Towards the Formulation of a ‘Best Practice’ Framework for

Benefits Realisation in IT Projects

Colin Ashurst and Neil F. Doherty
Loughborough University, UK
n.f.doherty@lboro.ac.uk.

Abstract: A research project has recently been initiated, to establish the characteristics of the organisational
capability required to succeed in realising benefits from IT investments. The aim of this paper is to introduce the
research framework for this study and to present a progress report on the first, exploratory phase of this research,
which sought to establish how explicitly and proactively benefits realisation management was conducted in a
sample of recently completed IT projects. The results of the empirical research suggest that generally
organisations are not adopting explicit benefits realisation programmes, there are, however, some instances
where organisations are beginning to adopt a more proactive benefits orientation.

Keywords: Benefits realisation management; organisational change; capabilities, competencies, systems

development; evaluation.

1. Introduction human and organisational changes that are

In recent years organisations have witnessed
significant increases in the scale, complexity,
connectivity and strategic focus of information
technology. The current trend is for information
systems, which are highly integrated, have the
ability to disseminate information throughout,
and between, organisations, and often have
become an integral part of the actual product
or service provided [Doherty and King, 1998].
Such trends mean that the introduction of
information systems within organisations
almost invariably results in a wide variety of
impacts upon the design of the business, its
economic performance and the working
conditions of members of staff; technical
change is the catalyst for organisational
change. For example, the introduction of an
enterprise resource planning system (ERP),
within a manufacturing company, is likely to
have a significant impact on that organisation's
business processes, structure, culture and
enterprise level performance, as well as the
motivation, job specifications and performance
of individual employees. It is suggested that
whilst many impacts can be classified as
planned outcomes, others are incidental side
effects that may be of a positive or negative
nature [Doherty & King, 2002].
Unfortunately, information systems
development projects have been typically been
viewed as exercises in technical change,
rather than socio-technical change, and
consequently a system's organisational
impacts are rarely explicitly reviewed and
proactively managed [Clegg, 2000]. As Eason
[1988; p 44] has noted, 'traditional approaches
to the development of information systems
have concentrated on the delivery of the
technology, rather than emphasising the
required in order to ensure that the system
delivers meaningful benefits'. This is a
dangerous strategy, because unforeseen and
unresolved negative impacts may increase the
likelihood of systems failure, whilst potential
beneficial impacts may not be fully realised
without an appropriate programme of
organisational change. Indeed, there is a
growing body of evidence to suggest that the
high levels of systems failure witnessed in
recent years, estimates range between 30%-
70%, can be largely blamed on the failure of
organisations to address the business change
and the wider organizational issues [Doherty &
King, 2001].
One increasingly important mechanism for
ensuring that planned impacts come to fruition
is the benefits realisation management
programme. This can be defined as: 'the
process of organising and managing, such that
the potential benefits arising from the use of IT
are actually realised' [Ward & Elvin, 1999].
Typically such programmes focus upon the
organisational change that is necessary to
facilitate benefits realisation, rather than the
system's functionality. As Ward et al [1996]
note, it is becoming increasingly recognised
that benefits are generally derived from the
organisational change that accompanies the
introduction of IT, rather than from the
functionality provided by the IT. Whilst a
benefits realisation programme is typically
focused upon planned impacts, it is likely that
by maintaining a focus on benefits throughout
a project many incidental impacts should also
be identified and proactively managed. Whilst
there is a growing recognition that IT projects
should focus upon the realisation of business
benefits, rather than the delivery of a technical
solution, there has, to date, been relatively little

www.ejise.com ©Academic Conferences Limited

Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation Volume 6 Issue 2 (2003) 1-10
research to explore how a benefits realisation
programme can best be undertaken. One
potentially interesting line of enquiry is to
establish the characteristics of the
organisational capability required to succeed in
realising benefits from IT investments. A
research project, seeking to address this issue,
was initiated, which has been broken down
into the following three major phases:
1 Framework Development: The objective
of the initial phase of the study was to
develop a research framework, to guide
the study as a whole. The purpose of the
framework, which was primarily based
upon a thorough review of the literature,
was to present a high level, 'idealised'
vision of how benefits realisation should be
applied in practice.
2 Exploratory Analysis: The aim of the
second phase was to conduct an
exploratory analysis of the application of
benefits realisation management within a
small sample of recently completed IS
development projects. Having collected
and analysed the data, it was envisaged
that the 'best practice' framework would be
used as a mechanism for exploring the
extent to which the reality of benefits
realisation match 'best practice'. More
specifically, it would be possible to gain a
deeper understanding of:
a The nature and impact of benefits
realisation, in cases where its practice
did broadly match the framework.
b The inhibiting factors and implications,
in cases where the practice of benefits
management diverged significantly
from the framework.
3 Case Studies: The aim of the third and
final phase of the research is to undertake
some in-depth case studies of the
treatment of benefits realization in ‘live’
information systems development projects.
It is anticipated that for each of these
cases, data will be collected using a
combination of observation, document
reviews and interviews. Moreover, it is
envisaged that a representative sample
will be chosen to ensure that it includes
organisations that have explicit benefits
realization programmes as well as those
who have no specific focus on benefits.
The aim of this phase of the project is to
gain new insights into the capabilities
necessary to support benefits realization
by comparing and contrasting the
experiences of those organizations that
are successful in realizing benefits with
www.ejise.com
2
those that have been distinctly less
successful.
It was envisaged that the exploratory analysis
[phase 2] would provide some important
insights to help understand the validity of the
framework [phase 1], as well as providing a
sharper focus and an important backdrop for
conducting the full study [phase 3]. To date,
the literature review has been completed, a
research model has been developed and the
first, exploratory phase of the empirical work
has been commenced. The aim of this paper is
to present a progress update on this study by
presenting the literature and research model,
before providing an exploratory analysis of
how benefits realization has been approached
in a sample of IS projects. The following
section of this paper presents the research
framework, an analysis of the results of the
initial exploratory study is presented and
discussed in the fourth section, before their
importance is assessed in the final section.
2. The research framework
The research framework has been derived
primarily from an extensive review of the
literature. However, the experiences of one of
the two researchers, who is a very experienced
IT developer and project manager, greatly
helped to shape its final form. To this end the
researcher has kept a research notebook in
which he recorded observations and the
results of document reviews with respect to the
application of benefits realisation management
on the projects in which he has been involved.
The aim of this section is to firstly describe the
framework, before contextualising it in the
literature.
2.1 The ‘Best Practice’ framework for
benefits realisation
Figure 1 provides an overview of the research
model. In outline the major elements of the
framework are as follows:
Technology Delivery / Benefits Realisation
Projects
The main unit of analysis within the framework
is the individual IT project, each of which is
conceived as having a technology delivery and
a benefits realisation component. As benefits
realisation is the major focus of the research
we have chosen to sub-divide it into a number
of distinct phases, namely benefits planning,
delivery and review. As there has been little
explicit discussion of these three concepts in
the literature, we start the following discussion
of each by presenting a working definition.
1. Benefits Planning: We define benefits
planning as 'the process of identifying and
©Academic Conferences Limited
3 Colin Ashurst & Neil F. Doherty

enumerating the planned outcomes of an initiation, after approval of the business

IS development project and explicitly
stipulating the means by which they will be
achieved'. As such, this process should
operate at two distinct levels. Firstly, the IS
/ IT Strategy should present a broad
overview of how the planned portfolio of IS
applications will support the realisation of
business benefits, and in so doing directly
contribute to corporate objectives.
Secondly, benefits planning should be
conducted, in far more detail, for every
individual project. Murray et al [2001] note
that the typical flow from strategy to IT
investment portfolio and then to projects
and subsequently change programmes is
wrong. A major change is required so that
business change programmes are
identified directly from the strategy.
2. Benefits Delivery: Benefits delivery can be
defined as 'the execution of the set of
actions necessary to realise all of the
benefits specified in the benefits plan'.
Consequently the process of benefits
delivery typically runs from project
case or benefit realisation plan, through to
completion of the project. Benefits delivery
focuses upon the organisational change
necessary to facilitate benefits realisation,
rather than the delivery of the technical
solution. As Strassman [1990; p 519] notes
'computers add value only if surrounded by
appropriate policy, strategy, methods for
monitoring results, talented and committed
people, sound relationships and well
designed information systems'.
3. Benefits Review: Benefits review can be
defined as the 'process by which: the
success of the project in terms of benefit
delivery is assessed; opportunities for the
realisation of further benefits are identified;
and lessons learned and opportunities for
improvement in future projects are
identified'. Benefits review is therefore
conceived as being an ideal opportunity for
organisational learning, so that the
organisation's capability to succeed in the
realisation of benefits can over a period of
time be enhanced.

Evolving Organisational Context

Systems Development Project 1

Benefits benefits benefits
planning delivery review
Systems Development Project 2
Benefits benefits benefits
planning delivery review
Systems Development Project N
Benefits benefits benefits
planning delivery review

Figure 1: Conceptual Model for Research

www.ejise.com ©Academic Conferences Limited

Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation Volume 6 Issue 2 (2003) 1-10
Organisational Context
Projects take place in a dynamic organisational
context. There are two broad areas to
consider. Firstly, as the goal of a project is to
improve organisational performance and
provide benefits to organisational stakeholders
it needs to be considered in the context of the
organisational strategy, which sets the
priorities for change and improvement.
Secondly, as projects typically result in
significant changes to the organisation, it is
important to understand the relevant
characteristics of the organisation being
changed.
Benefits Realisation Capability
In the past twenty years there has been
significant interest in whether organisations
can assemble a unique portfolio of resources,
competencies and capabilities that will render
them a competitive advantage. For example,
the ‘resource-based theory of the firm’
[Wernefelt, 1984; Barney, 1991] suggests that
organisations will invest in those assets and
resources that they believe will best assist
them in being successful and gaining a
sustainable competitive advantage. Similarly,
Prahalad & Hamel [1990] argue that an
organisation will only attain a competitive
advantage if it can develop a set of core
competencies that competitors will finds it
difficult to imitate. Whilst the literature is not
consistent in its use of many of the terms
involved, it is possible to discern the following
broad distinctions:
Resources: The term resource is used in
a very inclusive way – it covers not just all
the usual elements such as money,
people, skills, capital etc but also ‘softer’
resources such as credibility, brand, IP,
and procedures.
Competences: A competence is an
attribute that is held at the organisational
level, as opposed to a skill, which is
typically thought to be held at the
individual level. An organisation is
competent if it manages and deploys its
resources effectively and efficiently.
Capabilities: These are typically viewed
as the combination of competences and
resources deployed in the market place
such that customers see the organisation
as having some competitive advantage.
Whilst the interest in resources, competencies
and capabilities was originally restricted to the
corporate level, more recently, the idea that
there is a broad set IS competencies, which
give an organisation the 'capability' to deliver
effective information systems, is gaining much
www.ejise.com
4
support in the literature. For example, studies
have attempted to establish the nature of the
IS capability. In two articles, Feeny and
Willcocks (1998a; 1998b) explore the concept
of capabilities and propose a framework of
nine distinct capabilities necessary for an
effective IS function. More recently, an
empirical study by Santhanaman and Hartono,
(2003) has indicated a strong relationship
between an organisation’s IS / IT capabilities,
its overall performance and its ability to secure
a sustained advantage. However,
Santhanaman and Hartono, (2003)
acknowledge the simplicity of their
measurement of IS capabilities and flag-up the
need for improved measures to be developed
for use in future studies.
It is important to make the following points, to
clarify how the term capabilities is being used
within the proposed research framework.
Firstly, in our research framework, we have
deliberately chosen the term capabilities, to
reflect that there might be a mix of
competencies and resources that combine to
facilitate the effective management of benefits.
Secondly, it should be noted that whilst the
capabilities exist at an organizational level,
they are applied at the project level.
Benefits Realisation Learning
There is a growing acceptance that
organisational learning should be an important
element of IS / IT management [Ward &
Peppard, 2002; p 135]. It is likely that the
ability of organisations to learn will greatly
contribute to their success at realising benefits
from IT investments, but this issue needs to be
far more explicitly explored through empirical
research. In formulating the research
framework we have tried to represent the
interdependent nature of the relationship
between capabilities and learning. Whilst the
work of Hamel & Prahalad (1990; 1993) has
already emphasised that organisational
learning depends upon an organisation’s
capabilities, our diagram highlights the
likelihood that organisational learning about
the benefits realisation process might also
encourage an organisation to ultimately modify
its capabilities.
2.2 Contextualising the research
framework
The review of the existing literature has played
an important role in shaping the framework. In
particular the 'framework for managing IT-
enabled business change' developed by Ward
& Elvin [1999] has been particularly influential.
Aside from this contribution, the literature
©Academic Conferences Limited
5 Colin Ashurst & Neil F. Doherty
review has revealed that there has been
relatively little explicit coverage of the content,
process and impact of benefits realisation
management, and there is, therefore, a
pressing need for further studies that adopt a
clear benefits’ perspective. It is envisaged that
the proposed study will also make an important
contribution from a capabilities and
competencies perspective. As discussed in the
previous section, there are significant
literatures already in existence that focus upon
either corporate competencies / capabilities, or
the sub-set of this literature that specifically
targets the capabilities of the IS / IT function
[see figure 2]. However, the focus of our
research forms an important, yet largely
neglected, area on the boundary between
these two existing bodies of literature, namely
the capabilities necessary to facilitate benefits
Existing Corporate
Competencies / Capabilities
Literature
Capabilities
for Benefits
Realisation
Figure 2: Focus of Research
Whilst the justification for this study is at least
in part, the relative paucity of literature
explicitly addressing the topic of benefits
realisation there are many contributions, from
related bodies of literature, particularly IT
evaluation, that are directly related to our
study. For example, the following
contemporary views of the nature and role of
IT evaluation suggest that it has much in
common with benefits realisation:
Evaluation should be explicitly concerned
with the on-going management and
direction of the project, and in so doing
the realisation of information systems'
value [Palvia et al, 2001; Remenyi &
Sherwood-Smith, 1999]. As Farbey et al
[1993] note, with respect to IT evaluation,
www.ejise.com
realisation [shown as the shaded area in figure
2]. The only previous study, to be identified,
that explicitly tackles benefits realization, in the
context of competencies, concluded that
organisation’s need to develop competencies
in ‘exploitation planning’ and ‘benefit
evaluation’ if they are to realise value from
there IS investments (Peppard et al, 2000).
Whilst the work of Peppard et al [2001] has
played an important role in helping to shape
and position our study, its scope was far
broader than ours as it investigated a
comprehensive range of ‘information
competencies’. By contrast we are aiming to
focus solely upon benefits realization
capabilities and subject these to far more
detailed scrutiny.
Existing IS / IT
Competencies /
Capabilities
Literature
'benefits have to be managed if they are
to be gathered''.
Evaluation should also be concerned with
assessing the process of systems
development, as well its product. Palvia et
al [2001] and Remenyi & Sherwood-Smith
[1999] argue that the experiences of
systems development process should be
explicitly evaluated, so that they can be
improved over time.
Whilst the traditional view has conceived
evaluation to be an activity that it is
undertaken in two distinct 'acts' [Remenyi
et al, 1997; p 72], there is a growing
consensus that evaluation should be
performed as an on-going process. As
©Academic Conferences Limited
Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation Volume 6 Issue 2 (2003) 1-10
Remenyi and Sherwood-Smith [1999; p
18] note: 'to obtain most benefit from
information system evaluation it is
important to conduct evaluations regularly
as an integral part of the systems
development life-cycle'.
The socio-technical literature, which is
concerned with the human and organisational
aspects of systems development projects, also
addresses many of the same issues as the
benefits realisation literature. For example, a
recent definition of organisational issues:
‘those issues which need to be treated during
the systems development process to ensure
that individual human, wider social and
economic impacts of the resultant computer-
based information systems are likely to be
desirable’ [Doherty & King, 2001], highlights
the degree of overlap. The process of explicitly
addressing organisational impacts is likely to
help ensure that benefits are proactively
managed and ultimately realised.
Consequently, whilst the literature on benefits
realisation might be fairly modest at present,
there are plenty of contributions from the
evaluation and socio-technical literature that
have strongly influenced our thinking with
respect to the research framework. Indeed, it is
possible to suggest that the IT evaluation,
social-technical approaches and benefits
realisation literatures should be viewed as
alternative windows onto a similar set of
concerns.
3. The initial exploratory study
The aim of this section of the paper is to
describe the research approach applied during
this phase, before summarizing the results of
the exploratory study. It should be noted, that
as we are currently extending the size of the
sample, this paper represents a progress
report, rather than the finished product.
3.1 Research approach
Access was gained to the knowledge
management system of a large software
company, with extensive IT consultancy
experience. The knowledge-base contains
detailed records of the vast majority of the
projects in which the organisation's consulting
arm played a significant role in the
development and implementation of IT
solutions on behalf of, or in collaboration with,
commercial clients. Ultimately, a sample of
sixteen project histories was chosen for
inclusion in the initial exploratory analysis
described in this paper. The projects were
chosen as they were the most highly ranked
projects in the knowledge base, on basis of
www.ejise.com
6
value / reusability, on the day of selection (22 /
April / 2003). The rankings are provided by the
consultants (users of the repository) and the
subject matter experts who manage content in
key areas of the repository. The chosen
projects provide a broad coverage across
sectors and around the world from major
organisations. It is also worth noting that none
of the chosen projects were fully outsourced
developments, as each involved working in
joint team with client staff.
A set of questions was developed based on
the research framework. The questions were
conceived from the standpoint that an IT
project is an exercise in socio-technical change
with the objective of delivering benefits to the
organisation and organisational stakeholders.
The sample being studied comprises individual
projects so the focus of the review is at the
project level rather than programme or portfolio
perspectives. The questions were focussed on
three distinct aspects of benefits realisation
management, namely: benefits planning;
benefits delivery and benefits review. For each
of the 16 projects selected the full set of
documents stored in the knowledge base was
downloaded. For each project the documents
were reviewed in two stages:
An initial review of all the documents was
carried out to highlight areas where the
‘best practice model’ had, or had not,
been followed.
A second review of the documentation
was then carried out with the purpose of
responding to the specific questions that
had been developed.
Following the project by project review findings
were summarised in a number of different
ways. The analysis of the findings presented in
section 4 concentrates on an analysis of the
common themes relating to each specific
question. In essence, this approach can be
characterised as a variable oriented, cross-
case analysis [Miles & Huberman, 1994].
3.2 Research findings
The aim of this section of the paper is to
present a very summarized review of the
results of the exploratory, empirical analysis.
This analysis focuses primarily on the three
component parts of benefits realisation,
namely planning, delivery, and review and this
section is therefore structured accordingly.
3.2.1 Benefits planning
The analysis of the responses to individual
questions addressed, with respect to benefits
planning, indicates that the projects were
©Academic Conferences Limited
7 Colin Ashurst & Neil F. Doherty
virtually all focused on technology delivery
rather than organisational change and benefits
realisation. Moreover, in no case were specific
measures for benefits defined, nor was there a
clear linkage between benefits and the project
plan, nor any traceable link from the key
features of the technological solution back to
the project's business objectives. It is of course
possible that the documentation reviewed had
only addressed the technical part of the
projects, and any benefits’ focus in the wider
business project had therefore been excluded
from the knowledge base. However, if this had
been the case, it is likely that would have been
some evidence of the benefits’ focus; for
example, in setting the priorities for the
technical solution. On a more positive note, in
a number of cases there was some evidence
of the need for organisational change to
accompany the implementation of a system.
For example, in a minority of the cases there
was reference to business process or workflow
modifications, but these organisational
changes weren’t explicitly articulated on the
project plan. It was also interesting to note,
that in all cases, the consulting company's
standard development approach was used to
guide the project. Whilst in hindsight, it can be
seen that the use of this approach was
generally appropriate, in some cases it might
have been tailored to better suit the
organisational context.
3.2.2 Benefits Delivery
The review of development approaches,
suggest that the companies have been
adopting a very typical project management
approach, which emphasises the aggressive
management of time-scales, budgets and
specified functionality. However, whilst all of
the reviewed projects were successful, in
terms of technology delivery, there was little
explicit focus upon benefits delivery and
organisational change. To a very great extent,
the absence of a clear focus on benefits
delivery can be attributed to the failure to
explicitly make anyone responsible for this
critical activity. In some cases the
documentation did explicitly identify a business
owner or sponsor for the project, but did not
make any comment on the nature of their roles
and responsibilities. On a more positive note,
there was often a good emphasis on the need
for training, but this was typically focused
solely on how to use the system, rather than
on how to improve an individual's job
performance.
www.ejise.com
3.2.3 Benefits review
Given the lack of specific focus on benefits
earlier in the project lifecycle the lack of
benefits related activities at this stage was not
surprising. The results of the analysis suggest
that the projects were all successful as
technology projects. However, there is
insufficient evidence to assess their success in
benefits terms. Indeed, it might be very difficult
to ever establish the success of these systems,
in terms of benefits delivery, as there is no
evidence that the benefits of these projects
were ever explicitly appraised. In a number of
cases, particularly for the infrastructure
projects, the outcome of the project was a new
capability / service that could be exploited in
many ways. In one or two cases, the project
documentation highlighted the need for future
operational / management roles to own the
services, but there was no specific benefits /
exploitation plan. It is also interesting to note
that as the project teams were typically
disbanded as soon as the solution had been
implemented, there was no on-going provision
for evaluation or benefits review.
4. Concluding remarks
The broad aims of this paper were to present a
model of ‘best practice’ with respect to benefits
realization management, before presenting the
provisional results of an exploratory analysis of
the practice of benefits realization
management, in a sample of recently
competed IS development projects. The initial
empirical results have shown that there is a
very significant gap between the best practice
framework and the practice of benefits
realization management. The majority of
organizations and projects studied adopted the
traditional measures of project success,
namely delivery on time and on budget, and
there was little evidence of any explicit focus
on benefits delivery or business change.
However, the innovative practices found in a
limited number of organizations fitted well with
some key aspects of the proposed framework.
The significant gap found between current
practice and the proposed benefits realisation
framework limited the feedback gained on the
framework, but did serve to highlight the
importance of further work in this area. It can
be concluded that significant changes to the
philosophy and practice of systems
development will be required to deliver a
stronger focus on benefits realisation.
This research is important from a practitioner
perspective as it underpins the need for IT
professionals to take a more proactive interest
©Academic Conferences Limited
Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation Volume 6 Issue 2 (2003) 1-10
in benefits planning, delivery and review. The
study also has important implications for the
researcher, as it highlights the worrying gap
between the theory and practice of benefits
realisation. The results of the literature review
are also important as they highlight the high
degree of commonality between the IT
evaluation, socio-technical approaches and
benefits realisation management literatures.
Consequently, it is important for researchers to
consult all three literatures when investigating
the organizational impacts of, and change
requirements for, information system’s
projects.
The conduct of exploratory study has identified
a number of significant weaknesses in our
research approach. In particular, it has been
difficult to draw many inferences, from the
knowledge base of IS projects, about the
organisational capabilities, the organisational
learning, or indeed the degree to which
individual projects were successful in terms of
benefits realization. We are, therefore,
currently in the process of arranging interviews
with project managers from each of the 16
projects to investigate these important areas in
more detail. Moreover, we are planning to
extend the scope of the initial exploratory study
by significantly increasing the sample size. On
completion of the initial exploratory study, it is
envisaged that the ‘best practice’ framework
will be refined before commencing the in-depth
case studies.
References
C. W. Clegg, (2000) Socio-technical principles
for system design. Applied
Ergonomics, 31, pp. 463 - 477.
Doherty, N. F. & King, M., (1998) “The
consideration of organizational issues
during the systems development
process: an empirical analysis”,
Behaviour & Information Technology,
17 (1), pp 41-51.
Doherty, N. F. & King, M., (2001) “An
investigation of the factors affecting
the successful treatment of
organizational issues in systems
development projects”. European
Journal of Information Systems, 10, pp
147-160.
Doherty, N.F. and King, M. (2002) ''From
Technical Change to Socio-Technical
Change: Towards a Proactive
Approach to the Treatment of
Organisational Issues'', in Socio-
Technical and Human Cognition
Elements of Information Systems ,
Clarke, S., Coakes, E., Hunter, M.G.
www.ejise.com
8
and Wenn, A. (eds), Information
Science Publishing, Hershley, PA, pp
22-40.
Eason, K., (1988), Information Technology and
Organisational Change, Taylor &
Francis, London.
Ewusi-Mensah, K. & Przasnyski, Z. (1994)
“Factors Contributing to the
Abandonment of Information Systems
Development Projects”, Journal of
Information Technology, 9, pp 185-
201.
Farbey, B., Land, F. & Target, D. (1993) How
to assess your IT investment,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Feeney, D. and Willcocks, L. (1998a) “Core
Capabilities for Exploiting Information
Technology”, Sloan Management
Review, Spring, 39 (3)
Feeney, D. and Willcocks, L. (1998b) “Re-
designing the IS function around core
capabilities”, Long Range Planning, 31
(3).
Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. K. (1993) “Strategy
as Stretch and Leverage”, Harvard
Business Review, 71 (2), pp 75-84.
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994)
Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage
Publications: Thousand Oaks,
California.
Murray P et al (2001), Advanced Benefits
Management, Cranfield ISRC research
report, 2001
Peppard, J., Lambert, R. and Edwards, C.
(2000) “Whose job is it anyway?:
organizational information
competencies for value creation”,
Information Systems Journal, 10 (4),
pp. 291-322.
Palvia, S., Sharma, R. & Conrath, D. (2001) "A
socio-technical framework for the
quality assessment of computer
information systems", Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 101 (5),
pp 237-251.
Prahalad, C. K. & Hamel, G. (1990) “The Core
Competencies of the Corporation”,
Harvard Business Review, 68 (3), pp
79-91.
Reymeni, D., Sherwood-Smith, M. & White, T.
(1997) Achieving Maximum Value from
Information Systems: A Process
Approach, John Wiley & Sons:
Chichester.
Reymeni, D. & Sherwood-Smith (1999)
"Maximise Information Systems Value
by Continuous Participative
Evaluation", Logistics Information
Management, 12 (1/2), pp 145-156.
©Academic Conferences Limited
9 Colin Ashurst & Neil F. Doherty

Santhanaman and Hartono, (2003) “Issues Ward, J., Taylor, P. & Bond, P. (1996)
Linking Information Technology "Evaluation and the realisation of IS/IT
Performance to Firm Capability”, MIS Benefits", European Journal of
Quarterly, 27 (1), Information Systems, 4, pp 214-225.
Strassman, P., (1990), The Business Value of Ward, J. & Peppard, J. (2002) Strategic
Computers, The Information Planning for Information Systems,
Economics Press, Connecticut. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), 'A Resourced-based Ward, J. & Elvin, R. (1999) "A new framework
View of the Firm', Strategic for managing IT-enabled business
Management Journal, Vol 5: pp171- change", Information systems journal,
180 9 (3), pp 197-222.

www.ejise.com ©Academic Conferences Limited

Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation Volume 6 Issue 2 (2003) 1-10 10

www.ejise.com ©Academic Conferences Limited