See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240260548

The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and benchaction

Article  in  The TQM Magazine · February 2001

DOI: 10.1108/09544780110360624

CITATIONS READS

72 11,815

2 authors:

Per V. Freytag Svend Hollensen

University of Southern Denmark University of Southern Denmark
58 PUBLICATIONS   892 CITATIONS    78 PUBLICATIONS   823 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Family business business models View project

Collaborative Research Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Svend Hollensen on 23 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Techniques
The process of
benchmarking,
benchlearning and
benchaction
Per V. Freytag and
Svend Hollensen
The authors
Per V. Freytag and Svend Hollensen are at the
University of Southern Denmark, Sùnderborg, Department
of Marketing, Denmark.
Keywords
Benchmarking, TQM, Improvement,
Organizational change
Abstract
Benchmarking is more than giving marks. It is a way of
measuring a firm's strategies and performance against
"best-in-class'' firms, both inside and outside the industry.
The aim is to identify best practices that can be adopted
and implemented by the organization with the purpose of
improving a company's performance. The process of
benchmarking is divided into seven phases: which
functions to benchmark; importance of each subject area;
whom to benchmark against; gather the benchmarking
information; identify performance gaps; how to learn from
the ``best-in-class'' (benchlearning); and implementation
of the changes (benchaction). Benchmarking,
benchlearning and benchaction is not a one-time project.
It is a continuous improvement strategy and a change
management process. Thus benchmarking is a part of the
total quality management (TQM) system, and it relates
well to other TQM initiatives.
Electronic access
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . pp. 25±33
# MCB University Press . ISSN 0954-478X
25
Introduction
Many firms face still fiercer competition in
global markets. The declining
competitiveness of these firms is reflected in
decreasing market shares and poorer business
performance. But as General Sun Tzu wrote:
If you know your enemy and know yourself, you
need not fear the result of hundred battles.
To meet this challenge many firms have
launched a variety of initiatives to improve
their strategic and operational performance.
One such strategic management technique is
``benchmarking''.
This article discusses the process of
benchmarking, potentials, and limitations of
the technique. A seven stages model will be
introduced and discussed.
Altogether benchmarking, benchlearning
and benchaction is a strategy for
implementing changes in organizations. It is a
way of measuring operations against similar
operations in order to improve business
processes. The purpose of benchmarking is to
improve products and processes in order to
meet customer needs better. The linkage of
the business process to customer needs is
critical to effective benchmarking.
Benchmarking is also a way of measuring
your firm's strategies and performance against
``best-in-class'' firms, both inside and outside
your own industry. The aim is to identify best
practices that can be adopted and
implemented by the organization with the
purpose of improving company performance.
This is the benchlearning-process. The actual
implementation is taking place in the
benchaction process.
Usually, benchmarking is carried out within
the same industry. However, benchmarking is
often carried out between organizations that
have a similar process but belong to different
industries. By benchmarking the process
across industries, the organization sometimes
achieves greater results than by sticking to its
own industry. Benchmarking a process across
industries causes people to challenge some of
the assumptions that are part of the problem.
Benchmarking as a tactical planning tool
originated with Xerox Business Systems in the
late 1970s. Japanese affiliates were selling
better quality copiers for less than the
manufacturing costs of similar products in
the USA. One of the first experiments on
benchmarking took place in the production
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and benchaction
Per V. Freytag and Svend Hollensen
logistics area (warehousing, packing, and
shipping).
We define the three keywords as:
(1) Benchmarking. Benchmarking is an
independent efficiency raising process
based on:
. analysis of the existing performance
levels of the company unit or object
under examination and comparison
with other organizational levels; and
. identification of the causes for
performance ``gaps'' as the basis for
optimum reconfiguration of
corporate activities (adapted from:
Krutten, 1999).
(2) Benchlearning. The process of learning
from the ``best in class'' with the purpose
of integrating these best practices in all
organizational levels of the company.
(3) Benchaction. The actual implementation
of the planned changes in the organization,
e.g. in the form of upgrading personal
skills through training and development
activities.
Types of benchmarking
There are different types of benchmarking
depending on what the company wants to
benchmark.
Internal benchmarking
Benchmarking against internal operations is
one of the simplest forms of benchmarking
since most companies have similar functions
inside their business units. The immediate
benefit comes from identifying the best
internal procedures, and subsequently
transferring them to other parts of the
organization. Companies which implement
internal benchmarking alone often retain an
introverted view, unless they use internal
benchmarking as a baseline for external
benchmarking at a later time.
Industry (functional) benchmarking
Industry (functional) benchmarking is the
measurement of various facets of the
company's functional operations and
comparison of these to similar measurements
from other companies (often industry leaders)
within the industry group. Many industry
groups publish comparative data either
privately (for members of the group) or
publicly or both. The benchmarking partners
26
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25±33
usually share some common technological
and market characteristics. Often, they also
concentrate on specific functions. Because
there are no direct competitors involved, the
benchmarking partners are more willing to
contribute and share. Disadvantages can be
scheduling companies that are already
overflowed by benchmarking and therefore
reluctant to participate in benchmarking.
Competitive benchmarking
This type of benchmarking is used against
direct competitors. Performed externally, its
objective is to compare companies offering
competing products, services or processes in
the same markets. With direct competitors,
information is not easy to obtain. Public
domain information is the most accessible. If
some key customers in the market have
experience with more suppliers (competitors)
they may be willing to give their evaluation of
these suppliers. But this method often
involves high costs.
Process (generic) benchmarking
Here, similar procedures at dissimilar
companies are benchmarked. Although it is
considered relatively effective it is difficult to
implement. Process benchmarking requires a
broad conceptualisation of the entire process
and a thorough understanding of procedures.
As indicated above, the concept has also
been referred to as generic benchmarking
because it is not restricted to any industrial
structure or market. As a contrast to process
benchmarking, data benchmarking is a way of
comparing quantitative measures (key
figures) with competitors or with members of
an industry group (key average figures). In
data benchmarking the team is not interested
in the underlying processes.
The process
Benchmarking and the following
benchlearning/benchaction usually involve
seven main stages:
(1) Decide what functions of the business to
benchmark by evaluating the KSFs (key
success factors).
(2) Evaluate the importance of each subject
area (KSF).
(3) Identify against whom to benchmark
(determine benchmarking partners).
(4) Gather the benchmarking information.
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and benchaction
Per V. Freytag and Svend Hollensen
(5) Compare ``best-in-class'' with the firm's
own performance (identify performance
gaps).
(6) Implications of benchmarking-results,
benchlearning: how can the firm's skills/
processes be improved by learning from
the ``best-in-class''?
(7) Benchaction: implementation of the
changes.
An important question is to what extent such
a general model can be used, and to what
degree the model needs refinement for use in
all companies operating under different
market conditions. Some markets are
characterized by being very international and
others by being more local with regard to the
actors' operation on the markets. The markets
also differ regarding the type of goods and
services sold in the markets. On some markets
the items are very standardized, and on others
they are customized. A benchmarking model
should be able to cope with such differences
in a manner that offers useful guidance to the
companies.
In the following we will further develop the
six steps involved in the benchmarking
process.
Decide what functions of the business to
benchmark by evaluating the KSF
Key success factors (KSFs) are the limited
number of the firm's subject areas in which
results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure
successful competitive performance for the
organization.
In benchmarking projects the starting point
is identification of subject areas within which
improvements are critical. The criteria for
selecting the subject areas are:
. they should be of strategic importance to
the business; and
. improvements in the areas will make a
significant contribution to overall
business results.
First, one must identify the strategic intent of
the business or process which is to be
benchmarked. Many times the source of this
information is the company's mission
statement.
Several writers have argued that a key
success factor is a statement on a causal
relationship between actual success in
business performance and causes of success
(Grunert and Ellegaard, 1992). The
immediate cause of differences in
27
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25±33
performance can be reduced to two basic
factors: the value that customers perceive in
the product/service offered, and the costs of
creating this value. The term KSF is,
therefore, reserved for the skills and resources
that have a direct impact on customers'
perceived value and/or relative costs
compared to the competitors.
The KSFs cover a wide range of very
different factors (production factors,
organizational factors, managerial factors,
marketing factors, etc.), but some of them are
more critical to the firm's performance than
others. A few key functions demand that
``things must go right'' for the management
goals to be attained. Therefore, these
functions must be given greater importance in
the overall quantitative measurement of
business performance.
Another reason for a different weighting is
that KSFs are not the same for all firms. They
are market- and firm-specific. Hence, the
weights of the different factors (KSFs) must
reflect these different conditions.
How do we find the KSFs?
Brainstorming is one method of generating
a number of ideas for KSFs.
Another possibility is to ask customers
about their criteria when choosing suppliers.
The respondent could start specifying some
success criteria and describing how main
competitors differ with regard to these
criteria. The interviewer could keep asking
``what is the reason for . . .'' or ``why do you
prefer . . .''. This technique may provide a list
of potential KSFs, and an estimate of the
subjective strengths of a causal relationship.
Evaluate the importance of each subject
area (KSF)
Here, the purpose is to narrow down the
number of subject areas (from the
brainstorming stage) to a few areas in which
benchmarking might have a considerable
impact. After this screening the subject areas
are prioritised and may be given importance.
It is wise to direct attention to a small number
of areas, particularly in the early stages of
benchmarking when knowledge of the
technique needs to be developed concurrently
with the process itself. One must always bear
in mind whether the subject area is really
important to the success of the company.
Difficulties in agreeing on this might signal a
too narrow focus. Then, a more strategic
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and benchaction
Per V. Freytag and Svend Hollensen
overview could extend the focus to include
suppliers, employees and customers.
Identify against whom to benchmark
(determine benchmarking partners)
The following two questions provide the
starting point in the search for suitable
partners:
(1) Who/what is better (at a particular
process) than us?
(2) To whom is this process a key to survival?
Essentially, benchmarking partners might be
found in two locations:
(1) internally; and
(2) externally.
Internal partners
Most organizations start with internal
comparisons wherever possible. This makes a
great deal of sense since there are relatively
few hurdles to overcome in terms of language,
culture and data availability. Hierarchies are
understood and communication channels
generally exist which makes it easier to visit
someone. The benchmarking teams can
develop familiarity with their own work
process before they look at what others are
doing. In addition, internal benchmarking can
produce some relatively quick returns.
However, there comes a point when it is no
longer possible or desirable to improve against
internal performance because more drastic
changes are needed. Although external
comparisons may seem more threatening they
have a higher probability of producing
significant returns, discovering innovations or
changing paradigms. Typically, it may also
take longer to identify and implement
improvements to existing processes if external
comparisons are sought.
External partners
Identifying potential external benchmarking
partners is another step in the research phase.
The best is always to develop a list of potential
benchmarking partners. Some potential
partners may not be interested, have not got
the time, or do not wish to share information.
Although benchmarking practice stresses
using the ``best in class'' for our benchmark, it
often has to be tempered with other factors,
such as co-operation, costs, time, location,
and established relationships.
To find a likely external benchmarking
partner is not easy. The broader the horizon
of search the greater the likelihood that an
28
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25±33
entirely new perspective will be found (Sheth
and Sharma, 1997). The partner could be
found:
. within your industry at the same location;
. at other locations but in the same
industry;
. in a different industry and the same type
of company;
. in a different type of company within the
same industry; or
. completely outside the industry.
Some of the criteria in selecting external
partners are:
. The partner should be measurably better
than ``our'' company.
. Avoid direct competitors where possible,
unless markets are exclusive or processes
are general and affect the whole industry.
When seeking ``best'' practice it should be
clearly defined what is understood by ``best''
for the company.
The task of identifying data sources for
selecting possible external benchmarking
partners is a challenging one. These data
sources could include:
. business newspapers and magazine
articles;
. trade journal articles;
. industry and professional associations;
. books on well-run companies; and
. consultant accounting firms who work in
your industry.
When likely candidates are found, some
preliminary research should be performed to
help narrow the list.
Some potential partners may not have
much information available. In these cases,
they are normally dropped from the list. The
ones remaining will have sufficient public data
so that the benchmarking team can make a
final decision as to which organization they
want to approach as their external
benchmarking partner.
Gather the benchmarking information
The data collection team needs to have
uniform collection methods (the same forms
seeking the same data in the same way). Be
sure to specify the data at the proper
aggregation level: specify the data in terms of
units and intervals to make the comparison
and the analysis phase easier. It is good
practice to mail any questionnaires prior to
your visit in order to provide time for the
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and benchaction
Per V. Freytag and Svend Hollensen
benchmarking partner to prepare the data in
the format requested.
As pointed out earlier, the purpose of
benchmarking is to improve operations. The
same purpose also applies to the
benchmarking project itself. Use the site visits
as a way of improving the data collection
design and method. Also realize that the
world is not standing still during this exercise.
Build in robustness in the questionnaire and
the benchmarking plan because things will
change before the project is complete.
Almost everything requires give and take.
Information on companies' internal and
external relations is usually considered
confidential. Often, giving information to
others, especially competitors, is considered
disloyal and often results in dismissals. Thus,
most companies have the deep-rooted
attitude that information about them must be
withheld. However, when it comes to
information about other companies, with
whom one has a co-operative or even a
competitive relation, things are quite
different. Here, the interest in gathering
information about others is large.
Sometimes, it may be better for the
company to hide its own intentions or
behaviour, as it is usually impossible to be
entirely invisible in a market, and hiding one's
intentions may facilitate the company's
competitive opportunities.
In a way benchmarking to a certain degree
contrasts with the idea that discretion is of the
utmost importance. Thus, a high degree of
openness is basically required, even if the
demands vary depending on the chosen
benchmarking approach.
When choosing a benchmarking approach
where you benchmark yourself against another
company, which is more effective at a certain
process, a high degree of willingness and
openness towards co-operation is required if
such a project shall succeed in getting any
further than the problems of collecting valid
and reliable information.
Another type of benchmarking is used when
collecting certain information about
companies in a certain industry and across
industries in order to be able to analyse both
within and across industries. Here, the
benchmarking depends on how well chosen,
how extensive, and how reliable the pieces of
information are.
29
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25±33
Compare ``best-in-class'' with the firm's
own performance (identify performance
gaps)
The specific company's competitive position is
always unique. The company's internal
make-up of the resources, competencies, etc. is
special, customer demands and requests vary
and competitors act differently. Of course,
these and other factors create the need to
compare the results of a benchmarking process
with one's own unique company situation.
On the other hand, companies more or less
tend to compete in selling comparable
products and services. Detailed knowledge of
other companies' actions and successes may,
therefore, be of the utmost importance for
your own company's competitiveness.
In benchmarking where the starting point is
a wide spectre of variables it is most important
to choose an expedient basis of the evaluation
of your own situation in relation to the other
parties in the database.
Thus, comparisons within and across the
industries are said to have their own strengths
and weaknesses (see Table I).
Within a data benchmarking concept it is
easier, ceteris paribus, to diagnose relevant
benchmarks within industries than across
industries because of the concept's general
application. However, at a superior level it is
perhaps possible to study who is overall best
in class, although maybe the comparison is
not to be used directly. Specific competitive
conditions such as patents, dominating
market positions, special relations, etc. may
make comparisons difficult.
In order to reduce the risk of carrying out
irrelevant benchmarks, one must, however,
study not only the industrial differences.
Basically, your problem is to define your
competitive arena (Day, 1984) or when you
try to define expedient segments (Bonoma
Table I Advantages and disadvantages of benchmarking within and
across industries
Benchmarking within the industry Benchmarking across industries
Advantages: similarity of the Advantages: inspiration to improve
competitive situation eases the processes, etc. In which areas are
transfer of experience the advantages best and/or easy to
realize
Drawbacks: the perception of the Drawbacks: it is difficult to transfer
competitive situation is too narrow experience across industries.
which makes it difficult to catch up Perhaps eliminate focus from the
with other companies as regards obvious problems in the company
competition
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and benchaction
Per V. Freytag and Svend Hollensen
and Shapiro, 1984) where the industry
appears not to have the best basis for
understanding the situation.
Therefore, in order to assess whether other
companies are successful or not it may be a
good idea to characterize their competitive
position.
A company's competitive position can be
described in several ways depending on the
aspects one wants to expound. Within the
industry, the most well known model for
this is Porter's five-forces (Porter, 1985).
Across industries there are more approaches
where Jackson (1985) differentiates between
always-a-share and lost-for-good markets,
the first being characterized by the parties'
poor co-operation, isolated transactions
and primary price competition, the latter
being characterized by the parties' close
co-operation, repeated transactions and the
fact that the price is not the only decisive
factor.
In addition to this, companies' competitive
relations may be more or less internationally
influenced. This may have consequences as to
how comprehensive the competition is, and as
to the type of management and tools used,
etc.
Thus, in order to evaluate who did best in
the competition, one cannot only compare
within and across industries but must also
study the companies' competitive position
more generally. Therefore, if a competitor's
competitive position is fundamentally
different (see Table II) you can ask yourself if
you really compete with the competitor and if
so, there is a need of trying to change your
own competitive position. Table II also makes
sure that you do not make too extensive
conclusions based on analyses across
industries.
Thus, performance rating is very much
based on the same starting point, and you
make sure that the one you compare yourself
with does not have a total different starting
point (as in, for example, an allowance of 10m
in a 100m race, etc.).
Table II Powers in the market: degree of internationalization and type of
competitive parameters
Degree of Competitive parameters
internationalization Price dominating More parameters
Low
High
30
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25±33
In other words, the idea of involving the
competitive parameters, which are considered
to dominate the market and its
internationalization, is, at the early stage of
diagnosis, to try to avoid one of the most
important benchmarking inadequacies.
Dealing with a gap in the competitor's
performance level, as shown in the gap-
analysis (Figure 1), the chance of the
comparison being valid is greater.
All in all, this means that we are dealing
with a process of more stages. The starting
point is taken in the business excellence
model (http://www.efqm.org/), which forms
the overall framework for the understanding
of the company and its processes. However,
the fact being that the companies' competitive
position may differ fundamentally, it can
be inconvenient to study best in class
performance within the industry or across
industries alone.
Therefore, when starting up a benchmark
project it is important that you ensure that
you do not choose inappropriate companies
to benchmark against. However, if at a
later time you discover that you have chosen
a bad starting point it may be an extensive
process to reverse the development to the
better.
Implications of benchmarking results,
benchlearning: how can the firm's
skills/processes be improved by learning
from ``best in class''?
Despite the many pitfalls in the
implementation of the benchmark itself, this
is only the first step towards an improvement
of the company's performance. Companies
can be considered as being a set of routines
and practices. It is characteristic that the
routines and practices have been developed
Figure 1 Gap analysis
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and benchaction
Per V. Freytag and Svend Hollensen
and acquired throughout a longer period of
time and that the awareness of their
importance often is limited.
A central challenge is trying to understand
the link between individual and organizational
learning better.
Companies consist of individuals. The
individuals are meant to carry out specific
tasks. This performance, however, is not
independent of the individuals. Hence, an
individual can strongly influence how specific
tasks are carried out. Thus, the performance
varies indefinitely and may cause innovation.
A way of understanding the individual's
task performance can be to distinguish
between a task-based and a non-task-based
behaviour (Webster and Wind, 1972). The
first only relates to the way the individual
carries out the tasks assigned to him due to
his/her position in the company, i.e. what
kind of fractional functions and operations are
immediately related to the performance of a
certain task. However, other things than the
task itself influence the performance. Due to
his/her educational level, his/her experience,
his/her role perception, etc., the individual
will define the specific fractional function and
operation in his/her own characteristic way.
One could say that the type of task and the
individual's perception of it determine how
the task is carried out.
Usually, one distinguishes between
different types of learning processes by
dividing into double- and single-loop
learning. The latter is about learning routines,
which within the given frameworks can be
refined to the last decimal. Double-loop
learning, however, also deals with tasks to be
carried out, but with the individual being
open towards new ways of doing this. In other
words, the individual does not hold in
advance a specific procedure as to the task
performance.
Therefore, when you transfer experience
from other companies you must understand
two processes that are closely related. First,
the task itself and the functions and
operations in question. The individual who
carries out the task will, however, influence
the specific performance. In addition to this,
one must consider the aspects regarding
learning in connection with the task
performance. Some tasks are held to a specific
procedure where the power lies in the ability
to obtain a high degree of performance
perfection without bringing any innovative
31
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25±33
elements to the performance. Such
procedures are relatively easy to transfer, the
fact being that the biggest problem often is to
be permitted to observe the performance.
On the other hand, it can be most difficult
to see which elements are attached to a
certain process or the like which can be
altered or re-combined. Double-loop learning
is certainly about the ability to learn new
things. You do not ensure a successful
implementation by trying to transfer a certain
process. One must seek the key to
understanding creative processes as such in
the non-task-based behaviour and, therefore,
in the individual's personality. Thus, focus on
understanding other companies' ability to
carry out tasks is transferred to the company
itself, to the human resources in the company
and the ability to use these.
Benchaction: implementation of the
changes
The actual implementation of the planned
changes could take place through developing
skills of the employees, training and
organizational development. A workforce
with superior skills is a primary force of
sustainable competitive advantage (Olian
et al., 1998). Hence, training and
development become the critical means for
creating readiness and flexibility for change
across all organizational levels.
Implementation often takes time to be
successful. It is crucial for the benchmark
concept that the company sees the results of
the benchmarking process only as a snapshot
of the situation. It is up to the management
and the employees to change it.
Changes are not always easy to undertake.
In particular, changes of habits and routines
are often time consuming and complicated.
In an organization these habits and routines
have developed over a long period of time.
Therefore, new concepts have to be
learned and put into practice before the
benchmarking process can have a real effect.
The learning processes are related to both the
individual and the organizational level. The
employees have to understand and be willing
and able to change their way of thinking, and
the whole organization has to support the
actions taken. Getting success from
benchmarking means transferring marks to
learning processes.
At this last stage of the benchmarking
process any new steps or appropriate follow-
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and benchaction
Per V. Freytag and Svend Hollensen
up activities also should be identified,
including the continuation of the process.
How should the benchmarking be organized?
The process of benchmarking must fit into a
``change management'' framework. The
management of change includes project
management skills as well as an
understanding of the behavioural aspects of
change. The overall process usually requires
three different teams:
(1) A needs assessment team to identify key
customer needs and their status:
. needs that are not being met (cost,
quality, timeliness, etc.);
. needs that are met better by the
competition; and
. needs that are being met but can be
improved.
(2) The benchmarking team use the needs
assessment results to design the required
benchmarking project.
(3) A problem-solving team to take the
necessary actions to change the audit
process identified by the benchmarking
team. The problem-solving team also
helps to identify new customer issues for a
continuous change management loop.
Limitations (pitfalls) of benchmarking
Although benchmarking is very effective, it
does have limitations:
. Focusing on numbers. Sometimes
companies focus on data and not on the
processes used to produce the data.
. Losing focus on customers. Because of
limited resources for the benchmarking it
often involves a high degree of self-
evaluation. This may cause some
organizations to lose focus on customers.
. Losing focus on employees. Companies that
try to produce better benchmarking
results can quickly cause employee
burnout and errors.
. Over-reliance on quantitative data (data
benchmarking). Consequently,
misunderstanding of the underlying
reasons for the performance measures
(strategic competencies and key
processes).
. Difficult to obtain useful information about
competitors. Competitors may be
uncooperative. Gathering competitive
intelligence requires considerable time,
32
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25±33
effort, and money. Further, there can be
ethical and legal questions about some
intelligence activities, such as paying a
competitor's employees for information,
recording conversations, etc. (Brownlie,
2000).
. Emulating competitors. May result in only
short-lived competitive advantage.
. Difficult to benchmark services. Even
though service operations can be
broken down into their components it
is more difficult to benchmark service
operations than to benchmark products.
Services often involve skills and other
``tacit'' factors that are difficult to
quantify.
. Lacking proper implementation. For
example, if employees are not involved in
the process, this could cause some
employees to resist necessary changes.
The employees need information in order
to improve the process.
. Ongoing process, not a one-time project.
Some organizations may have difficulties
in treating benchmarking as an ongoing
process. It should not be viewed as a one-
time project.
. NIH (not invented here). In addition,
some companies may believe tactics
not invented by themselves to be inferior.
. Exposure of weaknesses. Some companies
do not benchmark because their
weaknesses are exposed.
. Narrow scope of companies studied. A
common problem in benchmarking is the
failure to expand the scope of companies
studied. It may be relevant to benchmark
against companies outside the user
company's industry (process
benchmarking).
. Cultural difficulties in transferring ``best
practices'' in multinational firms. The
biggest problems associated with
transferring ``best practices'' across
cultures are due to differences in
behavioural and cultural background of
the organizational members in the foreign
subsidiaries of the firm (Zairi and Ahmed,
1999).
Conclusion
Benchmarking, benchlearning and
benchaction is not a one-time project. It is a
continuous improvement strategy and a
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and benchaction
Per V. Freytag and Svend Hollensen
change management process. Once begun,
the entity should continue to benchmark
against ``best practices'' in order to improve
continuously. Benchmarking is a part of the
TQM system, and it relates well to other
TQM initiatives.
Benchmarking is a way of moving away
from tradition. If a company wants to
maintain the status quo, it should not
benchmark. Benchmarking will open an
organization to change and learning (double
loop), with the overall goal of achieving
competitive excellence. However, a good basis
for benchmarking is important. Areas to
examine, such as whom to benchmark against,
what processes, functions etc. to benchmark,
and how to carry out the benchmarking, are
decisive. If a benchmarking project is to be
successful, it is important to find adequate
answers to these questions.
References
Bonoma, T.V. and Shapiro, B. (1984), ``How to segment
industrial markets'', Harward Business Review,
May-June, pp. 104-10.
Commentary
An interesting consideration of the potentials and limitations of benchmarking.
33
View publication stats
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25±33
Brownlie, D. (2000), ``Benchmarking your marketing
process'', Long Range Planning, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 88-95.
Day, G.S. (1984), Analysis for Strategic Marketing, West
Publishing, New York, NY.
Grunert, K.G. and Ellegaard, C. (1992), ``The concept of
key success factors'', in Marketing for Europe ±
Marketing for the Future, Proceedings from the 21st
Annual Conference of the European Marketing
Academy (EMAC), pp. 505-24.
Jackson, B.B. (1985), ``Build customer relationships that
last'', Harvard Business Review, November-
December, pp. 120-8.
Krutten, J. (1999), ``Benchmarking in the pharmaceutical
industry'', Marketing Health Services, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 14-22.
Olian, J.D., Durham, C.C. and Kristof, A.L. (1998),
``Designing management training and development
for competitive advantage: lessons for the best'', HR
Human Ressource Planning, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 20-31.
Porter, M. (1985), Competitive Advantage, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Sheth, J.N. and Sharma, A. (1997), ``Supplier relationships:
emerging issues and challenges'', Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 26, pp. 91-100.
Webster, F. and Wind, Y. (1972), Organizational Buying
Behavior, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.
Zairi, M. and Ahmed, P.Z. (1999), ``Benchmarking maturity
as we approach the millennium?'', Total Quality
Management, No. 4/5, July, pp. 810-16.