EVALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR THE R&D PROJECT PORTFOLIO BY USING THE RISK ADJUSTED NET PRESENT VALUE - ONE CASE STUDY IN THE PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY.

Nowadays dedicated attention is devoted to intangible evaluation aspects, especially in intensive technological sectors, which are characterized by expressive R&D resources allocation and showing high uncertainties in the project development. The R&D projects can present diverse inovativeness degrees, each one with different projects development terms, technological intensities and complexities, and related uncertainties degrees. So, the current research and practices are concentrated in the adjustment of the traditional evaluation methodologies for the decision making process related to the portfolio management in those sectors, mainly in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and chemical industries. In this way, the literature presents some uncertainties factors, like the project complexity, the life cycle stage of the technology, the existence of internal knowledge and competencies regarding the technology, the risks involved and the project development terms. The study is based in one in-depth literature review in the technology management, financial methodologies and decision making theoretical streams, and evolves for one field case study carried out in one big petrochemical Brazilian company, which allocates expressive amounts of investments in R&D and uses specific methodology for evaluating the portfolio of projects management. So, the study is organized in three sections: in the first, it aims to verify in the literature the existent methodologies for the project portfolio management. In the second, are presented the evaluation methodologies for innovation projects. Finally, in the third section, one empirical case study is performed in the Brazilian petrochemical leader, by using in-depth interviews and secondary data analyses, aiming to verify in the business practice the methodologies are being used for portfolio management and R&D evaluation, and its observed limitations. Conclusions search similarities in the evaluation methodologies applied to the project portfolio management context, trying to establish recommendations for the company under investigation. As main findings, it is concluded that the traditional evaluation methodologies do not fit very well when applied to R&D projects, which show high associated uncertainties, and need to be adjusted for use. This adjustment is made through specific uncertainty aspects - the risk drivers, which will influence the conditional probabilities of technical and market success, leading to one more robust aggregated indicator, the adjusted net present value. Beyond the use of this improved methodology, it seems to be worth value grouping the projects in different innovation categories, as preconized by the Strategic Buckets methodology, in order of comparing projects only pertaining for the same category, enabling so the adherence of the technology strategy to the business strategy.

[1]  Robert G. Cooper,et al.  A process model for industrial new product development , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[2]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Product development performance : strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry / Kim B. Clark, Tahahiro Fujimoto , 1991 .

[3]  Steven C. Wheelwright,et al.  Managing New Product and Process Development: Text and Cases , 1992 .

[4]  Pierre Dussauge,et al.  Strategic Technology Management , 1992 .

[5]  Robert G. Cooper,et al.  Portfolio Management in New Product Development: Lessons from the Leaders-I , 1997 .

[6]  T. Keelin,et al.  How SmithKline Beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions. , 1998, Harvard business review.

[7]  Melissa A. Schilling,et al.  Managing the new product development process: Strategic imperatives , 1998 .

[8]  Hemantha S. B. Herath,et al.  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF R&D PROJECTS: AN OPTIONS APPROACH , 1999 .

[9]  Andrew William Brown,et al.  Measuring the effect of project management on construction outputs: a new approach , 2000 .

[10]  J. J. Stewart,et al.  Putting a price on biotechnology , 2001, Nature Biotechnology.

[11]  R. Müller,et al.  A Retrospective look at our Evolving Understanding of Project Success , 2005, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[12]  R. Müller,et al.  The Influence of Project Managers on Project Success Criteria and Project Success by Type of Project , 2007 .

[13]  Mark Winter,et al.  Directions for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network , 2006 .

[14]  D. Bryde Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on project success , 2008 .

[15]  Sascha Meskendahl The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success — A conceptual framework , 2010 .

[16]  Derek H.T. Walker,et al.  Looking again at current practice in project management , 2011 .

[17]  H. Gemünden,et al.  Enforcing strategic fit of project portfolios by project termination: An empirical study on senior management involvement , 2012 .

[18]  Kam Jugdev,et al.  Critical success factors in projects , 2012 .

[19]  Gilbert Fridgen,et al.  Improving Business Value Assurance in Large-Scale IT Projects—A Quantitative Method Based on Founded Requirements Assessment , 2014, ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[20]  M. Cortimiglia,et al.  An economic–probabilistic model for risk analysis in technological innovation projects , 2014 .

[21]  D. Lund,et al.  State participation and taxation in Norwegian petroleum: Lessons for others? , 2014 .

[22]  David A. Wood,et al.  Exponential utility functions aid upstream decision making , 2015 .

[23]  Björn Häckel,et al.  Integrated long- and short- term valuation of IT innovation investments , 2015, Electron. Mark..