BRM practices are able to predict the variable project
success only on the Brazilian sample, as presented in Table 8,
with two variables being statistically significant. Therefore,
these twelve practices seem to have low influence on the
current overall perception of project success, especially in the
UK and the USA. However, we also assessed the ability of the
same BRM practices to predict a variable which consolidates
the seven dimensions of project success. In this case, these
twelve practices explained between 41.5% and 46.7% of the
variance across the three countries. In these models, four
measures were statistically significant, even though only the
assessment of actual outcomes to verify whether they adhere
to the business case was significant on the three countries.
The UK has stakeholders being aware of the results of reviews
being significant. In turn, Brazil has the organisations monitoring
the outcomes after project closure, and a benefit strategy been
applied throughout the company are also significant predictors.
Therefore, BRM practices have much stronger influence over
the consolidated perception of the seven Dimensions of Project
Success than over the current overall perception of project success.
Since all the dimensions related to the creation of value for the
business are not significantly associated to the overall perception
of success, BRM practices may have stronger influence over the
creation of value for the business. The next subsection will confirm
this supposition by analysing the influence of BRM practices over
each dimension.
4.3. Influence of BRM practices on dimensions of success
We evaluated the ability of BRM practices to predict each
one of the seven dimensions of project success. The analysis
was performed in two groups, as follows. Three dimensions
related to project management performance composed the first
group. For this group, BRM practices explain between 9% and
26% of the variance. The BRM practices that are statistically
significant are: 1) expected outcomes being clearly defined,
2) strategic objectives clearly defined, 3) adherence of actual
outcomes to the business case, 4) activities aiming to ensure the
integration being performed as part of the project scope, 5) after
project closure the organisation keeps monitoring project
outcomes, and 6) a pre-planned process was performed to
ensure the integration of the outputs into the business routine.
These six practices cover activities related to the definition of
the required benefits, to their subsequent control during project
execution and to the embedment of project outcomes into the
business routine. However, in the three countries the utilisation
of a benefits management strategy – BRM11 and BRM12 – is
Tab
not associated to these dimensions. More details about each
regression are presented in Table 9.
The four dimensions related to value for business composed the
second group. In this case, BRM practices explain between 15%
and 49% of the variance. Eight practices are statistically
significant, evidencing a much stronger association of these
practices with success on the creation of value to the business. In
the three countries, the adherence of actual outcomes to the
business case is associated to most dimensions, except by
undesired outcomes in the US and expected outcomes in the UK.
Despite these two exceptions, this result confirms the relevance of
this practice on the prediction of the dimensions of project success,
as presented in Table 8. In addition, the stakeholders being aware
of results of project reviews is a practice associated to the return on
investment across the three countries, which evidences the
frequent realignment of expectations among stakeholders being a
critical success factor for strategic project success, as previously
identified by Jugdev and Müller (2005). More details about each
regression are presented in Table 10.
- Discussion
5.1. Project management performance: The more relevant
success criteria
The first set of analysis presented in Table 7 reinforces the
current idea that organisations and professionals evaluate
project success straight after the delivery stage has finished
(Atkinson, 1999) and mostly by criteria related to project
management performance. Bryde (2005) has previously
identified and suggested this practice as a narrow way to
measure success by focusing on short-term measures.
Besides encouraging project managers to focus on shortterm
and tactical measures rather than on long-term and
strategic improvements on performance (Bryde, 2005), this
approach also challenges any attempt to implement BRM
practices. In order to apply Benefits Realisation Management in
support to a successful implementation of business strategies,
organisations need to redesign their success criteria to increase
the relevance of dimensions related to the creation of value for
the business. Otherwise, any initiatives aiming to increase
success rates of the most strategically oriented projects may
seem unsuccessful, since organisations are still focusing on the
evaluation of how successful they are on project management
rather than evaluating how successful their projects are in
creating value for the business.
5.2. Benefits Realisation Management: drivers to the creation
of strategic value
The results presented on Tables 8, 9 and 10 revealed BRM
practices being much more associated to the creation of value to
the business than to project management performance, as
Cooke-Davies (2002) has previously identified. Due to the low
association between the creation of value and the overall
perception of success, BRM practices have relatively low ability
to predict the overall perception of project success, in comparison
to the much higher ability they have over a balanced combination
of dimensions. Nevertheless, although the results can be different
between countries, the models presented on Tables 9 and 10
revealed BRM practices being somehow associated to most
dimensions of success, even to schedule goals and required
outputs, which were the only dimensions being significantly
associated to the overall perception of success, both of which are
related to success in project management performance.
Another relevant finding presented in Table 10 is the practice
adherence of actual outcomes to the ones planned in the business
case being consistently relevant to predict two dimensions of
success across the three countries: the return on the investment
and, obviously, the business case success. These results evidence
business cases being effective tools for the comparison of the
results between project evaluations, performed at project closure
stages, to the results of project appraisals, done at project start for
the approval of business cases and updated throughout project
execution. They also make the relevance of financial appraisals on
business cases clear, since these are key elements to support
success on the return on investment.
Although the relevance of these BRM practices on
influencing the perception of project success seems to be
still in its early stages, our findings give evidence of project
management, traditionally focused on delivering outputs in a
required schedule and budget being able to be expanded to a
much broader approach into the strategic management area. In
the last decade, project management research has given
increasing significance to topics such as strategic alignment and
organisational outcomes (Crawford et al., 2006) and the
alignment between project management and organisations’
strategies has been identified as imperative (Cooke-Davies et
al., 2009). In parallel, project management has been increasingly
incorporated into the research developed by other management
disciplines, especially when related to strategy and project
portfolio management (Kwak and Anbari, 2009a). In this
scenario, portfolio management has recently emerged as part of
a more dynamic and strategic organisational governance (Thorp,
2007), aiming to organise and manage resources in order to ensure
the return on a strategically aligned set of investments (Kwak and
Anbari, 2009b). Thus, Benefits Realisation Management becomes
relevant to integrating project, programme and portfolio management
(Breese, 2012). It also takes the responsibility to the very
relevant and previously overlooked phase, or process, of outcome
realisation proposed by Zwikael and Smyrk (2012) once these
practices aim to embed the outcomes from strategically aligned
portfolios into the existing business performance management
frameworks.
- Conclusion
This article provides evidence on the association that
Benefits Realisation Management has with project success,
especially on dimensions related to the creation of value for
the business, suggesting BRM practices as important contributors
to the successful execution of business strategies, in line
with Cooke-Davies (2002). In addition, it evidences some
association between these practices and success on some
dimensions related to project management performance.
Nevertheless, although BRM practices are strongly associated
to the creation of value for the business, these practices by
themselves seem to be insufficient to result in high levels of
project management performance, and that has always been
and will always be important for project success (Patanakul
and Shenhar, 2012). Therefore they need to be implemented
along with other project, programme and portfolio management
practices in order to ensure the complete management of project
performance on the wider context as suggested by Bryde (2005).
The findings also suggest that a benefits management strategy
integrated into the corporate governance processes helps organisations
to increase their ability to define and manage their success
criteria. More importantly, benefits management helps to put in
place a key condition for project success identified by Jugdev and
Müller (2005). This is the alignment between project management
teams, sponsors and clients (owners), in order to deliver successful
and valuable changes to the organisation and shareholders through
the development of strategic resources (Kunc and Morecroft,
2010).
Some particular aspects can shed more light in our
results. For example, a stratified analysis between different
market sectors and types of projects can contribute to
understanding the variance on the influence of each BRM
practice and of each dimension of success on the final
evaluation of project success. Depending on these results,
organisations or even countries may be suggested to
prioritise some practices or dimensions, depending on the
composition of their sets of projects. Similarly, a better
understanding of the aspects influencing the perceptions
about the utilisation of each practice can help organisations
and even countries to clearly identify their maturity in
BRM, and then support the improvement of their practices.
Another aspect which may impact on comparisons of
success rates between countries is the cultural and
psychological biases which may influence on the individual
perceptions of success. A deeper understanding of these
differences can enable a more effective management of
project portfolios, especially by organisations managing
cross-borders projects, since similar evaluations of success
can suggest different meanings.
The post Influence of BRM practices on project success appeared first on My Assignment Online.