It is difficult to evaluate complex, publicly sensitive nuclear project proposals. Scientists, subject matter experts, politicians, and citizens often differ on scope, budget, time, and quality priorities. There are numerous qualitative factors and quantitative variables. Experts could widely disagree on criteria or neglect to discriminate between seemingly identical alternatives. An ineffective portfolio selection method could lead to safety problems, budget overruns, or outright project failures. This case study develops and examines a mixed-method, integrated qualitative and quantitative portfolio selection model, applied to a “tritium extraction facility” project concept.
AkaoY., & MazurG. H. (2003). The leading edge in QFD: Past, present and future. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(1), 20–35.
2.
AndersonC. J., GlassmanM., McAfeeR. B., & PinelliT. (2001). An investigation of factors affecting how engineers and scientists seek information. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18(2), 131–155.
3.
BakerN., & FreelandJ. (1975). Recent advances in R&D benefit measurement and project selection method. Management Science, 21, 1164–1175.
4.
BayraktarogluG., & ÖzgenÖ. (2008). Integrating the Kano model, AHP and planning matrix QFD application in library services. Library Management, 29, 327–351.
5.
ChenJ., & AskinR. G. (2009). Project selection, scheduling and resource allocation with time dependent returns. European Journal of Operational Research, 193(1), 23–34.
6.
ChenS. C., YangC. C., LinW. T., YehT. M., & LinY. S. (2007). Construction of key model for knowledge management system using AHP-QFD for semiconductor industry in Taiwan. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 18, 576–598.
7.
ChinK.-S., XuD.-L., YangJ.-B., & Ping-Kit LamJ. (2008). Group-based ER-AHP system for product project screening. Expert Systems with Applications, 35, 1909–1929.
8.
CohenJ. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scale disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213–220.
9.
CooperR. G., & EdgettS. J. (2008). Maximizing productivity in product development. Research Technology Management, 51(2), 47–59.
10.
CooperR. G., EdgettS. J., & KleinschmidtE. J. (2001). Portfolio management for new products (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
11.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). New York: Sage.
DeVellisR. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and application.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
DeyP. K., & OgunlanaS. O. (2004). Selection and application of risk management tools and techniques for build-operate-transfer projects. Industrial Management + Data Systems, 104(3/4), 33–49.
15.
DillonR. L., JohnR., & WinterfeldtD. V. (2002). Publication image assessment of cost uncertainties for large technology projects: A methodology and an application. Interfaces, 32(4), 52–67.
16.
FairlieI. (2007). Tritium hazard report: Pollution and radiation risk from Canadian nuclear facilities (RSP-0153-1). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
17.
GoldenbergJ., MorowitzR., LevavA., & MazurskyD. (2003). Finding your innovation sweet spot. Harvard Business Review, 79(2), 120–128.
KakiuchiH., MomoshimaN., OkaiT., & MaedaY. (1999). Tritium concentration in ocean. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 239, 523–526.
20.
KalinowskiM. B., & ColschenL. (1995). International safeguards for tritium to prevent its horizontal proliferation and to foster nuclear disarmament. Science and Global Security, 5, 131–203.
21.
KanoN., SerakuN., TakahashiF., & TsujiS. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality [translated]. Hinhitsu (Quality, The Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control), 14, 39–48.
22.
KeppelG., & WickensT. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
23.
KingB. (1989). Better designs in half the time: Implementing quality function deployment in America.Ann Arbor, MI: GOAL/QPC.
24.
LesaffreE., & VerbekeG. (2005). Clinical trials and intervention studies. In EverittB. S., & HowellD. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (Vol. 1, pp. 247–249). New York: Wiley.
25.
LevineD. M., StephanD., KrehbielT. C., & BerensonM. L. (2005). Statistics for managers using Microsoft Excel (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
26.
LingY. Y., OforiG., & LowS. P. (2003). Evaluation and selection of consultants for design-build projects. Project Management Journal, 34(1), 12–23.
27.
LippsF. B., & HemlerR. S. (1992). On the downward transfer of tritium to the ocean by a cloud model. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 97, 889–812, 900.
28.
MeredithJ. R., & MantelS. J. (2006). Project management: A managerial approach.New York: Wiley.
29.
Montoya-WeissM., & CalantoneR. (1994). Determinants of new product performance: A review and metaanalysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 397–417.
30.
MorcosM. S. (2008). Modelling resource allocation of R&D project portfolios using a multi-criteria decision-making methodology. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 25(1), 72–89.
31.
OsborneR. V. (2002). Tritium in the Canadian environment: Levels and health effects (RSP-0153-1). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
32.
PetersonR. R. (2006). Development of useful ideas in the new product development process of small manufacturers: An investigation. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 11–40.
33.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2008a). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide)—Fourth edition.Newtown Square, PA: Author.
34.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2008b). The standard for portfolio management (2nd ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Author.
35.
ReasonP., & BradburyH. (Eds.). (2006). Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration.London, UK: Sage.
36.
RosackerK. M., & OlsonD. L. (2008). An empirical assessment of IT project selection and evaluation methods in state government. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 49–58.
37.
RowlinsonS. (1999). Selection criteria. In RowlinsonS., & McDermottP (Eds.), Procurement systems: A guide to best practice in construction (1st ed., pp. 276–299). London: E&FN Spon.
38.
SaatyT. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9–26.
39.
SaatyT. L. (1994). Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 74, 426–447.
40.
SaganS. D. (1993). The limits of safety: Organizations, accidents and nuclear weapons.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41.
StrangK. D. (2009). Using recursive regression to explore nonlinear relationships and interactions: A tutorial applied to a multicultural education study. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(3), 1–13.
42.
StrangK. D., & ChanC. E. L. (2010). Simulating e-business innovation process improvement with virtual teams across Europe and Asia. International Journal of E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 1(1), 22–41.
43.
TaguchiA., & WuG. (1979). Introduction to off-line quality control [translated].Meieki Nakamura-Ku Magaya, Japan: Central Japan Quality Control Association.
44.
UlrichK. T., & EppingerS. D. (2003). Product design and development.New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
45.
UlwickA. W. (2002). Turn customer input into innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 92–97.
46.
U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). (1995). Technical reference report for tritium supply and recycling (DP-0134). Washington, DC: Author.
47.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1976). Drinking water regulations: Radionuclides. Federal Register, 41(133), 28402–28409.
48.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). (2006). Groundwater contamination (tritium) at nuclear plants: Liquid radioactive release lessons learned task force final report (062770207). Washington, DC: Author.
49.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). (2007). Fact sheet on tritium, radiation protection limits, and drinking water standards.Washington, DC: Author.
50.
WangY.-M., & ChinK.-S. (2008). A linear goal programming priority method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its applications in new product screening. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 49, 451–465.
51.
WhitlockJ. (2007, December 21). Reactor outage was issue of compliance, not safety. Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved from http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/071221.htm
52.
WysockiR. K., & McGaryR. (2003). Effective project management: Traditional, adaptive, extreme (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
53.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
54.
YoonM.Y., & HanJ. H. (2006). A study of advanced project control system for Korean nuclear power plant construction projects. AACE International Transactions, pp. C121–133.
55.
ZaltmanG. (2003). How customers think: Essential insights into the mind of the market.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
56.
ZerriffiH. (1996). Tritium: The environmental, health, budgetary, and strategic effects of the department of energy's decision to produce tritium.Takoma Park, MD: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.
