The effects of culture and contextual information on resource allocation decisions

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-197
Author(s):  
C. Janie Chang ◽  
Joanna L.Y. Ho ◽  
Anne Wu

Purpose This paper aims to examine resource allocation behaviors of US and Taiwanese managers to help multinational firms understand the potential for divergence in resource allocations under different contextual conditions by managers from different national cultures. Design/methodology/approach The experimental design was developed as a 2 (national culture) × 2 (degree of project completion) × 2 (nature of market information) factorial design. The first two were between-subject factors. Because we would investigate subjects’ responses to both favorable and unfavorable conditions, the nature of market information was designed as a within-subject factor. Also, to avoid an order effect, half of the subjects first received favorable information and then unfavorable information, and the other half received the market information in the opposite order. Questionnaires were distributed randomly to subjects. Findings The results show that Taiwanese managers are less willing than US managers to continue a project in the presence of favorable information, but that both groups are equally willing to continue the project when receiving unfavorable information. Furthermore, Taiwanese managers allocate more funds than US managers do when the project is near completion. The authors use uncertainty avoidance and individualism to explain the different judgment and decision behaviors of these two cultural groups. Research Limitations/implications In this study, the authors examine only two contextual factors in resource allocation contexts. There are other important contextual factors associated with national culture that should be scrutinized, such as risks involved in each project, incentive plans related to performance evaluation and information asymmetry between central managers and division managers. It would be interesting for future studies to examine these factors in conjunction with different dimensions of national culture. Originality/value This study provides empirical evidence of the impact of different aspects of national culture (i.e. uncertainty avoidance and collectivism/individualism) on managerial resource allocation in light of different degrees of project completion and different types of market information. The results of our experiment add to both practice and theory of management. The findings of this study help top-level managers better understand the effects of national culture on division managers’ resource allocations. Hence, it may be possible to design incentive schemes and decision aids to mitigate the divergence in judgments and decision-making that can be attributed to cultural differences. This study also contributes to the management literature by extending our knowledge of complex managerial resource allocation decisions by incorporating the role of national culture with contextual factors.

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 1162-1182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krista Lyn Harrison ◽  
Holly A. Taylor

Purpose Using the example of community access programs (CAPs), the purpose of this paper is to describe resource allocation and policy decisions related to providing health services for the uninsured in the USA and the organizational values affecting these decisions. Design/methodology/approach The study used comparative case study methodology at two geographically diverse sites. Researchers collected data from program documents, meeting observations, and interviews with program stakeholders. Findings Five resource allocation or policy decisions relevant to providing healthcare services were described at each site across three categories: designing the health plan, reacting to funding changes, and revising policies. Organizational values of access to care and stewardship most frequently affected resource allocation and policy decisions, while economic and political pressures affect the relative prioritization of values. Research limitations/implications Small sample size, the potential for social desirability or recall bias, and the exclusion of provider, member or community perspectives beyond those represented among participating board members. Practical implications Program directors or researchers can use this study to assess the extent to which resource allocation and policy decisions align with organizational values and mission statements. Social implications The description of how healthcare decisions are actually made can be matched with literature that describes how healthcare resource decisions ought to be made, in order to provide a normative grounding for future decisions. Originality/value This study addresses a gap in literature regarding how CAPs actually make resource allocation decisions that affect access to healthcare services.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 87-112
Author(s):  
Bei Dong ◽  
Stefanie L. Tate ◽  
Le Emily Xu

SYNOPSIS Regulations implemented by the SEC in 2003 and 2004 simultaneously shortened the financial statement filing deadlines and increased the time required for both the preparation of financial statements and the related audit of accelerated filers (AFs). However, there were indirect, unintended negative consequences for companies not subject to the regulations, namely, non-accelerated filers (NAFs). The new regulations imposed strains on auditor resources requiring auditors to make resource allocation decisions that negatively affected NAFs. We find that NAFs with an auditor who had a high proportion of AF clients (high-AF) had longer audit delays after the regulations were implemented than NAFs of an auditor with a low proportion of AF clients (low-AF). Further, we document that NAFs with high-AF auditors were more likely to change auditors than NAFs with low-AF auditors. Finally, NAFs that switched to auditors with less AFs experienced shorter audit delays after the auditor change. JEL Classifications: M42; M48.


Author(s):  
G.J. Melman ◽  
A.K. Parlikad ◽  
E.A.B. Cameron

AbstractCOVID-19 has disrupted healthcare operations and resulted in large-scale cancellations of elective surgery. Hospitals throughout the world made life-altering resource allocation decisions and prioritised the care of COVID-19 patients. Without effective models to evaluate resource allocation strategies encompassing COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 care, hospitals face the risk of making sub-optimal local resource allocation decisions. A discrete-event-simulation model is proposed in this paper to describe COVID-19, elective surgery, and emergency surgery patient flows. COVID-19-specific patient flows and a surgical patient flow network were constructed based on data of 475 COVID-19 patients and 28,831 non-COVID-19 patients in Addenbrooke’s hospital in the UK. The model enabled the evaluation of three resource allocation strategies, for two COVID-19 wave scenarios: proactive cancellation of elective surgery, reactive cancellation of elective surgery, and ring-fencing operating theatre capacity. The results suggest that a ring-fencing strategy outperforms the other strategies, regardless of the COVID-19 scenario, in terms of total direct deaths and the number of surgeries performed. However, this does come at the cost of 50% more critical care rejections. In terms of aggregate hospital performance, a reactive cancellation strategy prioritising COVID-19 is no longer favourable if more than 7.3% of elective surgeries can be considered life-saving. Additionally, the model demonstrates the impact of timely hospital preparation and staff availability, on the ability to treat patients during a pandemic. The model can aid hospitals worldwide during pandemics and disasters, to evaluate their resource allocation strategies and identify the effect of redefining the prioritisation of patients.


Author(s):  
J. Robert Sims

Risk analysis has been used extensively to inform decisions throughout government and industry for many years. Many methodologies have been developed to perform these analyses, resulting in differences in terminology and approach that make it difficult to compare the results of an analysis in one field to that in another. In particular, many approaches result only in a risk ranking within a narrow area or field of interest, so the results cannot be compared to rankings in other areas or fields. However, dealing with terrorist threats requires prioritizing the allocation of homeland defense resources across a broad spectrum of possible targets. Therefore, a common approach is needed to allow comparison of risks. This presentation summarizes an approach that will allow the results of risk analyses based on using current methodologies to be expressed in a common format with common terminology to facilitate resource allocation decisions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document