Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorJoel P. Clark.en_US
dc.contributor.authorNeely, James Edwinen_US
dc.date.accessioned2005-08-19T19:10:40Z
dc.date.available2005-08-19T19:10:40Z
dc.date.copyright1998en_US
dc.date.issued1998en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/9647
dc.descriptionThesis (Ph.D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering, 1998.en_US
dc.descriptionVita.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (leaves 212-220).en_US
dc.description.abstractThe objective of research and development (R&D) is to create valuable complements to the existing capabilities of the firm. Unfortunately, valuing R&D is difficult because it is an uncertain and sequential process that often yields complex benefits such as simultaneous cost and performance improvements. These characteristics obscure important sources of value from common valuation methods such as net present value analysis (NPV). This thesis examines methodologies that have been singularly applied to evaluate R&D, and combines several into a composite framework as improved approach to valuing R&D. It focuses on valuing opportunities to revise R&D projects in response to uncertainty resolution, better matching valuation frameworks to project uncertainties, and integrating methods for valuing complex benefits with financial valuation frameworks. The composite methodology includes a financial valuation model that combines real options and decision analysis to resolve the difficulty of valuing option-like decision opportunities in R&D projects. This model is applicable across a range of project uncertainties. Multi-metric valuation methods and scenario analyses can transform complex benefits into dollar values that are compatible with the financial valuation model. A case study based on an automotive producer's investments in advanced materials R&D demonstrates the composite methodology. It also compares several valuation models including real options, decision analysis, NPV, and a weighted benefits index. the thesis demonstrates that R&D is significantly more valuable than comMon valuation methods suggest. In particular, it provides a legitimate basis for quantifying in dollars the appreciable strategic value of long-term, high-risk R&D efforts that frequently appear unattractive on an NPV basis. It also identifies conditions under which various methods for valuing projects are applicable, and highlights resolution and practicality trade-offs associated with these valuation frameworks.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby James E. Neely III.en_US
dc.format.extent221 leavesen_US
dc.format.extent17257302 bytes
dc.format.extent17257059 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
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/1721.1/7582
dc.subjectMaterials Science and Engineeringen_US
dc.titleImproving the valuation of research and development : a composite of real options, decision analysis and benefit valuation frameworksen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreePh.D.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Materials Science and Engineeringen_US
dc.identifier.oclc42379103en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record