IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v67y2021i6p3757-3784.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value Loss in Allocation Systems with Provider Guarantees

Author

Listed:
  • Yonatan Gur

    (Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305)

  • Dan Iancu

    (Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305; INSEAD, Fontainebleau 77300, France)

  • Xavier Warnes

    (Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305)

Abstract

Many operational settings share the following three features: (i) a centralized planning system allocates tasks to workers or service providers, (ii) the providers generate value by completing the tasks, and (iii) the completion of tasks influences the providers’ welfare. In such cases, the planning system’s allocations often entail trade-offs between the service providers’ welfare and the total value that is generated (or that accrues to the system itself), and concern arises that allocations that are good under one metric may perform poorly under the other. We propose a broad framework for quantifying the magnitude of value losses when allocations are restricted to satisfy certain desirable guarantees to the service providers. We consider a general class of guarantees that includes many considerations of practical interest arising (e.g., in the design of sustainable two-sided markets) in workforce welfare and compensation, or in sourcing and payments in supply chains, among other application domains. We derive tight bounds on the relative value loss and show that this loss is limited for any restriction included in our general class. Our analysis shows that when many providers are present, the largest losses are driven by fairness considerations, whereas when few providers are present, they are driven by the heterogeneity in the providers’ effectiveness to generate value; when providers are perfectly homogenous, the losses never exceed 50%. We study additional loss drivers and find that less variability in the value of jobs and a more balanced supply-demand ratio may lead to larger losses. Lastly, we demonstrate numerically using both real-world and synthetic data that the loss can be small in several cases of practical interest.

Suggested Citation

  • Yonatan Gur & Dan Iancu & Xavier Warnes, 2021. "Value Loss in Allocation Systems with Provider Guarantees," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 3757-3784, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:67:y:2021:i:6:p:3757-3784
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3656
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3656
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3656?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jin Qi, 2017. "Mitigating Delays and Unfairness in Appointment Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 566-583, February.
    2. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    3. Yu, Haisheng & Zeng, Amy Z. & Zhao, Lindu, 2009. "Single or dual sourcing: decision-making in the presence of supply chain disruption risks," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 788-800, August.
    4. Georgia Perakis & Guillaume Roels, 2007. "The Price of Anarchy in Supply Chains: Quantifying the Efficiency of Price-Only Contracts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(8), pages 1249-1268, August.
    5. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    6. Robert Gibbons, 1998. "Incentives in Organizations," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 115-132, Fall.
    7. Cohen-Charash, Yochi & Spector, Paul E., 2001. "The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 278-321, November.
    8. Omar Besbes & Dan A. Iancu & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2018. "Dynamic Pricing Under Debt: Spiraling Distortions and Efficiency Losses," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4572-4589, October.
    9. José R. Correa & Andreas S. Schulz & Nicolás E. Stier-Moses, 2004. "Selfish Routing in Capacitated Networks," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 961-976, November.
    10. Jessica H. McCoy & Hau L. Lee, 2014. "Using Fairness Models to Improve Equity in Health Delivery Fleet Management," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 23(6), pages 965-977, June.
    11. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September.
    12. Dan A. Iancu & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2014. "Fairness and Efficiency in Multiportfolio Optimization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1285-1301, December.
    13. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2011. "The Price of Fairness," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 17-31, February.
    14. Ramesh Johari & John N. Tsitsiklis, 2004. "Efficiency Loss in a Network Resource Allocation Game," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 407-435, August.
    15. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2013. "Fairness, Efficiency, and Flexibility in Organ Allocation for Kidney Transplantation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 73-87, February.
    16. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2012. "On the Efficiency-Fairness Trade-off," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(12), pages 2234-2250, December.
    17. Gérard P. Cachon & Martin A. Lariviere, 2005. "Supply Chain Coordination with Revenue-Sharing Contracts: Strengths and Limitations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(1), pages 30-44, January.
    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. Yang, Jiawei & Li, Dan & Li, Yongjun, 2024. "A generalized data envelopment analysis approach for fixed cost allocation with preference information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).

    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. Gur, Yonatan & Iancu, Dan & Warnes, Xavier, 2020. "Value Loss in Allocation Systems with Provider Guarantees," Research Papers 3813, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    2. Thomas Breugem & Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 2022. "The Price of Imposing Vertical Equity Through Asymmetric Outcome Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 7977-7993, November.
    3. Karsu, Özlem & Morton, Alec, 2015. "Inequity averse optimization in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(2), pages 343-359.
    4. Hrayer Aprahamian & Douglas R. Bish & Ebru K. Bish, 2019. "Optimal Risk-Based Group Testing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(9), pages 4365-4384, September.
    5. Elodie Adida & Georgia Perakis, 2014. "The effect of supplier capacity on the supply chain profit," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 223(1), pages 1-52, December.
    6. Chen, Qingxin & Fu, Chenyi & Zhu, Ning & Ma, Shoufeng & He, Qiao-Chu, 2023. "A target-based optimization model for bike-sharing systems: From the perspective of service efficiency and equity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 235-260.
    7. Thomas Breugem & Twan Dollevoet & Dennis Huisman, 2022. "Is Equality Always Desirable? Analyzing the Trade-Off Between Fairness and Attractiveness in Crew Rostering," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2619-2641, April.
    8. Argyris, Nikolaos & Karsu, Özlem & Yavuz, Mirel, 2022. "Fair resource allocation: Using welfare-based dominance constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 560-578.
    9. John P. Dickerson & Ariel D. Procaccia & Tuomas Sandholm, 2019. "Failure-Aware Kidney Exchange," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1768-1791, April.
    10. Alexandre Jacquillat & Vikrant Vaze, 2018. "Interairline Equity in Airport Scheduling Interventions," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 941-964, August.
    11. Feng, Yuanjun & Song, Dong-Ping & Li, Dong & Xie, Ying, 2022. "Service fairness and value of customer information for the stochastic container relocation problem under flexible service policy," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    12. Hussein El Hajj & Douglas R. Bish & Ebru K. Bish, 2021. "Equity in genetic newborn screening," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(1), pages 44-64, February.
    13. Jérémie Gallien & Ngai‐Hang Z. Leung & Prashant Yadav, 2021. "Inventory Policies for Pharmaceutical Distribution in Zambia: Improving Availability and Access Equity," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(12), pages 4501-4521, December.
    14. Nicosia, Gaia & Pacifici, Andrea & Pferschy, Ulrich, 2017. "Price of Fairness for allocating a bounded resource," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 933-943.
    15. Breugem, Thomas & Van Wassenhove, Luk N., 2022. "The price of imposing vertical equity through asymmetric outcome constraints," Other publications TiSEM b6e85652-c54a-4597-a32e-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Feimin Zhong & Jinxing Xie & Xiaobo Zhao, 2014. "The price of fairness with the extended Perles–Maschler solution," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 80(2), pages 193-212, October.
    17. Priyank Arora & Wei Wei & Senay Solak, 2021. "Improving Outcomes in Child Care Subsidy Voucher Programs under Regional Asymmetries," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(12), pages 4435-4454, December.
    18. Huang, Kai & Jiang, Yiping & Yuan, Yufei & Zhao, Lindu, 2015. "Modeling multiple humanitarian objectives in emergency response to large-scale disasters," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-17.
    19. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2012. "On the Efficiency-Fairness Trade-off," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(12), pages 2234-2250, December.
    20. Ramesh Johari & John N. Tsitsiklis, 2009. "Efficiency of Scalar-Parameterized Mechanisms," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(4), pages 823-839, August.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:67:y:2021:i:6:p:3757-3784. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.