One thing I have noticed at the organization I am currently consulting at (see previous post), is that a lot of stakeholders use Critical Success Factors (CSF) or Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) as viable alternative to benefits. I don't agree with this.
Here is the difference as I see it:
A benefit is used to justify why an investment makes sense. Eg implement this new system as it will reduce support costs by $X through retirement of legacy systems and reduction in FTE's.
A CSF or KPI is for measuring the performance of an initiative (project, change etc) once it has been justified via building the business case where you state the financial/non-financial benefits and determine the NPV, ROI etc. A CSF/KPI is used to measure how the initiative is tracking in terms of meeting the stated benefits and objectives. Off course it is based on the benefits to be realized - but should not take their place. When a benefit is clearly measurable, then the CSF/KPI will be very similar to the benefit target. A CSF/KPI is very useful for intangible benefits, where it can be used as a good proxy to provide a measure for determining if the benefit has been achieved (eg Train 1000 users by MM/YY date).
Any thoughts?
Tuesday
Critical success factors vs benefits
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree. However it is much easier to get buy in for CSF's then to spend time working out and quantifying benefits.
Post a Comment