# Developing a Revenue Sharing Method for an Operational Transfer-Operate-Transfer Project

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Literature Review

#### 2.1. Common Methods of Revenue Sharing in PPP Projects

#### 2.2. Shapley Value Evolution and Its Application in TOT Project Revenue Sharing

#### 2.3. Main Influencing Factors of Revenue Sharing for TOT Projects

## 3. Methods

#### 3.1. Research Design

#### 3.2. Parameter Calculation of the Effort Level and Input Ratio

#### 3.2.1. Calculation of the Effort Level

_{11}, R

_{12}, R

_{13}. The scores of each indicator are U

_{i1}, U

_{i2}, U

_{i3}, and the weights of each indicator are respectively denoted as w

_{11}, w

_{12}and w

_{13}. Then, the expression of effort level is:

_{11}= 0.45, w

_{12}= 0.24, and w

_{13}= 0.31.

#### 3.2.2. Calculation of the Input Ratio

_{21}, R

_{22}, R

_{23}and R

_{24}, the scores of the secondary index are written as η

_{i1}, η

_{i2}, η

_{i3}, η

_{i4}, and the weights of the secondary index are written as w

_{21}, w

_{22}, w

_{23}and w

_{24}. Then, the correction coefficient of input ratio is expressed as:

#### 3.3. Development of the Operational TOT Project RSM

#### 3.3.1. Relevant Concepts

**Definition**

**1.**

**Definition**

**2.**

**Definition**

**3.**

**Definition**

**4.**

#### 3.3.2. RSM of the Operational TOT Project Based on Fuzzy Payoff Shapley Value

#### 3.3.3. RSM of the Operational TOT Project Based on Double-Fuzzy Shapley Value

#### 3.3.4. RSM of the Operational TOT Project Based on Input Ratio and Double-Fuzzy Shapley Value

## 4. Case Study

#### 4.1. Background of the Case

#### 4.2. Revenue Sharing of the Operational TOT Project Participants

#### 4.2.1. Revenue Sharing of the Operational TOT Project with Method #1

#### 4.2.2. Revenue Sharing of the Operational TOT Project with Method #2

#### 4.2.3. Revenue Sharing of the Operational TOT Project with Method #3

## 5. Results and Analysis

#### 5.1. Comparison 1

#### 5.2. Comparison 2

#### 5.2.1. Changes of Government Revenue Sharing Caused by Effort Level

#### 5.2.2. Changes of Private Partner Revenue Sharing Caused by Effort Level

#### 5.3. Comparison 3

#### 5.4. Potential Application from the Functional Analysis of Method #3

#### 5.5. Comparison of Different Modified Shapley Value Methods

## 6. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P. Review of studies on the critical success factors for Public–Private Partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
**2015**, 33, 1335–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - General Office of the State Council. Circular of the General Office of the State Council on Guiding Opinions on Promoting the Public-Private Partnership Mode in the Public Service Fields. 2015. Available online: http://www.cpppc.org/en/NationalPolicies/4001.jhtml (accessed on 19 May 2015). (In English)
- Evenhuis, E.; Vickerman, R. Transport pricing and public-private partnerships in theory: Issues and suggestions. Res. Transp. Econ.
**2010**, 30, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ke, Y.; Wang, S.Q.; Chan, A.P.C.; Lam, P.T.I. Preferred risk allocation in China’s public–Private Partnership Projects (PPP). Int. J. Proj. Manag.
**2010**, 28, 482–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guerrini, A.; Romano, G. Contract renegotiation by an Italian wastewater utility: Action research to promote effective tariff revision. Util. Policy
**2017**, 48, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Scandizzo, P.L.; Venturab, M. Sharing risk through concession contracts. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2010**, 207, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shen, L.Y.; Li, Q.M. Decision-making model for concession period in BOT contract infrastructure project. J. Ind. Eng. Manag.
**2000**, 14, 43–47. [Google Scholar] - Xia, Q.; Yongjian, K.; Shouqing, W. Analysis of critical risk factors causing the failures of China’s PPP projects. China Soft Sci.
**2009**, 5, 107–113. [Google Scholar] - Lulu, J. Research on the Excess Revenues of BOT Highway Projects Based on Real Option Theory; Dalian University of Technology: Dalian, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Binggen, Z.; Jingfeng, Y.; Sijia, J. Analysis on the connotation and characteristics of income of PPP projects. Proj. Manag. Technol.
**2018**, 16, 18–25. [Google Scholar] - Kokkaew, N.; Chiarab, N. A modeling government revenue guarantees in privately built transportation projects: A risk-adjusted approach. Transport
**2013**, 28, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Iossa, E.; Martimort, D. The simple microeconomics of public-private partnerships. J. Public Econ. Theory
**2015**, 17, 4–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cheah, C.Y.J.; Liu, J. Valuing governmental support in infrastructure projects as real options using Monte Carlo simulation. Constr. Manag. Econ.
**2006**, 24, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - YuLin, H.; ShihPei, C. Valuation of the minimum revenue guarantee and the option to abandon in BOT infrastructure projects. Constr. Manag. Econ.
**2006**, 24, 379–389. [Google Scholar] - Gundes, S.; Buyukyoran, F. A model to assess government guarantees in BOT toll road projects using optimized real options approach. In Proceedings of the IPCMC International Project and Construction Management Conference, Nicosia, Cyprus, 16–18 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ashuri, B.; Kashani, H.; Molenaar, K.R.; Lee, S.; Lu, J. Risk-neutral pricing approach for evaluating BOT highway projects with government minimum revenue guarantee options. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
**2012**, 138, 545–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, Y.; Liu, J. Evaluation of the excess revenue sharing ratio in PPP projects using principal–agent models. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
**2015**, 33, 1317–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abrate, G.; Nicolau, J.L.; Viglia, G. The impact of dynamic price variability on revenue maximization. Tour. Manag.
**2019**, 74, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nikolaidis, N.; Roumboutsos, A. A PPP renegotiation framework: A road concession in Greece. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag.
**2013**, 3, 264–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Garg, S.; Garg, S. Rethinking public-private partnerships: An unbundling approach. Transp. Res. Procedia
**2017**, 25, 3793–3811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chang, L.M.; Chen, P.H. BOT financial model: Taiwan high speed rail case. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
**2001**, 127, 214–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Albalate, D.; Bel, G. Regulating concessions of toll motorways: An empirical study on fixed vs. variable term contracts. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
**2009**, 43, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xu, Y.; Sun, C.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Chan, A.P.C.; Yeung, J.F.Y.; Cheng, H. System dynamics (SD)-based concession pricing model for PPP highway projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
**2012**, 30, 240–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xiaoshu, Y.E.; Shuxia, W.U.; Xueqin, S. Research on the interest relationship and distribution mode of PPP project cooperation in China. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy
**2010**, 27, 36–39. [Google Scholar] - Hong, Z.; Ai, D. Research on the distribution of subway PPP project income based on SHAPLEY value correction method. J. Beijing Univ. Civ. Eng. Archit.
**2018**, 34, 57–62. [Google Scholar] - Shu, C.; Jintiao, M.; Huiqin, Y. Profit distribution of water diversion project of PPP model based on the Shapley, South-to-North. Water Transf. Water Sci. Technol.
**2018**, 16, 202–208. [Google Scholar] - Kang, C.C.; Feng, C.M.; Kuo, C.Y. A royalty negotiation model for BOT (build–operate–transfer) projects: The operational revenue-based model. Math. Comput. Model.
**2011**, 54, 2338–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ortiz, I.N.; Buxbaum, J.N. Protecting the public interest in long-term concession agreements for transportation infrastructure. Public Works Manag. Policy
**2008**, 13, 126–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Iseki, H.; Houtman, R. Evaluation of progress in contractual terms: Two case studies of recent DBFO PPP projects in North America. Res. Transp. Econ.
**2012**, 36, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abhishek, V.; Hajek, B.; Williams, S.R. Auctions with a profit sharing contract. Games Econ. Behav.
**2013**, 77, 247–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hu, B.; Meng, C.; Xu, D.; Son, Y.J. Three-echelon supply chain coordination with a loss-averse retailer and revenue sharing contracts. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
**2016**, 179, 192–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kang, C.C.; Feng, C.M.; Huang, S.C. A new financial engineering model for analyzing the royalty of BOT projects: The Taiwan case. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Singapore, 2–4 December 2007; pp. 277–281. [Google Scholar]
- Shang, T.; Zhang, K.; Liu, P.; Chen, Z.; Li, X.; Wu, X. What to allocate and how to allocate?—Benefit allocation in shared savings energy performance contracting projects. Energy
**2015**, 91, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Carbonara, N.; Pellegrino, R. Public-private partnerships for energy efficiency projects: A win-win model to choose the energy performance contracting structure. J. Clean. Prod.
**2018**, 170, 1064–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shapley, L.S. A value for “n”-person games. Ann. Math. Stud
**1953**, 28, 307–317. [Google Scholar] - Song, B.; Seol, H.; Park, Y. A patent portfolio-based approach for assessing potential R&D partners: An application of the Shapley value. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
**2016**, 103, 156–165. [Google Scholar] - Aubin, J.P. Coeur et valeur des jeux flous à paiements lateraux. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris
**1974**, 279 A, 891–894. [Google Scholar] - Tsurumi, M.; Tanino, T.; Inuiguchi, M. A Shapley function on a class of cooperative fuzzy games. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2001**, 129, 596–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mareš, M. Coalition forming motivated by vague profits. In Proceedings of the Transactions, Mathematical Methods in Economy, Ostrava, Czech Republic, 18–20 September 1995; pp. 114–119. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, W.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, M. Profit allocation scheme among partners in virtual enterprises based on fuzzy Shapley values. J. Beijing Inst. Technol.
**2007**, 1, 122–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhao, B.; Zhang, Y. Algorithm of Shapley value for cooperative games with dual fuzzy factors. Comput. Eng. Appl.
**2013**, 49, 25–30. [Google Scholar] - Li, H.; Weiguo, Z.; Xiaosu, Y. Profit allocation of PPP model based on the revised shapely. J. Ind. Eng. Manag.
**2011**, 25, 149–154. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] - Yan, L.; Taozhen, H.; Na, L.; Zheshi, B.; Wenfang, F.; Minghao, B. Equitable distribution of wastewater treatment PPP project on shapley value method with ANP risk correction. J. Residuals Sci. Technol.
**2016**, 13, 810–817. [Google Scholar] - Tianshu, Y.; Huaxiang, L. Research on profit distribution of PPP project based on Shapley Value. China Real Estate
**2017**, 15, 33–41. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] - Zhang, B. The income distribution of the energy performance contracting projects under uncertain conditions—On the analysis of fuzzy cooperative game. J. Beijing Inst. Econ. Manag.
**2016**, 31, 22–27. [Google Scholar] - Liu, J.; Gao, R.; Cheah, C.Y.J.; Luo, J. Incentive mechanism for inhibiting investors’ opportunistic behavior in PPP projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
**2016**, 34, 1102–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 2.**Comparison of ${\tilde{v}}_{TOT}$ and ${\tilde{\tilde{v}}}_{TOT}$ (${\tilde{\tilde{v}}}_{TOT}^{\eta}$).

**Figure 3.**Comparison of ${\tilde{\beta}}_{g}$, ${\tilde{\tilde{\beta}}}_{g}$ and ${\tilde{\tilde{\beta}}}_{g}^{\eta}$.

**Figure 4.**Comparison of ${\tilde{\gamma}}_{g}$, ${\tilde{\tilde{\gamma}}}_{g}$ and ${\tilde{\tilde{\gamma}}}_{g}^{\eta}$.

**Figure 5.**Comparison of ${\tilde{\beta}}_{c}$, ${\tilde{\tilde{\beta}}}_{c}$ and ${\tilde{\tilde{\beta}}}_{c}^{\eta}$.

**Figure 6.**Comparison of ${\tilde{\gamma}}_{c}$, ${\tilde{\tilde{\gamma}}}_{c}$ and ${\tilde{\tilde{\gamma}}}_{c}^{\eta}$.

Research Study | Modifying Factors | Unconsidered Factors |
---|---|---|

Hu et al. [42] | Investment proportion, risk allocation, contract execution degree, contribution degree. | Contribution of innovation revenue uncertainty, the uncertainty of effort level. |

Li et al. [43] | Risk allocation, investment proportion, contribution of innovation. | Contract execution degree revenue uncertainty, the uncertainty of effort level. |

Yu et al. [44] | Revenue uncertainty, investment proportion, risk allocation, contract execution degree. | Contribution of innovation, contract execution degree the uncertainty of effort level. |

Zhang [45] | Revenue uncertainty, or participation rate less than 1. | Investment proportion, risk allocation, contract execution degree. |

Indicators | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Number of Experts | Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Importance of R_{11} relative to R_{12} | 0 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 16 | 39 |

Importance of R_{11} relative to R_{13} | 0 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 16 | 37 |

Importance of R_{12} relative to R_{13} | 1 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 16 | 23 |

Indicators | R_{11} | R_{12} | R_{13} | Score | Corrected Score | Weights |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

R_{11} | - | 39 | 37 | 77 | 78 | 0.45 |

R_{12} | 17 | - | 23 | 40 | 41 | 0.24 |

R_{13} | 19 | 33 | - | 42 | 43 | 0.31 |

Total | 169 | 172 | 1 |

Indicators | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Number of Experts | Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Importance of R_{21} relative to R_{22} | 0 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 16 | 35 |

Importance of R_{21} relative to R_{23} | 1 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 16 | 29 |

Importance of R_{21} relative to R_{24} | 0 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 16 | 34 |

Importance of R_{22} relative to R_{23} | 0 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 16 | 33 |

Importance of R_{22} relative to R_{24} | 0 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 16 | 34 |

Importance of R_{23} relative to R_{24} | 0 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 16 | 31 |

Indicators | R_{21} | R_{22} | R_{23} | R_{24} | Score | Corrected Score | Weights |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

R_{21} | - | 35 | 29 | 34 | 98 | 99 | 0.29 |

R_{22} | 21 | - | 33 | 34 | 88 | 89 | 0.26 |

R_{23} | 27 | 23 | - | 31 | 81 | 82 | 0.24 |

R_{24} | 22 | 22 | 25 | - | 69 | 70 | 0.21 |

Total | 336 | 340 |

Indicators | Government | Private Partner | |
---|---|---|---|

Effort Level | Contract execution degree | 1 | 0.75 |

Undertaking task complexity | 0.7 | 1 | |

Mutual satisfaction | 0.9 | 0.7 | |

Input Ratio | Investment proportion | 0.2 | 0.8 |

Risk-sharing proportion | 0.3 | 0.7 | |

Innovation investment proportion | 0.1 | 0.9 | |

Critical problem investment proportion | 0.25 | 0.75 |

**Table 7.**Comparison of the revenue sharing of the government between Method #1 and Method #2 (E = ±0.2).

Indicators | Effort Level | Project Revenue | Revenue-Sharing Ratio (RSR) | Revenue Sharing | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

E = 0.2 | E = −0.2 | E = 0.2 | E = −0.2 | E = 0.2 | E = −0.2 | E = 0.2 | E = −0.2 | |

Method #1 | 1 | 1 | 46.98 | 45.14 | 33.23% | 31.40% | 15.61 | 14.17 |

Method #2 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 41.528 | 37.88 | 38.65% | 35.55% | 16.05 | 13.47 |

Comparison | −0.09 | −0.11 | −5.46 | −7.26 | 5.42% | 4.15% | 0.44 | −0.70 |

Comparison (%) | −9% | −11% | −11.62% | −16.08% | - | - | 5.80% | −4.98% |

**Table 8.**Comparison of the revenue sharing of the private partner between Method #1 and Method #2 (E = 0.2).

Indicators | Effort Level | Project Revenue | RSR | Revenue Sharing |
---|---|---|---|---|

Method #1 | 1 | 46.98 | 67.64% | 31.78 |

Method #2 | 0.81 | 41.52 | 61.35% | 25.47 |

Comparison | −0.19 | −5.46 | −6.29% | −6.30 |

Comparison (%) | 19% | −11.62% | — | −19.84% |

**Table 9.**Comparison of the revenue sharing of the participants between Method #3 and Method #2 (E = 0.2).

Indicators | Government | Private Partner | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Input Ratio | RSR | Revenue Sharing | Input Ratio | RSR | Revenue Sharing | |

Method #2 | 0.5 | 38.65% | 16.05 | 0.5 | 61.35% | 25.47 |

Method #3 | 0.21 | 14.34% | 5.96 | 0.79 | 85.66% | 35.56 |

Comparison | −0.29 | −24.31% | −10.09 | 0.29 | 24.31% | 10.09 |

Comparison (%) | −58% | - | −62.89% | 58% | - | 39.62% |

Factors | Method 3# | Method 4# | Method 5# | Method 6# | Method 7# |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Modifying forms | |||||

Fuzzy payoff | √ | √ | √ | ||

Fuzzy alliance | √ | √ | |||

Input ratio | √ | √ | √ | √ | |

Effort level | √ | √ | √ | ||

Features | |||||

Flexibility | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |

Incentive | √ | √ | √ | √ | |

Applications | |||||

Forecasting | √ | √ | √ | ||

Exact distribution | √ | √ | √ |

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Du, Y.; Fang, J.; Ke, Y.; Philbin, S.P.; Zhang, J.
Developing a Revenue Sharing Method for an Operational Transfer-Operate-Transfer Project. *Sustainability* **2019**, *11*, 6436.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226436

**AMA Style**

Du Y, Fang J, Ke Y, Philbin SP, Zhang J.
Developing a Revenue Sharing Method for an Operational Transfer-Operate-Transfer Project. *Sustainability*. 2019; 11(22):6436.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226436

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Du, Yanhua, Jun Fang, Yongjian Ke, Simon P Philbin, and Jingxiao Zhang.
2019. "Developing a Revenue Sharing Method for an Operational Transfer-Operate-Transfer Project" *Sustainability* 11, no. 22: 6436.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226436