Capital Budgeting and CER Process at Stryker Corporation
This paper examines Stryker Corporation's capital budgeting process through the lens of its Capital Expenditure Request (CER) system. It explores the mission and design of the CER process, noting how the company's decentralized organizational structure, debt-averse financial strategy, and history of double-digit revenue growth have shaped its capital allocation practices. The paper evaluates the system's performance both quantitatively and qualitatively, drawing on academic literature to identify agency problems and coordination gaps between divisions. It concludes with two targeted recommendations aimed at improving cross-divisional communication and strengthening the Capital Committee's role in early-stage project review.
- Mission of the CER and the Capital Budgeting Process: Why Stryker developed a formal capital allocation process
- Organizational Structure and CER Design: How decentralized structure shapes CER design and approvals
- Strengths and Weaknesses of the System: Quantitative performance and system evaluation criteria
- Qualitative Evaluation and Agency Problems: Agency conflicts and coordination gaps between divisions
- Recommendations for Improvement: Two proposals to strengthen cross-divisional coordination
- Conclusion: Summary assessment and value of incremental system tweaks
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its analysis in peer-reviewed sources (Ang, 1986; Litzenberger & Joy, 1975; Bower & Gilbert, 2007), lending academic credibility to what could otherwise be a purely descriptive case analysis.
- It moves logically from description (how the system works) to evaluation (how well it works) to prescription (what should change), giving the argument a clear and purposeful arc.
- The identification of the agency problem — where divisional interests may diverge from corporate interests — is the paper's strongest analytical moment, connecting theory directly to a structural gap in Stryker's process.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied framework analysis: it takes an established theoretical concept (agency problems in decentralized capital budgeting) and uses it as a diagnostic lens to evaluate a real corporate process. This technique — anchoring critique in literature before proposing solutions — is a hallmark of graduate-level business writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by describing Stryker's financial context and the rationale behind its CER system. It then details how organizational structure shapes the process, before moving into a two-part evaluation (quantitative performance, then qualitative/agency concerns). The final section offers two concrete, actionable recommendations. The Works Cited section follows APA formatting conventions.
Mission of the CER and the Capital Budgeting Process
Stryker has enjoyed a strong run of growth and has taken advantage of this to gradually de-leverage its balance sheet. As a result, the company relies on equity rather than new debt to finance its projects. There are several key missions, therefore, related to Stryker's capital expenditure requests (CERs). These requests are the formal mechanism that forms the basis of the company's capital allocation process. Because the company avoids taking on new debt, the funds available for expansion are somewhat limited, which is why a structured system for allocating available funds is necessary.
Another part of the mission for the capital budgeting process relates to Stryker's strong historical growth, including double-digit revenue growth for seven consecutive years and an average compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 20% per year. The process is therefore essential to ensuring the company can sustain these growth rates. Once double-digit growth is priced into a company's share price, the market comes to expect it — and failure to deliver will negatively affect the stock price. This creates significant incentive for Stryker's leadership to maintain a robust CER process that supports continued historic growth rates.
References
Ang, J. (1986). Internal rationing and agency problems in decentralized capital budgeting. Project Appraisal, 1(4), 235–245.
Bower, J., & Gilbert, C. (2007). How managers' everyday decisions create or destroy your company's strategy. Harvard Business Review, February 2007.
Litzenberger, R., & Joy, O. (1975). Decentralized capital budgeting decisions and shareholder wealth maximization. The Journal of Finance, 30(4), 993–1002.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.