Balancing the portfolio of urban and public projects with distance-dependent coverage facilities

Document Type : Article

Authors

Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

Abstract

The portfolio of urban and public projects should be balanced in terms of completion time, districts and strategic objectives. For this purpose, we suggest a mixed integer nonlinear programming model based on the goal programming approach. Projects are selected so as to minimize the squared deviation of urban and regional development indicators from their respective targets. In the proposed model there are two category of indicators: coverage indicators that are measured based on the distance of each neighborhood from the nearest covering facility, and general indicators that are usually measured based on the capacities and capabilities of each district. It is assumed that the location of covering facilities have already been selected, but the construction of these facilities will be prioritized and planned according to budget constraints and in competition with other regional development projects. Numerical results indicate superior performance of proposed genetic algorithm in comparison to GAMS solvers. Finally, the application of the model is illustrated by an example.

Keywords

References

References:
1. Office of Government Commerce. “Management of Portfolios”, The Stationery Office (2011). 
2. Fernandez, E., Lopez, E., Mazcorro, G., et al. “Application of the non-outranked sorting genetic algorithm to public project portfolio selection”, Information Sciences, 228, pp. 131-149 (2013).
3. Project Management Institute. “The Standard for Portfolio Management”, Third Edition (2013). 
4. Markowitz, H. “Portfolio Selection”, J. Finance, 7(1), pp. 77-91 (1952).
5. Alvarez-García, B., and Fernández-Castro, A. S. “A comprehensive approach for the selection of a portfolio of interdependent projects, an application to subsidized projects in Spain”, Comput. Ind. Eng., 118, pp. 153-159 (2018).
6. Kalashnikov, V., Benita, F., López-Ramos, F., et al. “Bi-objective project portfolio selection in Lean Six Sigma”, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 186, pp. 81-88 (2017). 
7. Khalili-Damghani, K., Sadi-Nezhad, S., and Tavana, M. “Solving multi-period project selection problems with fuzzy goal programming based on TOPSIS and a fuzzy preference relation”, Inf. Sci., 252, pp. 42-61 (2013). 
8. Rafiee, H., and Rabbani, M. “Project selection using fuzzy group analytic network process”, World. Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol., 58(4), pp. 457-46 (2009).
9. Jafarzadeh, H., Akbari, P., and Abedin, B. “A methodology for project portfolio selection under criteria prioritisation, uncertainty and projects interdependency–combination of fuzzy QFD and DEA”, Expert. Syst. Appl., 110, pp. 237-249 (2018).
10. Sharma, J. K., Sharma, D. K., and Adeyeye, J. O. “Optimal portfolio selection: A goal programming approach”, Indian. J. Financ. Res., 7(2), pp. 67-76 (1995). 
11. Bravo, M., Pla‐Santamaria, D., and Garcia‐Bernabeu, A. “Portfolio selection from multiple benchmarks: A goal programming approach to an actual case”, J. Decis. Multi. Crit. Anal., 17(5-6), pp. 155-166 (2010). 
12. Ghahtarani, A., and Najafi, A. A. “Robust goal programming for multi-objective portfolio selection problem”, Econ. Model., 33, pp. 588-592 (2013). 
13. Kocadağlı, O., and Keskin, R. “A novel portfolio selection model based on fuzzy goal programming with different importance and priorities” Expert. Syst. Appl., 42(20), pp. 6898-6912 (2015). 
14. Tabrizi, B.H., Torabi, S.A., and Ghaderi S.F. “A novel project portfolio selection framework: An application of fuzzy DEMATEL and multi-choice goal Programming”, Scientia Iranica, Transactions E: Industrial Engineering, 23 pp. 2945-2958 (2016).
15. Huang, C. C., Chu, P. Y., and Chiang, Y. H. “A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection”, Omega, 36(6), pp. 1038-1052 (2008). 
16. Litvinchev, I. S., López, F., Alvarez, A., et al. “Large-scale public R&D portfolio selection by maximizing a biobjective impact measure”, IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics - Part A Systems and Humans, 40(3), pp. 572-582 (2010).
17. Arratia M. N. M., Lopez, I. F., Schaeffer, S. E., and Cruz-Reyes, L. “Static R&D project portfolio selection in public organizations”, Decis. Support. Syst., 84(C), pp. 53-63 (2016). 18. Pujadas, P., Pardo-Bosch, F., Aguado-Renter, A., and Aguado, A. “MIVES multi-criteria approach for the evaluation, prioritization, and selection of public investment projects. A case study in the city of Barcelona”, Land. Use. Policy, 64, pp. 29-37 (2017). 
19. Roman, D. R. “A surrogate-assisted genetic algorithm for the selection and design of highway safety and travel time improvement projects”, Safety Science, 103, pp. 305-315 (2018). 20. Wu, Y. J., and Chen, J. C. “A structured method for smart city project selection”, International Journal of Information Management, In Press. 
21. Toregas, C., Swain, R., ReVelle, C., and Bergman, L. “The location of emergency service facilities”, Oper. Res., 19(6), pp. 1363-1373 (1971). 
22. Ghorbani, S., and Rabbani, M. “A new multi-objective algorithm for a project selection problem”, Adv. Eng. Softw., 40(1), pp. 9-14 (2009). 
23. Yu, L., Wang, S., Wen, F., et al. “Genetic algorithm-based multi-criteria project portfolio selection”, Annals of Operations Research, 197, pp. 71-86 (2012).
24. Wu, Y., Xu, C., Ke, Y., et al. “Portfolio selection of distributed energy generation projects considering uncertainty and project interaction under different enterprise strategic scenarios”, Applied Energy, 236, pp. 444-464 (2019). 
25. Talbi, E. “Metaheuristics from Design to Implementation”, John Wiley & Sons (2009).
26. Goldberg, D. E. “Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning”, New York: Addison-Wesley (1989).
Scientia Iranica
Volume 28, Issue 4
Transactions on Industrial Engineering (E)
July and August 2021
Pages 2374-2385

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics