Paper Type
Complete Research Paper
Description
In 1996, the Cranfield benefits management (BM) process model was developed as a response to organizations´ dissatisfaction with the results of information systems and information technology (IS/IT) projects. In contrast with traditional project management dimensions, such as time, cost, and quality, BM emphasizes the need to identify, plan, realize, and review benefits, particularly by means of business changes. The extant literature presents several BM frameworks and methods, signaling its character as an evolving discipline. Despite this progress in research, most studies still report dissatisfyingly low BM adoption rates in practice. We aim to understand why BM is still rarely used in practice by classifying the literature with a multi-perspective framework. We find the BM literature rather unbalanced, as studies on how to conduct BM are common, but papers that investigate concepts such as the adoption/usage and context of BM in organizations are highly underrepresented. We conclude that the BM discipline still has open fields and white spots, and needs to gradually change direction.
WHERE ARE WE HEADED WITH BENEFITS MANAGEMENT RESEARCH? CURRENT SHORTCOMINGS AND AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
In 1996, the Cranfield benefits management (BM) process model was developed as a response to organizations´ dissatisfaction with the results of information systems and information technology (IS/IT) projects. In contrast with traditional project management dimensions, such as time, cost, and quality, BM emphasizes the need to identify, plan, realize, and review benefits, particularly by means of business changes. The extant literature presents several BM frameworks and methods, signaling its character as an evolving discipline. Despite this progress in research, most studies still report dissatisfyingly low BM adoption rates in practice. We aim to understand why BM is still rarely used in practice by classifying the literature with a multi-perspective framework. We find the BM literature rather unbalanced, as studies on how to conduct BM are common, but papers that investigate concepts such as the adoption/usage and context of BM in organizations are highly underrepresented. We conclude that the BM discipline still has open fields and white spots, and needs to gradually change direction.