The State of Capital Planning

Transcription

Benchmark Study:
The State of Capital Planning
Commissioned by Planview®
Conducted by: FERF, the research
affiliate of FEI, and Appleseed
Partners
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In a new first of its kind study of senior financial executives, research reveals that global enterprises rely on out-ofdate technology and manual processes
for capital planning, preventing them
Key Statistics
from fully maximizing their return on
capital (ROC). The current planning
 49% indicated the manual nature of planning and
process and tools fail to provide reliable
spreadsheet complexity is the top planning pain point
performance and on-demand analytics
 48% reported the top planning risk is inability to track
data on millions of dollars of capital
affordability and ROI
investments, leaving questions regarding
whether companies are allocating capital
 80% responded that they use manual to highly manual
approaches for planning
to the best, most productive efforts for
strategic advantage.
 25% responded that the frequency of planning is ongoing
and 51% said it is done quarterly
The study shows that companies rely on
spreadsheets and manual processes to
manage their capital projects. While a
company’s budget is prepared annually,
capital planning is conducted year-round
requiring frequent access to real-time
performance to analyze results.
 42% said the top challenge with spreadsheets is inability to
run what-if scenarios
 35% are planning to invest in automation and refine their
planning processes in the next 12 months
The purpose of the study was to understand the state of capital planning processes at large organizations given
today’s dynamic business climate. The objective was to benchmark the ways that finance organizations currently
manage the capital planning process, the tools they use, and the impact.
The findings of this study suggest that asset intensive companies with large capital spending budgets need better
information technology tools to manage their capital planning processes. They must be able to optimize capital
expenditures, monitor performance, and return on investment (ROI). They need tools that will enable them to
optimize capital budgets and rebalance spending priorities as business conditions change. Finance and operations
require software tools that eliminate time spent on manual tasks and provide increased visibility allowing them to
focus on analytics while enabling flexibility to manage capital projects. In this report, capital planning will be
referred to as “planning”, which for the purposes of this study is defined as long-range financial planning for capital
and major investments.
THE STATE OF CAPITAL PLANNING REPORT
The Risks
The risks, inherent in the processes and tools used by the typical enterprise, were obvious to those surveyed. Fifty
percent reported their top risk as the inability to track affordability and ROI; the inability to maximize market
opportunity, resources, and budget came in at number two; with concerns over making the wrong long-range
investments coming in third. Almost half of firms reported having these three concerns.
The Pain
Study participants were drawn from global, multi-billion dollar companies: companies with the resources to acquire
and adopt new tools and processes that automate and optimize planning. Of the 128 senior executives surveyed –
those with responsibility for major planning decisions – the top planning pain point identified by 48% of respondents
was the manual nature of planning and its complexity.
Overwhelmingly, finance organizations rely on manual processes and un-integrated spreadsheets as their primary
tools to conduct planning with 96% reporting that spreadsheets are the primary tools in use.
The report further shows that the planning process is an ongoing (25%) or quarterly one (51%),and that revisiting
the plan is happening on a continual basis.
Forty-five percent of respondents declared that the planning process is jointly owned by finance and business units.
They use a combination of siloed spreadsheets with an unstructured process creating additional planning complexity
identified by participants.
©2012 Planview, Inc.
Page 2 of 24
The Challenges
When asked to select the major challenges to the spreadsheet-based approach, more than 40% said both the lack of
“what-if” scenario capabilities and the lack of integration between spreadsheets were problematic, while nearly 40%
selected limited analytical capabilities as a key issue.
Plans to Automate
In the study, 35% of respondents were satisfied with their current planning process; however, only a third of
respondents said it is a medium to high priority to automate and refine the planning process within the next 12
months.
The numbers indicate that companies are not content with their current processes but executives do not see the
issues as critical enough to warrant attention. There is often lack of funding or lack of awareness of compelling
alternatives. Information technology solutions that address the challenges of sophisticated long-range planning are
commercially available and require consideration given the current challenges and risks identified in this study.
Summary
Unlike other parts of the enterprise, which use modern technology to run their business, Finance is relying on
outdated technology and tools for planning - ironically, planning is one of the enterprise’s most critical, long-range,
and strategic processes. While other departments have access to more sophisticated processes, software
applications, and tools to ensure that decisions are data-driven and accurate, the lack of these technology
advancements for Finance can have far-reaching implications for ROI and efficiency, and even the future of the
company itself.
Page 3 of 24
Table of Contents
I.
A.
B.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 5
About the Survey ...................................................................................................... 5
Survey Process, Participants, and Methodology ............................................................ 5
II.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
THE STATE OF CAPITAL PLANNING ................................................................... 6
Planning Time Horizon ............................................................................................... 6
Frequency of Planning ............................................................................................... 7
Length of Time for Planning ....................................................................................... 8
Ability to Measure and Analyze Investments ................................................................ 9
Structure Level of Capital Planning ........................................................................... 10
Ownership of Capital Planning .................................................................................. 11
Current Automation Level ........................................................................................ 12
III.
A.
B.
C.
CAPITAL PLANNING PAIN POINTS AND RISKS ............................................... 13
Major Pain Points .................................................................................................... 13
Major Challenges Using Spreadsheets ....................................................................... 14
Top Risks ............................................................................................................... 15
IV.
A.
B.
FUTURE PLANS FOR CAPITAL PLANNING ....................................................... 16
In Their Words ....................................................................................................... 16
Priority and Time Frame for Automation .................................................................... 17
V.
A.
B.
SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 18
Takeaways and Considerations ................................................................................. 18
Recommendations................................................................................................... 18
APPENDIX – DEMOGRAPHICS .................................................................................. 20
C.
Responses by Industry ............................................................................................ 20
D.
Responses by Company Revenue ............................................................................. 21
E.
Level in Organization ............................................................................................... 21
VI.
About the Authors ........................................................................................... 22
VII. About the Sponsor........................................................................................... 22
VIII. About FERF ..................................................................................................... 23
Page 4 of 24
I.
INTRODUCTION
A.
About the Survey
As part of an initiative on corporate financial planning, an online survey was commissioned by Planview® in Fall
2011. This study focused on the state of long-range financial planning for capital and major investments at large
enterprises. The survey assessed how organizations currently manage the process, the technology, and tools they
use, and the impact of business climate changes on planning. The survey and analysis were conducted by Financial
Executives Research Foundation (FERF), the nonprofit research affiliate of Financial Executives International (FEI),
and Appleseed Partners, both independent third-party consulting and research firms.
Any inquiries or comments regarding the survey, or permissions to use portions of this report in the public domain
should be sent to [email protected]
.
B.
Survey Process, Participants, and Methodology
FERF and Appleseed Partners conducted the study in September 2011, collecting 128 survey respondents. The
respondents were from North America and more than 75% of respondents were from global companies having
greater than $500M in annual revenue and 32% with greater than $1B in annual revenue. Participants represented
a broad range of industries within Manufacturing, Technology,
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate, and Consumer Goods. Fifty-seven
percent of respondents were executives; 71% report into the finance
“Seventy-five percent of
organization, and 97% claim direct participation and decision-making
respondents were from
in the capital planning process. See appendix for more details on the
global companies having
demographics of the respondents.
greater than $500M in annual
revenue.”
Please note that not all questions were required. As a result, the total
number of responses for any given question may vary from the total
number of survey respondents. The number of respondents is
provided in each graph. In addition, for some questions participants
were asked to select only one answer while other questions requested
that they select all answers that apply. Because of this, the total percentage of all answers for any given question
may exceed 100%.
Page 5 of 24
II.
THE STATE OF CAPITAL PLANNING
A.
Planning Time Horizon
This question was asked to determine how far into the future companies are planning investments. Forty percent
responded that their time horizon is one of 2-3 years, followed by 36% claiming a 4-5 year planning horizon. This
latter group consisted primarily of utilities, energy companies, transportation, health sciences, and some
manufacturers. The faster cycle industries included finance/insurance/real estate and the technology sub-segment
of manufacturers.
Three-fourths of companies have planning horizons covering two or more years. Consequently, they have to
manage multiple overlapping projects at various stages of maturity. Business conditions and the state of these
investment programs can change and evolve considerably over a single time horizon. Tracking each project from
inception to completion is ongoing. An important challenge; therefore, is keeping track of the data related to these
projects over multiple periods as well as performing analysis necessary to evaluate project performance, optimize
spending, and assess overall performance.
Page 6 of 24
B.
Frequency of Planning
Substantiating some of the initial groundswell that prompted the commission of the survey, a key study learning is
the frequency with which planning is conducted. For
the majority of respondents, planning is no longer an
“For the majority of respondents,
annual process: for 25%, it is continual, while 51%
planning is no longer an annual
revisit, and potentially re-plan on a quarterly basis.
Because companies manage capital projects on an
ongoing basis, they need to actively manage the
information related to those projects and update and
analyze results regularly.
process: for 25%, it is continual,
while 51% revisit, and potentially
re-plan on a quarterly basis."
Page 7 of 24
C.
Length of Time for Planning
In chart C1, the question was, how long does the planning process take? Planning is ongoing for 18% of companies
and 47% responded that the planning process itself takes 2-3 months.
When asked about revisiting the plan (chart
C2), 35% percent said that they revisit
planning continually and 23% address it
quarterly. Further research would be needed
to confirm that this was less ongoing in the
past, and that the current economy is driving
this constant state of planning, but it is
notable. It begs the question, how much time
is this ongoing, continual planning taking
these resources and how efficient is it? Do
planners have data available on demand to
make decisions?
These two charts reveal that today’s
organization is in a constant state of
planning. Consequently, it is important
that companies minimize time spent
collecting, analyzing, and preparing data
related to capital projects. Given the
need to revisit the plan, availability of ondemand metrics is important and yet
appears not to be easily available to
financial decision makers
(see Exhibit II-D).
Page 8 of 24
D.
Ability to Measure and Analyze Investments
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Only 26% of respondents rated their ability to analyze and measure investments post-delivery as good or excellent.
All others either were neutral or negative in their reviews.
Deeper examination shows a strong correlation between structured planning processes (see Exhibit II-E) and
analytics ability. Only 15% of those reporting a somewhat or very unstructured approach to their strategic
planning process reported a good or excellent ability to analyze and measure the outcome of their investments. By
contrast, 34% of those who were somewhat or very structured in their process reported good or excellent at ability
to analyze and measure investment results.
The second key contributor to complicate a firm’s ability to measure and track effectively is the manual approach
using spreadsheets. Purpose-built software solutions automate the planning process allowing stakeholders to
analyze, measure, and track investments. But, according to the research, the primary pain point in planning is
identified as the manual nature of planning (Exhibit III-A).
As stated earlier, the shift to a more continuous planning process underscores the need for effective measurement
and tracking and yet most reported weakness in this area. In fact, frequent revisions to the plan will require
meticulous tracking data on which to make decisions.
Page 9 of 24
E.
Structure Level of Capital Planning
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50 %
60%
Forty-eight percent of respondents said that their planning process is somewhat structured with a quarter saying
that their process is somewhat to very unstructured.
One consideration from this chart is if a process is ‘somewhat structured’ versus ‘very structured’, how structured is
it really? Based upon a cross-tab and deeper analysis of the ability to analyze results of investments (Exhibit II-D) to
the structure of the process, 50% of those who were ‘very structured’ were good or excellent at analyzing
investment results whereas only 30% of those who characterized their process as ‘somewhat structured’ were good
or excellent at ability to analyze investments.
Being very structured ought to be standard when it comes to allocating capital, yet only one in six meets that
standard.
Page 10 of 24
F.
Ownership of Capital Planning
0%
5%
10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Nearly half of respondents said that the primary responsibility for planning is jointly owned by Finance and business
units, and 26% declared it is owned by the C-level; it is worth noting that 57% of study participants are executive
level. Our findings have been that Finance runs the process in the organization and coordinates across multiple,
often distributed business units.
Page 11 of 24
G.
Current Automation Level
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50 %
60%
The study shows that planning is an overwhelmingly manual process.




77% of respondents indicate that planning is manual to highly manual
 29% indicate it is highly manual, leveraging multiple spreadsheets
 48% claim it is manual, using some
spreadsheets plus some process and
standardization
“Capital spending is an ongoing
20% have some automation in place and
process involving overlapping multisome planning-specific tools
year projects managed across business
Only 2% indicate their processes are highly
units and functions; it demands a
automated and use purpose-built software
highly automated process and only 2%
and standard processes
fall into that category, only one in five
are even close.”
When asked if spreadsheets are used for
planning, 96% responded that is their primary
tool.
Capital spending is an ongoing process involving overlapping multi-year projects managed across business units and
functions; it demands a highly automated process – only 2% fall into that category, only one in five are even close.
Although many companies have adopted dedicated budgeting software and have automated related data collection
and consolidation methods, they continue to rely on spreadsheets and manual processes to manage their capital
projects.
Page 12 of 24
III.
CAPITAL PLANNING PAIN POINTS AND RISKS
A.
Major Pain Points
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
When asked about the pain points in the planning process, 48% of respondents said the manual nature of
planning and the resulting process complexity, 37% cited the impact of business climate change, and 35%
reported lack of visibility into performance.
Page 13 of 24
B.
Major Challenges Using Spreadsheets
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
In response to the question, (Does your organization primarily use spreadsheets for capital planning?) 96% of
respondents said that spreadsheets were the primary tool used for planning. When asked about the challenges
in using spreadsheets for this process, 42% pointed to the inability to run what-if scenarios, 41% found the lack
of integration between spreadsheets problematic, and 38% took issue with the limited analytical capabilities of
spreadsheets.
The manual approach to the process significantly complicates a firm’s ability to measure and track effectively
(Exhibit II-D). We suspect that the prevalence of a manual, spreadsheet-driven approach is one reason that
firms scored themselves low on the ability to measure and track performance.
Page 14 of 24
C.
Top Risks
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
When asked to identify the top risks to planning and the business, nearly 50% of respondents cited the inability
to track affordability and ROI from investments. This was followed closely by being unable to maximize
opportunities, resources and budgets at 45%, and making the wrong long-term investments at 44%.
Page 15 of 24
IV.
FUTURE PLANS FOR CAPITAL PLANNING
A.
In Their Words
Participants were asked to share in their own words what would help most to fix the challenges involved in
capital planning. This is a representative list of recommendation from the respondents:
“Finance requires better standardization with fully integrated common platforms to budget and analyze
capital projects.” (Director of Finance, Manufacturer)
“There is a change in paradigms regarding planning
being just a financial exercise. Planning should be an
organizational strategic capacity, and a financial
integrated approach.”(CFO, Wholesale Trade Company)
“Companies need greater
integration and prioritization
of strategic, operational, and
capital planning.”
“We need better visibility and post plan
accountability.” (SVP and CFO, Semiconductor
Manufacturer)
VP Finance, Large Consumer
Electronic Retailers
“Companies need greater integration and prioritization
of strategic, operational, and capital planning.” (VP Finance, Large Consumer Electronic Retailers)
"Better post-implementation evaluation of investment to ensure ROI and business case were achieved."
(Corporate Controller, Automotive Parts Manufacturer)
"Companies need the ability to compare multiple scenarios in multiple economic climates." (CFO,
Recreational Vehicle Designer and Manufacturer)
"We need software that allow us to model various scenarios and tools that allow us to calculate metrics
such as ROI/payback on a standard basis currently, all operating companies calculate a little differently"
- Controller, Manufacturer
Page 16 of 24
B.
Priority and Time Frame for Automation
0%
5%
10%
15%
20% 25% 30% 35%
40%
That means while 70% of executive respondents were not satisfied with the current process, only a third plan to
address it through automation in the next 12 months. More than a third of respondents are making automation
and refinement of the planning process a medium to high priority and are planning on taking action within the
next 12 months. Interestingly, given the strategic nature of the subject, 23% have not assigned this a priority to
address.
The question was formulated to ask respondents to state both the priority level and time frame for automation.
Companies may consider automating the planning process a higher priority yet are not prepared to put a
timeline of less than 12 months. In the planning world, 12 months is only one planning cycle away. The pain
associated with the manual aspects of planning may be more acute at different times of the year for planners
depending on their fiscal calendar and their most intensive planning seasons. While the pain may not be as
acute at certain times of the year, it will tend to resurface and escalate as complexity increases and with
constant business climate change.
Page 17 of 24
V.
SUMMARY
A.
Takeaways and Considerations
The trend toward more continuous planning coupled with the fact that organizations are relying upon unstructured
processes and manual tools is troubling given that good decision making demands meticulous, on-demand tracking
and performance data. It is clear that planning process structure and automation level is directly related to the
ability to measure and track performance, provide scenario analysis and measure return on investment – key
components of data –driven decision making and maximizing
return on capital.
“Unlike other parts of the enterprise,
which use modern technology to run
their business, Finance is relying on
outdated technology and tools for
planning - ironically, planning is one
of the enterprise’s most critical longterm, and strategic processes.”
While other departments have access to more sophisticated
processes, software applications, and tools to ensure that decisions
are data-driven and accurate, the lack of these technology
advancements for Finance can have far-reaching implications for
ROI and efficiency, and even the future of the company itself.
In the study, only 35% of respondents were satisfied with their
current planning process; however, only a third of respondents said
it is a medium to high priority to automate and refine the capital
planning process within the next 12 months. The disparity between
those dissatisfied with their current process and those acquiring new solutions to mature their processes could be
attributed to various factors:



The skill and comfort level that finance professionals feel with spreadsheets, even as many realize
implications of this approach vis-à-vis sophisticated cross-company planning
Lack of assessment on the potential return of automating and improving the process and implications for
competitive advantage
A general lack of knowledge within Finance of the availability of solutions developed to meet their specific
needs.
B.
Recommendations
Given today’s environment – a dynamic market, increasingly agile competition, tighter constraints on manpower,
capital resources, and a less forgiving shareholder eye on the bottom line – it may be time to look into purpose-built
financial technology tools that can automate, speed, and improve the planning process. Companies that utilize
purpose-built solutions can gain a competitive edge, improve the accuracy of financial planning, keep investment
deals on track with analytics, and boost the quality of business-critical decisions.
Page 18 of 24
1) Consider where your organization is today in terms of planning process gaps and limited metrics:
 Are we getting the results we need from time spent on capital planning?
 Are our people spending too much time working with spreadsheets and consolidating numbers and not
enough of their time actually analyzing data?
 Are we able to do the scenario analysis that we need?
 Are we able to accurately forecast, then measure and track our return on capital today?
 What is the status quo costing the company in terms of time, accuracy, and money?
 Are we considered best in class from a planning perspective?
2) Consult an expert: Robert Kugel, Senior Research Director of Ventana Research heads up CFO and business
research focused on the intersection of information technology with the finance organization and business. His
research includes the application of IT to financial process optimization and collaborative systems; control
systems and analytics; and advanced budgeting and planning. Read Robert’s blog at
http://robertkugel.ventanaresearch.com/ or contact him via email at [email protected].
3) Learn more by attending a special webcast: On January 24 at 12PM CST, Bill Sinnett from FERF, Maureen
Carlson from Appleseed Partners, and Madison Laird, Planview Executive-in-Residence, will discuss the findings
of The Capital Planning Study and offer ways to improve the capital planning process. Register for either the live
broadcast or the on-demand recording at http://www.planview.com/stateofcapitalplanning.
4) Get the informative whitepaper titled: The Role of Finance: Number Crunchers or Change Agents? by Rich
Murphy, former CFO of Deutsche Bank Global Technology, and learn how to lead your company to better
strategic investment planning and be a catalyst for change in your organization. Download the paper today at
http://www.planview.com/roleoffinance.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, or if you would like additional information, please contact
[email protected] .
HU
UH
Page 19 of 24
APPENDIX – DEMOGRAPHICS
C.
Responses by Industry
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Survey respondents were distributed in terms of industries with 29% from Manufacturing, 13% from Technology,
and 10% each for Consumer Goods, Utilities/Energy/Transportation and Healthcare/Life Sciences.
Page 20 of 24
D.
Responses by Company Revenue
The study focused on global enterprises with significant planning and demand on the finance organization. Nearly
50% of respondents were from companies with more than $1.1B in annual revenue and 17% were from companies
with more than $5.1B in revenue. Twenty-seven percent of participants represented companies with $500M-$1B in
annual revenue.
E.
Level in Organization
Fifty-seven percent of participants were executive level and 30% were director level with the following as common
titles across all: CFO, Assistant Vice President and Director of Financial Analysis and Planning, CAO/VP/Controller,
Chief Risk Officer, Director of Finance, and Treasurer.
Page 21 of 24
About the Authors
Maureen Carlson is a partner at Appleseed Partners, an independent marketing consulting and research firm.
Maureen has nearly 20 years of experience in high technology, business-to-business marketing, research, and
consulting. She has focused on product marketing for hardware, software, and professional services; has experience
in several market segments such as manufacturing and healthcare; and has worked on other research projects with
the sponsor, Planview Inc.
William M. Sinnett is Senior Director, Research, for Financial Executives Research Foundation, Inc. (FERF), the
research affiliate of Financial Executives International (FEI). Bill also supports FEI’s Committee on Finance & IT
(CFIT), and authors its e-newsletter, “Finance & IT News.” Bill joined FEI as Accounting Manager in 1985, and became
Manager of Research for FERF in 1989 and can be reached at [email protected].
VI.
About the Sponsor
The Planview solution for corporate financial planning provides an end-to-end approach giving companies a
centralized view of all enterprise investments. It enables stakeholders to choose the right investments for the
company, understand the financial implications, and validate ROI. Learn more at www.planview.com/Finance.
For 20 years, Planview has been advancing the discipline of portfolio management, helping its customers change the
way they manage people and money to make better business decisions. With a singular focus on portfolio
management, Planview is the only company that combines customer-driven software, unmatched domain expertise,
and proven best practices to solve each customer’s unique business problems. For more information, visit
www.planview.com.
Page 22 of 24
VII. About FERF
About Financial Executives Research Foundation, Inc.
Financial Executives Research Foundation (FERF) is the non-profit 501(c)(3) research affiliate of FEI. FERF researchers
identify key financial issues and develop impartial, timely research reports for FEI members and non-members alike,
in a variety of publication formats. FERF relies primarily on voluntary tax-deductible contributions from corporations
and individuals. This and more than 140 other Research Foundation publications can be ordered by logging onto
http://www.ferf.org. Questions about FERF can be directed to [email protected]
The views set forth in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the FERF
Board as a whole, individual trustees, employees, or the members of the Advisory Committee. FERF shall be held
harmless against any claims, demands, suits, damages, injuries, costs, or expenses of any kind or nature whatsoever,
except such liabilities as may result solely from misconduct or improper performance by the Foundation or any of its
representatives.
Announcing the new FERF RESEARCH BLOG!
FERF has now launched the FERF Research Blog. The purpose of the blog is to engage members in the FERF research
process. It will also serve as the new real-time resource for FEI members and financial management professionals to
interact in a peer-to-peer setting to resolve their accounting, finance and management questions. Access the
Research Blog at www.ferf.org or click here.
Copyright © 2012 by Financial Executives Research Foundation, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission from
the publisher.
International Standard Book Number: 978-1-61509-087-7
Printed in the United States of America
First Printing
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by
Financial Executives Research Foundation, Inc., provided that an appropriate fee is paid to Copyright Clearance Center, 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Fee inquiries can be directed to Copyright Clearance Center at 978-750-8400. For further
information, please check Copyright Clearance Center online at: http://www.copyright.com.
Page 23 of 24
FINANCIAL EXECUTIVES RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC. would like to acknowledge and thank the following
companies for their long lasting support and generosity:
PLATINUM MAJOR GIFT | $50,000 +
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
GOLD PRESIDENT’S CIRCLE | $10,000 - $14,999
Abbott Laboratories, Inc.
The Boeing Company
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Dow Chemical Company
General Electric Company
SILVER PRESIDENT’S CIRCLE | $5,000 - $9,999
Apple, Inc.
Comcast Corporation
Corning Incorporate
Credit Suisse
Cummins Inc.
Dell Inc.
Duke Energy Corporation
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
Eli Lilly and Company
GM Foundation
Halliburton Company
Hewlett-Packard Company
IBM Corporation
Johnson & Johnson
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Maple Leaf Foods, Inc
Medtronic, Inc. Motorola, Inc.
Motorola, Inc.
Pfizer Inc.
Procter & Gamble Co.
Safeway Inc.
Sony Corporation of America
Tenneco
The Hershey Company
Tyco International Management Co.
Wells Fargo & Company
GOLD CORPORATE LEADERSHIP - $2,500 - $4,999
ALCOA Foundation
Cargill, Incorporated
Eaton Corporation
H.S. Grace & Company, Inc
Intel Corporation
McCormick & Company, Inc.
Precision Castparts Corp.
Raytheon Company
Select Medical Corp.
Telephone and Data Systems, Inc.
Time-Warner Inc.
United Technologies Corporation
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Page 24 of 24

The State of Capital Planning

Transcription

Documents pareils

Brochure Webeda - version anglaise

Frontiers of disruption: The next decade of technology in

Appendices - The Commonwealth Fund

Eliminating the Risks of Spreadsheets in Finance

511 Road Condition User Survey - Road Conditions

Investment deduction

Mimi Gregory - Alliance Française de Bonita Springs

Banks Prepare for Big Bonuses, and Public Wrath

Global Talent Survey Report 2014-09-30.indd

Embracing Digital Technology

use of assessment processes, models, and tools in career

3. La Clusaz CSI2-CSIAmB 2505 corrigé OC 201174001

Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael Jewish National Fund KKL-JNF