A portfolio–evaluation framework for selecting R&D projects

This study aims to form the basis for constructing a framework for evaluating alternative portfolios of R&D projects. This study provides an extensive literature review on portfolio selection. Most of the existing studies deal with the portfolio selection problem by evaluating individual projects and then seeking ways to combine them for an R&D portfolio. However, the combination of individually good projects unnecessarily constitutes the optimal portfolio. In particular, this study discusses three portfolio effects: (1) the difference between the preference for the portfolio as a whole and the preference for the projects, (2) the interrelation among projects, (3) the size of portfolio selection problems. This study develops a three–phase framework for evaluating R&D portfolios and proposes a new taxonomy of the portfolio attributes (i.e. independent, interrelated, and synergistic). This study concludes with a discussion of future research, directed toward increasing the applicability of portfolio–selection approaches for managing R&D portfolios.     

Consistency Matters in Formally Selecting Incremental and Radical New Product Ideas for Advancement

Several new product development (NPD) scholars have argued that formal processes should be used when selecting incremental new product ideas for advancement at the very beginning of the fuzzy front end (FFE), but that such formal processes may be less beneficial when selecting radical new product ideas. However, arguments also exist for using formal idea selection processes for both types of new product ideas. In practice, informal processes are used for selecting both idea types and more formal processes are used for selecting radical ideas. Unequivocal empirical evidence for either of the opposing views or practices is lacking. This study sheds light on this matter using data from 161 of the firms that participated in the Product Development and Management Association's latest (2012) Comparative Performance Assessment Study. The results reveal that the highest idea success rate (i.e., the proportion of selected ideas that are eventually launched as new products and are successful in the marketplace) is associated with firms’ use of formal processes to select the vast majority of both incremental and radical new product ideas for advancement. This finding supports earlier claims that even for (raw) idea selection processes that take place at the very beginning of the FFE, managers need to adopt a portfolio perspective and consistently use formal idea advancement selection processes to ensure attaining the right balance between radical and incremental projects in later stages of the NPD pipeline to enhance overall NPD success. Notably, this finding shows that common managerial practices of using inconsistent approaches for selecting radical and incremental ideas for advancement need to be reconsidered.     

New Product Portfolio Management: Practices and Performance

Effective portfolio management is vital to successful product innovation. Portfolio management is about making strategic choices—which markets, products, and technologies our business will invest in. It is about resource allocation—how you will spend your scarce engineering, R&D, and marketing resources. It focuses on project selection—on which new product or development projects you choose from the many opportunities you face. And it deals with balance—having the right balance between numbers of projects you do and the resources or capabilities you have available. In this article, the authors reveal the findings of their extensive study of portfolio management in industry. This study, the first of its kind, reports the portfolio management practices and performance of 205 U.S. companies. Its overall objective was to gain insights into what portfolio methods companies use, whether they are satisfied with them, the performance results they achieve with the different approaches, and suggestions for others who are considering implementing portfolio management. The research first assesses management's satisfaction with portfolio methods they employ and notes that some firms face major problems in portfolio management. Next, businesses are grouped or clustered into four groups according to management's view of portfolio management: Cowboys, Crossroads, Duds, and Benchmark businesses. The research first assesses management's satisfaction with portfolio methods they employ and notes that some firms face major problems in portfolio management. Next, businesses are grouped or clustered into four groups according to management's view of portfolio management: Cowboys, Crossroads, Duds, and Benchmark businesses. Various performance metrics are used to gauge the performance of the business's portfolio. The results reveal major differences between the best and the worst. Benchmark businesses are the top performers. Their new product portfolios consistently score the best in terms of performance—high-value projects, aligned with the business's strategy, the right balance of projects, and the right number of projects. The authors take a closer look at these benchmark businesses to determine what distinguishes their projects from the rest. Benchmark businesses employ a much more formal, explicit method to managing their portfolio of projects. They rely on clear, well-defined portfolio procedures, they consistently apply their portfolio method to all projects, and management buys into the approach. The relative popularity of various portfolio methods—from financial methods to strategic approaches, bubble diagrams, and scoring approaches—are investigated. Not surprisingly, financial approaches are the most popular and dominate the portfolio decision. But what is surprising is the dubious results achieved via financial approaches. Again, benchmark businesses stand out from the rest: they place less emphasis on financial approaches and more on strategic methods, and they tend to use multiple methods more so than the rest. Strategic methods, along with scoring approaches, yield the best portfolios; financial methods yield poorer portfolio results. The authors provide a number of recommendations and suggestions for anyone setting out to implement portfolio management in their business.     

Configuring and managing strategic supplier portfolios

Acknowledging that not all supplier relationships can nor should be close partnerships, this article explores the development of strategic supplier portfolios. The strategic portfolio perspective considers risks, trade-offs, and interdependencies between the firm's array of supplier relationships. Based on over 50 interviews with managers and archival data from 12 multinational companies, a strategic supplier portfolio management framework is developed. The authors explore processes that firms use to plan, implement, and monitor strategic supplier portfolios. This research indicates that by assembling superior supplier bases, developing suppliers and integrating them into product development and manufacturing, strategic supplier portfolios contribute to competitive advantage.     

Strategy in pharmaceutical R&D: a portfolio risk matrix

The management of any research-intensive company must weigh carefully the expenditure on any particular development product with the sales revenues that are likely to be obtained when the new product is introduced to the market. In particular, the technical risk (whether the development product results in a marketable product) and the market risk (whether the new product can be introduced to a suitable market niche where it will generate the required revenues) have to be scrutinised.
This paper sets out to develop an original model by Drews into a methodology for assessing the risk associated with a company's research portfolio. To test a model they had developed, the authors carried out in-depth interviews with three British pharmaceutical multinational companies, and compared the overall technical/market risk profiles of their respective development portfolios. Some interesting differences between the three were detected in terms of the overall risk profiles, in market risk, and in technical risk. The authors conclude that the matrix described here may be a useful tool in discriminating between the risk levels of the research portfolios of several companies; it may also be useful for plotting the movement of a particular firm's research risk over time.
While this paper concentrates on comparing the portfolios of three pharmaceutical firms at a particular point in time, R&D managers in other industries and other situations may find some evaluative utility in the model.     

Determinants of Alliance Portfolio Complexity and Its Effect on Innovative Performance of Companies*

Alliance formation is often described as a mechanism used by firms to increase voluntary knowledge transfers. Access to external knowledge has been increasingly recognized as a main source of a firm's innovativeness. A phenomenon that has recently emerged is alliance portfolio complexity. In line with recent studies this article develops a measure of portfolio complexity in technology partnerships in terms of diversity of elements of the alliance portfolio with which a firm must interact. The analysis considers an alliance portfolio that includes different partnership types (competitor, customer, supplier, and university and research center). So far factors that determine portfolio complexity and its impact on technological performance of firms have remained largely unexplored. This article examines firms' decisions to form alliance portfolios of foreign and domestic partners by two groups of firms: innovators (firms that are successful in introducing new products to the market), and imitators (firms that are successful at introducing products which are not new to the market). This study also assesses a nonlinear impact of the portfolio complexity measure on firms' innovative performance. The empirical models are estimated using data on more than 1800 firms from two consecutive Community Innovation Surveys conducted in 1998 and 2000 in the Netherlands. The results suggest that alliance portfolios of innovators are broader in terms of the different types of alliance partners as compared to those of imitators. This finding underlines the importance of establishing a “radar function” of links to various different partners in accessing novel information. Specifically, the results indicate that foremost innovators have a strong propensity to form portfolios consisting of international alliances. This underlines the importance of this type of partnership in the face of the growing internationalization of R&D and global technology sourcing. Being an innovator or imitator also increases the propensity to form a portfolio of domestic alliances, relative to non‐innovators; but this propensity is not stronger for innovators. Innovators appear to derive benefit from both intensive (exploitative) and broad (explorative) use of external information sources. The former type of sourcing is more important for innovators, while the latter is more important for imitators. Finally, alliance complexity is found to have an inverse U‐shape relationship to innovative performance. On the one hand, complexity facilitates learning and innovativeness; on the other hand, each organization has a certain management capacity to deal with complexity which sets limits on the amount of alliance portfolio complexity that can be managed within the firm. This clearly suggests that firms face a certain cognitive limit in terms of the degree of complexity they can handle. Despite the noted advantages of an increasing level of alliance portfolio complexity firms will at a certain stage reach a specific inflection point after which marginal costs of managing complexity are higher than the expected benefits from this increased complexity.     

An Empirical Investigation of the Antecedents and Outcomes of NPD Portfolio Success

Managing new product development (NPD) portfolios is difficult and little is known about how successful NPD portfolio management can improve overall firm performance. Despite regular calls in the literature for more research on NPD portfolio management, what successful NPD portfolio management means and how firms can achieve it remains unclear. For this reason, this paper combines theory and previous empirical findings to build a model of the antecedents and outcomes of NPD portfolio success. We generate and test 12 hypotheses with empirical data from 189 paired dyads in Dutch firms. Our results show that all three dimensions of NPD portfolio decision‐making effectiveness (i.e., portfolio mindset, focus, and agility) are associated with achieving the three dimensions of NPD portfolio success (i.e., strategic alignment, maximal NPD portfolio value, and portfolio balance), which in turn influences market performance. While a portfolio mindset and agility are related to all three dimensions of NPD portfolio success, focus is related only to strategic alignment and maximal value. No one dimension of NPD portfolio decision‐making effectiveness or portfolio success is sufficient to achieve overall market performance. We also found several unexpected findings with important implications. For example, portfolio balance, one recommended measure of portfolio success, has no direct link to market performance, but operates through the other two dimensions of NPD portfolio success, i.e., strategic alignment and maximal portfolio value. We conclude our paper with implications for further theory development and testing on successful NPD portfolio decision‐making, and with implications for managerial practice.     

Innovation Field Orientation and Its Effect on Innovativeness and Firm Performance

New product development (NPD) has become a prime source for gaining a competitive edge in the market. Although a large body of research has addressed the question of how to successfully manage individual innovation projects, the management of a firm's new product portfolio has received comparably less research attention. A phenomenon that has recently emerged on the research agenda is innovation field orientation. Such orientation is understood as the deliberate setup and management of multiple thematically related NPD projects. However, the facets and effects of innovation field orientation are still unexplored. In particular, this study is interested in (1) developing a concept of innovation field orientation, (2) investigating the extent to which innovation field orientation is an established part of the corporate strategic planning practice, and (3) assessing the direct and indirect performance effects of innovation field orientation. For the empirical analysis, data were collected through a mail survey and document analyses from 122 publicly listed firms. Tobin's q was used as an objective performance metric directly related to shareholder value. The results confirm that innovation field orientation is a phenomenon that prevails in practice. In addition, all defining aspects of this orientation have either direct or indirect effects on firm performance. Hence, those firms that deliberately specify and manage innovation fields have a more innovative product portfolio and are more successful than others. Specifically, the findings underline the performance relevance of formally framing innovation fields and assigning a critical mass of resources to them. In addition, empirical support is lent to the suggestion that innovation field orientation has strong indirect performance effects mediated by the innovativeness of the firm's new product portfolio. This implies that firms that deliberately specify focus areas, assign resources to, provide organizational framing for, and stimulate synergies between related NPD projects stand a better chance to achieve a more innovative new product portfolio. This again is highly appreciated by investors and results in a superior stock market evaluation of these firms.     

Algorithm portfolios for logistics optimization considering stochastic demands and mobility allowance

The vehicle routing problem with stochastic demand (VRPSD) is a well known NP-hard problem. The uncharacteristic behaviour associated with the problem enhances the computational efforts required to obtain a feasible and near-optimal solution. This paper proposes an algorithm portfolio methodology based on evolutionary algorithms, which takes into account the stochastic nature of customer demand to solve this computationally complex problem. These problems are well known to have computationally complex objective functions, which make their solutions hard to find, particularly when problem instances of large dimensions are considered. Of particular importance in such situations is the timeliness of the solution. For example, Apple was forced to delay their shipments of iPads internationally due to unprecedented demand and issues with their delivery systems in Samsung Electronics and Seiko Epson. Such examples illustrate the importance of stochastic customer demands and the timing of delivery. Moreover, most of the evolutionary algorithms, known for providing computationally efficient solutions, are unable to always provide optimal or near optimal solutions to all the VRPSD instances within allocated time interval. This is due to the characteristic variations in the computational time taken by evolutionary algorithms for same or varying size of the VRPSD instances. Therefore, this paper presents portfolios of different evolutionary algorithms to reduce the computational time taken to resolve the VRPSD. Moreover, an innovative concept of the mobility allowance (MA) in landmoves based on the levy’s distribution function has been introduced to cope with real situations existing in vehicle routing problems. The proposed portfolio approach has been evaluated for the varying instances of the VRPSD. Four of the existing metaheuristics including Genetic Algorithm (GA), Simulated Annealing (SA), Artificial Immune System (AIS), TABU Search (TS) along with new neighbourhood search, are incorporated in the portfolios. Experiments have been performed on varying dimensions of the VRPSD instances to validate the different properties of the algorithm portfolio. An illustrative example is presented to show that the set of metaheuristics allocated to certain number of processors (i.e. algorithm portfolio) performed better than their individual metaheuristics.     

Unpacking functional alliance portfolios: How signals of viability affect young firms' outcomes

This article investigates how alliance portfolio composition affects young firms' outcomes. Drawing on signaling theory, we propose how alliance portfolio composition—number, functional domains (R&D, manufacturing, and marketing), and single‐purpose or multi‐purpose nature of alliances within the portfolio—may affect a firm's likelihood of achieving a liquidity event (IPO or acquisition). We study 8,600 U.S.‐based, VC‐backed firms during the period of 1990 to 2002 from 10 industry sectors. We find that alliance portfolios (to a certain extent) increase a firm's liquidity event likelihood. Further, firms with heterogeneous alliance portfolios, including portfolios emitting greater efficiency signals versus endorsement signals, are more likely to experience an IPO versus acquisition. Our findings lend support to the value of multi‐function alliances within portfolios. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Alliance Concentration in Multinational Companies: Examining Alliance Portfolios,Firm Structure,and Firm Performance

Research summary: This article explores the distribution of alliances across firms' internal structure. Focusing on multinational companies, we examine the impact of alliance portfolio concentration—i.e., the extent to which alliances are concentrated within a limited number of geographic units—on focal firms' performance. Relying on Knowledge‐Based View (KBV) insights, we hypothesize that an increase in alliance portfolio concentration positively influences firm performance and that alliance portfolio size negatively moderates this relationship. Our empirical results enrich the emerging capability perspective on alliance portfolios, point to the relevance of conceptualizing focal firms in alliance portfolio research as polylithic entities instead of monolithic ones, and provide new insights into how firms create value by potentially recombining externally accessed knowledge. Managerial summary: In the setting of multinational companies, we examine whether alliance activities are concentrated in a limited number of subsidiaries or are highly dispersed across multiple subsidiaries. We find that, over time, firms exhibit different patterns in terms of alliance portfolio concentration. In addition, the results show that, for MNCs with a relatively small alliance portfolio, an increase in alliance portfolio concentration is positively related to their financial performance. However, when MNCs' alliance portfolios are relatively large, the relationship between alliance portfolio concentration and firm performance becomes negative. Jointly, these findings suggest that the distribution of alliances across firms' internal structure is an important factor in shaping potential knowledge recombination benefits from alliance portfolios. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Crypto-assets portfolio optimization under the omega measure

Abstract

Crypto-currencies, or crypto-assets, represent a new class of investment assets. The traditional portfolio analysis approach of Markowitz is not appropriate for use with portfolios containing crypto-assets, as the model requires that the investor have a quadratic utility function or that the returns be normally distributed, which isn’t the case for crypto-assets. We develop a portfolio optimization model based on the Omega measure which is more comprehensive than the Markowitz model, and apply this to four crypto-asset investment portfolios by means of a numerical application. The results indicate that these portfolios should favor traditional market assets over crypto-assets. In the case of portfolios formed only by crypto-assets, there is no clear preference in favor of any crypto-asset in particular.     

Portfolio Considerations in the Valuation of Real Estate

When a real asset rises in price faster than inflation (as real estate did in the late 1970s) and rises significantly in price over an extended period (as real estate has done for the last decade and one-half), it concerns valuation and investment professionals who fear about it being over-valued. One of the reasons for such price performance may be an increase in demand due to the portfolio characteristics of the asset during the period of time in question. For real estate this means the proportion included in optimal portfolios should be significant and increasing as individual tax rates increase in an environment of increasing average tax rates.
This study uses six tax brackets (0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%) and portfolios consisting of three traditional assets (NYSE common stocks, corporate bonds and small stocks) plus three types of real estate (residential, business and farmland) to demonstrate that this is what has transpired in the real estate markets. Optimal portfolio weights are derived for each asset for after-tax portfolios. Real estate in general and residential real estate especially increased as a proportion of the optimal after-tax portfolio as individual tax rates increased. Other studies are used to demonstrate an environment of increasing average tax rates.     

Corporate technology portfolios and R&D performance measures: a study of technology intensive firms

This paper examines the relations between technology portfolio strategies and five commonly used research and development (R&D) performance measures. Patent and financial data of 78 US-based technology companies from 1976 to 1995 were gathered and analysed to investigate how a well-managed technology portfolio can create synergy and affect R&D performance. A technology portfolio can be characterized by its composition and technology concentration. A valuable technology portfolio that consists of patents with higher average citation made and self-citation ratio can have a positive effect on firm value. Our findings suggest that large firms may enjoy advantages for technological innovation because they can exploit synergy effects of their technology portfolios. Technology concentration strategy does not work well because firms focusing on few technology fields can experience diseconomy to patents received since high-quality patents are increasingly difficult to obtain. This paper lays the groundwork for future empirical research on technology portfolio and R&D performance.     

Exploring new product portfolio management decisions: The role of managers' dispositional traits

Product strategy links to new product development (NPD) through new product portfolio management (NPPM). This dynamic decision process addresses the strategy implementation questions of identifying which new product ideas to pursue and their relative priorities. Despite the importance of NPPM in implementing product strategy, firms exhibit substantial performance-affecting differences. We investigate one potential source for such differences by examining the impact of managers' dispositional factors as a possible explanation. Using a case study research method, we examine differences in NPPM strategies and managers' revealed dispositional traits across three divisions of a single conglomerate firm operating in different business-to-business markets. Based on our analysis, we offer propositions relating managers' dispositions to NPPM strategy: analytic cognitive style is associated with balance, ambiguity tolerance is associated with strategic fit, and leadership style is associated with the relative weights applied to each dimension.     

Real Estate Investment Funds: Performance and Portfolio Considerations

This paper presents the results of a study dealing with a number of issues regarding real estate investment. Utilizing a data set consisting of returns from two of the oldest, continuously operating commingled real estate funds (CREFs), questions relative to investment performance, inflation hedging attributes and diversification benefits are addressed. The methodology used in exploring these issues are variants of the traditional capital asset pricing model (CAPM), extended to consider uncertain inflation (CAPMUI) and an arbitrage pricing model in which real estate performance is judged relative to a more inclusive market index representing larger numbers of substitute investments. Finally, issues relative to portfolio performance are considered by constructing portfolios containing all possible combinations of real estate, stocks and bonds to assess the potential for diversification benefits and portfolio performance.     

What Makes a Family Firm Innovative? CEO Risk‐Taking Propensity and the Organizational Context of Family Firms

Investigating the new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms connects two important topics that have recently received considerable attention in innovation and family firm research. First, new product portfolio innovativeness has been identified as a critical determinant of firm performance. Second, research on family firms has focused on the questions of if and why family firms are more or less innovative than other organizational forms. Research investigating the innovativeness of family firms has often applied a risk‐oriented perspective by identifying socioemotional wealth (SEW) as the main reference that determines firm behavior. Thus, prior research has mainly focused on the organizational context to predict innovation‐related family firm behavior and neglected the impact of preferences and the behavior of the chief executive officer (CEO), which have both been shown to affect firm outcomes. Hence, this study aims to extend the previous research by introducing the CEO's disposition to organizational context variables to explain the new product portfolio innovativeness of small and medium‐sized family firms. Specifically, this study explores how the organizational context (i.e., ownership by top management team [TMT] family members and generation in charge of the family firm) of family firms interacts with CEO risk‐taking propensity to affect new product portfolio innovativeness. Using a sample of 114 German CEOs of small and medium‐sized family firms operating in manufacturing industries, the results show that CEO risk‐taking propensity has a positive effect on new product portfolio innovativeness. Moreover, the analyses show that the organizational context of family firms impacts the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness. Specifically, the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness is weaker if levels of ownership by TMT family members are high (high SEW). Additionally, the effect of CEO risk‐taking propensity on new product portfolio innovativeness is stronger in family firms at earlier generational stages (high SEW). This result suggests that if SEW is a strong reference, family firm‐specific characteristics can affect individual dispositions and, in turn, the behaviors of executives. Therefore, this study helps extend the knowledge on the determinants of new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms by considering an individual CEO preference and the organizational context variables of family firms simultaneously.     

Robust future‐oriented technology portfolios: Black–Litterman approach

We propose a new way of constructing more robust technology portfolios to overcome the weaknesses of previous technology portfolios based either on the judgments of experts or on quantitative data such as patents. Instead of using historical data, the method of nonlinear forecasting enables us to forecast the future number of patent citations and accordingly, to use the forecast as a quantitative proxy for future returns and risks of technologies. Using the Black–Litterman portfolio model, we improve the accuracy of inputs by combining the future views of experts with the future returns and risks of technologies. As a consequence of this, the portfolio becomes strongly future‐oriented. With our approach, corporate managers use both experts and data more effectively to build robust technology portfolios. In particular, our method is of great help for companies launching new businesses because the method avoids heavy dependency on internal experts with little knowledge about emerging technologies. A company entering the molecular amplification instrument market is exemplified herein.     

The Viability of Trade Union Organization: A Bargaining Unit Analysis

The paper develops a model of trade union behaviour based on the concept of the viable bargaining unit. Viability rests on five conditions: membership level, service level, membership participation, employer recognition, and facilities. Unions are seen as portfolios of viable and inviable bargaining units. Six propositions are derived, concerning union scale, growth, the impact of statutory recognition provisions, the emergence of conglomerate unions, governance structures, and relations with employers. Employer dependence is central, and a simple game‐theoretic approach is used to discuss employer co‐operation. Viability at the union level is achieved by portfolio diversification and employer co‐operation.