IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v23y2021i2p453-470.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incentives and Gaming in Collaborative Projects Under Risk-Sharing Partnerships

Author

Listed:
  • Ju Myung Song

    (Department of Operations and Information Systems, Manning School of Business, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts 01854;)

  • Yao Zhao

    (Department of Supply Chain Management, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey 07102;)

  • Xin Xu

    (Goldman Sachs Headquarters, New York, New York 10282)

Abstract

Problem definition : This article explores the incentive issues and gaming behaviors of firms under risk-sharing partnerships in a project management setting motivated by real-life examples. Academic/practical relevance : Collaboration prevails in projects within diverse industries. The risk-sharing partnership, in which each partner pays for its own cost and shares the outcome (either reward or loss) on project completion, is one of the most popular ways to manage collaborations in practice. However, the risk-sharing partnership may lead to project failure in the forms of excessive delays and cost overruns, but the driving forces (for example, incentives) and mechanisms (for example, gaming behaviors) in project management settings are not yet fully understood. Methodology : Relative to the one-firm-does-all strategy, we studied how risk-sharing partnerships may affect firms’ incentives in project execution and thus, project metrics (duration and cost) for various project networks (serial versus parallel), risk levels (deterministic versus stochastic duration), and information status (symmetry versus asymmetry). Results : We found that risk-sharing partnerships may encourage deliberate delays and cost overruns through various mechanisms, such as the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the Supplier’s Dilemma, and the Coauthor’s Dilemma. Counterintuitively, information asymmetry may outperform information symmetry on project metrics for both deterministic and stochastic duration, contingent on the network structure, cost parameters, and partners’ beliefs. Managerial implications : By connecting theory to practice, we provide insights into the incentive issues of some real-life projects and justifications for several mitigation strategies to avoid such gaming behaviors in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Ju Myung Song & Yao Zhao & Xin Xu, 2021. "Incentives and Gaming in Collaborative Projects Under Risk-Sharing Partnerships," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 453-470, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:23:y:2021:i:2:p:453-470
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2019.0840
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2019.0840
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2019.0840?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tony Chen & Ted Klastorin & Michael R. Wagner, 2015. "Incentive Contracts in Serial Stochastic Projects," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 290-301, July.
    2. Bengt Holmstrom, 1982. "Moral Hazard in Teams," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 324-340, Autumn.
    3. Milind Dawande & Ganesh Janakiraman & Anyan Qi & Qi Wu, 2019. "Optimal Incentive Contracts in Project Management," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 28(6), pages 1431-1445, June.
    4. John C. Harsanyi, 1967. "Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III Part I. The Basic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 159-182, November.
    5. Dharma Kwon, H. & Lippman, Steven A. & Tang, Christopher S., 2011. "Sourcing decisions of project tasks with exponential completion times: Impact on operating profits," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 138-150, November.
    6. Shi Chen & Hau Lee, 2017. "Incentive Alignment and Coordination of Project Supply Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(4), pages 1011-1025, April.
    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. Chen, Zhenzhen & Zhu, Wanshan & Crama, Pascale, 2023. "Subcontracting and rework cost sharing in engineering–procurement–construction projects," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).

    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. Shi Chen & Ted Klastorin & Michael R. Wagner, 2021. "Designing practical coordinating contracts in decentralized projects," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(2), pages 183-198, March.
    2. Yan Chen & Peter Cramton & John A. List & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "Market Design, Human Behavior, and Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5317-5348, September.
    3. Angelino Viceisza, 2007. "An experimental inquiry into the effect of yardstick competition on corruption," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2007-09, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    4. Amin H. Amershi & Peter Cheng, 1988. "Implementable equilibria in accounting contexts: An exploratory study," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), pages 515-563, March.
    5. Shivam Gupta & Anupam Agrawal & Jennifer K. Ryan, 2023. "Agile contracting: Managing incentives under uncertain needs," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(3), pages 972-988, March.
    6. Tobias Kretschmer & Phanish Puranam, 2008. "Integration Through Incentives Within Differentiated Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(6), pages 860-875, December.
    7. Smirnov, Vladimir & Wait, Andrew, 2016. "Technology, team production and incentives," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 91-94.
    8. Maxime Menuet & Petros G. Sekeris, 2021. "Overconfidence and conflict," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1483-1499, October.
    9. Mehmet S. Ismail, 2018. "The strategy of conflict and cooperation," Papers 1808.06750, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    10. Andrés Perea & Elias Tsakas, 2019. "Limited focus in dynamic games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(2), pages 571-607, June.
    11. Gary S. Becker & Kevin M. Murphy, 1994. "The Division of Labor, Coordination Costs, and Knowledge," NBER Chapters, in: Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, Third Edition, pages 299-322, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Jie Ren & Jar-Der Luo & Ke Rong, 2020. "How Do Venture Capitals Build Up Syndication Ecosystems for Sustainable Development?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, May.
    13. Rajesh K. Aggarwal & Andrew A. Samwick, 1999. "Executive Compensation, Strategic Competition, and Relative Performance Evaluation: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(6), pages 1999-2043, December.
    14. SeEun Jung & Radu Vranceanu, 2017. "Gender Interaction in Teams: Experimental Evidence on Performance and Punishment Behavior," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 33, pages 95-126.
    15. Thomas L. Magnanti, 2021. "Optimization: From Its Inception," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5349-5363, September.
    16. Rahman, Aminur & Sawada, Yasuyuki, 2012. "Can donor coordination solve the aid proliferation problem?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 609-612.
    17. Olivier Coibion & Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Saten Kumar & Jane Ryngaert, 2021. "Do You Know that I Know that You Know…? Higher-Order Beliefs in Survey Data," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(3), pages 1387-1446.
    18. Matthew Ellman, 2006. "Specificity Revisited: The Role of Cross-Investments," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 234-257, April.
    19. Bogetoft, Peter & Nielsen, Kurt, 2003. "Yardstick Based Procurement Design In Natural Resource Management," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25910, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Gastón Llanes & Stefano Trento, 2012. "Patent policy, patent pools, and the accumulation of claims in sequential innovation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(3), pages 703-725, August.

    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:inm:ormsom:v:23:y:2021:i:2:p:453-470. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.