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
90
26,401

2 authors:

Per V. Freytag
Svend Hollensen
University of Southern Denmark
University of Southern Denmark
66 PUBLICATIONS 1,219 CITATIONS
93 PUBLICATIONS 1,263 CITATIONS

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

Commercialization of Public-Private Innovation Solutions (2019-2022) View project

Glocalization 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 amd
Svemd Hollemsem
The authors
Per V. Freytag and €vend Hollensen are at the
University of Southern Denmark, Sønderborg, Department
of Marketing, Denmark.
Keywords
Benchmarking, TQM, Improvement,
0rganizational 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
2
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

2
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and The TQM Magazine
benchaction
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–

logistics area (warehousing, packing, and group) or publicly or both. The benchmarking
shipping). partners
We define the three keywords as:
(1) Bemchmarkimg. 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) Bemchlearmimg. 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) Bemchactiom. 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.

Interna1 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 (functiona1) 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

2
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and The TQM Magazine
benchaction
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–

usually share some common subject area (KSF).

technological and market characteristics. (3) Identify against whom to benchmark
Often, they also concentrate on specific (determine benchmarking partners).
functions. Because there are no direct (4) Gather the benchmarking information.
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
2
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and
benchaction
(ł) 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 eva1uating 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
2
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–
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.
Eva1uate 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
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and The TQM Magazine
benchaction
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–

too narrow focus. Then, a more strategic

3
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and
benchaction
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.
Imtermal partmers
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.
Extermal partmers
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
3
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–
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
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and The TQM Magazine
benchaction
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–

prior to your visit in order to provide time

for the

3
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and
benchaction
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,
3
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–
Compare ‘‘best-in-c1ass’’ 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
how Advantages: similarity of the
extensive, and competitive situation eases the
how reliable transfer of experience
the pieces of
Drawbacks: the perception of the
information
competitive situation is too narrow
are.
which makes it difficult to catch up
with other companies as regards
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and The TQM Magazine
benchaction
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–

competition Advantages: inspiration to improve

processes, etc. In which areas
are the advantages best and/or
easy to realize
Drawbacks: it is difficult to transfer
experience across industries.
Perhaps eliminate focus from the
obvious problems in the company

3
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and
benchaction
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, 198ł).
Across industries there are more approaches
where Jackson (198ł) 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
3
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–
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.
Imp1ications of benchmarking resu1ts,
bench1earning: how can the firm’s
ski11s/processes be improved by 1earning
from ‘‘best in c1ass’’?
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 The TQM Magazine
benchaction
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–

3
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and
benchaction
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
3
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–
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: imp1ementation 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
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and The TQM Magazine
benchaction
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–

follow-

3
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and
benchaction
up activities also should be identified,
including the continuation of the process.
Hor should the bemchmarkimg be orgamixed?
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:
●
Focusimg om mumbers. Sometimes
companies focus on data and not on the
processes used to produce the data.
●
Losimg focus om 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.
●
Losimg focus om employees. Companies
that try to produce better benchmarking
results can quickly cause employee
burnout and errors.
●
Over-reliamce om guamtitative data (data
bemchmarkimg). Consequently,
misunderstanding of the underlying
reasons for the performance measures
(strategic competencies and key
processes).
●
Difficult to obtaim useful imformatiom about
competitors. Competitors may be
uncooperative. Gathering competitive
intelligence requires considerable time,
3
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–
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).
●
Emulatimg competitors. May result in only
short-lived competitive advantage.
●
Difficult to bemchmark 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.
●
Lackimg proper implememtatiom. 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.
●
Omgoimg process, mot a ome-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 (mot imvemted here). In addition,
some companies may believe tactics
not invented by themselves to be inferior.
●
Exposure of reakmesses. Some companies
do not benchmark because their
weaknesses are exposed.
●
Narror scope of compamies 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 im tramsferrimg ‘‘best
practices’’ im multimatiomal 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
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
Rm imterestimg comsideratiom of the potemtials amd limitatioms of bemchmarkimg.
33
The TQM Magazine
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–
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.
0lian, 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), 0rganizational 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.
 The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and The TQM Magazine
benchaction
Volume 13 . Number 1 . 2001 . 25–

View publication stats