Making the Business Case

Business case methodology resides in management science; however, it is rarely found in the best practices, including performance improvement efforts. The business case process is “integrated with the organization's procurement process” because purchasing expenditures for resources, human or non-human, are usually required to develop and implement the intervention.¹ Business cases should be integrated into performance improvement initiatives because:

Definition and Scope

A number of definitions are applicable to the performance improvement field. “A business case is a management argument supporting an investment or a procurement judgment. … An investment or procurement judgment assesses the value of a design.”³ It is also “a recommendation to decision-makers to take a particular course of action for the organization, supported by an analysis of its benefits, costs, and risks compared to the realistic alternatives, with an explanation of how it can best be implemented.”⁴

The second definition adapts particularly well to the performance improvement mindset; the business case for a performance improvement intervention should present a specific, analysis-based recommendation for an intervention(s) addressed to people with the authority to make a decision at the organizational or major business unit level. The business case should include a cost-benefit comparison for realistic alternative interventions.

For some performance improvement practitioners, such as those working in the primary, secondary (K–12), or higher education arena, a business case may sound similar to a proposal. Educators often write proposals when they recommend adopting new curriculums, courses, programs, textbooks, or school equipment. Performance improvement practitioners may write proposals when they are seeking consultants or vendors to help design and develop intervention components. (See Chapter 18.) In the latter case, the proposal may or may not be part of the business case.

Business cases are usually written on behalf of champions and senior stakeholders. Sometimes, performance improvement practitioners write business cases for a single intervention or a combination of interventions, as many needs or opportunities are complex.⁵ Highly structured business cases include background of the effort, expected business outcomes, options for alleviating the need or optimizing the opportunity, the gap between the current and anticipated end state, expenses, costs of the effort and estimated value, risks to implement or doing nothing, project timeframe, roles, and more.

Purpose

Business cases present the reason for the intervention “and are used to prevent blue sky ideas from taking root without justifiable or provable value to the organization.”⁶ Whether the business case is a long, comprehensive document, or a short business brief, the point is to justify the expenditure of money and capital resources to support a specific business need. For example, the business case for an enterprise-wide software upgrade will provide the costs of implementation and maintenance plus the benefit or value to the organization using discounted money calculations. It may also include plans for design, development, implementation, and evaluation of the upgrade.

The term capital is used when referring to investments, such as land, equipment, and buildings that are used to provide goods and services. They are not consumed while providing goods and services; they gradually depreciate or lose value due to usage, such as desks, chairs, or machinery. Discounting of money refers to money losing value each year, due to inflation and other economic factors. In other words, one dollar spent in one year may need a return of one dollar plus five cents the next year in order to break even.

A business case also “supports the adoption by a specific organization of a specific solution, and is centered around what people might actually do.”⁷ The purpose of the case is to convince decision makers that the tangible and intangible benefits of implementing the intervention outweigh the costs and risks, in other words, that the change is worth doing!⁸.

Rationale

“A business case is not an end in itself but a means to an end; rationally justified (and justifiable) investment decisions.”⁹ From a project management perspective, in addition to helping the decision-makers make the right decision, the purpose of the business case is to provide documentation that will help mobilize and sustain the project [intervention], meet any compliance requirements, provide a “platform for managing the project” intervention development, implementation, and maintenance, and provide a “baseline for measuring the project [sustainable intervention effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and results].”¹⁰

Looking at performance improvement intervention development, implementation, and maintenance from a project management perspective, the reason for expending the resources and effort to develop a business case is clear:

As the project [intervention] moves forward, particularly in its early stages when it still may be politically vulnerable and may well run into teething trouble, it is bound to be challenged to justify itself afresh and demonstrate that it is really going to deliver.¹¹ By setting out a schedule of deliverables, benefits, and costs in the business case, the document becomes an authoritative reference point, both for the project [intervention] team and for the wider organization, and reduces the chances of the goal posts being moved.¹²

Performance Improvement Practitioner Role

The business case process is gradual and iterative; it builds gradually as consensus develops when more details are decided and outcomes are more fully explained. The role of the performance improvement practitioner is to collect, analyze, and synthesize information for the case during the performance analysis; select or design an appropriate intervention(s); develop a convincing business case that weighs the costs, benefits, and risks associated with implementing the intervention; and facilitate the development and acceptance of the case; develop, implement, and maintain the intervention within the parameters set by the business case; and evaluate the intervention in terms of alignment with the business case objectives. (See Figure 19.1.)

Performance improvement practitioners collaborate with the intervention team, which may be the same team that guided the performance analysis phase as well. Practitioners may initiate, help collect, and record discussion and other feedback from informal and formal leadership, including the intervention sponsor, financial experts, purchasing agents, and/or representatives from each department or organizational segment involved in the effort.

Performance Improvement Practitioner Competencies

One of the major competencies for developing a business case is the ability to analyze and synthesize information that surfaces during the Performance Analysis Phase in order to design and develop a business case that is concise, complete, and compelling. The process also involves cooperation and give and take among the stakeholders so it also requires negotiation skills. In addition:

Building a business case may falter without project management skills and subject matter expertise, or access to subject-matter experts (SMEs). Due to the complexity of some intervention projects, the business case document may involve discussions of whether to produce the interventions or buy the interventions through consultants or suppliers. Complex intervention projects may require the use of project management tables, Gantt charts, and other graphics that may also need to be included in a business case.

Competencies may include collecting and analyzing costs, revenue, benefits, and risks; understanding business strategy; managing and communicating with stakeholders throughout the business case process; writing and editing drafts and reports, managing a review/revise cycle; and facilitating a presentation.¹⁴ Presentations are important to establish context; verify compliance to expectations, standards, and regulations; and document future changes, so the performance improvement practitioner may need oral presentation design and communication skills.

The Business Case Process

According to Veryard,¹⁵ the business case is not a “static product”; it is a “process” of building the case and then adapting as more input is acquired: “The formulation of the business case is part of the solution process.” When the business case has been accepted it should be embedded into the development and implementation of the intervention and, as far as possible, should “remain true … and valid.” The basic process for making a business case is illustrated in Figure 19.1.

FIGURE 19.1. Business Case: An Iterative Process

Source: Dessinger, 2011. Used with permission.

Content and Focus

Unfortunately, “Instead of a due diligence on an investment opportunity, business cases often deteriorate into pitch-and-forget sales tools.”¹⁶ Business cases are more effective if they are not just a set of claims but also include analysis to back up those claims and provide the decision-makers with all the information they need, plus compelling reasons why they should accept the recommended intervention. Statements regarding feasibility and sustainability are included to justify the proposed change.

Format

Usually, a document is an important part of the business case. However:

In more formal organizations there may be a template or a set of specific requirements for developing the business case document and/or presentation.

Issue of Integrity

Credibility plays a big role in moving decision-makers to accept a performance intervention, and integrity is a factor in establishing the credibility of the person or team that produces the business case and the goodness of the case itself. A good business case should be demonstrably legal; decent, that is, politically correct; honest; regarding issues of self-interest or bias; truthful regarding costs and benefits; convincing, that is, making a strong case for the change; and bold enough to present an “innovative argument” despite “potential risks.” Gambles discusses “degrees” of integrity, which he labels strong, misleading, weak, and token. When the business case demonstrates strong integrity it is usually accepted, when it is misleading or weak the decision makers may make the wrong decision, and token business cases may lead to revisions or outright rejection.¹⁸

Designing and Developing the Business Case

The process of developing the business case should be “a learning experience with a minimum of thrashing about to gain agreement among the participants and a reasonable expenditure of time and resources.”¹⁹ The process should be gradual and requires agreement among the stakeholders. The practitioner who is leading the design and development effort should:

• Identify and ask the right questions to establish clear objectives and understand the nature of the intervention for which you are doing the business case;
• Clarify open-ended questions (no right or wrong answer) before asking close-ended questions (select right answer from options); and
• Identify and clarify prior decisions that may affect implementation.²⁰

Clarifying the budget is one time when the practitioner needs to ask the right questions. Issues that may need clarifying are the process or acceptability of cost estimation, confidentiality, and access to and use of proprietary information. Determining whether the budget will be derived bottom-up or top-down is also critical. Bottom-up budgets are based on the cost of the intervention activities and deliverables; top-down budgets are based on the high-level allocation of funds and reflect how management prioritizes the intervention in the context of available resources and competing demands. Finally, questions must be asked to clarify the status of the budget. Is the budget fixed or variable through the life of the intervention?

Steps to Take

Some activities related to preparing the business case are iterative, some are parallel, and some are completed simultaneously.²¹ The steps to a successful business case include:

1. Define the task clearly up-front by asking the right questions of the right people and analyzing the responses;
2. Build a coalition of leaders and subject-matter experts;
3. Select a shortlist of realistic alternative options: “If you understand the strategic space you are working in and what you are really trying to achieve, structured, creative thinking will produce winning options”²²;
4. Identify and quantify the costs and benefits of each option;
5. Assess how well each option will deliver costs and benefits; and
6. Develop a strong case for change that is accurate. Demonstrate that the recommended option is the best option because it is closest fit to the business strategy and delivers greatest benefits in most cost-effective way.²³

Leadership Commitment

Leadership commitment is vital. A well-placed and credible supporter, sponsor, or champion should participate throughout the business case process, and the business case should be compelling enough to mobilize and maintain the commitment of the major decision-makers and senior leadership. It is important for the performance improvement practitioner to fully understand the concerns and priorities of each senior leader and key decision-maker and include aspects of the intervention effort that support their priorities.

Throughout the effort, unanticipated occurrences arise, leading to adjustments and possibly recommitment by senior leadership. Including the priorities of senior leadership in the beginning helps maintain leadership confidence though maintenance and sustaining the effort long term. For example, the project sponsor may receive a promotion and the new person in the position would not be aware of the need for the intervention. By building the confidence of several senior leaders, the other leaders can convey the importance of the project and encourage the new person to retain the role of intervention sponsor.

The sponsor or champion will assist in securing the needed personnel, protect budgets, and timelines and generally stand behind the effort. A major issue is sustainability of the intervention effort. The champion will be able to represent the long-term view so that the project will be sufficiently developed and implemented and not be vulnerable when the original funding and effort go away. Sustainability is discussed later in this chapter.

Feasibility

“Advocating a tough, risky option may be the right thing to do. Advocating it without understanding and explaining the risks and practicalities of implementation never is.”²⁴ It is always essential to balance attractiveness with achievability and practicality.

The greatest ideas in the world need to be implementable or achievable; stakeholders need to believe that an idea makes sense. After brainstorming and thinking an idea through from an initial point of view, momentum increases as those involved visualize the idea and describe the value and outcomes of the idea. In fact, the first steps in assessing feasibility involve RSVP: defining desired results, thinking in a systematic and systemic fashion, determining that there will be value, and beginning to establish the collaboration and partnering that will be part of the initiative. Whether the effort is a quality, instructional design, industrial engineering, leadership, or strategic planning effort, it is critical to anticipate the entire effort to determine if the effort makes sense and is feasible.

Feasibility Studies

A business feasibility study is “a controlled process for identifying problems and opportunities, determining objectives, describing situations, defining successful outcomes and assessing the range of costs and benefits associated with several alternatives for solving a problem.” The Business Feasibility Study is used to support the decision-making process based on a cost-benefit analysis of the actual business or project viability.²⁵

Feasibility studies use deliberate processes to determine viability of the initiative: analyze the situation, enable the creation of recommendations, and document limitations. The studies are detailed and document all aspects to determine whether the desired improvement effort is realistic. Feasibility studies help decision-makers determine which projects will be effective and which are not likely to be successful.

Planning Feasibility

It is critical to plan carefully to secure champion and leadership support and sufficient resources so that the outcomes will be lasting. In addition, if sustainability and future support for the project are not considered during feasibility studies, it is very likely that the performance improvement effort will not be ongoing. (See the discussion of sustainability later in this chapter.) Lack of long-term leadership commitment can lead to skepticism and the belief that the performance improvement effort is merely a “flavor of the year” or annual priority. By resisting change, employees believe that the intervention effort will fizzle out and revert back to the “way we do things here.”

Feasibility planning includes four methods of advanced planning, structured, deductive, inductive, and narrated.²⁶

Structured. Feasibility is considered when planning projects and covers the various aspects of projects, such as work-breakdown structure (WBS), project phases, critical pathing or optimal progress, linkages and ordering of the steps, and cost-benefit analysis, in other words documenting each step, sub-step, sub-sub-step, and so forth in the project. The project is described in phases, activities, tasks, and deliverables or milestones so that objectives can be accomplished and unanticipated situations can be corrected as they occur.

Critical pathing, linkages between aspects and activities, and ordering of the steps make it possible to determine which steps need to be completed prior to other steps, which can be done simultaneously, which may be postponed for a while, and so forth. Cost-benefit analysis determines at what point the costs of the project and the anticipated benefits will be equal, known as the break-even point. It is a process to evaluate whether the anticipated effort would be worthwhile organizationally and financially.

Deductive. Backward or deductive planning occurs when the final outcomes are defined, such as desired results and the gap between the current situation and the desired situation. Then the team needs to consider how to accomplish the final expectations in the most feasible way.

Inductive. Forward or inductive thinking occurs in pre-thinking while the exact end of the project has not been defined. It is also important for intermediary planning, such as to figure out the costs of aspects that are less defined. It is a process of visualizing interim situations. Most projects have many aspects that need to be integrated, and future-looking descriptions of the intermediary stages help realize success as the project progresses.

Narrated. Descriptive writing is needed to define project scope, purpose, desired outcomes and goals, and value-added and to communicate with collaborators and partners. Narratives enable all stakeholders to agree on the intentions, expectations, stages, costs, and benefits prior to beginning the effort.

Performance Improvement Feasibility Planning

Performance improvement efforts are often viewed as projects, but are considerably varied in purpose, methods, and intended outcomes. Many projects have commonalities within industries, such as health care, manufacturing, non-profit social agencies, governmental or military, education, or retail to name a few examples. However, each project may use the Performance Improvement/HPT Model for planning the feasibility study. Feasibility is a consideration throughout the model. There is no one time that represents the culmination of feasibility; for example, formative evaluation is iterative and continues throughout improvement effort, setting the stage for further work.

Performance Support Tool 19.1 provides a structure for feasibility studies. It is not entirely complete because it is generic. Each project will have unique considerations that will add aspects to the study.

PERFORMANCE SUPPORT TOOL 19.1. PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY OUTLINE

Discussion of this topic …	Should contain this content…
Performance Improvement	Describe intended improvement, what will be the initial focus, and the improvement to be sustained. Describe benefits to each stakeholder. Describe RSVP (results orientation, systemic approach, value added, and partnership) and collaboration.
Intended Beneficiaries	Identify and describe all stakeholders. Describe champion (person who will shepherd the project, ensure resources, and minimize resistance within the organization. Define all beneficiaries, including demographic factors and other relevant factors.
Communications and Marketing Strategies	Discuss types of communication, such as newsletters, emails, videos, and marketing efforts. Describe initial and ongoing efforts needed to keep all stakeholders informed. Determine feedback to and from stakeholders.
Intervention Strategies	Since feasibility is iterative, it may be necessary to provide initial feasibility prior to determining interventions. Determine strategic partnerships needed to implement intervention.
Steps to Implementation	List of proposed key managers, responsibilities, experience, skills, and costs. Resources: champion, financial, facilities, technology, equipment, and other.
Financial Analysis	Break-even analysis: short-term point where the benefits equal the initial costs. If the project has a multi-year break-even calculation, then financial experts can adjust calculations for time-based factors of money. Cost/benefit analysis: long-term benefit based on fixed and variable costs and benefits, taking into consideration employee retention, quality improvements, ergonomics factors, environmental sustainability issues, government regulations compliance, and others.

Source: Van Tiem, 2012. Used with permission.

Sustainability

Sustainability refers to enduring over time supported by adequate emphasis, resources, and structure. It is an aspect of performance improvement intervention planning that organizations utilize when the interventions need to be maintained for the long term.²⁷ They are intervention efforts that are viewed as helpful to stakeholders and worth keeping in place.

“Sustainability isn't a one-size-fits-all strategy that a company can implement by following a set of rules. Rather, it springs from challenges each company faces in its own markets.”²⁸ While there are some common elements in how companies accomplish sustainability, decisions are based on specific critical issues (see Chapter 5). Fromartz explained:

Sustainability in the Performance Improvement/HPT Context

Sustainability is one of the most challenging issues in performance improvement. After following the Performance Improvement/HPT Model and creating a timely and effective solution using a carefully crafted combination of interventions that are determined to be successful in resolving the problem, the effort could be discontinued or neglected, thus becoming ineffective. How could something that is meeting a recognized need and providing a positive resolution be ignored or discontinued?

There are, unfortunately, many factors or circumstances that lead to discontinuing a seemingly very successful effort. Change in leadership is probably the most common cause, as change in leadership may lead to a change in direction. Just when the project is implemented and progressing well, there can be an organizational change of emphasis, leading to a situation referred to as “flavor of the year” or annual change of emphasis. When an organization has a history of beginning initiatives and then changing interests, there is a tendency of employees to wait and not take change seriously because they believe that the change is likely to be temporary. In other words, the employees become conditioned to resist change.

Several strategies can enable or encourage sustainability of performance improvement efforts. Applying the Performance Improvement/HPT Model is important to the long-term success of performance improvement efforts. Three other strategies are RSVP, capacity building, and implement for sustainability.

RSVP

It is critical to apply the first four Performance Technology Standards (Figure 19.2) to sustainability planning. The four standards, known as RSVP, are Focus on results, be Systemic, add Value, and Partner with others.³⁰

Results. Focusing on results and helping the clients focus on results is vital in sustainability planning. When there are identified problems and failures within the organization, it is easy to agree on where to begin. However, it is not wise to begin without agreement regarding the results or desired outcomes. If the leadership and those who are affected by the effort have not defined and agreed to the meaning of success, then there will be differing ideas about what the end result should look like.

Systemic Approach. Look at situations systemically, taking into consideration the larger context, including competing pressures, resource constraints, and anticipated change. Gaining consensus on measures of tangible or intangible outcomes, such as production quotas, phones calls answered, project management timelines, sales productivity, or performance appraisals objectives met, is the critical first step. To not have agreement means the effort has no clear destination, similar to taking a vacation without knowing exactly where you are going. While this may make sense for an informal family trip, it leads to disorientation in organizations.

Within organizations, almost everything is interdependent. The success of a disaster recovery effort relies on communication, portable medical facilities, food, water, shelter, search and rescue teams, and heavy equipment to dig through rubble. A successful computer software upgrade project relies on careful programming based on sound processes, strong help desk support, consistent and clear technical manuals, and concise and well-designed training. The entire initiative needs to be aligned with the organization in order to be sustainable.

Value. Determining value is challenging because value includes tangible and intangible elements. On the tangible side, the highest level of evaluation includes determining the value of an intervention relative to cost-benefit or the total costs of the intervention minus the total benefits. Determining the costs and the benefits of a long-term intervention may require many years of complex analysis. At a minimum, the analysis must take into account the discounted or changing value of money over time due to inflation or the anticipated increases in supplies, wages, rent, and so forth. In addition, profit-making organizations may set internal rates of return or anticipated profit margins or establish an internal minimum acceptable rate of return or “hurdle” rate that a manager or company is willing to accept before implementing an intervention.

FIGURE 19.2. RSVP

Interventions also have intangible value. Just as brand image has value to marketing and sales, changes in organizational culture can increase employee retention or the ability to attract desired employees. Enhanced employee engagement and empowerment can make a great deal of difference for customer service.³¹ Opportunities for advancement can be motivational. Human capital literature can be very helpful in determining intangible value.

Partnerships. Utilizing partnerships or collaborations with clients and other experts is essential for sustainability. All too often, changes in leadership or changes in priorities are the most important reasons for discontinuing or dismantling change. When one single champion retains the vision and the energy and the champion moves on, then the effort can falter. Establishing a broad base of involvement enables the changes to be retained. An RSVP example is shown in Exhibit 19.1.

Building Capacity

Due to the essential need to sustain and expand on school improvements, the Certification Standards for School Improvement explicitly covers capacity building as necessary for sustainability. For example, a great deal of research and observation has lead to the development of standards for kindergarten through grade twelve. However, the capacity concept can be generalized to all performance improvement projects, and it is already common to many improvement efforts involved at the international development level.

Capacity building is an approach to organization development that begins with understanding the inhibitors or obstacles to successful performance and then focuses on how to build on the existing capabilities of the organization to accomplish measurable and sustainable results. Not only do those directly involved need to have considerable capacity and understanding, but key leadership also must have capacity in order to make good decisions. An example is shown in Exhibit 19.2.

Interventions. The strategies or interventions for improvement have to align with desired outcomes and measures of success. Improvement professionals need to coach and provide feedback. In order to maximize potential and see new possibilities in complex situations, it is important to reflect on progress. It is essential to not only track progress of the improvement project directly, but also to confirm that key leaders are developing capacity. Sharing improvements and success measures are essential to build confidence in all constituencies associated with the effort.³²

Implement for Sustainability

Performance improvement professionals need to assure that a wide variety of stakeholders remain committed to improving and sustaining the improvements throughout the life of the intervention. This means establishing and preparing for the transfer of ownership from the initial project team. It is essential to retain and also adapt measures of success while celebrating early accomplishments. This builds confidence and energy. Report leading indicators of change in order to sustain new processes, recognize achievements, and gradually gain more support for long-term transformation. An example is shown in Exhibit 19.3.

Challenges to Sustainability

Clearly, in a workplace world that changes rapidly, with unexpected competitive pressures and priorities, sustaining progress is challenging. Performance improvement efforts are often project driven with recognized beginning and end dates. Yet, the gains and the accomplishments need to continue.

Establish Sponsorship

Establishing a broad base of sponsorship is essential. All too often, the champion has received accolades regarding the positive impact of the improvement effort and is then assigned to new opportunities. Having a broad leadership foundation that includes representation from all aspects of the initiative enables the improvement effort to continue and adapt.

Set Expectations

Although sponsors and champions are pleased with the outcomes, the gains are often smaller in the beginning than later when momentum has added greater value. It is important to establish the expectation to measure and evaluate efforts on an ongoing basis. It is essential to publicize success stories in newsletters and other forms of communication, establishing the expectation that the success is the new norm.

See the example of sustained success in Exhibit 19.4.

Citations

1. Veryard, 1999, p. 4

2. Ali, Boulden, Brake, Bruce, Eaton, Holden, Johnson, Langdon, Osborne, Renshaw, Seymour, Shervington, & Tee, 2002, p. 614

3. Veryard, 1999, pp. 3–4

4. Gamble, 2009, p. 1

5. McElyea & Van Tiem, 2008

6. Business: The Ultimate Resource, 2002, p. 1195

7. Veryard, 1999, p. 3

8. Leatherman, Berwick, Iles, Lewin, Davidoff, Nolan, & Bisognano, 2003

9. Veryard, 1999, p. 21

10. Gambles, 2007

11. Van Tiem, 2002, p. 2

12. Gambles, 2009, p. 9

13. Gambles, 2009, p. 155

14. Gambles, 2009, p. 31

15. Veryard, 1999, p. 22

16. Finneran, 2007, n.p.

17. Gambles, 2009, p. 27

18. Gambles, 2009, pp. 10–19

19. Veryard, 1999, p. 4

20. Gambles, 2009

21. Gambles, 2009, pp. 20–25

22. Gambles, 2009, p. 4

23. Gambles, 2009, p. 117

24. Gambles, 2009, p. 117

25. Thompson, 2005, p. 185

26. Dekom, 1991, pp. 23–24

27. USAID, 2006

28. Fromartz, 2009, p. 4

29. Fromartz, 2009, p. 41

30. International Society for Performance Improvement, 2011b

31. Gargiulo, Pangarkar, Kirkwood, & Bunzel, 2006

32. International Society for Performance Improvement, 2011a; Watkins, Meiers, & Visser, 2012

33. Doyle, Mansfield, & Van Tiem, 1995; Greer, 1996; Kerzner, 1995; Lewis, 2002

34. Frame, 1987; Knutson & Bitz, 1991

References

Ali, J., Boulden, G., Brake, T., Bruce, A., Eaton, J., Holden, R., Johnson, R., Langdon, K., Osborne, C., Renshaw, B., Seymour, J., Shervington, M., & Tee, R. (2002). Successful manager's handbook. London: Dorling Kindersley.

Beish, K. (2011). Using the HPT model to identify and resolve issues for foreign workers in a lean U.S. assembly plant: A case study. Unpublished dissertation. Minneapolis, MN: Capella University.

Business: The ultimate resource. (2002). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Dekom, A.K. (1991). Systems feasibility: Studying the possibilities. Journal of Systems Management, 42(6), 23.

Dessinger, J.C. (2012). Designing performance interventions. White paper #108. St. Clair Shores, MI: The Lake Group.

Doyle, T., Mansfield, A., & Van Tiem, D. (1995). Technical and skills training suppliers. In L. Kelly (Ed.), The ASTD technical and skills training handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Finneran, J.F. (2007). Shaky spreadsheets: Making the business case believable. Retrieved from www.gant-thead.com/content/articles/237413.cfm.

Frame, J.D. (1987). Managing projects in organizations: How to make the best use of time, techniques, and people. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fromartz, S. (2009, Fall). The mini cases: 5 companies, 5 strategies, 5 transformations. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(1), 41–45.

Gambles, I. (2009). Making the business case. London: Gower.

Gargiulo, T.J., Pangarkar, A., Kirkwood, T., & Bunzel, T. (2006). Business acumen for trainers: Skills to empower the learning function. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Greer, M. (1996). The project manager's partner: A step-by-step guide to project management. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

International Society for Performance Improvement. (2011a). Performance improvement standards. Silver Spring, MD: Author.

International Society for Performance Improvement. (2011b). 10 standards of school improvement. Silver Spring, MD: Author.

Kelly, S. (2011, February 28). Personal communication.

Kelly, S. (2011, March 6). Personal communication.

Kerzner, H. (1995). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling(5th ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Knutson, J., & Bitz, I. (1991). Project management: How to plan and manage successful projects. New York: AMACOM.

Leatherman, S., Berwick, D., Iles, D., Lewis, L.S., Davidoff, F., Nolan, T., & Bisognano, M. (2003, March). The business case for quality: Case studies and an analysis. Health Affairs, 22(2), 17–30.

Lewis, J.P. (2002). Fundamentals of project management: Developing core competencies to help outperform the competition (2nd ed.) New York: AMACOM.

McElyea, J.E., & Van Tiem, D.M. (2008, April). HPT and small business: Gold mine or land mine. Performance Improvement, 47(4), 33–38.

Thompson, A. (2005). Business feasibility study outline. In Entrepreneurship and business innovation: The art or successful business start-ups and business planning. Retrieved from bestentrepreneur.murdock.au/business_feasibility_study_outline.pdf.

Toenniges, L. (2011, March 12). Personal communication.

USAID. (2006). Strategic plan (2006–2011). Zels: Association of the Units of Local Self-Government of the Republic of Macedonia.

Van Tiem, D.M. (2002). EDT 514 course pack–Application of instructional design. Dearborn, MI: University of Michigan-Dearborn.

Veryard, R. (1999, February 10). Making the business case. Retrieved from www.scipio.org.

Watkins, R., Meiers, M.W., & Visser, Y.L. (2012). A guide to assessing needs: Essential tools for collecting information, making decisions, and achieving development results. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Wyckham, R.G., & Wedley, W.C. (1990). Factors related to venture feasibility analysis and business plan preparation. Journal of Small Business Management, 28(4), 48.