company’s accretive mergers and acquisitions brought operational synergies and cost
efficiency, strengthening the pipeline with increasing profitability.
This paper examines Stryker’s capital budgeting process (CER – Capital Expense Request)
why this process, after its modifications in 2005, had slowed down the company’s internal
capital project requests. From the company’s financials, we can see their capital
from 2000 to 2005 was doubled; however, it was surprisingly to see a drop of 20% in
year after the CER process modifications were brought into. Employees did not feel great
the changes; their morale was hurt; they concluded that they were not motivated as
previously as they had been due to the modifications.
The framework of this analysis is to first look into pharmaceutical technology industry
landscapes to understand why capital budgeting process is so vital to the growth in the
industry, and what regulatory changes had occurred to put pressure on the industry to
implement more rigorous implementation on capital budgeting process. Secondly, I will
on the modifications made in Stryker’s capital budgeting process, and why their employees
“painful". Lastly, I will propose to refine the process as recommendations of this paper.
Stryker’s Capital Budgeting Harvard Case Study
Pharmaceutical Industry Landscape
During the late 90s, Stryker heavily financed its acquisitions of Howmedica. Stryker was
alone in the industry engaging in M&As; other major companies such as Pfizer and
GlaxoSmithKline were amongst the infamous mega-mergers at that time. According to the
Institute of Mergers, Acquisitions and Alliances, M&As in the Pharmaceutical industry
from 1998 to 2000. After all, these companies had to reconfigure their acquired
and settled for a while. But M&A popularity reappeared in 2006 to 2008 until the collapse