European Journal of Information Systems (2008) 17, 352–370

& 2008 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/08
www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis

Improving the impact of IT development

projects: the benefits realization capability
model

Colin Ashurst1, Abstract

Neil F. Doherty2 and The return that organizations derive from investments in information systems
and technology continues to disappoint. While there are many theoretical
Joe Peppard3 prescriptions as to how the planned benefits from an information technology
1
(IT) project might best be realized, there is very little empirical evidence, as to
Durham Business School, Durham University, whether such advice is being heeded in practice. Drawing on the resource-
Durham, U.K.; 2The Business School,
based view of the firm, a conceptual model of a benefits realization capability is
Loughborough University, Loughborough,
Leicestershire, U.K.; 3Information Systems
presented and developed. In this model, the benefits realization capability is
Research Centre, Cranfield School of operationalized through four distinct competences, each of which is under-
Management, Cranfield, Bedford, U.K. pinned by a variety of socially defined practices. The model was populated by
using a thorough review of the literature to identify and categorize those
Correspondence: Neil F. Doherty, specific practices that have the potential to contribute to the effective
The Business School, Loughborough achievement of benefits from IT investment projects. These practices are then
University, Ashby Road, Loughborough, studied in an empirical examination of 25 IT projects. The analysis finds no
Leicestershire LE11 3TU, U.K. evidence of benefits realization practices being adopted in any consistent,
Tel: þ 44 1908 223128;
comprehensive or coherent manner. Effective benefits realization requires
Fax: þ 441509 223960;
E-mail: [email protected] an ongoing commitment to, and focus upon, the benefits, rather than
the technology, throughout a system’s development, implementation and
operation.
European Journal of Information Systems (2008) 17, 352–370.
doi:10.1057/ejis.2008.33

Keywords: IT benefits realization; organizational change; resource-based view; practices;

systems development

Introduction
Information technology (IT) has become an increasingly ubiquitous and
integral part of the modern organization as it has the potential to enhance
performance, at the operational and strategic levels. However, as Zuboff
(1988, p. 7) notes, this widespread adoption of IT is not ‘neutral’, as it
embodies ‘essential characteristics that are bound to alter the nature of work
within factories and offices, and among workers, managers and professionals’.
Indeed, a steady stream of research, over the past 20 years, has confirmed
that IT implementations are typically associated with very significant
amounts of organizational change (e.g. Markus & Robey, 1988; Robey &
Boudreau, 1999; Markus, 2004; Davidson & Chiasson, 2005; Peppard &
Received: 9 August 2007 Ward, 2005). For example, whether by happenstance or design, the
Revised: 8 May 2008 introduction of a complex and highly integrated technology, such as ERP,
2nd Revision: 21 August 2008 is likely to have significant impacts on an organization’s business
Accepted: 22 August 2008 processes, structure, culture and enterprise level performance, as well as
 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al 353

the motivation, job specifications and performance of One potentially important mechanism for proactively
individual employees (Markus, 2004). managing the social and organizational impacts of an IT
Despite its recognized tendency to act as a catalyst for project is through an explicit benefits realization pro-
change, IT cannot be viewed as a deterministic artefact gramme, which can be defined as ‘the process of organising
(Grint & Woolgar, 1997; Orlikowski & Hoffman, 1997), as and managing, such that the potential benefits arising from
even when deployed in very similar organizational the use of IT are actually realised’ (Ward & Elvin, 1999).
settings, identical information systems (IS) can give rise Indeed, a number of previous studies have attempted to
to significantly different outcomes (Orlikowski, 1992; promote the role of formal and explicit ‘benefits realiza-
Sahay & Robey, 1996; Doherty et al., 2006). Conse- tion’ approaches, for improving the outcomes of IS
quently, predicting and managing the social and organi- development projects, through the proactive manage-
zational impacts of a system’s implementation is by no ment of organizational change (e.g. Farbey et al., 1993;
means a straightforward endeavour (Clegg et al., 1997; Ward et al., 1996; Remenyi et al., 1997; Ward & Elvin,
Doherty & King, 1998). Moreover, in far too many 1999). However, to date, there is little evidence that
instances the planned organizational impacts fail to organizations have been able to translate these academic
materialize, while the actual impacts can result in user prescriptions into effective working practices (National
resistance and, in extreme cases, possibly even system Audit Office, 2006). Benefits realization appears to
rejection (Martinsons & Chong, 1999). Indeed, there be a good example of the often substantial gap between
is a growing consensus that the high incidence of management theory and practice (Pfeffer & Sutton,
systems development projects that fail is primarily due 2000). Consequently, there is a pressing need for
to the inability of organizations to effectively predict novel contributions that present insights into how an
and manage IT-enabled organizational change (e.g. explicit focus on benefits realization might best be
Lyytinen & Hirschheim, 1987; Lederer & Nath, 1991; incorporated into the actual routines of systems devel-
Ewusi-Mensah & Przasnyski, 1994; Doherty et al., 2003; opment and implementation. Such contributions
Peppard & Ward, 2005). would also address calls for increasing the relevance of
The establishment of a link between the unpredictable research in the IS discipline for practitioners (Keen, 1991;
nature of organizational impacts and unsuccessful IT Robey & Markus, 1998; Benbasat & Zmud, 1999; Breu &
projects has significant implications because a consider- Peppard, 2003).
able amount of time, money, effort and opportunity can In this paper, we address the question of how an
be wasted upon IT investments that ultimately fail to organization embarking upon a new IT investment
deliver benefits. Estimates of the level of failure may vary, project can increase the likelihood of its projected
but over the past 30 years they have tended to stay benefits being ultimately realized. Drawing on the
uncomfortably high. More specifically, it has been resource-based view (RBV) of the firm, we argue that
suggested that in the late 1970s only 20% of projects organizations should have a benefits realization capability.
‘achieved something like their intended benefits’ (Eason, We build a conceptual model of this capability, and
1988), and by the late 1980s, it was estimated that up suggest that the notion of ‘practice’ provides a founda-
to 70% of IS projects failed (Hochstrasser & Griffiths, tion to operationalize this capability, and also provides
1991). By the late 1990s, Clegg et al. (1997) reported that specific guidance for practitioners. The remainder of the
‘up to 90% of all IT projects fail to meet their goals’, while paper is organized into four parts. First, we provide a brief
more recently the British Computer Society (British review of literature related to the concepts of resources,
Computer Society, 2004) concluded that ‘only around 16 capabilities, competences and practices, before applying
per cent of IT projects can be considered truly successful’. these to the task of IT benefits realization. We then
Against this backdrop, it is important that more reliable outline the research method adopted for the empirical
ways of managing the organizational change associated part of this study and summarize the key findings.
with IT projects should be found, to help reduce Finally, we explore the theoretical and practical implica-
the incidence of IS failure. Although it may be widely tions of this work, paying particular attention to the
acknowledged that the unpredictable nature of organiza- value of the competences/practices approach, in the
tional change is a key contributor to IS failure, realization of business benefits through IT.
paradoxically, it is also recognized that the benefits
of IT typically come from the organizational change
that accompanies its introduction (Peppard & Ward, Capabilities, competences and practices
2005). However, the explanation for this apparent Resources, capabilities, competences and practices are all
paradox is not difficult to discern, as the typical IT important concepts that have already received much
project team will generally focus upon delivering a attention in the general and strategic management
technical solution, and only worry about its organiza- literatures (e.g. Barney, 1991; Grant, 1996a; Teece et al.,
tional impacts, once it is operational, rather than 1997; Brown & Duguid, 2000; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000;
managing organizational change as an integral part of Helfat & Peteraf, 2003). In this section, we illustrate how
the project (Ahn & Skudlark, 1997; Clegg, 2000; Eason, these theoretical constructs can be applied to the task of
2001; Markus, 2004). delivering specified benefits from IT investments.

European Journal of Information Systems

354 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al

Competences and capabilities for IT combination with specific organizational processes

Over the past 25 years there has been significant interest and resources (McGrath et al., 1995).
in the process by which organizations can assemble a  Capability is a higher level construct than a compe-
unique portfolio of resources that will render them a tence (Stalk et al., 1992), defined and enacted through
competitive advantage. The RBV of the firm (Wernerfelt, the application of a set of competences (Teece et al.,
1984; Barney, 1991) suggests that organizations should 1997; Moingeon et al., 1998; Kangas, 1999). More
invest in those assets and resources that they believe will specifically, a capability can be defined as an organiza-
best assist them in successfully gaining a sustainable tion’s ability to ‘perform a set of co-ordinated tasks,
competitive advantage. In this context, resources have utilizing organizational resources, for the purposes of
been defined as ‘stocks of available factors that are owned or achieving a particular end result’ (Helfat & Peteraf,
controlled by the firm’ (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993). 2003, p. 1000).
However, from a competitive perspective not all resources
Benefits realization from IT investments can therefore be
are equally valuable, as it has been argued that an
conceptualized as an organizational capability that has
organization’s primary source of competitive advantage
the express purpose of ensuring that investments made in
will be through those resources that are simultaneously
IT consistently generate value, through the enactment of
valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable
a number of distinct, yet complementary, competences.
– the so called VRIN conditions (Barney, 1991). While
However, while it appears to make sense to conceptualize
resources are clearly a critical element of the RBV, there is
benefits realization as a capability underpinned by a
a growing recognition that resources, per se, do not create
number of distinct competences, such a model is still at a
value. Rather, value is created by an organization’s ability
relatively high level of granularity. Competences have
to mobilize, marshal and utilize these resources, through
been referred to as an ‘amorphous heap’ (Wernerfelt, 1984)
the application of capabilities and competences (Black &
as little is generally known about the knowledge
Boal, 1994; Grant, 1996b; Bowman & Ambrosini, 2000).
resources that underpin them, nor how this knowledge
Consequently, it can be argued that organizations will
should be coordinated and integrated. Consequently, the
only attain a sustainable competitive advantage if they
practitioner will almost certainly be left asking questions
can assemble a set of competences that can be consis-
as to how specific benefits realization competences
tently applied (Teece & Pisano, 1994) and that competi-
might best be developed, and ultimately managed, while
tors find difficult to imitate (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990;
the researcher will want to know how they can observe
Barney, 1991).
and measure such high-level constructs, when conduct-
This analysis and logic can be applied to the realization
ing empirical research (Black & Boal, 1994; Miller &
of benefits from IT investments. We argue that all
Shamsie, 1996).
organizations should establish a benefits realization
capability, whether or not IT is a source of competitive
advantage. However, this capability cannot be developed Practices – a way of operationalizing competences?
within the boundaries of the IS function, as research One potentially rewarding way of adding granularity to a
demonstrates the need for enterprise-wide cooperation benefits realization competence is by decomposing it into
and engagement to realize the benefits from IT invest- a number of constituent practices, each of which is
ments (Ward & Peppard, 2002). In delivering value underpinned by the skills, knowledge and experiences of
through IT, the key resource is not technology but organizational employees and sometimes those employ-
knowledge and this knowledge will be distributed ees of external entities. The concept of practice is
throughout the organization. As Newell et al. (2004) have increasingly used within the organizational sciences
noted, the primary challenge for project teams, set up to literature and a range of descriptions and definitions
design and implement a large-scope IT system, is how to have inevitably emerged. Wenger et al. (2002) define
coordinate and integrate such distributed knowledge. practices as ‘a set of socially defined ways of doing things in a
While we draw on the RBV in our argument, there is a specific domain: a set of common approaches and shared
lack of precision in the usage of terms and concepts standards that create a basis for action, problem solving,
surrounding this perspective, which needs to be ad- performance and accountability’. In a similar vein, Carlile
dressed, particularly with respect to the distinction (2002) contends that practices are strongly focused upon
between a competence and a capability: their ‘objects’ and ‘ends’, which makes practices far more
concrete and observable than competences. Not only
 Competence refers to a ‘firm’s capacity to deploy resources, does the concept of a practice appear to be very closely
usually in combination, using organizational processes, to aligned with how people actually work, it is also
effect a desired end’ (Amit & Shoemaker, 1993, p. 35). A particularly relevant for IS projects, where much of the
competence is thus an attribute of a team, function or effort is based upon the knowledge and experiences of
even the entire organization. Each competence is individuals and teams (Newell et al., 2004). Moreover, the
underpinned by the skills, knowledge and experiences concept of practice relates to the informal organization
of employees, that is, people resources, who are likely and how individuals and teams discharge their responsi-
to be distributed enterprise-wide, and deployed in bilities. In contrast, most management literature tends to

European Journal of Information Systems

 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al 355

emphasize processes and procedures, defined by the practice is deliberately used to capture the essence of
formal organization, which focus upon prescriptions of ‘what people actually do’, as underpinned by their
how the work should be done, and in so doing, often knowledge, skills and experience, and evidenced
ignore many critical factors that affect performance through their behaviour (see Figure 1).
(Brown & Duguid, 2000). For example, from an IS  In a specific domain: Given the study’s explicit focus on
development perspective, Nandhakumar & Avison benefits realization, we were only interested in those
(1999) highlight the limitations of formal methodologies, practices that might directly contribute to managing
arguing that they often represent a ‘convenient fiction’, to the realization of benefits from systems development
provide an appearance of control, but bear little relation- projects.
ship to how work actually gets done.  To achieve a defined – and generally measurable – outcome:
Based primarily on Wenger et al’s (2002) definition, but All practices should have a clear and specified benefits-
also taking account of other appropriate sources (e.g. oriented aim. As Carlile (2002) notes, practices are
Grant, 1996a; Brown & Duguid, 2000; Schultze & Boland, typically defined in terms of their ‘means’ and most
2000; Carlile, 2002), we established the following work- importantly their ‘ends’, which allow the success of the
ing definition of ‘practice’, for the purpose of this study: practice to be demonstrated.
 Creates the basis for responding appropriately to individual
a set of socially defined ways of doing things, in a specific
domain, to achieve a defined – and generally measurable –
circumstances: A practice is not a set of highly
outcome, and create the basis for responding appropriately formalized rules that prescribe in great detail the way
to individual circumstances. an activity should be undertaken. As Schultze & Boland
(2000, p. 204) note, it is not ‘a mechanical reaction to
From this definition, a number of phrases require further rules, norms or models, but a strategic, regulated improvisa-
clarification, as they have a significant impact upon the tion responding to the situation’.
way in which it can be used to identify appropriate
practices. Based upon the above discourse around capabilities,
competences and practices, it is possible to posit a clear
 Socially defined ways of doing things: ‘Socially defined’ relationship between these three constructs, and envisage
implies that a practice is inherently people-oriented: it how they might be configured in the context of benefits
relates to ‘the activities of people’ (Brown & Duguid, realization through IT. From this analysis, the benefits
2000). As Schultze & Boland (2000) note, the term realization capability will be enacted through a coherent

Benefits
Realization
Capability

Enacted Defined by
through

Benefits
Realization
Enacted Competences
through Defined by
Defined by

Enacted
Benefits through Benefits
Realization Realization
Practices Practices

Underpinned by Underpinned by

Knowledge Skills Experience Behaviours

Figure 1 The relationship between capabilities, competences and practices.

European Journal of Information Systems

356 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al

set of benefits realization competences. As demonstrated programme of organizational change necessary to

in Figure 1, each benefits realization competence will be realize all of the benefits specified in the benefits
underpinned by a closely related suite of benefits realization plan’. It is important to note that the
realization practices, which in their totality help to benefits delivery competence is not simply enacted at
define the competence. a single point in the development life-cycle, but is
applied from the point at which the benefits plan is
approved through to the system’s implementation
The benefits realization competences framework
In our search for competences that explicitly contribute beyond go-live: as the technical solution gradually
to the realization of benefits from IT projects, we sought takes shape, so does the organizational re-design.
to identify clusters of knowledge, skills and routines, each 3. Benefits Review: The benefits from IT investments will
of which would be complementary, yet would make a only be realized if they are ‘measured and managed in a
distinct contribution to the overall benefits realization systematic way’ ( Jurison, 1996, p. 272). Organizations
capability. As well as being distinct, it was also important must, therefore, be able to effectively monitor and
that each identified competence should be applicable evaluate the results of their IT projects, on an on-going
across a wide variety of IT development projects and basis (Tallon et al., 2000), to ensure that its ability to
organizations, irrespective of role or context. deliver business value is incrementally improved
Although the literature is rather limited, with respect to (Remenyi & Sherwood-Smith, 1999). Consequently,
benefits realization competences, two pieces of work were the benefits review competence can be defined as the
particularly influential in shaping our model: the ‘the organization’s ability to effectively assess the success of
‘information competences’ framework (Peppard et al., a project in terms of the potential benefits, the delivered
2000; Peppard & Ward, 2004) helped in structuring our benefits, and the identification of the ways and means by
framework, while the process model for benefits manage- which further benefits might be realized’. Benefits review
ment (Ward et al., 1996, 2007; Ward & Daniel, 2006; is therefore conceived as being an ideal opportunity
Peppard et al., 2007) influenced its content. Based upon for organizational learning (Ward & Daniel, 2006), to
the literature review, four distinct competences were ensure that its capacity to successfully realize benefits
ultimately identified which should enhance an organiza- from IT projects can over a period of time be
tion’s ability to realize value from their IT investments, enhanced.
on a more consistent basis: 4. Benefits Exploitation: Ward & Daniel (2006) argue that
the quest to leverage benefits from a piece of business
1. Benefits Planning: Benefits do not simply emerge, as if software should not cease as soon as it has been
by magic, from the introduction of a new technology. implemented. Indeed, it is often the case that the full
Their realization needs to be carefully planned and potential of a particular application does not become
managed (Lin & Pervan, 2003; Markus, 2004). We apparent until it is fully operational and the stake-
define the benefits planning competence as ‘the ability holder community has become experienced in its use
to effectively identify and enumerate the planned outcomes
(Eason, 1988; Markus, 2004). In this respect, the ability
of an IS development project and explicitly stipulate the
to work with information is particularly crucial
means by which they will be achieved’. The benefits
(Marchand et al., 2000; Davenport et al., 2001). It is
planning competence should be capable of being
therefore necessary for organizations to develop and
applied to every individual IT project. When planning
apply a benefits exploitation competence, which can
benefits it is important that a degree of realism is
be defined as ‘the adoption of the portfolio of practices
applied: long-term value is far more likely to be
required to realize the potential benefits from information,
realized in situations where compromises are made,
applications and IT services, over their operational life’.
to ensure that the planned benefits are perceived to
More specifically, to ensure the long-term delivery of
satisfy both the organization and all its stakeholders
benefits it is necessary to conduct an on-going
( Jurison, 1996).
programme of organizational change and software
2. Benefits Delivery: As Strassman (1990, p. 519) notes
enhancements, both of which are determined by, and
‘computers add value only if surrounded by appro-
directed through, the application of the benefits
priate policy, strategy, methods for monitoring results,
exploitation competence.
talented and committed people, sound relationships
and well designed information systems’. Indeed, it can As can be seen for the schematic representation of the
be argued that benefits primarily arise from the benefits realization capability (presented in Figure 2),
organizational change that accompanies an IT im- the relationship between the competences can unfold in
plementation, rather than directly from the technol- a number of different ways. The first and most obvious
ogy (Peppard & Ward, 2005; Hughes & Scott Morton, route – as represented by the thicker, unbroken arrows –
2006). Consequently, organizations will only be able moves seamlessly from benefits planning, through
to deliver value from their IT investments if they can the benefits delivery phase to a major review of benefits,
develop a benefits delivery competence, which we and finally to on-going benefits exploitation, once
define as: ‘the ability to design and execute the the system is fully operational. The second, and probably

European Journal of Information Systems

 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al 357

Benefits
Delivery
Benefits
Competence
Planning
Competence

Benefits
Review
Competence

Benefits
Exploitation Key:
Competence Primary route
Secondary route

Figure 2 The benefits realization capability model.

more realistic, approach adopts the same primary investments, from both theoretical and empirical per-
relationship between competences, but views benefits spectives, and in so doing to help set the direction for
review as an on-going activity: plans are reviewed future research. To this end, a case study approach
and adjusted, delivered benefits are reviewed and (Silverman, 2000) was adopted, to ensure that the
modified, and the on-going exploitation also requires benefits realization capability could be explored from a
on-going review. number of different organizational perspectives. More
The four competences were each decomposed into a specifically, our aim was to critically review the conduct
number of distinct, yet complementary practices, each of of IS development projects, in a sample of case organiza-
which was identified from the literature. Given the tions, to explore the extent to which the approaches and
relative immaturity of the IT benefits realization litera- methods they utilized mapped onto our framework of
ture, it was necessary to conduct a broader review of the competences and practices. In so doing, we anticipated
IS literature, to identify potentially relevant benefits extending our initial framework through the identifica-
realization practices. In particular, contributions from tion of new practices, as well as exploring the extent to
the socio-technical (e.g. Clegg, 2000; Doherty & King, which existing practices were deployed.
2005), IT-enabled change (e.g. Markus & Benjamin, 1997; As a whole, the research philosophy adopted for this
Markus, 2004; Hughes & Scott Morton, 2006) and IT study can best be described as ‘pluralist’, as it incorporated
evaluation (e.g. Farbey et al., 1993; Remenyi & Sherwood- both interpretive and positivist elements, as recom-
Smith, 1999) literatures were found to be very useful, as mended by Lee (1991) and Mingers (2004). At first
they all have a strong focus on stakeholder involvement, glance, it may appear reasonable to view an approach
project outcomes and organizational change. These based upon the derivation and empirical testing of a
literatures presented insights into the various approaches, research model as being wholly positivistic, in terms of its
techniques or behaviours that might help to facilitate philosophical orientation. However, in executing the
benefits realization. However, none was explicitly posi- empirical element we attempted to adopt more of an
tioned as a benefits realization practice. Consequently, ‘interpretive’ style, as our overarching aim was to gain
the literature was initially used to identify any activities ‘knowledge of reality’ through the study of social construc-
that might support a benefits realization initiative, which tions, as manifested in language and documents (Klein &
could be classed as ‘candidate’ practices. Each of these was Myers, 1999). In particular, when reviewing the project
then critically reviewed, and if it conformed to our documentation and the interview responses, we were
definition of a practice, it was used to derive a benefits very sensitive to the fact that it was highly unlikely that
realization practice. These practices are listed and de- our candidate practices would manifest themselves in a
scribed in Table 1 – columns 1–5. consistent and clearly sign-posted manner. Moreover, we
recognized that, based upon their socially constructed
Research approach for empirical data collection manner, there were likely to be many additional benefits-
The research was designed as an exploratory study to oriented practices that have not as yet been addressed in
provide new insights into benefits realization from IT the literature.

European Journal of Information Systems

358 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al

Table 1 A framework of benefits realization practices

*
Code Practice Description Output Literature Incidence

BP1 Identify ‘Top down’ activity to clarify the Strategic Ward & Elvin (1999) Moderate – many projects used
strategic strategic/business drivers for the drivers and Ward & Daniel the language of driver analysis –
drivers project and its contribution to analysis (2006) but often at a high level and
the achievement of business with a technical focus.
strategy.
BP2 Analyse Conduct a structured, Analysis of Edwards & Peppard None – Users were sometimes
stakeholder ‘bottom-up’ analysis of the expectations by (1997) and Neely involved with projects, but
expectations stakeholders’ requirements, in stakeholder et al. (2002) there was no evidence that this
terms of delivered benefits. activity had a benefits’ focus.
BP3 Identify and Review of strategic drivers and Benefits analysis Peppard & Ward Moderate. Most organizations
define the stakeholder requirements, including: agreed (2005) and Peppard articulated the expected benefits,
benefits to identify/agree the target measures, targets et al. (2007) but often in very vague, or
benefits. and benefit owners technically oriented, terms. Few
projects established measurable
targets, and in no cases were
benefit owners established.
BP4 Establish Relate the benefits to business Process/benefit Peppard et al. (2007), Very low. Some projects gave
benefit/ processes to identify where map Bohn (1994), Brooke limited consideration to
process changes will take place and help (2000), Ward & Daniel localized processes.
interactions identify relevant measures. Assess (2006) and Bashein
the variability and uncertainty in et al. (1994)
the process and consider the
implications for benefits
realization.
BP5 Establish Identify stakeholder groups Stakeholder Eason (1988), Joshi Low. Several projects identified
benefit/ affected by the technology, and impact (1991), Benjamin & different stakeholders and particu-
stakeholder changes required to realize the assessment Levinson (1993) and larly different groups of users. The
interactions benefits. Identify business change Doolin (2004) analysis was not followed through
issues and actions required to addressing business change
including communication issues related to each stakeholder
and engagement with the (group) or to ensure the
stakeholders, and the re-design participation of the groups.
of job specifications.
BP6 Establish Explore the interaction between Organizational Doherty & King (2001) Very low. Not tackled in a
organization/ the benefits and a full range of impact Peppard et al. (2007) structured way.
benefits perspectives on the organization. assessment
interactions
BP7 Establish Establish a design for an IS Conceptual Eason (1988), Peppard Very low. But many projects took
technology/ solution that takes account architecture et al. (2007) advantage of the technology
benefits of the capabilities of the overview capabilities – this was typically
interactions technology. requirement rather than benefit
driven.
BP8 Plan benefits Develop an overall plan to show Benefits realization Ward et al. (1996) and Very low. However, one project to
realization the business case (what the plan: defines the Clegg et al. (1997) set up a new business operation
benefits are) and how they are benefits and the involved a solution based on
going to be realized. The plan actions required to establishing a range of business
relates to the type of project and realize them competences. In this scenario the
ensures the delivery of benefits is plan was equivalent to a benefits
phased as relevant and that there realization plan.
is appropriate consideration of
organizational factors.
BP9 Design a Design a governance framework Governance Clegg et al. (1997) and Very low. Projects had a business
framework addressing the business change framework Avgerou (2001) sponsor but this was not an
for business project, including the enabling active role and there was limited
change IS/IT activities. Agree how to involvement of other project
governance bring together the sponsor, stakeholders in project governance.
benefits owners, project manager As a result the actual focus was
and other stakeholders through largely on technical change.

European Journal of Information Systems

 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al 359

Table 1 Continued
*
Code Practice Description Output Literature Incidence

appropriate meetings, workshops

and other forms of
communication.
BP10 Benefits- Take a proactive approach to Risk assessment Gibson (2003) Low. Generally focused on solution
driven risk risk that focuses on business and action plan Also found in PRINCE2 delivery.
assessment change and benefits realization.
BD1 Establish an Establish a project life-cycle Project approach – Eason (1988, p. 48) and Very low. Many projects took this
adaptive pro- enabling change during the including definition Boehm & Turner (2004) approach but the focus seen was
ject life-cycle project in response to learning/ of phases, on solution delivery.
uncertainty – based on iterative, deliverables and
incremental delivery and a small milestones
number of major phases con-
trolled by phase end milestone
reviews. The adaptive life-cycle
continues into benefits ramp up
and evolution deployment.
BD2 Actively lead Design, build and lead the Role descriptions Ward & Daniel (2006), Low. Several examples involving
the business project team and governance Markus (2004) and the development of new products/
change framework with a focus on Serafeimidis & services for consumers had
realizing benefits. In particular, Smithson (2000) active leadership from Marketing
address responsibility for benefits (a Product Manager).
for the organization/sponsor,
benefits for the end user and the
effectiveness of the team.
BD3 Ensure conti- Ensure there is communication Participation Eason (1988), Clegg None
nuing active and involvement with all and et al. (1997) and
involvement stakeholders (based on the communication Benjamin & Levinson
of stake- stakeholder analysis) to gain plan (1993)
holders insight, ownership and support
for changes.
BD4 Specify The project focuses on the Business Eason (1988) and None
changes to design and delivery of a business solution Clegg et al. (1997)
work and solution. This will typically design
organizational require consideration of: business
design processes, working practices,
structures, roles, management
framework, performance
measures and culture.
BD5 Make bene- Trade-off decisions (features, Change Boehm & Turner (2004) Very low. All the projects adopted a
fits-driven cost and schedule) are driven log/decision clear strategy for trade-off decisions
trade-offs from a benefits perspective. log but with no explicit focus on
benefits impossible for most
projects. A small number did
identify the need for a benefits
focus.
BD6 Ensure bene- Take a proactive approach to Updated risk Ward & Elvin (1999) As above
fits-driven risk risk that focuses on business assessment and
management change and benefits realization. action plan
BD7 Implement Implement new and revised Changed Eason (1988) and Very low
organizational business processes, working organization – this Clegg et al. (1997)
changes practices, structures, roles, activity needs to be
management framework and monitored to
performance measures. Take ensure that planned
action as required to encourage changes are actioned
cultural changes.
BD8 Benefits- Ensure education and training Eason (1988), Clegg None
driven are focused on the realization of et al. (1997), Marchand
training and benefits. et al. (2000) and
education Davenport et al. (2001)

European Journal of Information Systems

360 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al

Table 1 Continued
*
Code Practice Description Output Literature Incidence

BR1 Establish Establish project evaluation Evaluation Ward & Peppard (2002) None
portfolio- criteria related to the application framework and and Farbey et al. (1999)
based portfolio – that is, using either criteria
evaluation different criteria for different
criteria areas of the portfolio or using
a basket of measures and
changing the weighting.
BR2 Benefits- Use agreed evaluation criteria Benefits Ward & Peppard (2002), Low – There is some evidence
driven to undertake a systematic assessment Farbey et al. (1999) and of benefits being evaluated, but
project assessment of benefits. report Gwillim et al. (2005) not in a comprehensive and
appraisal systematic manner.
BR3 Identify Where planned benefits have not Benefits Ward & Peppard (2002) None
actions to been achieved, or opportunities action and Farbey et al. (1999)
realize further for new benefits have been plan
benefits identified, a benefits’ action
plan needs to be established.
BR4 Facilitate Carry out lessons learned reviews Lessons learned Tippins & Sohi (2003) Moderate. Carried out as part
lessons at key stages in the project and report and Included in PRINCE2 of a post implementation
learned on project completion. action plan review.
reviews
BR5 Complete Carry out a review on completion Updated Earl & Khan (2001) None
architecturalof a project/to consider the architecture
roadmap contribution to the overall IS/IT roadmap
review architecture. Also consider the
strategic alignment of a
programme and implications
for future projects/releases.
BE1 Ensure Establish a clear business role for Agreed/active Ward & Peppard (2002), Very low. One organization saw the
ownership of ongoing ownership of realizing benefits owner Weill & Woodham output from a project as a number
continued benefits. (2003) and Goh & of services and established owners
benefits Kauffman (2005) for ensuring use and realization
exploitation of value from these services.
BE2 Maintain Training is focused around Up to date training/ Clegg et al. (1997) None
benefits- benefits realization and education resources.
driven establishing new ways of Ongoing training plan
training working. and provision
BE3 Evolve Continue to evolve working Revised working Brown & Duguid (2000, Very low. A small number of
working practices post deployment practices Chapter 4) projects identified the need for
practices to realize further benefits. ongoing, gradual learning
and change.
*Key to Practice ‘Code’: BP: benefits planning practices, BE: benefits exploitation practices, BD: benefits delivery practices, BR: benefits review practices.
Key to ‘Incidence’ of practices: Very Low: found only in 1–3 cases, Moderate: found in 10–15 cases, Low: found in up to 10 cases, High: found in more
than 15 cases.

Data collection contains comprehensive knowledge and informa-

Having established a framework of practices, linked to the tion about the conduct and outcomes of a range of IS
four distinct competences for benefits realization (see development projects. The knowledge base contains
Table 1), it was important to establish a systematic and detailed records of the vast majority of the projects
thorough method for acquiring evidence, from a variety carried out by the consultancy, and holds electronic
of recent IT development projects, relating to the copies of all critical project documentation, such as:
adoption and significance of each of these practices. It vision/scoping documents, project plans, risk assess-
was, therefore, necessary to identify a suitable sample of ments, functional designs and post-implementation
projects, and an appropriate mechanism for collecting reviews.
data relating to each project. Both the sample and the In selecting projects for inclusion in our study, the
primary research data were located at the same, rather primary aim was to choose only those projects that were
innovative source, namely a large global IT consultancy’s judged successful, in order to have an opportunity to
knowledge-base. This data source was chosen as it focus specifically on benefits realization. Moreover, only

European Journal of Information Systems

 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al 361

Table 2 Summary of reviewed projects

Case Type of organization Project

1 Logistics Providing up to date information on the status/location of packages to customers

2 Media Web publishing and news solution
3 Oil Upgrade desktop and communications infrastructure
4 Government Portal site for access to government services
5 Retail E-commerce solution
6 Financial services Customer sales and service solution
7 Manufacturer Communications (email, etc.) infrastructure upgrade
8 Manufacturer Content management system across information and e-commerce websites
9 Leisure Communications infrastructure consolidation and upgrade
10 Food manufacturer Website migration to new technology including workflow and content management
11 Oil Development of POS system for retail stores
12 Government Transaction portal providing services to business and citizens
13 Financial services Provide access to customer on the status of a mortgage application
14 Retail E-commerce site
15 Manufacturer Enterprise architecture and new centralized infrastructure including directory services
16 Telecommunications Unified directory service to link employee information
17 Recruitment/HR Employee purchasing system
18 Armed forces Internal collaboration and communication
19 Government Integrate criminal justice systems
20 Government Web portal to manage/publish educational materials to schools
21 Beverages Sales force automation
22 IT services Knowledge management solution
23 Retailer E-commerce solution
24 Government Speech enabled access to web portal to provide access to education information and services
25 Leisure Provide access to sales information to vendors/partners

projects that were highly ranked by the consultants were project document that gave credence to the explicit
considered, based on their assessment of the value, adoption of that practice.
completeness and reusability of the project documenta- 3. If a verdict of ‘yes – but ’ was recorded, the researcher
tion. Ultimately, 25 projects were selected that provided a was asked to record the specific evidence that could be
broad coverage in terms of organizational types and presented, to substantiate this claim, particularly
industry sectors represented. A summarized description focussing upon the caveats with regard to how it was
of all 25 projects and their host organization are adopted.
presented in Table 2. 4. Even if the researcher found ‘no’ evidence that a specific
To collect evidence from the knowledge base in a practice was adopted, he would still seek insights that
robust and consistent manner, a pro forma data collection might suggest why this practice was not adopted.
instrument was designed and tested. The aim of this
instrument was to ensure that we adopted a common Although the pro forma was a fairly straightforward
approach in recording information. For each practice, the document, before it was used on all the cases, it was
following issues were addressed: tested by two different members of the team indepen-
dently reviewing the same five cases, to ensure there was
1. Was there evidence that a specific benefits-oriented a common understanding of its purpose and execution.
practice was adopted? The answer to this question was Once data collection was underway, it became clear that
recorded as: ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Yes – but’.1 although the knowledge base was a very rich source of
2. If the researcher recorded an answer of ‘yes’, he was project related information, in many cases it was difficult
prompted to record the specific evidence that could be to determine the extent to which an explicit benefits-
presented, to substantiate this claim: evidence was oriented approach had been adopted. Moreover, in some
typically found in the form of a quote from a specific cases it was difficult to discern whether a specific
benefits-related practice had definitely not taken place,
or whether it might have taken place, but no mention of
1
it had been recorded in the knowledge bases. Conse-
In many cases there was evidence that a practice was adopted,
quently, a follow-up exercise was initiated to provide
but not exactly in the way described in Table 1. For example,
practices relating to risk assessment and user expectations’ richer insights into the adoption of benefits realization
analysis were often conducted, but not with any clear or practices within each project. To this end, the project
significant focus on benefits. managers for all 25 of the projects in the sample were

European Journal of Information Systems

362 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al

contacted and asked a series of questions with regard to on its intended outcome and did not expect to find
the success and conduct of their projects, from a benefits precisely the same form of the practice across the
realization perspective. All project managers were asked different organizations in the sample. In the following
to address the following five issues: discussion, practices are referred to within square brack-
ets as follows: [establish benefits dependency network].
1. Did the customer see your project as successful in IT
Illustrative quotes, taken directly from project docu-
terms (i.e. on time and budget and delivering key
ments, are presented in italics, while the document in
functional requirements)?
which the practice was cited and the case in which a
2. Did the customer assess the project in terms of
particular practice was observed are highlighted as
business benefits/value delivered?
follows {Post-implementation review: P1}, where ‘P’ refers
3. If the delivered value of the project was assessed, how
to project number. It is not the intention of this review of
was it assessed?
the findings – which has been organized around the four
4. Was the project successful in terms of business
high-level competences (see Figure 2) – to discuss in
benefits/value delivered?
detail each and every practice, but rather to focus
5. What roles/processes were instituted to manage the
specifically on the general trends emerging from the data.
realization of benefits/delivery of value (over and above
those used to deliver the core technology solution)?
Benefits planning
Of the 25 project managers contacted, 18 replied, and of As all IS projects should be primarily driven by the host
these 15 presented sufficiently detailed responses, to organization’s strategic imperatives (Earl, 1993), it was
include them in our analysis. The initial contacts and the reassuring to find that one of the most commonly
replies were handled via email, which proved to be a very occurring benefits planning practices was to review
rewarding medium, as it allowed the respondents to the project’s drivers [BP2: identify strategic drivers],
provide measured responses, and it let the researchers to ensure that the project would contribute positively
pose follow-up questions, in situations where clarifica- to corporate strategy. However, there was a tendency for
tion was needed. these drivers to be expressed in very high level, and often
vague, terms such as:
Mode of analysis
To help make sense of the data, key chunks of text from  ‘to develop a platform upon which to build new and support
the documents from the knowledge-base and the email- existing revenue’ {Vision and Scope: P2};
based interview responses were highlighted, and anno-  ‘to be a showcase for the use of information technology in
tated with ‘in-vivo’ codes – that is codes derived from government bodies’ {Vision and Scope: P4};
phrases used repeatedly by informants (Strauss & Corbin,  ‘to reduce time to market’ {Vision and Scope: P8};
1990). Following the within case analysis of all the source  ‘to provide improved reporting to enhance strategic purchas-
documents, a variable-oriented cross-case analysis (Miles ing’ {Vision and Scope: P17}.
& Huberman, 1994) was conducted to identify key  ‘to create a new and stable Internet portal which helps the end
themes and patterns across the sample. To ensure that a user to obtain information quickly’ {Vision and Scope: P24};
rich and valid interpretation of the data was achieved, Although this practice [BP2: identify strategic drivers] was
the within-case and cross-case analysis was not con- widely adopted, it became apparent that it was not being
ducted in a single iteration. Indeed, the researchers done rigorously. It was as if the project teams knew it was
sought to ‘understand the whole’ by continually revising required but did not have the knowledge or motivation
it in ‘view of the reinterpretation of the parts’ (Myers, 1994, required to enact the practice effectively. Although the
p. 56). Consequently, the researchers continued to re-visit project aims were typically articulated in strategic terms,
the documentary evidence and the interview responses to there was no explicit discussion of how these strategic
help integrate the individual pieces of evidence into a aims would be realized, nor any explicit links to corporate
coherent whole (Butler, 1998). strategies to provide evidence of alignment.
Having established the strategic drivers, most organiza-
Research findings tions had broken these down into a number of lower level
The framework of practices for benefits realization (see benefits [BP3: identify and define benefits]. For the most
Table 1; columns 1–5) was used as an explicit mechanism part these were also fairly ill-defined, such as:
for exploring the extent to which each practice –
identified from the literature – was being adopted in  ‘reduce the operational costs for maintaining the web-site’
our sample of systems development projects. The results {Vision and Scope: P8};
of this exercise have also been summarized in Table 1  ‘to provide searchable indexing for web-site’ {Vision and
(column 6), and are reviewed more fully in the following Scope: P20};
discussion. In carrying out the analysis we kept in mind  ‘to make the work of representatives more effective’ {Vision
that we would expect different organizations to adapt and Scope: P21};
practices based on their experience and culture. So in  ‘to provide users with easy-to-use online e-procurement for
identifying evidence of a practice we focused particularly ordering office supplies’ {Vision and Scope: P24}.

European Journal of Information Systems

 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al 363

In a small number of cases, there were examples of All too often practices are ignored, or where they have
benefits that were articulated in a more measurable, been adopted, typically have a focus on the delivery of
but not necessarily a business-oriented form, such as: features and technical functionality, rather than the
‘generate 1 million visitors per month’ {Vision and Scope: realization of benefits. For example, one particularly
P14}. In another case {Vision and Scope: P17}, a portfolio glaring hole in the case organizations’ adoption of
of distinct ‘business goals’ had been established, each of practices was the absence of any explicit attempt to
which was supported by a detailed discussion of why it formulate a benefits realization plan [BP8: plan benefits
was important, but for the most part, these goals were realization]. Indeed, the main rationale for identifying
expressed in terms of the system’s functionality. benefits, in the planning stages of our case organizations,
By and large, the need to articulate benefits, during a was to facilitate the projects’ approval, rather than as a
project’s planning phase, had been recognized across driver for how it is managed. Project teams still strongly
projects, but all too often these benefits were either prioritize, and focus upon, planning for the delivery of an
articulated in a very general business sense, or in terms of IS/IT solution, rather than engaging in any systematic
the system’s functionality and features or its intended attempt to understand the linkage between delivered
usage, rather than clearly measurable business terms. functionality, complementary organizational change and
Moreover, there was absolutely no evidence of organiza- the ultimate realization of business benefits. One possible
tions explicitly identifying owners for these benefits, to explanation for this technological orientation was offered
help facilitate their ultimate realization. The difficulty of by an interviewee {P6} who noted: ‘too many techies were
getting organizations to provide clear measures for involved in the logical design – there should have been more
benefits was highlighted by a project manager {P21} input from business analysts’. This view was supported by
who lamented: ‘At the start of the project we asked another project team, where one of the key lessons
about success criteria and how they (the customer) would learned was that: ‘to make a successful delivery we need to
measure return on investment. All we could get out of them emphasise the business-driven principle, for the requirements’
was that other players in the market already had similar collection, analysis and prioritization’ {post-implementation
technologies, and they wanted to eliminate all paper from their review; P14}.
sales cycle’.
Even where business benefits are clearly identified, this Benefits delivery
is not sufficient to facilitate their realization, as the The empirical data provided little evidence that any of
delivery of business value is dependent upon the re- the practices related to the benefits delivery competence
design of business processes, organizational structures were being routinely or uniformly applied. For example,
and user working practices, as well as the provision of the majority of the projects adopted an ‘agile’ approach to
new technical functionality. However, there was very IS development [BD1: adopt an adaptive project life-
little evidence from our study that any of the case cycle], such as that advocated by Boehm & Turner (2004),
organizations explicitly addressed these issues in the which might have been expected to facilitate the phased
planning phase of their projects. In a small number of delivery of benefits. However, in practice, it was focused
cases, there was a recognition that the realization of upon features and functions, rather than benefits: ‘the
benefits was predicated upon the changing of business release of the solution will be divided into multiple releases
processes. As one report noted: ‘one of the biggest mistakes culminating in a fully functional, feature-rich solution’
of this project would be to introduce new technologies without {Vision Scope: P11}. With the adoption of agile and
changing the processes’ {Vision and Scope: P4}. However, adaptive development approaches comes the opportu-
there was no evidence of any attempts to explicitly nity to make trade-off decisions between different
establish the relationship between the re-design of development alternatives, based upon the strength of
specific business processes with the realization of benefits their relationship to benefits realization [BD5: make
[BP4: establish benefit-process interactions]. The linking benefits-driven trade-offs]. For example, in the case of a
of the delivery of business benefits to changes in wide-ranging e-Government project, an overriding
stakeholder behaviour was perhaps a little more positive aim was to: ‘find quick win and win-win possibilities
[BP5: establish stakeholder-benefit interactions]. Indeed, and see how the solution can be implemented in the most
in one case an entire section of the functional specifica- efficient and quickest way’ {Vision and Scope: P4}. However,
tion was devoted to detailing: ‘the types of people who while such approaches were the exception, rather
would be affected by the release, and the manner in which they than the rule, at least one other organization realized
will interact with the system’ {P14}. However, in the vast their importance, albeit in retrospect; as one interviewee
majority of cases, these analyses focused on the manner noted: ‘there should have been more emphasis on the trade-off
in which stakeholders would interact with the system, triangle’ {P6}.
rather than explicitly detailing how their roles and One area where there was a little more evidence of
responsibilities should be modified to facilitate the practice adoption was with regard to the appointment of
realization of benefits. a business manager to lead the business change and to
Overall, from our data, the adoption of practices in facilitate communication with the stakeholder commu-
support of benefits planning is very limited and sporadic. nities [BD2: Actively lead the business change]. For

European Journal of Information Systems

364 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al

example, many case organizations appointed product evidence that any specific practices in support of this
managers or project sponsors, who had a range of were being adopted in any of our case studies. In
responsibilities, including ‘making the final decisions particular, it was rather disappointing that little evidence
regarding scope, cost and project resources’ {Vision and could be found to suggest that case organizations were
Scope: P2}, or ‘defining project objectives and success criteria either identifying a set of criteria upon which the success
to ensure that the project remains focussed on successfully of their projects could be judged [BR1: establish evalua-
fulfilling its defined vision’ {Vision and Scope: P20}. In tion criteria] or formally reviewing the benefits realized
another case, a ‘technology committee’ had been estab- from their IT investments [BR2: benefits-driven project
lished, which had responsibility for making: ‘business- appraisal]. In most cases, the project managers had a
based IT decisions’ {P6}. However, in some cases it was clear view as to whether, and which ways, the project
evident that the act of appointing business owners or delivered value, but admitted that no concrete evidence
committees had not been translated into any benefits- had been collected to support these perceptions. Typical
oriented activity, as was made clear in one post- responses included: ‘no hard value numbers were collected’
implementation review: ‘the product owner has not been {P3}; ‘it was successful, but I don’t think they tried to quantify
involved in this project’ {P8}. Moreover, in many organiza- it’ {P6}; and ‘there was no assessment in terms of business
tions it was clear that the project sponsor had failed in impact’ {P26}. By contrast, in a small number of the cases,
one of their primary roles, namely facilitating commu- specific benefit measures had been collated, using
nication. As one interviewee {P6} noted: ‘communications measures such as: ‘reduction in unhappy calls to their
did not always filter down to the teams in a timely manner’. call centre’ {P5} or ‘reductions in the time it took for suppliers
All the projects reviewed followed a tried and tested to receive feedback on their product sales’ {P25}. However,
model that proved to be very effective in facilitating the these tended to be very targeted assessments of one or
timely delivery of IS/IT solutions, with a small team of two key benefits, rather than systematic and comprehen-
fairly technically oriented staff. Unfortunately, there was sive reviews of all benefits. In only one case had a
virtually no evidence to suggest that the project teams project team attempted to establish a clear link between
had actively engaged in the critical element of benefits the original project goals, and the extent to which each
realization, namely the enactment of changes to the had been successfully achieved {post-implementation
design of the host organization, nor the working practices review, P8}.
of project stakeholders [BD7: implement business It was also interesting to note that while all 25 of the
changes]. Indeed, a review of all the project plans projects were considered to be technically successfully,
confirmed that no time or resources had been explicitly they were not always viewed as being successful in terms
reserved to enact a programme of organizational change, of benefits realized or value delivered. In one notable case
either before or after systems’ implementation. This view {P14}, a website for online sales was delivered to a client
was supported by the largely negative responses from on-time, to budget and to specification. However, within
project managers when questioned about the roles and a year the website had been withdrawn as it was failing to
processes they had in place to manage the delivery of attract customers, and deliver any meaningful benefits.
value. Typical responses included: ‘from a business point of As the Project Manager {P14} noted: ‘during the dot.com
view, I don’t know {P13}’; ‘there was no formal role to manage frenzy, value metrics were often overlooked’. This finding is
value delivery’ {P21}; ‘honestly very few’ {P24}; and ‘not important as it underlines the point that the successful
many’ {P25}. delivery of an effective IT solution does not guarantee
Although evidence for the adoption of a wide range of that the resultant system will deliver meaningful
benefits delivery practices, from the framework, was very business benefits.
sparse, there was one important area in which a new Although limited evidence of benefits review practices
candidate practice emerged, namely, the ‘facilitation of could be found, there was some recognition that this was
knowledge transfer’. Having identified the planned a major deficiency, and therefore something that should
benefits one organization {P8} recognized the need to be changed in future projects. For example one team
stimulate knowledge sharing throughout the project, in highlighted the need for: ‘better tracking of the complete
support of benefits delivery. More specifically, this investment and projected return, in terms of product sales,
organization introduced: ‘Regularly scheduled, informal increased customer satisfaction, service and support’ {post-
briefing sessions, to allow interaction of project personnel implementation review: P8}. In a similar vein, a project
and serve as a communication technique for members manager {P24} noted: ‘Return on Investment (ROI) is used to
of the project teams, to provide an effective method of justify projects, but during execution we loose focus on value,
knowledge transfer between individuals and projects’ {Vision and monitoring value’. If nothing else, this provides some
and Scope: P8}. evidence that organizations were reflecting upon how the
performance of the projects could be improved [BR4:
Benefits review conduct review of lessons learned]. Overall, however, the
From our review of the literature, it was relatively easy to general situation was that projects ended at or very soon
establish a strong case for organizations to develop a after the ‘go-live’ date for the new software, with project
competence in benefits review, but there was very little success judged by the on-time, on-budget delivery of a

European Journal of Information Systems

 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al 365

technology solution, rather than through the realization process re-engineering, organizational change manage-
of the benefits. ment and benefits realization. We found no evidence –
across the cases – of the adoption of a well integrated
Benefits exploitation portfolio of benefits realization practices, which could be
Because project teams tended to be disbanded very soon seen to demonstrate a ‘benefits realization capability’.
after the go-live date, there was very little evidence to Moreover, although we discovered many individual
suggest that on-going benefits exploitation was explicitly instances of specific practices being adopted, overall,
practiced in any of the case organizations. However, in these practices were not in widespread use, either within
two cases managers were appointed to have responsibility or across organizations.
for the long-term management and performance of the Despite this rather sporadic adoption of benefits
operational software [BE1: ensure on-going ownership of realization practices, it was possible to discern a number
benefits]. For example one project manager {P6} noted of important patterns, across the case organizations. For
that ‘after a long battle, we managed to get them to name a example, it was evident that the focus upon business
person with responsibility for running the complete system – benefits was most acute at the project’s outset: most
software, people and processes’. In a similar vein, another organization’s attempted to identify the strategic drivers
organization had explicitly planned to appoint a man- for their projects, and then establish the benefits that
ager whose responsibilities would include: ‘process im- were sought. However, the rationale for adopting these
provement’ and ‘relationships with top managers in various practices owed more to getting the project authorized
business units and with stakeholders’ {project plan: P15}. and funding approved than it did to acting as a point of
While in neither case were these individuals explicitly departure for the proactive management of benefits.
tasked with benefits exploitation, their focus upon the Consequently, following their initial identification, busi-
on-going management of people and processes, as well as ness benefits tended to disappear from the project teams’
technology, put them in an ideal position to do so. agendas until the software was implemented, at which
point the benefits might possibly be evaluated, but rarely
Discussion in a comprehensive or systematic fashion. The only other
An urgent problem facing both the IS academic and the significant juncture at which business benefits were
IT practitioner communities is how the billions of dollars explicitly considered was during the post-implementa-
that organizations collectively invest in IT can be more tion review, at which stage a number of project teams
effectively and consistently translated into meaningful made clear recommendations that more specific benefits-
business benefits. There is growing recognition that the related practices should be adopted in future projects.
adoption of more explicit and proactive approaches to Given that we found very little evidence to suggest that
realizing any expected benefits might be one effective benefits-oriented practices are being adopted in any
way of facing this challenge (Ward & Elvin, 1999; Lin & comprehensive or systematic way, it is important to
Pervan, 2003; Ward & Daniel, 2006). However, the question why this situation might have arisen. There are
literature in this area is relatively immature, and there at least three plausible explanations to this question.
have been few studies that explicitly address the practice Firstly, as IS development projects are enacted by a wide
of benefits realization from IT investments. We lack well- variety of human actors interacting in a multitude of
defined methods, techniques and tools for benefits ways with a complex technical artefact (De Sanctis &
realization. Benefits realization should be conceived of Poole, 1994; Rose & Jones, 2005), there is a high
as an enterprise-wide capability, which is then operation- probability that their outcomes and impacts will be
alized through an integrated framework of competences exceptionally difficult to predict in advance: there are
and ‘socially defined practices’ (Wenger et al., 2002). always likely to be planned outcomes that are not
Although the explicit literature on benefits realization is realized (Clegg et al., 1997), as well as a wide variety of
fairly thin, our study shows that there is much relevant unintended consequences (Schultze & Orlikowski, 2004;
knowledge, embedded within the wider IS literature, McAulay, 2007). Consequently, it can be argued that
which can be used to derive a benefits realization organizations would be wasting their money in trying to
framework. proactively manage benefits. An alternative, or perhaps
By using a conceptual framework as the lens for complementary, explanation might be found in the
exploring the extent to which a sample of organizations composition of the sample. It can be argued that
are already adopting benefits realization practices, our consultancy organizations would be very focused on
analysis of these cases shows that there is a very discussing benefits with their clients at the outset of a
substantial gap between what we know from the project, but would then want to be left alone to get on
literature about the impact of adopting a strong benefits with what they perceive to be the job: delivering a
focus (Ward et al., 1996), when managing IS projects, and technical solution on time and to budget. Under this
what happens in practice. Indeed, the vast majority of the scenario, the consultancy would see its job as delivering a
projects investigated for this study focused on the design solution that has the potential to deliver benefits, but
and delivery of an IS/IT (technical) solution with only a responsibility for managing the conversion of potential
very limited focus on the wider issues of work re-design, into realized value (Davern & Kauffman, 2000) would lie

European Journal of Information Systems

366 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al

with the client organization, and how they adapt and explicit benefits realization approach compelling, our
appropriate their delivered system. However, it is highly framework of competences and practices (see Table 1)
unlikely that benefits will ultimately be delivered if the provides some very interesting insights into how such a
client has not been actively involved in the identification programme might be organized and managed. However,
and realization of benefits during the application devel- it is important to provide some qualifications on how this
opment phase. The third and perhaps most positive framework might best be utilized, as we do not want it to
interpretation of our findings is that organizational become simply another ‘necessary fiction’ (Nandhakumar
development teams have limited awareness of the & Avison, 1999), with respect to the management of IT
importance of proactively managing benefits, or the projects. In particular, the empirical study has demon-
availability of benefits-oriented approaches. If this final strated that different organizations have enacted a
interpretation should prove to be at least a partial common practice in their own distinct ways. Moreover,
explanation to this apparent lack of interest in managing it is unlikely that every identified practice will be needed
benefits, then hopefully this paper should make a useful in all circumstances. Consequently, we would suggest
contribution in this respect. that the framework of practices should be viewed as a
Our findings arose because we adopted a practice lens reference guide and point of departure for organizations
for studying IS projects, rather than opting for the more to develop their own benefits realization capability,
common, and rather discredited, focus upon develop- which is tailored to their own ways of working and
ment methodologies (Nandhakumar & Avison, 1999). specific organizational requirements. Other important
Practices relate to how people actually work and may lessons include:
provide an effective way to share knowledge and enable
organizations to establish the competences required to  Focus on the benefits, not the technology: For the IT
realize the potential benefits of IS/IT. We have found the manager the key message must be that the delivery of a
concept of a ‘practice’, a useful way to compare how successful technical solution may be a necessary, but
people actually approach realizing benefits from invest- certainly not a sufficient, condition for the realization
ments in IS/IT, across a wide range of organizations. of a range of significant business benefits. Conse-
However, it would be naı̈ve to suggest that the framework quently, the outcomes of future IS projects must be
of practices could be applied, in an undifferentiated form, defined in terms of specific benefits to be realized,
in all situations and circumstances. Practices are socially rather than the functionality of the technology that is
constructed ways of working (Newell et al., 2004), and to be delivered.
groups of stakeholders, operating in a particular organi-  Effective benefits realization requires on-going commitment:
zational context, will need to adopt and adapt them to Having identified the benefits to be delivered, project
suit their requirements. managers will need to initiate a proactive and on-going
Although we have sought to adopt systematic and benefits realization programme that ensures that
rigorous research approaches, there is only so much benefits remain the primary focal point for all
ground that a single study can cover. Consequently, there decisions with regard to the development of the IS.
are important opportunities for follow-up studies, which  Benefits realization is a shared responsibility: Because of
are explicitly designed to build upon and extend our its strong focus on corporate strategies and organiza-
reported findings. In so doing, a more complete picture of tional change, benefits realization is not an under-
the practices and competences required to realize benefits taking that can be solely accomplished by IT
from IS/IT should start to emerge. For example, because professionals. Indeed, the primary responsibility for
we focussed primarily on the review of project documen- benefits realization should probably reside with man-
tation, it may well be that additional practices become agers from the host department, team or business unit
evident through studies based upon observation and that will ultimately own the system. However, IT
more comprehensive interviews. The focus on projects professionals will need to work in close collaboration
undertaken by a single consultancy might have also with business stakeholders to ensure that the resultant
helped to shape our findings, so follow-up studies that system’s functionality and performance is well aligned
target a variety of different organizational contexts will with the users’ needs.
also be important. Of particular interest will be detailed  The management of consultancy projects: At a time when
case-based studies in organizations that have already the proportion of IT projects being outsourced to
accepted the need for a strong benefits’ orientation, so consultancies is high and rising (Sauer & Cuthbertson,
that their adoption of socially constructed practices can 2003), there is a need for the customer to be prepared
be explored at close quarters. to take on responsibility for the benefits realization
activity, as the consultancy may not see this as being
within their terms of reference.
Lessons learned
From the study’s findings, it is possible to distil a number Because of the novelty of this research, both in terms of
of important lessons that have implications for managers its focus and approach, it has also been possible to
both within, and outside, the IT organization. For those identify a number of important implications for the
managers who find the arguments for adopting a more researcher. In particular, the framework of benefits

European Journal of Information Systems

 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al 367

realization competences and practices provides an im- opment projects, largely because IT professionals still
portant set of new constructs that can be further explored tend to focus primarily on the delivery of a technical
and validated through future studies. Moreover, the solution, on time, on budget and to specification.
adoption of an innovative source of research data – Despite the absence of any clear evidence that it is
namely the consultancy knowledge-base – might also be already being utilized, there are strong grounds to believe
an approach that other academics, working in this that organizations should be looking to establish a
domain, might care to adopt. benefits realization capability, rather than continuing to
pin their hopes solely on the use of traditional systems
Conclusions development methodologies. It has long been recognized
The cost of failed IS/IT projects, in the U.K. alone, is many that the real benefits of IS are typically realized once users
billions of pounds annually (British Computer Society, begin to appropriate the technology and adapt it to their
2004). The cost of missed opportunities is probably a own requirements and working contexts (Boiney, 1998;
great deal more. Consequently, in seeking to explore how Majchrzak et al., 2000). Moreover, IT should not be
more systems development projects might result in the viewed and managed as an island, but rather seen as an
delivery of benefits, rather than end in failure, this study integral part of organizational life. Consequently, the
has tackled a major issue. The research has resulted in the establishment of an enterprise-wide, benefits realization
development of conceptual model of a benefits realiza- capability, based upon socially constructed ways of
tion capability, enacted through competences and under- working, may have an important role to play in
pinned by practices that explicitly support the effective organizations wanting to rise to the challenge of
management of benefits. As a practice has been defined generating value from their IT investments.
in terms of ‘socially defined ways of doing things in an
organization’, this stakeholder-oriented model provides a Acknowledgements
novel alternative to the more common ways of viewing We thank the anonymous referees for the many helpful
systems development projects, in terms of formal tools, suggestions made with respect to initial drafts of this paper,
techniques and methods. Unfortunately, the empirical as well as the Associate Editor and Editor-in-Chief, for their
element of the study suggests that very few of these many constructive proposals, which played an important
benefits-oriented practices have been adopted in devel- role in helping to shape the final version of this paper.

About the authors

Colin Ashurst is the FME Senior Teaching Fellow in IS Research, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of End User
and Business Transformation in the Business School at Computing, Information Technology & People, Behaviour & IT
the University of Durham. His research interests include and Information & Management. Neil is currently an
IS strategy (identifying opportunities and priorities for IS associate editor for Information Technology and People
investments); realizing benefits from IS investments; and the International Journal of Electronic Business Research.
succeeding with projects and programmes to deliver Joe Peppard holds the Chair in IS and is also Director of
organizational change, particularly where business the Information Systems Research Centre, the IT Leader-
innovation and change are significant; improving the ship Forum and has recently launched the innovative
productivity of knowledge work; and building the Cranfield IT Leadership Programme. He is also Adjunct
organizational capability to succeed in realizing value Professor at the University of South Australia. Over the
from the IS investment portfolio. Colin has broad years he has held academic appointments at Loughbor-
commercial experience from a range of IT management ough University, Trinity College Dublin, Groningen
and consulting roles. University and the University of Sydney. The focus of
Neil Doherty currently holds the Chair in Information Professor Peppard’s research and teaching is in the area of
Management in the Business School at Loughborough IS and technology strategy and management. He has
University. In addition to benefits management, his published widely in academic and general business and
research interests include the interaction between orga- management journals. His most recent books include
nizational issues and technical factors in IS development, Strategic Planning for Information Systems (Wiley) and
understanding the reasons for failures of IS projects, Customer Relationship Management: Perspectives from the
strategic IS planning and e-commerce. Neil has had Marketplace (Butterworth-Heinemann). He is currently
papers published in a range of academic journals, working on a book Creating a Value-Adding IS Capability:
including European Journal of Information Systems, Journal Delivering High Performance, Liberating Business Value.
of Information Technology, Journal of Strategic Information He is European Editor of the Journal of Information
Systems, Information Resources Management Journal, IEEE Technology and an Editorial Board Member of European
Transactions in Engineering Management, Journal of Business Management Journal.

European Journal of Information Systems

368 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al

References
AHN J and SKUDLARK A (1997) Resolving conflict of interests in the process development projects. European Journal of Information Systems 10,
of an information system implementation for advanced telecommu- 147–160.
nication services. Journal of Information Technology 12, 3–13. DOHERTY NF and KING M (2005) From technical to socio-technical
AMIT R and SCHOEMAKER PJH (1993) Strategic assets and organizational change: tackling the human and organizational aspects of systems
rent. Strategic Management Journal 14, 33–46. development projects. European Journal of Information Systems
AVGEROU C (2001) The significance of context in information systems and 14(1), 1–5.
organizational change. Information Systems Journal 11(1), 43–63. DOHERTY NF, KING M and AL-MUSHAYT O (2003) The impact of
BARNEY JB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. inadequacies in the treatment of organizational issues on information
Journal of Management 17, 99–120. systems development projects. Information and Management 41(1),
BASHEIN BJ, MARKUS ML and RILEY P (1994) Preconditions for BPR success, 49–62.
and how to prevent failures. Information Systems Management 11(2), DOOLIN B (2004) Power and resistance in the implementation of a
7–13. medical management information system. Information Systems Journal
BENBASAT I and ZMUD RW (1999) Empirical research in information 14(4), 343–362.
systems: the practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 3–16. EARL MJ (1993) Experiences in strategic information systems planning.
BENJAMIN RI and LEVINSON E (1993) A framework for managing IT-enabled MIS Quarterly 17(1), 1–24.
change. Sloan Management Review, 34(4), 23–33. EARL MJ and KHAN B (2001) E-Commerce is changing the face of IT. MIT
BLACK JA and BOAL KB (1994) Strategic resources: traits, configurations, Sloan Management Review, 43(1).
and paths to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Manage- EASON K (1988) Information Technology and Organizational Change.
ment Journal 15, 131–148. Taylor & Francis, London.
BOEHM B and TURNER R (2004) Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for EASON K (2001) Changing perspectives on the organisational conse-
the Perplexed. Addison-Wesley, Boston. quences of information technology. Behaviour & Information Techno-
BOHN RE (1994) Measuring and managing technological knowledge. MIT logy 20(5), 323–328.
Sloan Management Review, 36(1), 61–73. EDWARDS C and PEPPARD J (1997) Operationalizing strategy through
BOINEY LG (1998) Reaping the benefits of information technology process. Long Range Planning 30(5), 753–767.
in organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 34(3), EWUSI-MENSAH K and PRZASNYSKI Z (1994) Factors contributing to the
327–346. abandonment of information systems development projects. Journal of
BOWMAN C and AMBROSINI V (2000) Value creation versus value capture: Information Technology 9, 185–201.
towards a coherent definition of value in strategy. British Journal of FARBEY B, LAND F and TARGET D (1993) How to Assess Your IT Investment.
Management 11, 1–15. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
BREU K and PEPPARD J (2003) Useful knowledge for information systems FARBEY B, LAND F and TARGETT D (1999) Evaluating investments in IT:
practice: the contribution of the participatory paradigm. Journal of findings and a framework. In Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox
Information Technology 18, 177–193. (WILLCOCKS L and LESTER S, Eds), pp 183–215, Wiley, Chichester.
BRITISH COMPUTER SOCIETY (2004) The Challenge of Complex IT Projects. GIBSON C (2003) IT-enabled business change: an approach to under-
BCS, London. standing and managing risk. MISQ Executive 2(2), 104–115.
BROOKE C (2000) A framework for evaluating organizational choice GOH KH and KAUFFMAN RJ (2005) Towards a theory of value latency for IT
and process redesign issues. Journal of Information Technology 15(1), investments. Paper presented at 38th Hawaii International Conference
17–28. on Systems Science, January, p. 231a.
BROWN JS and DUGUID P (2000) The Social Life of Information. Harvard GRANT RM (1996a) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.
Business School Press, Boston. Strategic Management Journal 17, 109–122.
BUTLER T (1998) Towards a hermeneutic method for interpretive research GRANT RM (1996b) Prospering in dynamically competitive environments:
in information systems. Journal of Information Technology 13, 285–300. organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization
CARLILE P (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Science 7, 375–387.
boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science GRINT K and WOOLGAR S (1997) The Machine at Work. Polity Press,
13(4), 442–455. Cambridge.
CLEGG C, AXTELL C, DAMODARAN L, FARBEY B, HULL R, LLOYD-JONES R, GWILLIM D, DOVEY K and WIEDER B (2005) The politics of post-
NICHOLLS J, SELL R and TOMLINSON C (1997) Information technology: a implementation reviews. Information Systems Journal 15(4), 307–319.
study of performance and the role of human and organizational HELFAT CE and PETERAF MA (2003) The dynamic resource-based
factors. Ergonomics 40(9), 851–871. view: capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal 24(10),
CLEGG CW (2000) Socio-technical principles for system design. Applied 997–1010.
Ergonomics 31, 463–477. HOCHSTRASSER B and GRIFFITHS C (1991) Controlling IT Investment.
DAVENPORT TH, HARRIS G, DELONG D and JACOBSON AL (2001) Data to Chapman Hall, London.
knowledge to results: building an analytical capability. California HUGHES A and SCOTT MORTON MS (2006) The transforming power
Management Review 43(2), 117–138. of complementary assets. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(4),
DAVERN MJ and KAUFFMAN RJ (2000) Discovering potential and realizing 50–58.
value from information technology investments. Journal of Manage- JOSHI K (1991) A model of users’ perspective on change: the case of
ment Information Systems 16(4), 121–143. information systems technology implementation. MIS Quarterly 15(2),
DAVIDSON E and CHIASSON M (2005) Contextual influences on technology 229–242.
use mediation: a comparative analysis of electronic medical records JURISON J (1996) Towards more effective management of infor-
system. European Journal of Information Systems 14(1), 6–18. mation technology benefits. Journal of Strategic Information systems
DESANCTIS G and POOLE MS (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced 5(4), 263–274.
technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization 5(2), KANGAS K (1999) Competency and capabilities based competition and
121–147. the role of information technology: the case of trading by a Finland-
DOHERTY NF, COOMBS CR and LOAN CLARKE J (2006) A re-conceptualiza- based firm to Russia. Journal of Information Technology Cases and
tion of the interpretive flexibility of information technologies: Applications 1(2), 4–22.
redressing the balance between the social and the technical. European KEEN P (1991) Keynote address: relevance and rigor in information
Journal of Information Systems 15(6), 569–582. systems research. In Information Systems Research: Contemporary
DOHERTY NF and KING M (1998) The consideration of organizational Approaches and Emergent Traditions (NISSEN HE, KLEIN HK and
issues during the systems development process: an empirical analysis. HIRSCHHEIM R, Eds), pp 27–49, Elsevier Publishers, Amsterdam.
Behaviour & Information Technology 17(1), 41–51. KLEIN HK and MYERS MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and
DOHERTY NF and KING M (2001) An investigation of the factors evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS
affecting the successful treatment of organizational issues in systems Quarterly 23(1), 67–94.

European Journal of Information Systems

 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al 369

LEDERER AL and NATH R (1991) Managing organizational issues in PEPPARD J and WARD J (2005) Unlocking sustained business value from IT
systems development. Journal of Systems Management 24(11), investments. California Management Review, 48(1), 52–69.
23–27. PEPPARD J, WARD J and DANIEL E (2007) Managing the realization
LEE A (1991) Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to of business benefits from IT investments. MIS Quarterly Executive
organizational research. Organization Science 2(4), 342–365. 6(1), 1–11.
LIN C and PERVAN G (2003) The practice of IS/IT benefits management PFEFFER J and SUTTON R (2000) The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart
in large Australian organizations. Information & Management 41(1), Companies Turn Knowledge Into Action. Harvard Business School
31–44. Press, Boston.
LYYTINEN K and HIRSCHHEIM R (1987) Information systems failures: a survey PRAHALAD CK and HAMEL G (1990) The core competencies of the
and classification of the empirical literature. Oxford Surveys in corporation. Harvard Business Review 68(3), 79–91.
Information Technology 4, 257–309. REMENYI D and SHERWOOD-SMITH M (1999) Maximise information systems
MAJCHRZAK A, RICE RE, MALHOTRA A, KING N and BA S (2000) Technology value by continuous participative evaluation. Logistics Information
adaptation: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational Management 12(1/2), 145–156.
virtual team. MIS Quarterly 24(4), 569–600. REMENYI D, SHERWOOD-SMITH M and WHITE T (1997) Achieving Maximum
MARCHAND DA, KETTINGER W and ROLLINS JD (2000) Information Value from Information Systems: A Process Approach. John Wiley & Sons,
orientation: people, technology and bottom line. Sloan Management Chichester.
Review, 41(4), 69–80. ROBEY D and BOUDREAU MC (1999) Accounting for contradictory
MARKUS ML (2004) Technochange management: using IT to organizational consequences of IT. Information Systems Research
drive organizational change. Journal of Information Technology 19(1), 10(2), 167–185.
4–20. ROBEY D and MARKUS L (1998) Beyond rigor and relevance: producing
MARKUS ML and BENJAMIN RI (1997) The magic bullet theory of IT-enabled consumable research about information systems. Information Resources
transformation. Sloan Management Review 38(2), 55–68. Management Journal 11(1), 7–15.
MARKUS ML and ROBEY D (1988) Information technology and organisa- ROSE J and JONES M (2005) The double dance of agency: a socio-theoretic
tional change: causal structure in theory and research. Management account of how machines and humans interact. Systems, Signs and
Science 34(5), 583–595. Actions 1(1), 19–37.
MARTINSONS MG and CHONG PK (1999) The influence of human factors SAHAY S and ROBEY D (1996) Organisational context, social interpretation,
and specialist involvement on information systems success. Human and the implementation and consequences of geographic information
Relations 52(1), 123–152. systems. Accounting, Management and Information Technology 6(4),
MCAULAY L (2007) Unintended consequences of computer 255–282.
mediated communications. Behaviour & Information Technology SAUER C and CUTHBERTSON C (2003) The State of IT Project Management in
26(5), 385–398. the UK 2002–2003. Templeton College, Oxford.
MCGRATH RG, MACMILLAN IC and VENKATRAMAN S (1995) Defining and SCHULTZE U and BOLAND R (2000) Knowledge management technology
developing competence: a strategic process paradigm. Strategic and the reproduction of knowledge work practices. Journal of Strategic
Management Journal 16, 251–275. Information Systems 9(2–3), 193–212.
MILES MB and HUBERMAN AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage SCHULTZE U and ORLIKOWSKI W (2004) A practice perspective
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. on technology-mediated network relations: the use of internet-
MILLER D and SHAMSIE S (1996) The resource-based view of the firm in two based self serve technologies. Information Systems Research 15,
environments: the Hollywood film studios from 1936–1965. Academy 487–523.
of Management Journal 39(3), 519–543. SERAFEIMIDIS V and SMITHSON S (2000) Information systems evaluation in
MINGERS J (2004) Realizing information systems: critical realism as an practice: a case study of organizational change. Journal of Information
underpinning philosophy for information systems. Information and Technology 15(2), 93–105.
Organization 14, 87–103. SILVERMAN D (2000) Doing Qualitative Research. Sage Publications,
MOINGEON B, RAMANANTSOA B, MÉTAIS E and ORTON JD (1998) Another Thousand Oaks, CA.
look at strategy – structure relationships: the resource-based view. STALK G, EVANS P and SHULMAN LE (1992) Competing on capabilities:
European Management Journal 16(3), 298–304. the new rules of corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 70(2),
MYERS MD (1994) Dialectical hermeneutics: a theoretical framework for 57–69.
the implementation of information systems. Information Systems STRASSMAN P (1990) The Business Value of Computers. The Information
Journal 5(1), 51–70. Economics Press, New Canaan, Connecticut.
NANDHAKUMAR J and AVISON D (1999) The fiction of methodological STRAUSS AL and CORBIN J (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded
development: a field study of information systems. Information Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Technology and People 12(2), 176–191. TALLON PP, KRAEMER KL and GURBAXANI V (2000) Executives’ perceptions
NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (2006) Delivering successful IT-enabled business of the business value of information technology: a process-oriented
change. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 33-1, approach. Journal of Management Information Systems 16(4),
Session 2006–2007, November. 145–173.
NEELY A, ADAMS C and KENNERLEY M (2002) The Performance Prism: The TEECE D and PISANO G (1994) The dynamic capabilities of firms: an
Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Business Success. FT Prentice- introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change 3(3), 537–556.
Hall, London. TEECE DJ, PISANO G and SHUEN A (1997) Dynamic capabilities
NEWELL S, TANSLEY C and HUANG J (2004) Social capital and knowledge and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18,
integration in an ERP project team: the importance of bridging and 509–533.
bonding. British Journal of Management 15, S43–S57. TIPPINS MJ and SOHI RS (2003) IT competency and firm performance: is
ORLIKOWSKI WJ (1992) The duality of technology: rethinking the organizational learning a missing link? Strategic Management Journal
concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science 3(2), 24(8), 745–761.
398–427. WARD J and DANIEL E (2006) Benefits Management. John Wiley & Sons,
ORLIKOWSKI WJ and HOFFMAN D (1997) An improvisational model for Chichester.
change management: the case of groupware technologies. Sloan WARD J, DE HERTOG S and VIAENE S (2007) Managing benefits from IS/IT
Management Review, 38(2), 11–21. investments: an empirical investigation into current practice. Proceed-
PEPPARD J, LAMBERT R and EDWARDS C (2000) Whose job is it anyway? ings of the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (HICSS),
Organizational information competencies for value creation. Informa- Hawaii.
tion Systems Journal 10(4), 291–322. WARD J and ELVIN R (1999) A new framework for managing IT-enabled
PEPPARD J and WARD J (2004) Beyond strategic information systems: business change. Information Systems Journal 9(3), 197–222.
towards an IS capability. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(2), WARD J and PEPPARD J (2002) Strategic Planning for Information Systems.
167–194. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

European Journal of Information Systems

370 Improving the impact of IT development projects Colin Ashurst et al

WARD J, TAYLOR P and BOND P (1996) Evaluation and the realization WENGER W, MCDERMOTT R and SNYDER WM (2002) Cultivating Commu-
of IS/IT Benefits. European Journal of Information Systems 4, nities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
214–225. WERNERFELT B (1984) A resourced-based view of the firm. Strategic
WEILL P and WOODHAM R (2003) Don’t just lead, Govern: implementing Management Journal 5, 171–180.
effective it governance. MIT Sloan School of Management Working ZUBOFF S (1988) Dilemmas of Transformation in the Age of the Smart
Paper 4237-02, Boston. Machine. Basic Books, New York.

European Journal of Information Systems