IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i7p1983-d219571.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of Game Theory to Conflict Management in a Construction Contract

Author

Listed:
  • Beata Grzyl

    (Gdańsk University of Technology, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 80-233 Gdańsk, Poland)

  • Magdalena Apollo

    (Gdańsk University of Technology, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 80-233 Gdańsk, Poland)

  • Adam Kristowski

    (Gdańsk University of Technology, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 80-233 Gdańsk, Poland)

Abstract

Interest has recently grown in the application of game theory (GT) to solve a number of diverse problems in the field of construction. The use of GT by a general contractor (GC) of construction works to indicate the best strategy leading to winning court proceedings in a situation of conflict with investor (IN), has not been investigated until now. Thus the aim of this paper is to indicate the optimal strategy from the GC viewpoint in a conflict situation with the IN. The article presents a list of the most common causes of conflict between parties of a construction work contract, defines the background of the problem and the cause of the dispute, and subsequently the authors generate a theoretical model of the game. Based on the analyzed game model, the expected payoffs for players were calculated and the probability boundary value determined in making the GC apply the indicated strategy. The study results show that while the probability of issuing a judgment favorable for the GC is at least equal to 0.69 it is justified to use an aggressive strategy. The analysis also confirms that from the financial perspective, litigation in most cases of conflicts in the area of construction should be the ultimate choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Beata Grzyl & Magdalena Apollo & Adam Kristowski, 2019. "Application of Game Theory to Conflict Management in a Construction Contract," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-12, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:1983-:d:219571
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1983/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1983/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Motchenkova, Evgenia, 2008. "Determination of optimal penalties for antitrust violations in a dynamic setting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 269-291, August.
    2. Sun, Lian-Ju & Gao, Zi-You, 2007. "An equilibrium model for urban transit assignment based on game theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(1), pages 305-314, August.
    3. Marina Halac, 2014. "Relationship Building: Conflict and Project Choice over Time," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 683-708.
    4. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, April.
    5. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Zenonas Turskis & Jolanta Tamošaitiene, 2008. "Contractor selection of construction in a competitive environment," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 181-187, August.
    6. Homburg, Carsten & Scherpereel, Peter, 2008. "How should the cost of joint risk capital be allocated for performance measurement?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 208-227, May.
    7. Su, B.B. & Chang, H. & Chen, Y.-Z. & He, D.R., 2007. "A game theory model of urban public traffic networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 379(1), pages 291-297.
    8. Rafael Sacks & Michael Harel, 2006. "An economic game theory model of subcontractor resource allocation behaviour," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(8), pages 869-881.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Liu, Qi & Chow, Joseph Y.J., 2022. "Efficient and stable data-sharing in a public transit oligopoly as a coopetitive game," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 64-87.
    2. Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram & Maryam Adhami & Ozgur Kisi & Chandrashekhar Meshram & Pham Anh Duc & Khaled Mohamed Khedher, 2021. "Identification of Critical Watershed for Soil Conservation Using Game Theory-Based Approaches," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(10), pages 3105-3120, August.
    3. Lin, XuXun & Yuan, PengCheng, 2018. "A dynamic parking charge optimal control model under perspective of commuters’ evolutionary game behavior," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 490(C), pages 1096-1110.
    4. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Bonanno, Giacomo, 1997. "The Logic of Belief Persistence," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 39-59, April.
    5. Szabó, György & Borsos, István & Szombati, Edit, 2019. "Games, graphs and Kirchhoff laws," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 521(C), pages 416-423.
    6. Shi, Yi & Deng, Yawen & Wang, Guoan & Xu, Jiuping, 2020. "Stackelberg equilibrium-based eco-economic approach for sustainable development of kitchen waste disposal with subsidy policy: A case study from China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    7. Marc Le Menestrel, 2003. "A one-shot Prisoners’ Dilemma with procedural utility," Economics Working Papers 819, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    8. Cheng‐Kuang Wu & Yi‐Ming Chen & Dachrahn Wu & Ching‐Lin Chi, 2020. "A Game Theory Approach for Assessment of Risk and Deployment of Police Patrols in Response to Criminal Activity in San Francisco," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 534-549, March.
    9. Nasimeh Heydaribeni & Achilleas Anastasopoulos, 2019. "Linear Equilibria for Dynamic LQG Games with Asymmetric Information and Dependent Types," Papers 1909.04834, arXiv.org.
    10. Müller, Christoph, 2020. "Robust implementation in weakly perfect Bayesian strategies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    11. Björn Häckel, 2010. "Risikoadjustierte Wertbeiträge zur ex ante Entscheidungsunterstützung: Ein axiomatischer Ansatz," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 81-108, June.
    12. Hitoshi Matsushima, 2019. "Implementation without expected utility: ex-post verifiability," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(4), pages 575-585, December.
    13. Dasgupta Utteeyo, 2011. "Are Entry Threats Always Credible?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-41, December.
    14. Baran Han, 2018. "The role and welfare rationale of secondary sanctions: A theory and a case study of the US sanctions targeting Iran," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(5), pages 474-502, September.
    15. Carlos Pimienta & Jianfei Shen, 2014. "On the equivalence between (quasi-)perfect and sequential equilibria," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(2), pages 395-402, May.
    16. Asheim, Geir & Søvik, Ylva, 2003. "The semantics of preference-based belief operators," Memorandum 05/2003, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    17. Salvador Barberà & Anke Gerber, 2024. "On the Endogenous Order of Play in Sequential Games," Working Papers 1443, Barcelona School of Economics.
    18. Wang, Yafeng & Graham, Brett, 2009. "Generalized Maximum Entropy estimation of discrete sequential move games of perfect information," MPRA Paper 21331, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. repec:dau:papers:123456789/6818 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Tobias Harks & Martin Hoefer & Anja Schedel & Manuel Surek, 2021. "Efficient Black-Box Reductions for Separable Cost Sharing," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 134-158, February.
    21. Karbowski, Adam, 2011. "O kilku modelach samolubnego karania w ekonomii behawioralnej [Evolution of altruism in the light of behavioral economics]," MPRA Paper 69604, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:1983-:d:219571. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.