nep-ppm New Economics Papers
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management
Issue of 2010‒12‒23
five papers chosen by
Arvi Kuura
Parnu College - Tartu University

  1. Depreciation Classes, Return on Investment and Economic Profitability By Carlo Alberto Magni
  2. Do the selected Trans European transport investments pass the Cost Benefit test? By Stef PROOST; Fay DUNKERLEY; Saskia VAN DER LOO; Nicole ADLER; Johannes BRÖCKER; Artem KORZHENEVYCH
  3. Stability and Fairness in Models with a Multiple Membership By Michel Le Breton; Juan D. Moreno-Ternero; Alexei Savvateev; Shlomo Weber
  5. Virtual R&D Teams: A potential growth of education-industry collaboration By Ale Ebrahim, Nader; Ahmed, Shamsuddin; Abdul Rashid, Salwa Hanim; Taha, Zahari

  1. By: Carlo Alberto Magni
    Abstract: This paper aims to provide a foundation for the notion of economic rate of return and investigate its relations with accounting rates of return. Introducing the notion of depreciation class (the set of depreciation schedules with the same aggregate book value) it is shown that the mean of the Return On Investments (ROI) determined by the project’s depreciation class (weighted by book values) captures the project’s economic profitability. Such a rate of return spans a space of infinitely many economic rates of return: each of them is an average ROI resulting from a well-specified depreciation class. Any project’s IRR is itself a mean of (generally non-constant) ROIs generated by an idealized (neutral) depreciation class. As a result, a project is not uniquely associated with one economic return rate; rather, it is uniquely associated with one economic return function, which maps depreciation classes into economic rates of return. Among them, the project’s average ROI should be regarded as the basic economic rate of return, since it always exists and is unique.
    Date: 2010–12–14
    Abstract: This paper assesses the economic justification for the selection of priority projects defined under the auspices of the Trans-European transport network. In analyzing the current list of 30 priority projects, we apply three different transport models to undertake a cost-benefit comparison. We find that many projects do not pass the cost-benefit test and only a few of the economically justifiable projects would need European subsidies to make them happen. Two remedies are proposed to minimize the inefficiencies in future project selection. The first remedy obliges each member state or group of states to perform a cost-benefit analysis (followed by a peer review) and to make the results public prior to ranking priority projects. The second remedy would require federal funding to be available only for projects with important spillovers to other countries, in order to avoid pork barrel behaviour.
    Keywords: transport infrastructure, cost benefit analysis, Europe Union
    JEL: R42 H11 H54
    Date: 2010–01
  3. By: Michel Le Breton (Universit de Toulouse 1, GREMAQ and IDEI, Toulouse, France); Juan D. Moreno-Ternero (U. de Mlaga, U. Pablo de Olavide y CORE, Universit catholique de Louvain); Alexei Savvateev (New Economic School, Moscow, Russia); Shlomo Weber (Southern Methodist University, USA, and the New Economic School, Moscow, Russia)
    Abstract: This article studies a model of coalition formation for the joint production (and finance) of public projects, in which agents may belong to multiple coalitions. We show that, if projects are divisible, there always exists a stable (secession-proof) structure, i.e., a structure in which no coalition would reject a proposed arrangement. When projects are indivisible, stable allocations may fail to exist and, for those cases, we resort to the least core in order to estimate the degree of instability. We also examine the compatibility of stability and fairness in metric environments with indivisible projects, where we also explore the performance of well-known solutions, such as the Shapley value and the nucleolus.
    Keywords: Stability, Fairness, Membership, Coalition Formation
    JEL: C71
    Date: 2010–12
  4. By: Gilliane LEFEBVRE (Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense); Blandine LAPERCHE (labrii, ULCO)
    Abstract: Quelle est la place et le rôle joué par les petites entreprises dans la constitution du capital-savoir des groupes, c'est-à-dire l’ensemble des informations et connaissances qu’ils mobilisent pour innover ? Quelles formes prend la collaboration entre groupes industriels et petites entreprises innovantes ? Dans cet article, les auteures étudient ces questions sur la base d’une revue de la littérature et des résultats d’une enquête menée au cours de l’année 2009 et 2010 sur le capital-savoir des groupes industriels (Langlet et al., 2010). Elles étudient la constitution collaborative du capital-savoir ainsi que les formes et objectifs de la collaboration selon le type de partenaire associé au groupe industriel (recherche académique, clients et fournisseurs, concurrents et petites entreprises). Elles mettent l’accent sur les formes de collaborations actuelles entre petites entreprises innovantes et groupes industriels et montrent que cette coopération prend largement appui en France sur les dispositifs publics d’incitation à la création de réseaux d’innovation. What is the place and the role played by small businesses in the constitution of the knowledge capital of industrial groups, that is to say the set of information and knowledge that they gather to innovate? What form does the cooperation between industrial groups and small innovative companies take? In this article, the authors study these issues on the basis of review of literature and on the results of a survey conducted during 2009 and 2010 on the knowledge-capital of industrial groups (Langlet et al., 2010). They study the open strategy developed by industrial groups to develop their knowledge-capital and the forms and objectives of the collaboration according to the partner associated to the industrial group (academic research, customers and suppliers, competitors and small businesses). They focus on current forms of collaboration between small innovative companies and industrial groups and show that such cooperation is widely supported in France on the public provision of incentives for the creation of innovation networks.
    Keywords: small businesses - industrial groups - innovation - groupes industriels - petites entreprises
    JEL: M21 M51
    Date: 2010–11
  5. By: Ale Ebrahim, Nader; Ahmed, Shamsuddin; Abdul Rashid, Salwa Hanim; Taha, Zahari
    Abstract: In this paper, we present our more than two years research experiences on virtual R&D teams in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and draws conclusions, giving special attention to the structure of virtual teams required to support education-industry collaboration. We report the relevant results of an online survey study. The online questionnaire was emailed by using a simple random sampling method to 947 manufacturing SMEs. The findings of this study show that SMEs in Malaysia and Iran are willing to use virtual teams for collaboration and the platform for industry-education collaboration is ready and distance between team members or differences in time zones, are not barriers to industry-education collaborations.
    Keywords: Collaboration; virtual teams; SMEs; Education
    JEL: M12 O32 A2 L17 L1 O1 M11 M1 L15 O3
    Date: 2010–06

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.