Benefits Realisation Management (BRM) is becoming an increasingly important aspect of project and programme management. However, commentators have observed that the practice of BRM is often flawed, and have made suggestions as to how practice might be improved. This paper is concerned with the reasons why the implementation of BRM might not be straightforward, by focusing on the underlying assumptions. It will approach the issue by drawing on the author's experience from the 1990's and 2000's in working in the management of government-funded regeneration programmes in the UK. In this field there was a rigid benefits management framework, although it precedes the development of BRM. The paper will argue that there are important underlying conceptual issues in benefits management which have practical implications and need to be recognised in the development of theory for BRM.

No abstract

It is now about 25 years since the emergence of benefits management (BM), but hitherto it has had limited impact on project management and even less on general management practices. This is despite evidence that a focus on benefits improves the success rate of projects and programmes. One of the areas for research to explain the limited uptake concerns the spread of knowledge on BM and its adoption by organisations. The theoretical lens of translation is used to examine this issue, which focuses on the processes through which management ideas spread and influence management practice. The global development of BM is traced to identify the changes in translation processes over time and the current geographical patterns of usage. This analysis is used in conjunction with the limited evidence available on translation processes at the level of the organisation to identify key factors for the impact of BM in the future.

No abstract

Research question: The severity and immediacy of funding cuts to UK National Governing Bodies of Sport (NGBs), driven by the ‘No Compromise’ policy framework for Olympic funding, triggers a cyclical need for turnaround management. Adept strategies during times of considerable challenge is stark, yet literature investigating turnaround management within NGBs remains limited. Consequently, this paper examines two questions: how do NGBs respond to UK Sport funding cuts and how are their responses enabled or restricted by their organisational context?\ud Research methods: A case study methodology was used to develop in-depth insights into how three NGBs responded over a 12-month period of turnaround management. This was informed by 21 semistructured interviews with chief executives/presidents, performance managers/head coaches and elite athletes. The actions of the NGBs were analysed through a thematic analysis that made use of Boyne’s [2004. A ‘3Rs’ strategy for public service turnaround: Retrenchment, repositioning and reorganization. Public Money & Management, 24 (2), 97–103] 3 Rs of turnaround strategy.\ud Results and findings: The results highlight that NGBs’ turnaround strategies were constrained by extreme funding dependency and a prohibitive \ud institutional environment that led to states of flux and a focus on short-term operational survival. As a result, the measures taken undermined future success.\ud Implications: An embedded feature of the ‘No Compromise’ framework is severe funding cuts. This should be a significant theme in NGB strategy development. The evidence of this study is that NGBs do not prepare, nor react strategically, when faced with the prospect (or fact of) severe cuts. Consequently, the cases of turnaround management in this study signal the urgent need for further research into the impact of the ‘No Compromise’ framework on the management of NGBs