A project can be delivered exactly as promised and still leave the organisation wondering where the value went.
Consider an organisation that invests in a new customer service platform to reduce response times and operating costs. The system goes live on schedule, the budget is controlled, and all agreed deliverables meet acceptance criteria. The project is officially closed and reported as successful.
Six months later, customer response times have barely improved. Employees are still using old processes, adoption of the new platform is inconsistent, and the operational changes needed to achieve the expected efficiencies have not been fully implemented.
Was the project successful? From a delivery perspective, perhaps. But from an investment perspective, the organisation has yet to realise the value that justified spending the money.
I think this exposes an important accountability gap in how some organisations manage projects. We establish clear responsibilities for delivering the solution, but the arrangements for realising its benefits after handover are not always given the same attention.
The Association for Project Management recognises that benefits are often realised after project outputs transition into operational use, with accountability for benefits realisation resting with the sponsor. However, effective benefits management also requires active involvement from the business functions responsible for adopting and sustaining the change.
This is where the distinction between delivery accountability and benefits ownership becomes important. A project manager may deliver a functioning system and support its transition into operations, but cannot remain indefinitely responsible for how the business uses it. Equally, appointing a benefits owner means little if that person lacks the authority, resources or organisational support to make the changes required.
Perhaps benefits realisation should receive the same governance attention after project closure that delivery performance receives during execution. Before a project closes, there should be clarity on the expected benefits, their baseline measures, who owns their realisation, what operational changes are required, and when performance will be reviewed. More importantly, those reviews should lead to corrective decisions when the expected value is not emerging, rather than simply documenting the shortfall.
A successful handover is an important milestone, but it should not become the point where organisational attention moves elsewhere and the original business case is forgotten. After all, the organisation did not invest in the project merely to receive its deliverables. It invested because those deliverables were expected to create value.
If a project delivers everything agreed but the expected business benefits never materialise, where should accountability ultimately sit: with the project team, the sponsor, or the business that takes ownership?
Good ideas get better in conversation.
