Content uploaded by Jorge Gomes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jorge Gomes on Sep 23, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Aligning Information Systems and Technology with
Benefit Management and Balanced Scorecard
Jorge Gomes1 and Mário Romão1,
1ISEG-Universidade de Lisboa, Rua do Quelhas 6, 1200-781 Lisboa, Portugal
{jorge.gomes@phd.iseg.ulisboa.pt; mario.romao@iseg.ulisboa.pt}
Abstract. Investments in information systems and technology (IS/IT) have not
always generated the business value or the financial revenue that should be
expected. Some authors argue that the result of those studies that related
investments in IS/IT to increased organisational performance over the last thirty
years were far from true. Others say that the amount spent on IS/IT and
business success has no direct connection. The relationship between IS/IT and
performance is widely discussed, but is little understood. Organizations today
need to deliver more complex products and demanding services in a better,
faster, and cheaper way. The challenges that companies address today require
enterprise-wide solutions that call for an integrated approach and the effective
management of organizational resources in order to achieve business objectives.
Benefits Management (BM) approach proposes a continuous mapping of the
benefits of IS/IT investments, implementing and monitoring intermediate
results. Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is an innovative approach that considers the
financial and non-financial perspectives in determining the performance level of
an organization. Not only does it represent a measurement tool, but it is also a
multi-dimensional system of performance management which focusses on the
alignment of all business initiatives with the strategy. In this paper, the authors
propose a link between these two approaches to improve the management of
business benefits and to ensure that actions taken along the investment life-
cycle lead to foreseen benefits realization. The goal of this integration is to
propose a framework that combines the “best of” the both methods. A key issue
of this combination lies in the fact that all involved stakeholders must
understand more clearly what is required, what is realistically expected, and
what is possible to achieve from these investments.
Keywords: Benefits Management, Balanced Scorecard, Benefits Dependency
Network, Strategy Map, IS/IT Investments
1 Introduction
Since the 1980s, IS/IT has positioned itself as a strategic tool, which, through agility
and innovative ways of conducting business can produce superior performance
(McFarland, 1984; Farbey et al., 1993; Porter, 2001). As a result, the relationship
between investments in IS/ IT and improved organizational performance has been the
subject of many studies (Melville et al., 2004). The issue remains controversial, as
evidenced by articles in major journals and business magazines (Ashurst and Doherty,
2003; Carr, 2003; Doherty, Ashurst and Peppard, 2012; Farrell, 2003, Serra and
Kunc, 2015; Ward and Daniel, 2006). The difficulties in implementing IS/IT
solutions, as well as in assessing their performance, have been acknowledged in
academic literature (Ashurst and Doherty, 2003; Doherty, Ashurst, and Peppard,
2012; Lueg and Lu, 2012, 2013; Martinsons et al, 1999; Serra and Kunc, 2015; Ward
and Daniel, 2006).
At present, firms compete in a complex and challenging context that is being
transformed by many factors, ranging from globalization to frequent and uncertain
changes in the growing use of information technologies (DeNisi, Hitt, and Jackson,
2003). In order to survive and thrive in this competitive business environment, every
business needs to possess a certain level of strategic capability. In response to these
new business constrains, as they become better, faster and cheaper, successful
organizations have developed three broad strategies (Gomes and Romão, 2013a):
Hired, trained and empowered employees to use information skills, in order
that the organization will become more knowledgeable and responsive to
pressures for change;
Collaborate more fully with key stakeholders, particularly customers,
suppliers, and employees, to design more effective and efficient process;
Begun to better understand what creates success, and the way to effectively
manage and achieve it.
In spite of organizations learning from their past IS/IT investments successes and
failures, the pattern of perceived failures continues. The following list identifies the
common problems that face many organizations:
Improper alignment of the organizations’ objectives with IS/IT investments,
leading to inappropriate project selection (Henderson and Venkatraman,
1999; Peppard, 2003; Teo and Ang, 1999; Thorp, 1999);
Unrealistic or overly high expectations of benefits from IS/IT investments
(Ashurst and Doherty, 2003; Doherty, Ashurst, and Peppard, 2012; Teo and
Ang, 1999; Ward and Daniel, 2006);
Uncertainty of expected benefits delivery (Ashurst and Doherty, 2003;
Doherty, Ashurst, and Peppard, 2012; Farbey et al.,1999; Shang and
Seddom, 2002; Ward and Daniel, 2006);
Organizations planning to wait for long-term and yet-to-be-realized IS/IT
benefits (Lin and Pervan, 2003; Ward and Daniel, 2006);
Use of financial techniques to evaluate IS/IT returns. These techniques only
consider the monetary return from projects (Coleman, 1994; Milis and
Mercken, 2004);
Failure to quantify the intangible benefits of IS/IT (Gunasekaran, et al.,
2001; Ward and Peppard, 2002; Ward and Daniel, 2006).
Organizations seek benefits and value only in monetary terms, which have resulted in
a lot of wasted energy, time and money. It is very common that organizations place
their focus on the technical aspects such as ‘does it work?’, rather than the social
aspects such as ‘is this adopted successfully?’, or from a business perspective ‘is this
delivering value’? One of the reasons why the benefits do not always succeed results
from the social aspects not being taken into consideration (Jones and Hughes, 2001).
Recognition of the importance of BM appeared in 1995 in different industries.
Various approaches and models have been developed to try and help organizations
identify, monitor, and ultimately obtain the benefits previously identified (Sapountzis
et al., 2007). The basic assumption in BM literature is that benefits can be realized if
they are managed appropriately. It is unlikely that benefits will simply emerge, as if
by magic, from the introduction of a new technology (Gomes, Romão and Caldeira,
2013b). The perception of the continuously unsuccessful IS/IT investments led to a
new way and approach for how projects are undertaken. The focus should be on the
realization of the benefits, as this is an organization’s main reason for the investment
(Ward and Daniel, 2006). Benefits realization is emerging as being one of the
methods to assist organizations manage the whole life cycle of programmes and
projects (Glynne, 2007). The benefits for an organization from IS/IT-enabled change
are essentially a result of three main actions (Peppard and Ward, 2005):
1. Stopping doing wrong or inefficient activities;
2. Doing things better than they have always being done;
3. Doing completely new things.
According to Peppard et al., (2007) there are five principles for accomplishing
benefits through IS/IT investments:
1. Just having technology does not bring any benefit, neither create value;
2. Benefits arise when IS/IT enables people to do things differently
3. Benefits result from changes and innovations in ways of working. Only
involving people can make these changes;
4. All IS/IT projects have outcomes, but not all outcomes are benefits
5. Benefits must be actively managed if they are to be obtained
The success of IS/IT investments depends on the specific characteristics of each
industry and their particular practices.
2. Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Maps
In an article published in the Harvard Business Review, Kaplan and Norton (1992)
introduced BSC in response to the growing dissatisfaction of the inadequacy of
traditional performance measurement systems and its dependence on being
exclusively financial. The authors proposed an integrated framework for the
implementation of financial and nonfinancial performance measures to help
organizations align their initiatives with their strategy. The BSC is recognized as a
being a comprehensive system of strategically aligned performance measures
(Decoene and Bruggeman, 2006), and is used extensively in business and industry,
government, and non-profit organizations worldwide. BSC suggests that as well as
financial measures of performance, attention should be paid to the requirements of
customers, business processes, learning and growth and longer-term sustainability.
The BSC focusses on measuring the performance from four perspectives: financial,
customers, internal processes, and learning and growth initiatives. A major strength of
the BSC approach is the emphasis it places on linking performance measures with
business units’ strategy (Otley, 1999). According to Ahn (2001), the BSC bridges the
gap between the development of a strategy and its realization, by supporting and
linking four critical management processes:
1. Clarifying and translating vision and strategy;
2. Communicating and linking strategic objectives and measures;
3. Planning, setting targets, and aligning strategic initiatives;
4. Enhancing strategic feedback and learning.
A well-designed BSC should be able to describe the strategies through the objectives
and measures previously chosen (Niven, 2002). In modern business models,
intangible assets, such as employees’ skills and knowledge levels, customers and
suppliers relationships, and an innovative culture are all critical in providing the
much-needed cutting-edge for the organization (Margarita, 2008).
By reshaping the BSC it can also be applied to IS/IT in four specific domains (Van
Grembergen and Steven, 2005; Van Grembergen et al, 2003):
1. The business contribution perspective capturing the business value created
from IS/IT investments;
2. The user perspective representing the user evaluation of IS/IT;
3. The operational excellence perspective that evaluated the IS/IT processes
employed to develop and deliver applications;
4. The future perspective representing the human and technology resources
needed by IS/IT to deliver its services over time.
The first step in creating the management processes for the implementation of a
strategy relying on the construction of a reliable and consistent framework for
describing strategy, known as a Strategy Map (SM). The SM outlines all the cause-
and-effect linkages between what an organization’s strategy is, and what everyone
does on a day-to-day basis (Kaplan and Norton, 2000). The SM identifies how to get
to destinations, the strategic objectives, how tangible and intangible assets are
involved, outlines how assets of all types are combined to create customer value
propositions, specifies how the desired financial outcomes will be realized and details
the relationships between shareholders, customers, business processes and skills
(Kaplan and Norton, 2000).
3. Benefits Management and Benefits Dependency Networks
Ward et al, (1996) developed an approach for identifying, structuring, planning,
monitoring and delivery benefits. The model introduced the idea of a distinct process,
targeted towards managing the benefits realization of IS/IT projects, in order to
improve the results. The process of BM based on the management model of strategic
change, developed by Pettigrew and Whipp (1991), recognizes that the process by
which a major change is managed needs to be relevant to the content of the change
involved both internal and external. The process model of BM includes the following
set of steps:
1. Identifying and structuring benefits - The proposed benefits are identified
and, for each proposed benefit, business measures are developed, both
financial and non-financial. The benefits are structured in order to
understand the linkages between technology effects, business changes and
business objectives.
2. Planning benefits realization - For each benefit, specific responsibility for
realizing the benefits are allocated amongst the stakeholders. The required
business benefits and changes are also assessed and planned for, and a
Benefits Realization Plan (BRP) is produced.
3. Executing the benefits realization plan - Alongside the implementation of the
proposed IS/IT investments, the necessary business changes as detailed in
the benefits realization plan are carried out.
4. Evaluating and reviewing results - Following the full implementation of
IS/IT and business changes, the previously-developed business measures are
used to evaluate the effects of the project.
5. Potential for further benefits - As a result of the post-project review, it may
become apparent that further benefits are now achievable
Several authors recognized the importance of the BM initial phases. Bennington and
Baccarini (2004) suggest that benefits identification should be a combined approach
of interviews and workshops involving key stakeholders. Best practice is to involve
key stakeholders to identify and agree desired benefits, maximizing the likelihood of
commitment to realize these benefits across a range of levels in the business or the
organization (Glynne, 2007). The key tool of this approach is the Benefits
Dependency Network (BDN), which was introduced for the first time by Ward and
Elvin (1999), and was designed to enable the investment objectives and their resulting
benefits to be linked in a structured way for the business, organization and IS/IT
changes required to realize these benefits.
4. Balanced Scorecard and Benefits Management limitations
Kaplan and Norton (1996) assume the casual relationship between perspectives. In
other words, the measures of the precedent perspective are the drivers for the
measures of the following perspective. The assumption that there is a cause-effect
relationship is essential, as it allows the measurements in non-financial areas to
predicted future financial performance. NØrreklit (2000) argues that there is no cause-
and-effect relationship between some of the suggested measurements in the BSC. The
lack of a cause-effect relationship is crucial, as invalid assumptions in a feed-forward
control system will cause individual organizations to anticipate performance
indicators which are actually faulty, resulting in dysfunctional organizational
behaviour and sub-optimized performance (de Haas and Kleingeld, 1999). The
influence between measures is not unidirectional, in the sense that learning and
growth are the drivers of internal business processes, which are the drivers of
customer satisfaction, which in turn is the driver of financial results. Therefore,
instead of a cause-effect relationship, the relationship between the areas is more likely
to be one of interdependence (NØrreklit, 2000). BSC aims to solve the problems
related to strategy implementation (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). However, the control
model is a hierarchical top-down model, which is not rooted in the environment,
neither in the organization, which makes it questionable as a strategic management
tool (NØrreklit, 2000). Consequently, a gap must be expected between the strategy
expressed in the actions actually undertaken, and the strategy planned. In BSC, not all
stakeholders have been included, some of the excluded ones being suppliers and
public authorities, which may be important for several organisations. Similarly,
institutional stakeholders have been left out, as has the importance of business
networks (NØrreklit, 2000). Kaplan and Norton (1996) explicitly state that the BSC is
not a stakeholder approach. More recently, Gomes and Romão (2013a) and Voelpel
(2005) highlighted important shortcomings of BSC in responding to the dynamic
changing business world and in dealing with the corporate network environment.
The purpose of the BM process is to improve the identification of achievable benefits
and to ensure that decisions and actions taken over the IS/IT investment life-cycle can
lead to them being realized. The majority of value from IS/IT comes from the
business changes that it enables the organization to make. The achievement of
benefits obviously depends on the effective implementation of the technology, but
evidence from projects success and failure suggests that organizations’ inability to
accommodate and exploit the capabilities of technology causes the poor return from
many IS/IT investments (Ward and Daniel, 2006). The BRP and the BDN are means
of ensuring these links are made and they and are the basis for the business case, as
this includes not only the intended benefits, but also how each one can be achieved.
Remenyi et al., (2000) point out four causes of the difficulties of benefits
identification and management:
All benefits should be identified and quantified before the project starts;
Due to the complexity of IS/IT investments, it is not easy to predict the
development processes;
The dichotomy tangible/intangible and quantifiable/not-quantifiable were
different organizational effects;
The benefits are not stable along the investment.
In essence, the most obvious difference in both the BSC and BM approaches is in the
way benefits management plays its role in ‘governing’ the investment process. BSC
does not show evidence of having a process to manage benefits, although benefits are
distributed through the perspectives ruled by the short and long-term objectives. Ward
et al. (1996) note that without a plan, it is difficult to predict how an organization
might effectively realise business benefits. Assessing business benefits should not be
a one-off task carried out during an initial phase of the implementation. Benefits
monitoring compares projects result with the benefits realization plan during the
project and assesses whether any internal or external changes have occurred that will
affect the delivery of planned benefits (Ward and Daniel, 2006). Benefits monitoring
is a long cycle, starting with benefits planning and ending with benefits realization
(Bartlett, 2006). Benefits review is the process by which the success of the project in
terms of benefits delivery is addressed, opportunities for the realization of further
benefits are identified, and lessons learned, and opportunities of improvement in
future projects are identified (Ashurst and Doherty, 2003).
5. Future research directions
BSC through SM became a powerful tool, allowing organizations to convert their
initiatives and resources – including intangible assets, such as corporate cultures and
employee knowledge, into more tangible outcomes. Although the BSC emphasis
primarily the financial dimension, it can integrate other sustainability aspects, such as
social and environmental issues. According to Gomes and Romão (2014), several
studies reveal the vitality of BSC developments, keeping it updated and suited to
today´s organization needs. The following are some examples:
Formulating the sustainability of BSC which integrated environmental and
social issues with the management of business units (Biker and
Waxenberger, 2002; Figge et al, 2002; Epstein and Wisner 2001;
Schaltegger and Wagner, 2006).
Introducing the perspective of employee satisfaction and the importance of
customer perspective was prioritized (McAdam and Walker, 2003).
Combining BSC with product development and innovation (Jiménez-Zarco
et al, 2006).
Aligning IS/IT capabilities and activities with business objectives and
business requirements (Huang and Hu, 2007).
Exploring the relationship between BSC and Six Sigma, pointing out the
critical issues for implementing a BSC programme (Pan and Cheng, 2008).
Linking the use of the BSC with Scenario Planning, to reinforce the process
of strategy formulation and implementation (Othman, 2008).
Developing the quality improvement in patient care and outcomes (Aidemark
and Funck, 2009).
Studying the impact on managers’ job satisfaction (Burney and Swanson,
2010).
Proposing the BSC to assign the attribute weight by an expert group in
multiple decision making (Yang, et al, 2010).
Developing the design of an IS/IT BSC, mixing together business
environment and IS/IT strategy to enhance IS/IT´s role in obtaining and
measuring its contribution to business value (Marcos et al, 2012).
Exploring the linkage between BDN and SM (Gomes et al, 2013b).
Since the 1990s, BM has evolved to be an independent research discipline that
investigates the successful realization of IS/IT project benefits as a response to
organizations’ dissatisfaction with the results of IS/IT investments (Hesselmann,
Ahlemann and Böhl, 2015). From a large number of published studies, we
consistently found that BM is a highly effective management approach, although
researchers generally still consider the BM adoption rate to be very low (Braun et al.,
2010; Lin et al., 2004; Päivärinta and Dertz, 2008; Ward et al., 2007). Ward et al
(2007) noticed that the adoption of BM has increased from 12% to 25% in the
participating organizations of a study. Braun et al (2009) identified only 74 research
papers as being highly relevant for BM. Päivärinta and Dertz (2008) highlighted that
the elements that might enable the diffusion and adoption of BM practices, such as
employee needs, governance mechanisms or organizational culture, are mostly
underrepresented in research (Päivärinta and Dertz, 2008). Studies conducted in
Australia, which provide empirical insights into local BM practices, found that only a
few organizations have implemented a formal BM process (Bennington and
Baccarini, 2004; Baccarini and Bateup, 2008). The same result was found in
Germany, through a comprehensive approach to BM (Braun et al., 2010), and also in
exploratory studies on BM practices in the Norwegian public sector (Flak et al., 2008;
Hellang, et al., 2013). An interesting research conducted six case studies and found
that strategic alignment and BM positively affected the increase of IS/IT outsourcing
success (van Lier and Dohmen, 2007). Some research in the field of BM has drawn
on the resource-based view (RBV) to address the question of how organizations can
increase the likelihood of their projected benefits of IS/IT investments’ being realized
(Ashurst et al., 2008). Ashurst et al. (2008) developed a benefits realization capability
model that is enacted through a coherent set of benefits realization skills. Each skill is
underpinned by a closely-related suite of benefits realization practices. Doherty et al.
(2012) stress that organizational change is needed for successful BM. No matter how
effective and efficient the BM methodology is, it will be of no use if those employees
expected to use and apply such practices do not really embrace and adopt them, and if
contextual or governance mechanisms are neglected (Hesselmann and Kunal, 2014).
6. VIAPAV Case Study
Concerning the BDN and VIAPAV specific stream, (Gomes, 2011) highlighted on
Figure 1, the BDN elements are fully integrated into SM, using O2 as an example.
Fig.1. Benefits Dependency Network (Gomes, 2011)
O3 – Increasing
marketing and
communication
O5 –
Increasing
highways
solutions
O2 –Increasing
results from
innovation
O4 –Increasing
share on the
GIS business
O1 – Keeping the
leadership on the
georeferenced
information
O6 –Increasing
customer
relationship
B1 – Increased
sales from VIAPAV
services
B2 – Company
recognized as
B4 – Increased
share on GIS line
of business
B3 – Increased
quality and
precision on
information
B5 – Increased
customer satisfaction
T3 –
Georeferenced
video, image and
laser
T4 – Revised
communication
paradigm
T1 – Revised
Marketing and
communication
plan
T2 – Integrated
GIS solutions in
process
F2 – Training in
GIS techniques
F4 – VIAPAV
connecting
systems
F3 – Customer
and markets
data collection
F5 – Training in
Communication
and Marketing
F6 – CRM training
F1 – GIS new
competences
and skills
I3 –
GIS System
I4 – CRM
I2 –
Customer
data base
I1 - VIAPAV
software and
hardware
Organizations have chosen the investments to perform and have identified the
business objectives (short-term) and benefits (long-term) to be realized through the
business changes enabled by IS/IT investments. The linkage to the strategic objectives
(BSC) should be supported by the business case. The business case includes the
benefits realization plan with the routes to the objectives mapped, those responsible
nominated and the establishment of metrics and targets.
7. Benefits discussion
In the customer perspective of the BSC, managers identify the customers and the
market segment in which the business will compete. The core of the business strategy
is the customer value proposition, which describes the unique set of products and
service attributes, customer relations, corporate image and how the organization
differentiates itself from competitors. The internal process and learning and growth
perspectives are located in an area where the benefits are more intangible. These two
perspectives are directly linked to enabling changes and business changes from the
BM approach. In this approach, business changes have been described as being new
ways of working that will be required by the organization in the near future. There is
also a wide range of enabling changes that may be required in order to ensure that the
business changes really occur and that they promote the realization of the identified
benefits. The internal process reminds us that the organizational background activity
is driven by objectives and goals to ensure that the customer and financial objectives
are achieved. Once an organization has a clear picture of its customer and financial
perspectives, it can then determine the means by which it will achieve the
differentiated value proposition for customers and productivity improvements and the
business changes required to reach the objectives and realize the business benefits.
The foundation of any strategy map is the learning and growth perspective, which
defines the core competencies and skills, the technologies, and the corporate culture.
These topics enable the organization to align its human resources and information
technology with its strategy. Table 1 show the project outcomes and also highlights
the benefits results tracked annually for the years 2009-2010. From this we can
confirm that the expected benefits were achieved with different levels of realization.
Table 1. Investments outcomes (Gomes, 2011)
Benefit
Financial
Benefit
B1
VIAPAV revenue(€)
Annual revenue(M€)
Objective
Perform
Deviation
2008
95.000
6,750
1,0 %
1,4 %
0,4 %
2009
206.300
6,570
2,0 %
3,1 %
1,1 %
2010
409.644
6,120
3,0 %
6,7 %
3,7 %
B2
Inquiries
Answers
%
Score
Rate
2008
25
15
60 %
72 %
Good
2009
28
17
61 %
80 %
Good
2010
25
16
64 %
75 %
Good
B3
Revenue (€)
Estimated hours
Performed
Reduction
Deviation
2008
95.000
6.000
4.200
30 %
0 %
2009
203.300
10.200
6.280
38 %
+ 8%
2010
409.640
20.120
12.320
39 %
+ 9%
B4
Revenue(€)
Annual revenue(M€)
Objective
Perform
Deviation
2008
200.000
6,750
3,0 %
3,0 %
0,0 %
2009
302.000
6,570
3,0 %
4,5 %
1,5 %
2010
20.000
6,120
3,0 %
0,3 %
-2,7%
Table 2 shows the integration table, with the full conversion of the BDN elements on
the company Strategy Map.
Table 2. Integration table (Gomes, 2011)
Benefits Management
Balanced Scorecard
Metrics
Objective
O2- Increase results from innovation
Strategic Objective
O1 - Increase results from innovation
Customer
Satisfaction
Output benefits
B1-Increased sales from VIAPAV
B3 - Increased quality and precision
Financial
F1 -Increased sales from VIAPAV
F3 - Increased quality and precision
Sales
Time reduction
Output benefits
B2- Recognized as innovative
B4 -Increased share on GIS
Customer perspective
C2- Recognized as innovative
C4 -Increased share on GIS
Customer
Satisfaction / Sales
Change Enablers
Enablers SI/TI
Learning and growth
N1- Align strategy
N2- Team building
N3 Change management
L1-VIAPAV software and hardware
Figure 3 shows the integration of the benefits on the Strategy Map.
Strategy Map
Fig. 3. Strategy Map
O2
Increase results
from innovation
Benefit 3
Increased quality and
precision on information
Time reduction better than
30% per year
Long term
Benefit 1
Increased sales from
VIAPAV services
Sales better than 3%
of the total in 2010
Long term
Benefit 2
Company recognized as
innovative
Value > 70%
Long term
Benefit 4
Increased share on GIS line
of business
3% annual revenue
per year
F1– Increasing sales
from VIAPAV services
3% Annual Revenue
2008 outcome
I3 – Georeferred video
and image system
C2 – Company recognized as
innovative
Value >70%
2008 outcome
N1 – Workshops
Align company strategy
and desired outcomes
L1 - VIAPAV
software and
hardware
F1 Intermediate
Increased sales from
VIAPAV services
Sales better than 3% of
the total in 2009
short term
F3 Intermediate
Increased quality and
precision on information
Time reduction better than
30% per year the total in 2009.
C4 Intermediate
Increasing share on GIS
line of business
2% Annual Revenue
N2 – Teambuilding
For concurrent
engineering activities
I4 – VIAPAV Linking
systems
C4– Increasing share on GIS
line of business
1% Annual Revenue
2008 outcome
N3 – Change
management program
I2 – Process with GIS
solutions
C2 Intermediate
Company recognized as
innovative
Value > 70% in 2009
F1, C2, F3, C4, I2 & I3
F1, C2, F3, C4, I2 & I3
F1, C2, F3, C4, I2 & I3
3
F3 – Increasing quality and
precision on information
30% time reduction per year
8. Conclusions
In this paper, the authors proposed an integration between two management
approaches, Benefits Management (BM) and Balanced Scorecard (BSC), to improve
the management of business benefits and to ensure that actions taken along
investments’ life-cycle lead to forecasted benefits realization. The proposed
framework intended to capture and combine the “best of” both approaches. The main
recognized advantage of the BSC is the alignment of management processes and they
focus on the entire organization implementing its long-term strategy. The BM
approach brings to the Strategic Map (SM) the process of identifying and structuring
benefits, establishing the ownership, and determining whether benefits can be
managed and measured along their realization life-cycle. Using the results of a
benefits mapping from a case-study, we explained how a SM can be enriched with the
concepts that are usually mapped in a Benefits Dependency Network.
We claimed that this framework can reinforce the illustration of how a company can
achieve its desired outcomes, including the value proposition (customer perspective),
the innovation proposal (internal process perspective), the employee skills and the
information technology capabilities (learning and growth perspective), which all
combine to ensure that the identified benefits will be realized according to the planned
expectations.
References
Ahn, H. (2001). Applying the Balanced Scorecard Concept: An Experience Report.
Long Range Planning, 34, 4, 441-461. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-
6301(01)00057-7.
Aidemark, L., and Funck, E. (2009). Measurement and health care management.
Financial Accountability & Management, 25, 2, 253-276. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
0408.2009.00476.x
Ashurst, C., and Doherty, N., F. (2003). Towards the formulation of “a best practice”
framework for benefits realization in IT projects. Electronic Journal of Information
Systems Evaluation, 6, 1-10.
Ashurst, C., Doherty, N. F., and Peppard, J. (2008). Improving the Impact of It
Development Projects: The Benefits Realization Capability Model. European Journal
of Information Systems, 17 (4), 352-370. doi:10.1057/ejis.2008.33.
Baccarini, D., and Bateup, G. (2008). Benefits Management in Office Fit-out Projects.
Facilities, 26 (7/8), 310-320. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632770810877958.
Bartlett, J. (2006). Managing Programmes of Business Change. UK: Hampshire
Bennington, P., and Baccarini, D. (2004). Project benefits management in IT projects
– An Australian perspective. Project Management Journal, June.
Bieker, T., and Waxenberger, B. (2002). Sustainability Balanced Scorecard and
Business Ethics – using the BSC for integrity management. 10th International
Conference of the Greening of Industry Network, Göteborg, Sweden.
Braun, J., Ahlemann, F., and Mohan, K. (2010). Understanding Benefits Management
Success: Results of a Field Study. ECIS 2010 Proceedings, Pretoria, South Africa.
Burney, L. L., and Swanson, N. J. (2010). The Relationship between Balanced
Scorecard Characteristics and Manager’s Job Satisfaction. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 22, 2, 166–181. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20798903.
Carr, N. G. (2003). IT doesn't matter. Harvard Business Review, 81, 5, 41-49.
Coleman, T. (1994). Investment Appraisal: Total IT. Accountancy, March, 68-70.
Decoene, V. and Bruggeman,W. (2006). Strategic alignment and middle-level
managers' motivation in a Balanced Scorecard setting. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 26, 3-4, 429-448. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570610650576
de Haas, M. and Kleingeld, A. (1999). Multilevel design of performance
measurement systems: enhancing strategic dialogue throughout the organization.
Management Accounting Research, 10, 3, 233-261. doi:10.1006/mare.1998.0098.
DeNisi, A. S., Hitt, M. A., and Jackson, S. E. (2003). The Knowledge Based
Approach to Sustainable Competitive Advantage. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Doherty, N. F., Ashurst, C., and Peppard, J. (2012). Factors Affecting the Successful
Realisation of Benefits from Systems Development Projects: Findings from Three
Case Studies. Journal of Information Technology, 27, 1, 1-16.
Epstein, M. J., and Wisner, P. S. (2001). Good Neighbors: Implementing Social and
Environmental Strategies with the BSC. Balanced Scorecard Report, 3, 3, 8-11.
Farbey, B., Land, F., and Targett, D. (1993). IT investment: A study of methods and
practice. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Farbey, B., Land, F., and Targett, D. (1999). The moving staircase – problems of
appraisal and evaluation in a turbulent environment. Information Technology and
People Journal, 12, 3, 238-252. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593849910278196
Farrell, D. (2003). The real new economy. Harvard Business Review, 81, 9, 105-112.
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The Sustainability
Balanced Scorecard: Linking Sustainability Management to Business Strategy.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 5, 269-284. doi: 10.1002/bse.339.
Flak, L. S., Eikebrokk, T. R., & Dertz, W. (2008). An Exploratory Approach for
Benefits Management in E-Government: Insights from 48 Norwegian Government
Funded Projects. In Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences.
Glynne, P. (2007). Benefits Management-changing the focus of delivery. Association
for Progress Management, Yearbook 2006/2007, 45-49.
Gomes, Jorge (2011). Gestão de benefícios numa empresa de Geoengenharia. MSc
Thesis in Management, ISCTE-IUL, Lisboa.
Gomes, J., and Romão, M. (2013a). How benefits management helps balanced
scorecard to deal with business dynamic environments. Tourism and Management
Studies, 9, 1, 129-138.
Gomes, J., Romão, M., and Caldeira, M. (2013b). The Benefits Management and
Balanced Scorecard Strategy Map: How They Match. International Journal of
IT/Business Alignment and Governance, 4, 1, 44-54. doi: 10.4018/jitbag.2013010104.
Gomes, J., and Romão, M. (2014). Advantages and Limitations of Performance
Measurement Tools: The Balanced Scorecard. In proceedings of IS2014 - 7th IADIS
International Conference, 19-26, Madrid, Spain. ISBN 978-989-8704-04-7. IADIS
Press.
Gunasekaran, A., Love, P., Rahimic, F., and Miele, R. (2001). A model for
investment justification in information technology projects. International Journal of
Information Management, 21, 349–364. doi:10.1016/S0268-4012(01)00024-X
Hellang, Ø., Flak, L. S., and Päivärinta, T. (2012). Methods for Realizing Benefits
from ICT in the Norwegian Public Sector: A Comparison. In proceedings of the
Transforming Government Workshop 2012: tGov 2012. London: Brunel University
Business School.
Henderson, J. C., and Venkatraman, N. (1999). Strategic alignment: Leveraging
information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 38,
472-484.
Hesselmann, F., Ahlemann, F., and Böhl, D. (2015): Not Everybody's Darling -
Investigating the Acceptance of Benefits Management and Moderating
Organizational Characteristics. In Thomas, O., and Teuteberg, F. (Hrsg.).
Proceedings der 12. Internationalen Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI 2015),
Osnabrück, S. 585-599.
Hesselmann, F., and Kunal, M. (2014). Where Are We headed with Benefits
Management Research? Current Shortcomings and Avenues for Future Research.
ECIS 2014 Proceedings.
Huang, C. D., and Hu, Q. (2007). Achieving IT-business strategic alignment via
enterprise-wide implementation of Balanced Scorecards. Information Systems
Management, 24, 173-184. doi:10.1080/10580530701239314.
Jiménez-Zarco, A. I., Martinez-Ruiz, M. P., and Gonzalez_Benito, O. (2006).
Performance Measurement System (PMS) Integration into new Product Innovation: A
Literature Review and Conceptual Framework. Academy of Marketing Science
Review, 9.
Jones, S., and Hughes, J. (2001). Understanding IS evaluation as complex social
process: a case study of a UK local authority. European Journal of Information
Systems, 10, 4, 189-203. Doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000405
Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that drive
performance. Harvard Business Review, 70, 1, 71-79.
Kaplan, R. S., and Norton D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating
Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. (2000). The Strategy-Focused Organization: How
Balanced Scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Lin, C., and Pervan, G. (2003). The practice of IS/IT benefits management in large
Australian organizations. Information & Management, 41, 31-44. doi:10.1016/S0378-
7206(03)00002-8.
Lin, C., Pervan, G., and Lin, K. H. C. (2004). A Survey on Evaluating and Realizing
IS/IT Benefits in Taiwanese B2bEC Companies. In Proceedings of ECIS 2004, Turku,
Finland.
Lueg, R., and Lu, S. (2012). Improving efficiency in budgeting – An interventionist
approach to spreadsheet accuracy testing. Problems and Perspectives in Management,
10, 1, 32-41.
Lueg, R., and Lu, S. (2013). How to improve efficiency in budgeting: The case of
business intelligence in SMEs. European Journal of Management, 13, 2, 109-120.
Marcos, A. F., Rouyet, J. I., and Bosch, A. (2012). An IT Balanced Scorecard Design
under Service Management Philosophy. In Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.
Margarita, I. (2008). The Balanced Scorecard Method, From Theory to Practice.
Intellectual Economics. 1, 3, 18-28.
McAdam, R., and Walker, T. (2003). An inquiry into Balanced Scorecards within best
value implementation in UK local government. Public Administration, 81, 873-892.
Martinsons, M. G., Davison, R., and Tse, D. (1999). The balanced scorecard: A
foundation for the strategic management of information systems. Decision Support
Systems, 25, 71-88. doi:10.1016/S0167-9236(98)00086-4
McFarlan, W. (1984). Information Technology changes the way you compete.
Harvard Business Review, May-June, 93-103.
Melville, N., Kraemer, K., and Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Information technology and
organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS
Quarterly, 28, 2, 283-322.
Milis, K., and Mercken, R. (2004). The use of the balanced scorecard for the
evaluation of information and communication technology projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 22, 2, 87-97. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00060-7.
Niven, P. R. (2002). Balanced scorecard step-by-step: Maximizing performance and
maintaining results. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Nørreklit, H. (2000). The Balanced Scorecard - a critical analysis of some of its
assumptions. Management Accounting Research, 11, 1, 65–88.
doi:10.1006/mare.1999.0121.
Othman, R. (2008). Enhancing the effectiveness of Balanced Scorecard with Scenario
Planning. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(3),
259–266. doi:10.1108/17410400810857266
Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: a framework for management control
systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10, 4, 363–382.
doi:10.1006/mare.1999.0115.
Päivärinta, T., and Dertz, W. (2008). Pre-Determinants of Implementing II Benefits
Management in Norwegian Municipalities: Cultivate the Context. In Electronic
Government, (M.A. Wimmer, H.J. Scholl and E. Ferro eds.), Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, 111-123.
Pan, J., and Cheng, M. (2008). An Empirical Study for Exploring the Relationship
between Balanced Scorecard and Six Sigma Programs. Asia Pacific Management
Review 13, 2, 481-496.
Peppard, J. (2003). Managing IT as a portfolio of services. European Management
Journal, 21, 4, 467-483.
Peppard, P., Ward, J., and Daniel, E. (2007). Managing the Realization of Business
Benefits from IT Investments. MIS Quarterly Executive, March 2007.
Pettigrew, A., and Whipp, R. (1991). Managing change for competitive success.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Porter, M. E. (2001). Strategy and the internet. Harvard Business Review, March, 63-
78.
Remenyi, D., Money, A., and Sherwood-Smith, Michael. (2000). The Effective
Measurement and Management of IT Costs and Benefits. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Sapountzis, S., Harris, K., and Kagioglou, M. (2007). Benefits Realisation Process for
Healthcare. International SCRI Symposium, March 2007, Salford, UK.
Schaltegger, S., and Wagner, M. (2006). Integrative Management of Sustainability
Performance, Measurement and Reporting, International Journal of Accounting.
Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 3, 1, 1-19.
Serra, C. E. M., and Kunc, M. (2015). Benefits Realisation Management and its
influence on project success and on the execution of business strategies. International
Journal of Project Management, 33, 1, 53-66. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.011.
Shang, S., and Seddon, P. (2002). Assessing and Managing the Benefits of Enterprise
Systems: The Business Manager's Perspective. Information Systems Journal, 12, 4,
271-299. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2575.2002.00132.x
Teo, T. S. H., and Ang, J. S. K. (1999). Critical success factors in the alignment of IS
plans with business plans. International Journal of Information Management, 19, 2,
173-185. doi:10.1016/S0268-4012(99)00007-9.
Thorp, J. (1999). Computing the payoff from IT. Journal of Business Strategy, 20, 3,
35-39. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb040005.
Van Grembergen, W. Saull, R., and De Haes, S. (2003). Linking the IT balanced
scorecard to the business objectives at a major Canadian financial group. Journal of
Information Technology Cases and Applications.
Van Grembergen, W., and De Haes, S. (2005). Measuring and improving information
technology governance through the balanced scorecard. Information Systems Control
Journal, 2.
van Lier, J., and Dohmen, T. (2007). Benefits Management and Strategic Alignment
in an IT Outsourcing Context. In Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences.
Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., Eckhoff, R.A., and Davenport, T. H., 2005. The Tyranny
of Balanced Scorecard in the Innovation Economy. In Proceedings of 4th
International Critical Management Studies Conference-Intellectual Capital Stream,
Cambridge University, UK.
Ward, J., and Elvin, R. (1999) A new framework for managing IT-enabled business
change. Information Systems Journal, 9, 3, 197-221. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-
2575.1999.00059.x
Ward, J., De Hertogh, S., and Viaene, S. (2007). Managing Benefits from IS/IT
Investments: An Empirical Investigation into Current Practice. In Proceedings of the
HICSS 2007- 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Ward, J. M., Taylor, P., and Bond, P. (1996). Evaluation and realisation of IS/IT
benefits: An empirical study of current practice. European Journal of Information
Systems, 4, 214-25. doi:10.1057/ejis.1996.3
Ward J., and Daniel, E. (2006). Benefits Management, Delivering Value from IS and
IT Investments. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Ward, J., and Peppard, J. (2002). Strategic Planning for Information Systems (3rd
edition). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Yang, K. M., Cho, Y. W., Choi, S. H., Park, J. H., and Kang, K. S. (2010). A study on
development of Balanced Scorecard using multiple attribute decision making. Journal
of Software Engineering & Applications, 3, 286-272. doi:10.4236/jsea.2010.3
