nep-ppm New Economics Papers
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management
Issue of 2010‒05‒22
five papers chosen by
Arvi Kuura
Parnu College - Tartu University

  1. Nuevos y viejos criterios de rentabilidad que concuerdan con el criterio del Valor Actual Neto By Joan Pasqual Rocabert; Emilio Padilla Rosa
  2. Discourses of Implementing Information Systems in Corporate Merger: A Case Study from the Food Exporting Industry By Alm, Kristian; Engelseth, Per; Karlsen, Annike
  3. On the Impact Assessment of ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) Projects By Spriggs, John; Farquharson, Bob; Martin, Bob
  4. Practical and Theoretical Underpinnings of INFFER (Investment Framework For Environmental Resources) By Pannell, David J.; Roberts, Anna M.; Park, Geoff; Curatolo, April; Marsh, Sally P.
  5. Lessons from implementing INFFER with regional catchment management organisations By Marsh, Sally P.; Curatolo, April; Pannell, David J.; Park, Geoff; Roberts, Anna M.

  1. By: Joan Pasqual Rocabert (Departament d'Economia Aplicada, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona); Emilio Padilla Rosa (Departament d'Economia Aplicada, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona)
    Abstract: El análisis de criterios clásicos de rentabilidad, como la Tasa Interna de Rendimiento o el Cociente Beneficio/Coste, revela que, contra lo que se suponía, concuerdan con el criterio Valor Actual Neto si se aplican correctamente. Lo mismo ocurre con los viejos criterios Valor Final Neto y Anualidad Equivalente y los nuevos Demora Máxima de Beneficios y Plazo de Recuperación de Costes. Se demuestra, además, que para elegir entre dos proyectos mutuamente excluyentes, la aplicación de los criterios citados al proyecto diferencia o incremental es una condición suficiente para que exista concordancia con el criterio Valor Actual Neto.
    Keywords: Equivalent Annuity, Benefit-Cost Ratio, Maximum Delay of Benefits, Project appraisal, Cost Recovery Period, Difference Project, Internal Rate of Return, Net Present Value, Net Final Value.
    JEL: D92 Q28
    Date: 2010–05
  2. By: Alm, Kristian; Engelseth, Per; Karlsen, Annike
    Abstract: In 2007 five different industrial food producers merged to become one single firm. This paper places focus on the challenge these actors had in deciding on, implementing, and using an information system to support mainly their raw material purchasing and finished product sales function. Studies show that a large part of information system implementation failures are related to insufficient alignment between various aspects or parts of an organization and the new technology (Miller 2001, Wognum 2004). A report of a working group from The Royal Academy of Engineering and The British Computer Society concerning the challenges of complex IT project (RAEng, 2004) supports this view stating that the most pressing problems are related to the human aspect of processes involved in these kinds of projects, and that further developments in methods and tools to support the design and delivery of such projects could help to raise success rates. Among key findings of this study were: ⢠The levels of professionalism observed in software engineering are generally lower than those in other branches of engineering, although there are exceptions ⢠Senior managers are often ill qualified to handle issues relating to complex IT projects ⢠The importance of project management is not well understood and usually underrated ⢠The vital role of the systems architects in major IT projects is frequently not appreciated and there is a shortage of appropriately skilled individuals ⢠Basic research into complexity and associated issues is required to enable the effective development of complex, globally distributed systems
    Keywords: Agribusiness, Agricultural and Food Policy, Farm Management, Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies, Risk and Uncertainty,
    Date: 2009–10
  3. By: Spriggs, John; Farquharson, Bob; Martin, Bob
    Abstract: The current ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) guidelines for impact assessment of agricultural development projects see impact assessment as being useful for both accountability to stakeholders and as a learning tool to find out what works, what doesnât work and why. The methodology involves the use of conventional economic evaluation and the estimation of a money metric based on measuring outcomes in terms of economic surplus changes attributable to directed actions and activities. On the question of accountability to stakeholders, this paper suggests that the money metric may not be the best outcomes-based measure of performance against development goals and that other performance indicators ought to be considered. The paper also suggests exploring other approaches to assess accountability including qualitative (narrative) methods as well as process-based accountability. On the question of using impact assessment as a learning tool, the paper suggests this might be quite useful for more traditional non-adaptive research, but is less useful for adaptive research projects involving participatory action research (PAR). With PAR projects, learning about what works, what doesnât work and why already occurs as an integral part of the research process. The paper concludes with some thoughts about project evaluation of an ACIAR-funded project with which the authors are involved in northwest Cambodia focusing on upland crop production and marketing.
    Keywords: Project evaluation, impact assessment, adaptive project management, Cambodia., Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,
    Date: 2010
  4. By: Pannell, David J.; Roberts, Anna M.; Park, Geoff; Curatolo, April; Marsh, Sally P.
    Abstract: INFFER (Investment Framework for Environmental Resources) was developed to help investors of public funds to improve the delivery of outcomes from environmental programs. It assists environmental managers to design projects, to select delivery mechanisms, and to rank competing projects on the basis of benefits and costs. The design of INFFER and the activities of the INFFER projects are based on extensive experience of working with environmental managers and policy makers. This experience has highlighted a number of important practical lessons, that have strongly influenced the design and implementation of INFFER. These lessons include the need for simplicity, training and support of users, trusting relationships with users, transparency, flexibility, compatibility with the needs and contexts of users, and supportive institutional arrangements. In additions, the developers have paid close attention to the need for processes that are theoretically rigorous, resulting in a tool that deals appropriately and consistently with projects for different assets types, of different scales and durations, consistent with Benefit: Cost Analysis. The paper outlines theoretical considerations underpinning the way that INFFER deals with asset valuation, time lags, uncertainty, and the design of the metric used to rank projects.
    Keywords: Environmental Economics and Policy,
    Date: 2010
  5. By: Marsh, Sally P.; Curatolo, April; Pannell, David J.; Park, Geoff; Roberts, Anna M.
    Abstract: Investment in natural resource management (NRM) by regional organisations in Australia has been widely criticised for failing to achieve substantial environmental outcomes. The Investment Framework for Environmental Resources (INFFER) is a tool for developing and prioritising projects to address environmental issues such as water quality and biodiversity decline, environmental pest impacts and land degradation. It aims to achieve the most valuable environmental outcomes with the available resources. During 2008 and 2009 INFFER has been implemented with a number of catchment management organisations (CMOs) throughout Australia. In this paper, we report on lessons from and implications of this experience. Data on implementation were collected in formal and informal ways from staff of organisations that were using INFFER and state agencies, including: an on-line survey, benchmarking questions at training workshops, a formal on-going monitoring and evaluation process tracking the use of INFFER by CMOs, and comments made in correspondence and informal feedback to the INFFER team. In this paper we describe issues that arise when implementing INFFER with regions and organisations, and how the INFFER team has attempted to address these. Key issues include a desire to consider the community as an asset and emphasise capacity building, a rejection of the need for targeted investment, and various difficulties associated with specific aspects of the Framework. Existing institutional arrangements, and the legacy of past institutional arrangements, remain serious barriers to the adoption of methods to improve environmental outcomes from NRM investment. A lack of rigour in investment planning has become accepted as the norm, and resistance to processes to improve rigour is common. However, many CMOs want to achieve better environmental outcomes with their limited funds, and we report on our efforts to work with them to achieve this by using INFFER.
    Keywords: Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,
    Date: 2010

This nep-ppm issue is ©2010 by Arvi Kuura. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.