How Management Accountants Purposefully Create Cash Flow Forecasts in Capital Budgeting: A Field Study of Product Development Decisions<sup>*</sup>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In capital budgeting, management accountants may have their own agendas when they are creating cash flow forecasts and recommending particular capital investments. What are the mechanisms management accountants can use to influence cash flow forecasts in capital budgeting? This field study investigates how management accountants prepared cash flow forecasts for product development investment decisions at a car company. We describe in detail two instances of the technical design of new cars, the preparation of cash flow forecasts, and decisions on capital investment projects. When management accountants monetarily quantify various kinds of inputs, they not only make pragmatic choices as part of their normal work of dealing with complexity and uncertainty, but they also purposefully intervene in various ways to make their cash flow forecast support a particular capital investment. These interventions can be differentiated in terms of their nature (qualitative or quantitative) and timing (initiating or counteracting). This field study contributes a conceptualization and empirical evidence on accounting tactics in the context of capital budgeting.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it