IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hin/complx/3269025.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negotiation for Time Optimization in Construction Projects with Competitive and Social Welfare Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Qingfeng Meng
  • Zhen Li
  • Jianguo Du
  • Huimin Liu
  • Xiang Ding

Abstract

Construction time optimization is affected greatly by the negotiation between owners and contractors, whose progress is dictated by their desire to maximize system revenues. This paper builds an agent-based model and designs an experimental scenario in which the contractor has competitive and social welfare preferences relevant to the Chinese context; we subdivide competitive preference into greed and jealousy components and subdivide social welfare preference into generosity and sympathy components. We analyze the impacts of these different contractor preferences on the revenue-sharing coefficient, negotiation success rate, and negotiation time when negotiation reaches agreement. The results show that the jealousy component of competitive preference has an important influence on improving the income of the subject, while the greed component does not significantly enhance the revenue-sharing coefficient. The sympathy component of social welfare preference does not have an influence on the revenue-sharing coefficient no matter the strength of the generosity component. Increasing the greed component of competitive preference will lead to the extension of negotiation time and, to a certain extent, to the reduction of the negotiation success rate; the sympathy component of social welfare preference does not have an influence on negotiation time no matter the strength of the generosity preference.

Suggested Citation

  • Qingfeng Meng & Zhen Li & Jianguo Du & Huimin Liu & Xiang Ding, 2019. "Negotiation for Time Optimization in Construction Projects with Competitive and Social Welfare Preferences," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-13, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:hin:complx:3269025
    DOI: 10.1155/2019/3269025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/8503/2019/3269025.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/8503/2019/3269025.xml
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2019/3269025?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. Qianqian Shi & Jianbo Zhu & Qian Li, 2018. "Cooperative Evolutionary Game and Applications in Construction Supplier Tendency," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-13, January.
    2. Yang, Jing & Xie, Jinxing & Deng, Xiaoxue & Xiong, Huachun, 2013. "Cooperative advertising in a distribution channel with fairness concerns," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(2), pages 401-407.
    3. Krista J. Li & Sanjay Jain, 2016. "Behavior-Based Pricing: An Analysis of the Impact of Peer-Induced Fairness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(9), pages 2705-2721, September.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    5. Forsythe Robert & Horowitz Joel L. & Savin N. E. & Sefton Martin, 1994. "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, May.
    6. Xiaole Wu & Julie A. Niederhoff, 2014. "Fairness in Selling to the Newsvendor," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 23(11), pages 2002-2022, November.
    7. Ming Li & Guangdong Wu, 2014. "Robust Optimization for Time-Cost Tradeoff Problem in Construction Projects," Abstract and Applied Analysis, Hindawi, vol. 2014, pages 1-7, August.
    8. Antonio Cabrales & Raffaele Miniaci & Marco Piovesan & Giovanni Ponti, 2010. "Social Preferences and Strategic Uncertainty: An Experiment on Markets and Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2261-2278, December.
    9. Mai, Feng & Fry, Michael J. & Raturi, Amitabh S., 2016. "Supply-chain performance anomalies: Fairness concerns under private cost informationAuthor-Name: Qin, Fei," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(1), pages 170-182.
    10. Qingfeng Meng & Jingxian Chen & Kun Qian, 2018. "The Complexity and Simulation of Revenue Sharing Negotiation Based on Construction Stakeholders," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-11, August.
    11. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    12. Christoph H. Loch & Kishore Sengupta & M. Ghufran Ahmad, 2013. "The Microevolution of Routines: How Problem Solving and Social Preferences Interact," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 99-115, February.
    13. Ho, Teck H. & Camerer, Colin F. & Chong, Juin-Kuan, 2007. "Self-tuning experience weighted attraction learning in games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 177-198, March.
    14. Christoph H. Loch & Yaozhong Wu, 2008. "Social Preferences and Supply Chain Performance: An Experimental Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1835-1849, November.
    15. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    16. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    17. Meng, Qingfeng & Li, Zhen & Liu, Huimin & Chen, Jingxian, 2017. "Agent-based simulation of competitive performance for supply chains based on combined contracts," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 663-676.
    18. Zhen Li & Xiaofei Lv & Hongming Zhu & Zhaohan Sheng, 2018. "Analysis of Complexity of Unsafe Behavior in Construction Teams and a Multiagent Simulation," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-15, August.
    19. Wu, Peng & Song, Yongze & Shou, Wenchi & Chi, Hunglin & Chong, Heap-Yih & Sutrisna, Monty, 2017. "A comprehensive analysis of the credits obtained by LEED 2009 certified green buildings," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P1), pages 370-379.
    20. Guangyuan Xing & Dong Qian & Ju’e Guo, 2016. "Research on the Participant Behavior Selections of the Energy Performance Contracting Project Based on the Robustness of the Shared Savings Contract," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-13, July.
    21. Angus Jeang, 2015. "Project management for uncertainty with multiple objectives optimisation of time, cost and reliability," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(5), pages 1503-1526, March.
    22. Messinger, Paul R., 2016. "The role of fairness in competitive supply chain relationships: An experimental studyAuthor-Name: Choi, Sungchul," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(3), pages 798-813.
    23. Nie, Tengfei & Du, Shaofu, 2017. "Dual-fairness supply chain with quantity discount contracts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 491-500.
    24. Babu, A. J. G. & Suresh, Nalina, 1996. "Project management with time, cost, and quality considerations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 320-327, January.
    25. Jianbo Zhu & Qianqian Shi & Peng Wu & Zhaohan Sheng & Xiangyu Wang, 2018. "Complexity Analysis of Prefabrication Contractors’ Dynamic Price Competition in Mega Projects with Different Competition Strategies," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-9, September.
    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. Đula, Ivan & Größler, Andreas, 2021. "Inequity aversion in dynamically complex supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(1), pages 309-322.
    2. Sarkar, Sumit, 2019. "Gratitude, conscience, and reciprocity: Models of supplier motivation when quality is non-contractible," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 633-642.
    3. Ni Du & Qinglan Han, 2018. "Pricing and Service Quality Guarantee Decisions in Logistics Service Supply Chain with Fairness Concern," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 35(05), pages 1-41, October.
    4. Liu Shuren & Chen Huina & Chen Lili, 2016. "Inventory and Pricing Decisions Under Wholesale Price Contract with Social Preferences," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 68-86, February.
    5. Sabrina Teyssier, 2012. "Inequity and risk aversion in sequential public good games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 91-119, April.
    6. Barmettler, Franziska & Fehr, Ernst & Zehnder, Christian, 2012. "Big experimenter is watching you! Anonymity and prosocial behavior in the laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 17-34.
    7. Andrea Essl & Frauke von Bieberstein & Michael Kosfeld & Markus Kröll, 2018. "Sales Performance and Social Preferences," CESifo Working Paper Series 7030, CESifo.
    8. Cox, James C. & Friedman, Daniel & Gjerstad, Steven, 2007. "A tractable model of reciprocity and fairness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 17-45, April.
    9. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    10. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    11. Bart J. Wilson, 2012. "Contra Private Fairness," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 407-435, April.
    12. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    13. Erik O. Kimbrough & Alexander Vostroknutov, 2016. "Norms Make Preferences Social," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 608-638, June.
    14. James Andreoni & Marco Castillo & Ragan Petrie, 2009. "Revealing Preferences for Fairness in Ultimatum Bargaining," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 25, pages 35-63.
    15. Klaus M. Schmidt, 2011. "Social Preferences and Competition," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43, pages 207-231, August.
    16. Charness, Gary & Haruvy, Ernan & Sonsino, Doron, 2007. "Social distance and reciprocity: An Internet experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 88-103, May.
    17. Staffiero, Gianandrea & Exadaktylos, Filippos & Espín, Antonio M., 2013. "Accepting zero in the ultimatum game does not reflect selfish preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 236-238.
    18. Sven Fischer, 2005. "Inequality Aversion in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Conflict Payoffs - A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis -," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-36, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    19. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    20. Rotemberg, Julio J., 2008. "Minimally acceptable altruism and the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(3-4), pages 457-476, June.

    More about this item

    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:hin:complx:3269025. 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: Mohamed Abdelhakeem (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.hindawi.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.