4.8 Review

Developing a framework for renewable technology portfolio selection: A case study at a R&D center

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 4291-4297

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.035

关键词

Renewable technology portfolio; Project portfolio; Portfolio management; R&D centers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rapid development of technologies, their increasing complexity and variety, long lead times of R&D and market dynamics have made the task of technology selection difficult. Considering high level of competitiveness, organizations need to strategically allocate their limited resources to the best subset of possible projects. Today, the increased consumption of energy in modern industrial societies, in addition to the risk of quick exhaustion of fossil resources, has brought about irreversible and threatening environmental changes faced by the world. Dealing with these challenges, decision makers focus on the development of renewable energy technology viewed both as a process of diversification of energy sources and as a creation of an alternative energy option that will help curb down global climate change. To successfully tackle investment projects in renewable energy, it is essential to use models facilitating decision making process and guarantying the greatest possible value for organizations. Technology portfolio managers have traditionally used consensus-based tools, such as Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Delphi but these tools are limited in their ability to fully quantify the impact of technology portfolio selection on the overall aspects of the system. This paper presents the results of developing a mathematical model for renewable technology portfolio selection at an oil industry R&D center maximizing support of the organization's strategy and values. The model balances the cost and benefit of the entire portfolio. It is also flexible and changes can be applied very easily. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据