Stepwise investment and capacity sizing under uncertainty
- 353 Downloads
The relationship between uncertainty and managerial flexibility is particularly crucial in addressing capital projects. We consider a firm that can invest in a project in either a single (lumpy investment) or multiple stages (stepwise investment) under price uncertainty and has discretion over not only the time of investment but also the size of the project. We confirm that if the capacity of a project is fixed and the investment premium associated with stepwise investment is positive, then lumpy investment becomes more valuable than a stepwise investment strategy under high price uncertainty. By contrast, if a firm has discretion over capacity, then we show that the stepwise investment strategy always dominates that of lumpy investment. In addition, we show that the total amount of installed capacity under a stepwise investment strategy is always greater than that under lumpy investment.
KeywordsInvestment analysis Capacity sizing Flexibility Real options
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Peter Kort for his valuable comments that helped improve the paper.
- Adkins R, Paxson D (2015) Stepwise Investment Value under Stage Specific Parameters, working paper. Bradford University School of Management, BradfordGoogle Scholar
- Arrow K, Fisher AC (1974) Environmental preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility quarterly. J Econ 88:312–319Google Scholar
- Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design rules: the power of modularity. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Dixit AK, Pindyck RS (1994) Investment under uncertainty. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Gahungu J, Smeers Y (2012) A real options model for electricity capacity expansion. Université Catholique de Louvain, CORE, B-1348, Louvain-la-NeuveGoogle Scholar
- Hagspiel V, Huisman KJM, Kort PM (2016) Volume Flexibility and Capacity Investment under Demand Uncertainty. Int J Prod Econ 178:95–108Google Scholar
- Henry C (1974) Investment decisions under uncertainty: the irreversibility effect. Am Econ Rev 64:89–104Google Scholar
- Mackintosh J (2003) Ford learns to bend with the wind. Financial Times, 14 FebruaryGoogle Scholar
- Pindyck RS (1988) Irreversible investment, capacity choice, and the value of the firm. Am Econ Rev 79:969–985Google Scholar
- Takashima R, Siddiqui AS, Nakada S (2012) Investment timing, capacity sizing, and technology choice of power plants. Handbook of networks in power systems I energy systems, pp 303–321Google Scholar