IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v173y2006i1p299-312.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How big is too big? Trading off the economies of scale of larger telecommunications network elements against the risk of larger outages

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, Donald E.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, Donald E., 2006. "How big is too big? Trading off the economies of scale of larger telecommunications network elements against the risk of larger outages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(1), pages 299-312, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:173:y:2006:i:1:p:299-312
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(05)00018-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haim Levy, 1992. "Stochastic Dominance and Expected Utility: Survey and Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(4), pages 555-593, April.
    2. Ogryczak, Wlodzimierz & Ruszczynski, Andrzej, 1999. "From stochastic dominance to mean-risk models: Semideviations as risk measures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 33-50, July.
    3. David E. Bell, 1995. "Risk, Return, and Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(1), pages 23-30, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yiting Xing & Ling Li & Zhuming Bi & Marzena Wilamowska‐Korsak & Li Zhang, 2013. "Operations Research (OR) in Service Industries: A Comprehensive Review," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 300-353, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cillo, Alessandra & Delquié, Philippe, 2014. "Mean-risk analysis with enhanced behavioral content," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 764-775.
    2. Wojtek Michalowski & Włodzimierz Ogryczak, 2001. "Extending the MAD portfolio optimization model to incorporate downside risk aversion," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(3), pages 185-200, April.
    3. Alessandra Carleo & Francesco Cesarone & Andrea Gheno & Jacopo Maria Ricci, 2017. "Approximating exact expected utility via portfolio efficient frontiers," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 40(1), pages 115-143, November.
    4. Adam Krzemienowski, 2009. "Risk preference modeling with conditional average: an application to portfolio optimization," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 67-95, January.
    5. Kallio, Markku & Dehghan Hardoroudi, Nasim, 2018. "Second-order stochastic dominance constrained portfolio optimization: Theory and computational tests," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 675-685.
    6. Sergio Ortobelli Lozza, 2001. "The classification of parametric choices under uncertainty: analysis of the portfolio choice problem," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 297-328, December.
    7. Amita Sharma & Aparna Mehra, 2017. "Financial analysis based sectoral portfolio optimization under second order stochastic dominance," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 256(1), pages 171-197, September.
    8. Dentcheva Darinka & Stock Gregory J. & Rekeda Ludmyla, 2011. "Mean-risk tests of stochastic dominance," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 28(2), pages 97-118, May.
    9. Mansini, Renata & Ogryczak, Wlodzimierz & Speranza, M. Grazia, 2014. "Twenty years of linear programming based portfolio optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 518-535.
    10. Xu Guo & Cuizhen Niu & Wing-Keung Wong, 2019. "Farinelli and Tibiletti ratio and stochastic dominance," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(3), pages 201-213, September.
    11. Andrey Lizyayev, 2012. "Stochastic dominance efficiency analysis of diversified portfolios: classification, comparison and refinements," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 391-410, July.
    12. Christian Walkshäusl & Sebastian Lobe, 2012. "Islamic investing," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 53-62, April.
    13. Jun-ya Gotoh & Hiroshi Konno, 2000. "Third Degree Stochastic Dominance and Mean-Risk Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 289-301, February.
    14. Yang, Jiping & Qiu, Wanhua, 2005. "A measure of risk and a decision-making model based on expected utility and entropy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 792-799, August.
    15. Nowak, Maciej, 2004. "Preference and veto thresholds in multicriteria analysis based on stochastic dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 339-350, October.
    16. Albrecht, Peter, 2003. "Risk measures," Papers 03-01, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    17. Janne Gustafsson & Ahti Salo, 2005. "Contingent Portfolio Programming for the Management of Risky Projects," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(6), pages 946-956, December.
    18. Schuhmacher, Frank & Auer, Benjamin R., 2014. "Sufficient conditions under which SSD- and MR-efficient sets are identical," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 756-763.
    19. Andrey Lizyayev, 2010. "Stochastic Dominance Efficiency Analysis of Diversified Portfolios: Classification, Comparison and Refinements," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 10-084/2, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. Dentcheva, Darinka & Ruszczynski, Andrzej, 2006. "Portfolio optimization with stochastic dominance constraints," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 433-451, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:173:y:2006:i:1:p:299-312. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.