Most organizations today are incredibly good at delivering things. They ship software. They implement systems. They launch products. They roll out new processes. They execute transformation programs. They close initiatives on time. They celebrate go-lives. They move teams to the next roadmap item.
And yet, when you look closely at what actually changes in the business after all that activity, the results are often underwhelming.
Revenue does not grow as expected. Productivity gains fade after a few months. Customer satisfaction barely moves. Costs quietly creep back. Strategic goals remain stubbornly out of reach. ESG programs generate reports and press releases, but little measurable operational impact. Boards look at their portfolios and feel an uncomfortable tension between how much was delivered and how little truly changed.
This is not an execution problem. It is a value problem.
More precisely, it is a structural design flaw in how most organizations conceive, govern, and evaluate their initiatives.
They are optimized to deliver outputs. They are not designed to realize outcomes.
The Dangerous Illusion of “Success”
In most companies, the definition of success is still dangerously narrow.
Projects are successful if they hit scope, schedule, and budget.
Products are successful if they ship features according to plan.
Transformations are successful if systems go live and processes are rolled out.
ESG initiatives are successful if a framework is adopted and a report is published.
These are not meaningless achievements. But they are not the goal.
They are proxies. And very weak ones.
The real goal is not delivery. It is impact. It is changed behavior. It is improved performance. It is reduced risk. It is sustained competitive advantage. It is measurable business and societal value.
The tragedy is that most organizations never explicitly connect these two worlds.
They assume that if the thing was delivered, the value must somehow follow.
Sometimes it does. Often it does not. And when it does not, there is rarely a mechanism to detect the failure early, correct course, or hold anyone meaningfully accountable.
So the organization quietly normalizes a dangerous pattern: shipping becomes synonymous with success, and value becomes an unexamined hope.
The Structural Reasons Value Gets Lost
The failure to realize value is not caused by bad people or incompetent teams. It is baked into the structural logic of how initiatives are framed and governed.
The first structural flaw is that value is defined too late.
In many organizations, teams start building things long before they have a clear, shared, and measurable definition of what success actually means in business terms. The “why” remains abstract. The expected benefits are vague. The metrics are aspirational or retrospective. By the time anyone asks whether the initiative is truly creating value, the sunk costs are too high to stop or pivot.
The second flaw is that ownership of value is diffuse or nonexistent.
Project managers are accountable for delivery. Product teams are accountable for roadmaps. IT is accountable for systems. Finance is accountable for budgets. Strategy is accountable for direction.
But who is accountable for the actual business outcomes?
In most cases, the answer is: no one in a concrete, operational sense.
Value becomes everyone’s responsibility, which in practice means no one’s responsibility. When outcomes fall short, the narrative defaults to excuses about market conditions, change resistance, or “lessons learned,” rather than triggering real accountability or structural correction.
The third flaw is that organizations treat value as a one-time event rather than a continuous trajectory.
They expect benefits to appear magically at go-live. They measure impact too early, or not at all. They fail to recognize that most meaningful outcomes—productivity gains, adoption curves, customer trust, operational maturity—emerge gradually over time.
Without a mechanism to track value continuously against an expected trajectory, organizations have no way to distinguish between a slow start and a structural failure. Everything becomes noise. Nothing becomes signal.
The fourth flaw is that initiatives are prioritized by activity rather than by impact.
Projects get funded because they sound strategic, because a senior leader sponsors them, because a system is outdated, or because a competitor is doing something similar. Rarely are they rigorously ranked based on their expected contribution to measurable business outcomes.
The result is a bloated portfolio full of initiatives that consume capital, talent, and executive attention without a clear hierarchy of value.
The fifth flaw is that learning loops are broken.
When an initiative underperforms, the organization moves on. It closes the project. It archives the documentation. It reallocates the team. It rarely performs a serious, outcome-focused post-mortem that asks: Did this actually create the value we promised? If not, why not? What assumptions were wrong? What systemic patterns are we repeating?
Without this learning loop, the same mistakes get embedded into future decisions, and the organization becomes a factory for repeating its own strategic errors.
Why Agile, Product, and OKRs Didn’t Fully Solve This
Over the past two decades, organizations have tried to fix this value gap by adopting modern frameworks.
They embraced agile delivery to reduce waste and increase speed.
They invested in product management to shift from projects to continuous value streams.
They adopted OKRs to focus teams on outcomes rather than outputs.
They implemented digital transformation programs to modernize their operations.
They rolled out ESG frameworks to formalize their social and environmental commitments.
All of these were steps in the right direction.
None of them, by themselves, solved the value realization problem.
Agile made teams faster, but not necessarily more aligned with strategic outcomes.
Product management improved discovery, but often remained disconnected from portfolio-level investment decisions.
OKRs created better goal articulation, but rarely integrated with capital allocation or business cases.
Digital transformation modernized infrastructure, but often failed to change operating behaviors.
ESG improved reporting, but frequently lacked operational accountability and financial integration.
What was missing was not another delivery framework.
What was missing was a coherent value architecture that connected strategy, investment, execution, and outcomes into a single, continuous logic.
The Forgotten Foundation: Benefit Realisation Management
Long before these modern frameworks became fashionable, a more rigorous discipline already existed to address this exact problem: Benefit Realisation Management.
At its core, BRM was built around a deceptively simple idea: initiatives exist to deliver benefits, not deliverables.
Everything else followed from that premise.
Instead of treating value as an abstract aspiration, BRM required organizations to define benefits explicitly, assign ownership to them, map how they would be achieved, measure their realization over time, and continuously adjust decisions based on real performance.
It forced organizations to articulate a causal chain from strategic objectives to operational changes to measurable outcomes. It treated business cases as living instruments rather than static approval documents. It insisted on a future-state blueprint that described how the organization would actually operate differently once the initiative succeeded. It embedded stakeholder accountability into the very structure of the program. And it institutionalized post-implementation reviews focused on value, not delivery.
In other words, BRM did exactly what modern organizations still struggle to do: it made value a first-class citizen in governance and execution.
The tragedy is that BRM was widely dismissed as too heavy, too formal, too slow, and too document-driven. In many environments, that criticism was not entirely unfair.
But what was thrown away was not just a set of templates.
What was thrown away was a powerful mental model for how value actually gets created.
What Modern Organizations Can Learn From BRM
When you strip BRM down to its intellectual core, it turns out to be astonishingly modern.
It recognized that value is not delivered by technology, but by changed behavior.
It recognized that benefits must have explicit owners.
It recognized that value emerges over time, not at a single point.
It recognized that investment decisions must be continuously revisited as uncertainty decreases.
It recognized that learning from outcomes is as important as delivering outputs.
These ideas are perfectly aligned with contemporary thinking in product, strategy, and portfolio management.
The problem was never the philosophy.
The problem was the implementation model.
BRM was born in an era of static documents, rigid phase gates, and heavyweight governance forums. Today’s organizations operate in a world of real-time dashboards, continuous delivery, experimentation, and rapid feedback loops.
What needs to happen is not a resurrection of BRM in its original form.
What needs to happen is a translation.
From Outputs to Outcomes: The Missing Layer
The real gap in most organizations today is not at the delivery level. It is at the translation layer between strategy and execution.
On one side, executives articulate strategic ambitions: grow revenue, improve customer experience, reduce costs, increase resilience, enhance ESG performance.
On the other side, teams execute initiatives: build systems, launch features, migrate platforms, roll out processes, deploy tools.
What is missing is a rigorous, shared mechanism that answers one deceptively simple question:
How exactly is this specific initiative supposed to create this specific strategic outcome?
Without that translation layer, organizations rely on intuition, politics, and narrative coherence instead of causal logic. They fund initiatives because they sound right, not because they have a defensible value hypothesis.
This is why portfolios become bloated. This is why roadmaps inflate. This is why transformation programs lose focus. This is why ESG becomes performative. This is why boards struggle to connect capital allocation with real-world impact.
What is needed is not more speed.
What is needed is more clarity.
The Case for a Value-First Operating Model
If organizations want to stop wasting billions on well-executed but low-impact initiatives, they need to invert their logic.
Instead of asking, “What should we build?” they must start by asking, “What must change in the real world for our strategy to succeed?”
Instead of funding projects, they must fund value hypotheses.
Instead of measuring progress by milestones, they must measure it by outcome trajectories.
Instead of assigning accountability for delivery, they must assign accountability for impact.
This requires a shift from a delivery-first operating model to a value-first operating model.
It requires organizations to treat value not as a side effect of execution, but as a designed, governed, and continuously managed asset.
This is exactly the mindset that Benefit Realisation Management tried to institutionalize.
And it is exactly the mindset that modern organizations still lack.
Where This Series Is Going Next
This article has focused on diagnosing the problem: why well-executed initiatives so often fail to produce meaningful value.
In the next article, we will move from diagnosis to structure.
We will unpack the concrete artifacts and mechanisms that a modern value-first operating model actually requires: the living business case, the outcome map, the target operating model, the value dashboard, and the ownership structures that tie them together.
We will show how these ideas translate cleanly into today’s language of product, OKRs, portfolio management, and ESG—and how they can be implemented without the bureaucratic weight that doomed earlier frameworks.
Because the real challenge is not understanding that value matters.
The real challenge is building systems that make value impossible to ignore.
Reach a global audience of portfolio, program, and project managers, product leaders, and certification professionals. Explore advertising opportunities .
Sponsored