring Democracy: a multidimensional, historical, approach Dinner remarks Michael Coppedge University of Notre Dame.

1 Ratio-Based Efficiency Analysis Antti Punkka and Ahti Salo Systems Analysis Laboratory Aalto University School of Science P.O. Box 11100, Aalto.

1PRIME Decisions - An Interactive Tool for Value Tree Analysis Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory PRIME Decisions - An Interactive.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory RICHER – A Method for Exploiting Incomplete Ordinal Information in Value Trees Antti Punkka.

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Multi-Criteria Capital Budgeting with Incomplete Preference Information Pekka Mild, Juuso.

Evaluating Decision Support Systems Projects. Who Evaluates Technical Managers  Chief Information Officer,  Corporate IT professionals,  Database administrators,

September 20 th, 2005 Introduction to Expert Choice National Institutes of Health Office of Research Services Office of Quality Management 1.

Strategic Project Alignment With Team Expert Choice

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology A Preference Programming Approach to Make the Even Swaps Method Even Easier Jyri Mustajoki.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Decision Support for the Even Swaps Process with Preference Programming Jyri Mustajoki Raimo.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory A Portfolio Model for the Allocation of Resources to Standardization Activities Antti Toppila,

Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology e-Learning Negotiation Analysis Harri Ehtamo Raimo P Hämäläinen Ville Koskinen Systems Analysis.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 1 London Business School Management Science and Operations 1 London Business School Management.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Using Intervals for Global Sensitivity and Worst Case Analyses in Multiattribute Value Trees.

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Robust Portfolio Selection in Multiattribute Capital Budgeting Pekka Mild and Ahti Salo.

1 S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Kai Virtanen, Tuomas Raivio, and Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory (SAL)

1 S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Decision and Negotiation Support in Multi-Stakeholder Development of Lake Regulation Policy.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Ahti Salo and Antti Punkka Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology.

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Robust Portfolio Modeling in the Development of National Research Priorities Ville Brummer.

An efficient distributed protocol for collective decision- making in combinatorial domains CMSS Feb , 2012 Minyi Li Intelligent Agent Technology.

Binary decision diagrams for computing the non-dominated set July 13, 2015 Antti Toppila and Ahti Salo 27th European Conference on Operational Research,

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Rank-Based Sensitivity Analysis of Multiattribute Value Models Antti Punkka and Ahti Salo.

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory RPM-Explorer - A Web-based Tool for Interactive Portfolio Decision Analysis Erkka Jalonen.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Determining cost-effective portfolios of weapon systems Juuso Liesiö, Ahti Salo and Jussi.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology 1 Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory INFORMS 2007 Seattle Efficiency and Sensitivity Analyses in the Evaluation of University.

1 Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory Aalto University, School of Science December, 2010 Aiding Decisions, Negotiating and.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory INFORMS Seattle 2007 Integrated Multi-Criteria Budgeting for Maintenance and Rehabilitation.

A Dynamic Interval Goal Programming Approach to the Regulation of a Lake-River System Raimo P. Hämäläinen Juha Mäntysaari S ystems Analysis Laboratory.

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Selecting Forest Sites for Voluntary Conservation in Finland Antti Punkka and Ahti Salo.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Practical dominance and process support in the Even Swaps method Jyri Mustajoki Raimo P.

Linear Programming Erasmus Mobility Program (24Apr2012) Pollack Mihály Engineering Faculty (PMMK) University of Pécs João Miranda

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Selecting Forest Sites for Voluntary Conservation with Robust Portfolio Modeling Antti.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Antti Punkka and Ahti Salo Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology.

Prioritizing Failure Events in Fault Tree Analysis Using Interval-valued Probability Estimates PSAM ’11 and ESREL 2012, Antti Toppila and Ahti.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 1DAS workshop Ahti A. Salo and Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Portfolio and Scenario Analysis in the Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Weapon Systems Jussi.

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Fostering the Diversity of Innovation Activities through e-Participation Totti Könnölä,

11 Ahti Salo, Juuso Liesiö and Eeva Vilkkumaa Department of Mathematics and Systems Analysis Aalto University School of Science and Technology P.O. Box.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology 1 Decision Analysis Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Incomplete Ordinal Information in Value Tree Analysis Antti Punkka and Ahti Salo Systems.

Selecting a portfolio of actions with incomplete and action-dependent scenario probabilities E. Vilkkumaa, J. Liesiö, A. Salo EURO XXVII Glasgow 12 th.

1 School of Science and Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Graduate school seminar presentation Current research topics in Portfolio Decision.

Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology An e-Learning module on Negotiation Analysis Harri Ehtamo Raimo P.

1 S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Master’s Thesis Antti Punkka “ Uses of Ordinal Preference Information in Interactive Decision.

UTA/ARRI. Enterprise Engineering for The Agile Enterprise Don Liles The University of Texas at Arlington.

1 Ratio-Based Efficiency Analysis (REA) Antti Punkka and Ahti Salo Systems Analysis Laboratory Aalto University School of Science and Technology P.O. Box.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology 15th MCDM conference - Ankara Mats Lindstedt / 1 Using Intervals for Global.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory EURO 2009, Bonn Supporting Infrastructure Maintenance Project Selection with Robust Portfolio.

Resource allocation and portfolio efficiency analysis Antti Toppila Systems Analysis Laboratory Aalto University School of Science and Technology P.O.

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Standardization Portfolio Management for a Global Telecom Company Ville Brummer Systems.

Dynamics of Competition Between Incumbent and Emerging Network Technologies Youngmi Jin (Penn) Soumya Sen (Penn) Prof. Roch Guerin (Penn) Prof. Kartik.

Mustajoki, Hämäläinen and Salo Decision support by interval SMART/SWING / 1 S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Decision support.

preference statements

Mikko Harju*, Juuso Liesiö**, Kai Virtanen*

Flexible and Interactive Tradeoff Elicitation Procedure

2 Selecting a Healthcare Information System.

Risk-informed Decision Making under Incomplete Information

A. Mancusoa,b, M. Compareb, A. Saloa, E. Ziob,c

Incomplete ordinal information in value tree analysis and comparison of DMU’s efficiency ratios with incomplete information Antti Punkka supervisor Prof.

D E C I S I O N A R I U M g l o b a l s p a c e f o r d e c i s i o n s u p p o r t group decision making multicriteria decision analysis group.

Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory

Decision support by interval SMART/SWING Methods to incorporate uncertainty into multiattribute analysis Ahti Salo Jyri Mustajoki Raimo P. Hämäläinen.

Juuso Liesiö, Pekka Mild and Ahti Salo Systems Analysis Laboratory

FITradeoff Method (Flexible and Interactive Tradeoff)

Multiobjective Optimization

Presentation transcript:

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory RPM – Robust Portfolio Modeling for Project Selection Pekka Mild, Juuso Liesiö and Ahti Salo Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology P.O. Box 1100, TKK, Finland

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 2 Problem framework n Choose a portfolio of projects from a large set of proposals n Projects evaluated on multiple criteria n Resource and other portfolio constraints n Reported applications in contexts such as –Corporate R & D (Stummer and Heidenberger, 2003) –Healthcare (Kleinmuntz and Kleinmuntz, 1999) –Infrastructure (Golabi et al., 1981; Golabi, 1987) n Software tools, e.g. –Catalyze Ltd (UK) / Hiview & Equity –Strata Decision Technology LLC / StrataCap ® –Expert Choice ® / EC Resource Aligner TM

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 3 Additive representation of portfolio value n Projects with costs n Scores and weights n Feasible portfolios n Project value: weighted sum of scores n Portfolio value: sum of projects’ values n Maximize portfolio value

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 4 Incomplete information in portfolio problems n Elicitation of complete information (point estimates) on weights and scores may be costly or even impossible n If we only have incomplete information, what portfolios and projects can be recommended? –We extend the solution concepts of Preference Programming methods (e.g., Salo and Hämäläinen, 1992; 2001) to portfolio problems n Provide guidance for focusing the elicitation efforts n Liesiö, Mild, Salo, (2005). Preference Programming for Robust Portfolio Modeling and Project Selection, conditionally accepted

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 5 Modeling of incomplete information n Feasible weight set –Several kinds of preference statements impose linear constraints on weights → Rank-orderings on criteria (cf., Salo and Punkka, 2005) → Interval SMART/SWING (Mustajoki et al., 2005) n Interval scores –Lower and upper bounds on criterion-specific scores of each project n Information set –Feasible values for and

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 6 Non-dominated portfolios n Incomplete information leads to value intervals on portfolios –Typically, no portfolio has the highest value for all feasible weights and scores n Portfolio dominates on S, denoted by, iff n Non-dominated portfolios n Computed by dedicated dynamic programming algorithm –Multi-Objective Zero-One LP (MOZOLP) problem with interval coefficients

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 7 Project-oriented analysis n Core Index of a project, –Share of non-dominated portfolios on S in which a project is included n Core projects, i.e., can be surely recommended –Would belong to all ND portfolios even with additional information n Exterior projects, i.e., can be safely rejected –Cannot enter any ND portfolio even with additional information n Borderline projects, i.e., need further analysis –Negotiation / iteration zone for augmenting the set of core projects

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 8 Sequential specification of information n Dominance relations depend on S –Loose statements often lead to a large number of ND portfolios –Complete information typically leads to a unique portfolio n Additional information to reduce –Modeled through a smaller weight set ( ) and/or narrower score intervals ( ) –No new portfolio can become non-dominated: n Elicitation efforts can be focused on borderline projects –Additional information can affect the status of borderline projects only –Narrower score intervals needed for borderline projects only

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 9 Add. exter. RPM for project portfolio selection Selected Not selected Decision rules, heuristics Additional information Large set of projects Multiple criteria Resource and portfolio constraints Borderline projects  focus on Exterior proj.  discard Core projects  choose Borderline Negotiation, iteration Compute non-dom. portfolios Update ND portfolios Add. core Preceding core proj. Preceding exterior Loose statements on weights and scores

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 10 Application to road pavement projects (1/4) n Real data from Finnish Road Administration –Selection of the annual pavement program in one major road district n 223 project proposals –Generated by a specific road condition follow-up system –Coherent road segments  proposals are independent n Three technical measurement criteria on each project 1.Damage coverage in the proposed site 2.Annual cost savings attained by road users (if repaired) 3.Durability life of the repair n Budget of 16.3 M€, sufficient for funding some 160 projects

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 11 Application to road pavement projects (2/4) n Illustrative ex post data analysis with RPM tools n Sequential weight information 1.Start with no information: 2.Rank-ordering stated by FINNRA experts: n Complete score information (point estimates) n Computations by PRO-OPTIMAL software –

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 12 Application to road pavement projects (3/4) n No information, n 542 portfolios n 103 core projects n 16 exterior projects n 104 borderline proj., from which some 60 can be funded with remaining resources

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 13 Application to road pavement projects (4/4) n Rank-ordering, n 109 portfolios n 127 core projects n 32 exterior projects n 64 borderline proj., from which some 30 can be funded with remaining resources

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 14 Conclusions n Key features –Admits incomplete information about weights and projects –Accounts for competing projects, scarce resources and portfolio constraints –Determines all non-dominated portfolios n Robust decision recommendations –Core Index values for individual projects derived from portfolio level analyses –Decision rules for portfolios (e.g., maximin, minimax regret) n Benefits –May lead to considerable savings in the costs of preference elicitation –Enables sequential decision support process with useful tentative results –Applications in project portfolio management and technology foresight

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 15 References »Golabi, K., (1987). Selecting a Group of Dissimilar Projects for Funding, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 34, pp. 138 – 145. »Golabi, K., Kirkwood, C.W., Sicherman, A., (1981). Selecting a Portfolio of Solar Energy Projects Using Multiattribute Preference Theory, Management Science, Vol. 27, pp »Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P., Salo, A., (2005). Decision Support by Interval SMART/SWING - Incorporating Imprecision in the SMART and SWING Methods, Decision Sciences, Vol. 36, pp »Kleinmuntz, C.E, Kleinmuntz, D.N., (1999). Strategic approach to allocating capital in healthcare organizations, Healthcare Financial Management, Vol. 53, pp »Stummer, C., Heidenberger, K., (2003). Interactive R&D Portfolio Analysis with Project Interdependencies and Time Profiles of Multiple Objectives, IEEE Trans. on Engineering Management, Vol. 50, pp »Salo, A. and R. P. Hämäläinen, (1992). Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements, Operations Research, Vol. 40, pp »Salo, A. and Hämäläinen, R. P., (2001). Preference Ratios in Multiattribute Evaluation (PRIME) - Elicitation and Decision Procedures under Incomplete Information, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 3, pp »Salo, A. and Punkka, A., (2005). Rank Inclusion in Criteria Hierarchies, European Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 163, pp