IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v231y2013i3p712-719.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Distributing inspections in space and time – Proposed solution of a difficult problem

Author

Listed:
  • Avenhaus, Rudolf
  • Krieger, Thomas

Abstract

There are several identical facilities in which precious or dangerous material is processed or stored. Since parts of this material may be diverted by some manager or employee of these facilities or since failures in the processing of the material may occur, an authorized organization inspects these facilities regularly at the beginning and at the end of some reference time interval. In order to shorten the time required for detecting such an illegal activity or failures, in addition some interim inspections are performed in these facilities during the reference time interval. The optimal distribution of these interim inspections in space and time poses considerable analytical problems since adversary strategies have to be taken into account. So far only special cases have been analysed successfully, but these results lead to a conjecture for the solution of the general case which is surprisingly simple in view of the complexity of this inspection problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Avenhaus, Rudolf & Krieger, Thomas, 2013. "Distributing inspections in space and time – Proposed solution of a difficult problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 712-719.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:231:y:2013:i:3:p:712-719
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.06.028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221713005353
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.06.028?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
    ---><---

    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. Daniel Rothenstein & Shmuel Zamir, 2002. "Imperfect Inspection Games Over Time," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 175-192, January.
    2. Deutsch, Yael & Golany, Boaz & Rothblum, Uriel G., 2011. "Determining all Nash equilibria in a (bi-linear) inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(2), pages 422-430, December.
    3. Fandel, G. & Trockel, J., 2013. "Avoiding non-optimal management decisions by applying a three-person inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 85-93.
    4. Avenhaus, Rudolf & Canty, Morton John, 2005. "Playing for time: A sequential inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(2), pages 475-492, December.
    5. Harvey Diamond, 1982. "Minimax Policies for Unobservable Inspections," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 139-153, February.
    6. Avenhaus, Rudolf & Von Stengel, Bernhard & Zamir, Shmuel, 2002. "Inspection games," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 51, pages 1947-1987, Elsevier.
    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. Ensthaler, Ludwig & Giebe, Thomas, 2014. "Bayesian optimal knapsack procurement," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(3), pages 774-779.

    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. Yael Deutsch & Boaz Golany, 2016. "Multiple agents finitely repeated inspection game with dismissals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 7-26, February.
    2. Páez-Pérez, David & Sánchez-Silva, Mauricio, 2016. "A dynamic principal-agent framework for modeling the performance of infrastructure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(2), pages 576-594.
    3. Fandel, G. & Trockel, J., 2013. "Avoiding non-optimal management decisions by applying a three-person inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 85-93.
    4. von Stengel, Bernhard, 2016. "Recursive inspection games," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68299, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Yael Deutsch & Boaz Golany, 2016. "Multiple agents finitely repeated inspection game with dismissals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 7-26, February.
    6. Harstad, Bård, 2016. "The market for conservation and other hostages," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 124-151.
    7. Stamatios Katsikas & Vassili Kolokoltsov & Wei Yang, 2016. "Evolutionary Inspection and Corruption Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-25, October.
    8. Puneet Agarwal & Kyle Hunt & Shivasubramanian Srinivasan & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "Fire Code Inspection and Compliance: A Game-Theoretic Model Between Fire Inspection Agencies and Building Owners," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 208-226, September.
    9. D׳Agostino, Elena & Seidmann, Daniel J., 2016. "Protecting buyers from fine print," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 42-54.
    10. Owen Q. Wu & Volodymyr Babich, 2012. "Unit-Contingent Power Purchase Agreement and Asymmetric Information About Plant Outage," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 245-261, April.
    11. Avenhaus, Rudolf & Canty, Morton John, 2005. "Playing for time: A sequential inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(2), pages 475-492, December.
    12. Avenhaus, Rudolf & Canty, Morton & Marc Kilgour, D. & von Stengel, Bernhard & Zamir, Shmuel, 1996. "Inspection games in arms control," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 383-394, May.
    13. John Canty, Morton & Rothenstein, Daniel & Avenhaus, Rudolf, 2001. "Timely inspection and deterrence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 208-223, May.
    14. Deutsch, Yael, 2021. "A polynomial-time method to compute all Nash equilibria solutions of a general two-person inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 1036-1052.
    15. Bernhard von Stengel, 2016. "Recursive Inspection Games," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 41(3), pages 935-952, August.
    16. Meijerink, Gerdien W., 2007. "If services aren't delivered, people won't pay: the role of measurement problems and monitoring in Payments for Environmental Services," 106th Seminar, October 25-27, 2007, Montpellier, France 7948, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Nourinejad, Mehdi & Gandomi, Amir & Roorda, Matthew J., 2020. "Illegal parking and optimal enforcement policies with search friction," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    18. Andrew Yim, 2009. "Efficient Committed Budget for Implementing Target Audit Probability for Many Inspectees," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(12), pages 2000-2018, December.
    19. Rudolf Avenhaus & Morton J. Canty, 2011. "Deterrence, technology, and the sensible distribution of arms control verification resources," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 295-303, April.
    20. von Stengel, Bernhard & Zamir, Shmuel, 2010. "Leadership games with convex strategy sets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 446-457, July.

    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:231:y:2013:i:3:p:712-719. 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.