IT with Impact

Hadeel Al-Jurani: Impact Cases as a Game Changer for IT Decision-Making

Can you start by introducing yourself and your role?
My name is Hadeel Al-Jurani, and I’m an IS Business Consultant at Grundfos. I’m part of the IT Business Partners team, which consists of eight people. Most of the team members serve as IT partners for specific business divisions, managing the entire IT portfolio in their area. I work more cross-functionally and have a dedicated responsibility for facilitating impact cases in the organization – particularly in connection with new IT needs and projects.

What is an impact case in your context?
An impact case is a way to clarify what we want to achieve with an initiative before we decide whether it should become a project. It’s typically used in a pre-project phase when a request or idea comes in from the business. We use the impact case to uncover the real need. What value are we aiming to create? What changes will this require in the organization?
And sometimes, just by asking those questions, the business realizes that the organization isn’t ready, the need isn’t big enough, or it can actually be fulfilled much more easily and cheaply without developing a costly technical solution.

How is the impact case different from what you used to do?
Previously, we had something called "business clarification" as a step in our process, but there wasn’t a real method behind it. So it was quite ad hoc and maybe even a bit subjective in terms of which initiatives got attention. We lacked structure and transparency in our prioritizations.
In addition, there was often a strong focus on the technical IT solution from the start, and not so much on the business needs and the value we wanted to create.

Can you talk more about the benefits you’ve experienced from using impact cases?
There are so many benefits – and maybe I’m biased, but I really love this process. It’s made a huge difference in our work, and we’ve received great feedback across the board.
One of the biggest benefits is that we’re making decisions based on actual insight. We’re much more conscious of why we move forward with a project – and why we don’t. We shift the focus from the technical solution to the underlying need and base our decisions on the value we aim to create. As a result, we design better IT solutions that actually address the pain points or deliver the desired value.
There’s also a lot of value in the process itself – in reaching clarity with the stakeholders – and sometimes that’s more valuable than the outcome.

How do these benefits show up in practice?
When we run an impact case, we establish common ground by creating a shared understanding: What are we really trying to achieve?
We make sure the right people are involved at the right time. Decision-makers are in the room, subject matter experts are included, and we gain a solid overview of who needs to be engaged. In a large organization like Grundfos, that’s a big task – but the model really helps facilitate it.
It creates alignment across functions and business areas, which makes a huge difference for both collaboration and the project work that follows.
People feel heard and involved in shaping the decision. It feels like a shared project – not something that’s been handed down from above. Several people have actually said: “This should be standard,” precisely because the process is clear and transparent, and everyone knows the direction we’re headed.
And we also present a stronger front externally – for example, in dialogue with vendors – because we’ve already gone through the alignment process internally. That makes it much easier to move projects forward.

Do you have an example where an impact case led to not starting a project?
Yes, we’ve seen that happen several times. For example, we received a request for an advanced AI solution. AI is a hot topic, and we were of course open to exploring it. They already had some ideas for specific features and wanted the solution to do x, y, and z.
But once we ran the impact case and looked into their processes, it became clear that an AI solution would be overkill. We identified completely different actions – like process optimization within the department and data cleanup – that actually met their needs more effectively.

How does the impact case fit into your other project methods?
We work in a hybrid setup, and it works well. In some areas, we run agile projects in product teams, while in others we follow more traditional stage-gate or waterfall models. The impact case is a flexible tool that can be used both before and during projects – regardless of methodology.

Have you also used impact cases on ongoing projects?
Yes, we have. If a project is lacking clear objectives, we can run an impact case mid-project to create clarity. We’ve also used it to communicate technical projects to the business in a way they understand. So it’s not just a starting tool – it’s a flexible approach that adds value in many contexts.

What have been the biggest challenges in implementing the method?
The first time we ran the process on our own, without external help, it was tough. We tried to follow the impact case process very strictly, step by step – but that actually made things harder. When something didn’t work exactly as described, it led to frustration.
Eventually, we realized that this rigid approach isn’t really in the spirit of Half Double. It’s about using the method as a tool – not following a recipe. So we sat down and broke the process into steps in Excel: What exactly do we need to clarify at each stage? That gave us the freedom to adapt the approach without losing sight of the purpose.

We learned, among other things:
– You need to know who the business owner is – and it should be one person.
– Running an impact case takes time, and that needs to be communicated clearly from the start.
– The business must understand that their engagement is needed between the workshops, not just during them.

Have you adapted the process further?
Yes. We’ve created a light version where I interview the person who submitted the request and collect their input in a document, which we then use to onboard the rest of the team. This makes it easier to get started – especially when time or commitment is limited.

How have impact cases been anchored in the organization?
Our CIO and IT leadership have approved it as the method we use. When our IT Business Partners receive a request from the business – from one of our divisions or functions – they typically suggest running an impact case. I’m often brought in as a facilitator, and we’re currently training project managers so they can run the process themselves in the future.

What value does the impact case provide when a project doesn’t move forward?
It saves us a lot of resources by not launching the wrong projects. In fact, nearly 50% of the impact cases we run don’t result in a project. This means we’re able to focus our time and resources very early on the initiatives that actually create the most value for Grundfos.
In addition, the impact case makes it easier to explain why a project was turned down.
For example, we ran an impact case on a need that had been rejected several times before. This time, we brought it up systematically with the relevant stakeholders via the impact case process. It created a shared understanding of the rationale behind the rejection. That transparency and fairness strengthen trust.

What’s your best advice for others who want to start working with impact cases?
Try it in practice! And remember to treat it as a method – don’t get stuck on every detail.
Adapt the process to your context, but stay true to the purpose. Expect that it takes some time to establish the right routines. Make sure to align expectations with stakeholders from the beginning so they know what’s required of them.
The impact case has made a huge difference for us – in terms of collaboration, the quality of decisions, and business anchoring.