Technical ReportPDF Available

Abstract

This study, conducted by the Global Benchmarking Network, identified the current and future trend of business improvement tool use and clarified the critical success factors for benchmarking. More than 450 responses from 44 countries were collected.
Global Survey on
buSineSS improvement
and benchmarkinG
A G L O B A L B E N C H M A R K I N G N E T W O R K P U B L I C A T I O N
Global
Benchmarking
Network
2 Global Benchmarking Network
3Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Foreword .........................................................7
2 Key Findings and Implications ..........................................8
3 Purpose and Design of the Study.......................................10
4 Business Improvement Tools ..........................................14
4.1 Global Perspective.............................................15
4.2 Regional Perspective ...........................................16
4.3 Organisational Perspective.......................................19
5 Benchmarking.....................................................22
5.1 General Use of Benchmarking ....................................24
5.2 Best Practice Benchmarking......................................28
6 Summary and Conclusion ............................................34
Appendix A – Definition of Improvement Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix B – Global Benchmarking Network Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
contentS
4 Global Benchmarking Network
Figure 1: Response distribution by Region.............................................................................................................10
Figure 2: Respondents by Sector ........................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3: Respondents by Organizational Size .......................................................................................................12
Figure 4: Respondents by Business Activity Field ...................................................................................................12
Figure 5: Respondents by Years of Operation........................................................................................................13
Figure 6: Regional Profile of Improvement Techniques ..........................................................................................17
Figure 7: Sector Profile of Improvement Techniques ..............................................................................................19
Figure 8: Total Global Potential Usage (Current and Future) ..................................................................................20
Figure 9: Benchmarking Types ..............................................................................................................................22
Figure 10: Usage of Benchmarking .........................................................................................................................24
Figure 11: Employee Involvement of Benchmarking Projects ...................................................................................24
Figure 12: Reasons for Not Adapting Benchmarking ...............................................................................................25
Figure 13: Willingness to Use Third Party Benchmarking Service .............................................................................26
Figure 14: Four steps of a successful Best Practice Benchmarking project ................................................................28
Figure 15: Percentage of time spent by the organisations
on each phase of the benchmarking process ..........................................................................................28
Figure 16: Reasons for Undertaking Benchmarking Projects ....................................................................................29
Figure 17: Effectiveness Rating for Planning Phase Activities ...................................................................................29
Figure 18: Usage of Benchmarking Data Collecting Methods ..................................................................................30
Figure 19: Benchmarking implementation...............................................................................................................30
Figure 20: Effectiveness Difference of Evaluation Actions ........................................................................................31
Figure 21: Benchmarking Presentation Outcome Communication Methods ............................................................31
Figure 22: Main Benefit of Benchmarking Projects ..................................................................................................32
Figure 23: Financial return (US$) from a typical benchmarking project,
after one year of implementation ...........................................................................................................32
Figure 24: Financial return from a typical benchmarking project .............................................................................32
Figure 25: Factors of a Successful Benchmarking Project .........................................................................................33
Figure 26: Top Three Improvement Tools ................................................................................................................34
liSt of fiGureS
5
Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
liSt of tableS
Table 1: Overview of Business Improvement Techniques ......................................................................................15
Table 2: Region ranking – Awareness ..................................................................................................................17
Table 3: Region ranking – Usage .........................................................................................................................18
Table 4: Region ranking – Effectiveness ...............................................................................................................18
Table 5: Region ranking – Future Adoption..........................................................................................................18
Table 6: Overview of Business Activities: TOP 5 Usage of Business Improvement Techniques ...............................19
6 Global Benchmarking Network
publiSher‘S imprint
Publisher Global Benchmarking Network
Authors: Dr Robin S. Mann
Ahmed Abbas
Centre for Organisational Excellence Research,
Massey University, New Zealand
Dr Holger Kohl
Ronald Orth
Mario Görmer
Fraunhofer Institute for Production Systems and Design Technology (IPK), Germany
Copyright: Global Benchmarking Network, All rights reserved.
Year of Publication: 2010
Layout: Fraunhofer IPK, Germany, Carla Serinek
Images: Fotolia
All rights reserved.
This work including all its parts is copyrighted. Any use outside the narrow constraints of copyright law without prior written
consent of the authors is prohibited and punishable. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, micro-filming as
well as the storage in electronic systems. The reproduction of trade names and trademarks in this study does not justify the as-
sumption that these names in the sense of trademark law can be used freely by anyone.
7Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
In today’s business world of fierce competition, customers con-
tinually demand higher quality at lower prices and in a shorter
time. To meet the actual demand, organisations have adopted
different tools, techniques and strategies in order to improve
their operational performance and strategic position.
This study, conducted by the Global Benchmarking Network,
identified the current and future trend of business improve-
ment tool use and clarified the critical success factors for
benchmarking. More than 450 responses from 44 countries
were collected.
There has not been a time in history where the search for,
insightful understanding and adoption of best practices re-
garding operations in all branches of industry, in non-profit
organizations, in the government or in education was not just
critical but an imperative. Benchmarking helps to sustain long-
term success through continual comparison and learning from
other organisations, it is a strategic strength if practised well
and a fatal weakness if not pursued.
The Centre for Organisational Excellence Research (New Zea-
land) and the Information Centre Benchmarking at Fraunhofer
IPK (Germany) undertook the research on behalf of the Global
Benchmarking Network (GBN). The GBN, founded in 1994, is
an alliance of leading benchmarking centres representing over
20 countries in five continents. Its vision is “to be recognised
as the Global hub for benchmarking with active representa-
tion in all countries”. One of the main goals of the GBN is to
increase the awareness and the use of benchmarking globally.
GBN members, and the companies they represent, benefit
from a number of services such as sharing meetings, interna-
tional projects, publications and benchmarking partner search-
es. The GBN International Benchmarking Conference is the
highlight of the year where an active and personal exchange
of knowledge and experiences from experts and businesses
from all around the world will take place.
The study shown in this publication is the most comprehensive
global study of benchmarking that has been yet undertaken.
We’d like to thank all participants of the survey and all GBN
members for their support and valuable input: Benchmarking
Partnerships (Australia), Bahrain Quality Society (Bahrain),
National Quality Institute (Canada), Czech Society for Quality
(Czech Republic), Information Centre Benchmarking and Lexta
Consultants Group (Germany), Hungarian Association for
Excellence (Hungary), BestPrax Club (India), Intelligent Persian
Consultants (Iran), Excellence Ireland Quality Association (Ire-
land), Malaysia Productivity Corporation (Malaysia), National
Productivity and Competitiveness Council (Mauritius), Centre
for Organisational Excellence Research (New Zealand), Roma-
nian Benchmarking Association (Romania), Business Excellence
Department of the Russian Organization for Quality (Russia),
TeamOne Consulting (Saudi Arabia), Swedish Institute for
Quality (Sweden), TECTEM Benchmarking Center of the Uni-
versity of St. Gallen (Switzerland), China Productivity Center
(Taiwan), BCS Management Services and Winning Moves
(U.K.), Dubai Quality Group, Abu Dhabi International Centre
for Organisational Excellence and the Ruler’s Court of Ajman
(United Arab Emirates) and the Best Practice Institute (USA).
1. foreword
Dr Robin S. Mann
Chairman
Dr Robert C. Camp
President
Ronald Orth
Secretary
8 Global Benchmarking Network
Business improvement tools
Mission and vision statements as well as customer (client)
surveys are the most used out of 20 improvement tools
(77% of surveyed organizations) surveyed. Closely followed
by Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT)
(72%). Followed by Informal Benchmarking (68%), Performance
Benchmarking (49%) and Best Practice Benchmarking (39%).
The tools that are likely to increase significantly in popu-
larity over the next three years are Performance Benchmark-
ing, Informal Benchmarking, Strengths, Weaknesses, Oppor-
tunities, and Threats (SWOT), and Best Practice Benchmarking.
Over 60% out of organizations surveyed stated that they were
not currently using these tools but also indicated that they
were likely to use them in the next three years.
All 20 improvement tools are considered to be effective
with between 59 and 80% of organizations surveyed indicat-
ing major beneficial effects due to these tools. The tools with
the highest rating were Quality Management System (80% of
organizations surveyed indicated a moderate or high effect),
followed by Improvement Teams and Customer (Client) Sur-
veys (both reached 77%). Between 65 and 67% of respond-
ents identified the different types of benchmarking as having a
moderate to high effect.
Benchmarking
Benchmarking probably did not rate as highly for effectiveness
as some other tools due to these reasons:
25% answered that the use of benchmarking had not
been trained and another 30% indicated that “only a few
employees had received training or that training was rarely
given”
30% answered that they do not follow a particular bench-
marking methodology when conducting benchmarking
projects.
2. key findinGS and
implicationS
25% of organizations surveyed do not follow (or rarely fol-
low) a benchmarking code of conduct when undertaking a
benchmarking project.
30% answered that they “do not at all, rarely or just
sometimes” develop a project brief for their benchmarking
project specifying the aim, scope, sponsor, and members
of the benchmarking team – thus indicating poor project
planning.
Only 30% of respondents indicated that over 60% of their
projects resulted in implementing best practices within their
organisation. Therefore many organisations are either not
identifying best practices through benchmarking or they
are not implementing the best practices they find.
35% of respondents do not (or rarely) undertake a cost
and benefits analysis of the project once it is completed.
Some respondents reported significant benefits from
benchmarking. 20% reported an average financial return of
over US$250,000 per project.
The main benefits of benchmarking, in order of impor-
tance, were reported as: improved performance of processes,
learning what other organizations are doing, and major strate-
gic issues addressed.
The most important factors for benchmarking success
that were reported were: support of top management, under-
standing of own processes, clear project objectives, and link-
ing of project objectives to strategic objectives.
The most popular methods for collecting benchmarking
data and best practice information were: searching web
sites (used by 59% of respondents on most or all bench-
marking projects), literature searches (used by 52%), and site
visits/meetings with benchmarking partners (used by 51%).
Of those organizations that do some type of benchmarking,
approximately 20% regularly collect, review and act on
benchmark data that covers the full spectrum of their activities
9Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
(including employee, financial, process, product and service
and customer data).
The most popular areas to conduct benchmarking projects
are in customer service (15% of projects were in this area in the
last three years), administration, training and human resources
(14%), and corporate strategy and planning (12%).
Of those organisations that undertake benchmarking projects
usually 2-5 projects per year were undertaken (53% of re-
sponses). Most benchmarking projects are conducted in less
than 4 months (65% of responses) and a typical benchmark-
ing team consists of 1-4 people (61% of responses).
Implications of these findings
The study has shown that benchmarking is a popular
improvement tool which is increasing in popularity. In
particular, a high use of Informal Benchmarking has been
noticed due to the facilitation through Internet use – therefore
paving the way for organizations to quickly obtain good ideas,
best practices or network with other organizations. Formal
Benchmarking methods such as Performance Benchmarking
and Best Practice Benchmarking require more effort and also
time but offer larger gains. Increasingly organizations are see-
ing the value of both Informal and Formal Benchmarking as
a means to meet the rising demands of customers and other
stakeholders, as well as to remain competitive in markets of
global competition.
The prime benefit of benchmarking is improved proc-
ess performance. Benefits can be substantial from both the
financial and non-financial perspective. However, worryingly,
there are a sizeable proportion of organizations (approximately
30%) that are using Best Practice Benchmarking without
obtaining full benefits. This is because many of these organiza-
tions have not been trained in benchmarking, do not follow
a proven benchmarking methodology or use a benchmarking
code of conduct, or in some cases they are not using standard
project management practices to manage their benchmarking
projects. Under these circumstances it is no surprise that full
benefits are not obtained.
The GBN recognizes it needs to encourage more people to be
trained in benchmarking and that this training is delivered
to a high standard. For other improvement tools like Six Sigma,
Balanced Scorecard, Quality Management Systems (ISO9000),
or Business Excellence there are, in most countries, many
training providers and comprehensive training programmes.
However, this is not the case for benchmarking. Whilst interest
in benchmarking has continued to rise the number of training
providers has still remained small. This is partly due to organisa-
tions not recognising the need for formal training.
Effective benchmarking projects require a wide variety of
research and project management skills within a project
team. Through training these skills can be developed. In ad-
dition, an experienced trainer will be able to provide advice,
tools and resources to assist with benchmarking projects.
10 Global Benchmarking Network
countries. The participating companies and organisations were
asked about their opinion and practical experience regarding
the implementation of various business improvement tools.
The respondents were classified by region/country, business
sector and whether they are using benchmarking as an im-
provement tool or not.
3. purpoSe and deSiGn of
the Study
This study aimed to identify the trend of improvement tools
usage based on the worldwide survey conducted by Global
Benchmarking Network and to clarify the critical success fac-
tors for implementing effective Benchmarking projects. In
2008, the Global Benchmarking Network conducted a global
survey on business improvement and benchmarking.
The survey data was collected in the time from May to
September 2008 with 452 participants from 44 different
29%
12%
31%
17%
11%
Asia Pacific China-India
Europe Middle East-Africa
North America
Figure 1: Response distribution by Region Figure 2: Respondents by Sector
Where is your organization located?
Asia-Pacic China-India
Europe Middle East-Africa
North America
28%
63%
9%
Within which sector does your organisation operate?
Private Public
Not for Prot
The respondents were grouped into five regions according to
their geographical location or their similarities in economical
development (Figure 1).
The respondents were classified by their business sector,
whether the organisation belongs to the Private Sector, Public
Sector, or Not for Profit or Community.
Most respondents are organisations from the private sector
(63%), followed by organisations from the public sector (28%)
and non-profit organisations as well as communities (10%)
(Figure 2).
11Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
12 Global Benchmarking Network
The organisations which took part in the survey are of differ-
ent sizes. Most of them are part of large companies with more
than 250 employees. The small and medium sized organisa-
tions each contribute about a quarter of all respondents.
27%
12%
9%
8%
7%
5%
4%
28%
27%
23%
50%
Figure 3: Respondents by Organizational Size Figure 4: Respondents by Business Activity Field
Please, indicate the size of your organisation!
Large (more than 250) Medium
(50 – 250 Employees)
Small (1 – 49 Employees)
What is your organisation’s major business activity?
Manufacturing Personal and other services
Govmnt. Administration & Defense Education
Health and Community Services Finance and Insurance
Construction other
The respondents were asked to indicate their business activity
field with the following result that the four main business ac-
tivities are: Manufacturing (27%), Personal and Other Services
(12%), Governmental Administration and Defense (9%) and
Education (8%).
13Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
11%
14%
14%
6%
55%
Figure 5: Respondents by Years of Operation
For how many years has your organisation been operating?
5 years and less 6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years
More than 20 years
deSiGn of the
Survey
The results of the survey are presented in two main sec-
tions:
Use of Improvement Tools: The awareness, usage,
effectiveness and possibility for future adoption of 20
improvement techniques. Results make a distinction be-
tween different regions, sectors and industries.
Benchmarking: This section is split into three areas.
Firstly, it describes what is benchmarking and the differ-
ent types of benchmarking. Secondly, it describes how
organisations are using benchmarking and, in particular,
the processes that benchmarks are collected for. Thirdly,
it focuses on the most powerful type of benchmarking;
best practice benchmarking. This type of benchmarking
is used for “learning from the experience of others” and
achieving breakthrough improvements in performance.
In order to identify critical success factors for the imple-
mentation of best practice benchmarking projects, only
those organisations which implemented this technique,
were asked to provide details on who when, what, why,
where and how they implemented their benchmarking
projects.
The survey revealed that most organisations (55 %) are operat-
ing over a relatively long period of time (more than 20 years).
The smallest group form organisations which operate between
16 and 20 years. 11 % of organisations surveyed belong to
the group of young organisations (five years and less).
14 Global Benchmarking Network
4. buSineSS improvement
toolS
The main purpose of the study was to understand how busi-
ness improvement tools are currently implemented and per-
ceived, as well as to compare these tools with benchmarking.
The study distinguishes four different aspects by comparing
these tools with each other:
Awareness
Is the interviewee aware of this technique?
Usage
Has the interviewee used this technique?
Effectiveness
How effective is this technique to the interviewee?
Future Adoption
Is the interviewee willing to adapt this technique in the future?
15 Global Benchmarking Network
Business Improvement Tech-
niques Awareness Usage Effective-
ness
Future
Adoption
Global Average 65.0% 50.2% 68.2% 30.5%
Informal Benchmarking 75.2% 69.2% 64.2% 41.0%
Performance Benchmarking 66.2% 49.1% 63.1% 50.0%
Best Practice Benchmarking 60.0% 39.6% 64.3% 45.1%
Balanced Scorecard 67.7% 43.4% 66.3% 37.9%
Business Excellence 59.5% 39.8% 71.7% 29.0%
Business Process Reengineering 56.9% 45.6% 73.3% 26.4%
Corporate Social Respons. System 46.9% 37.0% 56.9% 26.0%
Customer (Client) Surveys 85.8% 77.0% 74.4% 29.8%
Employee Suggestion Scheme 76.8% 63.7% 60.8% 31.7%
Improvement Teams 73.5% 64.8% 74.7% 29.7%
Knowledge Management 59.5% 47.4% 62.2% 32.8%
Lean 51.8% 35.8% 70.4% 24.8%
Mission and Vision Statement 82.3% 77.2% 68.2% 29.1%
Plan-To-Check-Act 70.6% 57.7% 73.2% 28.8%
Quality Function Deployment 42.7% 23.9% 63.0% 16.9%
Quality Management System 81.4% 67.3% 76.6% 30.4%
Six Sigma 47.6% 21.9% 62.6% 19.8%
SWOT Analysis 83.2% 72.1% 70.9% 37.6%
TQM 67.3% 40.7% 74.5% 24.3%
5S 45.8% 30.3% 72.3% 19.0%
Table 1 gives an overview of im-
provement tools that have been
analysed in the survey. The twen-
ty techniques scrutinised in the
survey are broken down in four
groups based on the response
rate for awareness, usage, ef-
fectiveness and future adoption:
Top five (blue), above average
(light blue), below average (light
orange) and bottom five (red).
It is apparent by analysing the
data that there are strong correla-
tions between the four groups.
The highest correlation can be
seen between awareness and us-
age as, Customer (Client) Survey,
SWOT and Mission and Vision
Statement are in the top three
for both groups but change in
positioning. Different results can
be found for effectiveness, where
the top three improvement tools
are a Quality Management Sys-
tem (QMS), Improvement Teams
and TQM.
The most striking result might
be the fact that the respondents
chose different improvement
tools for future adoption. They
considered Performance Bench-
marking, Best Practice Benchmar-
king and Informal Benchmarking
as the most wanted improvement
tools for future adoption.
Table 1: Overview of Business Improvement Techniques
4.1 Global perSpective
16 Global Benchmarking Network
4.2 reGional perSpective
Europe: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania,
Russia, Slovakia, Switzerland, UK
China-India
China, India
Asia-Pacic:
Australia, Malaysia, New
Zealand, Philippines,
Singapore, Taiwan
North America:
Canada, Mexico, USA
Middle East-Africa:
Bahrain, Botswana, Egypt,
Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Israel,
Jordan, Mauritius, Namibia,
Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
South Africa, Syria, Turkey,
United Arab Emirates
GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS BY REGION AND COUNTRY
17Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
Table 2: Region ranking – Awareness
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Awareness Usage Effectiveness Future Adoption
North America Middle East-Africa Europe Asia-Pacific China-India
Figure 6: Regional Prole of Improvement Techniques
The respondents are grouped into five regions according to
their geographical location or their similarities in economical
development.
The trend between awareness, usage, effectiveness and will-
ingness for future adoption of each region only varies slightly
with China-India leading ahead of other regions. China-India
as emerging, fast growing economies have a strong desire for
and a high utilisation of business improvement tools.
Key
Awareness = % of respondents indicating a moder-
ate or high level of awareness of the technique.
Usage = % of respondents indicating the use of the
technique.
Effectiveness = % of respondents indicating a
moderate or major improvement in organisational
performance as a result of using the technique.
Future = % of respondents indicating the willingness
to use the technique in the next three years.
Improvement Tools World North
America
Middle
East-
Africa
Europe Asia
Pacific
China-
India
Customer (Client) Survey 1 2 3 1 3 1
SWOT 2 3 2 3 1 6
Mission and Vision Statement 3 1 4 6 2 2
Another developing region, Middle East-Africa, has a lower
utilisation of improvement tools, but reveals a relatively high
willingness to adopt new improvement techniques.
Regional Awareness Level
Although the five regions have rather different awareness lev-
els, the ranking of each technique is similar between regions.
18 Global Benchmarking Network
Usage Level
The usage rate usually follows
the same trend as aware-
ness. Techniques with higher
awareness got adopted by
companies more often. But,
there is more variation in
usage among regions than
there is in awareness.
Effectiveness Level
There are some discrepancies
among the different regions
when it comes to the most
effective improvement tool.
Quality Management Sys-
tem, the most effective tool
globally, is not even one of
the top five tools in Europe.
The top three tools in Europe
were; Informal benchmarking,
performance benchmarking
and Mission and Vision State-
ment.
Future Adoption Level
There is a high interest in
adopting new techniques in
Middle East-Africa and China-
India, despite the fact that
China-India already employs
more techniques than other
regions. However, none of the
global top five techniques in
future adoption rates is listed
in the top two positions in the
China-India region.
Improvement
Tools World North
America
Middle
East-
Africa
Europe Asia
Pacific
China-
India
Mission and Vision
Statement 113314
Customer (Client)
Survey 224121
SWOT 3 4 1 4 2 8
Improvement
Tools World North
America
Middle
East-
Africa
Europe Asia
Pacific
China-
India
Quality
Management
System
132642
Improvement
Team 2 2 9 7 1 12
TQM 3 1 6 2 10 20
Table 3: Region ranking – Usage
Table 4: Region ranking – Effectiveness
Improvement
Tools World North
America
Middle
East-
Africa
Europe Asia
Pacific
China-
India
Performance
Benchmarking 131224
Best Practice
Benchmarking 216143
Informal
Benchmarking 3 2 13 3 1 16
Table 5: Region ranking – Future Adoption
19 Global Benchmarking Network
Business Sectors
The responding organisations were classified by their business
sector, whether Private Sector, Public Sector, or Non-profit
Sector and Community. Depending on the sector to which
an organisation belongs varies the way of operating and the
goals pursued. The survey result mimics to some extent the
nature of each sector.
The Private Sector has the highest awareness level and usage
rate, followed by the Public Sector and then the Non-profit and
Community sector. Non-profit and Community as well as Public
Sector share similar patterns regarding awareness and usage
of most techniques, with Non-profit and Community lagging
almost consistently 5-10% behind Public Sector. In Informal
Benchmarking, Business Excellence and Improvement Teams,
Public Sector and Non-Profit and Community have both signifi-
cant higher usage rates than the Private Sector.
Business Activity
The highest usage of business improvement tools was regis-
tered in Electricity, Gas and Water Supply, as well as in Finance
and Insurance with an average use of 13 techniques per or-
ganisation, which is twice as many as in Property and Business
Services. Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants only uses
3.5 techniques per organisation, the lowest overall number.
As a global average, across the business activities, Customer
(Client) Survey, Mission and Vision Statement, Plan-Do-Check-
Act, Quality Management System, SWOT, can be termed as
the most effective tools.
A breakdown of the global figures is illustrated in the next
figure. The most notable leap belongs to best practice bench-
marking, which is only ranked fifteenth in actual usage, but
jumps to the top ten in the context of potential usage. A posi-
tive shift upwards can be seen also for Performance Bench-
marking and the Balanced Scorecard.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Awareness Usage Effectiveness Future Adoption
Public Sector Private Sector Not for Profit or Community Global Average
Figure 7: Sector Prole
of Improvement Techniques
Industry Aware-
ness Usage Effective-
ness
Future
Adoption
Global Average 65.0% 50.2% 68.2% 30.5%
Electricity, Gas
and Water Supply 74.2% 65.0% 81.1% 49.0%
Finance and Insur-
ance 73.6% 64.5% 70.9% 60.0%
Manufacturing 68.2% 53.3% 71.8% 36.6%
Transport and
Storage 72.7% 56.8% 66.0% 35.9%
Education 66.5% 54.7% 58.8% 29.6%
Table 6: Overview of Business Activities: TOP 5 Usage of Business
Improvement Techniques
4.3 orGaniSational perSpective
20 Global Benchmarking Network
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Quality Function Deployment
Six Sigma
5S
Lean
Corporate Social Responsibility System
TQM
Business Excellence
Business Process Re-engineering
Knowledge Management
Balanced Scorecard
Best Practice Benchmarking
Plan-Do-Act-Check
Performance Benchmarking
Improvement Teams
Employee Suggestion Scheme
Quality Management System
Informal Benchmarking
SWOT
Mission an Vision Statement
Customer (Client) Survey
Usage Future Adoption
Figure 8: Global Potential Usage (Current and Future)
Business Improvement Techniques - Current Usage and Future Adoption?
21Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
22 Global Benchmarking Network
5. benchmarkinG
Benchmarking Types
Benchmarking as a management technique has many defini-
tions. The definition used in the survey classifies benchmarking
into two main categories: informal and formal benchmarking.
Informal Benchmarking can be defined as an unstructured
approach to learn from the experience of other organisa-
tions; therefore not following a defined process. Formal
Benchmarking is conducted consciously and systematically
by organisations. It is divided in two categories: Performance
Benchmarking and Best Practice Benchmarking. Performance
Benchmarking compares the performance level of a specific
process to identify opportunities for improvement and to set
performance targets. Best Practice Benchmarking is searching
for the best way or solution by studying other organisations
that are high performers in particular areas of interest. The
knowledge gained is then analysed and in cases that the prac-
tice is feasible and appropriate, it will be adapted and incorpo-
rated in the organisation’s own process.
Informal Benchmarking
This type of benchmarking is mostly used by everyone uncon-
sciously at work and in home life. We constantly compare and
learn from the behaviour and practices of others – whether it
is how to use a software program, how to cook a better meal,
or to be a better player in our favourite sport. In the context of
work, people are undertaking informal benchmarking when:
Talking to work colleagues and learning from their experi-
ence (coffee breaks and team meetings are a great place to
network and learn from others).
Consulting with experts (for example, business consultants
who have experience of implementing a particular process
or activity in many business environments).
Networking with other people from other organisations at
conferences, seminars, and Internet forums.
Utilising on-line databases/web sites and publications that
share benchmarking information. Such information pro-
vides a quick and easy way to learn of best practices and
benchmarks.
Figure 9: Benchmarking Types
benchmarkinG
informal benchmarkinG formal benchmarkinG
performance benchmarkinG beSt practice benchmarkinG
23Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
Formal Benchmarking
Secondly, there is “Formal Benchmarking” which differs in
two types – Performance Benchmarking and Best Practice
Benchmarking.
Performance Benchmarking
Performance benchmarking describes the comparison of
performance data obtained by studying similar processes or
activities. Comparisons of performance may be undertaken
between companies – or internally within an organisation. It
is useful to identify strengths and opportunities for improve-
ment. Performance benchmarking may involve the comparison
of financial measures (such as expenditure, cost of labour, cost
of buildings/equipment, cost of energy, adherence to budget,
cash flow, revenue collected) or non-financial measures (such
as absenteeism, staff turnover, the percentage of administra-
tive staff to front-line staff, budget processing time, com-
plaints, environmental impact or call centre performance).
A lot of people equate benchmarking to performance bench-
marking. This is unfortunate, because performance bench-
marking on its own is of limited use. Too often performance
benchmarking data is collected (often at significant cost) and
no further action is taken after the data has been obtained.
Whilst performance benchmarking enables the user to identify
a performance gap, it does not provide the idea, best practice
or solution as to how performance can be improved and the
gap closed.
Best Practice Benchmarking
Best Practice Benchmarking describes the comparison of
performance data obtained by studying similar processes or
activities and identifying, adapting, as well as implementing
the practices that revealed the best performance results. Best
practice benchmarking is the most powerful type of bench-
marking. It is used for “learning from the experience of oth-
ers” and achieving breakthrough improvements in perform-
ance. Best practice benchmarking focuses on “Action” – i.e.
doing something with the comparison data and working out
why other organisations are achieving higher levels of per-
formance. Best practice benchmarking projects typically take
from 2 to 4 months to identify best practices. The practices
then need to be adapted and implemented.
The time taken for the whole project varies dependent on the
project’s scope, importance, and resources used. Projects are
usually resource intensive (in terms of the project team’s time)
and so care needs to be taken that they focus on issues of
high strategic importance that will deliver major bottom-line
benefits.
Other Types of Benchmarking
There are many other types of benchmarking such as internal,
external, competitive, strategic, and product benchmarking.
However, all these types can be undertaken informally or
formally and therefore are subsets of Informal and Formal
Benchmarking.
24 Global Benchmarking Network
Benchmarking, such as Performance Benchmarking and Best
Practice Benchmarking, is highly desirable. But despite the
great potential, the usage rate of Performance Benchmarking
and Best Practice Benchmarking is lower than average.
Benchmarking has even a lower average than the global
average effectiveness rate over all business improvement
techniques, which arises the question: what can be done to
enhance the user experience of benchmarking and improve its
currently mediocre performance?
To get an answer, it is important to study organisations that
use Benchmarking. It has to be investigated why they choose
Benchmarking and how it was implemented. Furthermore, the
reasons for not implementing Benchmarking also need to be
analysed.
In Europe, the average usage rate of improvement tools lies
around 52%, but Benchmarking, including Best Practice
Benchmarking and Performance Benchmarking, has a usage
rate of 68,6%, the highest of all regions. Furthermore in dif-
ferent sectors, the Top Five (see table 6) has a relatively high
usage rate of improvement tools, but Government Adminis-
tration and Defense stands out with a usage rate of 71% in
Benchmarking.
Employee involvement plays an important role in Bench-
marking projects. The respondents were asked to answer the
following three questions:
Do your employees receive training in benchmarking?
Do your employees collect and use benchmarking informa-
tion?
Are the better practices that have been identified through
benchmarking communicated to your employees?
Higher involvement from employees is shown from organisa-
tions whose opinions are positive towards benchmarking. Em-
ployees of the organisations stated that they are more trained
Figure 10: Usage of Benchmarking
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Employee
Trained
Collect
Benchmarking
Info
Outcome
Communicated
Effective Goup Average Non-Effective Group
Figure 11: Employee Involvement of Benchmarking Projects
5.1 General uSe of benchmarkinG
Which type of benchmarking does your organisation use?
Performance Benchmarking Best Practice Benchmarking
Use Both Use None
How are your employees involved in benchmarking projects?
Only respondents who indicated that they used Performance or
Best Practice Benchmarking completed this section of the survey
25Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Lack of resources
Lack of benchmarking partners
Lack of top management commitment
Lack of technical knowledge in planning benchmarking projects
Lack of understanding of benchmarking
Fear of sharing information
No clear benefit from benchmarking
High cost (cost more than benefit)
Long time frame to complete the project
Lack of authority
Other
Figure 12: Reasons for not Adopting Benchmarking
in Performance Benchmarking and Best Practice Benchmark-
ing. They collect benchmarking information more frequently
and are informed about the outcomes of the projects. The
opposite is occurring when the employees have a negative
opinion of the Benchmarking tools.
An interesting finding was the answer regarding why some
organisations are not implementing Benchmarking. 200 out of
452 organisations have not implemented either Performance
Benchmarking or Best Practice Benchmarking, and the main
reason behind this is the lack of resources and partners.
For Middle East-Africa, which is the region with the lowest
usage rate in both Performance Benchmarking and Best Prac-
tice Benchmarking, the biggest obstacle in practicing bench-
marking methods is the fear of sharing knowledge. The main
concern for the organisations outside Middle East-Africa is the
lack of benchmarking-understanding (North-America, Asia Pa-
cific), lack of technical knowledge in planning benchmarking
projects (China-India) and the lack of resources (Europe).
Why is your organisation hestitating to adopt benchmarking?
26 Global Benchmarking Network
Private organisations are more sceptical to share their cor-
porate information and have more difficulties in finding
benchmarking partners than public ones. Usually larger in size
and longer in history, public organisations often have more
complex administration structures, which might have some
negative impact on implementing new methods. Thus, the
most critical reason for not using benchmarking for organisa-
tions in Public sector, Non-profit or Community is the lack of
top management commitment.
Figure 13: Willingness to Use Third Party Benchmarking Service
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Best practice database
Support in finding benchmarking partners
Supply of benchmarks
Supply of best practice case studies
Benchmarking training courses
Best practice workshops
Support from a consultant in managing benchmarking projects
Online discussion forum
Would your organisation make use of Third Party Benchmarking Services?
Respondents were also asked to indicate the main success fac-
tors for benchmarking. These were identified as resources and
the ability to find willing and suitable benchmarking partners.
Organisations that used third party services found bench-
marking more effective than those that did not use any third
party service. Overall, the use of third party services is not very
common with only 30% of the organisations. But within these
30%, 75% of the interviewees said that benchmarking is an
effective tool for their organisation.
27Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
28 Global Benchmarking Network
Best Practice Benchmarking describes the comparison of
performance data obtained by studying similar processes or
activities and identifying, adapting, as well as implementing
the practices that revealed the best performance results (figure
12). Best practice benchmarking focuses on “Action” – i.e.
doing something with the comparison data and learning why
other organisations are achieving higher levels of perform-
ance.
Figure 14: 4 steps of a successful Best Practice Benchmarking project
5.2 beSt practice benchmarkinG
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Planning Research &
Analysis
Implementation Evaluation
Figure 15: Percentage of time spent by the organisations on each
phase of the benchmarking process
Approximately, what percentage of time is spent by your
organisation on each phase of the benchmarking process
out of total time spent?
3ODQQLQJ 5HVHDUFKDQG
$QDO\VLV ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ (YDOXDWLRQ
Survey Results
Organisations, which have specifically implemented Best Prac-
tice Benchmarking were asked about with whom, when, what,
why, where and how they undertook benchmarking projects.
The survey results explain the characteristics of a bench-
marking project. More than half of the organisations are
conducting two to five benchmarking projects per year. Most
time on the project is spent on Research & Analysis and Imple-
mentation. Including the time spent on implementation, the
average length of a benchmark project lies between eight and
nine months. The size of a benchmarking team usually com-
prises between three and four people. Few organisations have
specialised benchmarking personnel who organise and lead
benchmarking projects. Most benchmarking projects involve
people from middle management, selected employees, senior
management and process owners.
The time needed for the whole project varies dependent on
the project’s scope, importance, and resources used. Projects
are usually resource intensive (in terms of the project team’s
time) and so care needs to be taken that the focus will lie
on issues of high strategic importance that will deliver major
bottom-line benefits. A best practice benchmarking project
should follow these four steps: Planning, Research and Analy-
sis, Implementation, and Evaluation.
Only respondents who indicated that they used Best Practice Benchmarking completed this section of the survey.
29Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
Goals of a
Benchmarking Project
The main motivation behind
an organisation’s participation
in a benchmarking project is
to improve the performance
of a process.
Most organisations use
benchmarking to improve
their performance in com-
mercial areas, such as
customer service and admin-
istration, training and human
resources. More than half of
the organisations developed
their own methodology when
conducting benchmarking
projects, whereas 25% do not or rarely follow a benchmarking code of conduct.
50%
60%
70%
80%
Project brief Calculation of costs and
benefits
Code of conduct
Usually/Always Less than usually
Figure 17: Effectiveness Rating for Planning Phase Activities
During the planning phase of your benchmarking projects,
do you apply different planning methods?
Planning
The planning phase of a benchmarking project influences
positively the success of a project. The survey investigated if
organisations undertook the following activities in the plan-
ning phase:
Developed a project brief specifying the aim, scope, spon-
sor and the members of the benchmarking team.
Calculated the expected costs and benefits of the project
Followed the benchmarking code of conduct
20% more organisations, which indicated a moderate or
major impact from benchmarking, usually or always followed
one or more of the three preparation steps of benchmarking
projects.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Encourage a shift to a
learning culture
For business excellence
assessments
Develop new
products/services
Improve financial
performance
Learn what other
organisations are doing
Adress major strategic
issues
Improve performance of
processes
Figure 16: Reasons for Undertaking Benchmarking Projects
Why does your organisation undertake benchmarking projects?
30 Global Benchmarking Network
Research and Analysis
A wide range of information
collection methods is avail-
able. Most project teams
collect benchmarking data
and best practice information
from online web sites and
from their benchmarking
partners. Systematically
categorised Best Practice
databases, either internal
or external, are slightly less
popular.
Figure 18: Usage of Benchmarking Data Collecting Methods
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Contacting trade associations
Conferences
Benchmarking networks
External Best Practice database
Internal Best Practice database
Surveys
Talking to experts
Literature searches
Site visits/meeting with partners
Searching websites
Usually Always
Which information collection method do you choose for your benchmarking projects?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Number of organisations
Figure 19: Benchmarking implementation
What percentage of benchmarking projects
result in implementation?
Implementation
On average 41-60% of benchmarking projects result in imple-
mentation. However, almost 20 responding organisations had
a success rate of 81-100% projects resulting in implementa-
tion.
For benchmarking projects that successfully led to an imple-
mentation, the average implementation phase takes about
5,1 months, which is 1,5 months more than planning and
researching phases together.
31Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Improvement
measurement
Cost and benefit analysis Evaluation
Usually/Always effective Less than usually effective
Figure 20: Effectiveness Difference of Evaluation Actions
During the evaluation phase of your benchmarking projects,
do you apply different evaluation methods?
Evaluation
The benefit of a proper evaluation is most apparent when the
effectiveness rates of benchmarking are compared between
organisations that usually or always evaluate the project at
its end and those that don’t. The respondents were asked if
they
Measure the improvements that have occurred
Undertake a cost and benefit analysis
Evaluate how successfully they manage the project
Those organisations that usually or always perform an evalu-
ation at the end of a project are much more likely to have
undertaken a successful project. By not evaluating or examin-
ing the project even if it is not completed, organisations lose
Figure 21: Benchmarking Presentation Outcome Communication
Methods
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Memos
Notice boards
Newsletters
Meetings (informal)
Intranet (Internal
internet)
E-Mails
Meetings (formal)
Reports
Presentations
The outcomes from benchmarking projects are
typically communicated by?
a precious opportunity to learn from mistakes and to improve
their benchmarking approach.
At the end of a benchmarking project, three areas were ex-
amined:
Project outcome communication methods
Benefit of project outcome
Project financial return
For the channels of communication, active communication
methods are used more frequently than passive ones to con-
vey the results of benchmarking projects to the personnel in
the organisation.
32 Global Benchmarking Network
Figure 22: Main Benet of Benchmarking Projects
The main benefit of benchmarking projects is improved
performance of processes. This is an important result due to
the fact that this finding corresponds with one of the most
important reasons why organisations perform benchmarking
(Figure 22).
Many improvements are subtle and hard to measure in finan-
cial numbers. For those organisations that measure the actual
financial return contributed by benchmarking projects, the
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Assisted in business
excellence assessments
Encouraged a cultural shift
to a learning culture
Developed new
products/services
Improved financial
performance
Major strategic issues
addressed
Learnt what other
organisations are doing
Improved performance of
processes
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Less than
10T$
11T$ to
50T$
51T$ to
100T$
101T$ to
250T$
251T$ to
500T$
More than
500T$
Figure 23: Financial return (US$) from a typical benchmarking
project, after one year of implementation
Which are the main benets from benchmarking projects
for your organisation?
On average, what is the nancial return (US$) from a
typical benchmarking project after one year of implementation?
Figure 24: Financial return from a typical benchmarking project
average financial return is between 11,000 to 50,000 US$.
Some respondents stated significant benefits from benchmark-
ing. 20% reported an average financial return of over US$
250,000 per project. Analysing the survey responses of these
organisations it was evident that they paid more attention to
the planning and evaluation of their projects. For instance, Fig-
ure 24, shows that those organisations that usually or always
measured the costs and benefits of a project were more likely
to achieve better financial outcomes.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Usually + Always
Rarely + Sometimes
No
25%
33%
40%
31%
27%
20%
19%
13%
20%
25%
27%
20%
Less than 10T$ 11T$ to 50T$
51T$ to 100T$ More than 100T$
Do you calculate the expected cost and benets of the project? On average, what is the nancial return (US$) from a typical
benchmarking project after one year of implementation?
25%
33%
40%
31%
27%
20%
19%
13%
20%
25%
27%
20%
Less than 10T$ 11T$ to 50T$
51T$ to 100T$ More than 100T$
25%
33%
40%
31%
27%
20%
19%
13%
20%
25%
27%
20%
Less than 10T$ 11T$ to 50T$
51T$ to 100T$ More than 100T$
33Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
Key Success Factors of Benchmarking Projects
Finally, respondents were asked to indicate the key factors of
success for a benchmarking project. More than 95% agreed
that the support from the top management is most important.
The reason why external or consultancy support is considered
to be the least important factor of a successful benchmarking
project to an organisation could be due to the low usage level
of third party benchmarking services.
Figure 25: Factors of a Successful Benchmarking Project
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Support of top management
Obtaining reliable comparison data
Understanding of own processes
Clear project objectives
Readiness of organization to
implement project findings
Composition of the benchmarking
team
Linking of project objectives to
strategic objectives
Resource allocated to benchmarking
Learning from the success and failures
of each BM project
Understanding of benchmarking
Project management skills
Ability to find benchmarking partners
Skills in process analysis
Research skills for conducting surveys
and site visits
Access to external/consultancy support
for facilitating BM projects
According to your experience, how do the following factors contribute to the success of a benchmarking project?
34 Global Benchmarking Network
The purpose of the study was to identify current trends in
usage, effectiveness and future adoption of improvement
tools as well as to clarify possible difficulties while conducting
benchmarking projects. Therefore the Global Benchmarking
Network conducted a survey between May 2008 and Sep-
tember 2008 which had 452 organisations surveyed from 45
different countries.
Business Improvement Tools
Within the twenty pre-selected improvement tools, Mission
and Vision Statement, Customer (Client) Service and SWOT
Analysis were used most by organisations. But the most effec-
tive improvement tools were quality improvement techniques,
such as Quality Management System, Improvement Teams and
Total Quality Management. A reason for this preference could
be that they are considered as having a more tangible impact
on an organisation. Some improvement tools, like Mission and
Vision Statement, encourage a positive cultural shift, which
is usually subtle and its benefits can only be observed on a
longer time scale.
Figure 26: Top Three Improvement Tools
60% 65% 70% 75% 80%
TQM
Improvement Teams
Quality Management
System
40% 43% 45% 48% 50%
Informal Benchmarking
Best Practice
Benchmarking
Performance
Benchmarking
60% 65% 70% 75% 80%
SWOT Analysis
Customer (Client) Survey
Mission and Vision
Statement
Most used improvement tool
Most effective improvement tool
Improvement tool most in demand
6. Summary and
concluSion
35Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
Benchmarking
The obstacles preventing organisations from adapting bench-
marking are mostly from a lack of technical knowledge and
the difficulty of finding a benchmarking partner, both prob-
lems can be supported by third-party benchmarking services.
Other critical success factors with a positive effect on the suc-
cess of a benchmarking project are:
The evaluation at the end of a benchmarking project
The preparation before the start of a benchmarking project
High level of employee involvement in a benchmarking
project
It is clear that if organisations perform benchmarking projects
in a professional manner the gains from both the financial and
non-financial perspective can be large (20% of respondents
stated an average financial return of over US$250,000 per
best practice benchmarking project).
Last but not least the support of the top management is a
crucial factor regarding the success of benchmarking projects.
In many situations, benchmarking teams are facing obstacles
within benchmarking projects that can only be solved with the
help of a higher authority. The lack of support and involve-
ment from the top management or even fellow colleagues is
often caused due to a lack of benchmarking-understanding.
Therefore the promotion of benchmarking-knowledge is
needed to launch a smooth project.
Regional Perspective
A possible influential factor, region, is found to have a subtle
effect on how organisations choose and work with improve-
ment tools. Regions, like North America, Europe and Asia Pacif-
ic, share, in general, a similar view on improvement techniques.
China-India, the fast growing region, shows a high willingness
to adapt and experiment with new improvement tools, even
with their already higher-than-global-average use of improve-
ment techniques. Middle East-Africa is more conservative
regarding improvement tools and currently uses much fewer
tools than other regions. Despite the high future adoption rate,
both Middle East-Africa and China-India show relatively little
interest in adopting benchmarking currently, one of the most
sought-after improvement tools by other regions.
Organisational Perspective
Five industries stand out as having higher levels of awareness,
current use, expected use and effectiveness of improvement
tools. These are Electricity, Gas and Water Supply, Finance and
Insurance, Manufacturing, Transport and Storage as well as
Education.
Five other industries, Personal and Other Services, Health and
Community Services, Construction, Government Administra-
tion and Defense and Property and Business Services, have
lower levels on the whole.
36 Global Benchmarking Network
appendix a –
definitionS of
improvement toolS
Informal
Benchmarking
Actively encouraging employees to learn from the experience and expertise of other colleagues
and organisations through comparing practices and processes e.g. through best practice tours,
conferences, best practice websites, networking
Performance
Benchmarking
Comparing performance levels of a process/activity with other organisations – therefore com-
paring against benchmarks
Best Practice
Benchmarking
Following a structured process for comparing performance levels and learning why better per-
formers have higher levels of performance and adapting/implementing those better practices
Balanced Scorecard Used for measuring whether the activities of a company are meeting its objectives in terms of
vision and strategy by focusing on a balanced set of outcomes
Business Excellence Using a business excellence model (such as EFQM, Baldrige, or any other national excellence
model) for assessment and improvement.
Business Process Re-
engineering (BPR)
Involves significant changes in the design and production of an organisation’s products/services
by focusing on processes rather than traditional functions
Corporate Social
Responsibility System
System designed to measure, apply, assess, and report organisational efforts to integrate CSR,
particularly environmental and social concerns, into all operations
Customer (Client)
Surveys Surveys to obtain customer feedback
Employee Suggestion
Scheme A formal mechanism by which employees can offer their ideas
Improvement Teams A team established to address a specific improvement issue
Knowledge
Management
A range of practices used by organisations to identify, create, represent, and distribute knowl-
edge
Lean A process of improvement that focuses on practices aimed at reducing inventory levels and
waste from the organisation’s key processes
Mission and Vision
Statement
Brief statements of the purpose and vision of an organisation, with the intention of keeping
employees aware of the organisation‘s direction
Plan-Do-Check-Act
(PDCA) A four step process for continuous improvement
Quality Function
Deployment (QFD)
A structured team approach in which customer requirements are translated into appropriate
technical requirements for each stage of product development and production
Quality Management
System Such as ISO 9001, following procedures, quality manual and auditing
Six Sigma A measured and fact-based approach to reducing process variation and improving performance
Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and
Threats (SWOT)
A strategy development tool used to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats facing an organisation
TQM A management approach for long-term success through improving customer satisfaction, proc-
esses, products, services and culture
5S A housekeeping method for organizing a workplace, especially a shared workplace (like a shop
floor or an office space and keeping it organized)
37Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
38 Global Benchmarking Network
appendix b –
Global benchmarkinG
network memberS
Mr. Bruce Searles Benchmarking Partnerships,
Australia
bruce@benchmarkingpartnerships.com.au
www.benchmarkingpartnerships.com.au
Mr. Ahmed Abbas Bahrain Quality Society,
Bahrain
ahmed@bahrainquality.org
www.BahrainQuality.org
Mr. Allan Ebedes National Quality Institute,
Canada
allan@nqi.ca
www.nqi.ca
Mr. Libor Friedel Czech Society for Quality,
Czech Republic
Friedel@csq.cz
www.benchmarking.cz
Dr.-Ing. Holger Kohl Information Centre Benchmarking,
Germany
holger.kohl@ipk.fhg.de
www.benchmarking.fhg.de
Mr. Matthias Seidl Lexta Consultants Group,
Germany
seidl@lex ta.com
www.lexta.com
Mrs. Karolina Sugar Hungarian Association for Excellence,
Hungary
info@kivalosag.hu
www.kivalosag.hu
Mr. Suresh Lulla BestPrax Club Private Limited,
India
ssl@bestpraxclub.com
www.bestpraxclub.com
Ms. Fatemeh Esfandiary Intelligent Persian Consultants (IPC),
Iran
fs@ipc.co.ir
www.ipc.co.ir
Ms. Irene Collins Excellence Ireland,
Ireland
info@eiqa.com
www.eiqa.com
Ms. Nazahiah Mohamad Malaysia Productivity Corporation (MPC),
Malaysia
Nazahiah@mpc.gov.my
www.mpc.gov.my
Mr. Boohmitra Sharma
Toolsy
National Productivity and Competitiveness Council (NPCC) ,
Mauritius
natpro@intnet.mu
www.npccmauritius.com
Dr. Robin Mann Centre for Organisational Excellence Research,
Massey University, New Zealand
R.S.Mann@massey.ac.nz
www.coer.org.nz
More information about the Global Benchmarking Network
can be found on www.globalbenchmarking.org.
Each year the GBN organises the International Benchmarking
Conference. The conference in 2010 will be held in Dubai.
Further information on the conference can be found on
www.bestpracticeconference.com
If your organisation, wants to know more about benchmar-
king and/or be trained in benchmarking we advise that you
speak to your country’s GBN representative.
39Global Survey on Business Improvement and Benchmarking
Dr. Diana Badea Romanian Benchmarking Association,
Romania dianammura@gmail.com
Mr. Yury Samoylov Business Excellence Department of the Russian
Organization for Quality, Russia
be@mirq.ru
www.mirq.ru
Mr. Osama Saleh TeamOne Consulting,
Saudi Arabia
osama@teamone.com.sa
www.teamone.com.sa
Mr. Jerry Karlsson Swedish Institute for Quality (SIQ),
Sweden
jk@siq.se
www.siq.se
Prof. Dr. Thomas Friedli TECTEM Benchmarking Center, University of St. Gallen,
Switzerland
Thomas.Friedli@unisg.ch
www.tectem.ch
Ms. Lihkuan Lee China Productivity Center,
Taiwan
2017@cpc.org.tw
www.cpc.org.tw
Prof. Hadi El Tigani Abu Dhabi International Centre for Organisational
Excellence, Abu Dhabi, UAE
h.eltigani@ioe.ae
www.ioe.ae
Mr. Sulaiman Sabbah Ruler‘s Court of Ajman,
Ajman, UAE
ssabbah@ajman.ae
www.ajman.ae
Ms. Samia al-Yousuf Dubai Quality Group,
Dubai, UAE
samia@dqg.org
www.dqg.org
Mr. Terry Pilcher BCS Management Services,
U.K.
BCSMgt@aol.com
www.bcsmanagementservices.com
Mr. Mark Modena Winning Moves Ltd.,
U.K.
marka@winningmoves.com
www.winningmoves.com
Dr. Robert Camp Best Practice Institute ,
USA rcampbpi@att.net
... Benchmarking is het regelmatig vergelijken van de eigen prestaties en werkwijze bij een organisatie ten opzichte van een referentiegroep (Mann et al., 2010). Vaak vergelijken ondernemers zich met andere bedrijven uit de eigen branche, maar soms worden de prestaties nadrukkelijk gespiegeld aan bedrijven in een andere sector. ...
... Benchmarking heeft een significant positief effect op de productkwaliteit en productiekosten, maar ook op het rendement van de bedrijfsinvesteringen (Maiga en Jacobs, 2006). Verschillende vormen van benchmarking worden onderscheiden (Mann et al., 2010). Bij prestatie benchmarking vergelijkt men prestaties tussen gelijksoortige processen en bedrijfsactiviteiten. Deze vergelijking kan worden gedaan met andere organisaties, maar ook binnen de eigen organisatie, bijvoorbeeld tussen afdelingen of tussen verschillende jaren. ...
Book
Full-text available
Een onderzoek naar de benchmarking mogelijkheden via Standard Business Reporting voor het MKB in Nederland. Sinds 1 januari 2013 kunnen bedrijven – of hun financiële intermediair – voor het indienen van belastingaangiften, jaarrekeningen en financiële rapportages gebruik maken van een nieuwe elektronische standaard: Standard Business Reporting (SBR). Voortaan kunnen bedrijven rechtstreeks via hun administratiesoftware gegevens uitwisselen met overheidsinstanties, banken en intermediairs. De Rijksoverheid beoogt met SBR de administratieve lastendruk voor hetNederlandse bedrijfsleven te verlichten. Naast lagere kosten voor de verplichte gegevensuitwisseling met SBR biedt deze innovatie ook mogelijkheden voor branchespecifieke benchmarking via SBR-berichten. De vraag is in welke mate de gegevens uit SBR-berichten voldoen aan de behoefte aan benchmarking bij brancheorganisaties. Het expertisecentrum Instant Reporting en het lectoraat Online Ondernemen van de Hogeschool van Amsterdam hebben dit onderzocht in samenwerking met brancheorganisaties. De Hogeschool van Amsterdam wil hiermee nadrukkelijk de discussie bevorderen tussen brancheorganisaties, banken, intermediairs en softwareleveranciers over de mogelijkheden voor branchespecifieke benchmarking via SBR-berichten. Deze publicatie is uitgegeven door het Centre for Applied Research on Economics & Management (CAREM) en het expertisecentrum Instant Reporting van het domein Economie en Management van de Hogeschool van Amsterdam. CAREM is een centrum voor praktijkgericht economisch onderzoek gericht op kennisontwikkeling. Het expertisecentrum Instant Reporting bundelt de aanwezige kennis op het gebied van SBR en stelt studenten in staat na hun afstuderen de arbeidsmarkt te betreden met de vereiste actuele kennis over SBR.
... It helps to sustain long-term success through continual comparison and learning from other organizations. As shown in Figure 3, the Global Benchmarking Network classifies benchmarking into two main categories, informal and formal (Mann et al, 2010). Informal benchmarking is the adoption of an unstructured approach to learning from the experience of other organizations, where no defined processes are necessary. ...
... Figure 3: Forms of Benchmarking Source: Mann et al. (2010) ...
Book
As centres for logistics activities, seaports have traditionally been the focus of maritime logistics chains. However, changes in production patterns, supported by the development of rapid transport of goods over long distances, have altered the logistics landscape. As a result, the relevance of port hinterland transport has become more important, with a consequent need for the high utilisation of transport resources and infrastructure through the consolidation of cargo flows and for seaports to extend their influence within their hinterlands to increase their competitiveness. The development worldwide of inland ports, terminals and dryports in their various forms, together with associated new functions and strategies, address these challenges in diverse ways to realise the potential benefits that come from the successful implementation of inland ports that connect seamlessly into transportation systems. This book comprises case studies and state-of-the-art examples of dryports in different parts of the world that have varying economic, social, institutional and environmental realities and which exhibit the complexity of, and diverse approaches to, this recent logistics phenomenon. 'Ports are again moving upstream, into the hinterland where the whole thing started centuries ago. From waterfront bottlenecks, ports, or rather dryports, are now becoming crucial nodes in global supply chains. This book is a primer for everyone with an interest in modern cargo transport systems. The competence of the authors and the profound expertise of its three editors guarantee that this book will remain on the top of our desk for years to come.' (H.E. Haralambides, Center for Maritime Economics and Logistics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands) 'Dry Ports - A Global Perspective adds significant value to existing literature on inland freight terminals and embodies a long-awaited, creative synthesis of the state of the art in the field. Building on an effective, modern and collective intelligence approach to open innovation, and benefiting from the contribution of the most current thinking from researchers and practitioners alike, this book will soon become a classic reference in the field of transport logistics. It is an impressive, riveting and most rewarding piece of work.' (José María Rubiato, UNCTAD, Geneva), Contents Introduction: a global perspective on dry ports, Rickard Bergqvist, Gordon Wilmsmeier and Kevin Cullinane; Part I Europe: Hinterland transport in Sweden: the context of intermodal terminals and dry ports, Rickard Bergqvist; Dry ports: a concept or a reality for Southeast Drenthe?, Johan Gille and Jeroen Bozuwa; Port community systems in maritime and rail transport integration: the case of Valencia. Spain, Salvador Furió; Integrating ports and hinterlands: a Scottish perspective from the shop floor, Gavin Roser, Kenneth Russell, Gordon Wilmsmeier and Jason Monios. Part II Africa: Dry ports and trade logistics in Africa, Charles Kanuka. Part III Asia: Dry port: the India experience and what the future holds - India needs to think out-of-the-box, Raghu Dayal; Price versus quality or quality versus price at Indian dry ports - cost quality and price - a visionary view on Indian dry ports, Vaibhav Shah; The construction of seamless supply chain network: the development of dry ports in China, Jing Lu and Zheng Chang. Part IV The Americas: Observations on the potential for dry port terminal developments in the United States, Bruce Lambert, Chad Miller, Libby Ogard and Ben Ritchey; Intermodal freight corridor development in the United States, Jason Monios and Bruce Lambert; Implementing dedicated areas for foreign trade in the Santos metropolitan region: the Brazilian experience, Leo Tadeus Robles; Potential for logistics zones development: Chile as a study case, Erick Leal Matamala, Gabriel Pérez Salas and Ricardo J. Sánchez; Index. To purchase, go to: http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781409444244
... Most research studies in the last few years have identified benchmarking as a top five tool in terms of popularity in terms of usage and above average in terms of satisfaction -see Figure 3. (Rigby, 2013) Whilst benchmarking has become popular there have been questions raised about its effectiveness. Research by the GBN (Mann et al, 2010) identified a potential reason why satisfaction rates for benchmarking were not as high as some other techniques. It seems that organisations have widely different opinions on what benchmarking is and how to apply it, leading to a sizeable % of organisations recording poor returns from benchmarking. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Journal of Inspiration Economy- Volume 2 - Issue 2 (2015)
Chapter
Full-text available
Journal of Inspiration Economy- Volume 1 - Issue 1 (2014)
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.