Optimizing Budget Allocations in Naval Configuration Management

  • Andrew Colin
  • Roger Willett
  • Peter Lambrineas
Part of the Engineering Asset Management Review book series (EAMR, volume 1)


This paper describes a case study illustration of a technique that can be used to optimize capital expenditure budget decisions for engineering assets under multivariate objectives and uncertain costs. We define measures of capability increase relative to mission types and measures for risk, return and pseudo-correlation on potential maintenance upgrades, allowing portfolio optimization techniques from finance to be applied to asset management decisions. The results provide a risk-reward ratio for investment allocation decisions that is optimal. The work is aimed at capability management for naval platforms, but the technique has broader applicability in the field of asset management and multi-criteria decision making.


Analytic Hierarchy Process Financial Risk Maintenance Activity Efficient Frontier Military Mission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. ADFP Australian Defence Force Publication 101 (1994). Glossary.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Maritime Doctrine (2000) RAN Doctrine 1. Scholar
  3. Colin A, Falta M, Su S, Turner L, Willett R, Wolff R (2010) ‘A Statistical Activity Cost Analysis of Engineering Assets’ Engineering Asset Management Reviews Vol 1, pp. 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dodgson J, Spackman M, Pearman A, Phillips L (2000) ‘Multi-Criteria Analysis: A Manual’. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, HMSO.Google Scholar
  5. Dowd K (2005) Measuring Market Risk (2nd edition). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Elton EJ, Gruber MJ (1996) Modern Portfolio Theory and Investment Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  7. Hastings M, Jenkins S (1983) The Battle for the Falklands. Pan Books.Google Scholar
  8. Hightower ML, David A (1991) Portfolio Modeling: A Technique for Sophisticated Oil and Gas Investors. SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium, 11–12 April 1991, Dallas, Texas.Google Scholar
  9. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Performance and Value Trade-offs. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Markowitz HM (1952) ‘Portfolio selection’. Journal of Finance 7(1):77–91.Google Scholar
  11. Markowitz HM, Todd GP (1987) Mean-variance analysis in portfolio choice and capital markets. Frank J. Fabozzi & Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Rebonato R, Jäckel P (2000) ‘The most general methodology to create a valid correlation matrix for risk management and option pricing purposes’. Journal of Risk (2): 17–22.Google Scholar
  13. Saaty TL (1990) Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Vol 1. RWS Publications.Google Scholar
  14. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  15. Willett RJ (1991) ‘Transaction Theory, Stochastic Processes and Derived Accounting Measurement’. ABACUS (27) 2: 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wind Y, Mahajan, V (1981) ‘Designing Product and Business Portfolios’. Harvard Business Review January-February: 155–165.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew Colin
    • 1
  • Roger Willett
    • 2
  • Peter Lambrineas
    • 3
  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.Defence Science and Technology OrganisationAustralia

Personalised recommendations