Capacity Management, Investment, and Hedging: Review and Recent Developments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews the literature on strategic capacity management concerned with determining the sizes, types, and timing of capacity investments and adjustments under uncertainty. Specific attention is given to recent developments to incorporate multiple decision makers, multiple capacity types, hedging and risk aversion. Capacity is a measure of processing abilities and limitations and is represented as a vector of stocks of various processing resources, while investment is the change of capacity and includes expansion and contraction. After discussing general issues in capacity investment problems, the article reviews models of capacity investment under uncertainty in three settings: The first reviews optimal capacity investment by single and multiple risk-neutral decision makers in a stationary environment where capacity remains constant. Allowing for multiple capacity types, the associated optimal capacity portfolio specifies the amounts and locations of safety capacity in a processing network. Its key feature is that it is unbalanced, i.e., regardless of how uncertainties are realized, one typically will never fully utilize all capacities. The second setting reviews the adjustment of capacity over time and the structure of optimal investment dynamics. The article ends by reviewing how to incorporate risk-aversion in capacity investment and contrasts hedging strategies involving financial versus operational means.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".