Hosseinian, S M (2016) An optimal time incentive/disincentive -based compensation in contracts with multiple agents. Construction Economics and Building, 16(4), pp. 35-53. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
This paper establishes an optimal time incentive/disincentive-based compensation in a contract between a principal and a team of agents. The establishment is based on solving an optimization problem. In order to validate the paper's theoretical development practitioners were engaged in a designed exercise. The paper demonstrates that, at the optimum: the proportion of time incentive/disincentive compensation among agents with the same risk-attitude should reflect the levels of their contributions; the proportion of time incentive/disincentive among agents with the same level of contribution should be lowered for agents with higher levels of risk aversion; and the proportion of time incentive/disincentive to a team of risk averse agents should reduce, and the fixed component of the team fee should increase, when the agents in the team become more risk-averse or the level of the uncertainty in project completion time increases. The paper’s outcome provides guidance to those involved in contracts design for choosing the best way to reward (penalise) multiple agents, form a team, and allow for any time saving (overrun) through the terms of a contract.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | time incentive/disincentive compensation; contribution; multiple agents; risk; uncertainty |
| Index terms: | completion time, agent, compensation, practitioner, time saving, exercise, overrun |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, project controls, health behaviours and lifestyles, practitioner, time analysis |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Time Control, Roles and Professions, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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