IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v275y2019i2p608-620.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to apply penalties to avoid delays in projects

Author

Listed:
  • Bergantiños, Gustavo
  • Lorenzo, Leticia

Abstract

A planner wants to carry out a project involving several firms. In many cases the planner, for instance the Spanish Administration, includes in the contract a penalty clause that imposes a payment per day if the firms do not complete their activities or the project on time. We discuss two ways of including such penalty clauses in contracts. In the first the penalty applies only when the whole project is delayed. In the second the penalty applies to each firm that incurs a delay even if the project is completed on time. We compare the two penalty systems and find that the optimal penalty (for the planner) is larger in the second method, the utility of the planner is always at least as large or larger in the second case, and the utility of the firms is always at least as large or larger in the first. Surprisingly, the final delay in the project is unrelated to which penalty system is chosen.

Suggested Citation

  • Bergantiños, Gustavo & Lorenzo, Leticia, 2019. "How to apply penalties to avoid delays in projects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 608-620.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:275:y:2019:i:2:p:608-620
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.11.056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221718309974
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.11.056?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Perry, Motty & Reny, Philip J, 1994. "A Noncooperative View of Coalition Formation and the Core," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(4), pages 795-817, July.
    2. Perez-Castrillo, David & Wettstein, David, 2001. "Bidding for the Surplus : A Non-cooperative Approach to the Shapley Value," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 274-294, October.
    3. Moulin, Herve & Shenker, Scott, 1992. "Serial Cost Sharing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(5), pages 1009-1037, September.
    4. Jonathan Levin, 2003. "Relational Incentive Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 835-857, June.
    5. Dagan, Nir & Serrano, Roberto & Volij, Oscar, 1997. "A Noncooperative View of Consistent Bankruptcy Rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 55-72, January.
    6. Gregory Lewis & Patrick Bajari, 2011. "Procurement Contracting With Time Incentives: Theory and Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(3), pages 1173-1211.
    7. Chiara D'Alpaos & Michele Moretto & Paola Valbonesi & Sergio Vergalli, 2009. "It is never too late: Optimal penalty for investment delay in public procurement contracts," Working Papers 0907, University of Brescia, Department of Economics.
    8. Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
    9. Rodica Brânzei & Giulio Ferrari & Vito Fragnelli & Stef Tijs, 2002. "Two Approaches to the Problem of Sharing Delay Costs in Joint Projects," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 359-374, January.
    10. D. G. Malcolm & J. H. Roseboom & C. E. Clark & W. Fazar, 1959. "Application of a Technique for Research and Development Program Evaluation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 646-669, October.
    11. Decio Coviello & Luigi Moretti & Giancarlo Spagnolo & Paola Valbonesi, 2018. "Court Efficiency and Procurement Performance," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 120(3), pages 826-858, July.
    12. Rodica Brânzei & Giulio Ferrari & Vito Fragnelli & Stef Tijs, 2002. "Two Approaches to the Problem of Sharing Delay Costs in Joint Projects," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 359-374, January.
    13. Gregory Lewis & Patrick Bajari, 2014. "Moral Hazard, Incentive Contracts, and Risk: Evidence from Procurement," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(3), pages 1201-1228.
    14. Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
    15. Chiara D’Alpaos & Michele Moretto & Paola Valbonesi & Sergio Vergalli, 2013. "Time overruns as opportunistic behavior in public procurement," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 25-43, September.
    16. Hart, Sergiu & Mas-Colell, Andreu, 1996. "Bargaining and Value," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(2), pages 357-380, March.
    17. Dagan, Nir & Serrano, Roberto & Volij, Oscar, 1997. "A Noncooperative View of Consistent Bankruptcy Rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 55-72, January.
    18. Katherine Doornik, 2010. "Incentive Contracts with Enforcement Costs," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 115-143, April.
    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. Šůcha, Přemysl & Agnetis, Alessandro & Šidlovský, Marko & Briand, Cyril, 2021. "Nash equilibrium solutions in multi-agent project scheduling with milestones," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 29-41.
    2. J. C. Gonçalves-Dosantos & I. García-Jurado & J. Costa, 2020. "Sharing delay costs in stochastic scheduling problems with delays," 4OR, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 457-476, December.

    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. Hu, Cheng-Cheng & Tsay, Min-Hung & Yeh, Chun-Hsien, 2018. "A study of the nucleolus in the nested cost-sharing problem: Axiomatic and strategic perspectives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 82-98.
    2. Schouten, Jop, 2022. "Cooperation, allocation and strategy in interactive decision-making," Other publications TiSEM d5d41448-8033-4f6b-8ec0-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Yuan Ju & David Wettstein, 2009. "Implementing cooperative solution concepts: a generalized bidding approach," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(2), pages 307-330, May.
    4. M. Albizuri & J. Echarri & J. Zarzuelo, 2015. "A non-cooperative mechanism for the Shapley value of airport problems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Peris, Josep E. & Jiménez-Gómez, José M., 2012. "A Proportional Approach to Bankruptcy Problems with a guaranteed minimum," QM&ET Working Papers 12-7, University of Alicante, D. Quantitative Methods and Economic Theory.
    6. William Thomson, 2014. "Compromising between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules," RCER Working Papers 584, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    7. José M. Jiménez Gómez, 2010. "Noncooperative justifications for old bankruptcy rules," Working Papers. Serie AD 2010-15, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    8. Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2023. "Additive adjudication of conflicting claims," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(1), pages 93-116, March.
    9. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Min-Hung Tsay & Chun-Hsien Yeh, 2020. "A strategic justification of the Talmud rule based on lower and upper bounds," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1045-1057, December.
    10. Decio Coviello & Luigi Moretti & Giancarlo Spagnolo & Paola Valbonesi, 2018. "Court Efficiency and Procurement Performance," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 120(3), pages 826-858, July.
    11. Büyükboyacı, Mürüvvet & Gürdal, Mehmet Y. & Kıbrıs, Arzu & Kıbrıs, Özgür, 2019. "An experimental study of the investment implications of bankruptcy laws," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 607-629.
    12. Emin Karagözoğlu, 2014. "A noncooperative approach to bankruptcy problems with an endogenous estate," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 217(1), pages 299-318, June.
    13. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Giovanni Ponti, 2010. "On the adjudication of conflicting claims: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(1), pages 145-179, January.
    14. Louis de Mesnard, 2015. "The three wives problem and Shapley value," Post-Print hal-01091714, HAL.
    15. Hokari, Toru & Thomson, William, 2008. "On properties of division rules lifted by bilateral consistency," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1057-1071, December.
    16. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & M. Marco-Gil, 2014. "A new approach for bounding awards in bankruptcy problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(2), pages 447-469, August.
    17. María José Solíx-Baltodano & Cori Vilella & José Manuel Giménez-Gómez, 2019. "The Catalan Health Budget: A Conflicting Claims Approach," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 228(1), pages 35-54, March.
    18. Giménez-Gómez, José Manuel, 2011. "A way to play bankruptcy problems," Working Papers 2072/169781, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    19. Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2006. "Dividing Justly in Bargaining Problems with Claims," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(3), pages 571-594, December.
    20. Atlamaz, Murat & Berden, Caroline & Peters, Hans & Vermeulen, Dries, 2011. "Non-cooperative solutions for estate division problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 39-51, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Game theory; PERT; Delays; Penalties;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    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:eee:ejores:v:275:y:2019:i:2:p:608-620. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.