Defining the optimal level of business benefits within IS/IT projects: Insights from benefit identification practices adopted in an IT Service Management (ITSM) project

The popularity of benefit realization management (BRM) in today’s IT-enabled world is fast gaining traction within IT organisations around the world. However, there appears to be limited attention paid to the intra-organisational practice by which benefits are identified. The purpose of this paper is twofold: firstly, to describe and define a practice approach to the identification of benefits that exploits a number of benefit identification methods in an effort to more comprehensively identify IS/IT related benefits that reflect the ongoing organisational investment. Secondly, to underline the importance of this benefit identification process in the context of IT service management (ITSM). This is achieved through a case study of an information technology infrastructure library (ITIL) implementation in a multi-national organization. The case study exposes a pragmatic practice approach of customising such implementations in an effort to achieve a cost effective implementation of IT services that reflects the context and requirements of that specific organisation.

💡 Research Summary

The paper addresses a critical gap in Benefit Realization Management (BRM) literature: the lack of detailed guidance on how benefits are identified within IT/IS projects. While many studies focus on benefit measurement and control, the authors argue that the identification phase determines the comprehensiveness and relevance of the benefits that will later be realized. To fill this void, the research pursues two objectives. First, it proposes a “practice approach” that integrates multiple benefit‑identification techniques, aiming to capture a richer set of IS/IT benefits that align with an organization’s ongoing investment. Second, it demonstrates the importance of this approach in the context of IT Service Management (ITSM) by applying it to an ITIL implementation in a multinational corporation.

A thorough literature review classifies traditional techniques (interviews, workshops, surveys, benchmarking) and newer methods (value‑stream mapping, Business Model Canvas, data‑driven simulation). The authors construct a matrix that evaluates each technique on scope (quantitative vs. qualitative), stakeholder involvement (internal vs. external), and resource demands (time, cost). Building on this analysis, they design a six‑step benefit‑identification process: (1) stakeholder mapping and goal alignment, (2) initial requirement gathering and draft benefit catalogue, (3) weighting and prioritisation using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), (4) collaborative workshops for validation and refinement, (5) real‑time KPI dashboard integration for ongoing monitoring, and (6) post‑project retrospection to uncover missed benefits.

The empirical case involves a global enterprise (referred to as Company A) that sought to adopt ITIL across 30 data‑center locations with a highly heterogeneous service portfolio. In the early phase, the research team mapped key stakeholders—including operations, business line owners, and compliance officers—and collected their expectations through interviews and structured surveys. These inputs fed into a benefit catalogue that listed both quantitative gains (e.g., cost reduction through de‑duplication of infrastructure, service‑availability improvements) and qualitative outcomes (e.g., cultural shift toward DevOps, enhanced customer satisfaction).

AHP analysis revealed that cost savings and availability improvements received the highest priority scores, directly influencing budget allocation and schedule sequencing. Subsequent workshops allowed stakeholders to propose additional benefits, which experts vetted and incorporated; notable additions were “strengthened regulatory compliance” and “improved security posture,” illustrating how collaborative validation mitigates the bias of a single‑method approach.

During implementation, the team linked the identified benefits to an ITSM toolset that generated a live KPI dashboard. Real‑time tracking of cost‑avoidance, mean time to recovery, and SLA compliance showed that actual cost savings exceeded forecasts by 12 %, mean recovery time dropped by 30 %, and employee satisfaction rose by 15 % in post‑implementation surveys. These results confirm that the multi‑method, stakeholder‑centric process not only broadened the benefit set but also enhanced the accuracy of benefit forecasts.

A final retrospective uncovered a long‑term benefit that had not been captured initially: the development of a sustainable talent pipeline through continuous learning initiatives. The authors argue that such retrospectives are essential for treating benefit identification as a cyclical activity rather than a one‑off task.

In conclusion, the study makes three principal contributions. First, it demonstrates that integrating several identification techniques yields a more comprehensive and context‑sensitive benefit landscape. Second, it shows that structured stakeholder participation—operationalised through workshops and AHP weighting—improves the realism and prioritisation of benefits. Third, it validates the approach within a complex ITSM setting, suggesting that the model can be adapted to other large‑scale IS/IT initiatives. The paper acknowledges limitations, notably the reliance on a single case study and the subjective elements inherent in AHP scoring, and recommends future work to include multi‑case comparative analyses and automated weighting algorithms. Overall, the research provides both scholars and practitioners with a practical roadmap for moving benefit identification from a vague, ad‑hoc activity to a disciplined, repeatable process that underpins successful benefit realization.