Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Project portfolio selection and scheduling optimization based on risk measure: a conditional value at risk approach

  • S.I. : Project Management and Scheduling 2018
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Project portfolios are considered “powerful strategic weapons” for implementing corporate strategy. Projects are exposed to different types of risks. Studies on project portfolio optimization have addressed risks either by maximizing the expected net present value or including constraints that place an upper bound on portfolio risk score. However, no study has attempted to minimize the risk of severe low returns by adopting a risk-averse measure. The present study contributes by addressing this research gap and utilizes a risk measure conditional value at risk (CVaR) for decision making. The present paper considers a case study of a dairy firm. It captures financial risk in the form of uncertain project cash inflows and evaluates strategic alignment scores and risk scores for technical, schedule, economic and political, organizational, and statutory clearance risks of projects using an analytical hierarchy process. Further, it formulates three project portfolio selection and scheduling models namely, risk-neutral (max_E), risk-averse (max_CVaR) and combined compromise (max_E_CVaR) models. A comparison of results shows that the max_CVaR model ensures that the lowest return in the worst scenario is maximized to the greatest extent possible, thereby yielding high returns even when the confidence levels are low. The model exploits the diversification approach for risk management and its portfolios contain at least one project from each project category (derivative, platform and breakthrough). The results obtained using max_E_CVaR model can be utilized by decision makers to select and schedule project portfolios according to their risk appetite and acceptable trade-off between risk-averse and risk-neutral objectives.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbassi, M., Ashrafi, M., & Tashnizi, E. S. (2014). Selecting balanced portfolios of R&D projects with interdependencies: A cross-entropy based methodology. Technovation,34(1), 54–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, G. J., & Baptista, A. M. (2003). CVaR as a measure of Risk: Implications for Portfolio Selection.

  • Alexander, S., Coleman, T. F., & Li, Y. (2006). Minimizing CVaR and VaR for a portfolio of derivatives. Journal of Banking & Finance,30(2), 583–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999). An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. International Journal of Project Management,17(4), 207–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carazo, A. F., Gómez, T., Molina, J., Hernández-Díaz, A. G., Guerrero, F. M., & Caballero, R. (2010). Solving a comprehensive model for multiobjective project portfolio selection. Computers & Operations Research,37(4), 630–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, C., Fullér, R., Heikkilä, M., & Majlender, P. (2007). A fuzzy approach to R&D project portfolio selection. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning,44(2), 93–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, I. R., & Nunez, M. A. (2013). Strategic alignment and value maximization for IT project portfolios. Information Technology and Management,14(2), 143–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleland, D. I., & Ireland, L. R. (1999). Project management: strategic design and implementation (Vol. 4). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davoudpour, H., Rezaee, S., & Ashrafi, M. (2012). Developing a framework for renewable technology portfolio selection: A case study at a R&D center. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,16(6), 4291–4297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias, A. (2016). The economic value of controlling for large losses in portfolio selection. Journal of Banking & Finance,72, S81–S91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doerner, K., Gutjahr, W. J., Hartl, R. F., Strauss, C., & Stummer, C. (2004). Pareto ant colony optimization: A metaheuristic approach to multiobjective portfolio selection. Annals of Operations Research,131(1–4), 79–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, C., Liao, X., & Xie, M. (2016). A hybrid risks-informed approach for the selection of supplier portfolio. International Journal of Production Research,54(7), 2019–2034.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, E., Gomez, C., Rivera, G., & Cruz-Reyes, L. (2015). Hybrid metaheuristic approach for handling many objectives and decisions on partial support in project portfolio optimisation. Information Sciences,315, 102–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fliedner, T., & Liesiö, J. (2016). Adjustable robustness for multi-attribute project portfolio selection. European Journal of Operational Research,252(3), 931–946.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gemici-Ozkan, B., Wu, S. D., Linderoth, J. T., & Moore, J. E. (2010). OR PRACTICE—R&D project portfolio analysis for the semiconductor industry. Operations Research,58(6), 1548–1563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghapanchi, A. H., Tavana, M., Khakbaz, M. H., & Low, G. (2012). A methodology for selecting portfolios of projects with interactions and under uncertainty. International Journal of Project Management,30(7), 791–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghassemi, A., & Amalnick, M. (2018). NPD project portfolio selection using reinvestment strategy in competitive environment. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations,9(1), 47–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghorbani, S., & Rabbani, M. (2009). A new multi-objective algorithm for a project selection problem. Advances in Engineering Software,40(1), 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover, F., Kelly, J. P., & Laguna, M. (1998). The OptQuest approach to Crystal Ball simulation optimization. Graduate School of Business. University of Colorado.

  • Gülpınar, N., & Çanakoḡlu, E. (2017). Robust portfolio selection problem under temperature uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research,256(2), 500–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, N. G., Long, D. Z., Qi, J., & Sim, M. (2015). Managing underperformance risk in project portfolio selection. Operations Research,63(3), 660–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassanzadeh, F., Nemati, H., & Sun, M. (2014). Robust optimization for interactive multiobjective programming with imprecise information applied to R&D project portfolio selection. European Journal of Operational Research,238(1), 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Q. J., & Szmerekovsky, J. (2017). Project portfolio selection: A newsvendor approach. Decision Sciences,48(1), 176–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, D., Zhu, S., Fabozzi, F. J., & Fukushima, M. (2010). Portfolio selection under distributional uncertainty: A relative robust CVaR approach. European Journal of Operational Research,203(1), 185–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iman, R. L., & Conover, W. J. (1982). A distribution-free approach to inducing rank correlation among input variables. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation,11(3), 311–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inzunza, A., Moreno, R., Bernales, A., & Rudnick, H. (2016). CVaR constrained planning of renewable generation with consideration of system inertial response, reserve services and demand participation. Energy Economics,59, 104–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laguna, M. (1997). Optimization of complex systems with OptQuest. A White Paper from OptTek Systems, Inc.

  • Liesiö, J., Mild, P., & Salo, A. (2007). Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection. European Journal of Operational Research,181(3), 1488–1505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., & Liu, Y. K. (2017). Distributionally robust fuzzy project portfolio optimization problem with interactive returns. Applied Soft Computing,56, 655–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, Y. G., & de Almeida, A. T. (2015). Assessment of synergies for selecting a project portfolio in the petroleum industry based on a multi-attribute utility function. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,126, 131–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinsuo, M. (2013). Project portfolio management in practice and in context. International Journal of Project Management,31(6), 794–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merzifonluoglu, Y. (2015). Risk averse supply portfolio selection with supply, demand and spot market volatility. Omega,57, 40–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meskendahl, S. (2010). The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success—A conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management,28(8), 807–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, D. T., & Le, L. B. (2015). Risk-constrained profit maximization for microgrid aggregators with demand response. IEEE Transactions on smart grid,6(1), 135–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogryczak, W., & Ruszczynski, A. (2002). Dual stochastic dominance and related mean-risk models. SIAM Journal on Optimization,13(1), 60–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palisade corporation. (2010). Guide to using RISKOptimizer simulation optimization for microsoft excel. http://www.palisade.com/riskoptimizer/. Accessed 21 June 2018.

  • Perez, F., & Gomez, T. (2016). Multiobjective project portfolio selection with fuzzy constraints. Annals of Operations Research,245(1–2), 7–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pflug, G. C. (2000). Some remarks on the value-at-risk and the conditional value-at-risk. In S. P. Uryasev (Ed.), Probabilistic constrained optimization (pp. 272–281). Boston, MA: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pourahmadi, K., Nouri, S., & Yaghoubi, S. (2015). A scenario based project portfolio selection. Management Science Letters,5(9), 883–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabbani, M., Bajestani, M. A., & Khoshkhou, G. B. (2010). A multi-objective particle swarm optimization for project selection problem. Expert Systems with Applications,37(1), 315–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockafellar, R. T., & Uryasev, S. (2002). Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions. Journal of Banking & Finance,26(7), 1443–1471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockafellar, R. T., Uryasev, S., & Zabarankin, M. (2006). Master funds in portfolio analysis with general deviation measures. Journal of Banking & Finance,30(2), 743–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawik, T. (2013). Selection of resilient supply portfolio under disruption risks. Omega,41(2), 259–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawik, T. (2014). Joint supplier selection and scheduling of customer orders under disruption risks: Single vs. dual sourcing. Omega,43, 83–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakhsi-Niaei, M., Torabi, S. A., & Iranmanesh, S. H. (2011). A comprehensive framework for project selection problem under uncertainty and real-world constraints. Computers & Industrial Engineering,61(1), 226–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenhar, A. J., Poli, M., & Lechler, T. (2000). A new framework for strategic project management. Management of Technology VIII, University of Miami, Miami, FL.

  • Solak, S., Clarke, J. P. B., Johnson, E. L., & Barnes, E. R. (2010). Optimization of R&D project portfolios under endogenous uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research,207(1), 420–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vilkkumaa, E., Liesiö, J., & Salo, A. (2014). Optimal strategies for selecting project portfolios using uncertain value estimates. European Journal of Operational Research,233(3), 772–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizing product development: quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, F., Song, S., Huang, W., & Xia, Q. (2015). SMAA-PO: Project portfolio optimization problems based on stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. Annals of Operations Research,233(1), 535–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao, H., Li, Z., & Lai, Y. (2013). Mean–CVaR portfolio selection: A nonparametric estimation framework. Computers & Operations Research,40(4), 1014–1022.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, L., Wang, S., Wen, F., & Lai, K. K. (2012). Genetic algorithm-based multi-criteria project portfolio selection. Annals of Operations Research,197(1), 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Management Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834008, India

    Vijaya Dixit

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal, 721302, India

    Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Authors
  1. Vijaya Dixit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manoj Kumar Tiwari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vijaya Dixit.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dixit, V., Tiwari, M.K. Project portfolio selection and scheduling optimization based on risk measure: a conditional value at risk approach. Ann Oper Res 285, 9–33 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03214-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03214-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation