Game theory approach for concurrent delay analysis

Huynh, H T; Lucko, G and Eid, M S (2023) Game theory approach for concurrent delay analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 149(3): 04023002, ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Concurrent delays are multiple project participants incurring delays on parallel schedule paths. They have been controversial because it is challenging to apportion liability for liquidated damages fairly and equitably. To date, there exist neither a transparent solution, nor one that addresses all possible scenarios, including mixed, where some participants are ahead of schedule and others are behind. This study therefore proposes a comprehensive model that also newly includes incentive bonuses. This cooperative game theory-based approach has three steps: (1) identify as-planned and as-built schedule inputs; (2) categorize delayed and ahead activities; and (3) operate games to determine Shapley values. Compared with prior delay analysis methods, our model is more robust and apportions liability not just in days, but also in financial terms. A real-world case was analyzed to validate it and demonstrate the reasonableness of its results. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by creating an objective concurrent delay analysis using readily available project data. It also aids in incentivizing project participants to deliver their best possible performance.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: project data, body of knowledge, game theory, delay analysis, liability, liquidated damages
Subjects: liability law, contractual remedy, data collection methods, decision models, project controls, knowledge management
Topics: Contract Administration, Time Control, Information Management, Legal Issues, Research Practice
Descriptive scope: 3 CTE

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