Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorJoseph M. Sussman.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMcConnell, Joshua B. (Joshua Bryan), 1974-en_US
dc.contributor.otherMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Technology, Management, and Policy Program.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-01-30T18:34:05Z
dc.date.available2009-01-30T18:34:05Z
dc.date.copyright2007en_US
dc.date.issued2007en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/39334en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/39334
dc.descriptionThesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, Technology, Management, and Policy Program, 2007.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references.en_US
dc.description.abstractDesigning a flexible system with real options is a method for managing uncertainty. This research introduces the concept of "complex" real options, which are composed of interconnected echnological, organizational and process components. "Complex" real options differ from the "standard" real options described in the literature in the option life-cycle activities of design, evaluation and management. To address the challenges posed by "complex" real options, the Life-Cycle Flexibility (LCF) Framework was created. The framework addresses issues along the entire life-cycle of an option, in both technical and social system dimensions. Two case studies were considered in this research to better understand "complex" real options and test the LCF Framework: 1) a large blended wing body aircraft in a commercial aircraft manufacturing enterprise and, 2) Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) capabilities in an urban region with multiple public and private stakeholders. For the case studies, both a quantitative and qualitative analysis was completed. System dynamics and traffic demand models were used to quantitatively evaluate flexibility for each case study. Forty interviews with practitioners were conducted to better understand the practical challenges associated with flexible systems.en_US
dc.description.abstract(cont.) This research found that there are significant differences between "standard" and "complex" real options. In the design phase, enterprise architecture issues must be considered either as a precursor or simultaneously with the design of the option. In the evaluation stage, option valuation techniques more sophisticated than those found in the real options literature were needed to value the "complex" real options. In the management stage, political considerations were of great importance as political opposition could prevent option exercise from occurring. Without the LCF framework, existing processes for evaluating real options are not adequate for taking into account the interacting technical, organizational and process components of 'complex" real options. In summary, this research provides new insights into the design, evaluation and management of "complex" real options.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Joshua Bryan McConnell.en_US
dc.format.extent465 p.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsM.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/39334en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582en_US
dc.subjectTechnology, Management, and Policy Program.en_US
dc.titleA life-cycle flexibility framework for designing, evaluating and managing "complex" real options : case studies in urban transportation and aircraft systemsen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreePh.D.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division
dc.contributor.departmentTechnology and Policy Program
dc.identifier.oclc173517996en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record