What value do businesses need

Good business strategies are those that deliver stakeholder
value, which is the organisation’s long-term cash generation
capability or the ability to provide value public services, in case
of public sector organisations (Johnson and Scholes, 2002).
These business strategies set targets of future value, which are
met by achieving strategic objectives. Since these objectives are
measurable, the difference between the current situation and the
target future situation sets the value gap, which is fulfilled by a
portfolio of initiatives defined by the organisation in their
strategic plan (Kaplan and Norton, 2008). As Fig. 1 illustrates,
strategic initiatives usually fill the value gap by enabling new
capabilities – or promoting changes – through the outputs
delivered by a set of projects.
Projects are organisational entities which employ resources
organised on a new and unique way, for a specific time-frame, to
enable positive and clearly defined changes in the business (Turner
andMüller, 2003). These positive changes aim the achievement of
organisational objectives and these strategic improvements in the
business are called ‘benefits’. Benefits, which can be seen as
improvements, are increments in the business value from not only
a shareholders’ perspective but also customers’, suppliers’, or even
societal perspectives (Zwikael and Smyrk, 2011). Benefits are
usually achieved using programme and project management
techniques. Therefore, the creation of value for business, by the
successful execution of business strategy, strongly depends on
programmes and projects delivering the expected benefits.
Based on the benefit mapping techniques suggested by Thorp
(2007), Ward and Daniel (2006), and Bradley (2010) and
practitioners’ guides (Chittenden and Bon, 2006; Jenner, 2012;
and OGC, 2007), a conceptual example of benefits realisation,
starting from projects and reaching the achievement of business
objectives, is presented on Fig. 2. Conceptually, the process starts
on project outputs enabling business changes or directly delivering
intermediate benefits. Business changes create outcomes, which
prepare operations to realise benefits. Alternatively, business
changes can also deliver intermediate benefits, regardless whether
they are enabled by project outputs or not. They can also cause side
effects, which are the negative outcomes from change, such as
requirement of additional skills or cost increases. These side effects
and consequences can also realise further intermediate benefits.
Intermediate benefits contribute to the achievement of end benefits
(Bradley, 2010) and end benefits directly contribute to the
achievement of one or more strategic objectives of the organisation.
Usually, end benefits are results of changing processes
composed by sets of projects that are managed together as a
programme (Bradley, 2010), which coordinates work in a synergic
way to generate more benefits than projects could do individually
(Thiry, 2002).
Therefore, from a strategic perspective, successful projects
deliver the expected benefits, then creating strategic value to
the business. Careful management of each project ensures the
delivery of outputs, enables outcomes, and then supports the
realisation of the right benefits. Although benefits are not the
only criteria to evaluate project success, they are a measurement
of how valuable a project is. This is the realm of Benefits
Management Realisation.

3. Research methodology
   This research aims to test the relationship between BRM
   practices and perceptions of project success. Then, in order to
   elucidate a phenomenon by testing the relationship between
   variables, we performed a survey study using questionnaires
   and data analysis using analytical survey tools (Blaxter et al.,
   1996).
   3.1. Sampling procedures
   The sample was selected by stratified random sampling
   procedures over a population composed by Project Management
   Fig. 1. Filling the value gap.
   C.E.M. Serra, M. Kunc / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 53–66 55
   Practitioners who have worked in the area in the last two years, in
   at least one project that is now concluded and in one of the three
   countries under analysis: Brazil, United Kingdom (UK) and
   United States of America (USA). We selected practitioners from
   USA because this is the largest community, the UK to provide a
   European perspective, while Brazil was included given its status
   of emerging market. The sample was stratified, because the
   assessment of independent strata of the population enables
   inter-group analysis (Field, 2009), which could confirm a regular
   pattern or lead to divergent results (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009).
   Project team members were specifically targeted since they are
   participants in their projects. Even though they may not have a
   complete overview; project management teams know the relevance
   and priority of project outcomes (Gray and Larson, 2006) and to
   have experienced the dynamics of project management, including
   roles, techniques and practices.
   In order to analyse experiences and to avoid loss of details or
   veracity, the data structure was defined as cross sectional, referring
   to one specific event occurred in no more than two years. That
   decision was made because the memory of respondents is
   compromised depending on how long the events under analysis
   has occurred (Foddy, 1993; Iarossi, 2006). When focusing on a
   single event some experiments show that in three years up to
   around 50% is irretrievable, but around a period of two years only
   10% to 30% of the details are irretrievable (Iarossi, 2006).
   3.2. Questionnaire design
   The quantitative questionnaire was composed by closed
   questions requiring respondents to identify perceptions of project
   success and BRM practices identified from the literature (see
   Tables 1 and 2) plus controlling variables. In order to identify
   respondents’ perceptions on project success and on how much
   BRMpractices had been applied in their previous experience, most
   questions were closed and subjectively responded by rating scales,
   Likert Scales. Likert scales are suitable to evaluate people’s
   Fig. 2. Chain of benefits.
   Table 1
   Questions and references. Project success criteria.
   Please rate how much you agree with the following statements from three different perspectives (project team, project sponsor, and project customer)
   Dimension Item Name Sources
   Project success PS The project was successful *
   Project management
   performance
   PSB The project has satisfactorily met the budget goals Zwikael and Smyrk (2011), Camilleri (2011),
   PSS The project has satisfactorily met the schedule goals Ika (2009), Shenhar and Patanakul (2012)
   PSR The project has satisfactorily delivered the required outputs (i.e. fulfilled its requisites)
   Creation of value
   for the business
   PSE Project’s outputs have supported the business to produce the expected outcomes
   PSU Undesired outcomes were managed and avoided
   PSI The project has provided the expected return on investment
   PSC The project’s outcomes adhered to the outcomes planned in the business case

• General perception of success. No specific criteria or reference.
  56 C.E.M. Serra, M. Kunc / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 53–66
  subjective states, such as opinions and perceptions (Iarossi, 2006)
  by rating how much the respondent agree to a declarative statement
  by using five categories from “strongly agree” to “strongly
  disagree” (Peterson, 2000). The same strategy has been previously
  employed on similar research about project success (Scott-Young
  and Samson, 2008). The questionnaire had no “opt out” question,
  because letting the respondent opt out, such as responding “do not
  know” increases the number of people not answering the question
  (Iarossi, 2006).
  Since project success is better understood when assessed by
  different perspectives (McLeod et al., 2012), our survey has an
  approach similar to the one suggested by Zwikael and Smyrk
  (2012), which divides project accountabilities among project
  management, project funder and project owner. However, in
  order to make it easier for respondents to associate each
  perspective to common roles, the questionnaire asked respondents
  to state their perception of success from the perspectives:
  Project team, project sponsor and project customer.
  In order to obtain qualified support to data gathering and
  validation from recognised professional bodies, the questionnaires
  were submitted to the Project Management Association
  (APM) and to the Project Management Institute (PMI). APM is
  the largest association of project management practitioners
  based on the UK (Association for Project Management, 2013)
  and it is a member of the International Project Management
  Association (IPMA), which is a European project management
  federation (International Project Management Association,
  2013). PMI is the largest institute based in the USA related to
  the field of project management (Project Management Institute,
  2013). Both organisations develop and support research on
  project management subjects, have developed their own project
  management bodies of knowledge and provide professional
  services to members and non-members, such as training,
  professional qualification, peer-reviewed and non-peerreviewed
  publishing, and networking. Both institutions have
  reviewed the questionnaires, and then advertised the survey
  using their institutional websites.
  Table 2
  Questions and references —BRM practices.
  Please rate how much you agree that, during the project’s execution …
  Item Practice Sources
  BRM1 Expected outcomes (changes provided by project outputs) were clearly defined Zwikael and Smyrk (2011), Bradley (2010), Melton et al. (2008) OGC
  (2007), Chittenden and Bon (2006), Buttrick (1997).
  BRM2 The value created to the organisation by project outcomes was clearly measurable Zwikael and Smyrk (2011), Bradley (2010), Jenner (2010), Melton et al.
  (2008), OGC (2007), Hubbard (2007), Chittenden and Bon (2006), Levine
  (2005), British Standards Institute (2000).
  BRM3 The strategic objectives that project outcomes were expected to support the
  achievement of were clearly defined
  Bradley (2010), Melton et al. (2008), OGC (2007), Kendall and Rollins
  (2003).
  BRM4 A business case was approved at the beginning of the project, describing all
  outputs, outcomes and benefits that were expected from the project
  Bradley (2010), Jenner (2010), Chittenden and Bon (2006), Buttrick (1997).
  BRM5 Project outputs and outcomes were frequently reviewed to ensure their
  alignment with expectations
  Amason (2011), Bradley (2010), OGC (2007), Chittenden and Bon (2006),
  Levine (2005), Thiry (2002), Buttrick (1997).
  BRM6 Stakeholders were aware of the results of project reviews and their needs
  were frequently assessed with a view to make changes
  Bradley (2010), OGC (2007), Chittenden and Bon (2006), Kendall and
  Rollins (2003).
  BRM7 Actual project outcomes adhered to the expected outcomes planned in the business
  case
  Bradley (2010), OGC (2007), Chittenden and Bon (2006), Levine (2005),
  Buttrick (1997).
  BRM8 Activities aiming to ensure the integration of project outputs to the regular
  business routine (training, support, monitoring, and outcomes evaluation)
  were executed as part of the project’s scope
  OGC (2007), Chittenden and Bon (2006).
  BRM9 After project closure, the organisation kept monitoring project outcomes in
  order to ensure the achievement of all benefits expected in the business case
  OGC (2007), Chittenden and Bon (2006).
  BRM10 From the first delivery to the project’s closure, the organisation performed a
  pre-planned, regular process to ensure the integration of project outputs into
  the regular business routine (including outcomes evaluation)
  Bradley (2010), OGC (2007), Chittenden and Bon (2006).
  BRM11 A project benefits management strategy is applied throughout the company Breese (2012), Jenner (2010), OGC (2007), Thorp (2007), Chittenden and
  BRM12 A project benefits management strategy was applied for the project under analysis Bon (2006).
  Table 3
  Controlling variables.
  Controlling variables
  Variable % Cases
  Region of project execution
  USA 23.00 76
  United Kingdom 19.00 63
  Brazil 47.10 156
  Others 10.90 36
  Role of the respondent
  Project governance role 15.40 51
  Project sponsorship role 0.91 3
  Project management role 77.04 255
  Other role 6.65 22
  Total 100.00 331
  Sponsor and customer are the same person
  Yes 31.10 103
  No 68.90 228
  C.E.M. Serra, M. Kunc / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 53–66 57
  3.3. Respondents
  Nine hundred invitations were sent to project management
  practitioners through the social network LinkedIn (300 per
  country) at the beginning of 2012. In addition, the survey was
  advertised at electronic social networks and the websites of
  organisations specialised in project management. Until July
  2012, 331 responses were received, as presented in Table 3.
  The final response rate was 32%, similar to the response rate of
  31% considered as acceptable by Ritson et al. (2012) on their
  e-mail survey about successful programmes. Although invitations
  were sent only to the three selected countries, 36
  responses were received from other countries and employed
  on the general analysis, but they were not considered on
  comparisons between countries.
  3.4. Limitations
  While our survey shows that there is separation among these
  three roles (see Table 3), the results do not show significant
  differences in their opinions. The high number of cases with the
  same person playing at the same time the roles of Sponsor and
  Customer combined to a large number of respondents being
  part of project teams may have influenced the results, taking us
  to a narrower view, mainly from the eyes of project team
  members, and to a partial fusion of the Sponsor and Customer
  perspectives.
  Additional relevant constraints of this research are the lack
  of previous research about this subject, for an exception, see
  Zwikael and Smyrk (2012), Bryde (2005) and Cooke-Davies
  (2002), with most of the material published being non-refereed.
  Therefore, it limits the options on practical examples and
  sources for triangulation. Finally, due to inherited limitations of
  the approach employed, since questionnaires were selected as
  the data gathering method, practical and subjective aspects
  could have been missed.
  3.5. Data analysis
  After all the data had been collected, multivariate analysis was
  employed to identify the causal relationship between several
  independent variables and one dependent variable (Tabachnick and
  Fidell, 2007) using multiple regressions (Field, 2009; Pallant,
  2010; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007) performed with the software
  package IBM SPSS 21.
  The 24 perceptions of project success on eight dimensions and
  from three different perspectives were split into the three groups
  presented in Table 1: Project success, project management success,
  and success on the creation of value to the business. Then, the
  variables in each of the three groups were grouped and combined
  using principal components analysis (Field, 2009), the technique
  also applied by Scott-Young and Samson (2008) to avoid high
  bivariate correlations and also to reduce the number of dependent
  variables to a more manageable and representative group of
  variables, called factors (Field, 2009). The results available in
  Appendix A present itemloadings greater than 0.50 for each factor,
  confirming then the structure and validity of the perceptual scales.
  The scales have high reliability, with Cronbach’s alphas between
  0.818 and 0.940, all well above the recommended limit of 0.70
  (Field, 2009) and above the range from 0.79 to 0.88 considered as
  acceptable by Scott-Young and Samson (2008) and close to 0.831
  considered as good by Ritson et al. (2012).
  Pearson’s r bivariate correlations were performed for all
  variables measured at project level (n = 331). The correlations
  vary from 0.139 to 0.697 (significant at the 0.01 level,
  two-tailed), being all below 0.8, which could be considered
  very high (Field, 2009), except by one exception, BRM11 and
  BRM12, with 0.807 correlation (significant at the 0.01 level,
  two-tailed). These results presented in Table 4 suggest an
  association between all the BRM practices and all the
  perceptions of success as well as between the overall perception
  success and the seven dimensions of success.
  After having confirmed the relationship between independent
  and dependent variables, the variance of perceptions between
  countries was assessed by the Kruskal–Wallis test, a one-way
  analysis of variance suitable to identify differences between groups
  of non-parametric datasets (Field, 2009) that is adequate to our
  non-normally distributed set of variables. The descriptive statistics
  for each country and the variances between countries on the
  perceptions of project success presented in Table 5 and on BRM
  practices in Table 6 suggest some regional or cultural misalignment,
  aspect which has already been found by other authors when
  comparing project management patterns across different countries
  (Müller and Turner, 2004; Müller et al., 2008; Zwikael et al.,
  2005).
  Six out of nine perceptions of success vary between the three
  countries, where Brazil has higher scores in overall project
  success, schedule goals, expected outcomes and adherence to
  business cases. The USA has the highest score on the
  consolidation of all dimensions and the UK has the highest
  score on return on the investment. In parallel, only three out of
  twelve BRM practices vary, where Brazil has higher scores on
  these three: The value created is clearly measurable, strategic
  objectives are clearly defined and actual outcomes adhere to the
  business case. Although the BRM practices follow a much
  more regular pattern between countries than the perceptions of
  success, both groups presented variances. Due to these
  variances, all the next sets of analysis will be stratified by
  country in order to enable the identification of regular patterns
  or further differences. The reasons for variations on success
  rates and BRM practices will not be analysed in more depth,
  since this is not an objective of our research.

3. Findings
   4.1. Influence of success dimensions on the perceptions
   of project success
   The ability of the seven dimensions to predict project success in
   each country was assessed using standard multiple regressions. In
   these models, only schedule goals and required outputs are
   significant predictors of project success, as presented in Table 7.
   Although the wider evaluation of success for all stakeholders may
   not be captured by a single client-driven perspective (McLeod et
   58 C.E.M. Serra, M. Kunc / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 53–66

The post What value do businesses need appeared first on My Assignment Online.

Expert Help With This Assignment — On Your Terms