|
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management |
| By: | Mark Armstrong; John Vickers |
| Abstract: | We present a model in which a principal delegates the choice of project to an agent with different preferences. A project`s characteristics are verifiable once presented to the principal, but the principal does not know how many projects are available to the agent. The principal chooses the set of projects which the agent can implement. Three frameworks are considered: (i) a static setting in which the set of available projects is exogenous to the agent but uncertain; (ii) a dynamic setting in which by expending effort the agent can affect the number of projects, and (iii) a dynamic setting in which the agent must wait for projects to materialize. The model is applied to the choice of welfare standard for merger policy. |
| Keywords: | Delegation, Principal-Agent, Search, Merger Policy |
| JEL: | D82 D83 L4 |
| Date: | 2007 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oxf:wpaper:347&r=ppm |
| By: | Jing Gao (Département des sciences administratives, Université du Québec (Outaouais)) |
| Abstract: | In this paper, a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis is implemented for the project of Yueyang-Zhuzhou Oil Product Pipeline, considering all members of society as whole. We focus on the social welfare aspects of the project as well as the project's risk resistance capacity. |
| Keywords: | Project management, Cost-benefit analysis |
| JEL: | M |
| Date: | 2007–09–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pqs:wpaper:032007&r=ppm |
| By: | André de Palma (THEMA,University of Cergy-Pontoise,and ENPC); Nathalie Picard (THEMA,University of Cergy-Pontoise,and INED); Laetitia Andrieu (ENPC) |
| Abstract: | We discuss how the standard Cost-Benefit Analysis should be modified in order to take risk (and uncertainty) into account. We propose different approaches used in finance (Value at Risk, Conditional Value at Risk, Downside Risk Measures, and Efficiency Ratio) as useful tools to model the impact of risk in project evaluation. After introducing the concepts, we show how they could be used in CBA and provide some simple examples to illustrate how such concepts can be applied to evaluate the desirability of a new project infrastructure. |
| Keywords: | Cost-Benefit Analysis, Risk, transportation, large project, Value at Risk, Conditional Value at Risk. |
| Date: | 2007 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ema:worpap:2007-22&r=ppm |
| By: | Kenny, Charles |
| Abstract: | Governance is central to development outcomes in infrastructure, not least because corruption (a symptom of failed governance) can have significantly negative impact on returns to infrastructure investment. This conclusion holds whether infrastructure is in private or public hands. This paper looks at what has been learned about the role of governance in infrastructure, provides some recent examples of reform efforts and project approaches, and suggests an agenda for greater engagement - primarily at the sector level - to improve governance and reduce the development impact of corruption. The discussion covers market structure, regulation, state-owned enterprise reform, planning and budgeting, and project design. |
| Keywords: | Banks & Banking Reform,Public Sector Corruption & Anticorruption Measures,National Governance,Governance Indicators,Transport Economics Policy & Planning |
| Date: | 2007–08–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:4331&r=ppm |
| By: | Rebeggiani, Luca; Witte, Sebastian |
| Abstract: | Hosting the 2006 FIFA World Championship induced a boom in stadium investments in Germany. A second wave of smaller arena constructions can currently be observed across the country. These projects are promoted by smaller clubs of the first and the second Bundesliga, aiming not to fall behind the top clubs. The present paper gives an overview over recent financing models for large stadiums and then focuses on the special case of middle-size arenas. |
| Keywords: | Sportökonomie, Stadionbau, Kommunale Investitionen, sports facilities |
| JEL: | G31 H82 L83 |
| Date: | 2007–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:han:dpaper:dp-374&r=ppm |
| By: | Melin, Göran (SISTER and CESIS) |
| Abstract: | Two programmes regarding research funding are investigated with respect to their evaluation processes. One programme targets individuals and the other centers of excellence. The study attempts to disclose some of the features of the selection procedures and the aim is to contribute with further understanding of the mechanisms in such selection processes, which lead to disproportionate disapproval of female applicants. The use of intuitive or reasoning evaluation methods, together with quantitatively measureable or additive methods, is found to be critical for female applicants. When funding organizations try to advance their evaluation procedures and involve more of reasoning evaluation, there is a risk that other than established main stream projects fail, including applications by women. The paper ends by proposing a hypothesis which may serve as a starting point for further empirical studies. |
| Keywords: | gender; research evaluation; peer review; women in science; funding programmes |
| JEL: | Z13 |
| Date: | 2007–09–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:cesisp:0097&r=ppm |