Hosseinian, S M and Carmichael, D G (2013) Optimal incentive contract with risk-neutral contractor. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(8), pp. 899-909. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Incentive clauses within contracts, referred to as incentive contracts in this paper, based on a sharing of the project outcome are regarded as an important vehicle to align contractor interests with that of the owner. However, discussion is ongoing as to what is the optimal incentive arrangement. This paper derives an optimal incentive contract for a risk-neutral contractor; the owner may be either risk averse or risk neutral. An incentive is established based on a sharing of a project's equivalent monetary outcome (expressed relative to a benchmark or target that is desired by the owner), while aligning the contractor's interests with those of the owner. The derivation is based on solving an optimization problem. The paper shows that at the optimum and expressed relative to the target, any favorable or adverse outcome associated with both the contractor's effort and events beyond the contractor's influence should, respectively, be wholly received by or wholly borne by a risk-neutral contractor. Practitioners were interviewed to validate this result. This paper gives an original solution to the optimal sharing problem in incentive construction contracts, contributing to current practices in contracts management. The solution follows an ordered argument and is usable by practitioners. Additionally, this paper extends agency theory on risk-averse principals. This paper will be of interest to academics and practitioners concerned with the design of incentive contracts.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | agency theory; contracting; optimal incentive contract; principal-agent problem; risk neutrality |
| Index terms: | agency, owner, project outcome, neutrality, practitioner, incentive contract, agent, construction contract |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, project completion, practitioner, contract type, ethical practice, sociology |
| Topics: | Project Management, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here