How MCDM method minimizes the gap between portfolio planning and portfolio implementation
Keywords:
Portfolio formulation, Portfolio planning, portfolio development, Multi criteria decision masking, MCDM, Analytic hierarchy process, AHP, Power master-planAbstract
This paper presents a comparison between portfolio planning and portfolio implementation in Tanzania power sector and suggests a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method which can be considered as a balanced approach in minimizing discrepancy between portfolio planning and implementation. The research is chiefly developed based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach and the subsequent data collection and data analysis were tailored to suit this approach. An extensive literature review ranging from various scholar papers to corporate research reports is undertaken to establish the most relevant project appraisal criteria in Tanzania power industry. Total of 15 experts took part in the survey in which the survey findings were integrated into the literature review toward structuring the proposed MCDM framework. The analysis of findings suggest the following insights; (1) inadequate cross-stakeholders engagement at portfolio planning stage observed in Tanzania power sector which is largely due to the confined and quantitative portfolio planning method; (2) MCDM should be used as a complementary method toward integrating non-tangible/qualitative variables into other quantitative criteria at portfolio planning stage, which can mitigate the extent of deviation between portfolio planning and implementation; (3) It is crucial to employ MCMD as a decision support tool toward prioritizing major infrastructure projects at portfolio planning stage to ensure the consistency between portfolio planning and implementation.
References
Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22. doi:10.1177/2345678906290531
Christian, W., Hui, Z., & Kongkiti, P. (2014). International study of technology investment decisions at hospitals. Industrial Management & Data Systems, (4), 568. doi:10.1108/IMDS-10-2013-0422
Collis, J., & HUSSEY, R. (2003). Business research : A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students Houndmills, Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, 2003; 2nd ed. Retrieved from https://liverpool.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat00003a&AN=lvp.b2139992&site=eds-live&scope=site
Derakhshan, R., Turner, R., & Mancini, M. (2019). Project governance and stakeholders: A literature review. International Journal of Project Management, 37, 98-116. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.007
Forman, E., & Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process doi:https://doi-org.liverpool.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00244-0
Kemausuor, F., Obeng, G. Y., Brew-Hammond, A., & Duker, A. (2011). A review of trends, policies and plans for increasing energy access in ghana. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 5143-5154. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.041
Kostlan, E. (1991). Statiscal complexity of dominant eigenvector calculation. Journal of Complexity, , 371-379. doi:10.1016/0885-064X(91)90025-S
Malmqvist, P. -., & Palmquist, H. (2005). Decision support tools for urban water and wastewater systems -- focussing on hazardous flows assessment. Water Science & Technology, 51(8), 41-49. doi:10.2166/wst.2005.0221
Marcelo Gordillo, D., Mandri-Perrott, X. C., House, R. S., & Schwartz, J. (2016). Prioritizing infrastructure investment : A framework for government decision making. (Policy Research working paper No. WPS 7674). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.
MoE. (2016). The republic of tanzania, the power system master plan - 2016 update. (). Dar es Salaam: The Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Energy and Minerals.
MoF. (2016). National five year development plan 2016/17 - 2020/21. (). Online: Ministry of Finance and Planning.
Ossadnik, W., Schinke, S., & Kaspar, R. (2016). Group aggregation techniques for analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: A comparative analysis. Group Decision & Negotiation, 25(2), 421-457. doi:10.1007/s10726-015-9448-4
Patanakul, P. (2014). Managing large-scale IS/IT projects in the public sector: Problems and causes leading to poor performance. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 25, 21-35. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2013.12.004
Petrie, M. (2010). Promoting public sector investment efficiency; A synthesis of country experience. (Online). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Pohekar, S. D., & Ramachandran, M. (2004). Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—A review doi:https://doi-org.liverpool.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.rser.2003.12.007
Qi, H., & Liu, X. (2017). An empirical study on the impact of the scarcity factors on individual decision-making risk behaviors in emergency. Paper presented at the 2017 International Conference on Smart City and Systems Engineering (ICSCSE), Changsha, China. 55-57. doi:10.1109/ICSCSE.2017.21
Read, L., Madani, K., Mokhtari, S., & Hanks, C. (2017). Stakeholder-driven multi-attribute analysis for energy project selection under uncertainty doi:https://doi-org.liverpool.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.030
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research : A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers Oxford : Blackwell Publishers, 2002; 2nd ed. Retrieved from https://liverpool.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat00003a&AN=lvp.b1837238&site=eds-live&scope=site
Saaty, T. L. (2005). Theory and applications of the analytic network process: Decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks RWS Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=65N6FiNBMjEC
SAATY, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation New York : McGraw-Hill, 1980. Retrieved from https://liverpool.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat00003a&AN=lvp.b1118845&site=eds-live&scope=site
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. [electronic book] Harlow : Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2009; 5th ed. Retrieved from https://liverpool.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat00003a&AN=lvp.b2534209&site=eds-live&scope=site; https://liverpool.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9780273716938
Schaaf, R. E. V., DeLaurentis, D. A., & Abraham, D. M. (2008). Multi-objective optimization models for improved decision-support in humanitarian infrastructure project selection problems. United States: THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS.
Teknomo, K. (2017). Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) tutorial. Retrieved from https://people.revoledu.com/kardi/tutorial/AHP/
Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications doi:https://doi-org.liverpool.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
Vargas, R. V. (2010). Using the analytic hierarchy process (ahp) to select and prioritize projects in a portfolio. Paper presented at the
Wang, T., Wang, S., Zhang, L., Huang, Z., & Li, Y. (2016). A major infrastructure risk-assessment framework: Application to a cross-sea route project in china. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 1403-1415. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.12.006
Warner, A. M. (2014). Public investment as an engine of growth. (Online No. WP/14/148).International Monetary Fund.
West Churchman, C., Ackoff, R. L., & Smith, N. M. (1954). An approximate measure of value. Journal of the Operations Research Society of America, (2), 172.
Wiesenfelder, H. (2013). How can pareto analysis be used on surveys? Retrieved from https://www.brighthubpm.com/templates-forms/75631-using-pareto-analysis-on-surveys/
Zhai, L., Xin, Y., & Cheng, C. (2009). Understanding the value of project management from a stakeholder's perspective: Case study of mega-project management. Project Management Journal, 40(1), 99-109. doi:10.1002/pmj.20099
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Mostafa KERAMATIKERMAN
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
