Skip to main content
Log in

Two Approaches to the Problem of Sharing Delay Costs in Joint Projects

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper concentrates on cost sharing situations which arise when delayed joint projects involve joint delay costs. The problem here is to determine “fair” shares for each of the agents who contribute to the delay of the project such that the total delay cost is cleared. We focus on the evaluation of the responsibility of each agent in delaying the project based on the activity graph representation of the project and then on solving the important problem of the delay cost sharing among the agents involved. Two approaches, both rooted in cooperative game theory methods are presented as possible solutions. In the first approach delay cost sharing rules are introduced which are based on the delay of the project and on the individual delays of the agents who perform activities. This approach is inspired by the bankruptcy and taxation literature and leads to five rules: the (truncated) proportional rule, the (truncated) constrained equal reduction rule and the constrained equal contribution rule. By introducing two coalitional games related to delay cost sharing problems, which we call the pessimistic delay game and the optimistic delay game, also game theoretical solutions as the Shapley value, the nucleolus and the τ-value generate delay cost sharing rules. In the second approach the delays of the relevant paths in the activity graph together with the delay of the project play a role. A two-stage solution is proposed. The first stage can be seen as a game between paths, where the delay cost of the project has to be allocated to the paths. Here serial cost sharing methods play a role. In the second stage the allocated costs of each path are divided proportionally to the individual delays among the activities in the path.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. R.J. Aumann and M. Maschler, Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud, J. Economic Theory 36 (1985) 195-213.

    Google Scholar 

  2. I.J. Curiel, M. Maschler and S.H. Tijs, Bankruptcy games, Zeitschrift für OR 31 (1987) 143-159.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M. Gondran and M. Minoux, Graphs and Algorithms (Wiley Interscience, New York, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Koster, Cost sharing in production situations and network exploitation, Ph.D. Dissertation, Tilburg University (1999).

  5. D.G. Malcom, J.H. Roseboom, C.E. Clark and W. Fazar, Application of a technique for research and development program evaluation, Operations Research 7 (1959) 646-669.

    Google Scholar 

  6. H. Moulin and S. Shenker, Serial cost sharing, Econometrica 60 (1992) 1009-1037.

    Google Scholar 

  7. H. Moulin and S. Shenker, Average cost pricing versus serial cost sharing: An axiomatic comparison, J. Economic Theory 64 (1994) 178-201.

    Google Scholar 

  8. B. O'Neill, A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud, Math. Soc. Sci. 2 (1982) 345-371.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. Schmeidler, The nucleolus of a characteristic function game, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 17 (1969) 1163-1170.

    Google Scholar 

  10. L.S. Shapley, A value for n-person games, Ann. Math. Studies 28 (1953) 307-317.

    Google Scholar 

  11. L.S. Shapley, Cores of convex games, Internat. J. Game Theory 1 (1971) 11-26.

    Google Scholar 

  12. S. Shenker, Efficient network allocations with selfish users, in: Performance '90, eds. P. King, I. Mitrani and R. Pooley (North-Holland, New York, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  13. S. Shenker, Making greed work in networks: a game-theoretic analysis of switch service disciplines, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 3 (1995) 819-831.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Shubik, Incentives, decentralized control, the assignement of joint cost, and internal pricing, Management Science 8 (1962) 325-343.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. Potters and P. Sudhölter, Airport problems and consistent allocation rules, Math. Soc. Sci. 38 (1999) 83-102.

    Google Scholar 

  16. S. Tijs and M. Koster, General aggregation of demand and cost sharing, Annals of Operations Research 84 (1998) 137-164.

    Google Scholar 

  17. S. Tijs and T. Driessen, Game theory and cost allocation problems, Management Science 32 (1986) 1015-1028.

    Google Scholar 

  18. H.P. Young, On dividing an amount according to individual claims or liabilities, Mathematics of Operations Research 12 (1987) 398-414.

    Google Scholar 

  19. H.P. Young, Cost allocation, in: Handbook of Game Theory, Vol. II, eds. R.J. Aumann and S. Hart (North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1994) pp. 1193-1235.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brânzei, R., Ferrari, G., Fragnelli, V. et al. Two Approaches to the Problem of Sharing Delay Costs in Joint Projects. Annals of Operations Research 109, 359–374 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016372707256

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016372707256

Navigation