IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v32y2012i5p836-854.html

Shortcuts in Complex Engineering Systems: A Principal‐Agent Approach to Risk Management

Author

Listed:
  • Russ Garber
  • Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell

Abstract

In this article, we examine the effects of shortcuts in the development of engineered systems through a principal‐agent model. We find that occurrences of illicit shortcuts are closely related to the incentive structure and to the level of effort that the agent is willing to expend from the beginning of the project to remain on schedule. Using a probabilistic risk analysis to determine the risks of system failure from these shortcuts, we show how a principal can choose optimal settings (payments, penalties, and inspections) that can deter an agent from cutting corners and maximize the principal's value through increased agent effort. We analyze the problem for an agent with limited liability. We consider first the case where he is risk neutral; we then include the case where he is risk averse.

Suggested Citation

  • Russ Garber & Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2012. "Shortcuts in Complex Engineering Systems: A Principal‐Agent Approach to Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 836-854, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:5:p:836-854
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01736.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01736.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01736.x?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. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Flyvbjerg,Bent & Bruzelius,Nils & Rothengatter,Werner, 2003. "Megaprojects and Risk," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521009461, Enero-Abr.
    3. Robin L. Dillon & M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell & Seth D. Guikema, 2003. "Programmatic Risk Analysis for Critical Engineering Systems Under Tight Resource Constraints," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 51(3), pages 354-370, June.
    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. Martina de Gramatica & Fabio Massacci & Woohyun Shim & Uğur Turhan & Julian Williams, 2017. "Agency Problems and Airport Security: Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence on the Impact of Security Training," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 372-395, February.
    2. Michael J. Pennock, 2015. "Defense Acquisition: A Tragedy of the Commons," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 349-364, July.
    3. Sean D. Vermillion & Richard J. Malak, 2020. "An investigation on requirement and objective allocation strategies using a principal–agent model," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 100-117, January.
    4. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell & Louis Anthony Cox, 2014. "Improving Risk Management: From Lame Excuses to Principled Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1228-1239, July.

    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. Petter Osmundsen & Kristin Helen Roll, 2016. "Rig Rates and Drilling Speed: Reinforcing Effects," CESifo Working Paper Series 5895, CESifo.
    2. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2014. "What You Should Know About Megaprojects, and Why: An Overview," Papers 1409.0003, arXiv.org.
    3. Bent Flyvbjerg & Eamonn Molloy, 2011. "Delusion, Deception and Corruption in Major Infrastructure Projects: Causes, Consequences and Cures," Chapters, in: Susan Rose-Ackerman & Tina Søreide (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, Volume Two, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Øglend, Atle & Osmundsen, Petter & Lorentzen, Sindre, 2016. "Cost Overrun at the Norwegian Continental Shelf: The element of surprise," UiS Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2016/3, University of Stavanger.
    5. Salling, Kim Bang & Banister, David, 2009. "Assessment of large transport infrastructure projects: The CBA-DK model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(9-10), pages 800-813, November.
    6. Ansar, Atif & Flyvbjerg, Bent & Budzier, Alexander & Lunn, Daniel, 2014. "Should we build more large dams? The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 43-56.
    7. Seow Eng Ong & Davin Wang & Calvin Chua, 2023. "Disruptive Innovation and Real Estate Agency: The Disruptee Strikes Back," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 287-317, August.
    8. Christiane Goodfellow & Dirk Schiereck & Steffen Wippler, 2013. "Are behavioural finance equity funds a superior investment? A note on fund performance and market efficiency," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(2), pages 111-119, April.
    9. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Shuang Yao & Donghua Yu & Yan Song & Hao Yao & Yuzhen Hu & Benhai Guo, 2018. "Dry Bulk Carrier Investment Selection through a Dual Group Decision Fusing Mechanism in the Green Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.
    11. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    12. Pieter Nel & Renee van Eyden, 2026. "From News to Noise: Does Media Sentiment Drive Stock Market Volatility?," Working Papers 202605, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    13. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    14. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    15. Singal, Vijay & Xu, Zhaojin, 2011. "Selling winners, holding losers: Effect on fund flows and survival of disposition-prone mutual funds," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 2704-2718, October.
    16. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    17. Alex Cukierman & Anton Muscatelli, 2001. "Do Central Banks have Precautionary Demands for Expansions and for Price Stability?," Working Papers 2002_4, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow, revised Mar 2002.
    18. Dash, Saumya Ranjan & Maitra, Debasish, 2018. "Does sentiment matter for stock returns? Evidence from Indian stock market using wavelet approach," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 32-39.
    19. José F. Tudón M., 2019. "Perception, utility, and evolution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 191-208, December.
    20. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.

    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:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:5:p:836-854. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.