Capital Planning at a Crossroads:
New Research Points to a Need for Course Corrections
The Hackett Group finds a widening gap between how well companies believe they manage capital
and how their capital actually moves.
Ask finance leaders at large, capital-intensive companies how their Capex portfolio is governed, and most will tell you it’s in good hands. Ask how long it takes to do something like move 10% of that budget to a better opportunity, and the answer gets more complicated.
That tension sits at the heart of Evolving Approaches to Capital Planning and Project Portfolio Management, a new study from The Hackett Group conducted in cooperation with enterprise capital planning platform provider Finario. The study surveyed finance and business leaders at organizations where the stakes are real: 71% have annual revenue above $5 billion, and nearly half spend more than $500 million a year on Capex.
The headline finding is not that capital planning is broken. It’s that perception and practice often drift apart, and that current business conditions can make that gap more expensive.
Confidence is high. But discipline tends to erode throughout the Capex lifecycle.
Ninety-three percent of respondents agree that their Capex portfolio receives appropriate oversight and resources. Yet 39% say their capital-budgeting process is broken or suboptimal. Both can be true at once, and the study suggests they frequently are.
The same pattern shows up in agility. Eight in ten say their organization can shift capital quickly when priorities change. But 40% would need three months or longer to identify and reallocate just 10% of the capital budget. And two-thirds say mobilizing funding for a high-ROI opportunity would take one to three months and executive or board intervention.
Pressure is coming from every direction
Interest rates are reshaping the cost of capital. Tariff and regulatory policy keep shifting. Boards are asking hard questions about AI infrastructure spend while investors push relentlessly for growth. It’s no wonder then that, under those conditions, an annual budget set in Q4 is often out of date by Q2.
Respondents know it. Three-quarters agree that “traditional” capital-allocation approaches are no longer viable. Yet more than half still anchor their process in an annual budget model, and fewer than half review capital plans quarterly for reallocation; far less do so monthly or continuously.
Approval isn't the finish line
Some of the most revealing findings come after the money is approved. Nearly half of organizations report material capital-budget underspend more years than not. Fewer than four in ten maintain a structured way to revisit projects they rejected or deferred. And a majority conduct post-completion reviews on fewer than 30% of their completed material projects.
The study also points to why. The barriers it identifies aren’t about a lack of good ideas or good intentions. They’re about capacity, ownership and the connective tissue between finance and operations, and they compound as companies grow.
What leaders should be looking at first
The full findings, including which barriers rank highest, where governance tends to break down between capital planning and project execution, and what separates organizations that redeploy capital quickly from those that can’t, will be unveiled in a live webinar.
Where and How Enterprise Capex Must Come of Age in 2027 and Beyond
brings together experts from The Hackett Group and Finario to walk through the results and lay out a practical action plan for capital planning and project portfolio management.
Thursday, November 19, 2026 | 11:00 a.m. ET
If your organization manages a meaningful Capex budget, the question isn’t whether your process works. It’s whether it can be better … and keep up. This session will help you find out where to look first.
Watch our product
overview video
