How last planner motivates subcontractors to improve plan reliability - A game theory model

Understanding and Managing the Construction Process: Theory and Practice - 14th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, IGLC-14

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 443-454

  Sacks, Rafael ^a   Harel, Michael ^a  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Game theory; Last Planner; Plan reliability; Subcontracting

Indexed keywords

CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT; CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTS; EXTENDED FORM; GAME THEORY MODELS; LAST PLANNER; LAST PLANNER SYSTEM; NORMAL FORM; PRODUCTION SYSTEM DESIGNS; PROJECT MANAGERS; RIGOROUS MODEL; SUBCONTRACTING; THEORETICAL EXPLANATION;

CONTRACTORS; ECONOMICS; GAME THEORY; GROUP THEORY; PROFITABILITY; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

RELIABILITY;

EID: 84856625989     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Ballard, G. (2000). «The Last Planner™ System of Production Control,» PhD Dissertation, The University of Birmingham, Birmingham, U.K.
2. Bortolazza, R. C., Costa, D. B., and Formoso, C. T. (2005). «A quantitative analysis of the implementation of the Last Planner System in Brazil.» 13th Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, R. Kenley, ed., Sydney, Australia, 413-420.
3. Fisher, N., and Green, S. (2001). «Partnering and the UK construction industry: the first ten years-a review of the literature.» 'Modernizing Construction', J. Bourn, ed., London, 58-66.
4. Fudenberg, D., and Tirole, J. (1991). Game theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
5. Gass, S. I. (1985). Decision making, models and algorithms: a first course, Wiley-Interscience, New York.
6. Harel, M., and Sacks, R. (2006). «Subcontractor Resource Allocation in a Multi-project Environment-Field Study.» Understanding and Managing the Construction Process: Theory and Practice, 14th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, R. Sacks and S. Bertelsen, eds., Santiago, Chile.
7. Koskela, L. (2000). «An exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction,» D. Tech, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo.
8. Lazar, F. D. (2000). «Project Partnering: Improving the Likelihood of Win/Win Outcomes.» Journal of Management in Engineering, 16 (2), 71-83.
9. Luce, R. D., and Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions, New York: Wiley & Sons.
10. Miller, C., Packham, G., and Thomas, B. (2002). «Harmonisation between Main Contractors and Subcontractors: A Pre-requisite for Lean Construction?» Journal of Construction Research, 3 (1), 67-82.
11. Osborne, M. J. (2004). An introduction to game theory, Oxford University Press, New York.
12. Osborne, M. J., and Rubinstein, A. (1994). A course in game theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
13. Packham, G., Thomas, B., and Miller, C. (2001). «Partnering in the Welsh Construction Industry: a Subcontracting Perspective.» #19, WEI Working Paper Series, Welsh Enterprise Institute, University of Glamorgan Business School, Pontypridd, .
14. Rahman, M. M., and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2004). «Contracting Relationship Trends and Transitions.» Journal of Management in Engineering, 20 (4), 147-161.
15. Sacks, R. (2004). «Towards a lean understanding of resource allocation in a multi-project subcontracting environment.» 12th Annual Conference on Lean Construction, C. T. Formoso and S. Bertelsen, eds., Elsinore, Denmark, 97-109.
16. Sacks, R., and Harel, M. (2006). «An economic game theory model of subcontractor resource allocation behavior.» Construction Management & Economics, accepted February 2006.
17. Wikipedia. (2005). Nash Equilibrium. , last accessed 4 December 2005