IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v13y2025i16p2635-d1726104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Quadratic Programming Model for Fair Resource Allocation

Author

Listed:
  • Yanmeng Tao

    (School of Transportation Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China)

  • Bo Jiang

    (Faculty of Business, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong 999077, China)

  • Qixiu Cheng

    (Business School, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1PY, UK)

  • Shuaian Wang

    (Faculty of Business, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong 999077, China)

Abstract

In collaborative projects, traditional resource allocation methods often rely on company-assigned contribution rates, which can be subjective and lead to unfair outcomes. To address this, we propose a quadratic programming model that integrates participants’ self-reported rankings of their contributions across projects with company evaluations. The model aims to minimize deviations from company-assigned rates while ensuring consistency with participants’ perceived contribution rankings. Extensive simulations demonstrate that the proposed method reduces allocation errors by an average of 50.8% compared to the traditional approach and 21.4% against the method considering only individual estimation tendencies. Additionally, the average loss reduction in individual resource allocation ranges from 40% to 70% compared to the traditional method and 10% to 50% against the estimation-based method, with our approach outperforming both. Sensitivity analyses further reveal the model’s robustness and its particular value in flawed systems; the error is reduced by approximately 75% in scenarios where company evaluations are highly inaccurate. While its effectiveness is affected by factors such as team size variability and self-assessment errors, the approach consistently provides more equitable allocation of resources that better reflects actual individual contributions, offering valuable insights for improving fairness in team projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Yanmeng Tao & Bo Jiang & Qixiu Cheng & Shuaian Wang, 2025. "A Quadratic Programming Model for Fair Resource Allocation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-21, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:13:y:2025:i:16:p:2635-:d:1726104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/16/2635/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/16/2635/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bo Jiang & Xuecheng Tian & King-Wah Pang & Qixiu Cheng & Yong Jin & Shuaian Wang, 2024. "Rightful Rewards: Refining Equity in Team Resource Allocation through a Data-Driven Optimization Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-12, July.
    2. Wlodzimierz Ogryczak & Hanan Luss & Michał Pióro & Dritan Nace & Artur Tomaszewski, 2014. "Fair Optimization and Networks: A Survey," Journal of Applied Mathematics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2014(1).
    3. Karsu, Özlem & Morton, Alec, 2015. "Inequity averse optimization in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(2), pages 343-359.
    4. Wlodzimierz Ogryczak & Hanan Luss & Michał Pióro & Dritan Nace & Artur Tomaszewski, 2014. "Fair Optimization and Networks: A Survey," Journal of Applied Mathematics, Hindawi, vol. 2014, pages 1-25, September.
    5. Argyris, Nikolaos & Karsu, Özlem & Yavuz, Mirel, 2022. "Fair resource allocation: Using welfare-based dominance constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 560-578.
    6. Hongyi Sun & Wenbin Ni & Lanxuan Huang, 2023. "Fuzzy Assessment of Management Consulting Projects: Model Validation and Case Studies," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-22, October.
    7. Jiayi Jia & Yongzeng Lai & Zheng Yang & Lin Li, 2022. "The Optimal Strategy of Enterprise Key Resource Allocation and Utilization in Collaborative Innovation Project Based on Evolutionary Game," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-25, January.
    8. Ogryczak, Wlodzimierz & Sliwinski, Tomasz, 2003. "On solving linear programs with the ordered weighted averaging objective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 80-91, July.
    9. Hanan Luss, 1999. "On Equitable Resource Allocation Problems: A Lexicographic Minimax Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 47(3), pages 361-378, June.
    10. Violet Xinying Chen & J. N. Hooker, 2023. "A guide to formulating fairness in an optimization model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(1), pages 581-619, July.
    11. Konstantinos Vogklis & Isaac E. Lagaris, 2025. "An Active-Set Algorithm for Convex Quadratic Programming Subject to Box Constraints with Applications in Non-Linear Optimization and Machine Learning," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-37, April.
    12. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2012. "On the Efficiency-Fairness Trade-off," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(12), pages 2234-2250, December.
    13. Monhéséa Obrey Patrick Bah & Zehou Sun & Uzapi Hange & Akadje Jean Roland Edjoukou, 2024. "Effectiveness of Organizational Change through Employee Involvement: Evidence from Telecommunications and Refinery Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, March.
    14. Jin Peng & Wen-Tsao Pan, 2022. "Performance Appraisal System and Its Optimization Method for Enterprise Management Employees Based on the KPI Index," Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, Hindawi, vol. 2022, pages 1-12, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Violet Xinying Chen & J. N. Hooker, 2023. "A guide to formulating fairness in an optimization model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(1), pages 581-619, July.
    2. Argyris, Nikolaos & Karsu, Özlem & Yavuz, Mirel, 2022. "Fair resource allocation: Using welfare-based dominance constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 560-578.
    3. Spencer Leitch & Zhiyuan Wei, 2024. "Improving spatial access to healthcare facilities: an integrated approach with spatial analysis and optimization modeling," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 341(2), pages 1057-1074, October.
    4. David Rea & Craig Froehle & Suzanne Masterson & Brian Stettler & Gregory Fermann & Arthur Pancioli, 2021. "Unequal but Fair: Incorporating Distributive Justice in Operational Allocation Models," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(7), pages 2304-2320, July.
    5. Karsu, Özlem & Morton, Alec, 2015. "Inequity averse optimization in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(2), pages 343-359.
    6. Amy Givler Chapman & John E. Mitchell, 2018. "A fair division approach to humanitarian logistics inspired by conditional value-at-risk," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 262(1), pages 133-151, March.
    7. Chen, Violet Xinying & Hooker, J.N., 2022. "Combining leximax fairness and efficiency in a mathematical programming model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(1), pages 235-248.
    8. Gudmundsson, Jens & Hougaard, Jens Leth & Platz, Trine Tornøe, 2023. "Decentralized task coordination," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 851-864.
    9. Alexandre Jacquillat & Vikrant Vaze, 2018. "Interairline Equity in Airport Scheduling Interventions," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 941-964, August.
    10. Karsu, Özlem & Elver, İzzet Egemen & Kınık, Tuna Arda, 2025. "Finding robustly fair solutions in resource allocation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    11. Philippe Ezran & Yoram Haddad & Mérouane Debbah, 2019. "Allais’ paradox and resource allocation in telecommunication networks," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 337-348, March.
    12. Gutjahr, Walter J., 2021. "Inequity-averse stochastic decision processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 258-270.
    13. Nicosia, Gaia & Pacifici, Andrea & Pferschy, Ulrich, 2017. "Price of Fairness for allocating a bounded resource," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 933-943.
    14. Hrayer Aprahamian & Douglas R. Bish & Ebru K. Bish, 2019. "Optimal Risk-Based Group Testing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(9), pages 4365-4384, September.
    15. Kostreva, Michael M. & Ogryczak, Wlodzimierz & Wierzbicki, Adam, 2004. "Equitable aggregations and multiple criteria analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 362-377, October.
    16. Mostajabdaveh, Mahdi & Salman, F. Sibel & Gutjahr, Walter J., 2025. "A branch-and-price algorithm for fast and equitable last-mile relief aid distribution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 324(2), pages 522-537.
    17. Chen, Qingxin & Fu, Chenyi & Zhu, Ning & Ma, Shoufeng & He, Qiao-Chu, 2023. "A target-based optimization model for bike-sharing systems: From the perspective of service efficiency and equity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 235-260.
    18. Walter J. Gutjahr, 2023. "Fair and efficient vaccine allocation: A generalized Gini index approach," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(12), pages 4114-4134, December.
    19. Christ, Quentin & Dauzère-Pérès, Stéphane & Lepelletier, Guillaume, 2019. "An Iterated Min–Max procedure for practical workload balancing on non-identical parallel machines in manufacturing systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(2), pages 419-428.
    20. Thomas Breugem & Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 2022. "The Price of Imposing Vertical Equity Through Asymmetric Outcome Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 7977-7993, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jmathe:v:13:y:2025:i:16:p:2635-:d:1726104. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.