Selection of Optimal Technologies for Production of Goods: Space-System Approach

• Autorzy: Jerzy Stadnicki , Andrii Terebukh , Yuliia Stadnytska
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Despite the presence of a huge amount of research on various aspects related to the rationale for selection of optimal technologies, spatial aspects have traditionally remained unattended by scientists. Justification for selection of optimal technologies for the production and transportation of good and justification for selection of optimal location and capacity of the corresponding industries are interrelated tasks of the complex problem of optimizing the spatial and technological development of an economic sector within the relevant space. At first, based on the criterion of the availability of factors of production of the corresponding good, attractive production sites are identified and for each of them selection of place-based optimal production technology is justified. The developed systematic approach involves the stage of identifying locally optimal places and technologies of production and transportation for each sales market option according to the criterion of the minimum total costs of producing a good in the volume of demand of the corresponding sales market option and the costs of transporting this good to potential sales markets that form the evaluated market option sales in the amount of their demand. At the final stage, options for potential systemically optimal places and technologies, which are formed from locally optimal places and technologies, are compared. The option of potential systemically optimal locations and corresponding production and transportation technologies with minimal total costs for production and transportation is the best.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Nowe technologie

EN

High-tech

• Czasopismo: Management and Production Engineering Review
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: 15
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 150-159

Twórcy

autor

Jerzy Stadnicki

• Kielce University of Technology, Poland

autor

Andrii Terebukh

• Lviv Polytechnic National University, Ukraine

autor

Yuliia Stadnytska

• Lviv Polytechnic National University, Ukraine

Bibliografia

• Abdelhady, S. (2021). Performance and cost evaluation of solar dish power plant: sensitivity analysis of levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and net present value (NPV). Renewable Energy, 168, 332-342. DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.12.074.
• Armstrong, J., Green, K., & Graefe, A. (2015). Golden rule of forecasting: Be conservative. Journal of Business Research, 68(8), 1717-1731. DOI: 10.1016/ j.jbusres.2015.03.031.
• Atanasoff, L., & Venable, M. (2017). Technostress: Implications for adults in the workforce. The career development quarterly, 65(4), 326-338. DOI: 10.1002/ cdq.12111.
• Borucka, A. (2023). Seasonal Methods of Demand Forecasting in the Supply Chain as Support for the Company's Sustainable Growth. Sustainability, 15(9), 7399. DOI: 10.3390/su15097399.
• Bucci, S., Schwannauer, M., & Berry, N. (2019). The digital revolution and its impact on mental health care. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 92(2), 277-297. DOI: 10.1111/papt.12222.
• Chapman, C. (2006). Key points of contention in framing assumptions for risk and uncertainty management. International Journal of Project Management, 24 (4), 303-313. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.01.006.
• Chiesa V., Gilardoni E., & Manzini R. (2005), The valuation of technology in buy-cooperate sell decisions. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8 (1), 5-30. DOI: 10.1108/14601060510578556.
• Chiu, S., & Garza Escalante, E. (2012). A companion for NPV: The generalized relative rate of return. The Engineering Economist, 57(3), 192-205. DOI: 10.1080/ 0013791X.2012.702198.
• Chrysafis, K., & Papadulos, B. (2021). Decision making for project appraisal in uncertain environments: A fuzzy-possibilistic approach of the expanded NPV method. Symmetry, 13(1), 27. DOI: 10.3390/sym 13010027.
• Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Stoeckl, N., & Kompas, T. (2021). Pluralistic discounting recognizing different capital contributions: An example estimating the net present value of global ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 183, 106961. DOI: 10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2021.106961.
• Dobrowolski, Z., & Drozdowski, G. (2022). Does the net present value as a financial metric fit investment in green energy security? Energies, 15 (1), 353. DOI: 10.3390/en15010353.
• J. Stadnicki, A. Terebukh, Y. Stadnytska: Selection of Optimal Technologies for Production of Goods . . . Elmaghraby, S., & Herroelen, W. (1990). The scheduling of activities to maximize the net present value of projects. European Journal of Operational Research, 49(1), 35-49. DOI: 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90118-U.
• Etgar, R., Shtub, A., & LeBlanc, L. (1995). Scheduling projects to maximize net present value - the case of time-dependent, contingent cash flows. European Journal of Operational Research, 96(1), 90-96. DOI: 1016/0377-2217(95)00382-7.
• Galli, B. (2018). How to effectively use economic decision-making tools in project environments and project life cycle. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 67(3), 932-940. DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2018.2861381.
• Gaspars-Wieloch, H. (2019). Project net present value estimation under uncertainty. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 27(1), 179-197. DOI: 10.1007/s10100-017-0500-0.
• Gladwin, T., Kennelly J., & Krause T. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20 (4), 874-907. DOI: 10.5465/ AMR.1995.9512280024.
• Gradl, P., Youngblood, A., Componation, P., & Gholston, S. (2009). Considering risk within net present value: calculations for government projects. The Engineering Economist, 54(2), 152-174. DOI: 10.1080/ 00137910902902861.
• Green, K., & Armstrong, J. (2015). Simple versus complex forecasting: The evidence. Journal of Business Research, 68(8), 1678-1685. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres. 2015.03.026.
• Grubbström, R. (1998). A net present value approach to safety stocks in planned production. International Journal of Production Economics, 56, 213-229. DOI: 10.1016/S0925-5273(97)00094-7.
• Hope, C. (2008). Discount Rates, Equity Weights and the social Cost of Carbon. Energy Economics, 30(3), 1011-1019. DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2006.11.006.
• Joaquin, D. (2001). Anomalies in net present value calculations? Economics Letters, 72(1), 127-129. DOI: 10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00406-2.
• Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. DOI: 10.2307/1914185.
• Knoke, T., Gosling, E., & Paul, C. (2020). Use and misuse of the net present value in environmental studies.Ecological Economics, 174, 106664. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106664.
• Levenstein, C., & Tuminaro, D. (1992). The political economy of occupational disease. NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 2(1), 25-34. DOI: 10.2190/NS2.1.d.
• Leyman, P., Van Driessche, N., Vanhoucke, M., & De Causmaecker, P. (2019). The impact of solution representations on heuristic net present value optimization in discrete time/cost trade-off project scheduling with multiple cash flow and payment models. Computers & Operations Research, 103, 184-197. DOI: 10.1016/j.cor.2018.11.011.
• Magni, C. (2009). Investment decisions, net present value and bounded rationality. Quantitative Finance, 9(8), 967-979. DOI: 10.1080/14697680902849338.
• Marchioni, A., & Magni, C. (2018). Investment decisions and sensitivity analysis: NPV-consistency of rates of return. European Journal of Operational Research, 268 (1), 361-372. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.01.007.
• McSweeney, B. (2006). Net present value: the illusion of certainty. Strategic Change, 15(1), 47-51. DOI: 10.1002/jsc.746.
• Morris, M., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force. Personnel psychology, 53(2), 375-403. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00206.x.
• Nia, A., Awasthi, A., & Bhuiyan, N. (2021). Industry 4.0 and demand forecasting of the energy supply chain: A literature review. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 154 (4), 107128. DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107128.
• Nosratpour, M., Nazerib, A., & Meftahi, H. (2012). Fuzzy net present value for engineering analysis. Management Science Letters, 2 (6), 2153-2158. DOI: 10.5267/j.msl. 2012.06.002.
• Proctor, M., & Canada, J. (1992). Past and present methods of manufacturing investment evaluation: A review of the empirical and theoretical literature. The Engineering Economist, 38(1), 45-58. DOI: 10.1080/ 00137919208903086.
• Ross, S. (1995). Uses, abuses, and alternatives to the net-present-value rule. Financial management, 24(3), 96-102. DOI: 10.2307/3665561.
• Ruttan, V. (1997). Induced innovation, evolutionary theory and path dependence: sources of technical change. The Economic Journal, 107(444), 1520-1529. DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.12974.
• Stadnicki, J. & Terebukh, A. (2022). Rationale of the Optimal Location of Production: a System Approach. Management and Production Engineering Review, 13 (3), 110-117. DOI: 10.24425/mper.2022.142388.
• Management and Production Engineering Review Stadnicki, J., & Bashynska, Y. (2023). Production of goods: what, where, how, how much and for whom. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization & Management (179), 587-602. DOI: 10.29119/1641-3466.2023.179.31.
• Sunde, L., & Lichtenberg, S. (1995). Net-present-value cost/time tradeoff. International Journal of Project Management, 13(1), 45-49. DOI: 10.1016/0263-7863 (95)95703-G.
• Tyteca, D. (1996). On the measurement of the environmental performance of firms - a literature review and a productive efficiency perspective. Journal of environmental management, 46(3), 281-308. DOI: 10.1006/ jema.1996.0022.
• Van Steenbergen, R., & Mes, M. (2020). Forecasting demand profiles of new products. Decision support systems, 139, 113401. DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2020.113401.
• Vanhoucke, M., & Debels, D. (2007). The discrete time/cost trade-off problem: extensions and heuristic procedures. Journal of Scheduling, 10, 311-326. DOI: 10.1007/ s10951-007-0031-y.
• Wiesemann, W., Kuhn, D., & Rustem, B. (2010). Maximizing the net present value of a project under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(2), 356-367. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.045.
• Wright, M., & Stern, P. (2015). Forecasting new product trial with analogous series. Journal of Business Research, 68 (8), 1732-1738. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015. 03.032.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/mper.2024.151138