IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v18y2015i3p310-321.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incentive‐Based Negotiation Model for System of Systems Acquisition

Author

Listed:
  • Nil Kilicay‐Ergin
  • Cihan Dagli

Abstract

Lack of collaboration between individual systems and system of systems (SoS) program management is identified as one of the leading problems in SoS acquisition. This is especially a major concern in acknowledged SoS where a designated SoS program management has no authority over the constituent systems. Therefore, it is important to consider mechanisms to persuade individual systems to participate in the SoS development. In SoS where individual systems have their own self‐interests, negotiation becomes an important mechanism to increase participation in SoS development. Another mechanism, incentives, is used in a wide range of applications to improve performance and collaboration. In this paper, an incentive based negotiation model is outlined as a mechanism to increase participation of individual systems into the SoS development. The negotiation model is integrated into an SoS Engineering and Architecting multilevel model referred to as Flexible & Intelligent Learning Architectures for SoS (FILA‐SoS). Various aspects of SoS acquisition are modeled in the FILA‐SoS including SoS meta‐architecture generation, evaluation as well as negotiation between SoS and individual systems. Individual systems exhibit behaviors, ranging from selfish to cooperative. The negotiation model is demonstrated on an SoS engineering application: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) SoS acquisition case where a desired meta‐architecture is selected for negotiation, and incentives are determined for systems based on deviation from the desired meta‐architecture quality. The analyses of the results from this application domain provide insights into how incentives can be used by decision makers to increase participation in SoS engineering and development.

Suggested Citation

  • Nil Kilicay‐Ergin & Cihan Dagli, 2015. "Incentive‐Based Negotiation Model for System of Systems Acquisition," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 310-321, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:18:y:2015:i:3:p:310-321
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21305
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21305?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. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Modeling complex systems of systems with Phantom System Models," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 333-346, September.
    2. Robert K. Garrett & Steve Anderson & Neil T. Baron & James D. Moreland, 2011. "Managing the interstitials, a System of Systems framework suited for the Ballistic Missile Defense System," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 87-109, March.
    3. Prajit K. Dutta, 1999. "Strategies and Games: Theory and Practice," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262041693, April.
    4. Rene G. Rendon & Thomas V. Huynh & John S. Osmundson, 2012. "Contracting processes and structures for systems‐of‐systems acquisition," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 471-482, December.
    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. William W. Wilson & Bruce L. Dahl, 2004. "Transparency and Bidding Competition in International Wheat Trade," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 52(1), pages 89-105, March.
    2. Lan Zhao & Jishan Zhu, 2010. "Internet Marketing Budget Allocation: From Practitioner'S Perspective," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(05), pages 779-797.
    3. Navindran Davendralingam & Daniel. A. DeLaurentis, 2015. "A Robust Portfolio Optimization Approach to System of System Architectures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 269-283, May.
    4. Ifcher, John & Zarghamee, Homa, 2018. "The rapid evolution of homo economicus: Brief exposure to neoclassical assumptions increases self-interested behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 55-65.
    5. Nolan, James & Fulton, Murray, 2001. "Competitive Access: The Next Step for the Canadian Rail Industry?," Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Transportation Research Forum, vol. 40(2).
    6. Nava, Consuelo R. & Meleo, Linda & Cassetta, Ernesto & Morelli, Giovanna, 2018. "The impact of the EU-ETS on the aviation sector: Competitive effects of abatement efforts by airlines," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 20-34.
    7. Iris Lorscheid & Bernd-Oliver Heine & Matthias Meyer, 2012. "Opening the ‘black box’ of simulations: increased transparency and effective communication through the systematic design of experiments," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 22-62, March.
    8. Jie Xu & Jun Zhuang & Zigeng Liu, 2016. "Modeling and mitigating the effects of supply chain disruption in a defender–attacker game," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 255-270, January.
    9. Jie Xu & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "Modeling costly learning and counter-learning in a defender-attacker game with private defender information," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 271-289, January.
    10. Maccarone, Lee T. & Cole, Daniel G., 2022. "Bayesian games for the cybersecurity of nuclear power plants," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    11. Ralph M. Braid, 2016. "Potential merger-forcing entry reduces maximum spacing between firms in spatial competition," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 95(3), pages 653-669, August.
    12. Wilson, William W. & Diersen, Matthew A., 2001. "Competitive Bidding On Import Tenders: The Case Of Minor Oilseeds," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-16, July.
    13. Wiskich, Tony, 2010. "Computing Game-theoretic equilibria in GTAP: Optimising regional climate change policies," Conference papers 331995, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    14. Halis Kiral & Hakan Karabacak, 2020. "Resolution of the Internal Audit-Based Role Conflicts in Risk Management: Evidence from Signaling Game Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 823-841, October.
    15. Thomas Dohmen & Hendrik Sonnabend, 2018. "Further Field Evidence for Minimax Play," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 19(3), pages 371-388, April.
    16. Nikolaos Anastasopoulos & Dimitrios Asteriou, 2021. "Optimal dynamic auditing based on game theory," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 1887-1912, September.
    17. Fu, Qiang & Wang, Xiruo & Wu, Zenan, 2021. "Multi-prize contests with risk-averse players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 513-535.
    18. Edouard Kujawski, 2015. "Accounting for Terrorist Behavior in Allocating Defensive Counterterrorism Resources," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 365-376, July.
    19. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 641-672, June.
    20. Dasgupta Utteeyo, 2011. "Nudging Students Forward Towards Backward Induction," Journal of Industrial Organization Education, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-6, March.

    More about this item

    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:wly:syseng:v:18:y:2015:i:3:p:310-321. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    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.