Cost allocation protocols for supply contract design in network situations
- 66 Downloads
The class of Construct and Charge (CC-) rules for minimum cost spanning tree (mcst) situations is considered. CC-rules are defined starting from the notion of charge systems, which specify particular allocation protocols rooted on the Kruskal algorithm for computing an mcst. These protocols can be easily implemented in practical network situations (for instance, in supply transportation networks), are flexible to changes in the network situation and meet the requirement of continuous monitoring by the agents involved. Special charge systems, that we call conservative, lead to a subclass of CC-rules that coincides with the class of obligation rules for mcst situations.
KeywordsCost allocation Minimum cost spanning tree games Cost monotonicity
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Feltkamp V, Tijs S, Muto S (1994a) Minimum cost spanning extension problems: the proportional rule and the decentralized rule. CentER DP 1994 nr.96, Tilburg University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Feltkamp V, Tijs S, Muto S (1994b) On the irreducible core and the equal remaining obligations rule of minimum cost spanning extension problems. CentER DP 1994 nr.106, Tilburg University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Prim RC (1957) Shortest connection networks and some generalizations. Bell Syst Tech J 36: 1389–1401Google Scholar
- Sharkey WW (1995) Network models in economics. In: Ball MO, Magnanti TL, Monma CL, Nemhauser GL(eds) Network routing. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 713–765Google Scholar
- Tijs S, Moretti S, Branzei R, Norde H (2006b) The Bird core for minimum cost spanning tree problems revisited: monotonicity and additivity aspects. In: (eds) Lectures Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 563. Springer, Berlin, pp 305–322Google Scholar
- Voß S, Schneidereit G (2002) Interdependencies between supply contracts and transaction costs. In: Seuring S, Goldbach M(eds) Cost management in supply chains. Springer, Berlin, pp 255–274Google Scholar