Joumalof Business Finance & Accounting, 23(1), January 1996,0306-686X

A LONGITUDINAL SURVEY ON CAPITAL BUDGETING

PRACTICES
RICHARD PIKE*

INTRODUCTION

Capital budgeting surveys have in recent years become fairly commonplace.

For the most part they are state-of-the-art surveys, seeking to portray the cur-
rent position rather than to study relationships between investment practices
and organisational variables such asfirmsize, capital intensity, environmen-
tal uncertainty and performance.' Every survey has some merit, telling us
something of the practices at the date of survey for those responding firms.
The problem arises when attempting to generalise suchfindingsto a wider po-
pulation and to identify discernible capital budgeting trends by means of com-
parison with earlier empirical studies.
Numerous authors have attempted such a task, for example, Boersema
(1978), Rosenblatt and Jucker (1979), Aggarwal (1980) in America, and
Sangster (1993) in the UK. Such attempts, however,flounderin muddy meth-
odological waters. Survey comparison must be severely questioned; in the first
place, the data are drawn from samples that are usually so dissimilar that they
do not permit comparison. Secondly, mail surveys may well overstate the true
position due to the problem where users of sophisticated techniques are more
likely to respond than those with less sophisticated practices (Rappaport,
1979; and Wallace and Mellor, 1988).
This is best demonstrated by examining the main UK capital budgeting
surveys conducted since 1966, concentrating upon one finding: adoption of
discounted cash flow (DCF) methods. Inspection of the DCF usage percen-
tage in the final column of Table 1 for the twelve UK mail surveys presented
may leave the casual observer bewildered. In their 1976 survey, Carsberg and
Hope found that 85 per cent of respondents used DCF techniques, and West-
wick and Shohet (1976) obtained a similarly high usage rate of 80 per cent.
Yet the majority of subsequent surveys obtained far lower usage rates, for ex-
ample, 45 per cent by Mclntyre and Coulthurst (1985) and 61 per cent by
Sangster (1993). Are we to interpret from this that DCF usage rates have ac-
tually fallen over the last twenty years?
While it is tempting to draw conclusions from Table 1 that DCF usage has
declined in recent years, the differences in the population from which samples

* The author is Professor of Finance and Accounting at the University of Bradford. He wishes to ex-
press thanks to Iain Bowie for assisting in data collection and analysis and to the anonyn:ious referee
for the comments received. (Paper receivedJuly 1993, revised and accepted October 1994)
Address for correspondence: Richard Pike, Professor of Finance and Accounting, Department of
Finance and Accounting, University of Bradford Management Centre, Emm Lane, Bradford, West
Yorkshire BD94JL, UK.
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1996,108 Cowlcy Road, Oxford OX4 lJF, UK
and 238 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA. 79
80 PIKE

Table 1
Capital Budgeting Surveys in the UK

Tear Tear Author(s) JVo. Response Sample DCF

Studied Resutts of Rate Used Usage %
Pubtished Firms

1966 1973 Rockley 69 29 BOT Returns 59

1973 1976 Carsberg & Hope 103 32 TIMES 1000 85
1974-5 1976 Westwick & Shohet 81 n.a. undefined 80
1975 1980 Jones 522 32 Large firms 50
1980 1981 Scapens & Sale 211 45 TIMES 1000 52
1980 1982 Pike 150 76 Largest firms 69
1981 1986 Jones 242 52 Large firms 47
1985 1985 Mclntyre & 141 19 Medium firms 45
Coulthurst
1985 1986 Lapsley 97 58 Public organ. 69
1986 1987 Mills & Herbert 131 51 Largest firms 52
1986 1988 Pike 100 72 Largest firms 84
1989 1993 Sangster 94 22 Scotland's top 500 61

are drawn, the wording of the question, the sample sizes and the response rates
(which range from 19 per cent to 72 per cent) all make such comparison a pre-
carious exercise. In truth, a history of capital budgeting surveys, plagued by
design deficiencies and disappointingly low response rates, have all too often
rendered generalisations, statistical inferences and comparisons at best sus-
pect, and at worst misleading.
A recent article in this journal by Sangster (1993) compared the findings from
his recent capital budgeting survey with those of earlier studies (principally. Pike,
1982; Mclntyre and Coulthurst, 1985, and Mills and Herbert, 1987). While the
results are of interest, Sangster recognises its limitations and concludes that 'until
one of the studies is repeated using similar survey populations, questions and
analysis methods, conclusions cannot be drawn regarding changing attitudes
and practices of companies outwith the size covered in the current study.'^
This paper reports the findings of a longitudinal capital budgeting study
based on surveys conducted between 1975 and 1992 compiled by conducting
cross-sectional surveys on the same firms at approximately five yearly inter-
vals. Such a study meets Sangster's (1993) call for survey replications over
time using similar populations, questions and analysis methods. One further
stipulation should be added: nonresponse bias within such surveys should be
minimised by ensuring consistently high response rates. Three basic questions
are addressed in the paper.

1. What overall picture emerges from such a longitudinal survey? Here, the
detail is less important than the longer term trends, thus providing a con-
text in which prior and subsequent capital budgeting research can be
viewed.
2. To what extent is the level of capital budgeting sophistication associated
© BlackweU Publishers Ltd 1996
 CAPITAL BUDGETING PRAGTIGES 81

with firm size and use of information technology?

3. How useful is the longitudinal survey approach as an empirical research
instrument?

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The next section describes
the sample and conduct of the surveys since 1975. This is followed by an ana-
lysis of the results and the main trends that can be observed. Findings are then
discussed within a wider context and the impacts of firm size and computer
usage explored. Finally, the usefulness of the longitudinal approach and the
paper's conclusions are presented.

SURVEY DESIGN AND SAMPLE

The original postal survey conducted in 1980 was designed to address two im-
portant issues. First, as a state-of-the-art survey, it sought to provide insights
into the developments in the formal capital investment processes of large firms
(Pike, 1982). Secondly, it sought to explain corporate investment practices in
terms of capital constraints, principal-agent conflict and organisation context
(Pike, 1983, 1985, and 1986).
The two subsequent surveys, while introducing other elements of research
interest, retained the original questions on capital budgeting practices. All
three surveys asked respondents to report current capital budgeting practices
for larger projects but the 1980 survey also asked for practices in 1975.^ Pike's
(1983) survey on capital budgeting practices in 1975 and 1980 drew a sample
of 208 firms from the largest 300 UK quoted companies as measured by mar-
ket capitalisation. From that sample 150 usable responses (72%) were ob-
tained. By 1986, the year of the next survey, ten of the 150 firms had ceased
trading. One hundred usable responses were obtained from the remaining
140 firms (71 % ) .
In 1992, it was decided to revisit the same 140 firms responding in 1980 and
trading in 1986. A further eleven had either ceased trading or been acquired,
leaving a sample of 129 firms. Questionnaires were distributed to finance di-
rectors, or equivalent, in these companies in May 1992. Reminders were sent
four weeks later, followed up by telephone calls where necessary. A total of 99
usable responses were received, giving a response rate of 78.1 per cent. Analy-
sis of non-respondents (by comparing late against early responders and estab-
lishing the reason for non-response) suggested that non-response bias is
unlikely to be a significant problem. To restore the number of respondents to
100 firms it was decided to replace a non-respondent in 1992 with a company
surveyed in 1980 and 1986, hitherto excluded from the analysis. This left 100
firmswhich were common to the 1975,1980 and 1992 data samples. However,
22 of these firms were not in the 100 respondents from the 1986 survey, A sim-
ple validity test was conducted which suggested that, despite minor differences
in the respondents, the 1986 results could reasonably be compared with all
e Rlackwcll Publishers Ltd 1996
82 PIKE

other years.* For purpose of analysis firms were classified into size groups ac-
cording to size of annual capital expenditure.

SURVEY RESULTS
Rather than examine separately the 1992 survey findings, the results are pre-
sented as part of a longitudinal study over a 17-year period in an attempt to
observe the long-term trends not easily observable from comparison of other
capital budgeting surveys.

Evaluation Procedures and Techniques

Table 2 reveals that, throughout the review period, formal financial evalua-
tion has been virtually standard procedure for all firms. We also observe that
the requirement by larger firms to adopt a specific search for, and screening of,
project alternatives has moved from being commonplace (76%) in 1975 to
being totally accepted by all firms in 1992. Arguably, the requirement to gen-
erate feasible alternative proposals to that under review is the most important
element of the whole process, corporate prosperity depending more on the
ability to create projects than to evaluate them (Adelson, 1970). What has be-
come increasingly important is the strategic context within which proposals
are generated and assessed. Corporate fit is frequently viewed as of greater im-
portance than financial return (Butler et al., 1993).
Turning to the use of investment evaluation techniques we find that, with
only one exception, steady progress in adoption has been achieved. Dis-
counted cash flow methods, such as internal rate of return (IRR) and net pre-
sent value (NPV) are well established among these large firms with 81 per cent
and 74 per cent usage respectively. In particular, we may observe that the
greatest growth over the review period of all the evaluation techniques is to

Table 2
Investment Evaluation Procedures and Techniques (100 large firms)

Tear of Survey 1975 1980 1986 1992

Evaluation Techniques: % % % %
A specific search and screening of
alternatives 76 84 98 100
A formal financial evaluation 93 95 100 100
Payback 73 81 92 94
Average accounting rate of return 51 49 56 50
Internal rate of return 44* 57* 75* 81*
Net present value 32 39 68* 74*
Note:
* Size a significant factor in degree of use at the 5% level.
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1996
 CAPITAL BUDGETING PRACTICES 83

Table 3
Combined Evaluation Techniques (Response: 100 Companies)

Year ofSurvey 1975 1980 1986 1992

Firms using: % % % %
No Methods 2 0 0

A Single Method
PB 14 12 6 4
AARR 12 7 0 0
IRR 5 4 2 0
NPV 0 1 0 0
31 24 8 4

Two Methods
PB/AARR 14 13 10 8
PB/IRR 14 15 8 9
PB/NPV 4 6 5 6
AARR/IRR 0 2 2 0
AARR/NPV 1 1 1 0
IRR/NPV 1 4 3 5
34 40 29 28

Three Methods
PB/AARR/IRR 7 10 5 5
PB/AARR/NPV 4 4 3 1
PB/IRR/NPV 10 9 21 26
AARR/IRR/NPV 1 1 0 0
22 24 29 32

Four Methods
PB/AARR/IRR/NPV ii 12 34 36

Total: 100 100 100 100

Key: PB: Payback period. IRR: Internal rate of return.

AARR: Average accounting rate of return. NPV: Net present value.

be found in NPV adoption, with 42 per cent of the survey sample introducing
NPV since 1975. While an increased awareness of the time-value of money in
decision making may have assisted in its rapid growth, a more likely explana-
tion lies in the increasing use of computer spreadsheets, making NPV calcula-
tions as straightforward a calculation to the user as simple payback method.
The popular view that academics prefer NPV while practitioners have a
predilection for IRR is rapidly becoming part of financial folklore, as is the
oft cited 'theory-practice' gap problem (e.g. Northcott, 1991). One is tempted
to ask 'What Gap?' Less sophisticated methods, such as payback and average
accounting rate of return (AARR) clearly have practical merit and even a de-
gree or two of academic blessing as numerous authors have previously advo-
O Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1996
84 PIKE
cated (e.g., Weingartner, 1969;Sundem, 1974; Longbottom and Wiper, 1977;
and Boardman et al., 1982). Northcott rightly emphasises that while the the-
ory-practice gap may be narrowing, we know very little about how managers
use DCF information in the decision making process.
It is clear that few companies operate a single investment method to the ex-
clusion ofall others. Of particular interest, therefore, is to assess how the mix
has changed over the review period and what implications can be drawn from
such. Table 3 shows that whereas in 1975 most firms adopted either one or two
methods (typically PB and AARR), by 1992 a combination ofall four methods
(PB, AARR, IRR and NPV) was most common (36%), a threefold increase
since 1980. This movement towards a 'more the merrier' approach to evalua-
tion may be due to the ease of calculation with the aid of computers, but,
equally, it may reflect the need to explore the many faceted aspects of invest-
ment performance.
One relatively new dimension relates to non-financial considerations, par-
ticularly for new technology projects (Kaplan, 1986; and Finnie, 1988). Tra-
ditional capital budgeting methods are most appropriate in assessing non-
strategic investment alternatives where the intangible elements and risks are
low. Respondents were invited to discuss the role of non-financial criteria in
investment appraisal. Emphasis was placed by many upon the impact of in-
vestment on improvements in quality, reduced cycle time, reduced waste,
and improved delivery performance.
Planning and Control Procedures

Table 4 summarises the capital budgeting procedures employed by respond-

ing firms. Regarding planning, or pre-decision, procedures, only modest in-
creases are observed in the operation of longer-term capital budgets, use of
manuals and use of a screening/review body for assessing proposals. The trend
away from viewing capital budgeting as a specialist activity continues, with
only 23 per cent of responding firms having staff engaged full time in capital
budgeting.
While pre-decision controls are little changed, post-decision controls have
significantly improved in two respects: first, greater controls are employed
where cost over-runs are considered likely; and second, post-completion
audits are now more commonplace.^ It is interesting to observe how such
audits have steadily increased in usage over the 17 years with 72 per cent of
respondent firms now adopting this procedure. Post audits have two main
aims. First, they may encourage more thorough and realistic appraisals of fu-
ture investment projects and secondly, they may facilitate major overhauls of
ongoing projects. While not without its problems, the growth in the use of
audits suggests that it confers very real benefits on the firm.
Risk Appraisal Methods

Perhaps the sharpest trend in capital budgeting practices is to be found in the

formal analysis of risk; usage rates have moved from 26 per cent in 1975 to 92
& Blackwcll Publishers Ltd 1996
 CAPITAL BUDGETING PRACTICES 85

Table 4
Investment Planning and Control Procedures (100 large firms)

Year of Survey 1975 1980 1986 1992

Pre-Decision Controls % % % %
Firms with:
A capital budget which looks
beyond two years 57* 64* 64* 68*
An up-to-date capital budgeting
manual or procedures 65* 76* 84 86*
A formal screening and review
body for proposals 78 84 83 85
At least one full-time person
engaged in capital budgeting 31* 33* 26* 23*
A regular review of minimum
rates of return required 43 61 71 69*
Evaluate approved projects if
cost over-runs likely 72 82 85 92
Monitor project performance
once operational 69 76 84 84
Require post-completion audits
on most major projects 33 46 64 72*
Note:
* Size a significant factor in degree of use at the 5% level.

per cent in 1992 (see Table 5). In this regard, the emphasis on risk assessment,
so dominant over the past two decades in the research literature, is matched by
an equal concern for its effects in practice. Bierman's (1986) US survey found
that handling uncertainty in capital projects was one of the finance officer's
major challenges.
Table 5 shows that the previous strong increase in shortening the payback
period to counter project risk appears to have reached a plateau at around 60
per cent usage. Easily the most prevalent approach is to apply sensitivity ana-
lysis (88%), along with its close relative, best/worst case analysis (95%). In
this respect, it would seem thatfirmsrequire risk-sensitive variables to be iden-
tified, but do not normally require project risk to be measured.
Use of probability analysis has gained increasing support over the survey
period with 48 per cent offirmsclaiming recent experience in analysing invest-
ment projects. This experience, however, is still very limited with only 7 per
cent of firms using probability analysis regularly. Recently, Ho and Pike
(1992) found no evidence that the adoption of probability analysis led to a sig-
nificant change in capital expenditure or corporate performance. However,
@ Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1996
86 PIKE

Table 5
Risk Appraisal Techniques — Trend (Responses: 98 Companies)

Year of Survey 1975 1980 1986 1992

Firms which: % % % %
Shorten payback period 25 30 61 60
Raise required rate of return 37* 41* 61 65
Use probability analysis 9* 10* 40* 48
Use sensitivity analysis 28* 42* 71 88*
Use Beta analysis 0 0 16 20*
Note:
* Size a significant factor in degree of use at the 5% level.

managers tended to view the information required for such analysis as offering
valuable insights and increasing the level of confidence in the final decision.
In contrast with the theoretical literature, beta analysis based on a capital as-
set pricing (CAPM) framework, has made little impression on capital budgeting
practices. Even for the 20 per cent of respondents claiming some use, the most
common category is 'rarely'. The wisdom of those managers who have analysed
capital budgeting decisions within a CAPM framework has recently been ques-
tioned by Lowenstein (1991) at a practical level and Fama and French (1992) at a
theoretical level. Lowenstein argues that the CAPM has hindered competitive-
ness, while Fama and French conclude that, over the past 30 years at least, tests do
not support the asset-pricing model's central prediction that the market expected
stock returns are positively related to market betas.
Inflation Treatment

Fifty per cent of the firms surveyed in 1992 'always' incorporate inflationary
effects within the financial analysis, while virtually all firms (96%) do so reg-
ularly. Table 6 summarises the methods most commonly employed in this re-
gard. It is interesting to note that there is a predilection for using constant
prices to specify cash flows and applying a real (i.e. inflation reduced) rate of
return (see Coulthurst, 1986).

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Attention has already been d r a w n to the dangers of attempting to compare
results with earlier surveys based on different samples, using different ques-
tions and with very different response rates. While the results broadly support
the recent findings by Sangster (1993) based on a survey of the largest Scottish
companies, clear differences are also apparent. O n e example of such is Sang-
ster's observation that 'the use of I R R is no longer related to company size'
(p. 316). Based on the present study. Tables 2 to 6 indicate those investment
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1996
 CAPITAL BUDGETING PRACTICES 87

Table 6
Inflation Techniques — Trend (Response: 99 Companies)

Year of Survey 1975 1980 1986 1992

Firms which: % % % %
Consider at risk analysis or
sensitivity stage 14 16 44 39
Specify cash flows in constant prices
and apply a real rate of return 33 39 69 70
Adjust for estimated changes
in general inflation 30 39 58 58
Specify different rates for
all costs and revenues 23* 33* 53* 56*
Note:
* Size a significant factor in degree of use at the 5% level.

practices where regularity of use (i.e. rarely, often, mostly, always) is asso-
ciated with size offirm(using chi-square tests). Use ofIRR and NPV continue
to be highly associated withfirmsize. In fact, there is a remarkable consistency
in size and investment sophistication association over the 17 years under re-
view.
If anything, the sophistication disparity between investment practices with-
in smaller and larger firms' surveys has increased. Respondents were asked to
assess how, over the lastfiveyears, their firm's capital budgeting process and
techniques had changed. Table 7 reveals that while 63 per cent thought there
had been a clear movement towards greater sophistication, the increase was
significantly greater (at the 5% level) for larger firms (74%) than for smaller
ones (39%).
This does not necessarily mean that it is company size that determines the
degree of capital budgeting sophistication in firms. It was found by Pike
(1988) that the use of computers in capital budgeting was a powerful moder-
ating variable in explaining sophistication levels. Nearly three-quarters of the
respondents are now using computer packages/systems, half of them on a reg-
ular basis (Table 7). However, size offirmis strongly associated with compu-
ter usage. It is therefore suggested that it is size of firm which determines
degree of computer usage which, in combination, influence capital budgeting
sophistication.
Pike and Sharp (1989) examined the trend in the use of sophisticated ap-
praisal techniques based on Pike's earlier surveys. A technology forecasting
model (the logistic model) was fitted to the observations between 1975 and
1986. Factor analysis suggested that the techniques should be divided into
two groups: Financial Techniques (IRR, NPV, Sensitivity Analysis) and
Management Science Techniques (Probability Analysis, Beta Analysis,
Mathematical Programming, Computer Simulation, Decision Theory and
e Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1996
aa PIKE
Table 7
Computer Usage, Sophistication and Effectiveness in Capital Budgeting by
Size (Response: 98 Companies)

Capital Budget Size — ^ m : Total <5 5-49 50+ x'Sig.

% 0/0 % % %
Firms using computers in
capital budgeting: 73 37 74 91 0.000
Companies becoming:
More Sophisticated 63 39 66 74 0.048
More Effective 58 44 58 67 0.191

Critical Path Analysis). Those results, summarised in Table 8, forecast that

although all techniques (except critical path analysis) were forecast to in-
crease in usage, the rate of growth would he much more modest than in the
previous five years.
The accuracy of the forecasting model can he seen by comparing the 1992
survey results (where applicable) with the 1991 forecast usage, as given in Ta-
ble 8. The model was a good predictor for IRR and NPV, a reasonable predic-
tor for use of Beta Analysis and Probability Analysis, but significantly
underestimated the strong growth in Sensitivity Analysis (SA). With hind-
sight, the upsurge in SA is not so surprising. The high association between use

Table 8
Sophisticated Techniques
1992 Usage Compared with Logistic Model Predictions for 1991

1991 1992
Prediction Actual
Financial Techniques
Internal Rate of Return 79 81
Net Present Value 75 74
Sensitivity Analysis 77 88

Management Science Techniques

Probability Analysis 44 48
Beta Analysis 23 20
Computer Simulation 44 n.a.
Decision Theory 40 n.a.
Mathematical Programming 29 n.a.
Critical Path Analysis 49 n.a.
NoU:
n.a. Information not available from the 1992 study.

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1996

 CAPITAL BUDGETING PRACTICES 89

of computer-based investment packages and financial appraisal techniques

(Pike, 1988) suggests that SA (88% usage) tends to be used as part of a stan-
dard approach with DCF techniques (NPV or IRR), which also had an 88 per
cent usage rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has sought to present the findings from a longitudinal study based
on surveys conducted at approximately five-year intervals between 1975 and
1992. In so doing it answers the call by Sangster (1993) fora time series study
based on replicated surveys at regular intervals 'using similar survey popula-
tions, questions and analysis' to enable more valid conclusions to be drawn
from observed changes in practice. In addition, the high response rates for all
three postal surveys (in excess of 70 per cent) suggest that researchers and re-
viewers need not accept the oft-cited argument that low response rates are in-
evitable in postal surveys, thus making the value of such work questionable.
This paper has sought to remind readers of the pervasiveness of the problem
of bias in capital budgeting surveys and to caution against drawing trends
based on survey comparison conducted by different authors obtaining varied
response rates.
Over the 17-year review period we have witnessed the greatest changes in
the areas of risk analysis, NPV analysis and post-completion audits. This re-
fiects the fact that firms have become increasingly aware (1) of the need to
assess the possibility of project failure and (2) ofthe importance of assessing
the quality ofthe capital budgeting and forecasting process through post-com-
pletion audits.
Many of the findings here are consistent with those found by Sangster
(1993). For example, the usage of discounted cash flow techniques have in-
creased with each survey, as has the tendency to employ a combination of ap-
praisal methods rather than rely upon a single technique. Other findings,
however, are not consistent with those of Sangster who, based on survey com-
parison, argued that use of DCF methods is no longer related to company size,
the popularity of ARR has markedly declined, and size is a factor in the pay-
back usage (pp. 316-319). The comparison of broadly the same respondents
over a 17-year review period suggests that firm size is still significantly asso-
ciated with degree of use for DCF methods but not for payback, and the use
of average accounting rate of return is unchanged.
It is suggested that firm size perse may not be the direct causal factor in deter-
mining use of sophisticated methods; size of firm infiuences the use of computer-
based capital budgeting packages which, in turn, influence the use of discounting
methods, sensitivity analysis, and risk analysis techniques. Once size ceases to be
associated with use of computers in capital budgeting, it is envisaged that it will
also have far less impact on capital budgeting technique usage rates.
We have reported the general increase in so-called sophisticated capital
budgeting techniques to a point where the gap between theory and practice
e Blackwdl Publishers Ltd 1996
90 PIKE
is trivial, at least for large firms, particularly regarding standard textbook
methods. What then are seen as the main factors which have influenced the
increase over the 17 year period? The three main causal factors are viewed as
technical, educational and economic in nature.
1. Throughout the 1980s the advent of relatively inexpensive computer soft-
ware has revolutionalised the practices of many areas of finance, but none
more so than capital budgeting, particularly DCF type appraisals and sen-
sitivity analysis. The impact of computing advances has been analysed in
earlier sections of the paper.
2. This could have created a rather different problem where a new generation
of computer literate managers could produce investment performance in-
dicators but not interpret them. This leads us to the second major change in
the review period: the mzyor expansion in management education, with
investment appraisal a key element in the curriculum. Perhaps it is now
time to ask whether the benefits of DCF techniques have been 'oversold'
and whether greater attention should be paid to viewing investment within
a wider strategic framework.
3. The review period experienced contrasting economic conditions. When,
for example, inflation, capital rationing and economic uncertainty were
most acutely experienced we saw a significant change in the use of certain
investment practices in an attempt to handle the adverse effects of such eco-
nomic factors.
What implications for further research emanate from the review? First,
there is an important role for longitudinal research studies to play. Given that
over a 17 year period the sample suffered a mortality rate of only 15 per cent,
such studies, whilst time consuming, are entirely feasible. Secondly, with the
ever reducing gap between theory and practice, researchers need to concen-
trate their efforts on key areas. It is suggested that two such areas are the ana-
lysis of project risk and the valuation of capital investment options.
We are left with the question: is there still a role for capital budgeting status
postal surveys? It is the author's view that while the occasional replication sur-
vey, such as that described in this paper, has some utility, offering insights into
capital budgeting trends and the practical problems with theoretically pre-
ferred approaches, further general capital budgeting status surveys would
contribute little to the existing body of empirical knowledge. Indeed, poorly
designed and conducted surveys may prove counterproductive.
This paper has sought to provide a more reliable and comprehensive analy-
sis of how capital budgeting practices in large UK companies have evolved in
recent years and, in so doing, provide a clearer backdrop against which earlier
studies can be interpreted and future studies enacted. It is suggested that the
more promising research exploration is likely to be found in the in-depth prob-
ings afforded through the case study method (e.g. Bower 1971; Marsh et al.,
1988; and Butler et al., 1993) and specifically targeted event studies observing
capital budgeting responses to organisational change (e.g. Larcker, 1983) or
£> Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1996
 CAPITAL BUDGETING PRAGTICES 91

investment performance reaction to significant capital budgeting change (e.g.

Haka et al., 1985; and Ho and Pike, 1992).

NOTES
Examples of capital budgeting relationship studies are found in Klammer (1972), Moore and
Reichart (1983), Pike (1986) and Ho and Pike (1993). Status surveys include Mclntyre and
Coulthurst (1985) and Mills and Herbert (1987).
Two such replication studies are already in existence, Klammer and Walker (1984) in the United
States and Rke (1988) in the UK. However, no such work has been conducted since the mid-eigh-
ties.
It is recognised that asking respondents to provide information on earlier practices may give rise
to errors of recall and additional care should therefore be given in interpreting 1975 results.
The test involved assessing whether responses to key questions in the survey for the 22 firms were
significantly different to the remainder ofthe sample in 1975,1980 and 1992. No systematic differ-
ences were observed. The 22 firms were, of course, part ofthe 150 respondents to the 1980 survey.
As the definitions for monitoring performance and post-completion audits were not given, respon-
dents may well have interpreted the questions rather differently.

REFERENCES
Adelson, R.M. (1970),'Discounted Gash Flow — GanVVe Discount It?'Journalo/Business Finance (Sum-
mer), pp. 50-66.
Aggarwal, R. (l980),'Gorporate Use of Sophisticated Gapital Budgeting Techniques: A Strategic Per-
spective and a Gritique of Survey Results', Inter/aces (April), pp. 31—34.
Bierman, H. (1986), Implementation of Capital Budgeting Techniques: Survey and Synthesis (Financial Man-
agement Association).
Boardman, G.M.,W.J. Reinhard and S.G. Gelec (1982) 'The Role ofthe Payback Period in theTheory
and Application of Duration to Gapital Budgeting', Journal of Business Finance & Accounting,'Vol. 9,
No. 4 (Winter), pp. 511-522.
Boersema,J.M. (1978), Capital Budgeting Practices Including the Impact of Inflation (Ganadian Institute of
Ghartered Accountants).
Bower, J.L. (1971), Managing the Resource Allocation Process (Irwin).
Butler, R., L. Davies, R. Pike andJ. Sharp (1993), Strategic Investment Decisions: Theory, Practice and Process
(Routledge).
Garsberg. B. and A. Hope (1976), Business Investment Decisions Under Inflation: Theory and Practice
(IGAEW).
Goulthurst, N.J. (1986), 'Accounting for Inflation in Gapital Investment: The State of the Art and
Science', Accounting and Business Research (Winter), pp. 33-42.
Fama, E.F. and K.R. French (1992),'The Gross-Section of Expected Stock Returns', Journal of Finance
CJune), pp. 427-465.
Finnie, J. (1988),'The Role of Financial Appraisal in Decisions to Acquire Advanced Manufacturing
Technology', Accounting and Business Research (Spring), pp. 133—140.
Haka, S.F, L.A. Gordon and G.E. Pinches (1985),'Sophisticated Gapital Budgeting Selection Techni-
ques and Firm Performance', The Accounting Review (October), pp. 651—669.
Ho, S.S.M. and R.H. Pike (1992),'Adoption of Probabilistic Risk Analysis in Gapital Budgeting and
Gorporate Investment', Journal ofBusiness Finance & Accounting,Vo\. 19, No. 3 (April), pp.387—405
Jones, G.J. (1980), Financial Planning and Control: A Survey of Practices by UK Companies (Occasional Paper
Series: Institute of Gost and Management Accountants).
(1986),'Fmancial Planning and Control Practices in UKGompanies: A Longitudinal Study',
Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Summer), pp. 161—184.
Kaplan, R.S. (1986),'Must GIM be Justified by Faith A\one?'Harvard Business Review (March-April),
pp. 87-95.
Klammer, T P. (1972), 'Empirical Evidence of the Adoption of Sophisticated Gapital Budgeting Tech-
niques', Journal ofBusiness (July), pp.69—82.
O Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1996
92 PIKE
Klammer,XP. and M.C. Walker (1984),'The Continuing Increase in the Use of Sophisticated Capital
Budgeting Techniques', California Management Review (Fall), pp. 137-151.
Lapsley, I. (1986) 'Investment Appraisal in Public Service Organisations', Management Accounting
(June), pp. 28-31.
Larcker, D.F. (1983),'Association Between Performance Adoption and Capital Investment', Joumal of
Accounting and Economics (April), pp.3—30.
Longbottom, D.A. and G. Wiper (1977),'An Investigation into the Application of Decision Analysis in
UK Companies', Omega, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 207-215.
Lowenstein, L. (1991), Sense and Nonsense in Corporate Finance (NewVbrk: Addison-Wesley).
Marsh, P., P. Barwise, K.Thomas and R. Wensley (1988),'Managing Strategic Investment Decisions in
Large Diversified Companies', in A. M. Pettigrew (ed.) Competitiveness and the Management Process
(Blackwell).
Mclntyre, A.D. and N.J. Coulthurst (1985), Capital Budgeting Practices in Medium-sized Businesses — A
Survey (Chartered Institute of Management Accountants).
Mills, R.W. and PJ.A. Herbert (1987), Corporate and Divisional Influence in Capital Budgeting (Chartered
Institute of Management Accountants).
Moore, J.S. and A.K Reichart (1983),'An Analysis of Financial Management Techniques Currently
Employed by Large US Corporations', Joumal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 10, No. 4
(Winter), pp. 623-645.
Northcott, D. (1991),'Rationality and Decision Making in Capital Budgeting', British Accounting Review
(September), pp. 219-234.
Pike, R.H. (1982), Capital Budgeting in the 1930s (ICMA Occasional Paper Series).
(1983), 'The Capital Budgeting Behaviour and Corporate Characteristics of Capital-Con-
strained Firms', Joumal ofBusiness Finance & Accounting,Vo\. 10, No.4 (Winter), pp. 663-671.
(1985),'Owner-Manager Conflict and the Role of The Payback Method', Accounting and Busi-
ness Research (Winter), pp. 47-52.
(1986),'The Design of Capital Budgeting Processes and the Corporate Context', Managerial
and Decision Economics,Vo\. 7, pp. 187—195.
(1988),'An Empirical Study of the Adoption of Sophisticated Capital Budgeting Practices and
Decision-Making Effectiveness', Accounting and Business Research (Autumn), pp.341—351.
-andj. Sharp (1989),'Trends in the Use of Management Science Techniques in Capital Budget-
ing', Managerial and Decision Economics,Vol. 10, pp. 135-140.
Rappaport, A. (1979),'A Critique of Capital Budgeting Questionnaires', Interfaces (May).
Rockley, L.E. (1973), Investmentfor Profitability (London: Business Books).
Rosenblatt, M.J. and J.V. Jucker (1979),'Capital Expenditure Decision Making: Some Tools and
Trends', Interfaces (February), pp. 63-69.
Sangster, A. (1993),'Capital Investment Appraisaliechniques: A Survey of Current Usage', Joumal of
Business finance & Accounting,\/ol 20, No. 3 (April), pp. 307-333.
Scapens, R.W. andT.J. Sale (1981),'Performance Measurement and Formal Capital Expenditure Con-
trols in Divisionalised Companies', Journal ofBusiruss Finance & Accounting, Vol. 8, No3 (Au-
tumn), pp. 389^19.
Sundem, G.L. (1974),'Evaluating Simplified Capital Budgeting Models Using aTime-State Preference
Metric',The Accounting Review (April), pp. 306-321.
Wallace, R.S.O. and C.J. Mellor (1988),'Nonresponse Bias in Mail Accounting Surveys: A Pedagogic
Note', British Accounting Review (August), pp. 131-140.
Weingarmer, H.M. (1969),'Some New Views on the Payback Period and Capital Budgeting Decisions',
Management Science (August), pp. 594-607.
Westwick, C.A. and PS.D. Shohet (1976), Investment Appraisal and Inflation (ICAEW).

O Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1996