Accounting Performance and Capacity Investment Decisions: Evidence from California Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Capacity decisions involve trade‐offs between the cost of capacity and the opportunity costs of lost sales. Accounting researchers posit that accounting performance provides sufficient information about these trade‐offs and thus can be used to formulate simple rules to assist capacity decisions. Empirical research has not examined the role of accounting information in capacity investment decisions at the department level in a multiproduct firm in the presence of social costs. Empirical analyses using department‐level data from California hospitals for the period 1998–2005 show that hospitals are more likely to make capacity investments in departments with high accounting performance. However, in the presence of demand variability, the association between accounting performance and capacity investment is attenuated because of the resulting increase in noise in accounting performance measures. Thus, the weight on accounting performance as a decision tool for capital investments reduces when there is demand variability. Another factor that reduces the weight on accounting performance is capacity utilization. Higher capacity utilization can lead to turning away or rerouting of patients to other hospitals and negatively impacts reputation and quality of care, which increases the hospital's social costs. Hence, hospitals do not require high accounting performance before investing in a department with high capacity utilization. This empirical evidence of the role of accounting performance in capacity investment decisions fills a gap in the capacity investment literature and furthers our understanding of the interactions between accounting performance and the operational determinants of firms’ capacity investment behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".