Location of Repository

Project selection under risk with contingent portfolio programming

By Michael Wilhelm

Abstract

Die vorliegende Diplomarbeit prüft die praktische Anwendbarkeit des Modells „contingent portfolio programming for the management of risky projects“ von Gustavsson und Salo (2005) in einem Fonds- und Asset Management Unternehmen.\ud Im ersten Teil der Arbeit wird das Modell selbst beschrieben, im weiteren werden die Rahmenbedingungen, die für eine Einführung in einem Unternehmen erforderlich sind, näher beleuchtet. Diese Voraussetzungen werden dabei aus der Theorie „Planung und Kontrolle“ in der Forschung und Entwicklung, vgl Brockhoff (1999), aus COBIT 4.1 (2007) und Val IT (2006) und aus einer Anleitung zur Implementierung Portfolio Management, vgl. Cf. Kendall und Rollins (2003) abgeleitet. \ud Anschließend wird das Unternehmen vorgestellt. Der Schwerpunkt liegt hierbei auf dem Reifegrad der Planungszyklen und der aktuellen Entscheidungsprozesse. Im Speziellen wird zwischen strategischen, operativen und taktischen Zyklen der Planung unterschieden.\ud Die notwendigen Änderungen im Unternehmen werden identifiziert und die Rahmenbedingungen für die Anwendung des Modells erarbeitet. Hierfür wird ein Investmentfokus definiert, Ressourcen werden zur Verfügung gestellt und es wird eine Liste von Projekten zur Bewertung erarbeitet. Diese Projekte werden kurz analysiert, um eine Kosten- und Ertragsschätzung zu erlangen.\ud Durch Management Interviews werden die notwendigen Input Parameter ausarbeitet.\ud Die tatsächliche Umsetzung des Modells erfolgt in Open Office. Es wird eine detaillierte Sensitivitätsanalyse durchgeführt in der die Auswirkungen von Änderungen der Input Parameter auf die Project Portfolio Entscheidungen evaluiert wird.\ud Des Weiteren werden die möglichen Erweiterungen des Modells, des Unternehmens und der Software besprochen.\ud Abschließend wird die praktische Anwendbarkeit und die Voraussetzungen dazu erörtert.\ud Brockhoff, K., Forschung und Entwicklung: Planung und Kontrolle, 4. Aufl., R. Oldenbourg, München 1999.\ud COBIT 4.1, The IT Governance Institute; Rolling Meadows, Illinois 2007.\ud Gustafsson, Janne; Salo, Athi; Contingent portfolio programming for the management of risky projects, Operations Research 53, 946-956; 2005.\ud Kendall, Gerald, I. and Rollins, Steven, C.; Advanced Project Portfolio Management and the PMO – Multiplying ROI at Warp Speed, J. Ross Publishing; Boca Raton, Florida 2003.\ud VAL IT (IT Value Delivery), The IT Governance Institute; Rolling Meadows, Illinois 2006\udThe working assumption for this paper was to prove the following thesis:\ud The model described in “contingent portfolio programming for the management of risky projects”, cf. Gustafsson and Salo, Operations Research (2005) is able to support project portfolio decision making process of an international funds management company.\ud The first step was to analyse and explain the theoretical model and its components. \ud Later, three different approaches were used to elaborate how the portfolio decision model fits into a company's management processes. The chosen views were a Research & Development Planning approach explained in Brockhoff (1999), COBIT 4.1 (2007) and Val IT (2006) as a framework, which helps to align business targets and (IT) investments and a Project Portfolio Office implementation guideline cf. Kendall and Rollins (2003). The three methods were analysed and the required parts for the implementation were explained. \ud As the next step, the example company was introduced. The focus was on the existing processes and company culture, which determines how decisions on the project portfolio are taken.\ud Finally, the gaps between the frameworks analysed in Chapter 3 and the company's current situation were elaborated.\ud Based on the gaps, the missing factors were defined and the required parameters elaborated.\ud The biggest uncertainties in the strategic planning were driven by the current financial crisis, which does not support long term planning processes, and by new regulatory requirements, which result in projects consuming more resources.\ud As operational planning had to be derived from strategic planning, changing targets influenced and changed the assumptions, especially if targets were changed on the resource side, but also if they were changed on the revenue side.\ud In the tactical planning, enormous differences in bottom up requirements and available resources lead to several rounds of prioritisation.\ud In Chapter 6, the model was developed, the decision tree was built, and all the parameters, equations and functions were described.\ud At the next step, the practical application of the model was developed. The model was applied in open office 3.3.1. \ud Chapter 7 describes the sensitivity analysis. By changing the input parameters the sensitivity on the portfolio decisions was analysed and.\ud Preconditions to support the application of the model within a company are:\ud Continuously update the planning information. Ensure that all levels, strategic-, operational- and tactical planning are synchronised.\ud Implement a project portfolio management office, which controls all of the resource consuming activities within the company.\ud Because of the complexity of developing and the effort required in maintaining such applications, it is important that a dedicated line function is established within the company.\ud To ensure comparability between the projects all projects of the sample must have the same life cycle in terms of initial development, external dependencies, re-investment and project finalisation. This is quite unusual in a real environment. \ud The result of the analysis showed that, in general, the model can support the decision making process within a funds- and asset management company. \ud The standardisation of the decisions points, which leads to a standardisation of project decisions and project execution time frame, is the element that differs most from practice. The rest of the findings, which are mainly requirements needed to implement the application, are more general than model specific and derived during the implementation of a project portfolio management within the company.\ud \ud Brockhoff, K., Forschung und Entwicklung: Planung und Kontrolle, 4. Aufl., R. Oldenbourg, München 1999.\ud COBIT 4.1, The IT Governance Institute; Rolling Meadows, Illinois 2007.\ud Gustafsson, Janne; Salo, Athi; Contingent portfolio programming for the management of risky projects, Operations Research 53, 946-956; 2005.\ud Kendall, Gerald, I. and Rollins, Steven, C.; Advanced Project Portfolio Management and the PMO – Multiplying ROI at Warp Speed, J. Ross Publishing; Boca Raton, Florida 2003.\ud VAL IT (IT Value Delivery), The IT Governance Institute; Rolling Meadows, Illinois 2006\u

Topics: 85.15 Forschung und Entwicklung, Projekt Auswahl / Risiko / Asset Management / strategische Planung / operative Planung / taktische Planung, project selection under risk / asset management / strategic planning / operational planning / tactical planning
Year: 2012
OAI identifier: oai:othes.univie.ac.at:20593
Provided by: OTHES

Suggested articles

Preview


To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.