[pt] Em muitos países, uma área de Exploração e Produção de petróleo é adquirida através de um leilão. Embora o processo de liquidação do leilão seja tipicamente simples, sob a ótica do tomador de decisão a identificação da melhor oferta é complexa. Para sua valoração, deve ser pré-definido o modelo de desenvolvimento com diversas alternativas associadas, alto grau de incertezas técnicas, de mercado e operacionais, e submetido a uma determinada condição fiscal. A decisão por uma determinada alternativa gera impactos e investimentos elevados para a empresa. O trabalho proposto visa a construção de um framework para dar suporte ao processo de escolha da melhor oferta que maximize uma medida de valor para a empresa, auxiliando o tomador de decisão e considerando as incertezas envolvidas no processo. Foram utilizados os indicadores de performance apresentados na literatura: Valor Presente Líquido (VPL), Conditional Value-at-Risk, Omega e Exposição Financeira. Afim de melhor quantificar risco/benefício financeiro no processo de tomada de decisão foram construídas medidas de risco: Mean-Weighted CVaR, Mean-Weighted Double-Sided CVaR, Beta e Negative-Positive cashflow ratio. Para ilustrar a aplicabilidade do framework proposto, um experimento numérico baseado em um caso hipotético é apresentado. Em decorrência deste experimento, foi identificado que alterações na configuração da produção alteram significativamente os resultados dos indicadores. Além disso, a partir de uma ponderação entre probabilidade de ganho e o resultado do indicador Mean-Weighted CVaR, foi identificada a melhor oferta para a área, dada a condição fiscal do leilão. / [en] In many countries, an oil and gas area of Exploration and Production is acquired through an auction. Although the auction settlement process is typically simple, from the decision maker s point of view, identifying the best offer is complex. For its valuation, the development model must be pre-defined with several associated alternatives, a high degree of technical, market and operational uncertainties, and submitted to a fiscal term. The decision for a particular alternative generates high impacts and investments for the company. The proposed work aims to build a framework to support the process of choosing the best offer that maximizes a measure of value for the company, helping the decision maker and considering the uncertainties involved in the process. The performance indicators presented in the literature were used: Net Present Value (NPV), Conditional Value-at-Risk, Omega and Financial Exposure. In order to better quantify financial risk/benefit in the decisionmaking process, risk measures were constructed: Mean-Weighted CVaR, Mean- Weighted Double-Sided CVaR, Beta and Negative-Positive cashflow ratio. To illustrate the applicability of the proposed framework, a numerical experiment based on a hypothetical case is presented. As a result of this experiment, it was identified that changes in the configuration of production significantly alter the results of the indicators. In addition, from a weighting between the probability of gain and the result of the Mean-Weighted CVaR measure, the best offer for the area was identified, given the fiscal term of the bid.

The focus of strategy research has long revolved around strategy formulation rather thanstrategy implementation, despite the evidence indicating that intended strategies are rarelyachieved. Project portfolio management, PPM, assumes a crucial role in enabling strategyimplementation and can be regarded as a representation of the organization's actual pursuedstrategy. Existing research on PPM has predominantly centered around portfolios in the contextof new product development, NPD, and research and development, R&D. However, there hasbeen relatively less exploration of PPM within internal development departments, warrantingfurther investigation. To contribute to the understanding on strategy implementation throughPPM and its conditional factors, this qualitative case study expands the existing research bystudying the PPM process within an internal development department. The study wasconducted at the Business Improvement department, which oversees improvement projects forthe service branch of EnergyComp, a company specializing in the development of complexenergy solutions. Using an abductive research approach, a literature review was conducted inparallel with data collection and analysis. The empirical data was mainly collected throughsemi-structured interviews at the company, but also through meetings and companydocumentation. The results of the study show that PPM actions connected to projects, portfolio and resourceallocation are undertaken to effectively implement the organization's strategy within theinternal development department. Common to all areas is the importance of accurate andavailable information that effects the decisions connected to strategy implementation. On aproject level, Insufficient information poses challenges in accurately assessing project success,resulting in measurements that fail to cover all strategic objectives. In the context of theportfolio, the absence of project information and uncertainties can lead to a misalignmentbetween the actual prioritization criteria employed in the selection process and the strategicobjectives of the organization. Additionally, it may contribute to a less detailed and formalstrategic plan. Furthermore, the cost associated with adjusting the portfolio is directly linked tothe effort and expenses involved in obtaining project information. Regarding resources,insufficient information on supply and demand creates challenges in considering projectdependencies and synergies during the evaluation of project groups. Moreover, limitedtransparency across functional boundaries within the organization leads to a system wheredecision rules cannot be established at the portfolio level. Instead, it encourages bottom-uppriority decisions. Furthermore, a biased assessment by stakeholders in the functionaldepartments may result in an inadequate screening process, leading to an increased workloadin the portfolio structuring process. Finally, the large variation in project types, coupled withdiverse impact targets spanning individual and multiple functions, makes it difficult to createrelevant project categories for budgeting and portfolio structuring.