Autodesk 2016 Annual Report Download - page 40

2016 Proxy Statement 34
Proxy Materials
compensation data for each role. In executing the responsibilities set forth in its charter, the Committee relies on a number of
resources to provide input to the decision-making process.
Independent consultant. The Committee retained Exequity LLP as its compensation adviser for fiscal 2016. Exequity
provided advice and recommendations on many issues: total compensation philosophy; program design, including program
goals, components, and metrics; compensation trends in the high technology sector and general market for senior executives;
and the compensation of the CEO and the other executive officers. The Committee has considered the independence of
Exequity in light of NASDAQ's listing standards for compensation committee independence and the rules of the Securities and
Exchange Commission. The Committee requested and received a written confirmation from Exequity addressing the
independence of the firm and its senior advisers working with the Committee. The Committee discussed these considerations
and concluded that the work performed by Exequity did not raise any conflict of interest.
Management. 
and non-
Competitive Compensation Positioning
To 
Exequity and management provide the Committee with compensation data for each executive role. This data is drawn from a
group of companies 
Where sufficient data for our peer group was not available, market data from similar sized San Francisco Bay Area Software
Companies was used. The Committee uses this data, as well as information about broader technology industry compensation
practices, when deliberating on the compensation of the executive officers.
The compensation peer group is selected based upon multiple criteria, including industry positioning, competition for talent,
company size, financial results and geographic footprint. The Committee reviews the compensation peer group each year to
ensure that the comparisons remain meaningful and relevant.
For fiscal 2016 compensation, the compensation peer group included the following companies:
Company
Reported Fiscal
Year
Revenue
($'s in Billions)
Market Capitalization as of
1/31/2016 ($'s in billions)
Adobe Systems, Inc. 27-Nov-15 4.80 44.37
Akamai Technologies, Inc. 31-Dec-15 2.20 8.08
CA, Inc. 31-Mar-15 4.26 11.85
Citrix Systems, Inc. 31-Dec-15 3.28 10.84
Electronic Arts, Inc. 31-Mar-15 4.52 20.01
Intuit Inc. 31-Jul-15 4.19 24.88
Juniper Networks, Inc. 31-Dec-15 4.86 9.06
National Instruments Corporation 31-Dec-15 1.23 3.63
Nuance Communications, Inc. 30-Sep-15 1.93 5.37
PTC Inc. 30-Sep-15 1.26 3.39
Red Hat, Inc. 28-Feb-15 1.79 12.79
salesforce.com, inc. 31-Jan-16 6.67 45.66
Synopsys, Inc. 30-Oct-15 2.24 6.50
Autodesk, Inc. 31-Jan-16 2.50 10.51
Autodesk Percentile Ranking 46% 46%
In September 2015, the Committee reviewed the compensation peer group that would be used for fiscal 2017 compensation
decision making. As a result of this review, the Committee determined that each of the current peers were still appropriate but
chose to add Mentor Graphics Corporation and NetApp, Inc., given their industry comparability and the fact that they both are
competitors for executive talent.