Search results

Briefly describes the nature and importance of capital investments and why managers of all functional areas should understand the basics of analysis. Reviews conceptual issues. Develops important perspectives for corporate leaders, managers and analysts. Provides practical guidelines for analysis. Furnishes a useful format for analysis easily adaptable to spreadsheet analysis. Illustrates techniques of analysis using a sample capital project. Interprets the results in a common‐sense manner and in terms of the contribution of the project to shareholder value. Addresses issues at a level appropriate for each professional manager regardless of their area of expertise and functional assignment.

I examine three recent cases where local governments changed their processes for selecting capital projects. The central question is whether these changes institutionalized a more “strategic” outlook in capital improvement planning and budgeting for these jurisdictions? The findings suggest that local governments can set capital priorities strategically, but that the process of implementing those reforms must be adaptable to changing political circumstances. These findings add to the limited literature on the political, administrative, and other challenges that local governments must confront when reforming their capital improvement planning and budgeting processes.

Capital budgeting plays an essential role in a firm's long‐term viability and survival. The capital budgeting process includes: identification of potential projects, prediction of possible outcomes, project selection, financing and implementation of the chosen project, and monitoring project performance (Mukherjee and Henderson, 1987). Although economic considerations should govern the capital budgeting decision, individual opinions and preferences often become primary factors affecting project selection.

The purpose of this paper is to set out to identify key team factors associated with the fast implementation of capital projects. Although scholars theorise that project success depends as much on the effective management of project personnel as on technical management, the project literature is virtually silent on which team practices are pivotal.

Using a model‐based quantitative research design, the impact of team management variables on the speed of two different phases of capital project implementation were examined: project execution and project construction. Multi‐method data collection included 252 individual surveys, archival documents, and whole team interviews conducted at the closeout of 56 capital projects implemented in four continents by 15 Fortune 500 companies in the process industries.

Empirical analysis revealed that only some of the variables predicted from other literatures (project manager – PM continuity, cross‐functional team integration, and PM incentives) were significantly linked to fast schedule outcomes. Some key drivers differed according to temporal phase.

Limitations of this study included its cross‐sectional design, modest sample size and sampling frame, but the findings clearly demonstrate the value of further research into key team factors for project success.

The results suggest that strategic management of project personnel can drive project speed. Phase‐linked key team practices are identified for improving time performance in capital projects.

This study breaks new ground by exploring whether key team practices are generic and phase‐specific, and by identifying specific team drivers of speed for two capital project phases using objective outcome measures.

Effective use of capital is an important strategic tool for any manufacturing company operating in today’s high technology and capital intensive environment. This purpose of this paper is to carry out an investigative study into strategic business processes for capital effectiveness practices (CEP) in industry, by means of a literature review, a survey of a sample of UK and US companies and a case study of the Chemco Corporation.

Sees the objective of teaching financial management to be to help managers and potential managers to make sensible investment and financing decisions. Acknowledges that financial theory teaches that investment and financing decisions should be based on cash flow and risk. Provides information on payback period; return on capital employed, earnings per share effect, working capital, profit planning, standard costing, financial statement planning and ratio analysis. Seeks to combine the practical rules of thumb of the traditionalists with the ideas of the financial theorists to form a balanced approach to practical financial management for MBA students, financial managers and undergraduates.

Managerial finance has become a modern professional discipline with a coherent theory and a growing body of statistical research in support of the theory. Finance faculty in leading business schools around the world are now actively engaged in making the modern theory accessible to executive participants in post‐experience educational programmes. What makes the modern theory of finance exciting is the simplicity and the authority with which issues of concern to management today can be resolved. One of the areas of interest where answers to old questions are being found is in the estimation of discount rates or required rates of return for capital projects.

This paper reports on a field study of capital budgeting and strategy in 23 firms. The objectives of the study were two‐fold: first to develop a classification scheme for overall capital budgeting processes and second to relate the different types of capital budgeting to extant models of strategy. Based on our findings, there are three different types of capital budgeting processes: centralized, decentralized and integrated. In centralized capital budgeting, top management make all important strategic capital budgeting decisions. Operating managers simply “bid” on implementing projects selected by top management. In decentralized capital budgeting operating managers identify and initiate projects that are approved by top management based upon projected financial performance. Integrated capital budgeting has elements of both decentralized and centralized capital budgeting. We found the three types of capital budgeting to have a contingent relationship with Bartlett's (1986) typology of multinational strategy: global, multinational and transnational. Global firms choose to respond to pressures for integration and co‐ordination. Typically these firms are highly centralized and have standardized products which can be sold in multiple markets and produced in large‐scale facilities to take full advantage of economies of scale. Multinational firms, in response to pressure to accommodate regional markets through product specialization, operate in a number of highly differentiated markets with significantly dissimilar requirements. In pursuing economies of scope, these firms operate in a decentralized manner with national or regional managers making key strategic decisions. Transnational firms employ a complex structure that addresses the needs for both product differentiation and global integration. In our study, we found that global firms were more likely to have centralized capital budgeting, multinational firms to have decentralised capital budgeting and transnational firms to have integrated capital budgeting. Capital budgeting is one of the most important of management functions. Through capital budgeting decisions management determines the structural cost drivers of the firm and enacts the strategies that define the way in which a firm competes. Although there is an obvious link between strategy and capital budgeting, that link has not been made in either research or practice (Pinches, 1982). The need to understand the link between capital budgeting and strategy is especially evident in manufacturing firms that must continually invest in new technologies. In a review of some 150 articles on capital budgeting for new manufacturing technologies, Dimnik and Kudar (1991) found frequent criticism of current capital budgeting practices for failing to incorporate strategic issues. The most commonly proposed solution to this problem was to modify project evaluation and selection techniques by using multi‐attribute decision‐making models to quantify strategic issues. This response is typical of much of the literature on capital budgeting, which has traditionally focused on the technical issues of project evaluation and selection (Pinches, 1982). A more complete understanding of the relationship between the capital budgeting process and firm strategy will allow specific suggestions for improvement to be implemented. This paper reports on a field study of capital budgeting and strategy in 23 firms involved in a wide range of manufacturing activities. The objectives of the study were two‐fold: to develop a classification scheme for overall capital budgeting processes, and to relate the different types of capital budgeting to extant models of strategy. We found it necessary to develop a new classification scheme for capital budgeting because the standard model of capital budgeting does not explain practice (Dimnik, 1991). The traditional model of capital budgeting assumes that projects bubble‐up from operating managers for approval by top management and emphasizes the use of discounted cash flow methods of selecting projects. The bubble‐up assumption of capital budgeting can be traced to Bower (1970) and the pre‐occupation with discounted cash flow techniques to Dean (1951). Bower held that: [A] company's top management approves or rejects projects but has little direct influence on how they get defined or on which ones are pushed through the firm's lower levels of decision‐making to become claimants for top‐executive approval…Top management cannot keep the character and composition of the projects that rise for their approval from being coloured by structural context. However, top management can influence that structural context by means of the organization chart…and the measurement and reward system it employs (Caves, 1980, p.76). This bubble‐up assumption is implicit in most capital budgeting research and is incorporated in leading accounting and finance text‐books. For, example, Haka (1987) described the impact of rewards on the path that a “proposal follows from its originator in operations to its approval by top corporate executives”. Principles of Corporate Finance, Brealey et.al., stated that “most firms let project proposals bubble‐up from plants for review by division management, and from divisions for review by senior management”. Accounting: Text and Cases, Anthony and Reece stated that “as proposals for capital expenditures come up through the organization, they are screened at various levels. Only the sufficiently attractive ones flow up to the top and appear in the final capital expenditure budget”. Dean (1951) defined capital budgeting in economic terms and stressed that without systematic acceptance and rejection criteria, the capital budgeting decision has no solid foundation. He recognized that procedural and organizational issues were important in capital budgeting but defined the “problem” of capital budgeting as finding the answers to three questions: (1) How much money will be needed for the expenditures in the coming period? (2) How much money will be available? (3) How should the available money be doled out to candidate projects (p.555)? Dean emphasized discounted cash flow methods and this emphasis is adopted in leading accounting and finance text‐books and colours much of the academic research on capital budgeting (Pinches, 1982). It is especially evident in the many surveys of capital budgeting practices (Oblak and Helm, 1980; Bavishi, 1981; Stanley and Block, 1984; Woods et.al., 1985; Hodder, 1986; Kim, 1986; McLean, 1986; Baker, 1987; Klammer et.al., 1991). The bubble‐up, discounted cash flow model of capital budgeting is inadequate for explaining what is found in actual practice. For example, in a survey of 32 operating managers, Dimnik (1990) found that in some firms operating managers initiated capital budgeting proposals and were very conscious of financial criteria for project approval and aware of the impact of investment decisions on their measures of performance. In other firms, operating managers had little say in investment decisions and little knowledge of financial criteria applied to investment proposals. In these firms, analytical techniques such as discounted cash flow, when used at all, were used only by top management and their staff to justify their decisions. Based on these and other personal observations, we concluded that before we could offer insights into the relationship between capital budgeting and strategy, we had to first develop an understanding of capital budgeting that went beyond the traditional model. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we define capital budgeting and briefly discuss various frameworks for analyzing strategy. Then we describe our field research and provide a general description of our findings. This is followed by a discussion of a new classification scheme for capital budgeting and the suggestion that capital budgeting is related to a firm's strategy for global competition. The paper ends with a discussion of the shortcomings of the study, the implications of our findings and some suggestions for future research.

Public-private partnership (PPP) projects for construction waste recycling have become the main approach to construction waste treatment in China. Risk sharing and income distribution of PPP projects play a vital role in achieving project success. This paper is aimed at building a practical and effective risk sharing and income distribution model to achieve win–win situation among different stakeholders, thereby providing a systematic framework for governments to promote construction waste recycling.

Stakeholders of construction waste recycling PPP projects were reclassified according to the stakeholder theory. Best-worst multi–criteria decision-making method and comprehensive fuzzy evaluation method (BWM–FCE) risk assessment model was constructed to optimize the risk assessment of core stakeholders in construction waste recycling PPP projects. Based on the proposed risk evaluation model for construction waste recycling PPP projects, the Shapley value income distribution model was modified in combination with capital investment, contribution and project participation to obtain a more equitable and reasonable income distribution system.

The income distribution model showed that PPP Project Companies gained more transaction benefits, which proved that PPP Project Companies played an important role in the actual operation of PPP projects. The policy change risk, investment and financing risk and income risk were the most important risks and key factors for project success. Therefore, it is of great significance to strengthen the management of PPP Project Companies, and in the process of PPP implementation, the government should focus on preventing the risk of policy changes, investment and financing risks and income risks.

The findings from this study have advanced the application methods of risk sharing and income distribution for PPP projects and further improved PPP project-related theories. It helps to promote and rationalize fairness in construction waste recycling PPP projects and to achieve mutual benefits and win–win situation in risk sharing. It has also provided a reference for resource management of construction waste and laid a solid foundation for long-term development of construction waste resources.

PPP mode is an effective tool for construction waste recycling. How to allocate risks and distribute benefits has become the most important issue of waste recycling PPP projects, and also the key to project success. The originality of this study resides in its provision of a holistic approach of risk allocation and benefit distribution on construction waste PPP projects in China as a developing country. Accordingly, this study adds its value by promoting resource development of construction waste, extending an innovative risk allocation and benefit distribution method in PPP projects, and providing a valuable reference for policymakers and private investors who are planning to invest in PPP projects in China.

Various factors may influence project finance when a multi-sourced debt financing strategy is used for financing capital investments, in general, and public infrastructure investments, in particular. Traditional indicators lack comprehensive consideration of the influences of many internal and external factors, such as investment structure, financing mode and credit guarantee structure, which exist in the financing decision making of BOT projects. An effective approach is, thus, desired. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper develops a financial model that uses an interval number to represent the uncertain factors and, subsequently, conducts a standardization of the interval number. Decision makers determine the weight of each objective through the analytic hierarchy process. Through the optimization procedure, project investors and sponsors are provided with a strategy regarding the optimal amount of debt to be raised and the insight on the risk level based on the net present value, as well as the probability of bankruptcy for each different period of debt service.

By using an example infrastructure project in China and based on the comprehensive evaluation, comparison and ranking of the capital structures of urban public infrastructure projects using the interval number method, the final ranking can help investors to choose the optimal capital structure for investment. The calculation using the interval number method shows that X2 is the optimal capital structure plan for the BOT project of the first stage of Tianjin Binhai Rail Transit Z4 line. Therefore, investors should give priority to selecting a capital contribution ratio of 45 per cent for this investment.

In this paper, some parameters, such as depreciation life, construction period and concession period, are assumed to be deterministic parameters, although the interval number model has been introduced to analyze the uncertainty indicators, such as total investment and passenger flow, of BOT rail transport projects. Therefore, more of the above deterministic parameters can be taken as uncertainty parameters in future research so that calculation results fit actual projects more closely.

This model can be used to make the optimal investment decision for a project by determining the impact of uncertainty factors on the profitability of the project in its lifecycle during the project financial feasibility analysis. Project sponsors can determine the optimal capital structure of a project through an analysis of the irregular fluctuation of the unpredictable factors in project construction such as construction investment, operating cost and passenger flow. The model can also be used to examine the effects of different capital investment ratios on indicators so that appropriate measures can be taken to reduce risks and maximize profit.