BOOK: John Thorp "The Information Paradox"

John Thorp's book "the information paradox" is probably the foundation on which future benefits realisation has been based. Although it is based around IT projects (notoriously, with a 70% "failure" rate), there is much that can be applied to all environments.

John thesis on key concepts: fundamental definitions such as

The programme is a blended investment containing all the steps required to deliver business results
The portfolio enables decisions to be made about the constraints of budget, team capability, organisational capability, and organisational ability/capacity to absorb change; a portfolio approach also enables portfolio manager to understand the different productive (and destructive) interdependencies; sequential, overlapping, competing, and bottlenecks.

Using full cycle governance ensures that the organisation structure is in place to make the right decisions,and the use of stage gates ensures progressive commitment of resources in risky situations

The conditions apply in IT as much as anywhere else: activist accountability (that those people driving the change are accountable for its success); relevant measurement (measurement that make sense to people, and that demonstrate progress or lack of it); and proactive management of change, i.e. recognising the five components that are vital to any change: BTOPP -- Business, Technical, Organisational, People, Process.
 
Dimensions and drivers of change
The key drivers, or measures for any project, should certainly include: alignment, financial worth, and risk. This is implicit in project management and benefits analysis, but "Information Paradox" maybe the first place that it is actually written down.

Alignment - does the project or programme contribute to the strategic objectives of the organisation or unit?  If it doesn't, why are we planning to do it?  If it represents a new opportunity, then should the organisation include this (or "seeking new opportunities") in its strategic objectives?  To what extent does it align?
Financial worth - the amount of effort put into benefits analysis should reflect the financial worth and the risk.  A low cost/low risk project such as moving one department up two floors should not warrant the same effort as a major project to buy a new office building and move the whole organisation.  To some extent, the financial worth is an indicator of the benefits, although there will often be additional benefits (eg laying the foundations for reduced costs or increased opportunities) over and above the financial worth
Risk - balanced with Financial worth the level of risk MUST dictate the approach.  A higher risk project should have more scrutiny and should be approached with more care - the use of stage gates (see above) ensures that only what the organisation can afford to lose is actually committed at each stage, and the project can be stopped quickly and with minimum exposure if it fails.

 
Techniques
John Thorp introduces the techniques that will confuse under different names:

Results chain (understanding links, and dynamic management -- this will come to be developed into the Benefits Dependency Network)
Value management (evaluation and selection of projects and programmes, and ongoing portfolio management)

 
Making it happen
John Thorp's book is certainly practical. The concluding two chaptersdeal with the practicalities of putting in place a structure, the measurement system, and making use of the techniques to apply benefits analysis and benefits realisation in new projects; followed by the last chapter on introducing benefits management to the organisation.
A note on the second edition