IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orinte/v52y2022i5p433-445.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Solving the Ride-Sharing Productivity Paradox: Priority Dispatch and Optimal Priority Sets

Author

Listed:
  • Varun Krishnan

    (Lyft Inc., San Francisco, California 94107)

  • Ramon Iglesias

    (Lyft Inc., San Francisco, California 94107)

  • Sebastien Martin

    (Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208)

  • Su Wang

    (Lyft Inc., San Francisco, California 94107)

  • Varun Pattabhiraman

    (Lyft Inc., San Francisco, California 94107)

  • Garrett Van Ryzin

    (Amazon, Seattle, Washington 98109)

Abstract

Ride-sharing platforms face a “productivity paradox,” whereby any efficiency gained through improved dispatch or pricing strategies will not benefit drivers or riders. We show that this is a limit of the traditional ride-hailing model and a consequence of the Hall-Horton driver equilibrium earning hypothesis. In response to this challenge, Lyft introduced Priority Mode (PM), which allows drivers to concentrate their work during specific prioritized hours. We prove that PM solves the productivity paradox. As a result, the average driver earnings increase, and the platform and the riders also benefit. Implementing PM requires significant changes to the platform’s dispatch and pricing policy but most importantly requires careful control of the number of drivers that can be offered the opportunity to be prioritized at any given time. In this paper, we introduce a queuing setting to model the market dynamics of PM and illustrate the challenges of this control problem. We then leverage this intuition to build a real-time priority admission control system that can balance the number of drivers offered priority and achieve the desired productivity increase. Lyft has successfully rolled out PM throughout North America, and drivers have completed hundreds of thousands of driving hours thus far. It has generated tens of millions of dollars of value that the drivers, the riders, and Lyft have shared, with the potential to generate much more when rolled out in all markets. Finally, our internal driver surveys reveal that it has been well received by drivers.

Suggested Citation

  • Varun Krishnan & Ramon Iglesias & Sebastien Martin & Su Wang & Varun Pattabhiraman & Garrett Van Ryzin, 2022. "Solving the Ride-Sharing Productivity Paradox: Priority Dispatch and Optimal Priority Sets," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 52(5), pages 433-445, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:52:y:2022:i:5:p:433-445
    DOI: 10.1287/inte.2022.1134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.2022.1134
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/inte.2022.1134?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. M. Keith Chen & Judith A. Chevalier & Peter E. Rossi & Emily Oehlsen, 2019. "The Value of Flexible Work: Evidence from Uber Drivers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(6), pages 2735-2794.
    2. Hao Yi Ong & Daniel Freund & Davide Crapis, 2021. "Driver Positioning and Incentive Budgeting with an Escrow Mechanism for Ridesharing Platforms," Papers 2104.14740, arXiv.org.
    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. Susan Athey & Michael Luca, 2019. "Economists (and Economics) in Tech Companies," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 209-230, Winter.
    2. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    3. Wang, Wei & Miao, Wei & Liu, Yongdong & Deng, Yiting & Cao, Yunfei, 2022. "The impact of COVID-19 on the ride-sharing industry and its recovery: Causal evidence from China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 128-141.
    4. Yanwen Wang & Chunhua Wu & Ting Zhu, 2019. "Mobile Hailing Technology and Taxi Driving Behaviors," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 734-755, September.
    5. Kesternich, Iris & Schumacher, Heiner & Siflinger, Bettina & Valder, Franziska, 2022. "Reservation wages and labor supply," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 583-607.
    6. Berger, Thor & Chen, Chinchih & Frey, Carl Benedikt, 2018. "Drivers of disruption? Estimating the Uber effect," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 197-210.
    7. Gideon D. Markman & Marvin Lieberman & Michael Leiblein & Li‐Qun Wei & Yonggui Wang, 2021. "The Distinctive Domain of the Sharing Economy: Definitions, Value Creation, and Implications for Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 927-948, June.
    8. Nicolai J. Foss & Peter G. Klein, 2023. "Why managers still matter as applied organization (design) theory," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 12(1), pages 7-18, June.
    9. Gordon H. Hanson, 2021. "Immigration and Regional Specialization in AI," NBER Working Papers 28671, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Alexandre Mas & Amanda Pallais, 2019. "Labor Supply and the Value of Non-work Time: Experimental Estimates from the Field," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 111-126, June.
    11. Cody Cook & Rebecca Diamond & Jonathan V Hall & John A List & Paul Oyer, 2021. "The Gender Earnings Gap in the Gig Economy: Evidence from over a Million Rideshare Drivers [Measuring the Gig Economy: Current Knowledge and Open Issues]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(5), pages 2210-2238.
    12. Rudolf Kerschbamer & Daniel Neururer & Matthias Sutter, 2019. "Credence goods markets and the informational value of new media: A natural field experiment," Working Papers 2019-02, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    13. Hai Long Duong & Junhong Chu & Dai Yao, 2023. "Taxi Drivers’ Response to Cancellations and No-Shows: New Evidence for Reference-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(1), pages 179-199, January.
    14. Janine Berg & Francis Green & Laura Nurski & David A Spencer, 2023. "Risks to job quality from digital technologies: Are industrial relations in Europe ready for the challenge?," European Journal of Industrial Relations, , vol. 29(4), pages 347-365, December.
    15. Alex Chin & Zhiwei Qin, 2023. "A Unified Representation Framework for Rideshare Marketplace Equilibrium and Efficiency," Papers 2302.14358, arXiv.org.
    16. Yang Pan & LiangFei Qiu, 2018. "Is Uber Helping or Hurting Mass Transit? An Empirical Investigation," Working Papers 18-11, NET Institute.
    17. Cosaert, Sam & Lefebvre, Mathieu & Martin, Ludivine, 2022. "Are preferences for work reference dependent or time nonseparable? New experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    18. Lam, Chungsang Tom & Liu, Meng & Hui, Xiang, 2021. "The geography of ridesharing: A case study on New York City," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    19. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2022. "Piecework and Job Search in the Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 15775, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Meng Liu & Erik Brynjolfsson & Jason Dowlatabadi, 2021. "Do Digital Platforms Reduce Moral Hazard? The Case of Uber and Taxis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 4665-4685, 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:orinte:v:52:y:2022:i:5:p:433-445. 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.