4.5 Article

Managing the changing understanding of benefits in software initiatives

期刊

JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE
卷 208, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2023.111903

关键词

Benefits management; Understanding of benefits; Organizational learning; Double -loop learning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When deciding to develop new software, it is important to have a clear understanding of the intended benefits. However, our research shows that stakeholders' understanding of benefits often fluctuates during the development process, leading to uncertainty. Therefore, we recommend focusing on helping practitioners embrace changes in their understanding of benefits.
When deciding to develop new software, that decision should be based on a clear understanding of the intended benefits the system can lead to. But what if the understanding of those benefits fluctuates. In this article, we investigate the understanding that stakeholders have or build of the benefits of the system under development, and what role that understanding plays. We conducted four studies: an exploratory study based on 22 interviews on nine projects that had explicit incentives to conduct benefits management, a confirmatory study based on a survey (n =110) of concepts of benefits understanding developed in the first study, and two explanatory studies arranged as focus groups (five participants in each) on issues that arouse during analysis of the first two studies. We find that it is common for stakeholders' understanding of benefits to change during and after development (reported by 96% of respondents from their latest digitalization efforts). Predicting and managing the changes to understanding of benefits is not straightforward. This leads to uncertainty, both for investment decisions and how to manage benefits. We conclude that, rather than focusing on cookbook recipes for benefits management, more emphasis should be focused on helping practitioners embrace changes to understanding of benefits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据