Prospect Theory-based Real Options Analysis for Noncommercial Assets

When an engineering system has the ability to change or adapt based on a future choice, then flexibility can become an important component of that system’s total value. However, evaluating noncommercial flexible systems, like those in the defense sector, presents many challenges because of their dynamic nature. Designers intuitively understand the importance of flexibility to hedge against uncertainties. In the naval domain, however, they often do not have the tools needed for analysis. Thus, decisions often rely on engineering experience. As the dynamic nature of missions and new technological opportunities push the limits of current experience, a more rigorous approach is needed. This paper describes a novel framework for evaluating flexibility in noncommercial engineering systems called prospect theory-based real options analysis (PB-ROA). While this research is motivated by the unique needs of the U.S. Navy ship design community, the framework abstracts the principles of real options analysis to suit noncommercial assets that do not generate cash flows. One contribution of PB-ROA is a systematic method for adjusting agent decisions according to their risk tolerances. The paper demonstrates how the potential for loss can dramatically affect decision making through a simplified case study of a multimission variant of a theoretical high-speed connector vessel.

[1]  Philip C. Koenig,et al.  Ship Service Life and Naval Force Structure , 2009 .

[2]  Walter Schachermayer,et al.  ON UTILITY‐BASED PRICING OF CONTINGENT CLAIMS IN INCOMPLETE MARKETS , 2005 .

[3]  H. Bleichrodt,et al.  A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory , 2008 .

[4]  Philip C. Koenig Real Options in Ship and Force Structure Analysis: A Research Agenda , 2009 .

[5]  Y. Ben-Haim Information-gap decision theory : decisions under severe uncertainty , 2001 .

[6]  Kevin Otto,et al.  Options‐Based Multi‐Objective Evaluation of Product Platforms , 2007 .

[7]  Han T. J. Smit,et al.  Infrastructure Investment as a Real Options Game: The Case of European Airport Expansion , 2003 .

[8]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[9]  Han T. J. Smit,et al.  A real options and game-theoretic approach to corporate investment strategy under competition , 1993 .

[10]  Philip C. Koenig,et al.  Synthesis and analysis of future naval fleets , 2008 .

[11]  E. Fama EFFICIENT CAPITAL MARKETS: A REVIEW OF THEORY AND EMPIRICAL WORK* , 1970 .

[12]  Giovanni Villani,et al.  An R&D Investment Game under Uncertainty in Real Option Analysis , 2008 .

[13]  Jyh-Cheng Yu,et al.  Design for Robustness Based on Manufacturing Variation Patterns , 1998 .

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[15]  Ismael Fernandez Martin,et al.  Valuation of design adaptability in aerospace systems , 2008 .

[16]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

[17]  Jeffrey J. Reuer,et al.  Earnouts in mergers and acquisitions: A game-theoretic option pricing approach , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[18]  M. Abdellaoui Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions , 2000 .

[19]  Clifford A. Whitcomb Naval ship design philosophy implementation , 1998 .

[20]  Jeffrey Allen Gregor Real options for naval ship design and acquisition : a method for valuing flexibility under uncertainty , 2003 .

[21]  Lenos Trigeorgis,et al.  Strategic Options and Games in Analysing Dynamic Technology Investments , 2007 .

[22]  Han T. J. Smit,et al.  Real options and games: Competition, alliances and other applications of valuation and strategy , 2006 .

[23]  K. McCardle,et al.  Arbitrage, rationality, and equilibrium , 1991 .

[24]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Designing systems for adaptability by means of architecture options , 2008 .

[25]  Jonathan Page Flexibility in Early Stage Design of U. S. Navy Ships: An Analysis of Options , 2012 .