Why Benefits Collapse Between Delivery and Business-as-Usual
Most organizations do not fail to deliver projects. They fail to convert delivery into sustained value.
Projects are launched with enthusiasm. Products are built with modern methods. Transformations are framed around bold strategic narratives. Budgets are approved. Milestones are achieved. Systems go live. Celebrations happen.
And then, slowly and almost invisibly, value erodes.
Adoption is partial. Behavioral change stalls. Benefits materialize inconsistently. Metrics drift. Accountability blurs. Six months later, what was once a strategic priority becomes just another operational reality.
This is not a failure of delivery. It is a failure of governance and ownership.
In this article, we move beyond artifacts and into the structural question that ultimately determines whether Benefit Realisation Management (BRM) works: who owns value, who is accountable for it, and how governance reinforces—or silently undermines—its realization.
Delivery Success Is Not Value Success
One of the most persistent misconceptions in management is the assumption that successful delivery equals successful value creation. It does not.
A project can deliver on time, on budget, and within scope, yet fail to create meaningful benefits. A product can ship features continuously and still underperform strategically. A transformation program can complete all initiatives and yet not shift competitive position.
The root of this disconnect lies in the governance model.
Traditional governance structures are designed to oversee delivery performance. They review budgets, timelines, risks, and scope changes. Once the initiative closes, governance attention shifts elsewhere. Benefits are assumed to follow naturally.
But benefits do not self-realize.
They depend on behavioral change, adoption, capability maturation, operational reinforcement, and sometimes cultural evolution. None of these are guaranteed by technical delivery alone.
Without explicit post-delivery accountability, benefits drift into collective ambiguity.
The Missing Role: The Benefit Owner
If there is one structural weakness that repeatedly undermines value realization, it is the absence of a clearly empowered Benefit Owner.
In many organizations, benefits are described in business cases but are not owned by a specific executive or leader after implementation. Responsibility remains diffuse. Delivery teams dissolve. Sponsors move to new priorities. Operational managers inherit systems but not benefit accountability.
The result is predictable: no one feels fully responsible for the outcomes.
A true Benefit Owner is not symbolic. This role must have:
- authority over the operational domain where benefits will emerge
- influence over behavioral and process change
- accountability embedded in performance objectives
- visibility within governance forums
Without formal recognition of this role, BRM remains aspirational.
Assigning Benefit Ownership often reveals organizational tensions. Benefits frequently cut across departments. Cost savings in one area may require effort in another. Revenue growth may depend on marketing, operations, and IT simultaneously.
This complexity is precisely why ownership must be explicit rather than assumed.
Governance as a Value Reinforcement Mechanism
Governance structures determine what conversations happen consistently and what conversations disappear.
If governance forums focus exclusively on delivery progress, then value discussions become episodic. If executive reviews end at go-live, benefit performance becomes an operational afterthought.
To support sustained value realization, governance must extend its horizon.
This means that benefit performance should be reviewed:
- beyond project closure
- at defined intervals
- with comparison against expected trajectories
- with corrective action triggered when deviations appear
This does not require excessive bureaucracy. It requires disciplined continuity.
Benefit Tracking Reports, introduced in the previous article, become meaningful only when governance forums actively engage with them. Otherwise, they become archival artifacts rather than decision tools.
Governance should not ask, “Was the initiative delivered?” It should ask, “Are we achieving the value we justified?”
That shift changes the tone of executive oversight.
The Transition Gap: Where Value Often Dies
One of the most fragile moments in any transformation is the transition from delivery to business-as-usual (BAU).
During delivery, there is focus, energy, and oversight. Teams are assembled. Budgets are allocated. Progress is visible.
At go-live, attention shifts. The project closes. Resources are reallocated. Governance cadence slows.
Yet the most critical phase for value realization often begins after go-live.
Benefits that depend on behavior change, operational optimization, or market adoption typically unfold over time. Without sustained monitoring and reinforcement, early gains can reverse.
This transition gap is where value frequently collapses.
To close this gap, organizations must design governance continuity explicitly. This may include:
- extending sponsor accountability beyond implementation
- integrating benefit metrics into operational dashboards
- maintaining periodic benefit reviews within portfolio governance
- aligning executive incentives with benefit realization
The goal is not to create new structures, but to prevent accountability evaporation.
Ownership vs Responsibility: A Cultural Distinction
A subtle but critical distinction exists between responsibility and accountability.
Responsibility can be shared. Accountability cannot.
In many transformations, leaders declare that “the business” is responsible for benefits. This sounds reasonable but is operationally vague. Shared responsibility often results in diluted ownership.
True accountability requires clarity. It means a named individual is answerable for benefit performance, even if execution depends on others.
This shift can feel uncomfortable, especially in collaborative cultures. But without it, value realization becomes dependent on goodwill rather than governance.
BRM introduces discipline not by adding process, but by clarifying who must answer when expected benefits do not materialize.
Aligning Incentives with Value Realisation
Governance signals priorities through incentives.
If performance evaluations focus solely on operational stability, leaders will optimize for stability. If they focus solely on delivery milestones, leaders will optimize for completion.
If value realization is not embedded into performance metrics, it will rarely receive sustained attention.
Mature BRM environments align incentives across three layers:
- Strategic objectives tied to measurable benefits
- Executive performance objectives linked to benefit realization
- Operational KPIs aligned with benefit trajectories
This vertical alignment ensures that value does not compete with day-to-day pressures but becomes part of operational identity.
Portfolio Governance and the Opportunity Cost of Inaction
Governance is not only about oversight; it is also about prioritization.
When benefit performance is visible, portfolio decisions become more intelligent. Leaders can:
- reallocate investment toward initiatives demonstrating stronger value trajectories
- intervene in underperforming benefit streams
- discontinue initiatives failing to produce expected outcomes
Without structured benefit governance, portfolio decisions are driven by momentum, political capital, or sunk cost bias.
BRM provides the evidence base that allows governance to manage opportunity cost consciously rather than reactively.
The Evolution from Project Governance to Value Governance
Traditional governance evolved around project control. Modern organizations require governance centered on value flow.
This does not eliminate the need for delivery discipline. It reframes its purpose.
Delivery becomes a means. Value becomes the end.
Value governance integrates artifacts, ownership, and decision rights into a coherent system that persists beyond initiative boundaries. It recognizes that in dynamic environments, value realization is continuous rather than episodic.
When governance evolves in this direction, BRM ceases to be an overlay and becomes part of managerial DNA.
Looking Ahead: Measuring Value Without Killing Agility
As this series approaches its final article, we turn to one of the most sensitive tensions in modern management: measurement.
How do we make value measurable without creating rigidity? How do we track benefits without slowing down Agile teams or product experimentation? How do we maintain governance discipline without suffocating innovation?
In the next article, we will explore how organizations can design measurement systems that reinforce learning, enable adaptation, and sustain value—without reverting to bureaucratic control.
Because ultimately, governance without measurement lacks traction. And measurement without agility lacks relevance.
Value realization demands both.
Reach a global audience of portfolio, program, and project managers, product leaders, and certification professionals. Explore advertising opportunities .
Sponsored