4.7 Article

Evaluating the quality of solutions in project portfolio selection

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2019.01.007

关键词

Project portfolio selection; Stability analysis; Pareto optimal portfolio; Stability function; Optimality threshold

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2016YFC0503606]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71825007]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences Frontier Scientific Research Key Project [QYZDB-SSW-SYS021]
  4. CAS Strategic Research and Decision Support System Development [GHJ-ZLZX-2019-33-3]
  5. Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation [MMW 2015.0007]
  6. International Partnership Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [211211KYSB20180042]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Assessing the quality of decisions while selecting project portfolios becomes an inherent part of the decision-making process when the project parameters are inaccurate or uncertain. Small adjustments to the initial parameters can lead to situations where the preferred portfolio no longer reflects the investor's requirements. The paper studies the post-optimal analysis of the Pareto optimal portfolios chosen by Savage's risk criteria. Stability characteristic, such as the stability function, is considered. Using the stability function, we evaluate the quality of feasible portfolios. This function indicates the robustness of portfolios to any changes in the initial data. Using the stability function the formula for calculating the optimality threshold is obtained, which determines the level of risk reduction when the selected Pareto optimal portfolio can obtain optimal properties. The performances of the stability function and the optimality threshold are shown in the case study using global risk assessments for projects participating in the Belt and Road Initiative. The computation results demonstrate the ability through the stability function to evaluate the quality and optimal properties of feasible project portfolios. (C) 2019 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

4.7
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