October 02, 2026
Optimization of annual budget planning through project management methodologies
Optimization of the Annual Budget Planning through Project Management Methodologies
Fernanda Viega Enzenberg; Regiane Vieira Wochler
DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602893
Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.
Abstract
The Annual Budget Planning (ABP) is a crucial process for translating organizational strategy into operational and financial goals, but it frequently faces deadline pressures, interdepartmental dependencies, and the repetition of habitual expenses. The study aimed to analyze how the combined application of project management practices and Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) can optimize ABP. To this end, a case study was developed in the Brazilian operation of a publicly traded company in the beverage sector, using documentary research of its 2023 results report and an anonymous questionnaire applied to 47 respondents. Documentary analysis indicated growth in net revenue, expansion of gross profit and adjusted EBITDA, and contained advancement of selling, general, and administrative expenses, suggesting cost discipline and operational leverage. The complementary survey revealed a high perception of a cascading effect on the schedule, strong support for defining cost package owners, and a preference for technical justification of expenses, in addition to demand for controlled flexibility after the baseline definition. It was concluded that structuring ABP as a project, associated with the rigor of ZBB, increased the process’s predictability, reinforced accountability for expenses, and broadened the coherence between budgetary execution and economic-financial performance.
Keywords: Cost Control; Operational Efficiency; Zero-Based Budgeting; PMBOK; Beverage Sector.
1. Introduction
In the beverage sector, high competitiveness and margins sensitive to cost fluctuations make annual budget planning a process of central importance. This process is fundamental to sustaining performance, given the strong need for coordination between areas such as sales, production, logistics, and finance, in addition to recurring investment decisions. In this context, the budget is not limited to projecting revenues and expenses, but organizes priorities, disciplines resource allocation, and serves as a direction for the execution of short-term strategy, especially in environments that require integration between operational scale, investments, and efficiency (Padoveze, 2010).
Despite its strategic relevance, the Annual Budget Planning (POA) frequently faces problems inherent to complex processes. Such challenges include the ambiguity of responsibilities, delays arising from inter-departmental dependencies, prolonged negotiations, and the automatic reproduction of expenses inherited from previous cycles. This repetition of practices without questioning can lead to inefficiencies and the perpetuation of expenses that do not reflect the organization’s current needs.
It is in this scenario that Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) emerges as a differentiated approach, contrasting with incremental models. ZBB requires the justification of each expense from scratch, without automatically taking as a basis the values approved in the previous year, even if these include inflation correction. This methodology establishes clear criteria for the approval, review, or rejection of expenses, and the ownership of cost packages assigns defined responsibilities, improving monitoring and accountability throughout the budgetary process (Stein, 2004).
From a project management perspective, the budgetary cycle can be understood as a temporary undertaking. It has a defined beginning and end, specific deliverables, multiple stakeholders, and strong interdependence between scope, schedule, and integration (Sydow et al., 2025). Treating the POA as a project allows for the decomposition of work into controllable stages, the definition of milestones, baseline management, and integrated change control. This perspective increases the predictability of the closing deadline and the quality of resource allocation decisions (Project Management Institute, 2021; Kerzner, 2015; Vargas, 2009).
Despite the recognition of the importance of budgetary planning and existing methodologies, the question persists as to the extent to which structuring the Annual Budget Planning as a project, associated with the rigor of Zero-Based Budgeting, contributes to increasing the predictability of budget deadlines and strengthening the organization’s financial control. The gap lies in exploring the synergy between these two approaches to overcome the inefficiencies and lack of control observed in traditional budgeting processes. The hypothesis is that the combination of scope definition, cost package owners, approval milestones, and baseline control can reduce inefficiencies and lead to better operational and financial results.
Thus, the present study is justified by the need to improve budgetary management in complex contexts, seeking greater efficiency and strategic alignment. The objective of this work is to analyze how the combined application of project management practices and Zero-Based Budgeting can contribute to the optimization of the Annual Budgetary Planning.
2. Material and Methods
The research was characterized as applied, with a predominantly qualitative approach and a descriptive-analytical purpose. The main design adopted was the case study, complemented by documentary research and a survey with a structured questionnaire. This methodological strategy was selected to allow for an articulated analysis between the theoretical foundations, organizational evidence, and professionals’ perception of the budgeting process.
The empirical object of the study was the Brazilian operation of a large publicly traded company, active in the beverage sector. The organization has a national presence, publicly traded capital, and publicly discloses its results, in addition to operating with a wide operational network. To preserve the generic approach of the case study, the company was not identified by name in the body of the work.
The documentary stage used as its main source the public disclosure of results for the fourth quarter and the full year of 2023 from the studied company, published in 2024. From this material, financial indicators were extracted such as net revenue, gross profit, selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) excluding depreciation and amortization, adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), and capital expenditures (CAPEX). Each indicator was collected with a specific analytical objective, such as net revenue for the budgetary cycle dimension and gross profit for operational efficiency.
SG&A expenses were used as an indirect indicator of administrative and commercial control, adjusted EBITDA as a synthesis of operational leverage, and CAPEX for investment volume. The temporal scope focused on the fiscal year 2023, aiming to examine the coherence between the budgetary process and its results in a complete and recent cycle. The choice of 2023, a post-pandemic period, allowed for the observation of budgetary discipline and inter-area integration in a more stable operational environment.
For the complementary survey, an electronic questionnaire was applied to forty-seven respondents, with voluntary and anonymous participation, without collecting personal identifiers. Access to the questions occurred after electronic acceptance of the Free and Informed Consent Term (TCLE). The application was not submitted to the Research Ethics Committee (CEP), in accordance with CNS Resolution nº 510/2016, which waives such obligation for low-risk research. The questionnaire was structured to capture perceptions about the schedule, integration, accountability for cost packages, baseline, and investment control.
As a conceptual basis for reading the budgetary process, the concepts of integration, schedule, milestones, critical path, baseline, and change control were adopted from project management (PMI, 2021; Vargas, 2009). These concepts allowed for an understanding of the coordination between areas, the temporal organization of activities, and the preservation of the approved plan.
In the budgetary field, the notions of base justification, decision criteria, cost package ownership, and managerial accountability (Stein, 2004) were employed. These notions refer to the need to technically justify each expense, the existence of criteria to approve or reject budget packages, and the assignment of responsibilities for each set of expenses.
For the financial indicators, specific operational and conceptual references were adopted. Net revenue and gross profit were defined according to Padoveze (2010). SG&A expenses, excluding depreciation and amortization, organic growth, adjusted EBITDA, and CAPEX were considered according to the disclosures of the studied company (Studied company, 2024), with adjusted EBITDA resulting from the reconciliation between net profit and adjustments from the 2023 report.
The analysis of documentary data consisted of a descriptive reading of the financial indicators. The results of the survey by questionnaire were interpreted descriptively, seeking to relate the respondents’ perception to the literature on budgetary control and the need for continuous monitoring of the plan throughout the fiscal year, according to the approach of Padoveze (2010).
3. Results and Discussion
This section of Results and Discussion presents the research findings, articulating documentary evidence with the perceptions of professionals involved in the Annual Budget Planning (POA) of the studied company. The central objective was to analyze how the combined application of project management practices and Zero-Based Budgeting (OBZ) can optimize the POA. The results indicate that the integration of these methodologies contributes significantly to the predictability of the process and financial control, as supported by literature and empirical observations. The discussion seeks to interpret these findings in light of the research problem and the theoretical foundations that underpinned the study.
Initially, the documentary analysis of the 2023 exercise revealed a scenario of robust net revenue growth, which reached R$ 46,361.8 million, representing an organic growth of 8.7%. This data is fundamental to contextualize the company’s operational environment, indicating a business expansion that demands effective budgetary planning to sustain performance. Net revenue serves as a crucial input for goal planning, according to Padoveze’s (2010) approach, which emphasizes the integration of the budget with financial projections and control.
In parallel with revenue growth, an even more expressive expansion of gross profit was observed, reaching R$ 22,845.7 million, with organic growth of 14.8%. This indicator suggests notable efficiency in the management of variable costs and operations, surpassing the pace of revenue growth. The improvement in gross profit is a direct reflection of the organization’s ability to optimize its production and logistics processes, which is consistent with the pursuit of scope efficiency and control of industrial variable costs, elements that can be improved by budgetary discipline.
A particularly relevant finding was the contained growth of selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, which, excluding depreciation and amortization, totaled R$ 12,432.2 million, with an organic growth of only 3.0%. The positive difference between net revenue growth (8.7%) and the more modest SG&A advance (3.0%) suggests that business expansion was not accompanied by a proportional increase in operating expenses. This containment is consistent with the logic of Zero-Based Budgeting, which aims to break the automatic reproduction of expenses and requires resources to be justified based on necessity and priority (Stein, 2004).
The discipline observed in SG&A expenses and the efficiency in gross profit are interpreted as reflections of a budgetary process that combines clear goals, cost package opening, investment prioritization, and baseline freezing. This structure, which integrates elements of project management and OBZ, allows for stricter control and more strategic resource allocation. The financial result observed in 2023, therefore, is associated with a more coordinated, predictable budgetary cycle that adheres to a project governance logic, as recommended by Project Management Institute (2021) and Vargas (2009).
Additionally, the adjusted EBITDA of the Brazilian operation reached R$ 14,394.6 million, with organic growth of 27.6%. This significant increase in adjusted EBITDA indicates a significant improvement in the company’s operational leverage. This result reinforces the idea that budgetary discipline did not translate into business paralysis, but rather into more effective coordination between the scope of spending, execution, and financial results. The operational leverage generated is an indicator of the effectiveness of budgetary rigor in promoting sustainable growth.
Capital expenditures (CAPEX) consolidated investments reached R$ 6,004.1 million. This relevant CAPEX amount demonstrates that the company maintained a significant volume of investments, which contradicts the notion that budgetary rigor implies indiscriminate cuts. On the contrary, the maintenance of substantial investments, combined with cost discipline, suggests a greater demand for technical justification for expenses. This is fully consistent with the need to unite financial planning and value creation, as highlighted by Padoveze (2010), and with control through project management.
The documentary analysis, therefore, suggests that the company’s 2023 budget cycle was characterized by a combination of operational growth, improved efficiency, and effective control over expenses and investments. The increase in net revenue indicates the maintenance of business momentum, while the proportionally higher growth in gross profit and adjusted EBITDA points to greater efficiency in transforming revenue into results. The more contained growth of SG&A and the maintenance of relevant CAPEX indicate that the budget functioned as an instrument for prioritizing and coordinating resources, rather than just a cost containment mechanism.
Perceptions about schedule, budget responsibility and “baseline”
The complementary survey, conducted through an anonymous questionnaire with 47 respondents, provided a crucial perceptual dimension for the analysis. The sample, composed of professionals from diverse areas such as Finance, Controlling, and Supply, and different hierarchical levels, allowed us to observe how themes such as deadlines, cost responsibility, and baseline control are perceived in practice. Although it was not intended for statistical generalizations, the diversity of the sample enriched the qualitative understanding of the budgeting process.
Regarding the schedule and integration, the results were quite expressive. The perception of a cascade effect, where the delay in one area harms the work of other teams, was practically consensual, with 100.00% of respondents assigning scores of 4 or 5. The clarity of the goals and deadlines of the budgetary cycle also proved to be high, with 91.5% of participants assigning scores of 4 or 5. These data reinforce the need to treat the budget as an interdependent process, with well-defined milestones and deliverables, which is in line with the principles of project management (PMI, 2021; Vargas, 2009).
The strong perception of the cascading effect and the clarity of goals and deadlines underscore the importance of the budget planning function as an instrument for coordination and resource allocation, aligned with organizational objectives and decision delegation (Eichholz et al., 2024). This interpretation directly connects with the structuring of the budgetary cycle into stages of initial alignment, consolidation, and baseline definition, which function as crucial points of coordination and control of the process.
On the topic of cost accountability, 97.9% of respondents stated that the existence of “owners” for cost packages helps to avoid budget overrun. This support for the responsibility assignment mechanism aligns directly with the notion of package ownership and with the requirement for a base justification of the ZBB. The convergence of perceptions is notable, indicating a strong acceptance of the analytical discipline of Zero-Based Budgeting within the organization (Stein, 2004).
The effectiveness of justifying each expenditure from scratch, rather than simply adjusting the prior year’s value, was considered the most effective alternative by 87.2% of respondents. Furthermore, 89.4% understood that the technical detailing of expenditure needs is perceived as a fair mechanism for resource allocation. Together, these results suggest a robust acceptance of the analytical discipline of OBZ, indicating that professionals see value in the technical substantiation of expenditures, rather than merely a bureaucratic tolerance of the process.
Another significant result concerns the perception of “budget slack”, a practice in which 74.5% of respondents attributed scores of 4 or 5 to its detrimental effect. This rejection of informally protected values in the budget indicates a preference for clear criteria for authorization, review, and reallocation of resources. This perspective aligns with Padoveze (2010), who treats the budget as a system for authorizing expenses and highlights the importance of control over reserves and reallocations, reinforcing the need for a more governed process with explicit responsibilities.
The responses regarding rigidity and flexibility in the budgetary process revealed an important nuance. Although 74.5% of respondents prefer, in the long term, to work in an environment with rigid and predictable budgetary rules, 63.8% understand that, after the baseline approval, control should allow for frequent and controlled revisions throughout the year. This suggests that professionals value structural discipline but do not advocate for absolute rigidity, seeking a balance between predictability and adaptability.
The perception that the rigor of the process does not hinder agility was shared by 48.9% of respondents, while 36.2% remained neutral and only 14.9% perceived it as a difficulty factor. This pattern indicates that the acceptance of budgetary control is higher when the process combines clear responsibility, predictable criteria, and the possibility of controlled review. The preference for rigid and predictable rules was observed at all hierarchical levels, with 72.7% among operational/technical professionals and 83.3% among management/directors, indicating a widespread organizational need for predictability.
The combination of documentary evidence and respondent perceptions supports the hypothesis that treating the POA as a project and associating it with the rigor of OBZ strengthens accountability, predictability, and discipline over spending. The effectiveness of this model, however, depends on the existence of formal mechanisms for monitoring, review, and handling changes during execution, as the baseline construction scenario may differ from the current scenario. Thus, the robustness of the budgetary process stems not only from initial control but from the combination of structural discipline, accountability, and adaptability, bringing the discussion of project management closer to the literature on temporary organizations and the tension between stability and change (Sydow et al., 2025).
In summary, the research results indicate that structuring the Annual Budget Planning as a project, combined with the Zero-Based Budgeting methodology, significantly contributes to the optimization of this process. The financial evidence of growth with expense containment and operational leverage, combined with professionals’ perception of the importance of clarity, accountability, and controlled flexibility, demonstrates that this integrated approach increases deadline predictability, reinforces control over spending, and aligns budget execution with the organization’s economic-financial performance, responding to the study’s central objective.
4. Conclusion
The study aimed to analyze how the combined application of project management practices and Zero-Based Budgeting can optimize Annual Budget Planning. Through a case study in a beverage sector company, robust financial performance was observed in 2023, with net revenue growth, expansion of gross profit and adjusted EBITDA, and contained advancement of selling, general, and administrative expenses. These results indicated cost discipline and effective operational leverage. The complementary survey with professionals revealed a high perception of the cascading effect on the budgetary timeline, strong support for defining cost package owners, and a preference for technical justification of expenses. The demand for controlled flexibility after the baseline definition was also observed, suggesting that rigor does not preclude agility when formal review mechanisms are in place.
The structuring of the POA as a project, associated with the rigor of the OBZ, demonstrated an increase in process predictability, reinforced accountability for spending, and broadened the coherence between budgetary execution and economic-financial performance. This approach contributes to management by reducing subjectivities, improving inter-area coordination, and aligning planning with organizational strategy. Academically, the study adds to the discussion in Project Management by reflecting on the application of its concepts in recurring, yet structured, processes with temporal characteristics, and on the understanding of the baseline as a reference for flexible governance. However, the study focused on a single fiscal year and used a non-probabilistic sample, which limits the generalization of observations. For future studies, it is recommended to expand the temporal window of documentary analysis, compare different sectors, and deepen the interpretation of perceptions by functional area and hierarchical level, exploring the relationship between the design of the budgetary process, the governance of revisions, and organizational performance.
Bibliographic References
Companhia estudada, 2024 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]
Eichholz, J.; Hoffmann, N.; Schwering, A. 2024. The role of risk management orientation and the planning function of budgeting in enhancing organizational resilience and its effect on competitive advantages during times of crises. Journal of Management Control 35(1): 17-58.
Kerzner, H. 2015. Gerenciamento de projetos: uma abordagem sistêmica para planejamento, programação e controle. 1ed. Blucher, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Padoveze, C. L. 2010. Planejamento orçamentário. 2ed. Cengage Learning, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
Project Management Institute [PMI]. 2021. Um guia do conhecimento em gerenciamento de projetos (Guia PMBOK®). 7ed. Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania, EUA.
Stein, R. 2004. A utilização do orçamento base zero como ferramenta de controle de custos e despesas Estudo de Caso: AmBev American Beverage Company. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso (Graduação em Ciências Contábeis), Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brasil. Disponível em: <https://repositorio.ufsc.br/handle/123456789/124760>. Acesso em: 15 jan. 2026
Sydow, J.; Lundin, R.; Ekstedt, E.; Braun, T. 2025. The theory of temporary organization three decades later: re-visiting the 4 T framework, focusing tensions, adding project plasticity. Scandinavian Journal of Management 41(2): 101405.
Vargas, R. V. 2009. Gerenciamento de projetos: estabelecendo diferenciais competitivos. 7ed. Brasport, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Project Management of the MBA USP/Esalq
To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform