Decision-making in major investment projects with a life cycle cost: improvement with sensitivity analysis and sustainability assessment

Main Article Content

Stefan Wieke


Keywords : decision-making, life-cycle cost analysis, case studies, sensitivity analysis, weighted scoring, sustainability assessment, OPEX, energy costs
Abstract

This study focuses on compressor station investments in Germany’s natural gas infrastructure, offering insights applicable to machinery, energy, and maintenance cost-driven decisions. A life cycle cost (LCC) analysis can guide investment choices; however, uncertainties in input data and future developments pose risks. The LCC-based studies encounter questions impacting their results and optimal selections. These uncertainties may lead to misallocations, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of investment decisions to avoid potential consequences and efficiently allocate limited funds. Various measures are available to mitigate the uncertainties and risks in LCC analyses. Recognized measures are deterministic and probabilistic. Seven case studies on investments in the natural gas infrastructure in Germany were analyzed in this context. In addition to the executed case studies, a case study from a scientific journal (published in 2001) was included in the analysis. The case studies were conducted by transmission system operators from 2005–2015, and a retrospective view made it possible to recognize whether the best options (due to the LCC analysis) were identified. Simulations were conducted with generated models using real historical input data such as energy costs. The re-calculation of the net present value or better discounted cumulated expenditure with real input data shows that the LCC analysis results are significantly dependent on the reliability of the input data and the prediction of their development. Therefore, validating the results using appropriate measures is mandatory. This study illustrates how sensitivity analysis can be used as a deterministic method to evaluate the LCC analysis results. A company’s success is increasingly determined by its sustainability. A pure LCC analysis is insufficient, so social, ecological, and economic sustainability assessments must be conducted. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of the weighted scoring method for sustainability assessments. Although this study relates to LCC in Germany’s natural gas infrastructure, the suggested process can be adopted for other investment projects comprising capital and operational expenditures.

Article Details

How to Cite
Wieke, S. (2024). Decision-making in major investment projects with a life cycle cost: improvement with sensitivity analysis and sustainability assessment. Scientific Review Engineering and Environmental Sciences (SREES), 33(3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.22630/srees.9824
References

Baskaran, S. M. (2018). Ranking of lean tools using weighted scoring method. Transportation, 30, 0–30.

Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting. PE/35/2022/REV/1 (OJ L 322, 16.12.2022, p. 15–80).

European Commission [EC], [n.d.]. Corporate sustainability reporting. https://finance.ec.europa.eu/capital-markets-union-and-financial-markets/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/corporate-sustainability-reporting_en

European Committee for Standardization (2017). Railway applications. Vehicle reference masses (EN 15663).

Gasunie (2021). Transmission system operators want to invest 7.8 billion euros in secure and fit for future networks. Gasunie. https://www.gasunie.de/news/fernleitungsnetzbetreiber-wollen-78-milliarden-euro-in-versorgungssichere-und-zukunftsfaehige-netze-investieren

International Organization for Standardization [ISO], (2006). Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Principles and framework (ISO 14040).

Klöpffer, W. (2008). Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p. 95). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13, 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2008.02.376 (Crossref)

Moins, B., France, C., Van den bergh, W., & Audenaert, A. (2020). Implementing life cycle cost analysis in road engineering: A critical review on methodological framework choices. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 133, 110284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110284 (Crossref)

Nábrádi, A., & Szöllösi, L. (2007). Key aspects of investment analysis. APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, 1 (1), 53–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.43577 (Crossref)

Oliver Yébenes, M. (2024). Climate change, ESG criteria and recent regulation: challenges and opportunities. Eurasian Economic Review, 14 (1), 87–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-023-00251-x (Crossref)

Scope, C., Ilg, P., Muench, S., & Guenther, E. (2016). Uncertainty in life cycle costing for long-range infrastructure. Part II: guidance and suitability of applied methods to address uncertainty. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21, 1170–1184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1086-9 (Crossref)

Visentin, C., Silva Trentin, A. W. da, Braun, A. B., & Thomé, A. (2020). Life cycle sustainability assessment: A systematic literature review through the application perspective, indicators, and methodologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 270, 122509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122509 (Crossref)

Zardari, N. H., Ahmed, K., Shirazi, S. M., & Yusop, Z. B. (2014). Weighting methods and their effects on multi-criteria decision making model outcomes in water resources management. Springer. (Crossref)

Statistics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.