Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 650 – 658
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Project benefit management: Setting effective target benefits

Ofer Zwikael a,⁎, Ying-Yi Chih a , Jack R. Meredith b
a
Research School of Management, College of Business and Economics, The Australian National University, 26 Kingsley St., Acton, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
b
Broyhill Distinguished Scholar and Chair in Operations, Emeritus, School of Business, Wake Forest University, PO Box 7897, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, USA

Received 3 October 2017; received in revised form 9 December 2017; accepted 11 January 2018

Abstract

Target benefits such as “reduced operational costs” are project goals that can contribute to the long-term improvement of organizational
performance following project completion. Setting effective target benefits is critical because it supports project investment decisions, clear project
management direction, and thereby enhanced project and organizational performance. Based on goal setting theory, we present three studies to
develop and validate a scale to measure effective target benefits. The proposed scale is comprised of three dimensions - specificity (e.g., specific
target values), attainability (e.g., the capacity to realize the target benefits), and comprehensiveness (e.g., reflect the views of key stakeholders).
This scale can be used by senior managers to assess proposed projects' target benefits, contributing to more informed project investment decision-
making and the subsequent benefit management process. Theoretically, it can also be used as an instrument to facilitate theory development in the
fields of project benefit management, strategy implementation, and organizational performance.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project benefit management; Return on investment (ROI); Goal setting theory; Project investment decisions; Benefit realization

1. Introduction Failing to realize benefits from such endeavors will result in

Project management practice has improved in delivering
projects according to the iron triangle measures (i.e., scope,
cost, and time), but much less so in terms of meeting the
projects' desired benefits (Zwikael and Meredith, 2018).
This represents a lost opportunity for project funders to
ensure benefits are realized from their investments to
support their organizational strategic goals (Samset and
Volden, 2016). Recognizing this gap, the project manage-
ment discipline has increased its emphasis on project
benefit management (Zwikael, 2016). This emphasis is
particularly important now with an increased number of
larger, complex, inter-organizational, and mega projects.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ofer.zwikael@anu.edu.au (O. Zwikael),
ying-yi.chih@anu.edu.au (Y.-Y. Chih), meredijr@wfu.edu (J.R. Meredith).
significant loss to project funders and project management
as a profession.
Project benefits can be classified into two groups: (1)
“target benefits”, those benefits set prior to project com-
mencement which the project funder seeks thorough an
investment in a project; and, (2) “fortuitous benefits”, which
may emerge during the project (Zwikael and Smyrk, 2011).
As fortuitous benefits are emergent, the project benefit
management process we discuss here is focused on setting
target benefits only (Musawir et al., 2017; Bradley, 2010). In
this paper we define “target benefits” as “strategic project
goals that following project completion will enhance
organizational performance”. Target benefits are also referred
to in the literature as project business objectives, as they are
“what the project owner expects to obtain from using the
project results after the project has been handed over to them
from the project organization” (Rolstadås et al., 2014,
p. 639).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.01.002
0263-7863/00/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
 O. Zwikael et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 650–658
Therefore, target benefits can be viewed as a sub-set of
project goals, alongside other tactical short-term goals such as
completing a project on time and on budget. Target benefits are
set during a project's initiation phase and then documented in
the project business case for approval by the project funder
(Zwikael and Smyrk, 2012; Doherty, 2014; Breese, 2015;
Laursen and Svejvig, 2016; Zwikael and Meredith, 2018).
They are then used as a baseline for ongoing monitoring and
control, as well as the later project performance evaluation.
The importance of setting effective target benefits is illustrated
by the fact that 74% of the organizations that identify target
benefits in their business cases meet their project goals,
compared with only 48% of the organizations that do not (PMI,
2016).
Although research acknowledges the importance of setting
target benefits, it is still unclear what constitutes “effective
target benefits.” Managing Successful Projects (MSP), a
leading benefit management approach developed by the UK
government (OGC, 2009), requires project target benefits to be
measurable. Similarly, Aubry et al. (2017) identify measur-
ability as one of the four benefit management themes (together
with evaluation process, organizational change, and perfor-
mance). Further, Jenner (2009) suggests project target benefits
should be “robust” and “realizable”. However, the literature
falls short of defining what “robust and realizable” target
benefits are. Indeed, Chih and Zwikael (2015) conclude that
little is known in the literature about setting effective target
benefits.
Given these gaps in the literature and the importance of
setting project target benefits, we aim to answer the
following research question: “What are effective project
target benefits?” In particular, this paper is the first to
develop and validate a scale to allow the measurement and
evaluation of “Effective Target Benefits” (ETB). In this
research, we define ETB as “strategic project goals that are
set in a manner that will allow their successful measure-
ment, management, and realization.” Such a scale is
expected to contribute significantly to both practice and
theory. Practically, this scale can be used to ensure well-
defined target benefits for projects. This in turn will enable
organizations to make better informed project investment
and portfolio selection decisions. Further, effective target
benefits will support the benefit management process
throughout project execution and enhance the likelihood of
benefit realization following project completion. Theoreti-
cally, this scale can be used to further develop and test
theory in the area of project benefit management. This
research also extends the goal-setting literature and models
such as management by objectives (Drucker, 1954) and
balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996) to the project
benefit management context.
The paper employs the following structure. In the next section,
we review the literature and define the new ETB construct,
followed by a detailed description of three studies to develop and
validate a scale to measure effective target benefits. Last, we
discuss the results of the studies, their implications for theory and
practice, and conclude the paper.
651
2. Literature review
2.1. Project goal setting
Goal-setting literature has established the positive relationship
between well-defined goals and performance at the individual,
group, and organizational levels (Linderman et al., 2006; Latham,
et al., 2007). One can explain this goal-performance link through
the motivational and goal-oriented, effort-directed mechanisms.
As such, we anticipate that setting goals effectively will improve
project performance. For example, a review by the World Bank
found that 80% of projects with satisfactory “quality-at-entry”
were successful, whereas only 35% of those with unsatisfactory
quality-at-entry achieved success (World Bank, 1996).
Managers make better decisions when high-quality informa-
tion is available for them. In this regard, clear project goals
can contribute to more informed project funding decisions
(Raghunathan, 1999; Mihm, 2010; Paese and Sniezek, 1991).
Clear goals justify a proposed project's contributions to
organizational strategic goals and serve as the basis for the
subsequent project-planning effort. Project goals discussed in a
business case often include monetary measures, such as return on
investment (ROI) or net present value (NPV) (e.g., Jørgensen
et al., 2012). However, many projects also have non-monetary
goals that are more difficult to capture with measures. Examples
of such goals from a service improvement project may include
“reduced customer complaints” and “increased service quality”.
Literature and practice agree that such project goals are often
vaguely defined (Norris, 1996; Lin and Pervan, 2003), optimis-
tically biased, and deliberately inflated to increase the chance of
project approval (Jenner, 2009; Flyvbjerg, 2007). Therefore,
researchers have called for more research on setting effective
project goals (Scott-Young and Samson, 2008; Won and Lee,
2016).
2.2. Effective target benefits
Target benefits specifications and characteristics, as well as
the process of setting target benefits have been discussed in the
literature. Managing Successful Projects (MSP) outlines four
steps in setting effective project target benefits: (1) identify the
benefits, (2) select objective measures that will reliably prove
the benefits; (3) collect the baseline measure, and (4) decide
how, when and by whom the benefit measures will be collected
(OGC, 2009). Goal setting theory argues that “specific hard
goals produce a higher level of outputs than a goal of ‘do your
best’” (Locke, 1968, p. 157). Similarly, Goldstein and Naor
(2005) found that Six Sigma projects employing explicit
challenging goals resulted in a greater magnitude of improve-
ment than projects lacking such goals. Others have suggested
goals should be “specific and challenging” (Chesney and
Locke, 1991) and “robust and realizable” (Jenner, 2009). Doran
(1981) suggested a “SMART” approach for setting effective goals;
namely, goals should be Specific, Measurable, Attainable,
Relevant, and Time targeted. Chih and Zwikael (2015) suggested
adding two project-specific dimensions to the five SMART goal
setting ones: accountability and comprehensiveness. Even though
652 O. Zwikael et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 650–658
these research enhance our understanding on the importance
and process of setting project goals in general and effective
target benefits in particular, there is still a lack of a clear and
comprehensive understanding of what constitutes “effective target
benefits”.
3. Methods
The objective of this research is to develop and validate an
Effective Target Benefits (ETB) scale. Research has discussed
the advantages of using positivism and interpretivism research
approaches. Whereas positivism reduces phenomena to simple
elements representing general laws, interpretivism “takes a
broad and total view of phenomena to detect explanations
beyond current knowledge” (Blumberg et al., 2005, p. 23). To
capture the advantages of both approaches we designed a multi-
study research process that involves interviews with project
practitioners (interpretivism), and surveys of both experts and
project practitioners (positivism). In particular, we followed
Churchill's three steps for new scale development (Churchill,
1979; Hinkin, 1998): (1) item generation, (2) content validity,
(3) scale dimensionality and internal consistency. Table 1
describes our three multi-method studies to address each of
these steps (Zwikael and Chih, 2014, 2015).
4. Study 1: Item generation
The first step in developing a new scale is to generate potential
dimensions and measurement items.
4.1. Participants and procedures
We derive an initial list of dimensions and their items for an
ETB scale from project benefit management and goal setting
literatures; and interviews with 15 senior managers from eight
Australian Government agencies with strong emphasis on
project benefit management practices (e.g., Australian Depart-
ment of Finance and Deregulation, 2012; Gershon, 2008). We
asked participants to describe how their agencies set and evaluate
project goals. We then raised follow-up questions in response to
participants' answers to clarify information and explore further
details. Sample interview questions were: “How do you identify
and define target benefits for projects?” and “How do you
determine the quality of target benefits?”. We recorded the
interviews (which lasted 40 min on average) and later tran-
scribed them for analysis.
Table 1
Research overview.
Scale development study Method and sample
1: Item generation Interviews with 15 senior managers in Australia
2: Content validity A survey of 21 international experts
3: Scale dimensionality and A survey of 132 managers in China
internal consistency
4.2. Results
Our interviews confirmed the five SMART dimensions
derived from goal-setting theory, which suggests that ETB can
be appraised based on whether the benefits: (1) are specific,
(2) have clearly defined target values and are measurable,
(3) are attainable given organizational constraints, (4) are
relevant to the organization's strategic goals, and (5) have
target dates. In addition to confirming the five proposed
dimensions, our participants mentioned two additional ones:
“accountability” and “comprehensiveness.” To reduce the large
number of dimensions, we consolidated them (Zikmund,
Babin, Carr and Griffin, 2010) into three overall dimensions.
The “Measurable” dimension was integrated into the similar
dimension of “Specific”, which created a new dimension called
“Specificity”, defined as “the extent to which target benefits are
clearly defined and measurable.” “Accountability” and “Time-
targeted” were integrated into the “Attainability” dimension,
defined as “the extent to which target benefits are realistic,
given the context in where the organization is managing the
benefit realization process and the constraints it has.” Finally,
“Relevant” was integrated into the “Comprehensiveness”
dimension, defined as “the extent to which target benefits
reflect organizational strategies and the objectives of various
stakeholder groups.” The proposed three goal-setting dimen-
sions are discussed in more detail below.
(1) Specificity – specific goals result in higher levels of
performance than vague non-quantitative ones (Locke,
1968; Linderman et al., 2006). Therefore, a vague statement
of project target benefits can lead to a firm's poor allocation
of resources and responsibilities (Norris, 1996; Scott-Young
and Samson, 2008). To meet this specificity requirement
and prevent different interpretations by various stake-
holders, the literature suggests project target benefits should
have a clear benefit title and description (Zwikael and
Smyrk, 2012). They should also be explicitly defined
(Breese, 2015; Ward and Daniel, 2006) with a current
baseline and target value that can be in absolute terms (e.g.,
achieve a customer satisfaction score of eight on a ten-point
scale) or relative terms (e.g., reduce operations costs by
10%). Goals should also be measurable to allow organiza-
tions to determine whether they have achieved them
following project completion (Locke and Latham, 2002).
Agreed-upon measures (Ashurst et al., 2008), clear and
relevant units of measurement (Melnyk et al., 2004;
Heinrich, 2002), a clear source of data (Zwikael and
Smyrk, 2012), and consistency across the organization
(Nicholson-Crotty et al., 2006) allow managers to later
determine whether the project has met its target benefits
(Ward and Daniel, 2006).
(2) Attainability – goals should be challenging, yet attainable
(Locke and Latham, 2002; Linderman et al., 2006), to
support the commitment and action undertaken to
achieve them (Maier and Brunstein, 2001). Similarly,
project target benefits should be “realizable” (Jenner,
2009) in the sense that they should be “realistic given the
 O. Zwikael et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 650–658 653

context in which the organization is operating and the
constraints it has” (Ward and Daniel, 2006, p.29). Goals
should have an explicit expected time for completion
(Locke and Latham, 2002). Having such an explicit time
for completion also plays a critical role in developing and
realizing intermediate strategic objectives (Schmidt and
DeShon, 2007). Consequently, firms should set target
dates to realize project benefits (Breese, 2012; Ward and
Daniel, 2006) so they can continuously monitor and
evaluate them.
(3) Comprehensiveness – This is defined here as the extent to
which target benefits fully reflect the organization's
strategies, as well as the objectives of the key project
stakeholder groups. Research has emphasized the impor-
tance of goal relevance at various levels (e.g., individual,
team, and organizational) and across various disciplines
(e.g., education, healthcare, and management). For example,
Veld et al. (2010) suggest that when employees understand
the relevance of their work to supporting organizational
strategic goals, they typically align their actions with these
goals. We adopt Hong et al.'s (2011) approach and suggest
that comprehensive project target benefits should be
consistent with the organization's long-term vision and
current strategies, and follow information gathering from the
external environment, especially key project stakeholders
(Ward and Daniel, 2006; Lederer and Mirani, 1995).
The interviews and literature analysis also suggested 17
potential items to be included in the three suggested ETB
dimensions. These items (and their literature source) are
presented in Table 2 and were validated in our additional
studies, which are discussed next.
5. Study 2: Content validity
The objective of this study is to test the content validity of
the initial pool of items and their corresponding dimensions
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1991).
5.1. Participants and procedure
In this study, we asked experts to sort the 17 items listed in
Table 2 into one of the three dimensions where they fit best,
and provide feedback on the clarity and readability of each item
(Hinkin, 1998). Participants were provided with a definition for
each of the three proposed dimensions and the list of items
(presented in random order), but were not given any indication
as to which dimension we expected the items to fall into.
Prior to the main study, a pilot study was conducted involving
one senior academic in the area of management and one research
assistant to ensure the clarity and readability of the questionnaire.
Participants for the full study were experts from both academia and
industry. A total of 24 requests for participation were sent. Twenty-
one experts (88%)—16 senior academics with a PhD in project
management or a related area with project-related practical
experience from leading universities, and five senior practitioners
in project management—returned complete questionnaires.
Among these responses, nine were received from Australia,
seven from the United States, three from Israel, and two from
New Zealand. This number of respondents falls within the

Table 2
Proposed ETB dimensions and items.
Dimension Item Reference
Specificity S1. Target benefits were assigned a target value (e.g., 10% decrease in road fatalities) Breese (2012), Ward and Daniel (2006), Zwikael and Smyrk
(2012)
S2. Target benefits were explicitly defined to leave no other interpretation (e.g., Breese (2012), Ward and Daniel (2006), Zwikael and Smyrk
clear title and description) (2012)
S3. Target benefits were assigned a quantitative and/or qualitative measure that Melnyk et al. (2004)
will enable the evaluation of their realization
S4. Target benefits were assigned measures that are consistent with those Nicholson-Crotty et al. (2006)
measuring similar benefits across the organization
S5. Target benefits had a clear unit of measurement Melnyk et al. (2004), Heinrich (2002)
S6. The source of data to measure the target benefits was clear Zwikael and Smyrk (2011)
Attainability A1. Target benefits were achievable given the context of the organization Ward and Daniel (2006)
A2. The organization had the capacity to realize the target benefits Ward and Daniel (2006)
A3. Target benefits were assigned a specific timeframe for their realization Breese (2012), Ward and Daniel (2006)
A4. Target benefits were assigned a dedicated benefit owner who was accountable Zwikael and Smyrk (2012)
for ensuring their realization
Comprehensiveness C1. The metrics were relevant to the measurement of the target benefit Melnyk et al. (2004), Heinrich (2002)
C2. Target benefits were consistent with the organization's current strategy Hong et al. (2011)
C3. The realization of target benefits was important in achieving the organizational Ward and Daniel (2006); Lederer and Mirani (1995)
strategy
C4. Target benefits were relevant to the organization's vision Hong et al. (2011)
C5. Target benefits were comprehensive (e.g., comprised of both monetary and Henderson and Ruikar (2010); Irani and Love (2001)
non-monetary benefits, or at operational, tactical and strategic levels)
C6. The team worked intensively in identifying target benefits Breese (2012); Jenner (2009)
C7. Target benefits reflected the views of all stakeholders Doherty (2014)
654 O. Zwikael et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 650–658

recommended 12 to 30 experts suggested by Anderson and
Gerbing (1991) and Sendjaya et al. (2008).
5.2. Data analysis
We used two criteria to analyze the level of agreement of the
participants with the three dimensions (Anderson and Gerbing,
1991; Linderbaum and Levy, 2010): 1) substantive agreement
(SA), which means the proportion of experts who assign an
item to its theorized dimension (threshold value is .7); and
2) substantive validity coefficient (SVC), which means the extent
to which experts assign an item to its theorized dimension rather
than another dimension (threshold value is .5).
5.3. Results
On average, 77% of the experts' responses fit with our proposed
ETB dimensions. In other words, experts marked an item to fit our
theorized dimension for 13 items (ranged between nine and the
maximum of 17 “correct” items). We also received 48 comments to
improve the wording of our proposed items.
The results in Table 3 show that thirteen items met the cut-
off values and hence endorsed their suggested dimensions with
changes made to the other four items. In particular, the
proposed Specificity dimension was confirmed for all items,
with SA values higher than .80 and SVCs greater than .60. For
Attainability items, items A1 and A2 were confirmed with SA
above .85 and SVCs greater than .70. However, items A3 and
A4 scored low on both measures, whereas C4 satisfied only the
SA threshold value. Following the experts' suggestions, we
rephrased items A3, A4, and C4 and moved item A4 to the
Specificity dimension. In the Comprehensiveness dimension
five of the seven items scored above the threshold levels in
both measures, but due to low scores on both measures and
overlapping with other items, we removed items C1 and C3.
We then used this revised 15-item scale in the following study.
6. Study 3: Scale dimensionality and internal consistency
The objective of Study 3 was to conduct an exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) and internal consistency analysis to
validate the three ETB dimensions and 15 items proposed at the
end of Study 2.
6.1. Participants and procedure
This study involved a cross-sectional survey of senior
managers who were engaged in setting and appraising target
benefits as part of their regular organizational duties. Partici-
pants of this study consisted of Master of Management part-
time students at Tsinghua University in China. All students
held full-time management positions with project related
experience, as project managers, funders, sponsors and owners
in various industries, such as finance, manufacturing, services,
and engineering. Survey questionnaires were distributed and
collected by the researchers, who also conducted a briefing on
the questionnaire at the start of the session and addressed
individual questions throughout the data collection process. 132
participants in three classes of the same program completed the
questionnaires. All three classes were analyzed as one sample,
following a confirmation that participants from the various
groups shared similar gender, age, and work experience
characteristics, as well as working in organizations of similar
types and sizes. Seventy-one percent of the participants were
male, 29% were under 30 years old, 39% were between 30 and
40 years old, 30% were between 40 and 50 years old, and 2%
were between 50 and 60 years old. The majority of participants
held managerial organizational positions (8% were non-
supervisory staff, 6% were junior managers, 63% were middle
managers, and 23% were top managers), with an average work
experience of 13.2 years. Participants held positions in both
private (36%) and government (64%) organizations, with an
average organization size of 2667 employees.

Table 3
Content validity.
Item number b Substantive agreement (SA) Substantive validity coefficient (SVC) Outcome
S1 .85 a .85 a Proposed dimension confirmed
S2 .95 a .89 a Proposed dimension confirmed
S3 .85 a .70 a Proposed dimension confirmed
S4 .83 a .67 a Proposed dimension confirmed
S5 .80 a .60 a Proposed dimension confirmed
S6 .85 a .70 a Proposed dimension confirmed
A1 1.00 a 1.00 a Proposed dimension confirmed
A2 .85 a .70 a Proposed dimension confirmed
A3 .50 .00 –Item's wording rephrased
A4 .37 .00 –Suggested better fit with “Specificity”
C1 .10 −.70 –Item removed
C2 .75 a .55 a Proposed dimension confirmed
C3 .42 −.16 –Item removed
C4 .70 a .45 –Item's wording rephrased
C5 .84 a .74 a Proposed dimension confirmed
C6 .78 a .61 a Proposed dimension confirmed
C7 .84 a .79 a Proposed dimension confirmed
a
Item meets minimum required value for this test: .7 for SA and .5 for SVC.
b
Dimensions: S-Specificity; A-Attainability; C-Comprehensiveness.
 O. Zwikael et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 650–658 655

To assure equivalence between the questionnaire in Chinese
and the original English version, a standard translation and
back-translation procedure was performed (Brislin, 1980).
First, an English version of the questionnaire was translated
into Chinese by a bi-lingual Chinese-English researcher. Then,
an additional person proficient in both languages compared the
original questionnaire with the translated questionnaire. This
process was repeated until satisfactory results were reached.
Participants were asked to recall a recent project proposal they
had proposed or reviewed, and mark their level of agreement
according to the 15 ETB items derived from Study 2 for that
proposal (the unit of analysis). Proposed items (presented in
random order) were phrased in the form of statements to be marked
by participants on seven-point Likert scales, from “Strongly
disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” (7). Such a technique is widely
regarded as appropriate for measuring attitudes (Nunnally, 1978).
6.2. Data analysis
As suggested by Churchill (1979), we purified the proposed
measure by conducting an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
to determine the dimensional structure of the ETB scale. To
examine whether the items load onto the specified dimensions,
we performed a rotated Varimax factor analysis with Kaiser
Normalization to maximize the sum of the variances of the
squared loadings. Internal consistency was analyzed by
calculating Cronbach's alpha values for the entire ETB scale,
as well as for each dimension separately.
6.3. Results
The factor analysis with Kaiser normalization supported a
three-factor model, which explained 63% of the ETB variance.
The Specificity dimension contributed 24% to the cumulative
explained variance with all loadings between .50 and .82 and
only one item (S2) having a cross loading with the Attainability
dimension, though lower (.50) than the loading in its origin
dimension (.57). The Attainability dimension contributed an
additional 22% to the cumulative explained variance with all
loadings between .52 and .73. Items C2 and C4 fell into this
dimension with C4 also having cross loadings (.42) with its
original dimension. The final Comprehensiveness dimension
contributed an additional 17% to the cumulative explained
variance with all loadings between .67 and .84. Last, we
clarified and simplified the wording of the three items in
question and ensured the allocations of items were in alignment
with the very logical and robust suggestions received from the
experts of study 2.
Following the implementations of these changes, the internal
reliability of the scale and each of its dimensions were
calculated and the ETB items were finalized. The full scale's
Cronbach's Alpha was .904, which suggests all scale items are
closely related. The Cronbach's Alpha values for each
dimension are presented in Table 4, together with the final
ETB scale (Zwikael and Chih, 2015).
7. Discussion
This research is set to address the research question: “What are
effective project target benefits?” Whereas some target benefits are
easier to set and measure effectively (e.g., reduced operational
costs), others are more difficult to quantify (e.g., an advanced
organizational culture following a transformational change pro-
ject). This paper found that a proposed project's target benefits are
effective when they are comprehensive (e.g., reflect the views of
key external stakeholders), specific (e.g., use measures defined
consistently across the organization), and attainable (e.g., achiev-
able given the organization's context and constraints). The
proposed Effective Target Benefits (ETB) scale can guide:
managers in setting goals for their proposed projects, senior
executives in evaluating project business cases for funding, and
project managers in making project decisions that are aligned with
the project's strategic goals.
As an illustrative example for an effective target benefit we
consider a project of building a bridge over a busy road next to
a school. In this project, the target benefit is to “reduce the

Table 4
The final Effective Target Benefits (ETB) scale.
Dimension
Specificity (7 items; α = .874)
Attainability (3 items; α = .734)
Comprehensiveness (5 items; α = .787)
Item title
Target benefits are assigned a specific target value (e.g. 10% increase in market share)
Target benefits are explicitly defined to leave no other interpretation (e.g. clear title and description)
Target benefits are assigned specific measures that will enable the evaluation of their realization
Target benefits are assigned measures that are defined consistently
Target benefits have clear units of measurement
The source of data to measure the target benefits is clear
Target benefits have a dedicated person accountable for their realization
Target benefits are achievable given the context of the organization
The organization has the capacity to realize the target benefits
Timeframes set for target benefit realization are realistic
Target benefits are aligned with the organization's current strategy
Target benefits are relevant to the organization's long-term vision
Target benefits comprise multiple categories (e.g. both monetary and non-monetary benefits)
Target benefits are the result of intensive consultation with various stakeholders
Target benefits reflect the views of key stakeholders
656 O. Zwikael et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 650–658
number of accidents on this particular road by 25 percent within
one year from project approval”. The education department
head in the local government will be accountable for its
realization as a representative of the project funding entity. This
target benefit can be considered “specific” as it has a clear
description, measurement unit, target value, and accountable
person. It can also be considered “comprehensive” because it is
aligned with the strategy of the education department to
increase the safety of schoolchildren, and was set following
consultation with diverse groups of stakeholders (e.g., parents,
teachers, and road engineers). Finally, this target benefit would
be considered “attainable” if the target value and time frame set
for this target benefit are realistic (e.g., benchmarking against
other similar projects).
The practical value of the ETB scale can be further
strengthened if organizations develop threshold scores for
project proposals under review. Specifically, organizations may
set a cut-off score for the complete ETB scale; and introduce a
gate-keeping system to ensure that only project proposals that
have met this threshold score are advanced to project funding
decision-making. Such organizational threshold levels could be
determined from a benchmarking exercise within the organiza-
tion (internal benchmarking), or by comparison to a top-
achieving outside organization (external benchmarking)
(Meredith and Shafer, 2016).
As an initial baseline for comparison, findings from our studies
suggest an average ETB score of 5.8 on a seven-point scale.
Therefore, if a proposed project's target benefits receive an
average score of five, they cannot not be considered as “effective”
and need to be revised further (until a threshold score is obtained).
Organizations may also set threshold levels for each ETB
dimension, as well as weights to reflect their relative importance.
By developing organization-wide threshold levels for an ETB
scale, senior managers can ensure a certain level of uniformity in
the assessment of new proposed projects, leading to more
informed and justifiable funding decisions. This thorough
assessment of project proposals can also assist with increased
levels of transparency in decision making (Mihm, 2010). As a
result, organizations can reduce instances in project investment
decision making of Type II errors (funding for over-promising but
unreliable project proposals, a common result of the well-known
“planning fallacy” (Kahneman, 2011)) and Type I errors (rejecting
solid project proposals due to overly restrictive or irrelevant
requirements or simply lack of funding already spent on Type II
errors) (Christensen and Knudsen, 2010).
The ETB scale can also offer important theoretical value for
research. In particular, scale development is considered a
critical step towards future research in a new area (Hinkin,
1998). Thus, the new ETB scale can be used to empirically
study the relationships between project target benefits and other
related constructs in areas such as decision making, strategy,
and project benefit management and performance. For exam-
ple, in decision making, the ETB scale can be used to
investigate how the formulation of effective target benefits
affects the project funding decisions. Another example is to
empirically test whether and to what extent effective target
benefits support project performance.
8. Conclusions
Projects aim to realize their target benefits and enhance
organizational performance (Zwikael and Meredith, 2018).
Whereas “fortuitous benefits” are unexpected and emerge
during the project (Zwikael and Smyrk, 2011), “target benefits”
are intentionally sought by project funders and strategically set
before project commencement. We developed and validated a
new scale to help set target benefits more effectively. We found
substantial support for a 15-item scale that comprised three
dimensions. The first two ETB dimensions confirm established
goal setting characteristics - specificity (e.g., target benefits
have a specific target value) and attainability (e.g., the
organization has the capacity to realize the target benefits).
However, this paper contributes to goal setting theory by
adding the additional dimension of “comprehensiveness” and
its associated items in the project context. The comprehensive
dimension of the ETB scale encourages the use of an “outside
view”, which is based on previous actual objective and
comparable data from similar actions already completed, rather
than relying on the “inside view”, which focuses on the
constituents of the specific planned action (Kahneman and
Tversky, 1979; Flyvbjerg, 2013).
Even though the challenges in setting measurable non-
financial target benefits are well documented in the literature,
organizations still need to identify measures and proxies to
allow project benefits to be set, managed, and evaluated. One of
the most valuable uses of ETB is the discussion it forces among
senior managers about each of the 15 items in the scale and the
project strategic questions such discussion may raise. That
discussion inevitably produces a better project choice because
all the managers are then on the same page and agree with, or at
least understand, the final decision. The followings are example
questions that likely to arise in such discussions: “Can we really
get this done by the time it is needed?”, and “Have we checked
with outside stakeholders like government regulators about this
project?” Thus, in actual practice, the ETB scale can reduce or
eliminate common problems such as those stemming from
unclear or conflicting project objectives (Lin and Pervan, 2003;
Norris, 1996) and misunderstood or ignored users' needs. As a
result, evaluating project proposals using the ETB scale as a
checklist can improve funding decisions which should thereby
increase their project success rates.
Senior managers can also develop a better understanding of
what target benefits are expected at a project's completion, how
these benefits should be measured, and who is accountable for
their realization. This understanding can not only reduce
“planning fallacy” errors but also increase executives' confi-
dence in their funding decisions (Gimbert et al., 2010). Finally,
organizations commit considerable financial and human
resources on appraising projects and making investment
decisions. For example, the promoters of the EuroTunnel
project spent US$1 million before the project even started
(Mohamed and McCowan, 2001). Senior executives can use
the new scale to appraise and rank proposals in a transparent
way to better allocate resources among their many projects.
Project managers can also benefit from effective target benefits,
 O. Zwikael et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 650–658
as clear project goals support them throughout project
execution in making better strategic and long-term decisions
that are in alignment with the expectations of the project funder
and owner.
Our paper has some limitations that could be addressed in
future studies. First, we did not attempt to determine the relative
importance of the three ETB dimensions. Future studies could
consider alternative weighting schemes, which could vary, for
example, by organization size or culture. Similarly, we did not
weight the factors within each of the dimensions and rely on
data from a limited number of countries. Future research can
explore whether different weighting schemes are required for
various project types, industries and cultures, and expand this
line of work to develop a dataset of norms for the ETB scale.
Furthermore, future research should empirically analyze the
impact of the ETB scale on enhanced benefit realization in
practice. Finally, future research can also develop a scale for
effective setting of “project disbenefits”, for example reduced
employee satisfaction as a result of introducing a new, efficient,
but unfriendly information system.
Conflict of interest
No conflict of interest.
References
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1991. Predicting the performance of measures
in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their
substantive validities. J. Appl. Psychol. 76 (5), 732–740.
Ashurst, C., Doherty, N.F., Peppard, J., 2008. Improving the impact of IT
development projects: the benefits realization capability model. Eur. J. Inf.
Syst. 17, 352–370.
Aubry, M., Sergi, V., El Boukri, S., 2017. Opening the black box of benefits
management in the context of projects. IRNOP Conference, Boston.
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D.R., Schindler, P.S., 2005. Business Research
Methods. McGraw-Hill Education.
Bradley, G., 2010. Benefit Realisation Management: A Practical Guide to
Achieving Benefits Through Change. Gower Publishing, Surrey, UK.
Breese, R., 2012. Benefit realisation management: panacea or false dawn? Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 30, 341–351.
Breese, R., 2015. Benefits management: lost or found in translation. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 33 (7), 1438–1451.
Brislin, R.W., 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written
material. In: Triandis, H.C., Berry, J.W. (Eds.), Methodology: 2. Handbook
of Cross-cultural Psychology. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp. 349–444.
Chesney, A.A., Locke, E.A., 1991. Relationships among goal difficulty,
business strategies, and performance on a complex management simulation
task. Acad. Manag. J. 34 (2), 400–424.
Chih, Y., Zwikael, O., 2015. Project benefit management: a conceptual
framework of setting target benefits. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (1),
352–362.
Christensen, M., Knudsen, T., 2010. Design of decision-making organizations.
Manag. Sci. 56 (1), 71–89.
Churchill, G.A., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
scales. J. Mark. Res. 16, 64–73.
Doherty, N., 2014. The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging
meaningful benefits from IT investments. Appl. Ergon. 45 (2), 181–187.
Doran, G., 1981. There's a SMART way to write management's goals and
objectives. Manag. Rev. 70 (11), 35–36.
Drucker, P., 1954. The Practice of Management. Harper, New York.
657
Flyvbjerg, B., 2007. Policy and planning for large-infrastructure projects:
problems, causes, cures. Environ. Plann. B. Plann. Des. 34, 578–597.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2013. Quality control and due diligence in project management:
getting decisions right by taking the outside view. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31,
760–774.
Gershon, P., 2008. Review of Australian Government’s Use of Information and
Communication Technology. Department of Finance and Deregulation,
Australian Government, Parkes.
Gimbert, X., Bisbe, J., Mendoza, X., 2010. The role of performance
measurement systems in strategy formulation processes. Long Range Plan.
43 (4), 477–497.
Goldstein, S.M., Naor, M., 2005. Linking publicness to operations management
practices: a study of quality management practices in hospitals. J. Oper.
Manag. 23 (2), 209–228.
Heinrich, C.J., 2002. Outcomes-based performance management in the public
sector: implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public
Adm. Rev. 62, 712–725.
Henderson, J., Ruikar, K., 2010. Technology implementation strategies for
scaleion organisations. Eng. Scaleion Archit. Manag. 17 (3), 309–327.
Hinkin, T.R., 1998. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in
survey questionnaires. Organ. Res. Methods 1 (1), 104–121.
Hong, P., Doll, W.J., Revilla, E., Nahm, A.Y., 2011. Knowledge sharing and
strategic fit in integrated product development projects: an empirical study.
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 132 (2), 186–196.
Irani, Z., Love, P., 2001. The propagation of technology management
taxonomies for evaluating investments in information systems. J. Manag.
Inf. Syst. 17, 161–177.
Jenner, S., 2009. Realising Benefits From Government ICT Investment—A
Fool's Errand? Academic Publishing, Reading
Jørgensen, M., Halkjelsvik, T., Kitchenham, B., 2012. How does project size
affect cost estimation error? Statistical artifacts and methodological
challenges. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (7), 839–849.
Kahneman, D., 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. 1st ed. Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, New York.
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision
under risk. Econometrica 263–291.
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 1996. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating
Strategy Into Action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Latham, G., Sulsky, L.M., MacDonald, H., 2007. Performance Management.
[online]. In: Boxall, P., Purcell, J., Wright, P. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of
Human Resource Management. Oxford University Press, The Oxford, New
York, pp. 364–381 Oxford handbooks in business and management.
Laursen, M., Svejvig, P., 2016. Taking stock of project value creation: a
structured literature review with future directions for research and practice.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (4), 736–747.
Lederer, A.L., Mirani, R., 1995. Anticipating the benefits of proposed
information systems. J. Inf. Technol. 10, 159–169.
Lin, C., Pervan, G., 2003. The practice of IS/IT benefits management in large
Australian organizations. Inf. Manag. 41, 13–24.
Linderbaum, B.A., Levy, P.E., 2010. The development and validation of the
Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS). J. Manag. 36 (6), 1372–1405.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Choo, A.S., 2006. Six sigma: the role of goals
in improvement teams. J. Oper. Manag. 24 (6), 779–790.
Locke, E.A., 1968. Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organ.
Behav. Hum. Perform. 3 (2), 157–189.
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P., 2002. Building a practically useful theory of goal
setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am. Psychol. 57 (9),
705–717.
Maier, G.W., Brunstein, J.C., 2001. The role of personal work goals in
newcomers' job satisfaction and organizational commitment: a longitudinal
analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 86, 1034–1042.
Melnyk, S.A., Stewart, D.M., Swink, M., 2004. Metrics and performance
measurement in operations management: dealing with the metrics maze.
J. Oper. Manag. 22 (3), 209–218.
Meredith, J.R., Shafer, S.M., 2016. Operations and Supply Chain Management
for MBAs. Sixth edition. John Wiley & Sons.
Mihm, J., 2010. Incentives in new product development projects and the role of
target costing. Manag. Sci. 56 (8), 1324–1344.
658 O. Zwikael et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 650–658
Mohamed, S., McCowan, A.K., 2001. Modelling project investment decisions
under uncertainty using possibility theory. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 19 (4),
231–241.
Musawir, A., Serra, C.E.M., Zwikael, O., Ali, I., 2017. Project governance,
benefit management, and project success: towards a framework for
supporting organizational strategy implementation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35
(8), 1658–1672.
Nicholson-Crotty, S., Theobald, N., Nicholson-Crotty, J., 2006. Disparate
measures: public managers and performance-measurement strategies. Public
Adm. Rev. 66 (1), 101–113.
Norris, G.D., 1996. Post-investment appraisal. In: Willcocks, L. (Ed.), Investing
in Information Systems: Evaluation and Management. Chapman & Hall,
London, pp. 193–223.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric theory. 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
OGC (Office of Government Commerce), 2009. Managing Successful Projects
With PRINCE2. The Stationery Office, London, UK.
Paese, P.W., Sniezek, J.A., 1991. Influences on the appropriateness of
confidence in judgment: practice, effort, information, and decision-
making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 48 (1), 100–130.
PMI's Pulse of the Profession, 2016. Delivering Value – Focus on Benefits During
Project Execution. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA: USA.
Raghunathan, S., 1999. Impact of information quality and decision-maker
quality on decision quality: a theoretical model and simulation analysis.
Decis. Support. Syst. 26 (4), 275–286.
Rolstadås, A., Tommelein, I., Morten Schiefloe, P., Ballard, G., 2014.
Understanding project success through analysis of project management
approach. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 7 (4), 638–660.
Samset, K., Volden, G.H., 2016. Front-end definition of projects: ten paradoxes
and some reflections regarding project management and project governance.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (2), 297–313.
Schmidt, A.M., DeShon, R.P., 2007. What to do? The effects of discrepancies,
incentives, and time on dynamic goal prioritization. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 (4),
928–941.
Scott-Young, C., Samson, D., 2008. Project success and project team
management: evidence from capital projects in the process industries.
J. Oper. Manag. 26 (6), 749–766.
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J.C., Santora, J.C., 2008. Defining and measuring servant
leadership behaviour in organizations. J. Manag. Stud. 45 (2), 402–424.
Veld, M., Paauwe, J., Boselie, P., 2010. HRM and strategic climates in
hospitals: does the message come across at the ward level? Hum. Resour.
Manag. J. 20 (4), 339–356.
Ward, J., Daniel, E., 2006. Benefits Management: Delivering Value From IS &
IT Investments. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
Won, J., Lee, G., 2016. How to tell if a BIM project is successful: a goal-driven
approach. Autom. Constr. 69, 34–43.
World Bank, 1996. Evaluation Results 1994. The International Bank of
Reconstruction and Development, Washington DC.
Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C., Griffin, M., 2010. Business Research
Methods. 8th Edition. South-Western Cengage Learning.
Zwikael, O., 2016. Editorial - International Journal of Project Management
special issue on project benefit management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (4),
734–735.
Zwikael, O., Chih, Y., 2014. Project benefit management: formulation and
appraisal of target benefits. PMI Research and Education Conference,
Portland, OR, US.
Zwikael, O., Chih, Y., 2015. Enhancing project funding decision quality. In:
Gen, M., Kim, K.J., Huang, X., Hiroshi, Y. (Eds.), Industrial Engineering,
Management Science and Applications. Springer, pp. 363–374.
Zwikael, O., Meredith, J., 2018. Who's who in the project zoo? The ten core
project management roles. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. (forthcoming).
Zwikael, O., Smyrk, J.R., 2011. Project Management for the Creation of
Organisational Value. Springer-Verlag, London, UK.
Zwikael, O., Smyrk, J.R., 2012. A general framework for gauging the
performance of projects to enhance organizational value. Br. J. Manag.
23, S6–S22.