7388
www.elsevier.comrlocaterdsw
Abstract
Project portfolio selection is a crucial decision in many organizations, which must make informed decisions on
investment, where the appropriate distribution of investment is complex, due to varying levels of risk, resource requirements,
and interaction among the proposed projects. In this paper, we discuss the implementation of an organized framework for
project portfolio selection through a decision support system DSS., which we call Project Analysis and Selection System
PASS.. We describe the results of laboratory tests undertaken to measure its usability and quality, compared to manual
selection processes, in typical portfolio selection problems. We also discuss the potential of PASS in supporting corporate
decision making, through exposure this system has received through demonstrations for several companies. q 2000 Elsevier
Science B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Project portfolio selection is the periodic activity
involved in selecting a portfolio of projects, that
meets an organizations stated objectives without
exceeding available resources or violating other constraints. Some of the issues that have to be addressed
in this process are the organizations objectives and
priorities, financial benefits, intangible benefits,
)
Corresponding author. Tel.: q1-905-525-9140 ext. 23944;
fax: q1-905-521-8995.
E-mail address: archer@mcmaster.ca N.P. Archer..
0167-9236r00r$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 9 2 3 6 0 0 . 0 0 0 6 5 - 8
74
75
76
1
0
Maximize Z s
ai Xi j
is1 js1
1.
77
78
the various models being used, and assuring dimensional consistency among these variables. In our
DSS, models are not executed in parallel. They
terminate after transferring their outputs for use by
subsequent models, so synchronization is not a critical issue.
To handle variable correspondence, a central
database is used. This acts as a data repository,
which is open to inspection by users during the
portfolio selection process, and as a transfer site to
provide matched data for the input and output variables of the various models being used. The database
can be updated during the portfolio selection process
through direct user input, interactions with associated
project databases, and from the outputs of models
and their components. Portfolio database updates
also include relevant data extracted from other
databases that relate to ongoing management of existing projects.
In accordance with the enterprise-wide modelling
system suggested by Ba et al. w6x, we have also
adopted an approach that allows the use of both
quantitative inputs at the optimization stage. and
79
80
81
82
8. Experimental results
A pilot test was conducted with seven subjects to
collect some initial data and to identify and correct
potential problems in PASS, the test procedure and
questionnaire, and to finalize the hypotheses before
embarking on the full-scale test. The pilot test helped
us to modify and improve the experimental design
and interface as well as the hypotheses. A full-scale
test was conducted with 26 third- and fourth-year
Commerce undergraduate volunteers. All had completed introductory micro-economics and finance
courses. The Acme and Merritt cases were randomly
assigned to individual participating subjects; each
case was assigned to 13 subjects. Subjects first solved
the case that was assigned to them manually to find a
portfolio, from the candidate projects, that maximized the net present value NPV. of the portfolio
while satisfying all of the existing constraints. Information that was required, such as project characteristics and existing constraints for example, financial
constraints, balancing criteria, and project interdependencies. was provided with the case. After solving their assigned cases manually, subjects then used
PASS to find the optimal solutions to the identical
problems, using data that had previously been input
83
84
creases, the solution space grows exponentially addition of only one project or one time period doubles
the solution space., and addition of real world constraints such as having more than one limited resource, more than one project interdependency, and
so on. makes real problems much more complex. As
a result we do not expect as many people to find the
optimal or close to optimal portfolios in a real
environment as they did in this experiment with the
simplified cases.
An additional effect in real world situation is the
need to re-calculate solutions each time portfolio
adjustments are made, so the impact of adjustments
can be estimated. The same issue applies when
decision makers want to perform sensitivity analysis
to investigate the impact of changes in certain parameters such as balancing criteria. on the solution
and on the availability of resources which can also
be varied during sensitivity studies.. Clearly, this
would be impractical if manual calculations had to
be re-done at each iteration, because of the long time
delays involved. The time taken for PASS to solve a
case is relatively small only a few seconds in the
cases we studied., allowing more time to study
important sensitivity and balance issues, by making
adjustments to the portfolio chosen or by changing
resource or financial constraints.
In terms of potential success of PASS in a real
implementation environment w25x, we note that the
system is based on a framework that supports a
flexible team approach to system development and
use, since users can choose their own methodologies
for preparing project parameters and setting constraints. It is also evolutionary, allowing models to
be developed across the range of the simple to the
complex, as the decision makers wish. Ease of use is
critical for executive users, and response time is fast.
Successful application depends upon careful choice
of both the data to use and the methodologies with
which to analyze the data, and these are open to the
users. Satisfying these criteria fits four of the six
success factors noted for decision support by
Houdeshel and Watson w25x the other two are a
committed senior executive sponsor and careful
computer software and hardware selection, not examined in this study..
To examine the potential for applying the proposed framework and the PASS DSS in practical
85
86
X i1 s 1
RA i ,k q 1 y j . X i , j F 200
js1
is1 js1
for k s 1, . . . T
N
2.
RB i ,k q 1 y j . Xi , j F 200
is1 js1
for k s 1, . . . T
n
3.
RA i ,k q 1 y j . X i , j q RB i . X i , kq1yj
i s 1 i s js1
F 300
for k s 1, . . . T
4.
where RA i,k q 1 y j ., RB i,k q 1 y j . are respectively the amount of expertise A and B, required by
project i in period k, N is the total number of
projects being considered, and T is the last period in
the planning horizon. X i , j , the decision variable, is 1
if project i is selected to start in period j and is 0
otherwise.
Company B had two departments new product
research, and development., each with up to 12
product development projects underway at any time.
A major concern was to achieve a balance among the
projects included in each portfolio. Adding a constraint to the optimization model similar to those,
which can be used to maintain portfolio balance in
terms of risk and duration. would maintain the required balance between the portfolios. Obviously,
this balance could be adjusted interactively by adding
or deleting specific projects during the on-line adjustment stage. Other problems identified were as
follows.
i. An important requirement was to select previously specified mandatory projects and projects already started, and to ensure that ongoing projects
started at time zero. This requires that ongoing
projects be identified during data entry, and also
displayed in a special manner by altering the interface iconic display. To ensure that ongoing projects
jX i j q Di F Li q 1
for i g Sf
6.
js1
87
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant from the
Innovation Research Centre, Michael G. DeGroote
School of Business, McMaster University.
Appendix A
References
w1x D.A. Adams, R.R. Nelson, P.A. Todd, Perceived usefulness,
ease of use, and usage of information technology: a replication, MIS Quarterly 1992. 227247, June 1992..
w2x D.R. Anderson, D.J. Sweeney, T.A. Williams, An Introduction to Management Science: Quantitative Approaches to
Decision Making, West Publishing, New York, 1994.
w3x N.P. Archer, F. Ghasemzadeh, Portfolio selection techniques:
88
w6x S. Ba, K.R. Lang, A.B. Whinston, Enterprise decision support using intranet technology, Decision Support Systems 20
1997. 99134.
w7x J.F. Bard, R. Balachandra, P.E. Kaufman, An interactive
approach to R&D project selection and termination, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management 35 1988. 139
146.
w8x R.O. Briggs, J.F. Nunamaker Jr., R.H. Sprague Jr., 1001
unanswered research questions in GSS, Journal of Management Information Systems 14 3. 1997r98. 321.
w9x S.W. Clevel, R. McGill, Graphical perception: theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical
methods, Journal of the American Statistical Association 79
1984..
w10x R.G. Cooper, Winning At New Products, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA, 1993.
w11x R.G. Cooper, S.J. Edgett, E.J. Kleinschmidt, Portfolio management in new products: lessons from the leaders-I, Research Technology Management 40 5. 1997. 1628, Sep.
Oct., 1997..
w12x R.G. Cooper, S.J. Edgett, E.J. Kleinschmidt, Portfolio Management for New Products, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA,
1998.
w13x L.J. Cronbach, Coefficient alpha and the internal consistency
of tests, Psychometrika 16 1951. 297334.
w14x F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and
user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly
1989. 319340, Sept. 1989..
w15x F. Davis, R. Bagozzi, P. Warshaw, User acceptance of
computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science 35 8. 1989. 9821003.
w16x A. De Maio, R. Verganti, M. Corso, A multi-project management framework for new product development, European
Journal of Operational Research 78 1994. 178191.
w17x D.R. Dolk, J.E. Kottemann, Model integration and a theory
of models, Decision Support Systems 9 1993. 5163.
w18x B.L. Dos Santos, Proceedings of the Hawaii Conference on
System Sciences, Selecting information system projects:
problems, solutions and challenges 1989. 11311140.
w19x J.S. Dyer, P.C. Fishburn, J. Wallenius, S. Zionts, Multiple
criteria decision making, multi attribute utility theory: the
next ten years, Management Science 38 5. 1992. 645654.
w20x J. Fjermestad, S.R. Hiltz, An assessment of group support
systems experiment research: methodology and results, Journal of Management Information Systems 15 3. 19981999.
7149.
w21x F. Ghasemzadeh, N.P. Archer, P. Iyogun, A zeroone ILP
model for project portfolio selection and scheduling, Journal
of the Operational Research Society 50 1999. 745755.
w22x B.L. Golden, E.A. Wasil, D.E. Levy, Applications of the
analytic hierarchy process: a categorized, annotated bibliography, in: B.L. Golden, E.A. Wasil, P.T. Harker Eds.., The
Analytic Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies,1989,
pp. 3758.