Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

Abstract

Todays business environment is highly competitive and it has made the capital investment
decision as key issue for business entities. Now it is important for business organisations to make
efforts to understand appropriate capital budgeting techniques from ample range of techniques as
in form of basic text books of corporate finance, financial management and advanced capital
budgeting. Capital investment is important in creating the shareholder wealth for an organisation.
It is essential to examine the practices adopted in evaluation of the projects. Corporate capital
investment studies are lacking by remaining indifferent for project evaluation and risk analysis
during the entire investment decision making process.
Capital budgeting is the process of evaluating, comparing and selecting capital projects to
achieve the best return on investment over time. It focuses on capital expenditures and
specifically the analysis of capital expenditures to decide which capital expenditures should
be made. It is an important factor in the success or failure of an organization since
investments in fixed assets affect the financial health of an organization for many years.
Introduction
In global economy there are the conditions of balanced increase in the assortment and range
of competitive connections; uncertainties and risk involvement and that have become
hindrance in the investment decisions of a firm. Refined capital investment process must be
there for effective allocation that may increase the possibility of making appropriate
investments by ensuring that corporate strategy will be followed, all investment opportunities
will be well thought out properly time and again, and that unfavourable political part of
informal decision making will be minimized.
Capital investment decisions is the most critical type in order of managerial
decisions required in a company as it is having implications in long-term whether positive or
negative, to improve corporate performance and for a success of a company managers need to
understand capital investment decisions.
Capital investment decision depends on decision rule applied under
prevailing circumstances and the decision rule itself considers three factors such as cash
flows, project life and discounting factor. Effectiveness of investment decision depends upon
efficient assessment of these factors. Cash flows depend upon the immense understanding of
micro and micro environment of the economy. Assessment of project life is must as it may
change the entire perspective of the project. Cost of capital is considered as discounting
factor which has faced many changes over the years. Hence determination of cost of capital
would carry greatest impact on the investment evaluation.
This research paper focus upon the investment process, techniques and criteria for
evaluating capital budgeting projects and how it can help in risk minimization and wealth
maximization of shareholders.
Basic Assumptions in Capital Budgeting

All cash flows are considered while determining the true profitability of the project.
Accounting profits does not affects the decisions

Timing of cash flows is vital


Cash flows integrate opportunity costs. Incremental cash flows are used that are total of
cash flows arise as a result of taking on a particular project.
Bigger cash flows are preferable to smaller ones and early cash flows are preferable to
later ones.
Cash flows are on after-tax basis-taxes should be incorporated in the analysis.
The weighted-average cost of capital being used to discount the cash flows and as of it
financial costs are ignored in the cash flows

Corporate Strategy, Capital Budgeting Process and Performances


Capital projects are associated with goals and the strategic planning of a business.
Martinsburg in his operational or functional strategy, (Neil, 2008) acknowledge the
attractiveness of investment proposal comes from different sectors of the business. For
making fine investment decisions managers of a company need to understand their firms
competitive advantage. A strategically positioned firm generate the most value of its assets
and determines the growth opportunities of a firm. Avoidance of corporate strategy in
decision making process while make the whole process unrealistic even if the project
evaluation techniques, cash flow forecast and screening and other capital budgeting process
has been done well.
Capital budgeting is considered as a part of finance that has fascinated many academicians,
many theories literature on it since Shapiros pioneering work in 1968 has been developed.
Capital budgeting decisions and theories have various stages or activities which are termed as
capital budgeting process. This process includes project search, corporate strategy, goals and
objectives, cash flow estimation evaluation techniques monitoring and controlling of options
(Brealey et al 2008). Each activity of this process has impact on capital budgeting decision
which twists the performance of the firm. With passing of decades, theoretical get through
have lead the way to more complex techniques and theories that firms uses in capital
budgeting practices( Ecole 2006). In the literature of capital budgeting a lot of significant
progress has been made to bridge the gap between theory and practice ranging from the
project idea to monitoring and controlling of cash flows.
Significance of Capital Budgeting for Growing and Distressed businesses
Capital budgeting is important for every firm as the success and failure of any business
depends upon how available funds are utilized. The significance of capital budgeting do not
lies only in the techniques used, such as NPV and IRR, but is lying in the varying key
involved in forecasting cash flow. Capital expenditure can be considerable and drastically
impact the financial performance of the firm. Proper investment appraisal process is essential
as investments need time to mature and capital assets are long-standing, it will effects the firm
in long term.
However, the significance of capital budgeting decisions differs for a growing and
distressed business. The need for working capital and cash flows varies for growing and
distressed firms. A firm is considered growing when it generates sufficient cash flows and
grow at a significant rate than the overall economy. Growing firm generally reinvests more of
its profits as retained earnings rather than distributing the dividends.

Following reasons will show the importance of capital budgeting for growing firm:
Capital budgeting helps the management to avoid over investment, as a growing firm
enjoys access to funds. If the investments are extreme it may root higher expenses and
depreciation.
Capital budgeting decisions increase the firms capacity and strength to face the
competition as growing businesses face tough competition.
With the help of capital budgeting techniques growing firms select the proposals
having the objective of shareholders wealth maximization.
Appropriate analysis of capital budgeting is required for the booming of a firm
because investment decisions results in higher stock prices and enhance cash flows.
Financially distressed businesses have different conditions. When a firm is not able to pay or
have difficulty in paying off its debts is called distressed. The possibility of financial distress
increases if a firm has high fixed costs, has illiquid assets and revenues which are
hypersensitive to economic plunges. Capital budgeting is important for distressed firm
because of the following reasons:

Capital rationing gives scope for financial manager to analyse various business only
feasible projects must be taken up, this makes capital rationing as a most important
feature for a distressed firm.
Distressed firm bears difficulty in raising funds that will create a danger of under
investment as of it firm may lose its market share in comparison of its rival firm.
Capital budgeting helps the organisation to avoid under investment.
Capital budgeting curtails the over expenditure incurred on the projects.

Capital budgeting process: situation analysis


Investment decision making should be efficient as it is required for corporate survival and long
term success. It help in developing competitive advantage
Effective investment decision making is essential to corporate survival and long-term success.
These decisions help to mould companys future opportunities and develop competitive advantage by
influencing, among other things, its technology, its processes, its working practices and its
profitability.
There are several important features for capital budgeting decision making to be effective
(Boquist et al. (1998), Adams et al. (2004)):
It is dynamic, not static. It explicitly recognizes that the quality of information can be
improved over time. Thus capital budgeting should be a sequential, multiple decision
process that integrates the information needed to obtain cash flow estimates into the
financial analysis of the cash flows.
It is linked to the strategy implementation in relation to the companys multiple stakeholders.
Therefore, project proposals should be supported by relevant non-financial data and
forecasts.
It recognizes the options inherent in value-enhancing capital budgeting.
It takes a cross-functional approach. The quality of estimates of expected cash flows and the
uncertainty in cash flows are critical. Since the underlying information for these estimates
scomes from many functions within the company, those providing information must see
themselves as strategic partners in the process.

It views the companys compensation system as a centerpiece of capital budgeting. Unless the
way in which managers and employees are rewarded is aligned with how capital is
allocated, there will always be a possibility for poor decisions.
It stresses the importance of performance-based training. The people using capital budgeting
must understand it, buy into it, and implement it consistently across the entire company.
Cross-functional training designed to enhance the performance of those involved is
essential.
Functional training designed to enhance the performance of those involved is essential.
The decision making process constructs that are particularly relevant characteristics of capital
budgeting processes literature are procedural rationality and politics (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki (1992),
Dean & Sharfman (1996)). Procedural rationality is defined as the extent to which the decision
process involves the collection of information relevant to the decision and the reliance upon analysis
of this information in making the choice (Dean & Sharfman (1993)). Political dimension of decision
making encompasses two main ideas. First, people in organizations have differences in interests
resulting from functional, hierarchical, professional, and personal factors (Dean & Sharfman (1996)).
Second, people in organizations try to influence the outcomes of decisions, so that their own interests
will be served, and they do so by using a variety of political techniques.
Although it has been suggested that political behaviour and procedural rationality are two ends
of a continuum describing a single dimension of decision making and provide competing explanations
for decision-making behaviour, Dean & Sharfman (1993) empirically demonstrated that they are two
distinct dimensions. This position is also supported by Eisenhardt & Zbarackis (1992) conclusion
that strategic decision-making is best described by the weaving of both bloodedly rational and
political processes.
The research of investment management literature shows that two main approaches defining the
capital budgeting can be distinguished: the normative approach and the process approach.
The normative approach represents the traditional theory on capital budgeting presenting rules
on which basis the enterprise can make an investment decision. According to this approach the
emphasis is on the financial evaluation and selection of the long term-investment in assets, and the
development of advanced capital budgeting techniques and their application in various situations are
key issues (Saaty (1994), Prueitt & Park (1997), Trigeorgis (2000), Madhani & Pankaj (2008),
Angelou & Economides (2009)).
Although rigorous evaluation tools are important components of a sophisticated capital
budgeting process, investment success depends on improving the entire process. Almost three decades
ago, it was noted that too much emphasis was being placed on methods of ranking and selecting
capital budgeting proposals. Focusing on the simple selection phase is myopic, and a more global
approach is necessary to fully understand the capital budgeting process (Farragher et al. (1999), Adler
(2000), Burns & Walker (2009)). Therefore from this point of view the capital budgeting process must
be viewed in its entirety and the informational needs to support effective decisions must be built into
the companys decision support system.
The process approach to the capital budgeting endorses broader perspectives, attempting to
explain the way the companies actually handle into effect the investment decisions, the way the
investment opportunities are identified and analyzed, the way the decisions are made, the way the
returns on investments are evaluated (Ducai (2009)). The models deriving from the process approach
are mostly based on extensive case studies achieved in the enterprises to identify the decisive stages
related to the investment opportunity. Therefore the scientific literature on the subject therefore tends
to be strongly empirically oriented.
In academic literature exists the large variety of opinions concerning the stages of the capital
budgeting.
Maccarrone (1996) state, that capital budgeting should be held in the wider context of strategic
planning and identifies six fundamental phases in the capital budgeting process. At first investment
opportunities are identified, then development and evaluation is performed by collecting relevant and
detailed information for each alternative, and evaluating their profitability and global attractiveness. A
screening of investment proposals which have passed through the previous phase might be necessary
because of financial or strategic factors. As a result, some projects might be cancelled or postponed to
another planning period. Authorization or project approval, and implementation/control are next

phases. Final stage is post-auditing, that enables to compare the outcomes of each project with budget
targets in order to assess forecast accuracy and identify error patterns with a feedback effect on the
whole decision process. Under post-audit and control, if a project does not appear to be developing as
expected, the firm may want to abandon the project and reallocate its capital (Prueitt & Park (1997)).
Koch et al. (2009) also list six components in the process. The stages are identification, search,
information acquisition, selection, financing, and implementation and control.

According to Ducai (2009), the process of capital budgeting is being carried out in five stages:
examining and the selection of the investment projects, the proposal of the capital budget, the
approval of the budgeting and its authorization, surveying the execution of the project and exerting
the control after the projects execution starts.
Whereas, Burns & Walker (2009) describe the capital budgeting process in terms of four
phases: identification, development, selection, and control. The identification stage comprises the
overall process of project idea generation including sources and submission procedures and the
incentives/reward system, if any. The development stage involves the initial screening process relying
primarily upon cash flow estimation and early screening criteria. The selection stage includes the
detailed project analysis that results in acceptance or rejection of the project for funding. Finally, the
control stage involves the evaluation of project performance for both control purposes and continuous
improvement for future decisions. All four stages have common areas of interest including personnel,
procedures, and methods involved, along with the rationale for each.
As the literature review above described, various researchers have applied various labels, yet
the main idea of the process sequence is almost the same and the stages of the investment process are,
in substance, proposal initiation, proposal development, proposal management, and project approval.
An investment proposal is initiated in response to identification of a need or a problem. The
development of the proposal includes estimation of the costs and benefits, and evaluation of
alternatives. Proposal management is the guiding of the investment proposal through the organization,
culminating in project approval.
These stages have been found to occur in a bottom-up manner, with some iteration between
contiguous stages. Proposals are initiated and developed by the division specialists thought to be
closest to the relevant product market or operation and thus to have the best information with which to
identify needs and opportunities. Division managers conduct proposal management. The participation
of senior management is indirect, consisting primarily of providing the organizational structural and
strategic contexts for the investment decision.
This generalized model, describing a complex multi-stage process, is the standard process
model of capital investment or the Bower-Burgelman model (Maritan & Coen (2004)).
However, the capital budgeting process of investing in strategic projects that generate new
capabilities is considerably different. Senior managers are directly involved in the definition and
impetus stages of these projects as well as indirectly involved through setting the structural and
strategic contexts.

Capital budgeting process: investment in organizational capabilities


Most existing research hasnt investigated how the process might vary with investment
characteristics and almost in all capital budgeting process studies multiple investment decisions were
examined, but the resulting models were based on generalities across investments.
Maritan (2001) considered the population of 164 capital investment proposals and revisited the
Bower-Burgelman model using a resource-based view lens to investigate the process of investing in
strategic projects that create organizational capabilities.
A capability is a companys capacity to deploy its tangible or intangible resources, to perform a
coordinated task or activity to achieve a desired outcome (Amit & Schoemaker (1993), Helfat &
Peteraf (2003), Maritan & Florence (2008)). Arguments in the literature (Helfat (1997), Helfat &
Peteraf (2003)) suggest investment as a means for developing capabilities. However, capabilities
involve complex combinations of resources and therefore are generally non-tradeable in factor
markets (Amit & Schoemaker (1993)).
The approach to use the concept of capability in defining individual investment opportunities
and investigating the capital budgeting process as an investment-level rather than a firm-level
construct, endues the possibility that the same company simultaneously follows distinct processes for
distinct investment projects and potentially develops a higher-order capability to manage these
different processes.
Three types of investments in capabilities can be defined, that is investments to maintain the
stock of an existing capability, investments to add to the stock of an existing capability, and
investments to build a new capability (Maritan (2001), Maritan & Coen (2004)).

Maintain and add investments require no qualitative change to a companys capability stock.
These investments decision makers make to preserve or to increase the quantity of a capability, with
the intent of leveraging existing capabilities and competencies. Conversely, new investments represent
a qualitative change to the companys capability stock, and decision makers fulfil this change with the
intent of ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515 EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2011. 16 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2011.
16 1133

broadening the opportunity set available to the company. Related to these quantitative and
qualitative changes in capability stocks prevail differences in uncertainty.
A decision related to maintaining a capability stock would usually involve the least uncertainty,
since it is a decision to preserve an existing condition. A decision related to adding to an existing
capability stock typically involves more uncertainty. The company involved has familiarity and
experience with both accumulating and using the capability, but there is some uncertainty about
whether the company will achieve the desired ends with the increased quantity. A decision about
creating a new capability involves the highest degree of uncertainty. The firm does not have
experience either accumulating or using the capability. Because of these underlying differences in the
level and type of uncertainty, differences in the organizational process used to make the three types of
investment decisions subsists.
The clearest differences are between the processes followed for investments to maintain or add
to existing capabilities and the process followed for investments to build new capabilities. The BowerBurgelman process model essentially captures the information flows and the relationships between
elements of the process of investing in an existing capability, whether the investment maintains that
capability or adds to it. However, the standard model captures neither the information flows nor the
relationships between process elements for investing in a new capability. Hence, the three originally
defined categories can be resolved into two, existing, which combines maintain and add
investments, and new, which appears a separate type.
The main difference between existing capability sub-model and new capability sub-model is
that new strategic projects originate at a more senior level of an organization, specifically, at the
senior division level rather than at the operating level (Maritan (2001), Maritan & Coen (2004),
Adams et al. (2004)). Senior managers prosecute broader, less local information searches than
operating-level managers and are consequently better able to identify investment opportunities in new
capabilities that are outside their current experience. Another difference is the direct intervention in
the development of the investment proposal by both senior division and corporate managers. This
intervention results in a less procedurally rational and more political decision process. There is more
extensive exercise of power and use of negotiation, resulting in quasi decision making, wherein
decisions are effectively made by senior management well in advance of formal, final approval.
If potential investments in new and existing capabilities could be identified and classified a
priori, a decision process could be matched to each investment. This explicit matching of process to
investment type could itself be developed as an organizational capability (Maritan (2001), Maritan &
Coen (2004, 2011)).
The capability to match investment decision process to investment type is an example of a higherorder capability, what is sometimes referred to as a dynamic capability (Teece et al. (1997), Maritan
& Coen (2011)). This higher-order capability provides the capacity to make changes to the lowerorder ones, in this case, the capability to effectively manage decisions about investing in operatinglevel capabilities. If matching process to type leads to improved performance, a company with a
superior capability to make the required distinctions among investment types and match an
investment to a decision- making process may develop a competitive advantage.

Criteria for Capital Budgeting


An Overview
In making capital budgeting decisions, managers must use both strategic qualitative
evaluation and quantitative analysis to determine whether the project is wealth increasing.
The
process of determining exactly which assets to invest in and how much to invest is called
capital budgeting. The cash outlays, called capital expenditures, are usually incurred to
obtain capital assets.
The capital budgeting is a complex process that includes several activities:
the search for new profitable investment,

marketing and production analyses,


financial forecasts (cash flow estimation),
economic analysis,
evaluation of proposals,
control and monitoring of past projects.
Cash Flows Relevant to Capital Budgeting
Not all cash flows are relevant to capital budgeting.
Capital budgeting does not focus on all of the firms operating cash flows, but only on
the incremental cash flows after taxes, denoted as CFATs, which occur if and only if
an investment project is accepted.
Only future cash flows are relevant. A common mistake is to include historical or
sunk costs in the analysis.
Classification of Cash Flows After Tax (CFAT)
Initial CFAT
Operating CFAT
Terminal CFAT
Initial cash flows
Direct cash flows Indirect cash flows
Capital expenditures After-tax proceeds of old assets sold
Operating expenditures Change in net working capital
Operating cash flows
(1) CFAT = (S - C - D) (1-T) +D
T is tax rate.
Terminal cash flows
Salvage (scrap) value of the assets.
Recovery of net working capital.

1.1.2 Basic Criteria


A criterion or rule is needed as the basis for deciding whether a particular project should
be adopted. The conceptually sound criteria are following:
net present value (NPV)
internal rate of return (IRR)
profitability index (PI).

Net Present Value Criterion


Formally,
(2) NPV = PVinflows - Pvoutflows
It is implicitly assumed that the intermediate cash flows from a project are reinvested at
the opportunity cost of capital. If the NPV is positive, it earns more than RRR and produces
excess returns. NPV measures the economic profit created by accepting the project.
Accepting
a project with a positive NPV increases the companys market value by that amount. The
NPV is superior to all other criteria for making correct capital budgeting decisions.

Internal Rate of Return Criterion


The IRR is the discount rate that makes the excess market value (NPV) of a project 0.
Alternatively, the IRR is the discount rate that makes the present value of an investments
cash inflows equal to the present value of its cash outflows. The IRR rule is accept a
project
if IRR > RRR and to reject the project if IRR < RRR.

Profitability Index Criterion


The profitability index (PI) is simply a different way of presenting the same information
that the NPV provides. The PI is the ratio of these two values:
(3) PI =
PVinflows
PVoutflows
The PI rule accepts projects if PI > 1 and rejects projects if PI < 1.

Payback Period Criterion


The payback period for a project measures the number of years required to recover the
initial investment.
(4) Payback period =
initial investment outlay
annual cash inflows
The discounted payback period is the number of years it takes for the discounted cash
flows to yield the initial investment. It still ignores all cash flows beyond the discounted
payback period.

Accounting Rate of Return Criterion


The accounting rate of return criterion (AROR) relates the profits provided by a
project to its average investment:
(5) AROR =
annual profit
average investment

Special Issues in Capital Budgeting


1.2.1 Non-conventional projects
An investment project with the cash flow pattern (-,,-,+,+,,+) is called a
conventional project; a project with any other cash flow pattern is referred to as a
nonconventional
project. Non-conventional projects may cause IRR problems.

Multiple IRRs
Non-conventional cash flows and multiple IRRs may occur in oil and gas development
projects, mineral recovery projects, some financial or insurance projects. Non-conventional
projects may have multiple IRRs. Finding IRR is equivalent mathematically to solving a
polynomial of the nth degree, so there can be n possible solutions or real roots. There can be
as many IRRs as there are sign changes in the cash flow pattern.

Conflicts Between Capital Budgeting Criteria


Mutually exclusive projects
When mutually exclusive projects exist we can select either project A or project B, or
we can reject both, but we cannot accept both projects. Conflicts between NPV and IRR may
arise. The acceptance of any one project rules out the others. In such a situation NPV is a
superior criterion, because it maximizes the wealth of shareholders.

1.2.3 Special Capital Budgeting Situations


Project ranking
Project ranking refers to identifying various projects in order of decreasing
effectiveness. It is argued that project ranking is important when a company has limited
financing sources. The rankings based on IRRs or PI may differ from the rankings based on
the NPVs. The NPV and IRR or PI (profitability index) can lead to ranking conflicts and

different project selections. To resolve the conflict, the manager should use the superior NPV
criterion, simply because the NPV is consistent with the managers objective of maximizing
the wealth of shareholders.

Mutually Exclusive Projects with Different Lives


Mutually exclusive projects with different lives require special approach. This is an
extraordinary situation when basic criteria are not used directly to select a project. The
manager may use the replacement chain method or the uniform annual series (UAS)
method. Both methods use the same philosophy and give the same results. The UAS method
is preferable because it does not require an inconvenient replacement assumption.
The replacement chain method assumes replacement with an identical asset that has the
same operating cash flows. Using this method we have to find common useful life for
alternative projects. The lowest common life determines the horizon for the several replaced
projects and then NPV criterion may be used. The UAS method converts project NPVs of
alternative projects into uniform annual equivalent cash flows that then are compared. The
UAS is more practical when the lowest common multiple of the projects lives is a big
number.
4

Optimal Replacement Decisions for Existing Assets


The UAS method is especially useful to determine the life of an asset (how long an asset
should be used). We compute the UAS for each possible life of an asset and choose the
highest UAS to find the optimal life.

Capital Rationing
Capital rationing refers to situation in which, the company attempts to select the
combination of projects that will provide the greatest increment to firm value, subject to
some budget constraints. Managers should accept all attractive investment opportunities,
but
some objective or subjective reasons cause the choice of only the best projects.
It is important to understand that this approach is inconsistent with the goal of value
maximization. Regardless of how high the opportunity cost of capital may be, the firm should
accept all the projects if their NPVs are positive. That it makes no sense to say that capital
rationing exists because financing becomes to much expensive.
In selecting investment projects under capital rationing, it is necessary to understand
that some projects are divisible and others are indivisible. Projects that should be accepted or
rejected in their entirety are indivisible. The company should choose the combination of
indivisible projects that maximizes the sum of their NPVs without exceeding the budget
constraints. On the other hand, projects may be divisible. When projects are divisible, the
profitability index criterion is appropriate to make the right decision. Projects may be ranked
using PI values from highest to lowest, and then the highest-ranked projects that do not
exceed the imposed capital budget may be selected.
Conclusion:
In this chapter, many techniques of capital budgeting under the assumption of certainty as
well as uncertainty have been discussed, highlighting their relative strengths and
weaknesses. The investment decision made by managers will determine a number of
significant issues like the cash flows generated by the company, the dividends paid out by
the company, the market value of the company, the survival of the company etc. Many
managers talk about the gut feel, or special expertise, that enables them to say a project
should be undertaken even though it does not appear to have a positive NPV. It is difficult
to quantify their value, so the gut feel approach is often simply to guesstimate that the

project is profitable and then to go ahead with it. In fact, the use of capital budgeting
techniques allow for much more informed judgments with the caution that their application
does become more problematic in a period of rapid technological and economic change. In
such a situation, some form of computer based simulation approach may well turnout to be
of great practical use. Though techniques like RO rewards flexibility but it can not replace
the standard capital budgeting techniques (eg. NPV) rather it expands on and improves the
insights of strategic valuation. However, virtually all capital budgeting methods are
analyzed by computer, so it is easy to calculate and list all the decision measures, because
each one provides decision makers with a somewhat different piece of relevant information.
Conclusions
Capital investment decision-making has long been of interest to management scholars. In
contrast to the normative approach, the process approach has a broader perspective and tries to
explain and describe the whole process by which projects become identified, developed, justified and
finally approved. Most models describing the capital budgeting process are based on extensive case
studies, and literature on the subject therefore tends to be strongly empirically oriented. Academicians
have however, also tried to analyze how firms could improve their investment processes, why it is
difficult to make a clear distinction between descriptive statements and normative views.
The dominant process model of capital investment is the Bower-Burgelman model. This model
describes a complex multi-stage process in which managers at multiple levels of a company play
distinct roles. A technical and economic process driven by lower-level managers leads to project
definition, a sociopolitical process driven by middle managers give a project impetus and
organizational structures, systems and objectives and priorities developed by senior managers provide
structural and strategic contexts for the investment decision.
However, the process of investing in strategic projects that create new organizational
capabilities is different. Senior managers are directly involved in the definition and impetus stages of
these projects as well as indirectly involved through setting the structural and strategic contexts. This
finding supports the idea that investment decision making is a decision-level and not a firm-level
construct.