Resource allocation in an asymmetric technology race with temporary advantages

We consider two opponents that compete in developing asymmetric technologies where each party's technology is aimed at damaging (or neutralizing) the other's technology. The situation we consider is different than the classical problem of commercial R&D races in two ways: First, while in commercial R&D races the competitors compete over the control of market share, in our case the competition is about the effectiveness of technologies with respect to certain capabilities. Second, in contrast with the “winner‐takes‐all” assumption that characterizes much of the literature on this field in the commercial world, we assume that the party that wins the race gains a temporary advantage that expires when the other party develops a superior technology. We formulate a variety of models that apply to a one‐sided situation, where one of the two parties has to determine how much to invest in developing a technology to counter another technology employed by the other party. The decision problems are expressed as (convex) nonlinear optimization problems. We present an application that provides some operational insights regarding optimal resource allocation. We also consider a two‐sided situation and develop a Nash equilibrium solution that sets investment values, so that both parties have no incentive to change their investments. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 59: 128–145, 2012     

Inspection games with local and global allocation bounds

This article discusses a two‐player noncooperative nonzero‐sum inspection game. There are multiple sites that are subject to potential inspection by the first player (an inspector). The second player (potentially a violator) has to choose a vector of violation probabilities over the sites, so that the sum of these probabilities do not exceed one. An efficient method is introduced to compute all Nash equilibria parametrically in the amount of resource that is available to the inspector. Sensitivity analysis reveals nonmonotonicity of the equilibrium utility of the inspector, considered as a function of the amount of resource that is available to it; a phenomenon which is a variant of the well‐known Braess paradox. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2013     

A concave‐cost production planning problem with remanufacturing options

We focus on the concave‐cost version of a production planning problem where a manufacturer can meet demand by either producing new items or by remanufacturing used items. Unprocessed used items are disposed. We show the NP‐hardness of the problem even when all the costs are stationary. Utilizing the special structure of the extreme‐point optimal solutions for the minimum concave‐cost problem with a network flow type feasible region, we develop a polynomial‐time heuristic for the problem. Our computational study indicates that the heuristic is a very efficient way to solve the problem as far as solution speed and quality are concerned. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2005     

Inducing coordination in supply chains through linear reward schemes

Decentralized decision‐making in supply chain management is quite common, and often inevitable, due to the magnitude of the chain, its geographical dispersion, and the number of agents that play a role in it. But, decentralized decision‐making is known to result in inefficient Nash equilibrium outcomes, and optimal outcomes that maximize the sum of the utilities of all agents need not be Nash equilibria. In this paper we demonstrate through several examples of supply chain models how linear reward/penalty schemes can be implemented so that a given optimal solution becomes a Nash equilibrium. The examples represent both vertical and horizontal coordination issues. The techniques we employ build on a general framework for the use of linear reward/penalty schemes to induce stability in given optimal solutions and should be useful to other multi‐agent operations management settings. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2006