IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v23y2020i1p100-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An investigation on requirement and objective allocation strategies using a principal–agent model

Author

Listed:
  • Sean D. Vermillion
  • Richard J. Malak

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the dichotomy between system design delegation driven by requirement allocation and delegation driven by objective allocation. Specifically, we investigate this dichotomy through the lens of agency theory, which addresses cases where an agent makes decisions on behalf of another, that is, a principal. In current practice, design delegation largely involves requirement allocation as a means to inform agents of the desirable system characteristics. The value‐driven design paradigm proposes replacing requirements with objective, or trade‐off, functions to better guide agents toward optimal systems. We apply and adapt the principal–agent mathematical model to the design delegation problem to determine if a principal, that is, the delegator, should communicate using requirements or objectives with her agent. In this model, we assume the case of a single principal and single agent where the agent has certain domain knowledge the principal does not have and the agent accrues costs while solving a delegated design problem. Under the assumptions of the mathematical model, we show that the requirement allocation paradigm can yield greater value to the principal over objective despite limitations requirement allocation places on the principal to learn information from the agent. However, relaxing model assumptions can impact the value proposition of requirement allocation in favor of objective allocation. Therefore, a resolution to the requirement–objective dichotomy may be context dependent. The results and the analytical framework used to derive them provide a new, foundational perspective with which to investigate allocation strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Sean D. Vermillion & Richard J. Malak, 2020. "An investigation on requirement and objective allocation strategies using a principal–agent model," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 100-117, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:23:y:2020:i:1:p:100-117
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21511
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21511?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. Russ Garber & Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2012. "Shortcuts in Complex Engineering Systems: A Principal‐Agent Approach to Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 836-854, May.
    2. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1991. "Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(0), pages 24-52, Special I.
    3. Ilia Tsetlin & Robert L. Winkler, 2006. "On Equivalent Target-Oriented Formulations for Multiattribute Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 94-99, June.
    4. Ilia Tsetlin & Robert L. Winkler, 2007. "Decision Making with Multiattribute Performance Targets: The Impact of Changes in Performance and Target Distributions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(2), pages 226-233, April.
    5. Jitesh H. Panchal & Zoe Szajnfarber, 2017. "Experiments in systems engineering and design research," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(6), pages 529-541, November.
    6. Robert Bordley & Marco LiCalzi, 2000. "Decision analysis using targets instead of utility functions," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 23(1), pages 53-74.
    7. Ali E. Abbas & James E. Matheson, 2005. "Normative target-based decision making," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 373-385.
    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. Jeffrey M. Keisler & Robert F. Bordley, 2015. "Project Management Decisions with Uncertain Targets," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 15-28, March.
    2. Lucy Gongtao Chen & Daniel Zhuoyu Long & Melvyn Sim, 2015. "On Dynamic Decision Making to Meet Consumption Targets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1117-1130, October.
    3. Xinwei Zhang & Qiong Feng & Shurong Tong & Hakki Eres, 2022. "Multilinear target-based decision analysis with hybrid-information targets and performance levels," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 605-647, December.
    4. William B. Haskell & Wenjie Huang & Huifu Xu, 2018. "Preference Elicitation and Robust Optimization with Multi-Attribute Quasi-Concave Choice Functions," Papers 1805.06632, arXiv.org.
    5. Michel Denuit & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2010. "Bivariate Stochastic Dominance and Substitute Risk-(In)dependent Utilities," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 302-312, September.
    6. Chernonog, Tatyana & Avinadav, Tal, 2014. "Profit criteria involving risk in price setting of virtual products," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 351-360.
    7. Ali E. Abbas & James E. Matheson & Robert F. Bordley, 2009. "Effective utility functions induced by organizational target-based incentives," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(4), pages 235-251.
    8. Avinadav, Tal & Chernonog, Tatyana & Perlman, Yael, 2014. "Analysis of protection and pricing strategies for digital products under uncertain demand," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 54-64.
    9. Maximilian Zellner & Ali E. Abbas, 2023. "Experimental Assessment of Utility Functions Induced by Fixed and Uncertain Targets," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 187-201, September.
    10. Hong-Bin Yan & Van-Nam Huynh & Yoshiteru Nakamori, 2012. "A group nonadditive multiattribute consumer-oriented Kansei evaluation model with an application to traditional crafts," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 195(1), pages 325-354, May.
    11. Ilia Tsetlin & Robert L. Winkler, 2007. "Decision Making with Multiattribute Performance Targets: The Impact of Changes in Performance and Target Distributions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(2), pages 226-233, April.
    12. David B. Brown & Melvyn Sim, 2009. "Satisficing Measures for Analysis of Risky Positions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 71-84, January.
    13. Ilia Tsetlin & Robert L. Winkler, 2006. "On Equivalent Target-Oriented Formulations for Multiattribute Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 94-99, June.
    14. Nathalie Greenan & Marc-Arthur Diaye & Patricia Crifo, 2004. "Pourquoi les entreprises évaluent-elles individuellement leurs salariés ?," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 164(3), pages 27-55.
    15. Lin Wang & Feng Pan, 2023. "Incentive Mechanism Analysis of Environmental Governance Using Multitask Principal–Agent Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, February.
    16. Susan Feng Lu, 2012. "Multitasking, Information Disclosure, and Product Quality: Evidence from Nursing Homes," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 673-705, September.
    17. Massimiliano Mazzanti & Francesco Nicolli & Dario Biolcati Rinaldi, 2012. "Multi-Tasking in the Waste Realm.Theoretical and Empirical Insights on Management and Disposal Performances," EuroEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 5(31), pages 88-101, December.
    18. Eduardo Fernández-Arias & Ricardo Hausmann & Ugo Panizza, 2020. "Smart Development Banks," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 395-420, June.
    19. Bertoli, Simone & Dequiedt, Vianney & Zenou, Yves, 2016. "Can selective immigration policies reduce migrants' quality?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 100-109.
    20. Anja Schöttner & Veikko Thiele, 2010. "Promotion Tournaments and Individual Performance Pay," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(3), pages 699-731, September.

    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:23:y:2020:i:1:p:100-117. 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.