TABLE OF CONTENTS

Key highlights of our 2016 performance include the following:

Our corporate governance practices are reviewed regularly. We believe they reflect best practices, as highlighted below:

Our compensation program is designed to attract and retain highly qualified executives and create incentive compensation opportunities aligned with our strategic goals and evolving competitive and governance practices.

Highlights for 2016 include:

For Proposal 1, the election of directors, each nominee who receives a majority of the votes cast will be elected as director. A majority of votes cast means that the number of votes cast FOR a director’s election exceeds the number of votes cast AGAINST that director’s election.  For Proposal 2, the frequency of the advisory votes on the compensation of our named executive officers (“NEOs”) receiving the highest number of votes will be considered the frequency recommended by stockholders.  Each of Proposals 3 and 4 will be approved if the proposal receives the affirmative FOR vote of a majority of the shares present in person or by proxy and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting.

Abstentions and broker non-votes are not considered votes cast on Proposal 1, the election of directors, and will not affect the outcome of the election of directors.  Abstentions and broker non-votes will have no effect on the outcome of Proposal 2. With respect to Proposals 3

and 4, abstentions and broker non-votes will have the same effect as AGAINST votes. With respect to the election of directors, in the event a director does not receive a majority of the votes cast, that director will be required to submit his or her resignation to the full Board, with a presumption that the resignation will be accepted unless the Board determines that there is a compelling reason for the director to remain on the Board.

Although the advisory vote to approve the compensation of our NEOs for 2016 and the frequency of the advisory votes on the compensation of our NEOs are non-binding, as provided by law, our Board and the Compensation Committee will review the results of the votes and will consider the results in making future decisions on executive compensation and the frequency of advisory votes on executive compensation.

Votes cast in person or by proxy will be tabulated by the inspector appointed for the Annual Meeting. If you provide specific instructions on your proxy card, your shares will be voted as you instruct. If you do not give instructions, your shares will be voted as recommended by the Board as follows:

We are not aware of any business to be acted upon at the Annual Meeting other than the four proposals described in this proxy statement. If you grant a proxy, the individuals named as proxy holders, Bret C. Griess and Gregory L. Cannon, and each or either of them, will have the discretion to vote your shares on any additional

matters properly presented for a vote at the meeting. If for any reason a nominee is not available as a candidate for director, the proxy holders will vote your proxy for such other candidate or candidates as the Board may nominate.

We will pay the entire cost of preparing, assembling, printing, mailing, and distributing these proxy materials, and soliciting votes. If you choose to access the proxy materials or vote over the Internet, you are responsible for Internet access charges you may incur. If you choose to vote by telephone, you are responsible for telephone charges you may incur. Our directors, executives, and regular employees,

without additional remuneration, and their appointed agents, may solicit proxies or votes in person, by telephone, or by electronic communication. We will request banks, brokers, and other fiduciaries to forward proxy materials to the owners of stock held in their names and will reimburse the reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with that distribution.

We intend to announce voting results as well as the Board’s decision on the frequency of future advisory votes on executive compensation in a Current Report on

Form 8-K filed with the SEC no later than four business days after the Annual Meeting.

Our current directors include: David G. Barnes, Ronald H. Cooper, Marwan H. Fawaz, Bret C. Griess, John L. M. Hughes, Janice I. Obuchowski, Donald B. Reed, Frank V.

Sica, Donald V. Smith, and James A. Unruh.  See Proposal 1 - Election of Directors on page 12 for more information regarding our directors.

The Board has determined that every Board member except Mr. Griess, our President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), is an “independent director” as defined in the applicable rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. or NASDAQ. We believe that having a Board made up

predominantly of independent, experienced directors with independent oversight by a non-executive Chair (as further described below) is in the best interests of our Company and our stockholders.

The Board encourages you to visit our corporate governance page on our website at http://ir.csgi.com/documents.cfm which provides information about our corporate governance practices and includes the following documents:

Information on our website is not incorporated by reference in this proxy statement.

We use a majority voting standard in the election of directors. Thus, in any “uncontested election” of directors (i.e., an election where the number of nominees does not exceed the number of directors to be elected), each nominee to the Board will be elected by the vote of a “majority of the votes cast,” meaning that the number of votes cast “for” a director’s election must exceed the number of votes cast “against” that director’s election.  The election of directors at the Annual Meeting is an “uncontested election.”  Abstentions and broker non-votes

will not count as votes cast for purposes of this provision. If any incumbent director does not receive a majority of votes cast in favor of his or her re-election to the Board, that director will be required to submit his or her resignation to the full Board, with a presumption that the resignation will be accepted unless the Board determines that there is a compelling reason for the director to remain on the Board. In the case of a contested election, directors will continue to be elected by a plurality vote.

We invite stockholders to send written communications to the Board or to individual Board members. Please send your letter in care of the Secretary of the Company at the address shown on the first page of this proxy statement. If a letter relates to publicly available information about the Company or our stock, the Secretary will respond to the writer directly. If a letter is primarily commercial in nature or, at the discretion of the Secretary, relates to an improper or

irrelevant topic, the Secretary will make a record of it, but will not transmit the communication to the Board. Any letter that relates to accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing matters will be forwarded to the Chair of the Audit Committee. All other letters will be forwarded to the entire Board or to the individual Board member(s) to whom they are addressed.

Historically, very few stockholders have attended our annual meetings; almost all stockholders who vote do so by proxy. Accordingly, directors are not required to attend our annual meetings. We expect employee directors to attend if their schedules permit, and non-employee directors are welcome to attend if they wish. All of our

directors attended our 2016 Annual Meeting. The Board scheduled our 2017 Annual Meeting to coincide with a regular quarterly meeting of the Board so that all members present at the quarterly meeting of the Board can attend the Annual Meeting as well.

During 2016 the Board held five meetings. All directors attended at least 75% of the total number of meetings of the Board and of the committees on which they served

during 2016. In addition, during 2016 the Board held four executive sessions during which only independent directors were present.

“C” Chair

“M” Member

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee is presently composed of Mr. Barnes (Chair), Mr. Cooper, Ms. Obuchowski, and Mr. Reed. The Audit Committee’s primary purposes are to oversee our accounting and financial reporting processes, the audits of our financial statements, and our risk and compliance management programs.

As required by the Audit Committee charter (located at http://ir.csgi.com/documents.cfm), all members of the Audit Committee satisfy all NASDAQ requirements applicable to audit committee members and are “independent” as defined by the rules promulgated by the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and by NASDAQ. The Board has determined that Mr. Barnes, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Reed are “audit committee financial experts” as defined by applicable SEC rules. The Audit Committee held four meetings during 2016.

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee is presently composed of Mr. Cooper (Chair effective as of April 1, 2017), Mr. Hughes, Mr. Sica (former Chair), Mr. Smith, and Mr. Unruh. The Compensation Committee’s primary purposes are to review and recommend senior management compensation and benefit policies, evaluate the performance of our executive officers, and review and recommend the compensation of our executive officers. In addition, the Compensation Committee has independent authority to administer and grant equity awards under our equity plans and our Performance Bonus Program for executive officers. The Compensation Committee also is responsible for ongoing oversight and evaluation of our compensation policies and practices for employees generally as they relate to risk management. The Compensation Committee may delegate any of its responsibilities to a subcommittee or the Chairman of the Compensation Committee.  The Compensation Committee may also delegate to one or more of our officers the authority to grant awards to non-executive officers and employees of our Company under our equity compensation plans.

As required by the Compensation Committee charter (located at http://ir.csgi.com/documents.cfm), all members of the Compensation Committee are “outside directors” for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and are “independent” as defined by the rules promulgated by the SEC under the Exchange Act, and by NASDAQ. The Compensation Committee may delegate its authority in accordance with the Compensation Committee charter. The Compensation Committee held four meetings during 2016.

Determining Executive Officer Compensation and Use of Independent Compensation Consultant. To assist the Compensation Committee with its responsibilities, the Committee retains an independent compensation consultant, consults with our CEO and our head of Human Resources, and draws upon the extensive business experience of its members. The Compensation Committee directs the independent compensation consulting firm to prepare a comprehensive formal assessment of the competitiveness of our executive officer compensation program, including a comparison of the principal components of our program (base salaries, performance bonuses, and equity awards) with those of a peer group of other public companies. The Compensation Committee considers this assessment and other data provided by the consultant in arriving at its decisions or recommendations to the Board with respect to base salaries, performance bonuses, and long-term incentives for our executive officers. For additional information about our executive compensation program, processes, and procedures, see the Compensation Discussion and Analysis beginning on page 23.

The Compensation Committee periodically evaluates the qualifications of its independent compensation consultant. The Compensation Committee currently utilizes Pearl Meyer & Partners, LLC (“Pearl Meyer”) as its independent compensation consultant. During 2016 Pearl Meyer provided only executive compensation guidance to the Compensation Committee and did not provide any other services to the Company. During 2016 the Compensation Committee requested information from Pearl Meyer, our executives, and our Board members in order to assess the independence of Pearl Meyer as the Committee’s compensation consultant and to determine whether Pearl Meyer’s work raised any conflict of interest. Based on the information provided, the Compensation Committee determined that Pearl Meyer was independent and that the work of Pearl Meyer did not raise a conflict of interest.

Determining Non-Employee Director Equity Awards. In making equity awards to our non-employee directors, the

Compensation Committee considers relevant information provided by the independent compensation consultant and the recommendations of our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Board.

Risks Related to Compensation Policies and Practices for All Employees. The Compensation Committee does not believe that risks arising from our compensation policies and practices are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. A number of the factors considered by the Compensation Committee when it develops executive compensation recommendations have the effect of mitigating risk. Additionally, executive officers and certain members of senior management regularly review our employee compensation policies and practices, including the elements of our compensation programs, to determine whether any element or program design encourages excessive risk taking. The Board and senior management consider the following factors that reduce the likelihood of excessive risk taking:

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation. No member of the Compensation Committee has ever been an officer or employee of the Company. In 2016 no member of the Compensation Committee had any relationship or transaction with the Company that would require disclosure as a “related person transaction” under SEC rules. During 2016 none of our executive officers served on the board of directors or compensation committee of any other entity whose executive officer(s) served as a member of our Board or Compensation Committee.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee presently is composed of Mr. Cooper (former Chair), Mr. Fawaz, Mr. Hughes, Ms. Obuchowski (Chair effective as of April 1, 2017), and Mr. Smith. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s primary purposes are to: (1) identify individuals qualified to become Board members; (2) recommend to the Board nominees for election as directors and directors for appointment to Board committees; (3) evaluate the Board’s performance, in conjunction with the new formal and structured annual board evaluation process conducted by an independent service provider; (4) review and recommend the compensation of our directors; and (5) develop and recommend for Board approval our Corporate Governance Guidelines and Code of Ethics and Business Conduct.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee charter (located at http://ir.csgi.com/documents.cfm) requires that a majority of the members be independent directors. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee held four meetings during 2016.

What We Look for in Director Nominees. In recommending nominees for election as directors, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee reviews the present composition of the Board to determine the qualities, skills, and areas of expertise needed to enable the Board and its committees to properly discharge their responsibilities. When there is a need, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee utilizes the services of executive search firms with well-established board practices to assist in the identification and recruitment of qualified director nominees. This process supports our objective of recruiting highly qualified candidates that meet our specific criteria for skills, professional and governance experience, diversity, and the personal attributes we are seeking as discussed in more detail below. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers it necessary for the Board to have at

least one independent member who qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” and takes that requirement into account when recommending nominees. When identifying and assessing a candidate’s qualifications, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers, among other things: (1) the number and type of other boards on which the candidate serves; (2) the candidate’s other business and professional commitments and potential conflicts of interest; (3) the candidate’s ability and willingness to devote the required amount of time to service as a Board member and as a member of one or more Board committees; and (4) the candidate’s age, background, reputation, independence, experience, skills, and judgment.

Although we do not have a written policy on diversity, our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers the diversity of the Board’s membership when nominating directors. We interpret the term “diversity” in its broadest sense and believe it encompasses many attributes, including age, background, experience, skills, substantive expertise, gender, ethnicity, geography, and education. Our Board is particularly interested in maintaining a collective group of individuals with experience in operations, finance, accounting, marketing, human resources, sales, and international business, particularly in the technology and communication service provider and related industries. We also consider whether nominees are active or retired executive officers of public or private companies and whether they have ever served on the board of a public company.

Our Board members also should display the personal attributes necessary to be effective directors: integrity, sound judgment, independence, ability to operate collaboratively, and a fiduciary commitment to the Company and our stockholders. We believe the current members of our Board have a diverse set of business and personal experiences, backgrounds and expertise, and that they all share the personal attributes described above.

Stockholder Recommended Director Candidates. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider qualified nominees recommended by our stockholders for election as directors in the same manner that the committee considers other director candidates. A stockholder who wishes to recommend a nominee for the Board should submit the recommendation in writing to the Secretary of the Company indicating the proposed nominee’s qualifications and other relevant biographical information and providing written confirmation that the proposed nominee consents to serve as a director if nominated and elected. See Stockholder Proposals on page 51 of this proxy statement for additional requirements and information. Our Secretary will forward

qualifying recommendations from stockholders to the ChairChair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee for further review and consideration. Our bylaws provide that stockholder nominations for election to the Board are subject to certain advance notice and

informational requirements. Stockholders may obtain a copy of the relevant bylaw provisions from our Secretary at CSG Systems International, Inc., 9555 Maroon Circle, Englewood, Colorado 80112.

The Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee coordinates an annual evaluation process, conducted by an independent, third party governance expert, by which the Board's and the Board committees' performance and procedures are evaluated to determine whether they are functioning effectively and whether any changes are necessary to improve their performance. The

results of the annual evaluation are discussed and considered by the full Board. The first annual evaluation will be focused on the performance of the full Board, and subsequent annual evaluations will be performed on the Board’s nominees for election at the then upcoming Annual Meeting.

The Board is responsible for oversight of our risks. To administer our risk and compliance management program, we established a Business Risk Committee comprised of our executive officers), chaired by our Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), and coordinated by our internal audit department. The internal audit department reports directly to the Audit Committee, and prepares a quarterly report for the Audit Committee summarizing material existing and emerging business risks.

We also maintain a formal risk assessment and risk mitigation program that is administered by our CFO.  Executive officers, in conjunction with members of our internal audit department, review this program periodically throughout the year. This program is intended to: (1) identify those risks that are most likely to affect our business; (2) assign an executive to be responsible for

monitoring and mitigating those risks; and (3) provide a formal mechanism for the assigned executive to report back periodically on the adequacy and effect of mitigation efforts. The Audit Committee and the Board review the results of this program at each regularly scheduled meeting. In addition, our Chief Compliance Officer has a reporting relationship to the Audit Committee and provides a quarterly report to the Committee on compliance risks, issues, and activities.

The Board believes our current leadership structure facilitates its oversight of risk by combining independent leadership through the Board and the Audit Committee, along with an experienced Business Risk Committee with intimate knowledge of our business, industry, and challenges.

Since 2005 an independent director has served as non-executive Chairman of the Board. Currently, Mr. Reed serves in that position. We believe it is beneficial to separate the roles of Chairman of the Board and CEO for two reasons: the responsibilities of each position can be clearly delineated, and each individual can devote more time to a single position.

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines permit the Board to modify this leadership structure. In the future, if the Board believes it would be in the best interest of the Company and our stockholders, the Board may decide that one person should serve as both CEO and Chairman of the Board.

Our Board has adopted a Code of Ethics and Business Conduct applicable to all directors, officers, and employees of the Company. Our Code of Ethics and Business Conduct and Corporate Governance Guidelines are available on our website under Investor Relations, Corporate Governance, located at http://ir.csgi.com/documents.cfm. Information on our

website is not incorporated by reference in this proxy statement. We will disclose on our website any amendments to our Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, or any waiver of a provision of our Code of Ethics and Business Conduct that is required to be disclosed under applicable rules of the SEC.

There are no family relationships between any of our directors or executive officers. There are no arrangements between any director, nominee, or executive officer of the Company and any other person pursuant to which such director, nominee, or executive officer was selected for such position.

During 2016 each non-employee director of the Company received an annual fee of $75,000, or an amount pro-rated for their time on the Board in 2016 payable in quarterly installments. Additionally, each non-employee director received an annual equity grant in the form of 3,000 restricted stock awards as determined by the Compensation Committee, which vests on the first anniversary of the grant. The annual Chair retainers in 2016 also paid in quarterly installments, were as follows:

A director who is an officer or employee of the Company does not receive additional compensation for serving as a director or committee member. Mr. Griess is the only current officer or employee of the Company who serves as a director, and he does not currently serve on any Board committee.

The Board is divided into three classes presently consisting of three Class I Directors, four Class II Directors, and three Class III Directors.  Class I consists of Ronald H. Cooper, Janice I. Obuchowski, and Donald B. Reed, whose terms will expire at the 2019 annual meeting of stockholders. Class II consists of David G. Barnes, Marwan H. Fawaz, John L. M. Hughes, and Donald V. Smith, whose terms will expire at the Annual Meeting to be held on May 18, 2017. Class III consists of Bret C. Griess, Frank V. Sica, and James A. Unruh, whose terms will expire at the 2018 annual meeting of stockholders.

Unless the proxy is marked otherwise, the person acting under the accompanying proxy will vote to elect

Messrs. Barnes, Fawaz, Hughes, and Smith as the Class II Directors to serve until the 2020 annual meeting of stockholders. The proxy may not be voted for more than four directors. If a nominee is unable to serve, then the person acting under the proxy may vote the proxy for the election of a substitute nominee. The Company presently expects that all four nominees will be able to serve, and each of the director nominees has consented to serve as directors on the Board.

The following chart outlines the areas of expertise that each director serving on the Board possesses. In addition, we have provided a brief summary of those skills with each director’s biographical information below.

The following information relates to the Board’s nominees for election at the Annual Meeting and to the other

directors of the Company whose terms of office will continue after the Annual Meeting:

Mr. Barnes currently serves as the Senior Vice President, Finance of Stantec Inc., a publicly traded global provider of engineering, consulting, and construction services. From 2009 through 2016 he served as Executive Vice President and CFO of MWH Global Inc., an employee-owned engineering and construction firm. MWH Global Inc. was acquired by Stantec Inc. in 2016. From 2006 to 2008 he

was Executive Vice President of Western Union Financial Services. From 2004 to 2006 Mr. Barnes served as CFO of Radio Shack Corporation. From 1999 to 2004 he was Vice President, Treasurer, and U.S. CFO for Coors Brewing Company. Mr. Barnes holds an M.B.A. degree from the University of Chicago and a B.A. degree from Yale University.

Corporate Governance: Significant knowledge of public company governance functions such as approval of annual budgets and compensation, and experience being accountable to stakeholders for the organization’s financial performance, gained through executive financial positions at public companies. Also served as a director of MWH Global Inc.

Financial Experience: Almost 30 years’ experience in finance and strategic development gained from a wide spectrum of well-known and respected companies,

including Western Union Financial Services, Radio Shack Corporation, and Coors Brewing Company. Hands-on strategic, financial, and business development experience in emerging and mature markets at both domestic and global companies.

Leadership Experience: Oversaw all financial activities for the United States business and performed the global investor relations function at Coors. Extensive experience in driving shareholder value in a variety of complex international businesses.

Mr. Fawaz is currently the CEO of Nest Labs, Inc., an Alphabet company. With more than 28 years of experience in the media, cable, telecommunications, and broadband industries, Mr. Fawaz offers a wealth of knowledge and expertise, developed from his time as Executive Vice President and CEO of Google/Motorola Mobility from 2012 to 2013 and Executive Vice President of Strategy and Operations and Chief Technology Officer of Charter Communications from 2006 to 2011. In addition, he served as Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of

Adelphia Communications from 2003 to 2006 and held leadership positions for other cable industry companies such as MediaOne, among others. In addition, he was the founder and principal of Sarepta Advisors, a strategic advisory and consulting group supporting the technology, media, and telecommunications industries.  He holds an M.S. degree in Electrical and Communication Engineering and a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, both from California State University at Long Beach.

Corporate Governance: Significant experience serving as a director of another public company and as an advisory board member to a number of large corporations with global operations.

Industry Experience: Over 28 years of experience in the media, cable, telecommunications, and broadband industries, serving in executive positions at Google/Motorola Mobility, Charter Communications,

Adelphia Communications, and MediaOne. Comprehensive understanding of the business practices and technology used by our largest customers.

Leadership Experience: Served in multiple senior executive roles, including CEO of Google/Motorola Mobility and Executive Vice President of Strategy and Operations and Chief Technology Officer of Charter Communications.

Mr. Hughes previously served as Chairman of the Board for Intec Telecom Systems plc for nearly six years until it was acquired by us in 2010. Mr. Hughes currently serves as Chairman of the Board for Just-Eat Group plc and Spectris plc, and for privately-held IQSA Group. He is also a director on the boards for Equinix, Inc. and for privately-held Scorpion Ventures Limited, and is a member of the Advisory Board of Strattam Investment Capital Fund. During the past five years, Mr. Hughes was formerly a director on the boards of the public companies of Sepura plc, Telecity Group plc, and Vitec Group plc. Mr. Hughes has been an advisor to Oakley Advisory Limited since 2012 and previously served as an advisor to Advent

International, a private equity fund, from 2008 to 2011. Prior to his board positions, from 2000 to 2004 Mr. Hughes served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) for Thales Group, a European provider of complex systems for the defense, aerospace, and commercial markets. Prior to 2000 he served as President of GSM/UMTS Wireless Networks of Lucent Technologies, and as a director of Convex Global Field Operations and Vice President and Managing Director of Convex Europe, a division of Hewlett Packard Company. Mr. Hughes holds a B.S. degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering from the Hatfield Polytechnic (now the University of Hertfordshire).

Corporate Governance: Extensive knowledge of public company governance functions including monitoring the performance of chief executive officers, approving annual budgets and compensation, and being accountable for the organization’s performance, gained through roles as Chair and director for several companies.

Financial Experience: Extensive experience in leading global companies, making and integrating acquisitions, implementing restructuring programs, and enhancing shareholder value through effective management selection and development, sales growth strategies, and operational excellence.

Industry Experience: Vast experience in the markets, businesses, and industries in which we operate,

demonstrated most recently in his role as the Chairman of the Board for Intec Telecom Systems plc for nearly six years until it was acquired by us in 2010. Significant executive and board-level experience with businesses offering complex digital systems and platforms.

Leadership Experience: Several chairman and director positions for large, global communications and technology companies, as well as senior executive positions at various international communications and technology companies, including lengthy periods living and working in the United States and France. Direct responsibility for major joint ventures in Japan and Australia and large development centers in India, China, and the United States.

Mr. Smith is presently retired. Previously, he served as Senior Managing Director of Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin, Inc., an international investment banking firm with whom he had been associated from 1988 through 2009 and where he served on the board of directors. From 1978 to 1988 he served as a Principal with Morgan

Stanley & Co. Inc., where he headed the company’s valuation and reorganization services. He also serves on the board of directors of several non-profit organizations. Mr. Smith holds an M.B.A. degree from the Wharton Graduate School of the University of Pennsylvania and a B.S. degree from the United States Naval Academy.

Corporate Governance: Significant experience serving as a director of several public and non-profit companies.

Financial Experience: Over 40 years of expertise in financial, investment, and valuation analysis as an executive with international investment firms, notably as Senior Managing Director of Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin, Inc., and as Principal with Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., dealing with corporate finance,

mergers, acquisitions, financial restructurings, and other financial activities. Provided international investment banking advice and service to clients in various industries around the world.

Industry Experience: Significant advisory experience in markets directly related to our core competency, namely business services, data processing, software, and Information Technology.

Mr. Griess currently serves as our President and CEO. He joined CSG in 1996 and held a variety of positions in Operations and Information Technology, until being appointed Executive Vice President of Operations in February 2009 COO in March 2011 and President in June 2015. In January 2016 Mr. Griess was appointed President and CEO and a member of our Board. Prior to joining CSG, Mr. Griess was Genesis Product Manager with Chief

Automotive Systems from 1995 to 1996 and an information systems analyst with the Air Force from 1990 to 1995. Mr. Griess holds an M.A. degree in Management and a B.S. degree in Management from Bellevue University in Nebraska, an A.A.S. degree from the Community College of the Air Force, and an A.S. degree in Business Administration from Eastern Florida State College, formerly Brevard Community College.

Industry Experience: Extensive knowledge of the businesses and markets we serve, which provides our Board with an acute understanding of business practices and special industry concerns.

Leadership Experience: Our current President and CEO. Brings executive level leadership, strategic thinking,

business development, and strong financial oversight skills to the Board.

Financial Experience: Significant executive experience in operational finance, financial management, risk assessment, capital planning, and strategic business development.

Mr. Sica is currently a Managing Partner of Tailwind Capital. From 2004 to 2005 Mr. Sica was a Senior Advisor to Soros Private Funds Management. From 2000 until 2003 he was President of Soros Private Funds Management, where he oversaw the direct real estate and private equity investment activities of Soros. In 1998 he joined Soros Fund Management where he was a Managing Director

responsible for Soros’ private equity investments. Mr. Sica was previously Managing Director for Morgan Stanley Merchant Banking Division. He currently serves as a director on the boards of JetBlue Airways, Kohl’s Corporation, and Safe Bulkers, Inc. Mr. Sica holds an M.B.A. degree from the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College and a B.A. degree from Wesleyan University.

Corporate Governance: Broad experience serving as a director of multiple large public companies.

Financial Experience: Wide-ranging experience in venture capital, private equity, mergers and acquisitions, capital markets, management recruitment, executive compensation, and strategic planning across a broad range of commercial industries from his work at Morgan

Stanley, Soros, and now at Tailwind Capital. Experience in investment banking serving global clients and in structuring international mergers and acquisitions.

Industry Experience: Comprehensive understanding of our business and markets, having served as a director of our Company for over 20 years.

Mr. Unruh became a founding Principal of Alerion Capital Group, LLC (a private equity investment company) in 1998 and currently holds such position. Mr. Unruh was an executive with Unisys Corporation from 1987 to 1997 including serving as its Chairman and CEO from 1990 to 1997. From 1982 to 1986 Mr. Unruh held various executive positions, including Senior Vice President–Finance and CFO with Burroughs Corporation, a predecessor of Unisys Corporation. Prior to 1982 Mr. Unruh was CFO with

Memorex Corporation and also held various executive positions with Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corporation, including CFO. Mr. Unruh currently serves as director on the board of Tenet Healthcare Corporation, and formerly served as director on the boards for Prudential Financial, Inc. and CenturyLink, Inc. during the past five years. He holds an M.B.A. degree from the University of Denver and a B.S. degree from the University of Jamestown.

Corporate Governance: Significant experience serving as a director of several public and private companies with global operations.

Financial Experience: Broad-based understanding of investments and corporate development in pursuing long-term strategic business objectives as a principal of Alerion Capital Group and as Senior Vice President–Finance and CFO with Burroughs Corporation.

Leadership Experience: Unique combination of expertise in Information Technology together with business and financial management experience gained through executive positions held at multinational technology firms. Chairman and CEO with Unisys Corporation and Senior Vice President–Finance and CFO with Burroughs Corporation.

Mr. Cooper is presently retired. He most recently served as the President and CEO of Clear Channel Outdoor Americas, Inc. from 2009 through 2012. Prior to this position, he was a Principal at Tufts Consulting LLC from 2006 through 2009. Previously, he spent nearly 25 years in the cable and telecommunications industry, most recently at Adelphia Communications where he served as President and COO from 2003 to 2006. Prior to Adelphia, Mr. Cooper held a series of executive positions at AT&T

Broadband, RELERA Data Centers & Solutions, MediaOne and its predecessor Continental Cablevision, Inc. He has served on various boards of directors and committees with the National Cable Television Association, California Cable & Telecommunications Association, Cable Television Association for Marketing, New England Cable Television Association, and Outdoor Advertising Association of America. Mr. Cooper holds a B.A. degree from Wesleyan University.

Corporate Governance: Director and committee positions with various industry associations and non-profit boards of directors.

Industry Experience: Nearly 25 years of experience in the communications industry serving in executive positions at Adelphia, AT&T Broadband, RELERA Data Centers & Solutions, MediaOne and its predecessor Continental Cablevision.

Leadership Experience: Served in multiple senior executive roles, including as President and CEO of Clear Channel Outdoor Americas, Inc. and as President and COO at Adelphia Communications. Experience in the acquisition and development of executive talent.

Ms. Obuchowski is the founder and President of Freedom Technologies, Inc., a firm providing public policy, strategic, and engineering advice to companies in the communications sector, government agencies, and international clients, a position she has held since 1992. ChairIn 2003 Ms. Obuchowski was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve as Ambassador and Head of the U.S. Delegation to the World Radiocommunication Conference. She has served as Assistant Secretary for

Communications and Information at the Department of Commerce and Administrator for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”), and as the head of international government relations at NYNEX Corporation. She also has served on several non-profit and other publicly traded company boards. She holds a J.D. degree from Georgetown University and a B.A. degree from Wellesley College, and also attended the University of Paris.

Corporate Governance: Broad governance experience from her service as a director of multiple public companies and non-profit organizations.

Industry Experience: Extensive knowledge and expertise on various facets of the competitive landscape and government regulations impacting the communications and information technology sectors. Experience in

international business affairs through her current and prior board positions, government appointments supporting international communications policies, and as head of international government relations at NYNEX.

Leadership Experience: Current President of Freedom Technologies, Inc. and former Chairman of Frontline Wireless. Led the NTIA, the government agency with internet and telecommunications policy, federal spectrum management, and government research facility responsibilities. Responsible for major U. S. delegations and support personnel at international conferences.

Mr. Reed is presently retired. He served as CEO of Cable & Wireless Global from 2000 to 2003. Cable & Wireless Global, a subsidiary of Cable & Wireless plc, is a provider of internet protocol (“IP”) and data services to business customers in the U.S., United Kingdom, Europe, and Japan. From June 1998 until May 2000 Mr. Reed served Cable & Wireless in various other executive positions. Mr. Reed’s career includes 30 years at NYNEX

Corporation (now part of Verizon), a regional telephone operating company. From 1995 to 1997 Mr. Reed served NYNEX Corporation as President and Group Executive with responsibility for directing the company’s regional, national, and international government affairs, public policy initiatives, legislative and regulatory matters, and public relations. Mr. Reed holds a B.A. degree in History from Virginia Military Institute.

Corporate Governance: Significant experience serving as a director of multiple public companies, including large multinationals, and his current position as Chair of privately-held Oceus Networks Inc.

Financial Experience: Held executive management positions at several multi-billion dollar corporations where he developed expertise in financial management, risk assessment, investment knowledge, and strategic business development.

Leadership Experience: Over 30 years of experience in the domestic and international telecommunications industry including executive leadership positions as CEO for Cable & Wireless Global and as President and Group Executive for NYNEX Corporation. Extensive experience in developing and implementing strategies and policies for the acquisition and development of executive talent.

The table below sets forth each stockholder known by us to own beneficially more than 5% of our outstanding common stock as of February 28, 2017.  

Percentage ownership calculations for beneficial ownership are based on 33,196,219 shares outstanding at the close of business on February 28, 2017.

The table below sets forth to our knowledge the beneficial ownership of common stock held by each director and each NEO of the Company included in the 2016 Summary Compensation Table on page 35, individually, and by all directors and executive officers of the Company as a group as of February 28, 2017.

Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with SEC rules, which generally attribute beneficial ownership of securities to persons who possess sole or shared voting power or investment power with respect to those securities and include shares of common stock issuable

upon vesting or exercise of equity awards within 60 days of February 28, 2017. Except as otherwise indicated, all of the shares reflected in the table are shares of common stock and all persons listed below have sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares beneficially owned by them, subject to applicable community property laws. The information is not necessarily indicative of beneficial ownership for any other purpose.  Percentage ownership calculations for beneficial ownership are based on 33,196,219 shares outstanding at the close of business on February 28, 2017.

The Board has established share ownership guidelines for our directors and executive officers. Each executive officer is expected to attain the minimum ownership level within four years of his or her date of appointment. In 2016 we increased the minimum share ownership level for directors from four times annual cash compensation to five times.  Directors do not have a specific timeframe to attain their share ownership requirements, but they may not sell any granted/retained shares of stock in the corporation until the requirements are met. All directors are in compliance subject to applicable grace periods and other transfer limitations.

Ownership levels are determined based on the common stock owned by each individual, excluding any unvested shares of restricted stock.

Below is a summary of the current required minimum share ownership levels:

As part of our insider trading policy, all employees, including our executive officers, and non-employee directors (and their designees) are prohibited from engaging in short sales of our securities, establishing

margin accounts, or otherwise pledging our securities and engaging in transactions that are designed to hedge or offset any decrease in the market value of our stock.

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our officers (as defined in the applicable regulations) and directors, and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of our common stock, to file certain reports of ownership and changes of ownership of our equity securities with the SEC. Officers, directors, and stockholders who own more than 10% of such shares are required by SEC regulation to furnish to the Company copies of all Section 16(a) forms which they file.

Based solely on our review of the copies of such forms submitted to us and written representations from certain reporting persons, we believe that all filings required by our officers and directors were timely filed for the year ended December 31, 2016 except for the following:

Company Overview and Business Strategy

We are one of the world's largest and most established providers of business support solutions, primarily serving the global communications industry. We have over thirty years of experience supporting communications service providers as their businesses have evolved from a single product offering to complex, highly competitive, multi-product service offerings, while also requiring increasingly differentiated, real-time, and personalized experiences for their customers.

Our proven experience and world-class solutions support the mission critical management of our clients’ revenue, customer interactions, and digital ecosystems as they advance their video, voice, data, content, and digital services to consumers.  Our broad and deep solutions help our clients remain competitive in a dynamically evolving global business environment, respond to changing consumer demands, quickly launch new compelling product offerings, provide enhanced customer experiences through relevant and targeted interactions, and cost-effectively streamline and scale operations.

Our goal is to be the most trusted provider of world-class cloud and software-based solutions to service providers around the globe who depend upon the timely and accurate processing of complex, high-volume transactions to operate their business and deliver a superior customer experience. We believe that by successfully executing on this goal we can grow our revenues and earnings, and therefore, create long-term value, for our clients, our

employees, and our stockholders as well. Our strategic focus to accomplish this goal is as follows:

Our Overall 2016 Performance

We had a solid performance in 2016, delivering positive financial and operational results, executing on many of our key strategic initiatives, and continuing to expand and extend our relationships with many of our clients.

Key highlights of our 2016 performance include the following:

2016 Executive Compensation Highlights

We made some changes to our executive compensation program in 2016 consistent with evolving market practices. These changes included the following:

Additionally, after considering compensation within our peer group and consulting with Pearl Meyer, the Compensation Committee (“Committee”) independently assessed the value and competitiveness of each NEO’s compensation including various pay components. Based upon their assessment, the Board and the Committee made the following decisions regarding the framework for the 2016 executive compensation program:

Base salary. The Board increased our CEO’s base salary by 44.4% in connection with his promotion from President and COO to President and CEO, and increased the base salary of our CFO by 3.0% to align his salary with the corresponding median level of our peer group.  Our other two NEOs were new to their roles for 2016 and the Board and the Committee set their base salaries based on negotiated employment arrangements.

Annual incentive program. The Committee maintained Mr. Griess’ target bonus percentage at 150% of base salary. Consistent with prior years, the target bonus percentages for our other NEOs were set at 100% of base salary. For more information, see 2016 Compensation on page 29.

Long-term incentive (“LTI”) program. For the February 2016 annual grant, the Committee maintained the LTI award program with 60% of each NEO’s award granted in the form of performance-based restricted stock.

The performance-based restricted stock granted vests over three years if we achieve predetermined financial targets, or in full if a predetermined stock price or TSR target is achieved at the end of the third year. The other 40% of each NEO’s award is in the form of time-based restricted stock that vests ratably over four years.

For more information on our executive compensation program, see 2016 Compensation beginning on page 29.

Pay-for-Performance Compensation Program

At least 54% of each NEO’s total target compensation for 2016 was based on our achievement of key financial measures under our annual and LTI programs.

We delivered upon the majority of our key initiatives during 2016 and achieved a number of our financial targets. As a result, our NEOs achieved payouts and performance-based stock vesting under our executive compensation program as follows:

For more information, see 2016 Compensation beginning on page 29.

2016 Say-on-Pay Results

Approximately 95% of the votes cast on our 2016 say-on-pay proposal were in favor of our executive compensation program and policies. When making compensation decisions for our NEOs, the Committee considers the voting results of our annual say-on-pay proposal along with other factors, such as our pay-for-performance philosophy and a competitive market analysis of peer companies to determine compensation practices. The Committee considered the results of the 2016 advisory vote, and did not make significant changes to the program based on the voting results.

Key Compensation Governance Factors

We believe that the following governance and compensation practices reinforce our business strategy, culture, and values.

We have a clawback policy that covers our executive officers. The policy authorizes us to reduce or cancel, or require the recovery of, all or a portion of an executive officer’s annual bonus or LTI compensation award for intentional misconduct that leads to a material restatement of the financial statements of the Company. For additional information, see Employment Agreements on page 42.

No potential income tax gross-ups. A key feature of the executive officers’ amended and restated employment agreements is the exclusion of potential income tax gross-ups for Change of Control benefits. For additional information regarding the agreements, see Employment Agreements on page 42.

We design performance-based compensation to reflect our business strategy and enhance stockholder value. We currently use, in our short-term bonus plan (revenue and Adjusted Operating Income), and in our LTI program, performance Restricted Stock Agreements (“RSAs”) (revenue, Adjusted Net Income and Adjusted Earnings Per Share (“EPS”)), stock price and relative TSR as the financial performance metrics for our performance pay programs. Each measure represents a key financial metric that reflects on the execution of our long-term business strategy to enhance stockholder value. For additional

information about our business strategy, see Company Overview and Business Strategy on page 23.

We emphasize the long term. A significant portion of our NEOs’ total compensation is in the form of long-term equity awards, 60% of which is performance-based restricted stock that fully vests if we achieve specific financial, relative TSR, or stock price measures.

We align the financial interests of our executives with the interests of our stockholders through equity awards and share ownership guidelines. Each NEO must own at least the threshold level of our shares that is consistent with our share ownership guidelines. For additional information, see Share Ownership Guidelines on page 22.

We have a policy prohibiting hedging and pledging transactions involving our stock. Our NEOs and other insiders are prohibited from selling our stock short, pledging our stock as collateral, or entering into transactions in puts or calls that raise similar concerns regarding speculation in our stock. For additional information, see Hedging and Pledging Policy on page 22.

We provide only limited perquisites and other benefits. Our NEOs are generally eligible for few perquisites or benefits outside those available to our employees. For additional information, see the 2016 Summary Compensation Table on page 35.

We rely on the advice of an independent compensation consultant. The Committee has engaged an independent compensation consultant that does not provide any services to management and that had no relationship with management prior to the engagement.

No dividends or dividend equivalents paid on unvested stock awards. We do not pay dividends or dividend equivalents on unvested stock awards. Dividends accrue on time-based and performance-based restricted stock awards and are paid only on shares that vest.

Determining Executive Compensation

Each year during its February meeting, the Committee certifies the following for the previous fiscal year: (1) the level of performance attained; (2) the amount payable under the Annual Performance Bonus Program; and (3) the vesting levels for our performance-based restricted stock awards. The Committee also evaluates and recommends to the Board the base salary for each of our NEOs as well as the performance metrics and target levels for the Annual Performance Bonus Program and performance-based restricted stock awards for the current year. The target levels typically are established based upon our initial internal financial targets and adjusted for a pre-established growth factor for performance-based restricted stock awards that extend over a three-year period.

When making compensation decisions and recommendations, the Committee considers the following key factors:

As required by the Committee’s charter, the CEO may not be present when either the Committee or the Board discuss or vote on CEO compensation.

The Committee undertakes considerable analysis when determining metrics to be used in both its Annual Performance Bonus Program and performance-based equity awards.

The Committee selects a combination of metrics that, if achieved in the long-term, will most likely result in positive

shareholder return.  Goals are established to effectively incent management to achieve long-term results while maintaining the consistent operational excellence our customers have come to expect.  

All of our current performance-based equity awards to our executives employ a three-year time horizon, with a third of the shares in each award eligible for vesting annually upon achievement of the specified performance metrics.  Up to 100% of the eligible shares may vest each year if the minimum metric threshold is achieved. If the executives earn less than 100% vesting based on the level of achievement against the performance targets for a particular year within the three-year incentive-performance period, the executives have the opportunity to earn the remaining vesting percentage if certain performance criteria are met in the second or third year.

The Committee believes that this performance-based design strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring the business is operating at its optimal level in the short term, while incenting management to invest in the business for long-term results.

Role of the Independent Compensation Consultant and Management

The Committee has sole authority and discretion to retain and terminate compensation consultants, independent legal counsel, and other advisers to help the Committee perform its responsibilities. It has the sole authority to approve the fees, scope, and other terms of engagement with its compensation consultant and other advisers, with full funding provided by the Company. The Committee is responsible for determining the independence of its compensation consultant and other advisers. Management is available at the Committee’s request to assist the consultant by providing historical pay data and perspective on our competitive environment for recruiting managerial talent.

For 2016 the Committee again engaged Pearl Meyer to advise it on executive compensation matters. The Committee instructed Pearl Meyer to take a broad view of the competitive compensation landscape to assist the Committee in structuring a compensation program for our NEOs. We believe this broader perspective has enabled us to attract and retain a highly talented executive team. Pearl Meyer reviewed compensation data available from peer company proxy statements and published survey sources using position matches and data analyses to identify the most appropriate comparisons among executives of similar titles and responsibilities. For additional information regarding the companies in the peer group component and the pay of our NEOs compared to the peer group, see Role of Benchmarking in Determining Compensation and Peer Group on page 28.

Compensation Mix

The compensation program for each of our NEOs includes the following components, which together comprise Total Direct Compensation: (1) base salary, (2) an annual

performance bonus, and (3) two types of LTI awards. The objective of each component and the form in which each is delivered if earned is outlined as follows:

Total Direct Compensation. The Committee targets Total Direct Compensation (the sum of all three core compensation components) for our NEOs to be between the 65^th and 75^th percentiles of our peer group’s total

direct compensation. The following table shows how our NEOs’ compensation levels compare (on a percentile basis) to our peer group company information for Total Direct Compensation.

The charts below illustrate the percentage of compensation our CEO and other NEOs would generally receive, if paid at

target level, for each core compensation component, based on 2016 target compensation:

Role of Benchmarking in Determining Compensation

To assist the Committee in establishing 2016 compensation for the NEOs, Pearl Meyer provided a competitive assessment using peer group compensation information and industry survey data for the primary elements of our NEO compensation packages. Pearl Meyer developed benchmarking market data by blending the peer group and industry survey data equally. The peer group composition is described in the next section. The industry survey data was comprised of technology companies, represented in the Culpepper and Radford compensation surveys, with revenues ranging from $500 million to $1 billion.

The Committee recognizes that peer group comparisons and industry survey data may not be perfectly aligned because the executive titles and responsibilities at peer group companies may not be directly comparable to those of our NEOs with similar or equivalent titles.

Our compensation philosophy is intended to ensure leadership continuity as part of our succession planning and to leverage variable incentive pay tied to Company

performance. The Committee generally considers Total Direct Compensation (including target bonus) for a NEO to be competitive if it is between the 65^th and 75^th percentile of the blended peer group and industry survey data.

To achieve the desired pay positioning, base salaries are generally targeted at the 50^th percentile and target annual performance bonus (assuming targeted performance levels are achieved) and total LTI value are generally targeted between the 50^th and 75^th percentiles.

Peer Group Used for Benchmarking

The peer group used for compensation benchmarking is reviewed annually to ensure its composition and characteristics remain consistent with our objectives. The peer group used to determine 2016 compensation, as listed in the following table, includes companies in the software and data processing industries, which were selected for their comparable size, product, service offerings, customers, and markets. Their revenues ranged in size from $249 million to $2 billion at year-end 2015.

2016 Annual Base Salaries

For 2016 the Committee recommended to the Board, and the Board approved, the following base salaries:

Mr. Griess’ year-over-year salary increase was a result of his promotion from President and COO to President and CEO.  The Board approved increases to Mr. Wiese and Mr. Ruble’s salaries to align them with the corresponding median levels of our peer group, commensurate with competitive market practice for the duties and responsibilities of their positions. Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Shepherd were new to their roles for 2016 and the Board and the Committee set their respective base salaries based on negotiated employment arrangements.

2016 Results for Incentive Compensation Programs

In 2016 we used the non-GAAP measures of Adjusted Operating Income, Adjusted Net Income and Adjusted EPS to establish certain performance goals for our executive compensation programs and to measure the effectiveness of our NEOs under such programs. These measures were chosen by the Committee because they gauge the NEOs’ effectiveness in managing the performance of the business.

We reported solid financial results for 2016. Below are our generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) results in the United States along with other corresponding non-GAAP measures used in our compensation programs in 2016:

Please see Use and Reconciliations of Non-GAAP Financial Measures in Appendix A on page 53 for additional information regarding the use and adjustments of non-GAAP financial measures used by the Company, as well as a full reconciliation of each non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable GAAP measure.

2016 Annual Performance Bonuses

Annual performance bonuses are awarded under the terms of our Annual Performance Bonus Program.

The annual performance bonus for each NEO is determined based on the following formula:

Base Salary. The starting point for each NEO’s bonus calculation is the NEO’s base salary.

NEO Target Bonus Percentage. The Committee provides competitive bonus opportunities for the NEOs for the achievement of annual performance goals. After considering the competitive compensation information provided by Pearl Meyer, the Committee decided to maintain a 150% target bonus percentage for the CEO and 100% target bonus percentages for the other NEOs .

The maximum bonus percentage for the NEOs cannot exceed two times their annual incentive targets in any given performance year.

The 2016 and 2015 target bonus percentages of base salary for each NEO are as follows:

Company Performance Percentage. The Company performance percentage, which is based on our performance against two pre-established financial performance measures, is the same for all of the NEOs. If we achieve the target levels of performance for both measures, the Company performance percentage achieved will be 100%. If we miss the minimum threshold performance for either measure, the Company performance percentage will be zero (0%). If we exceed target levels, the Company performance percentage can exceed 100%. The following table shows our financial results with respect to the 2016 targets for revenue and Adjusted Operating Income:

Revenues were just below the target, yet the Company significantly overachieved against the Adjusted Operating Income target due to our strong operating performance therefore, the Company performance percentage achieved was calculated at 134.8% and was certified by the Committee.

NEO Individual Performance Percentage. The final component of the annual performance bonus is a determination by the Committee of each NEO’s individual performance achievement expressed as a percentage, not to exceed 100%. This evaluation is based upon the common and unique objectives described below. These non-financial objectives are important to our success and are designed to enhance stockholder value over the long term.

Common objectives. Common elements of NEO objectives include operational and functional responsibilities. Specifically, each NEO has multiple objectives associated with the stewardship of the NEO’s areas of responsibility. The particular objectives vary by NEO, but typically include achieving both near- and long-term business objectives and meeting budget expectations.

Unique objectives. The following are examples of categories of individual objectives unique to one or more of the NEOs based on area of responsibility within the Company:

The Committee met in February 2017 to consider the 2016 performance of each NEO as compared to the individual’s performance goals. Mr. Griess summarized the 2016 performance of the other NEOs and presented information to the Committee for consideration. After evaluating each NEO’s performance, the Committee assigned each NEO an individual performance percentage of 95% for 2016.

Final 2016 Bonus Calculation. The following table shows the calculation of the annual performance bonus earned by each NEO for 2016:

2016 Long-Term Incentive Awards

The Committee historically has made, and in 2016 made, restricted stock awards to our NEOs in two forms: (1) performance-based awards that vest over a three-year period if specified performance-based criteria are met; and (2) time-based awards that vest in equal increments on the anniversary of the grant date over a four-year period.

Our performance-based awards are designed to highlight key financial measures over a three-year period. The program is designed to align both near-term progress and a long-term focus by establishing an opportunity during

each year of the three-year cycle to vest in a ratable portion of the award based on actual performance.

In determining the number of shares of restricted stock to be granted and the balance between performance-based and time-based shares, the Committee considered market data and advice from Pearl Meyer. See the 2016 Grants of Plan-Based Awards table on page 37 for additional information on 2016 grants.

The following table summarizes key terms of the NEOs’ LTI awards, as well as the Company's performance compared to the financial targets for those tranches eligible to vest for 2016 related to awards granted in 2016, 2015 and 2014.