This is the case with Stryker, where the most substantial projects are approved by the Board of Directors.
Ang (1986) notes, however, that there can be agency problems where the interests of the division are misaligned with the interests of the corporation as a whole. A good system for CER, therefore, will incorporate checks into the system, to ensure that projects are aligned. To some extent, alignment at Stryker is generally the responsibility of the Capital Committee. The problem with this system is that the Capital Committee only sees projects that have already been approved by the divisions. This means that there might be some useful projects that are rejected at the division level but that might have been better for the company as a whole than the ones that were submitted to the Capital Committee. Further, there is the possibility that a project at the division level might be a good fit for a different division. There is no process by which communication exists between the different divisions, either in an interdivisional level or via the corporate level.
The lack of coherence between the different initiatives is a significant problem, arguably the most important one with the Stryker system. The company has achieved success with respect to quantitative measures but in qualitative terms there is the risk that its system has undermined the possibility of even greater success, where managers in the company are unaware of the activities in other areas and therefore may inadvertently undermine those areas (Bower & Gilbert, 2007).
Recommendations
The first proposal is that projects should be brought for a summary assessment by the Capital Committee prior to approval at the division level. The CC knows the spending limits for each division, but...
Capital Budgeting Over the last several years, different levels of government have been facing a variety of challenges when it comes to budgetary issues. For the city of Ft. Lauderdale, the Department of Public Safety is encompassing 60% of their total expenditures every year. This is because it includes areas such as police and fire / rescue services. At the same time, many of these departments are subdividing into other areas
Capital Budgeting for Guillermo Furniture Guillermo Navallez, owner of the relatively small yet highly successful furniture manufacturer Guillermo Furniture, is faced with a tough decision. Due to changes in the industry an in his operating atmosphere, Guillermo is unable to continue competitively running his company as he has for the past decades, with a crew of skilled laborers building furniture and with distribution handled essentially by the company itself. He must
Capital Budgeting and Government Regulations Airline Industry LONG-TERM CAPITAL BUDGETING IN AIRLINE INDUSTRY Government regulation: Why or why not Major reasons for government involvement in a market economy Interests of stockholders and managers: The convergence Airline: Merger or new capital investment LONG-TERM CAPITAL BUDGETING IN AIRLINE INDUSTRY For profit organizations have shareholder's profit maximization as the main aim to pursue. Traditional managerial economics expects that all projects/investments having positive net present value (NPV) shall be initiated by
Generally speaking, the higher a project's internal rate of return, the more desirable it is to undertake the project. As such, IRR can be used to rank several prospective projects a firm is considering. Assuming all other factors are equal among the various projects, the project with the highest IRR would probably be considered the best and undertaken first." The equation to calculating the internal rate of return is a
When a range of options are presented to management, the capital budgeting process must be used to determine the costs and cash flows associated with each option. However, the capital budgeting process is only as valuable as the inputs and assumptions. If the assumptions are not grounded in reasonable analysis and quality research, the process will not yield a valuable result. If the numbers that are input into the
1 0.107 0.107 1.788005 4.37% 7.24% D 20 Lev 1.2925 0.120475 0.11038 1.653411 4.05% 7.22% D 50 Lev 1.87 0.1609 0.16045 -0.1731 -0.44% 7.05% 5. The only project that is unacceptable is Project D. At the 50% leverage level. This has a negative NPV. The other projects at each leverage level all have positive net present values. The following graph shows the NPVs for the different projects: 6. My objective in making this decision is to maximize firm value. The projects are mutually exclusive. I would use NPV as the main
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now