Citation:

Amit Mangal, 2021. "Evaluating Planning Strategies for Prioritizing the most viable Projects to Maximize Investment Returns " ESP Journal of Engineering & Technology Advancements  1(2): 69-77.

Abstract:

Maximizing investment returns and the entire project benefits through strategic project prioritization is paramount in programs aimed at enhancing the sustainability of building infrastructures. This necessity is particularly evident when implementing a revolving-fund approach, leveraging savings from initial projects for subsequent improvements. The success of such an approach depends on the meticulous prioritization of projects. However, the task of project prioritization during the planning phase is complex due to competing performance metrics and resource constraints. This study assesses the impact of various project prioritization strategies on the performance of sustainability programs employing a revolving-fund model. Utilizing system dynamics, a novel modeling technique for sustainability decision-analysis was developed and calibrated using a campus sustainability improvement program. The study evaluates the effects of five common project-prioritization strategies on program performance metrics across diverse initial investment levels. Findings from a university case study suggest that prioritizing projects based on decreasing benefit/cost ratio proves to be the most effective strategy. This research underscores the role of employing a system dynamics model in enabling sustainability program managers to make informed decisions, thereby facilitating financially and environmentally successful program implementations focused on maximizing investment returns.

References:

[1] AASHE., 2016. Campus sustainability revolving loan funds database [online]. Available from: http://www.aashe.org/ resources/campus-sustainability-revolving-loan-funds/ [Accessed 29 January 2019].
[2] DeCanio, S.J., 1998. The efficiency paradox: bureaucratic and organizational barriers to profitable energy-saving investments. Energy policy, 26 (5), 441–454.
[3] DoE., 2018. Better buildings challenge [online].Available from:https://betterbuildingsinitiative.energy.gov/challenge [Accessed 29 January 2019].
[4] Faghihi, V., Hessami, A.R., and Ford, D.N., 2015. Sustainability improvement program design using energy efficiency and conservation. Journal of cleaner production, 107, 400–409.
[5] Flood, R., and Jackson M.C., 1991. Creative problem solving: total systems intervention. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
[6] Ford, D., and Sterman, J., 2003. The liar’s club: concealing rework in concurrent development. Concurrent engineering: research and applications, 111 (3), 211–219.
[7] Forrester, J.W., 1961. Industrial dynamics. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications.
[8] Hiller, J., Mills, V., and Reyna, E., 2011. Breaking down barriers to energy efficiency. New York, NY: EDF Climate Corps.
[9] Jackson, J., 2010. Promoting energy efficiency investments with risk management decision tools. Energy policy, 38 (8), 3865–3873.
[10] Jones, M.C., 2003. Systems thinking: creative holism for managers. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
[11] Kim, A., et al., 2012. Designing perpetual sustainability improvement programs for built infrastructures. St. Gallen, Switzerland: System Dynamics Society.
[12] Lane, M.B., McDonald, G.T., and Morrison, T.H., 2004. Decentralisation and environmental management in Australia: a comment on the prescriptions of the Wentworth Group. Australian Geographical Studies, 42 (1), 103–115.
[13] Like, R.V.D., 2009. The paid-from-savings-guide to green existing buildings. Washington, DC: U.S. Green Building Council, Inc.
[14] Matthews, H.S., Hendrickson, C.T., and Weber, C.L., 2008. The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries. Environmental science & technology, 42 (16), 5839–5842.
[15] Morrissey, J., and Horne, R.E., 2011. Life cycle cost implications of energy efficiency measures in new residential buildings. Energy and buildings, 43 (4), 915–924.
[16] Morton, T., Narayan, V., and Ramnath, P., 1995. A tutorial on bottleneck dynamics: a heuristic scheduling methodology. Production and operations management, 4 (2), 94–107.
[17] Panwalkar, S.S., and Iskander, W., 1977. A survey of scheduling rules. Operations research, 25 (1), 45–61.
[18] Park, C.S., 2013. Fundamentals of engineering economics. 3rd ed. London, UK: Pearson.
[19] Siemens & TAMU., 2011. A detailed account of how one university is improving its energy efficiency and campus environment through effective management and performance contracting [online]. Available from:https://w3.usa.siemens. com/buildingtechnologies/us/en/consulting-engineer/engineeradvantage/Documents/texas-a-and-m-energy-improvements.pdf [Accessed 29 January 2019].
[20] Siemens Industry US., 2011. Answers for Texas A&M University [online]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v¼xIa8Ix91_rk [Accessed 14 March 2012].
[21] Sterman, J., 2000. Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin, USA: McGraw-Hill.
[22] Syal, M., et al., 2013. Information framework for intelligent decision support system for home energy retrofits. Journal of construction engineering and management, 140 (1), 04013030-1–04013030-15.TAMU Office of Sustainability., 2018.
[23] U.S. Energy Information Administration., 2016. Energy consumption by sector [online]. Available from:http://www. eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec2_3.pdf [Accessed 29 January 2019].
[24] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency., 2016a. U.S. Greenhouse gas inventory report: 1990–2014 [online]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/usgreenhouse-gas-inventory-report-1990-2014 [Accessed 29 January 2019].
[25] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency., 2016b. GHG equivalencies calculator - calculations and references [online]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/energy/ghg-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references [Accessed 29 January 2019].
[26] Zietsman, J., et al., 2011. A guidebook for sustainability performance measurement for transportation agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Keywords:

Kubernetes, Security Mechanism, Access Control Strategies.