DUE DATE: 06 & 07 Jan 2018; DUE TIME: 15 & 18:00Hrs Respectively;
TOTAL Budget: $20.00
This assignment is in 2 parts.
Part 1: Topic 1 DUE DATE: 06 Jan 2018 DUE TIME: 15:00Hrs GMT
Personal Experience – How do Leaders/Managers Maximize Results Read the following article before posting to this Discussion.
Sorry, I can’t locate the article. I’ll suggest you find an article written by a credible source.
Reference: Brookmire, D. (2014). Managers or leaders? Leadership Excellence. 31(2), 27-28. 2p. 1. Chart.
The article explains how management and leadership can achieve high engagement in organizations. According to the author, organizations rely on both leaders and managers to maximize their successes. The author adds that companies need to develop the competencies in their managers and leaders to ensure that their various needs are met. Based on your readings and personal experience how does this correlate with what you have read and with what you have experience in the workplace? Substantiate your argument with a cited academic reference or explicit personal example. Be sure to follow the grading rubric and show good use of critical thinking.
Part 2: Topic 2
DUE DATE: 07 Jan 2018 DUE TIME: 18:00Hrs GMT
ASSIGNMENT: Time Value of Money as ROI
As a newly hired Project Manager, you have been assigned to prepare a bid proposal for a project that your organization is interested in bidding on to possibly obtain a new contract. The assigned project is estimated to cost on the magnitude of $20 million over the course of 5 years. Your organization intends to borrow the entire amount up front to meet customer requirements and pay the debt off over the 5-year life of the project at an interest rate of 10% compounded annually. Including the principal and interest, what is the total cost of your project at the end of the five year life cycle? How much do you need to bid or earn from the work in terms of dollars to pay back the loan and still make some profit and cover operating expenses?
Show all work and calculations to include selected formulae. Based on your calculations what is the minimum estimate your organization should bid on your proposal and why is this so?
The Assignment should include a written narrative to explain your calculation and what it means, including commentary and analysis on how the organization should plan their activities and discuss covering costs and profit margins (use your project management skills and think like a Project Manager). If you are a project manager you need to be able to calculate what is the minimum estimate your organization should bid on your proposal to the customer to complete a project. Your explanation should demonstrate sound analysis and critical thinking. In completing this Assignment, please recall that you should calculate the Future Value. I will need to see the future value calculation for the initial $20M investment for each year up to five years.
As a gentle reminder, the future value calculation is as follows: FV=PV(1+i)5.
To simplify this Assignment, think of a making annual payments on the 5 year loan –make it a simple and clear operation—earn enough to repay the loan, cover operating costs and make a profit.
The Assignment (should be similar in format as all of our GM591 assignments week 1-6) must be submitted as a Word document.
You are free to use a spreadsheet for your personal calculations, but you must transfer the calculation detail to the paper (as an annex after your conclusion) and you must discuss all of the components of the Assignment in a Word document.
Please do not submit your excel spreadsheet, only the word document.
Criteria for the Assignment
● How much do you need to bid or earn from the project in terms of dollars to pay back the loan (principal and interest)?
● How much do you need to add to the bid for profit and to cover operating expenses? Make sure you analyze the ROI and other relevant factors.
● You should conclude your discussion with the final recommended bid amount and why you arrived at your conclusion.
● Include references to validate key points, factual claims and counter arguments.
● Map organizational objectives, goals, and strategies to project management strategy. Components
● APA information presented as a cover page (please see sample Unit 3 Assignment)
● Table of contents
● Executive summary
● Body of the focus paper (use Headings to organize).
● Conclusion stated as your recommended solutions in terms of project management techniques and tools.
● A minimum of three scholarly journal and textbook source references cited and credited according to APA format using a minimum of six intext citations.
● The paper should be focused and to the point, containing between 700 and 850 words from the Executive Summary to the end of your Conclusion.
Time Value of Money as ROI Points Possible Points Earned
Content (50 pts)
Response successfully answers the assignment question(s); thoroughly uses the text and other literature. Includes a strong thesis statement, introduction and conclusion. The main points of the paper are developed clearly. All arguments are supported well (no errors in logic) using outside sources as assigned. 25pts
Sources are primarily academic journals, with thoughtful use Web sources. References are applied substantively to the paper topic. Skillfully addresses counter-arguments and does not ignore data contradicting its claim. Refers to sources both in-text and in the reference page. 25pts
Analysis (30 pts)
Response exhibits strong higher-order critical thinking and analysis (e.g., evaluation). Paper shows original thought. 10pts
Analysis includes proper classifications, explanations, comparisons, and inferences. 10pts
Critical thinking includes appropriate judgments, conclusions, and assessment based on evaluation and synthesis of information. 10pts
Writing (20 pts)
Grammatical skills are strong with typically less than one error per page. Correct use of APA when assigned. 6pts
Appropriate to the Assignment, fresh (interesting to read), accurate, (no far-fetched, unsupported comments), precise (say what you mean), and concise (not wordy). 8pts
Project is in 12-point font. Narrative sections are double-spaced with a double space between. Project is free of serious errors; grammar, punctuation, and spelling help to clarify the meaning by following accepted conventions. 6pts
Total 100
DUE DATE: 06 & 07 Jan 2018; DUE TIME: 15 & 18:00Hrs; TOTAL Budget: $20.00
This assignment is in 2 parts.
Part 1: Topic 1
DUE DATE: 06 Jan 2018 DUE TIME: 15:00Hrs GMT
Personal Experience – How do Leaders/Managers Maximize Results
Read the following article before posting to this Discussion. Sorry, I can’t locate the article. I’ll suggest you find an article written by a credible source.
Brookmire, D. (2014). Managers or leaders? Leadership Excellence. 31(2), 27-28. 2p. 1. Chart.
The article explains how management and leadership can achieve high engagement in organizations. According to the author, organizations rely on both leaders and managers to maximize their successes. The author adds that companies need to develop the competencies in their managers and leaders to ensure that their various needs are met. Based on your readings and personal experience how does this correlate with what you have read and with what you have experience in the workplace? Substantiate your argument with a cited academic reference or explicit personal example. Be sure to follow the grading rubric and show good use of critical thinking.
Part 2: Topic 2
DUE DATE: 07 Jan 2018 DUE TIME: 18:00Hrs GMT
ASSIGNMENT:
Time Value of Money as ROI
As a newly hired Project Manager, you have been assigned to prepare a bid proposal for a project that your organization is interested in bidding on to possibly obtain a new contract. The assigned project is estimated to cost on the magnitude of $20 million over the course of 5 years. Your organization intends to borrow the entire amount up front to meet customer requirements and pay the debt off over the 5-year life of the project at an interest rate of 10% compounded annually. Including the principal and interest, what is the total cost of your project at the end of the five year life cycle? How much do you need to bid or earn from the work in terms of dollars to pay back the loan and still make some profit and cover operating expenses? Show all work and calculations to include selected formulae. Based on your calculations what is the minimum estimate your organization should bid on your proposal and why is this so?
The Assignment should include a written narrative to explain your calculation and what it means, including commentary and analysis on how the organization should plan their activities and discuss covering costs and profit margins (use your project management skills and think like a Project Manager). If you are a project manager you need to be able to calculate what is the minimum estimate your organization should bid on your proposal to the customer to complete a project. Your explanation should demonstrate sound analysis and critical thinking.
In completing this Assignment, please recall that you should calculate the Future Value. I will need to see the future value calculation for the initial $20M investment for each year up to five years. As a gentle reminder, the future value calculation is as follows:
FV=PV(1+i)5
To simplify this Assignment, think of a making annual payments on the 5 year loan –make it a simple and clear operation—earn enough to repay the loan, cover operating costs and make a profit.
The Assignment (should be similar in format as all of our GM591 assignments week 1-6) must be submitted as a Word document. You are free to use a spreadsheet for your personal calculations, but you must transfer the calculation detail to the paper (as an annex after your conclusion) and you must discuss all of the components of the Assignment in a Word document. Please do not submit your excel spreadsheet, only the word document.
Criteria for the Assignment
● How much do you need to bid or earn from the project in terms of dollars to pay back the loan (principal and interest)?
● How much do you need to add to the bid for profit and to cover operating expenses? Make sure you analyze the ROI and other relevant factors.
● You should conclude your discussion with the final recommended bid amount and why you arrived at your conclusion.
● Include references to validate key points, factual claims and counter arguments.
● Map organizational objectives, goals, and strategies to project management strategy.
Components
● APA information presented as a cover page (please see sample Unit 3 Assignment)
● Table of contents
● Executive summary
● Body of the focus paper (use Headings to organize).
● Conclusion stated as your recommended solutions in terms of project management techniques and tools.
● A minimum of three scholarly journal and textbook source references cited and credited according to APA format using a minimum of six intext citations.
● The paper should be focused and to the point, containing between 700 and 850 words from the Executive Summary to the end of your Conclusion.
Time Value of Money as ROI
Points Possible
Points Earned
Content (50 pts)
Response successfully answers the assignment question(s); thoroughly uses the text and other literature. Includes a strong thesis statement, introduction and conclusion. The main points of the paper are developed clearly. All arguments are supported well (no errors in logic) using outside sources as assigned.
25
Sources are primarily academic journals, with thoughtful use Web sources. References are applied substantively to the paper topic. Skillfully addresses counter-arguments and does not ignore data contradicting its claim. Refers to sources both in-text and in the reference page.
25
Analysis (30 pts)
Response exhibits strong higher-order critical thinking and analysis (e.g., evaluation). Paper shows original thought.
10
Analysis includes proper classifications, explanations, comparisons, and inferences.
10
Critical thinking includes appropriate judgments, conclusions, and assessment based on evaluation and synthesis of information.
10
Writing (20 pts)
Grammatical skills are strong with typically less than one error per page. Correct use of APA when assigned.
6
Appropriate to the Assignment, fresh (interesting to read), accurate, (no far-fetched, unsupported comments), precise (say what you mean), and concise (not wordy).
8
Project is in 12-point font. Narrative sections are double-spaced with a double space between. Project is free of serious errors; grammar, punctuation, and spelling help to clarify the meaning by following accepted conventions.
6
Total
100
Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 35, No. 3, March 2012, pp. 550–563.
© 2012 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.
1530-9576/2012 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/PMR1530-9576350309550
RESultS FIRSt
using Evidence-Based Policy Models
in State Policymaking
GARy R. VANlANDINGhAM
Pew Center on the States
ElIzABEth K. DRAKE
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
AbstrAct: Cost-benefit analysis has been used with some success at the
federal level for many years, but states have generally made limited use of this
approach. They are now showing growing interest in evidence-based policy and
budget decision making, due in part to their ongoing deep budget difficulties.
Several promising developments have increased the probability of success,
including methodological advances and the development of user-friendly cost-
benefit analysis models by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. These
have been integrated into Washington State’s policy and budget processes for
more than 15 years. The Results First initiative of the Pew Center on the States
is helping other states to implement and customize these models. While the effort
is just beginning, early outcomes are encouraging.
Keywords: benefit-cost analysis, budgets, cost-benefit analysis, evidence-
based programs, states
there is growing interest in using evidence-based policy models to guide state
policy and budget decisions. Generally based on cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness
analyses that estimate the costs and outcomes of policy alternatives, these models
can help policymakers make more informed budget and policy choices. these
approaches have been used at the federal level for many years (with mixed suc-
cess) but have had more limited use at the state level. In light of their ongoing
fiscal difficulties, states are taking another look at this approach. the Washington
State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) provides a useful case study on the
potential impact of cost-benefit analysis in state policymaking. the cutting-edge
cost-benefit analysis models developed by WSIPP have been used by the state
for more than 15 years to help guide policy and budget choices (Drake, 2010).
the Results First Initiative of the Pew Center on the States is helping other states
implement WSIPP’s cost-benefit model. this effort is just beginning, but early
results are encouraging.
Vanlandingham and Drake / RESultS FIRSt 551
Cost-benefit analysis is an analytical approach that attempts to identify and
compare the costs and benefits of one or more policy alternatives. It does so by
projecting and assigning current dollar values to the predicted outcomes of the
policy choices, ideally including all their direct and indirect effects throughout
society. It then compares the summed predicted costs and benefits of each alter-
native to determine whether the policy choice(s) would generate a net positive
benefit to society. this is typically reported as a cost-benefit ratio. A 2.3:1 ratio,
for instance, indicates that an alternative would generate $2.3 in value throughout
society for every $1 in costs. the approach is intended to help decision makers
ensure that their choices will generate social benefits that outweigh their costs.
It also can be used to compare multiple options to identify which of them would
generate the greatest efficiency, as measured by the predicted greatest return
on investment (Boardman, Greenberg, Vining, & Weimer, 2006; Shaffer, 2010;
Vining & Weimer, 2010). Cost-effectiveness analysis follows a similar logic in
comparing alternatives but typically does not assign a dollar value to costs and
benefits that do not have available market prices, such as the dollar value of a hu-
man life. Instead, it often compares alternative means of achieving a desired end
by reporting results, such as the average per-person cost of completing different
drug treatment programs (Boardman et al., 2006; Brent, 2006).
these approaches have been used at the federal level for many years. In 1920,
Congress required the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers to recommend only water
projects that would produce benefits exceeding their costs, and in 1936, it required
the Corps to evaluate all benefits and costs of such projects (zerbe, Davis, Garland,
& Scott, 2010). the Corps subsequently rejected more than half the proposed water
projects it assessed using this approach, after the analyses found that the projects’
costs were not justified by their potential benefits (Porter, 1995).
Federal use of cost-benefit analysis approaches substantially expanded during
the 1960s, when the studies were mandated by the Department of Defense as part
of the Planning and Programming Budgeting System initiative, which was later
used throughout the executive branch (Fuchs & Anderson, 1987). Although that
effort was unsuccessful and subsequently abandoned, the Nixon administration
incorporated the approaches into its review process for federal regulations, and this
application was broadened by President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12291,
requiring agencies to show that regulations would generate benefits exceeding
their potential costs to society. President Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 12866
similarly required agencies to assess the costs and benefits of regulations, using
both quantitative and qualitative methods. Circular A-4, issued by the George W.
Bush administration, prescribed the methods federal agencies were to use when
conducting cost-benefit analyses. the Barack Obama administration has required
federal agencies to use cost-benefit analysis and to demonstrate that their funding
priorities are based on credible empirical evidence (zerbe et al., 2010).
552 PPMR / March 2012
States have made less use of cost-benefit analysis, although they are showing
increasing interest in this approach. A May 2011 search of state statutes identified
207 mandates to conduct these studies (the search of the 50 states’ statutes used
Westlaw and variations of the terms “cost-benefit analysis” and “cost-effectiveness
analysis”). Studies were most frequently mandated in the areas of economic
development policy (required in 23 states), communication/information technol-
ogy policy (17 states), and health-care policy (15 states). Almost all states (45)
have established one or more such requirements (see Table 1). Many states are
considering enacting more requirements to conduct such studies. A search of bills
filed during 2010 state legislative sessions identified 136 bills under consideration
in 25 states that, if passed, would create new mandates for cost-benefit and cost-
effectiveness analysis (National Conference of State legislatures, 2010).
to establish a more comprehensive baseline on state government use of cost-
benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses, Pew is conducting a nationwide study
of how states use these approaches in their policymaking. to be completed and
released in early 2012, it will identify which states are conducting cost-benefit
analysis, the policy areas in which they are using this approach, the impact of the
analyses in the policymaking process, and lessons learned from the states’ experi-
ences (Pew Center on the States, 2011).
A key factor supporting the growing interest in these approaches is the increas-
ing budget pressures that are forcing states to make painful choices. Between the
start of the Great Recession in Fy 2008 and Fy 2012, state governments collec-
tively faced budget shortfalls that exceeded $500 billion. Although state revenues
have finally begun to expand, this growth is far outstripped by increased costs of
critical programs, particularly Medicaid. the tide of red ink is likely to continue,
table 1. Incidence of state-Mandated cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness Analysis
Policy area Number of states
Budget/Evaluation 7
Communication/Information technology 17
Economic development 23
Education 4
Environment 6
health 15
human services 7
Insurance 7
land/Facilities 9
Procurement 5
Public safety 5
Public utilities 8
Rule making 6
transportation 8
ANy AREA 45
Vanlandingham and Drake / RESultS FIRSt 553
as states are already projecting shortfalls of more than $30 billion for Fy 2013
(Eckl, 2011). the long-term outlook is also problematic, because any action to
address the federal budget deficit will probably involve reducing funds currently
granted to states. As a result, states will lack the resources needed to sustain their
traditional mix of public services and will need to make more strategic choices on
how to invest limited resources to achieve key policy goals. Cost-benefit analysis,
with its potential for identifying policies that do not generate sufficient benefits to
justify their costs, is seen as a way to help eliminate poorly performing programs
and thus lessen budget pressures (Graham, 2008).
the renewed academic interest in cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses
is helping to expand their theoretical framework to address the challenges of
applying the approach to a variety of policy areas. this effort includes the found-
ing of the Benefit-Cost Analysis Center at the Evans School of Public Affairs at
the university of Washington, which focuses on improving and standardizing
methodologies, strengthening relationships between practitioners, disseminating
information about the use and misuse of the approaches, and helping to expand
their use when appropriate (Evans School, 2011). the Journal of Benefit-Cost
Analysis was established in 2010 with the goal of “encouraging and publishing
theory, cases, and techniques surrounding this methodology” (Farrow, 2010, p. 1).
Recent scholarship has proposed several approaches to deal with critical issues
in applying these studies to social policies, including the difficulty of valuing the
costs and benefits of policy outcomes that are diffuse and long-term (Vining &
Weimer, 2010). For example, it can be challenging to monetize the benefits of
early childhood programs intended to generate lifelong outcomes in learning,
employment, criminal justice, family, and health.
the John D. and Catherine t. MacArthur Foundation has committed significant
resources to supporting these and similar efforts. the foundation has allocated
$35 million to its Power of Measuring Social Benefits initiative, which “aims to
increase the number of social cost-benefit studies by developing work in at least
ten timely and relevant areas of domestic policy, to strengthen methods and to
improve measurement of social benefit” (MacArthur Foundation, 2011, p. 1).
Its grants have financed cost-benefit studies of specified programs (e.g., home
energy conservation investments, health insurance for low-income people), sup-
ported academic conferences and research centers, and funded efforts to develop
policy analysis models assessing the return on investment that states could achieve
through selected policy choices.
barriers to Use of cost-benefit Analysis
As has long been noted, policy research such as cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness
analysis faces substantial barriers to use by policymakers. these include political
554 PPMR / March 2012
factors as well as differences between policymakers and researchers in terms of
time perspectives, values, acceptance of uncertainty, and interpretation of evidence
(Chelimsky, 2009; Radin, 2000; Snow, 1961; Weiss, 1973). Researchers often find
it difficult to gain the attention of policymakers because of the amount of compet-
ing information provided by other sources, such as lobbyists, think tanks, staff,
agencies, and the media. While research typically produces written products, the
policymaking environment tends to value oral communication, anecdotal stories,
and personal relationships over data (Weiss, 1989; Whiteman, 1995). In addition,
because of timing problems, research results often are not available when key
decisions must be made (zajano & lochtefeld, 1999).
A wide range of steps have been proposed to address these barriers and promote
the utilization of research findings. Much scholarship has identified the importance
of researchers seeking stakeholder participation in their studies (e.g., Cousins &
Shulha, 2006; Patton, 2008). Researchers are advised to create effective com-
munication channels with key stakeholders that facilitate ongoing information
exchanges throughout the research process. Exchanges are beneficial because
they can help in reaching a consensus about stakeholders’ information needs, the
methodologies that can best produce timely and credible results, and how and
when results need to be reported; exchanges also promote organizational learn-
ing through evaluative inquiry (Preskill & torres, 1999). Such interactions can
be particularly important in the policy environment, as decision makers and key
staff members tend to rely on insider sources close to the policy process rather
than external information sources (Mooney, 1991; Schneider, Scholz, lubell,
Mindruta, & Edwardsen, 2003).
wsIPP case study
the Washington State Institute for Public Policy is a useful case study of the im-
pact of cost-benefit analysis in state policymaking. Given the limited information
about how such research is used by state governments, the case study method is an
appropriate choice because it “investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its
real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context
are not clearly evident” (yin, 2003, p. 13). WSIPP, a nonpartisan research unit of
Washington’s state legislature, conducts research activities using its own policy
analysts and economists, specialists from universities, and consultants. Its staff
works closely with legislators, legislative and state agency staff, and experts in
the field to ensure that studies answer relevant policy questions. One of WSIPP’s
duties is to provide information to the legislature on Washington’s evidence-based
initiatives; it has responded to this charge by developing cost-benefit analysis
models for key state policy areas. this role has evolved significantly over the past
15 years (Aos et al., 2011; Drake, 2010).
Vanlandingham and Drake / RESultS FIRSt 555
bAcKgroUnd
In the mid-1990s, the state legislature directed WSIPP to identify evidence-based
justice programs that could lower the incidence of juvenile crime. In response,
WSIPP built its first cost-benefit analytical tool in 1997 to help the legislature select
sound investments in Washington’s juvenile justice system (Aos, Barnoski, & lieb,
1998; Aos, Phipps, Barnoski, & lieb, 2001). this initial effort identified several
programs—not then operating in Washington—that had potential to reduce crime
and save taxpayer money. In subsequent sessions, the legislature used the results
to begin a series of policy reforms (Barnoski, 2004). In the early 2000s, following
the initial favorable experience in juvenile justice, the legislature directed WSIPP
to apply the same cost-benefit approach to other areas of public policy (Aos, lieb,
Mayfield, Miller, & Pennucci, 2004; Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006; Aos, Miller, &
Mayfield, 2007; lee, Aos, & Miller, 2008; Pennucci, Aos, & Ngugi, 2008).
Most recently, in 2009 the state legislature directed WSIPP “to calculate the
return on investment to taxpayers from evidence-based prevention and intervention
programs and policies” (Engrossed Substitute house Bill 1244, State of Washington,
61st legislature, Chapter 564, laws of 2009, Section 610(4), p. 179).1 this assign-
ment addressed two fundamental public policy questions: (1) how could the state
government better achieve certain public outcomes while providing citizens with
a superior return on their tax dollars? and (2) Could the legislature use “evidence”
and “costs and benefits” to help craft strategic policies that would lead to measur-
able improvements in key statewide outcomes? the legislature asked WSIPP to
identify public policies shown to cost-efficiently improve outcomes in crime, K–12
education, child maltreatment, substance abuse, mental health, public health, public
assistance, employment, and housing. this effort produced an up-to-date economic
analysis of many evidence-based policy choices for the state as well as user-friendly
software that will allow Washington legislative and executive staff members and
other interested parties easy access to WSIPP’s findings (Aos et al., 2011).
cost-benefIt APProAch
After reviewing national research and drawing conclusions about what works and
what does not, WSIPP provides “investment advice” to the legislature. the basic
idea is to learn what programs and policies have been successful across the united
States and determine whether they would be a good choice for Washington.
Research Evidence on What Works (and What Does Not)
the first step in WSIPP’s process produces estimates of what does and does not
work on key topics of legislative interest.2 WSIPP begins by analyzing high-quality
research from across the united States to determine which program and policy
options have best achieved the desired outcomes and which have not.
556 PPMR / March 2012
Once relevant research questions are established, WSIPP applies a meta-analytic
framework to systematically assess the entire research literature on a specific topic.
All the credible literature on a topic is reviewed, and effect sizes are screened and
adjusted for research-design quality and other factors. this process produces an
expected effect, as well as a measure of uncertainty, for the public policy option
under study, given the weight of the credible evidence.
Compute the Economics (Costs and Benefits) of Specific Policy Options
the research review reveals whether a given actionable policy option can be
expected to achieve desired public outcomes. For example, WSIPP determines
whether the weight of the credible evidence indicates that early childhood educa-
tion programs improve the academic success of students and, if so, by how much.
Once the average effect is estimated, costs and benefits are analyzed by determin-
ing how much it costs to produce the effect found in the research review, and how
much it is worth to the people in Washington to achieve the outcome.
WSIPP summarizes these economic findings by reporting standard financial
statistics: net present value, cost-benefit ratio, and return on investment. Estimates
from three distinct perspectives are also presented: the benefits that accrue directly
to program participants, the benefits for taxpayers, and benefits from a nonpar-
ticipant, nontaxpayer perspective that do not fall into the other categories. the
addition of these three perspectives provides a “total state” bottom line.
to continue the previous example, WSIPP’s research review might indicate that
an early childhood education program directly benefits participants by increasing
their lifetime economic earnings. this research may indicate that the program also
directly benefits taxpayers, because some of these earnings will be taxed and the
children who attend the programs will have lower rates of criminal behavior later
in their lives, which reduces criminal justice system costs. Finally, the research may
show that the program benefits nonparticipants in other ways, such as by reducing the
costs of criminal victimization. WSIPP adds these three perspectives—participants,
taxpayers, and nonparticipants—to produce a total state bottom line; doing so helps
answer questions that arise when legislators are considering policy options.
Analyze “Portfolio-Level” Effects
the main products of the first two steps are Consumer Reports–like lists of what
works and what does not, ranked by cost-benefit estimates; this information has
proven to help Washington legislators as they make decisions. however, WSIPP
has also found it useful to estimate how a set of adopted policies is likely to
achieve broad public policy goals. In this third analytic step, WSIPP estimates
the degree to which a portfolio of adopted policies is likely to affect statewide
outcomes, such as reducing crime, while controlling taxpayer spending (Aos,
Miller, & Drake, 2006).
Vanlandingham and Drake / RESultS FIRSt 557
to expand this portfolio-analysis approach, the Pew Center on the States
contracted in 2010 with WSIPP to develop a sentencing tool that identifies
evidence-based policy mixes that can both fight crime and save taxpayer money.
It resides in the larger WSIPP cost-benefit model and focuses on the net ef-
fects of two types of policies as part of a state’s overall portfolio of evidence-
based crime-fighting resources: programming and sentencing. Programming
resources refer to governmental efforts aimed at reducing crime, such as drug
courts or early childhood education. Sentencing refers broadly to policies
that affect the state’s average daily prison population, such as mandates that
certain convicted offenders go to prison, requirements specifying the length
of stay per sentence, and the discretion granted judges and corrections depart-
ments to vary the length of time served in prison for a given sentence. the
large research literature on the effect of incarceration rates on crime indicates
that certain types of incarceration (the product of sentencing policies) can
lower crime rates (Marvell, 2010). Both types of policies influence a state’s
incarceration rate—the proportion of its adult population that is behind bars
on any average day.
the aim of the sentencing tool is to help states identify reasonable portfolios
of evidence-based courses of policy action, given the current state of knowledge
about “what works” to reduce crime and save taxpayer money. there are dif-
ferential crime-fighting effectiveness and costs of the both programming and
sentencing resources. States that wish to fight crime and pinch taxpayer pennies
must consider the tradeoffs between sentencing and programming resources as
well as the mix of resources that can help lower crime and lower the taxpayer
costs of crime.
Uncertainty Analysis to Assess the Riskiness of Bottom-Line Estimates
the final analytical step involves testing the robustness of the results. Single-point
bottom lines offer a convenient finding, but because there is a considerable amount
of uncertainty in any estimate of benefits and costs, it is important to see how
conclusions change when discount rates or other assumptions are altered. to do
this, WSIPP uses Monte Carlo simulation to vary the key factors that enter into
the calculations, such as treatment size (reflecting the range of standard error of
the estimates). uncertainty analysis determines the probability that the estimates
would produce a contrary finding—that is, the chance that money would be lost
rather than gained if a particular policy were adopted.
the model calculates two bottom-line statistics: the expected value of overall
benefits minus costs, and an estimate of the risk that a given strategy could produce
negative net benefits. this type of risk and uncertainty analysis is commonly used
by many private-sector businesses in decision making.
558 PPMR / March 2012
PolIcy IMPActs
WSIPP’s cost-benefit model has been used in Washington to help guide policy and
budget choices for more than 15 years at both the individual program level and
the portfolio level with the goal of affecting statewide outcomes. At the program
level, WSIPP’s unfavorable-outcome evaluation of an intensive probation program
in the juvenile justice system prompted the legislature to cut the program’s fund-
ing and redirect the funds into programs the model identified as cost-effective in
reducing crime (Drake, 2010). the legislature has also used the model to make
budget choices at the portfolio level. During the 2007 session, the legislature
invested $48 million in a portfolio of prevention, juvenile justice, and adult correc-
tions programs that the model determined to be evidence-based and economically
sound, thereby enabling the legislature to remove a $250 million prison from the
state’s long-term forecast (laws of 2007, ch. 522 § 203, ShB 1128). this was a
major step forward—moving from compiling lists of effective programs to using
the model to achieve measurable statewide outcomes.
the 2011 legislative session demonstrated additional policy impacts from
WSIPP’s work, but also showed that political factors can affect use of policy
research. Washington State faced a projected deficit of $5.3 billion for the 2011
to 2013 period as tax revenues continued to decline (Shannon & Schmidt, 2011).
During the 2011 session, legislators introduced a bill intended to make strategic
cuts in the correctional system to save money for the state and allow for the re-
investment of funds in evidence-based programming identified by WSIPP. the
goal was to maintain no net increase in the prison caseload forecast (Senate Bill
5866). the proposed bill shortened the length of stay in prison for some offenders
considered at lower risk of committing new offenses, reducing the average daily
prison population by 638 offenders.
legislators and legislative staff asked WSIPP to analyze the crime and fiscal
impacts of Senate Bill 5866 using the sentencing tool. Estimates showed that,
over the long run, the net effect of these two policies would lower crime by about
3,600 incidents in Washington (with a 93% to 99% probability of a net reduction).
In terms of fiscal effects, WSIPP estimated that the net effect of the two policies
would contribute $6.6 million in savings to the 2011–2013 state biennial budgets,
saving state taxpayers an additional $35 million and local taxpayers $44 million
in reduced criminal justice system costs over the long run because of the expected
reduction in crime.
WSIPP assisted with crime and fiscal-impact statements for various iterations
of the bill throughout the legislative process. the Senate version of the bill called
for a 60-day early release of nonviolent offenders (Proposed Senate 2011–13
Operating Budget, April 19, 2011). the house version did not specify how early
release was to occur but instead required WSIPP to develop a plan for adjusting the
sentencing guidelines to save at least $10 million by Fy 2013; these funds were
Vanlandingham and Drake / RESultS FIRSt 559
to be reinvested into evidence-based programs for juveniles and adults proven to
reduce recidivism (2011–13 Biennial Operating Budget and 2011 Supplemental
As Passed house).
Political factors, noted in the literature cited earlier, have affected some uses
of WSIPP’s analysis in Washington. For example, despite the fiscal and crime
benefits predicted by WSIPP for the Senate bill, the early-release provision was
vetoed by the governor. Nonetheless, WSIPP’s experience over the past 15 years
has shown that cost-benefit analysis, when conducted by an entity that works
closely with policymakers, can become embedded in the legislative process and
regularly affect both state budget and policy decisions.
results first: transferring the wsIPP Approach to other states
Building on Washington’s experience, the Pew Center on the States developed
the Results First initiative to implement the approach in other states. the Pew
Charitable trusts and the John D. and Catherine t. MacArthur Foundation, with
additional support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, launched Results First
in 2010.
Results First has two major components: assessing state use of cost-benefit
analysis and helping states adapt the WSIPP cost-benefit model to inform policy
decisions. For the first component, Results First is conducting a nationwide study
to assess how and to what extent the 50 states and the District of Columbia cur-
rently use cost-benefit analysis and its impact. this research will be completed
and reported in 2012. the study includes an intensive document-collection effort
as well as interviews with a wide range of key staff in each state, including execu-
tive, legislative, and judicial branch representatives.
Results First is also supporting other state efforts to implement the WSIPP
cost-benefit analysis model. Before beginning this work, Pew conducted an inde-
pendent expert validation of the WSIPP model and methodologies. this validation
was conducted by an expert panel that included highly regarded academics and
practitioners with experience in providing cost-benefit data to policymakers. the
panel concluded that the WSIPP model and approach were sound and represented
a major advance in the field.
Although efforts to expand the WSIPP model into other states are young,
early results are promising. As of January 2012, 12 states (Connecticut, Florida,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, New Mexico, New york, Oregon, texas,
and Vermont) in addition to Washington were actively implementing the WSIPP
cost-benefit analysis model, and more than 20 other states had expressed interest
in the approach.
Pew’s process for implementing Results First is designed to address both the
technical and political challenges to using this approach in the policy process.
560 PPMR / March 2012
to ensure that there is critical support for the approach, Pew requires states to
submit a letter of invitation signed, typically, by the legislature’s presiding of-
ficers or the governor. Pew also requires states to establish a policy workgroup to
oversee the implementation effort; this group typically includes representatives
from the key stakeholders that will interpret and use the model’s results (e.g.,
the legislature, governor’s office, department of corrections). this is intended to
ensure that policymakers are fully aware of the effort and that the results of the
analysis are brought to their attention for consideration in subsequent budget and
policy deliberations. to address the technical challenges of implementing the
model, Pew requires states to establish a staff group that compiles the program
and cost information necessary to operate the model. this group must have access
to the data, the technical skills needed to operate the model, regular access to the
policymaker group, and status as an honest broker so that political stakeholders
will have confidence in the process and its results.
Pew provides technical assistance throughout the implementation process.
this includes helping organize the policy and staff workgroups, planning the
implementation process, and providing assistance in areas such as identifying
data sources, conducting statistical and fiscal analyses, operating the model, and
interpreting the results for policymakers. Pew is also working to create a learning
community of participating states by convening key staff and conducting seminars
for legislative and executive branch staff and officials on cost-benefit analysis
approaches; the first convocation was held in July 2011 and included representa-
tives from 10 states.
Each participating state was just beginning to implement the process as of
January 2012; their progress until then had typically been limited to forming
the policy and staff workgroups and beginning to collect and analyze data. Pew
anticipates that states normally will require three to six months to get the model
operational; customizing the model to include additional programs and research
will probably take longer. Pew will issue reports assessing the states’ progress
and lessons learned in 2012.
conclusion
Given the severity of the structural budget challenges facing states and the wide-
spread skepticism about the merits of many public programs, the time seems
ripe for expanding the use of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis in state
policymaking. the WSIPP case study provides evidence that this approach can be
deployed in a significant way in a state and can be successful over time in helping
the state enact reforms that improve policy effectiveness and reduce taxpayer costs.
the WSIPP model is a major technical advance that can enable states to better
consider the predicted results of policy choices during their policy and budget
Vanlandingham and Drake / RESultS FIRSt 561
deliberations. Nonetheless, the case study demonstrates that it is important to
consider both technical and political challenges in conducting this work. Pew’s
Results First initiative is designed to enhance the success of the approach in other
states by laying the groundwork for both technical and political acceptance of this
analysis. While these efforts are still beginning, they are showing promise. Ongoing
analysis of these efforts will be available from the Pew Center on the States.
notes
1. the legislation authorized the institute to receive outside funding for this project; the
MacArthur Foundation is supporting 80% of the work, with the legislature funding the other
20%.
2. See the technical appendices of Aos et al. (2011) for more details on WSIPP’s meta-
analytic and cost-benefit analysis methods.
references
Aos, S., Barnoski, R., & lieb, R. (1998, January). Watching the bottom line: Cost-effective
interventions for reducing crime in Washington [Document no. 98-01-1201]. Olympia:
Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006, October). Evidence-based public policy options to
reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates [Document
no. 06-10-1201]. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Mayfield, J. (2007, March). Benefits and costs of K-12 educational
policies: Evidence-based effects of class size reductions and full-day kindergarten
[Document no. 07-03-2201]. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A. (2007, December). Report to the Joint Task Force on
Basic Education Finance: School employee compensation and student outcomes [Docu-
ment no. 07-12-2201]. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & lieb, R. (2001, May). The comparative costs and
benefits of programs to reduce crime, v 4.0 [Document no. 01-05-1201]. Olympia:
Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Aos, S., lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A. (2004, September). Benefits
and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth [Document no. 04-
07-3901]. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Aos, S., lee, S., Drake, E., Pennucci, A., Klima, t., Miller, M., Anderson, l., Mayfield, J.,
& Burley, M. (2011, July). Return on investment: Evidence-based options to improve
statewide outcomes [Document no. 11-07-1201]. Olympia: Washington State Institute
for Public Policy.
Barnoski, R. (2004, January). Outcome evaluation of Washington State’s research-based
programs for juvenile offenders [Document no. 04-01-1201]. Olympia: Washington
State Institute for Public Policy.
Boardman, A.E., Greenberg, D.h., Vining, A.R., & Weimer, D.l. (2006). Cost-benefit
analysis—Concepts and practice. upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice hall.
Brent, R.J. (2006). Applied cost benefit analysis (2d ed.). Cheltenham, uK: Edward
Elgar.
Chelimsky, E. (2009). A clash of cultures—Improving the “fit” between evaluative inde-
pendence and the political requirements of a democratic society. American Journal of
Evaluation, 29(4), 400–415.
562 PPMR / March 2012
Cousins, J.B., & Shulha, l. (2006). A comparative analysis of evaluation utilization and
its cognate fields of inquiry: Current issues and trends. In I.F. Shaw, J.C. Greene, & M.
Mark (Eds.), The Sage handbook of evaluation: Policies, programs and practice (pp.
266–291). thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Drake, E.K. (2010). Washington State juvenile court funding: Applying research in a
public policy setting [Document no. 10-12-1201]. Olympia: Washington State Institute
for Public Policy.
Drake, E.K., Aos, S., & Miller, M.G. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to
reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims and
Offenders, 4(2), 170–196.
Eckl, C. (2011, February). Deep holes, few options. State Legislatures, 18–20.
Evans School of Public Affairs. (2011). Benefit-Cost Analysis Center. Available at http://
evans.washington.edu/research/centers/benefit-cost-analysis/.
Fuchs, E.P., & J.E. Anderson. (1987). the institutionalization of cost-benefit analysis.
Public Productivity Review, 10(4), 25–33.
Graham, J.D. (2008). Saving lives through administrative law and economics. University
of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157(2), 101–245.
lee, S., Aos, S., & Miller, M.G. (2008, July). Evidence-based programs to prevent chil-
dren from entering and remaining in the child welfare system: Benefits and costs for
Washington [Document no. 08-07-3901]. Olympia: Washington State Institute for
Public Policy.
MacArthur Foundation. (2011). Policy research recent grants: the power of measuring
social benefits. Available at www.macfound.org/site/c.lklXJ8MCKrh/b.947545/k.
D8C1/Domestic_Grantmaking/, accessed April 22, 2011.
Marvell, t.B. (2010). Prison population and crime. In B.l. Benson and P.R. zimmerman
(Eds.), Handbook on the economics of crime (pp. 145–183). Cheltenham, uK: Edward
Elgar.
Mooney, C. (1991). Information sources in state legislative decision making. Legislative
Studies Quarterly, 16(3), 445–455.
National Conference of State legislatures (NCSl). (2010). Bill Information database,
accessed August 26, 2010. Denver.
Patton, M. (2008). Utilization: Focused evaluation (4th ed.). los Angeles: Sage.
Pennucci, A., Aos, S., & Ngugi, I. (2008, September). Report to the Joint task Force on
Basic Education Finance [Document no. 08-09-2201]. Olympia: Washington State
Institute for Public Policy.
Pew Center on the States. (2011). Results First: Helping states assess the costs and benefits
of policy options and use that data to make decisions based on results. Washington,
DC: Pew Charitable trusts.
Porter, t.M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life.
Princeton: Princeton university Press.
Preskill, h., & torres, R. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Radin, B. (2000). Beyond Machiavelli: Policy analysis comes of age. Washington, DC:
Georgetown university Press.
Schneider, M., Scholz, J., lubell, M., Mindruta, D., & Edwardsen, M. (2003). Building
consensual institutions: Networks and the national estuary program. American Journal
of Political Science, 47(1), 143–158.
Shaffer, M. (2010). Multiple account benefit-cost analysis—A practical guide for the sys-
tematic evaluation of project and policy alternatives. toronto: university of toronto
Press.
Shannon, B., & Schmidt, K. (2011). State budget shortfall at $5.3 billion. Olympian,
Vanlandingham and Drake / RESultS FIRSt 563
March 19. Available at www.theolympian.com/2011/03/18/1583490/shortfall-at-53-
billion.html.
Snow, C. (1961). Science and government. Cambridge: harvard university Press.
Vining, A., & Weimer, D. (2010). An assessment of important issues concerning the ap-
plication of benefit-cost analysis to social policy. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis,
1(1), article 6.
Weiss, C. (1973). Where politics and evaluation research meet. Evaluation Practice,
14(1), 93–106.
Weiss, C. (1989). Congressional committees as users of analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 8(3), 411–431.
Whiteman, D. (1995). Communication in Congress: Members, staff, and the search for
information. lawrence: university Press of Kansas.
yin, R. 2003. Case study research (3d ed.). thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
zajano, N., & lochtefeld, S. (1999). the nature of knowledge and language in the legislative
arena. In K. Jonas (Ed.), Legislative program evaluation: Utilization-driven research
for decision makers (pp. 3–22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
zerbe, R.O., Jr., Davis, t.B., Garland, N., & Scott, t. (2010). Toward principles and
standards in the use of benefit-cost analysis. Seattle: university of Washington Benefit
Cost Center.
Gary R. VanLandingham is director of Results First with the Pew Center on the
States. Before joining Pew, he led the Florida legislature’s Office of Program Policy
Analysis and Government Accountability. He has more than 30 years of experi-
ence in program evaluation and policy analysis at the state and local government
levels. He has served in leadership positions with the National Conference of State
Legislatures, the National Legislative Program Evaluation Society, the Southeast
Evaluation Association, and the North Florida Chapter of the American Society
for Public Administration. He has a Ph.D. in public administration and policy,
has taught undergraduate and graduate seminars at Florida State University and
has authored publications on performance budgeting, policy research utilization,
and public management.
Elizabeth K. Drake is a senior research associate for the Washington State Institute
for Public Policy and before joining the institute was a researcher for the Washing-
ton State Department of Corrections. She received her B.S. from Bowling Green
State University and her M.A. from Washington State University, both degrees in
criminal justice. She has professional experience conducting program evaluations,
meta-analysis, and cost-benefit analysis in adult and juvenile justice.
Copyright of Public Performance & Management Review is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
9
Project Benefits: ROI
Contributors and
Value Enabler
s
Don’t be seduced into thinking that that which does not make a profit
is without value.
—Arthur Miller
Benefits Must Outweigh the Costs
As important as it is to understand all of a project’s costs, it’s just as important
to understand the different types of business benefits that can occur as a result
of a project. These business benefits can be numerous and diverse and, as with
costs, are sometimes hidden or misunderstood. Project teams need to explore
all of the possible benefits and analyze the most relevant ones to determine
the viability of a project investment. The aggregation of all of the business
benefits must outweigh all of the project costs for a project investment to be
worthwhile. Project costs outweighing business benefits is a sure red flag and a
sign that re-evaluation may be required.
A cost-benefit analysis helps to determine how well, or how poorly, a
project will deliver value to an organization. In simple terms, this analysis adds
up positive factors (business benefits) and then subtracts the negative ones
(project costs) to determine if the project is a worthy investment. The chal-
lenge is not only identifying all of the costs and benefits, but properly quanti-
fying them in business terms that show an accurate side-by-side comparison
137
Co
py
ri
g
h
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
M
a
y
n
o
t
be
r
e
p
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
o
u
t
p
e
rm
is
si
o
n
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
d
e
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA
)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
138 Strategic Project Management Transformation
that stakeholders can understand. Of course other factors must be considered,
such as the time value of money, discount rates, risks, sensitivity analysis, and
other factors. But the first step is identifying and evaluating all costs and ben-
efits that are applicable to a given project.
Comparing the business benefits to the project costs helps decision makers
determine whether to go forward with a proposed project. Executive stake-
holders are responsible to their companies for ensuring that selected projects
within their purview represent the best use of company funds, can pay for
themselves as quickly as possible, and will improve the companies’ overall
financial position. The identification of the possible business benefits that a
project may or may not deliver is an essential step in determining if the project
will produce beneficial, lasting change. To paint an accurate picture for the
potential of a project, project teams must carefully weigh the project costs to
the business benefits, as shown in Figure 9.1.
We now delve into the various types of business benefits that may result
from project investments. Understanding all of the business benefits is often
necessary to tip the scale in concluding that project benefits outweigh the costs
and, therefore, is a good project investment.
Re-defining Project Benefits
The debate over hard vs. soft benefits has been going on for decades and
simply won’t go away. Business leaders, especially CFOs, are reluctant to ap-
prove projects without the benefits expressed in hard, tangible financial num-
bers. Oftentimes these senior leaders don’t even want to hear about the soft
Project costs
• Equipment
• Installation
• Software
• Project team
• Maintenance
• System upgrade
• Training
• Items produced
• Items sold
• Reduced headcount
• ROI, NPV, IRR
• Break-even point
• Employee productivity
• Employee morale
• Customer loyalty
• Collaboration and innovation
Figure 9.1 Weighing the costs and benefits
ject Pro ben itsef
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
a
b
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
Project Benefits: ROI Contributors and Value Enablers 139
(intangible) benefits that a project may deliver. What is my return on invest-
ment (ROI)? The tangibles only mentality is pervasive across industries and
continues to cause heartache for project sponsors and managers around the
world who are responsible for crafting business cases to show financial justi-
fication for their projects. It’s time to set the record straight on hard vs. soft
benefits once and for all!
To begin, the terms hard, soft, tangible, and intangible—as they relate to
project benefits—are misleading, confusing, and frequently used inappro-
priately and interchangeably. Most projects produce the misunderstood soft
benefits that, unfortunately, many professionals feel don’t add any value or
contribute to the company’s bottom line. These benefits are often dismissed
entirely, leaving project professionals at a disadvantage in telling a complete
business story about their projects. Most of the soft benefits that projects can
deliver are focused primarily on people, behaviors, customer satisfaction, em-
ployee morale, or product branding. That is challenging for most project teams
to quantify in monetary terms, especially given time and resource constraints.
Even though these benefits may be challenging to quantify monetarily, that
doesn’t mean they don’t add value to the business, aren’t tangible, or don’t
contribute to a company’s bottom line. Additionally, it doesn’t mean that they
can’t be quantified in monetary terms, but given project scope, timelines, and
resource limitations, it’s usually not practical to do so. Soft benefits are often
critical to an organization’s competitiveness, but they are usually eschewed for
the easier to measure, objectively-based hard benefits and then dismissed from
business cases altogether.
Project professionals usually understand the importance of the so-called in-
tangible benefits that their projects will deliver, but leave them out of business
cases to avoid the difficult task of quantifying them monetarily. This leads to
an incomplete business case. A business case should tell a complete and com-
pelling story. Dismissing important business benefits from this important doc-
ument does a disservice to the potential project investment, as well as to the
stakeholder teams impacted by the potential project. The soft, intangible ben-
efits are more subjective and may appear to be less credible project measure-
ments than the more tangible, hard benefits, but ignoring them altogether is
not an option. Soft benefits not only complete the picture that project teams
are painting for the stakeholders, but they can sometimes be the items that
push a project over the top.
Managers typically focus on hard benefits, also called direct benefits, since
they are easily understood and can be converted relatively easily to monetary
units. Common examples of hard benefits include the number of units sold or
the amount of units produced. It’s fairly straightforward to determine project
ROIs from benefits such as increased sales and improved production output.
Soft benefits—or intangibles—are more challenging to quantify and present in
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
140 Strategic Project Management Transformation
tangible, monetary terms. Improvements to employee morale or enhance-
ments to the corporate image are often cited as examples for soft benefits.
To set the record straight on the proper use and application of hard and
soft benefits for our projects, we begin by replacing the terms altogether!
These terms have been confusing and frustrating project teams for far too
long for myriad reasons. First of all, both hard and soft benefits are indeed
tangible and can both be quantified, measured, and managed. Some ben-
efits may be more difficult than others to quantify and express in financial
terms, but nevertheless, all of them can be. The notion that certain benefits
should be excluded from analysis because they can’t be readily converted
to financial metrics and, therefore, don’t produce or enable business value
is preposterous. Business benefits that result from projects are beneficial to
organizations or they wouldn’t be considered benefits. We need to eliminate
the use of the ambiguous terms hard, soft, tangible, and intangible when re-
ferring to benefits and replace them with terms that are appropriate for our
projects. These terms are ROI contributors and value enablers and are defined
as:
• ROI contributors—can be reasonably and appropriately quantified and
expressed monetarily and contribute directly to a project’s ROI.
• Value enablers—enable the achievement of business value, but are
determined to be unreasonable and inappropriate to be expressed
monetarily for inclusion in a project’s ROI analysis, given project re-
quirements. Although these benefits will not contribute directly to a
project’s ROI forecast, they can be quantified, measured, and managed
to bring about significant business value in other ways.
Many project deployments will deliver value-enabling benefits, such as im-
provement to employee morale, but stakeholders most likely won’t want to
spend the money and resources necessary to forecast this value metric in mon-
etary terms as part of the ROI study. Project teams should not dismiss certain
benefits from their analysis, however, even though assigning monetary mea-
surements to them is neither appropriate nor practical for their projects. All
projects will have many benefits associated with them, some more important
than others. Efforts should be made to quantify as much as feasibly possible
in monetary terms to determine the overall financial returns of the project
investments. Quantifying all of the benefits in hard, financial numbers, how-
ever, certainly isn’t appropriate for most projects since this endeavor could
create scope creep, timeline extensions, and cost overruns. Table 9.1 shows
some comparisons between the various attributes of ROI contributors and
value enablers.
ROI contributors are those benefits that should be included in project ROI
studies and usually include value metrics relating to output, time, costs, and
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
Project Benefits: ROI Contributors and Value Enablers 141
quality. These benefits are objectively based and can be easily quantified in
financial terms. Examples of these ROI-contributing benefits are:
• Loans approved
• Deliveries made
• Equipment downtime
• Time savings
• Work stoppages
• Overhead costs
• Unit costs
• Amount of re-work
• Amount of scrap
• Units produced
• Unit defects
• Service availability
When it’s not reasonable and appropriate, given project requirements, to quan-
tify benefits in monetary terms and to include them in the ROI analysis, these
benefits should be classified as value enablers. Examples of these benefits are:
• Job satisfaction
• Employee efficiency
Table 9.1 Benefit comparisons
Project benefits
ROI contributors Value enable
rs
Objectively based Subjectively based (mostly)
Easy to understand, measure, and quantify More difficult to understand, measure, and
quantify
Easy to gain project approval from execu-
tive and steering committees with their
use
More difficult to gain project approval from
executive and steering committees with their
use
Can be easily converted to monetary units Not as easy to convert to monetary units
Common business measurements that are
universal
Specific measurements to a company that
are usually behaviorally oriented
Easy to incorporate into cost models using
common formulas and assumptions
More difficult to incorporate into cost models
and require creative formulas and often con-
fusing assumptions
Generally straightforward and feasible May be confusing and not totally believable
Can be monitored easily Not as easy to monitor
Do not require excessive estimating in
forecasting results
Require estimating techniques in forecasting
results
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
142 Strategic Project Management Transformation
• Customer satisfaction
• Employee motivation
• Employee knowledge base
• Employee stress reduction
• Time savings
• Organizational commitment
• Employee complaints
• Work climate
• Innovation
• Community image
• Investor image
• Customer loyalty
• Brand recognition
• Teamwork
• Communication
• Internal conflict
In comparing these project benefit examples, it’s clear that the ROI contribu-
tors are more straightforward and easier to quantify monetarily than the value
enablers, but don’t think for a second that value-enabling benefits can’t be
expressed this way as well. Everything, and I do mean everything, can be fore-
casted, measured, and converted to quantitative, financial terms. Is it easy?
Certainly not. Is it possible? Absolutely. For instance, employee morale is an
often-cited benefit that many professionals feel is impossible to quantify. A
company that specializes in human resources, employee development, and
morale improvement, however, will tell you that it’s not only possible to quan-
tify this important workforce metric, but necessary for a company’s long-term
survival. This is not to say, however, that this is an easy task for everyday project
professionals. For this reason, project teams, more often than not, will classify
employee morale as a value-enabling benefit and not as an ROI contributor.
Scope, timelines, cost, and management intent are key factors that should
be considered when determining whether a benefit is an ROI contributor or
a value enabler. Based on the project requirements, project teams can col-
lectively determine which benefits can be reasonably and appropriately con-
verted to monetary units to contribute to the overall ROI study. All other
benefits should then be considered as value enablers and expressed in other
quantitative and qualitative terms that demonstrate their value to the business.
With this new categorization of benefits, project teams can now deter-
mine, based on their distinct project requirements, which benefits should be
incorporated into the overall ROI analysis and which ones should not. By in-
corporating both ROI contributors and value enablers in the business case,
project teams can tell the complete business story tailored around their spe-
cific project requirements without excluding important business benefits.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
Project Benefits: ROI Contributors and Value Enablers 143
Even though certain benefits may not be included in the ROI evaluation, these
benefits can still be quantified in other ways and managed to achieve targeted
objectives. These benefits can be crucial to the success of a project and to the
overall competitiveness of a company.
For certain projects it may not be such a good idea to expend resources on
quantifying certain benefits in monetary terms to contribute to the overall
project ROI. But for other projects it may make business sense to do so. It’s
important to note, however, that even though some benefits will be classi-
fied as value enablers and won’t be included in the overall ROI analysis, it’s
still advisable to express them in other quantitative terms so that they can be
measured and, therefore, managed throughout the course of a project. Quanti-
tative analysis of value-enabling benefits can be extremely valuable to making
key decisions that affect the business and in managing projects toward their
targeted outcomes.
In using the employee morale example, if baseline measurements indicate
that employees are at an average level of 2 out of 5 for morale (5 = highest,
1 = lowest), and at the conclusion of a project the average level increased to
4, important conclusions can be drawn. The management and project teams
can say with certainty that the project was a success and should consider other
types of initiatives to further improve morale or improve morale for other
departments. Conversely, if the average score dropped to 1.5 at the conclusion
of the project, key conclusions and lessons learned can also be made about the
project; mainly that the project was detrimental to the workforce and, there-
fore, damaging to the business.
Although simple, this example shows how a value-enabling benefit can be
quantified to measure project success. This example can be explored even
further with quantitative methods. Other tangible benefits of employee mo-
rale could also be easily measured to provide management with important
information about their businesses, such as employee turnover and absentee-
ism. Increases in turnover and absenteeism can certainly be quantified and
can indicate negative trends within the business that warrants management
attention.
Labeling a benefit as a value enabler doesn’t necessarily mean that a hard
ROI payoff doesn’t exist. It only means that the project team determined it
cannot be reasonably or appropriately expressed in financial terms for the
project at hand. Oftentimes, only specialized personnel would have to be en-
gaged to determine the tangible benefits and express them in monetary terms.
For instance, only a team of human resource experts may be qualified to cap-
ture the hard-dollar benefits of improved employee morale. A project team
may not find it cost-justifiable to bring such a team on board and will keep
the employee morale benefit separate from the project ROI analysis. Value-
enabling benefits should never be dismissed from a business case simply be-
cause they aren’t included in the ROI analysis. They enable other benefits that
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
144 Strategic Project Management Transformation
C
o
m
p
a
n
ie
s
m
u
st
e
v
a
lu
a
te
a
ll
o
f
th
e
b
u
si
n
e
ss
b
e
n
e
fit
s
t
h
a
t
th
e
ir
p
ro
je
ct
w
ill
d
e
liv
e
r
U
su
a
lly
e
xp
re
ss
e
d
in
f
i
n
a
n
ci
a
l t
e
rm
s
su
ch
a
s
N
P
V
,
R
O
I,
I
R
R
,
p
a
yb
a
ck
p
e
ri
o
d
N
o
t
e
xp
re
ss
e
d
in
c
o
m
m
o
n
f
in
a
n
ci
a
l t
e
rm
s,
b
u
t
m
a
y
b
e
e
xp
re
ss
e
d
q
u
a
n
tit
a
tiv
e
ly
in
o
th
e
r
w
a
ys
E
x
p
re
ss
ed
i
n
t
an
gi
b
le
m
o
n
et
ar
y
u
n
it
s
•
It
em
s
p
ro
d
u
ce
d
•
St
af
f
re
d
u
ct
io
n
•
It
em
s
so
ld
•
E
q
u
ip
m
en
t
d
o
w
n
ti
m
e
•
D
el
ay
c
o
st
s
N
o
t
ex
p
re
ss
ed
i
n
t
an
gi
b
le
m
o
n
et
ar
y
u
n
it
s
•
C
u
st
o
m
er
s
at
is
fa
ct
io
n
•
E
m
p
lo
ye
e
ef
fi
ci
en
cy
•
P
ro
ce
ss
i
m
p
ro
ve
m
en
ts
•
E
m
p
lo
ye
e
k
n
o
w
le
d
ge
b
as
e
•
E
m
p
lo
ye
e
m
o
ra
le
R
O
I
c
o
n
tr
ib
u
to
rs
V
a
lu
e
e
n
a
b
le
rs
F
ig
u
re
9
.2
E
va
lu
at
in
g
R
O
I
co
n
tr
ib
u
to
rs
a
n
d
v
al
u
e
e
n
ab
le
rs
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
Project Benefits: ROI Contributors and Value Enablers 14
5
may be even more important than those that contribute directly to the project
ROI. Project investments that are difficult to measure certainly don’t auto-
matically mean that they are bad investments.
Value-enabling benefits can be converted to monetary terms with the right
expertise and analysis but more often than not, they aren’t. They are kept
separate from the ROI analysis and this is fine for most projects. Attempts
should still be made to show the importance of value-enabling benefits and
how they can bring about beneficial change for an organization. These benefits
must be presented in the business case to tell the complete business story and
to accurately weigh all of the benefits the project will deliver. Some of the
most important strategic benefits that a project can deliver are often the most
difficult to quantify. These benefits can’t be omitted from the business case
or the overall project approach. Project teams must strike a balance between
those benefits that contribute directly to a project’s ROI and those benefits
that enable business value in other ways. These benefits must be presented
collectively to management teams to convey the complete business story. Fig-
ure 9.2 shows an illustrative example of how both ROI contributors and value
enablers should be evaluated in determining the viability of projects.
For many projects, nonmonetary benefits are just as valuable and have as
much influence in the organization as the monetary benefits. But if these ben-
efits aren’t included in the business case, it may be difficult to justify a project
investment. Figure 9.3 illustrates an example of a business case that includes
just those benefits that contribute to the project’s ROI. By not including all of
the project benefits, the costs and risks outweigh the monetary benefits and is
considered to be a bad investment.
Project costs
Project benefits
• Hardware/Software
• Consultants/Vendors
• Project team
• Relocation
• System upgrades
• Training
• Project risks
ROI contributors expressed monetarily
• Units produced
• Units sold
• Defects reduced
• NPV — $110,000
• ROI — 1.4%
• IRR — 0.05%
• Break-even — 2.6 years
Figure 9.3 Project costs vs. benefits (value-enabling benefits excluded)
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
146 Strategic Project Management Transformation
When included in the business case, the value-enabling benefits may tip the
scale to provide the necessary justification for a project. These benefits should
not be considered less important than the benefits contributing to the ROI.
Project teams need to evaluate all relevant benefits carefully to present a com-
pelling story to the management team. Figure 9.4 shows how a project can be
considered a good investment when all benefits are evaluated. As can be seen,
adding the value enablers to the previous example tips the scale in favor of the
project investment being considered a good one.
In a perfect world, all of the right decisions could be made by simply look-
ing at the numbers. There would be clear monetary values for projects and the
extent of our analysis would be choosing the projects and solutions with the
best numbers. But alas, we’re not in a perfect business world and we need to
do more analysis than simply making decisions based on the best numbers. But
this is a good thing, too, because that would make managers and many project
professionals obsolete! So we must still strive to assign monetary value to as
many benefits as possible and strategically analyze the potential for the value
enablers while having the vision to determine what value can be extracted
from them and what actions will be required.
Cost Avoidance and Revenue Protection:
ROI Contributors or Value Enablers?
Many projects are implemented to avoid future costs or to protect future rev-
enue streams as a result of unplanned events. As with all project investments,
Project costs
Project benefits • Hardware/Software
• Consultants/Vendors
• Project team
• Relocation
• System upgrades
• Training
• Project risks
ROI contributors expressed monetarily
• 10% more units produced
• 7.5% more units sold
• 12.5% reduction in defects
• NPV — $910,000
• ROI — 22.4%
• IRR — 11.5%
• Break-even — 1.6 years
Value-enabling benefits
• Employee efficiency gains — 4.5%
• Customer satisfaction improvement
• Corporate image enhancement
Figure 9.4 Project costs vs. benefits (value-enabling benefits included)
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
Project Benefits: ROI Contributors and Value Enablers 147
stakeholders want to see detailed business cases and financial justification for
these cost avoidance and revenue protection projects. Project teams know the
importance of these projects and the possible consequences that may occur if
they are not implemented, but they often struggle with demonstrating positive
ROIs, because cost avoidance and revenue protection can be rather nebulous
when trying to quantify them. Quite often these struggles lead to contentious
debates between project teams and stakeholders. Project teams, who possess
the most knowledge of the situation at hand, often feel that the potential
loss of revenue or increased costs due to an unplanned event is justification
enough for these projects. Stakeholders, on the other hand, who are more re-
moved from the situation want to see business and financial justification for
these project investments.
Companies often implement cost avoidance/revenue protection projects to
replace aging, but important, technical systems that are on their last legs. It’s
common for companies to continue using systems and equipment long af-
ter their depreciable lives. Why spend money replacing things that still work?
Well, they won’t work forever and at some point they do need to be replaced.
Operations personnel responsible for maintaining these systems, and the ones
constantly applying bandages to keep them running, are usually the ones
jumping up and down begging for a replacement. They know the time is near
and they know the impact to the business could be significant when the time
does come.
Those old, private branch exchanges (PBXs), or phone systems, tucked away
in phone closets are classic examples of systems that companies continue us-
ing long after their depreciable lives. Those things seem to last for an eternity!
When the PBX administrator recognizes that the system is about to make its
final phone call and recommends a replacement system, the typical response
from stakeholders with budgeting responsibilities is, “Why? My phone works
fine. Show me financial justification.” The PBX administrator, therefore, would
rather keep applying bandages to the aging system than to take on the near-
impossible task of showing a positive ROI. But it’s only a matter of time before
the old PBX does indeed make its final phone call and results in the inability
to receive customer orders and inquiries; the inability to correspond with cus-
tomers, vendors, suppliers, and other business partners; decreased employee
productivity and morale; and a tarnished reputation. You either pay now or
you pay later, and most stakeholders don’t want to pay now for a project that
doesn’t demonstrate a positive ROI, and they certainly don’t want to pay later
with increased costs or decreased revenue. It’s no wonder operations personnel
keep applying all of those bandages!
Stakeholders are responsible for maintaining budgets and don’t like to
spend money unless it is absolutely necessary. When they are advised to spend
money on a project to protect the business from an event that may or may not
occur at some point in the future, they can become rather defensive and appre-
hensive. They don’t want to unnecessarily spend money on a project to protect
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
148 Strategic Project Management Transformation
themselves from an unforeseen event that may not even occur, and they cer-
tainly don’t want to be responsible for the consequences of such an event
should it occur. Talk about a Catch-22! This is what keeps business leaders up
at night. Let’s see how we can alleviate some of their anxieties by structuring
these types of project proposals in a way that provides enough information so
that business leaders are more comfortable in making these tough decisions.
But when it comes to uncertainties, risks, negative ROIs, potential revenue
losses, or potential cost increases, some anxiety will always remain. That’s just
business. Nobody said it was going to be easy!
Let’s begin by looking at cost avoidance and revenue protection within
the context of the business case. See if you can answer these two important
questions:
1. Are the costs that are avoided due to a project implementation direct
cost savings that contribute to a company’s bottom line and to an in-
creased project ROI?
2. Are the future revenue streams that are protected, that is, maintained,
due to a project implementation additional revenue streams for a com-
pany that contribute to the bottom line and to an increased project
ROI? Think about these questions for a while; close the book if you
have to. This may come as a surprise, especially for those who have
been treating these situations as direct cost savings and additional rev-
enue streams in business cases, but the answer is a loud and resound-
ing NO! Cost avoidance and revenue protection do not contribute to
the bottom line nor do they increase project ROIs. I’ve seen project
team members try six ways to Sunday to come up with ways to show
positive ROIs for cost avoidance and revenue protection in the con-
text of the business case, but, invariably, they fall terribly short. Let’s
see why.
When a project team deploys a solution that enables the business to avoid
unplanned future costs, they do a tremendous job and the business certainly
benefits, but the business doesn’t realize direct cost savings as a result of those
avoided costs. The costs that were avoided aren’t recorded anywhere in the
accounting books as direct cost savings. Profit margins, therefore, do not in-
crease. When a project team deploys a solution that enables the business to
protect future revenue streams from decreasing, the project team once again
did a super job and the business benefits greatly by not losing any revenue, but
the business doesn’t generate additional revenue. The revenue that was pro-
tected isn’t recorded anywhere in the accounting books as additional revenue.
The business did not make any more money. Project teams must build their
financial cost models to reflect the true nature of the business and not sim-
ply in hypothetical situations. This is yet another reason why it’s imperative
to include value-enabling benefits in the business case, such as uninterrupted
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
Project Benefits: ROI Contributors and Value Enablers 149
service, untarnished reputation, and adherence to regulatory mandates, and
not merely the ROI contributing benefits.
No matter how one tries to slice it, if a project investment doesn’t generate
enough money to cover the costs, it won’t have a positive ROI in the business
case. It doesn’t mean the project is a bad one or shouldn’t be implemented; it
simply means that other factors must be carefully analyzed, such as the risk
factors, to make this determination. If it is determined that the project should
be implemented because the risks of not implementing it are too great, that
project, then, is simply the cost of doing business. A company may not make
money on the project, but they won’t lose any money or incur additional costs
when, and if, an adverse future event does occur. When your mechanic tells
you that your car needs new brakes, for instance, do you fork out the cash to
buy them? Of course you do. It’s the price you have to pay for owning a car.
By paying for new brakes now you avoid paying much more in the future
when they inevitably fail. Companies often have to pay for projects that don’t
deliver positive financial returns, but protect them from future events. It’s the
price of doing business.
With the incessant desire to constantly show positive ROI measurements
and with the confusion surrounding cost avoidance and revenue protection
initiatives, many project teams do end up producing positive ROIs in their
business cases. This is easy to do, albeit inaccurate, when cost avoidance is
treated as direct cost savings and when revenue protection is treated as ad-
ditional revenue. Business cases developed in this manner are laden with bo-
gus assumptions, faulty logic, inaccurate cash flows, exaggerated forecasts, and
crafty number crunching. That is not to say that project teams developed these
business cases with deceptive motives, simply that they did not fully under-
stand how to treat the cash flows surrounding these projects. This also does
not mean that the projects weren’t worthwhile investments! It merely means
that the business cases were produced incorrectly and inaccurately. Avoided
costs are not direct cost savings and protected revenue is not additional rev-
enue. Period.
So how do we approach the business case for cost avoidance and revenue
protection projects? Like every other project; carefully, thoroughly, and with-
out cutting corners or sugar-coating the results. All costs and benefits, to in-
clude both ROI contributors and value enablers, must be clearly presented.
Project teams still calculate ROI measurements, even if they are going to be
negative. Stakeholders still need to know how much the project is going to cost
them. Plus, there will always be several different options, solutions, and even
risk mitigation plans to address business issues and unplanned events, each
with its own cost and benefit structure. Businesses need to carefully compare
the technical feasibility and financial attractiveness for the various options and
solutions. Some solutions may require a total replacement or forklift upgrade,
while others may only call for certain maintenance procedures or incremental
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
150 Strategic Project Management Transformation
upgrades. By mandating business cases for all project investments, employees
are encouraged and empowered to be creative and to use their business acu-
men to identify and present the most optimal solutions to address business
obstacles and unplanned events.
Not all cost avoidance or revenue protection projects have to be absolute
money losers. There will nearly always be some ROI contributing benefits
when implementing new projects, deploying new technologies, or enhancing
business processes. Investments in newer technologies, for instance, may pro-
duce employee efficiency gains, enhance product quality, allow quicker access
to vital information, or enable faster delivery times. These benefits must be
accounted for in the business case. They may not cover the total costs of the
project investment, but they will certainly make the project solution less ex-
pensive and more attractive. This is especially useful when comparing compet-
ing project solutions.
Unexpected and unplanned events are not predictable and are difficult to
plan for in the budgeting process. Money is typically not set aside for such
events. Events that occur on a fairly recurring basis, however, are more predict-
able and can be proactively planned for and included in the budgets. Examples
include routine maintenance, inventory overhead, and seasonal-related costs.
When businesses discover that unplanned events may occur in the relatively
near future, management and project teams must assess the risks of these po-
tential events thoroughly to make the best business decisions and to take the
most appropriate actions. Some of the questions that must be addressed in-
clude: Is it absolutely necessary that we invest in a project to address these
risks? Are the risks low enough where we don’t have to take any action? How
much time can we deal with the risks before taking action? Project teams can
greatly assist with these difficult decisions by gathering the necessary infor-
mation, performing detailed analyses, and presenting their overall recommen-
dations in the business case.
Project teams and stakeholders need to assess all of the risks involved with
unplanned events carefully to make smart business decisions and to avoid
overreacting and making poor decisions. Quite often it’s not always as doom
and gloom as everyone initially thinks. Does Y2K come to mind? Many com-
panies spent a ton of money on Y2K (year 2000) projects to prevent their
systems from crashing at the turn of the millennium, as was alleged and even
hyped. It’s essential for project teams to acquire a full understanding of two
key aspects of potential future events, the probability and the impact. Probabil-
ity is the possibility that the event will occur, and impact is the overall effect
the event will have on the organization. Businesses may be able to avoid costly
project investments by finding ways to reduce the probability or impact, or
both. By reducing the probability and/or impact of an event, decision makers
may be more comfortable with tolerating that new risk posture. Figure 9.5 is
a graphical illustration of a probability and impact matrix. Low probability,
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
Project Benefits: ROI Contributors and Value Enablers 151
low impact events can usually be tolerated. High probability and high impact
events must be addressed. The ones in between pose more challenges for deci-
sion makers.
Project managers may be familiar with these terms since they are frequently
used in the development of project risk management plans. They often assess
the probability and impact of certain project risks as high, medium, or low and
monitor these risks throughout the project lifecycle. With cost avoidance and
revenue protection analysis, however, project teams must get much more spe-
cific than high, medium, or low when assessing the probability and impact of a
potential event. Critical and costly business decisions are made based on these
assessments, so it’s imperative that project teams achieve a level of detail and
accuracy in their risk assessments so that business leaders can confidently take
the best courses of action. Decision makers need to know the probabilities of
certain events, expressed as percentages, with as much accuracy as possible to
determine what actions, if any, are necessary. Additionally, if unplanned events
are going to impact organizations by increasing costs or reducing revenue
streams, management needs to know, with precision, the extent of the addi-
tional costs incurred and how much revenue will be lost.
Figure 9.5 Probability and impact matr
ix
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
152 Strategic Project Management Transformation
Corporate leaders certainly don’t want to pay for projects that have nega-
tive ROIs, but if accurate probabilities and impacts of unplanned events are
presented that clearly demonstrate the business justification for certain project
initiatives, they will reach into the corporate coffers. These leaders, addition-
ally, will not only approve these projects but will embrace them wholeheart-
edly because they know that the projects will prevent their businesses from
suffering major setbacks. Project teams need to articulate the probabilities and
impacts of future events in a clear and concise way, with sufficient background
information, to gain that confidence from the business leaders. The following
example shows how the probability and impact of a certain event can be pre-
sented in a business case:
• Based on business growth, customer demand, the age of the system, the
warning indicators, and vendor expert judgment, the probability that
the customer order system will exceed its data storage and operating
capacity within the next six-to-twelve months is 15 to 20%. The impact
of this event will be a forced system shutdown resulting in the inability
to process customer orders for a minimum of 6 hours. The vendor costs
to restore and upgrade the system will be $3.2MM and the revenue lost
will be 5.3MM.
There are advanced statistical, scientific, and mathematical methods of deter-
mining near-exact probabilities of occurrences and other risk-related elements,
which is beyond the scope of this book. More power to those who have these
tools at their disposal to assess risks and potential events. But for most project
professionals in the trenches such tools aren’t readily available and they will
have to rely on more conventional methods of estimating risk factors. Deter-
mining the probabilities and impacts of future events to an acceptable degree
of accuracy requires the input and information from stakeholders, subject mat-
ter experts, vendors, consultants, trade journals, industry publications, and past
experiences. Project teams need to gather and evaluate all risk elements by
conducting interviews, brainstorming sessions, and focus groups; distributing
data request forms and surveys; analyzing historical records and past trends;
and by employing other methods that may be available to them.
A project team’s ability to forecast accurate risk profiles is greatly enhanced
when a structured, proven approach is undertaken. In Chapter 7 we described
the value-metrics framework that is a repeatable, reliable, and proven method
that takes a data-driven approach to accurately identify and solidify value
metrics. As project teams leverage this framework, they must also capture all
of the risk elements associated with their projects. In using this framework
to gather important business information, project teams will be able to de-
termine, fairly accurately, the probabilities and impacts for certain business
events since they will be tapping into expert judgment, prior experiences, a
vast knowledge pool, historical records, and performance trends.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
Project Benefits: ROI Contributors and Value Enablers 153
Evaluating All Possible Outcomes to
Determine the Best Project Solution
I’d like to present a case study to drive home a point on choosing and managing
a project toward the big picture and not merely a specific measure like ROI. Our
example is outside of the business realm, but projects are similar to choosing
and making life choice changes. When evaluating important life matters such
as where to invest your money, where to send the kids to school, or in which
neighborhood to buy a house, you have to analyze and evaluate all of the pros
and cons of the various options and determine which one best satisfies your
needs and requirements. Sound familiar? Let’s jump into our example:
Bill decides, with the encouragement of his wife and physician, to improve
his overall health and wellness. Although Bill’s wife is primarily concerned
with his weight loss, his doctor recommends embarking on a well-rounded fit-
ness and nutrition program to attain the following health benefits:
• Weight loss
• Improved cardio fitness
• Increased strength
• Increased energy level
• Improved mood
• Reduced cholesterol level
Bill researches several fitness and nutrition programs that may help him attain
these health benefits. He does a thorough analysis of the costs and benefits of
each of the programs and presents them to his wife, who happens to be the
project sponsor for this initiative since she feels strongly that Bill needs to drop
some pounds and, perhaps more importantly, the cost comes out of the family
finances that she manages. She interrupts Bill’s detailed presentation of the pro-
grams and exclaims, “I am concerned about bottom-line results. Show me the
program where you will lose the most weight in the shortest amount of time at
the lowest cost.” In other words, what is the return on my investment!?
Realizing that all of his research efforts were in vain, Bill then presents the
least expensive program that promises significant weight loss in the shortest
period of time. Without getting into the details of the program, Bill’s wife
instructs him to embark on this program. She heard the numbers and liked
what she heard. The project sponsor is encouraged by this program because
she won’t have to spend too much money and is confident she can get a good
return on her investment quickly in the form of weight loss. What she does
not understand, however, is that this program calls for doing nothing but eat-
ing a processed lab concoction once a day that has no proven nutritional value
whatsoever. The concoction is specifically designed to curb the appetite with
one dosage a day. Bill’s wife was so engrossed with the bottom-line results that
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
154 Strategic Project Management Transformation
she did not take into account the details, risks, and long-term consequences of
the program.
After starving for several weeks and ingesting nothing but this processed
lab experiment, Bill did indeed lose weight—a lot of it. The project sponsor
was happy because she achieved her project goals. She saved a ton of money
by choosing the cheapest program and now feels that she has money at her
disposal to spend elsewhere. Or does she? As one might imagine, the health
implications from this cheap lab solution start to surface. Bill’s energy level
dissipates, he has become frail and fragile, his heart barely beats, and his crank-
iness is driving his wife up the wall. Bill’s wife, once the chief advocate for this
inexpensive fitness and nutrition program, second guesses her decision and
wishes she had never sponsored such a program.
To rectify the situation she sends Bill to see a specialist. I think we all know
where this is going. The specialist’s treatment ends up costing more, much
more, than the most expensive fitness and nutrition program that was initially
presented. In fact, the specialist, the therapy sessions, the referrals, and other
related costs end up costing more than all of the original programs combined!
Can you think of any disastrous projects that had similar results? All of the
extra money, time, frustration, and adverse health effects could have been
avoided if more than simply cheap weight loss was considered and evaluated
in the program selection process.
That was a fun and somewhat hyperbolic example of what could happen
when only one attribute is assessed for competing initiatives. Similar results
can occur and have occurred for projects when they are chosen and imple-
mented based solely on ROI. When projects are selected based only on the
numbers and nothing else, companies may end up paying more in the long
run, much like Bill’s wife. As project professionals, we need to be careful and
wary of project solutions that come at the lowest cost but promise the great-
est returns. This doesn’t mean that inexpensive solutions with high returns
are always dangerous, but they can be if all of their attributes aren’t evalu-
ated carefully against business requirements and objectives. With low costs,
quite often low quality ensues. When quality suffers, customer satisfaction
decreases. When customer satisfaction decreases, sales suffer. And when sales
suffer, corporations lose money. So much for just ROI!
Financial considerations should always be given top priority in assessing,
prioritizing, and choosing projects. Every attempt should be made to convert
all project data to monetary value and include them in the ROI study. After
all, business is business and money must be made. But basing project decisions
solely on ROI doesn’t account for the complete picture. All important project
attributes should be taken into consideration to choose the best project solu-
tion option. The best way to assess competing project proposals is to evaluate
how each of them satisfies all of the identified value metrics, or business ben-
efits, that the project is striving to achieve. These value metrics include both
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
Project Benefits: ROI Contributors and Value Enablers 155
ROI contributing and value-enabling benefits. It’s worth reviewing the defini-
tions of these important benefits again:
• ROI contributors—benefits that can be reasonably and appropriately
quantified and expressed monetarily and that contribute directly to a
project’s ROI.
• Value enablers—benefits that enable the achievement of business
value but are determined to be unreasonable and inappropriate to be
expressed monetarily for inclusion in a project’s ROI analysis, given
project requirements. Although these benefits will not contribute di-
rectly to a project’s ROI forecast, they can be quantified, measured, and
managed to bring about significant business value in other ways.
It’s certainly not a crime to classify project benefits as value enablers and to
keep them separate from the ROI analysis. It would be bad business practice,
however, to cram certain benefits into ROI financial models using inaccurate
assumptions, bad business logic, and lofty estimates. A project’s true ROI will
never match the ROI of the business case if these ill-advised procedures are
employed.
Stakeholders are accountable to the business for project results. They make
the tough, strategic decisions that can either make or break their companies.
Project teams can recommend certain projects or project solutions but, at the
end of the day, it’s the stakeholders, especially the project sponsors, account-
able to the business for the results. Project teams need to discern and recom-
mend when it makes business sense to keep some of the benefits separate
from the ROI analysis. Project sponsors will eventually have to prove the ROI
numbers down the road and will have a lot of explaining to do when the fore-
casted ROI returns weren’t realized for their project investments.
In defense of the ROI only, show me the money folks, they were probably
never presented with a solid business case that clearly delineated the ROI con-
tributing benefits from the value-enabling ones. They were probably presented
with a laundry list of the so called soft benefits with no business context or
quantifiable value measurements. As project professionals, we need to stop
this bad business process and start helping business leaders make those dif-
ficult project decisions by clearly conveying ROI numbers and other value-
enabling benefits in quantitative, measurable terms. Stakeholders and other
business leaders are under pressure and time constraints every single business
day. Of course they are going to demand projects that make their companies
money, as they should. But let’s show them there are other, more effective
ways to make project decisions that are better suited for their organizations
and better aligned with their business requirements.
Project teams must first begin by prioritizing the business benefits. What
does the organization need to achieve? What are the nice to haves? What ben-
efits aren’t necessary? In most cases, ROI will be the top priority. With the
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
156 Strategic Project Management Transformation
priorities established, project teams can quickly determine if certain project so-
lutions are even worth pursuing and can then narrow down the options. For in-
stance, if voice recognition technology is a high priority for a company and certain
vendors don’t offer this feature, project teams may be able to dismiss them from
the running, saving valuable time and energy in the vendor selection process.
Once the benefits have been prioritized, project teams can determine how
important they are to the organization by assigning a magnitude of importance
to them. By assigning each benefit a weight of importance, project teams can
better determine the most effective project solution to satisfy business priori-
ties and requirements. There will always be several competing project options
and solutions from which to choose. The challenge is choosing and implement-
ing the best one for the organization. By prioritizing the project attributes and
assigning weights to them, project teams can make informed decisions about
which project solutions are best for their organization. The weighted attribute
scoring approach, which is discussed in the next section, is an effective way to
make an informed business decision on your project solution.
The Weighted Attribute Scoring Approach
to Evaluating Project Solutions
Bill and his wife would not have encountered such horrid results if they had
chosen a fitness and nutrition program that not only addressed weight loss at
a low cost, but satisfied all of the doctor’s requirements to some degree. But
with inexpensive weight loss being the only attribute in which the project
sponsor was concerned, the processed lab concoction diet made some business
sense. After all, the ultimate goal of quick, inexpensive weight loss was indeed
achieved. But we saw the ultimate results of the program. What would hap-
pen if a financial services firm entrusted an untested, unproven, start-up se-
curity vendor with all of its security needs because their solution had the best
ROI? This solution may be cheap in the short term, but as security breaches
arise and the integrity of the company’s confidential data is compromised, this
cheap solution becomes quite expensive rather quickly when the risk reme-
diation, lawsuits, and damage to their brand kicks in.
If Bill’s wife listened to the doctor and determined that weight loss was
an important attribute, but not the only attribute, results could have been
drastically different. Based on the doctor’s recommendations, Bill and his wife
could have realistically prioritized and assigned weights of importance to each
of the attributes and used these rankings to determine the most appropriate
program. Let’s say they prioritized these attributes and assigned weights of
importance to them in percentages:
1. Weight loss—20%
2. Increased energy level—15%
3. Improved cardio levels—15%C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
Project Benefits: ROI Contributors and Value Enablers 157
4. Increased strength—10%
5. Improved mood—10%
6. Reduced cholesterol levels—10%
7. Program costs—20%
As with any good attribute weighting exercise, the totals equal 100%. Aligned
with their initial plan, Bill’s wife still had weight loss and program costs as
top priorities, but they also included several other key factors in the decision
making process. It’s starting to become clear that the processed lab concoction
diet could have been eliminated as a viable option early on in the process, but
let’s dive deeper into the weighted attribute scoring approach to definitively
determine the best program for Bill.
The weighted attribute scoring approach is a systematic way of selecting the
most appropriate project investments based on business priorities and require-
ments. The approach involves identifying all of the relevant project attributes
and allocating weights to each of them to reflect their relative importance.We
then assign scores to them for each project option to reflect how each option
performs in relation to each attribute. The result is a single-weighted score for
each project option that is then used to compare the overall performance of
the various project options. This is an effective method because it shows both
the financial and nonfinancial benefits of various project options.
With the weighted attribute scoring approach, project teams and stake-
holders can attain a better comprehension of the big picture and can evaluate
all of the possible outcomes of various project solutions. We can still prioritize
the financial ROI benefits of our projects, but this approach allows for other
attributes to be included in the project decision making process as well. The
diligence of evaluating numerous and various business attributes reduces the
risk associated with a project. If you drop the basket with all of your eggs in
it, what are you cooking for breakfast? Evaluate all of the project attributes
carefully.
Typically, you’ll be faced with numerous solutions initially that can satisfy
project and business requirements to some degree. The key is choosing the
best project solution investment, hence our reliance on the weighted attribute
scoring approach to quantify the various project attributes for each project
option.
The weighted attribute scoring matrix is easy to develop and understand.
As with other important project activities, key stakeholders should be in-
volved in determining the priorities and weightings of the various project at-
tributes. Once the team is assembled, they begin the process by weighting
each attribute by its relative contribution and importance to the organization’s
goals and strategic plan. The team then evaluates each project option or ven-
dor solution by its relative contribution to each of the project attributes. The
project team then assigns a range of values for each attribute ranging from low
(0) to high (5). These values represent a project solution’s ability to satisfy Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
158 Strategic Project Management Transformation
the project attribute. For instance, a 0 ranking for a certain attribute means
that a project solution does not satisfy the attribute at all, whereas a 5 ranking
indicates that the project solution completely satisfies the attribute. A 3 rank-
ing means the project attribute is somewhat, or moderately, satisfied. Then
it’s simple multiplication and addition. First, multiply each attribute’s weight
by the assigned ranking. This gives the overall score for that specific attribute.
Then, add up all of the attributes scores to obtain the total score for a project
solution. The project proposal with the highest score is the best project.
An added benefit to this approach is that it is collaborative and drives team
buy-in for the solution by allowing all key stakeholders to agree on the value
of each benefit that will cause the best solutions to rise to the top. Let’s apply
the weighted attribute scoring approach to the various fitness and nutrition
programs that Bill researched. Table 9.2 shows the four programs and the as-
sociated rankings and scores that Bill and his wife collectively determined for
each of the attributes.
As can be seen, each of the four programs has specific rankings for each of the
attributes based on their abilities to satisfy the attribute. For instance, the heart-
healthy program has a 5 ranking for the increased cardio-level attribute because
this particular program focuses intently on cardiovascular health and fully satisfies
this particular project attribute. The strength program has a 5 ranking for increased
strength because it completely satisfies this attribute, but only a 1.5 ranking for
weight loss, since this program focuses more on bulking up muscles rather than
losing weight. The processed lab concoction has a 5 ranking for weight loss and
program costs, but low rankings for all of the other attributes for obvious reasons.
The general fitness program has consistently high rankings for all of the attributes
and has an overall score of 3.85. Bill and his wife should have chosen this program.
As noted, the weighted attribute scoring approach takes into account the
big picture and includes analysis of all of the relevant project attributes. All
of the project value metrics that were identified should be used as attributes
for the weighted attributes scoring matrix, to include ROI contributing and
value-enabling benefits. There may be instances in which stakeholders want to
include other attributes in addition to these value metrics, usually to account
for additional risk. Common attributes that stakeholders frequently include
when evaluating project solutions are:
• Implementation risk
• Employee acceptance
• Impact on existing operations
• Equipment or service downtime
• Impact on safety
• Customer acceptance
• Compliance with government or other regulations
• Alignment with strategic intent and corporate objectives
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
Project Benefits: ROI Contributors and Value Enablers 159
A
tt
ri
b
u
te
W
e
ig
h
t
(%
)
H
e
a
rt
-h
e
a
lt
h
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
S
tr
e
n
g
th
p
ro
g
ra
m
G
e
n
e
ra
l
fi
tn
e
s
s
p
ro
g
ra
m
P
ro
c
e
s
s
e
d
l
a
b
c
o
n
c
o
c
ti
o
n
R
a
n
k
in
g
S
c
o
re
R
a
n
k
in
g
S
c
o
re
R
a
n
k
in
g
S
c
o
re
R
a
n
k
in
g
S
c
o
re
W
e
ig
h
t
lo
ss
2
0
2
0
.4
1
.5
0
.3
3
0
.6
5
1
In
c
re
a
se
d
e
n
e
rg
y
le
ve
l
1
5
3
0
.4
5
2
0
.3
5
0
.7
5
1
0
.1
5
Im
p
ro
ve
d
c
a
rd
io
l
e
ve
l
1
5
5
0
.7
5
3
0
.4
5
4
0
.6
0
0
In
c
re
a
se
d
s
tr
e
n
g
th
1
0
2
0
.2
5
0
.5
4
0
.4
0
0
Im
p
ro
ve
d
m
o
o
d
1
0
3
.5
0
.3
5
3
0
.3
5
0
.5
1
0
.1
L
o
w
e
re
d
c
h
o
le
st
e
ro
l
1
0
4
0
.4
2
0
.2
4
0
.4
1
.5
0
.1
5
P
ro
g
ra
m
c
o
st
s
2
0
4
.5
0
.9
4
0
.8
3
0
.6
5
1
To
ta
l
3
.4
5
2
.8
5
3
.8
5
2
.4
Ta
b
le
9
.2
F
it
n
e
ss
p
ro
g
ra
m
w
e
ig
h
te
d
a
tt
ri
b
u
te
s
c
o
ri
n
g
m
a
tr
ix
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
160 Strategic Project Management Transformation
Ta
b
le
9
.3
W
e
ig
h
te
d
a
tt
ri
b
u
te
s
c
o
ri
n
g
m
a
tr
ix
A
tt
ri
b
u
te
W
e
ig
h
t
(%
)
P
ro
je
c
t
A
lp
h
a
P
ro
je
c
t
B
e
ta
P
ro
je
c
t
C
h
a
rl
ie
P
ro
je
c
t
D
e
lt
a
R
a
n
k
in
g
S
c
o
re
R
a
n
k
in
g
S
c
o
re
R
a
n
k
in
g
S
c
o
re
R
a
n
k
in
g
S
c
o
re
R
O
I-
c
o
n
tr
ib
u
ti
n
g
b
e
n
e
fit
s
F
in
a
n
c
ia
l
re
tu
rn
s,
i
n
c
lu
d
in
g
N
P
V,
R
O
I,
I
R
R
,
a
n
d
p
a
yb
a
c
k
p
e
ri
o
d
3
0
2
0
.6
5
1
.5
1
0
.3
3
0
.9
In
c
re
a
se
d
o
u
tp
u
t
p
ro
d
u
c
ti
o
n
1
5
2
0
.3
5
0
.7
5
1
0
.1
5
3
.5
0
.5
2
5
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
d
e
fe
c
ts
a
n
d
r
e
-w
o
rk
1
0
2
0
.2
5
0
.5
2
0
.2
2
.5
0
.2
5
To
ta
l
R
O
I-
c
o
n
tr
ib
u
ti
n
g
b
e
n
e
fit
s
5
5
1
.1
2
.7
5
0
.6
5
1
.6
7
5
V
a
lu
e
-e
n
a
b
lin
g
b
e
n
e
fi
ts
Im
p
ro
ve
d
c
u
st
o
m
e
r
sa
ti
sf
a
c
ti
o
n
1
0
3
0
.3
3
0
.3
2
0
.2
1
.5
0
.1
5
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
c
o
rp
o
ra
te
i
m
a
g
e
1
0
3
0
.3
3
0
.3
3
0
.3
1
0
.1
Im
p
ro
ve
d
w
o
rk
e
r
m
o
ra
le
/r
e
d
u
c
e
d
s
tr
e
ss
5
4
0
.2
2
0
.1
3
.5
0
.1
7
5
2
0
.1
To
ta
l
va
lu
e
-e
n
ab
lin
g
b
e
n
e
fit
s
2
5
0
.8
0
.7
0
.6
7
5
0
.3
5
O
th
e
r
p
ro
je
c
t
a
tt
ri
b
u
te
s
L
o
w
i
m
p
le
m
e
n
ta
ti
o
n
r
is
k
1
0
2
0
.2
4
0
.4
2
0
.2
3
0
.3
L
o
w
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
w
o
rk
e
r
sa
fe
ty
1
0
3
.5
0
.3
5
3
0
.3
2
.5
0
.2
5
3
.5
0
.3
5
To
ta
l
o
th
e
r
d
e
c
is
io
n
f
ac
to
rs
2
0
0
.5
5
0
.7
0
.4
5
0
.6
5
To
ta
l
2
.4
5
4
.1
5
1
.7
7
5
2
.6
7
5
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
Project Benefits: ROI Contributors and Value Enablers 161
These attributes can be classified simply as other project attributes in the
weighted attribute scoring matrix. Table 9.3 shows an example weighted at-
tribute scoring matrix for four competing project proposals.
As can be seen in the matrix, the project team determined that the ROI
contributing benefits were the most important attributes to consider in the
evaluation process and, thus, has the highest overall weight of 55%. The value-
enabling benefits are important, but not as important as the ROI contributing
ones, and have an overall weight of 25%. The other project attributes equal a
weighting of 20%. In assigning values for each of the value attributes for each
of the project options, we see that Project Beta is the best project solution
based on its overall score of 4.15.
There may be cases in which some of the overall scores are the same or
too close to determine which project solution has the advantage. In baseball,
whenever there is a close play, umpires rely on the unofficial rule of a tie goes
to the runner. In the weighted attribute scoring matrix, whenever there is a tie,
or whenever the numbers are too close to make a definitive decision, priority
always goes to the project with the best financial ROI metrics. All things being
equal, money trumps all other attributes and the project solutions with the
best financial returns should be given top priority. Additionally, whenever the
scores are too close and the ROI metrics are similar, projects with less inherent
risks should be given priority over those that have more risks. Business leaders
strive to minimize their risk exposure as much as possible. With all else being
equal, projects that have fewer risks should be chosen over those that have
more.
Professional Development Game Plan for Success
1. If you’re like most professionals, the terms tangible, intangible, hard
and soft, in the context of project and business benefits, have been
haunting you for years. How do you deal with these confusing and
ambiguous terms? How do you apply them to your business cases?
Do you quantify everything in monetary terms? How accurate do you
think you’ve been? In other words, did your company receive the
money that you forecasted and record it in the books? Do you dismiss
those benefits that are difficult to quantify monetarily? Could these
dismissed benefits have been quantified and managed in other ways to
bring about value to the business?
Action Plan
a. Evaluate and analyze your approach to categorizing, quantifying,
and presenting project and business benefits in your business cases.
Revisit two or three of your prior projects and carefully examine
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
162 Strategic Project Management Transformation
the forecasted benefits and how you presented them. Was there a
clear delineation between those benefits that contribute directly
to the ROI and those that do not? Do all of the benefits in the ROI
analysis truly and directly contribute to the company’s bottom-
line results? How did you handle the so-called soft benefits? Did
you quantify them in other ways to show the value they can de-
liver? For each of these projects, analyze the forecasted benefits
(value metrics) and write down all of the mistakes, faulty logic,
erroneous assumptions, omissions, inaccurate categorizations, and
improper conversions to monetary units that you can find. Try to
find five to eight of these missteps for each of your projects.
b. Now think about your current or future projects. How will you
categorize and incorporate project and business benefits into
the business case? Consider how we defined benefits in this
chapter as ROI contributors and value enablers. Write down
three to five strategies you will initiate to properly and accu-
rately incorporate project benefits into your project proposals.
Assume that you are accountable to the business for your ROI
forecasts and at the end of the project your executives will
compare your ROI forecasts to actual business results. With
this in mind, how will you approach quantifying and presenting
the benefits in your business case?
2. Companies will always have many solutions to any given business
problem. The challenge is choosing and implementing the best solu-
tion. How do you ensure that the best project solutions are always
chosen and implemented? How do you prioritize project attributes
and evaluate competing project solutions? Do you even embark on
such endeavors?
Action Plan
a. How did you formally evaluate your last two or three project
solution options? On review, can you identify any factors that
weren’t identified that should have been included? How would
these additional factors have affected the solution choice? Make
sure you review the number of vendors chosen, technologies that
were assessed, how far you reached out to gain baseline data and
industry best practices. Was there a better solution that wasn’t
evaluated?
b. What will you do to ensure that all of the business priorities are
firmly established and that the best solutions to address those
priorities are implemented? Write down three to five strategies
you will take to ensure that the best project is chosen to address
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
Project Benefits: ROI Contributors and Value Enablers 163
business issues and satisfy management requirements. Leverage
the weighted attribute scoring methodology that was discussed
in this chapter. Be creative!
Reference
1. Keen, Jack M., and Bonnie Digrius. 2003. Making Technology Investments
Profitable. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
0.
J
.
Ro
ss
P
ub
li
sh
in
g.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 12/24/2017 8:38 PM via KAPLAN HIGHER ED
(IA)
AN: 1094687 ; Resch, Marc.; Strategic Project Management Transformation
Account: ns019078
> .0%
rate
0.0%
25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 [Other benefits] 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 35,000 35,000 10,000 10,000 63,333 63,333 150 150 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 [Other costs] 0 0 0 63,333 63,333 63,333 ($190,000) Managers or Leaders?
What’s more important to your success?
By David Brookmire
Interactive
Many companies aspire to develop a strong management team that on project management and execution. They are expected to manage As the managers become upper-level directors (and higher), they The key to success is not an either/or option. Organizations depend It helps to distinguish between management and leadership to see Competency Thought Reactive
Short-term
Decision-making
Limited scope
Technical know-how
Strategic agility
Proactive
Long-term
Seasoned Apply broad Business acumen
Interpersonal/ Relate based on their Clear and concise Create emotional Relate based on Strategic Personal Transactional – if you Influencer
Transformational Inspire emotion Team Leadership Conflict resolution
Competent team Hire and train talent
Establish goals
Achieve alignment Cross-boundary Build bench Achieving Results Planning, organizing, Short-term results
Goals are desired
Seek operational Establish Long-term results
Build Personal Limit the choices
Maintain practices
Meet commitments
High risk-taker
Outline Challenge status Inspire trust
How to Develop Leaders leadership roles and become more inspirational? Yes, leaders can develop 27 leadership excellence essentials presented by HR.com | 02.2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvezV2Zhihg 28leadership excellence essentials presented by HR.com | 02.2014
Beyond cultivating charisma, leaders must understand the external Companies known for producing great leaders develop a winning For example, P&G has consistently been recognized for their ex- Another good example is Caterpillar’s LD programs that focus on for up-and-coming individuals who have the potential to move into To maximize your successes, you need strong managers who excel at David Brookmire, Ph.D. is an executive advisor, coach, researcher, author Most progressive organizations today are using leadership com- 1. Competencies pulled out of thin air. We’ve all been guilty of 2. It’s a bird, It’s a plane, It’s SuperLeader! Many LCMs provide 3. One size fits all. Most LCMs weight all competencies and
underlying behaviors equally. Some models layer the competencies 4. The Way of the Weakness. We’re largely unaware of how we By Jim Clemmer
Why many fall short and how to make them flourish.
Leadership Competency Models
Interactive Strengths-Based Leadership Is Your Culture Anchored in http://www.clemmergroup.com/strengths-based-leadership-development-system.php http://www.clemmergroup.com/strengths-based-leadership-development-system.php http://www.clemmergroup.com/strengths-based-leadership-development-system.php http://www.clemmergroup.com/blog/2012/12/11/is-your-culture-anchored-in-strengths-or-weaknesses/ http://www.clemmergroup.com/blog/2012/12/11/is-your-culture-anchored-in-strengths-or-weaknesses/ http://www.clemmergroup.com/blog/2012/12/11/is-your-culture-anchored-in-strengths-or-weaknesses/ Copyright of Leadership Excellence Essentials is the property of HR.com, Inc. and its contentWeb Site Budgeting Tool
[Company Name]
Web Site Budgeting Tool
[Date]
Gray cells contain calculations that should not be altered.
Company Data
Required rate of return
1
0
Tax
3
YEAR
0 1 2 3
Initial Investment in Web Site
Hardware (e.g., servers)
$
2
5,000
Software (e.g., e-commerce catalog software)
15,000
Development (e.g., third-party site design and development)
1
50,000
Total Initial Investments
$190,000
Benefits from Web Site
Direct sales
$15,000
$50,000
$75,000
Incremental sales resulting from enhanced promotional/salesperson effectiveness
Incremental sales resulting from increased partner participation
Reduced travel costs
Reduced customer service costs
Reduced printing and shipping costs
[Other benefits]
[Other benefits] 0 0 0
Total Benefits
$145,000
$180,000
$205,000
Costs (Excluding Initial Capital Investments)
Cost of sales
$7,500
$25,000
$37,500
Maintenance
Project management, customer support
35,000
Online advertising, search-engine registration
10,000
Depreciation on capital expenditures (calculation uses three-year period)
63,333
Hosting, domain-name registration
150
General and administrative (e.g., rent, insurance, exec. salaries)
[Other costs]
[Other costs] 0 0 0
Total Costs
$140,983
$158,483
$170,983
Net Benefits (Costs)
$4,017
$21,517
$34,017
Tax
1,205
6,455
10,205
Value after tax
2,812
15,062
23,812
Depreciation added back
Cash flow
($190,000)
$66,145
$78,395
$87,145
Cumulative cash flow
($123,855)
($45,460)
$41,685
Evaluation Metrics
Net present value (NPV)
$394
Internal rate of return (IRR)
10.1%
Payback period (in years)
2.52
can inspire and engage employees. Ideally, through their leadership
efforts, they’ll create a culture where employees feel invested in the
company, are loyal to its mission, and motivated to help the team
achieve—and exceed—its goals. So, what’s needed to achieve high
engagement: management or leadership? The answer is both.
Typically, mid-level supervisors are managers who are more focused
their teams and functions to achieve short-term results. The emphasis
is on execution of the strategy that originates at the highest levels.
Companies must work hard and execute well to ensure consistent,
high quality products and customer service that reflect their desired
brand attributes.
need to develop specific skills to become leaders and shift into a more
visionary and strategic role, demonstrating the confidence, skills and
behaviors that inspire others to follow their direction. At the VP or
officer level, you should spend most of your time on leadership.
on both leaders and managers to maximize their victories. So, com-
panies must develop the competencies in their managers and leaders
to ensure their various needs are being met.
how the behaviors manifest. The chart showcases key competencies
and key differences between managers and leaders in each area, includ-
ing the leaders’ focus on outside-in orientation, longer-term horizons,
and motivating through transformational behaviors.
Group Management Leadership
Leadership Analysis
judgment
perspective
Communications Collaborate with people
role
communicator
appeal
their reputation
messaging
Leadership
do this for me you’ll
get rewarded, if not,
punished
– getting people
to want to change
and leading
change
and engagement
Clear roles and
responsibilities
leadership
to direction
focus
strength
Goals are necessary
delegating and
controlling
excellence
accountability
organizational
performance
Characteristics Low risk-taker
possibilities
quo
Can transformational behaviors be taught? Can managers shift into
more inspirational behaviors by being more in tune with their culture
and followers and then deploying behaviors that foster higher employee
engagement. Ronald Riggio, professor at Claremont McKenna College,
determined that leaders who are expressive, match their behaviors with
the mood and audience characteristics, and are sensitive to others’
needs are more charismatic. (Click here) Alex Pentland at MIT shows
that with some work, leaders can develop these behaviors to create a
stronger bond with their followers. And, in her book, The Charisma
Myth, Olivia Fox Cabane outlines both internal states and external
behaviors that increase charisma in leaders. (Click here)
and internal environments and ensure that the work produced meets
marketplace needs and that their team is following the formula for
execution in producing the products and services.
approach for selection, development and retention of leaders re-
quired to meet their goals. Their CEOs are actively involved in train-
ing efforts, have planned processes in place that identify and develop
leaders, formal classroom and on-the-job teachings supplemented with
feedback and coaching, and integrated talent management systems.
cellence in developing leaders over the past several decades. It starts
at the top. CEO Bob McDonald gets involved in the selection and
development of their leaders. He spends time recruiting, teaching
and coaching for leadership. He expects his team of senior leaders
to do the same, and this cascades into all management ranks. They
also use on-the-job assignments, feedback, and coaching to help grow
their leaders.
LEAD, or Leadership, Excellence, Accountability and Development. It
starts with an emerging leader program, which offers specific curriculum
leadership roles. The company has LD programs at every level, from
high potential individual contributors to the top executives. They
are anchored in a model that distinguishes the critical competencies
needed at different levels. They also have their senior executives ac-
tively participate, teaching other senior leaders in a specially designed
university-based LD program. In another program, company VPs
lead a session with division leaders to outline the business strategy and
discuss how leadership is tied to execution of the strategy.
execution and oversee day-to-day efforts. You also need inspirational,
visionary leaders who bring a big-picture perspective. It’s not an
either/or situation—both leaders and managers are necessary players
on any winning team. LE
and authority in leadership effectiveness.
Visit www.cpstrat.com.
petency models (LCMs) to outline the key skills and behaviors they
want to see in their managers and leaders. LCMs provide a struc-
tured framework for defining and developing behaviors that impact
performance most.
And yet, LCMs often fall short for five reasons:
pulling competencies out of thin air. In one case, we had 140 top
leaders in an offsite retreat to identify and vote on their top 10 com-
petencies. Descriptions of each one were crafted by a few leaders
based on the blizzard of Post-It-Notes around each competency
cluster. Some organizations shuffle, sift, and prioritize card decks
listing generic competencies. What’s missing is proof that these
competencies and behaviors have the greatest impact on employee
engagement, attraction and retention, customer service, quality, in-
novation, safety, productivity, sales, and profits. How do we know
we have the right competencies?
a series of behavioral descriptions clustered around 6 to 16 or more
headings. What’s implied is that the pathway to peak performance is
improvement across dozens of skills and behaviors, but this pathway
is overwhelming and unrealistic. At best, leadership development
(LD) that’s a mile wide and an inch deep moves a leader from good
to a bit better. Often, motivation to develop and follow a personal
development plan to become SuperLeader is discouraging and leads
to little change.
across organizational levels starting with frontline staff, and moving
up to managers and executives. This SuperLeader model doesn’t
account for vast variances in individual preferences across leaders or
their widely differing functions. Each person is a unique mixture of
strengths and weaknesses. We have work areas that play to our pas-
sions and turn us on and areas that are a real chore and turn us off.
One-size-fits-all LCMs don’t account for those differences.
equate improvement, development, and personal growth with
finding and fixing weaknesses. Improving low marks is deeply so-
Managers or Leaders?
Development
Strengths or Weaknesses?
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.