|
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management |
| By: | Concetta Sorropago (University of Roma "Tor vergata", Italy) |
| Abstract: | We present a simplified model to provide a virtual laboratory to test the effects of the use of different performance evaluation measures to design manager’s incentives in a project-based professional service organization. Our company’s owner has to cope with the scheduling of multiple resource constraint projects in real time (RCMPSP), and with the design of the production manager incentive, whose variable wage is tied to some measures of the performance, which are proxies of the original owner’s goal. We propose an agent based model approach where the agents’ intelligence lies in the choice of the scheduling sequences. A discrete event simulator (DES) executes the projects, allocating in real time, the limited resources available. A Genetic Algorithm, evolving the sequence, randomly generated, uses the DES to simulate the effect and ranks the solutions. In this way, we investigate the incentive alignment problem as a resource allocation problem, comparing the results deriving from their respective "good solutions". |
| Keywords: | Complex System Dynamics, Resource constrained multi project scheduling, Incentive Design, Performance Evaluation Measures, Genetic Algorithm |
| JEL: | C63 D23 L2 M12 |
| Date: | 2012–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tur:wpapnw:8&r=ppm |
| By: | Daniel Monte (Department of Economics and Business, Aarhus University, Denmark); Norovsambuu Tumennasan (Department of Economics and Business, Aarhus University, Denmark) |
| Abstract: | We study the problem of allocating workers to different projects in which each project requires having a minimum number of workers assigned to it or else it does not open. We show that the well-known serial dictatorship mechanism is neither strategy-proof nor Pareto ecient. Thus, we propose an algorithm, denoted as the serial dictatorship with project closures, which is strategy-proof and also Pareto efficient over the set of all feasible allocations. |
| Keywords: | matching, stability, efficiency, serial dictatorship |
| JEL: | C78 D61 D78 I20 |
| Date: | 2012–05–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:aah:aarhec:2012-10&r=ppm |
| By: | Nancy McCarthy; Paul Winters; Ana María Linares; Timothy Essam |
| Abstract: | Determining reasonable indicators for climate change projects is complicated by the long-term horizon of both mitigation and adaptation project impacts as well as the uncertainty associated with climate change impacts. Actions taken now are often designed to have an impact in the uncertain and distant future and may not directly mitigate or adapt to climate change, but be taken as a step to prepare for future actions. Further complicating identification of indicators is the fact that there is a spectrum of projects, from the pure climate change-focused projects to those that provide climate change benefits as one part of an overall development program, and finally to those with only incidental indirect effects. The objective of this document is to discuss SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely) indicators that can be used for assessing the impact of climate change projects, including those that seek to adapt to the expected impacts of climate change and those that promote low carbon emissions growth strategies to mitigate greenhouse gases. |
| Keywords: | Environment & Natural Resources :: Biodiversity & Natural Resources Management, Environment & Natural Resources :: Climate Change, impact evaluation guidelines |
| JEL: | H43 Q54 Q56 |
| Date: | 2012–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:idb:brikps:67878&r=ppm |
| By: | Mauro Pisu; Peter Hoeller; Isabelle Joumard |
| Abstract: | Three main approaches can be used to assess infrastructure performance. The first employs macro-econometric techniques to estimate the impact of the existing infrastructure capital stock on growth and to infer its growth-maximising level. This approach neglects the impact of infrastructure on some dimensions of social welfare, such as pollution. The second relies on ex-ante or ex-post cost-benefit analyses of infrastructure projects. These take into account desirable and undesirable outcomes and provide thus a welfare perspective, but this approach would not allow comparing the performance of the existing infrastructure stock. A third approach aims at benchmarking the social efficiency of infrastructure service provision based on the existing capital stock taking into account positive and negative externalities. This paper analyses the challenges in implementing these approaches.<P>Options pour évaluer la performance des infrastructures<BR>Trois types de méthodes peuvent être utilisés pour évaluer la performance des infrastructures. Le premier suppose la mise en oeuvre de techniques macro-économétriques permettant d’estimer l’impact du stock d’infrastructures existant sur la croissance pour en déduire son potentiel de maximisation de la croissance. Cette méthode ne prend pas en compte l’impact des infrastructures sur certains aspects du bien-être social, la pollution par exemple. Le deuxième repose sur des analyses coûts-avantages des projets d’infrastructures effectuées a priori ou a posteriori. Cette méthode permet de prendre en compte les externalités souhaitables aussi bien que non souhaitables des projets et permet donc de se placer dans la perspective du bien-être, mais cette méthode ne permet pas de comparer les performances des stocks d’infrastructures existants. Enfin, il existe une troisième méthode qui vise à étalonner l’efficience sociale de la prestation de services à partir du stock existant tout en prenant en compte les externalités positives et négatives. Les difficultés inhérentes à la mise en oeuvre de ces trois méthodes sont examinées dans ce document de travail. |
| Keywords: | efficiency, infrastructure, cost-benefit analysis, infrastructure, efficacité, analyse couts-bénéfices |
| JEL: | D61 D62 H41 H54 |
| Date: | 2012–04–27 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oec:ecoaaa:956-en&r=ppm |
| By: | Alexandra den Heijer |
| Abstract: | Managing contemporary campuses and taking decisions that will impact on those of tomorrow is a complex task for universities worldwide. It involves strategic, financial, functional and physical aspects as well as multiple stakeholders. This article summarises the conclusions of a comprehensive PhD research project which was enriched with lessons learned in the aftermath of a fire which destroyed the author's workplace. The replacement building allowed her to put her theories and concepts into practice. |
| Keywords: | performance indicators, campus management, information system, strategic choice |
| Date: | 2012–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oec:eduaac:2012/2-en&r=ppm |