[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In 1996, the Cranfield benefits management (BM) process model was developed as a response to organizations' dissatisfaction with the results of information systems and information technology (IS/IT) projects. In contrast with traditional project management dimensions, such as time, cost, and quality, BM emphasizes the need to identify, plan, realize, and review benefits, particularly by means of business changes. The extant literature presents several BM frameworks and methods, signaling its character as an evolving discipline. Despite this progress in research, most studies still report dissatisfyingly low BM adoption rates in practice. We aim to understand why BM is still rarely used in practice by classifying the literature with a multi-perspective framework. We find the BM literature rather unbalanced, as studies on how to conduct BM are common, but papers that investigate concepts such as the adoption/usage and context of BM in organizations are highly underrepresented. We conclude that the BM discipline still has open fields and white spots, and needs to gradually change direction.
22th European Conference on Information Systems; 06/2014
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: IS/IT evaluations reveal that many organizations fail to realize planned benefits from their IS/IT projects. Benefits management researchers argue that organizational change is necessary for the delivery of IS/IT project benefits. However, existing IS/IT evaluation methods adopt a narrow quantitative focus on costs and benefits and fail to consider the organizational dimension. This study brings together the concepts of benefits management and IS/IT evaluation using the Cranfield Benefits Dependency Network (BDN) as a diagnostic tool to examine an underperforming IS/IT project. The analysis revealed that planned benefits had not been realized because of a lack of attention to technical and organizational facilitators and inhibitors associated with IT-enabled organizational change.
International Journal of Project Management 07/2014; 33(2). DOI:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.012 · 1.53 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.