This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]

On: 15 May 2013, At: 23:08

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Construction Management and Economics

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20

Benchmarking for construction: theory and

practice
Naomi Garnett & Simone Pickrell
Published online: 21 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Naomi Garnett & Simone Pickrell (2000): Benchmarking for construction: theory and practice,
Construction Management and Economics, 18:1, 55-63

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014461900370951

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the
contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and
drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for
any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused
arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Construction Management and Economics (2000) 18, 55± 63

Benchmarking for construction: theory and practice

NAOMI GARNETT AN D SIMONE PICKRELL
Department of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, Building 22, London Road,
Reading, RG1 5AQ, UK

Received 15 May 1998; accepted 29 October 1998

The UK construction industry has identi® ed benchmarking as one of a number of initiatives to assist in the
drive for major improvements in ef® ciency and economy. At the outset, the industry struggled to see how
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013

a technique based upon comparison of similar goods and processes could be used effectively in a project
based industry where products, processes and teams changed regularly. This paper discusses the develop-
ment and testing of a benchmarking model and study methodology for use in construction. The model was
derived from an extensive literature review which considered the underlying theoretical basis of benchmarking.
The case is made that, to be successful, the benchmarking process is as important as the benchmarks them-
selves, and that it is based upon constructivist foundations, rather than positivist. As such, any methodology
for undertaking benchmarking must take place in a similar vein, i.e. be interactive, team based and ¯ exible
but with an underlying rigour provided by the benchmarking model. The paper outlines two case studies to
test the benchmarking model and study methodology, discusses the learning and bene® ts that accrued and
introduces further developments.

Keywords: Benchmarking methodology, process mapping, case studies, social constructivism

Introduction 1996). Likewise The Royal Academy of Engineering

The UK construction industry and benchmarking have
something of a love± hate relationship. In the drive for
improvement during the early 1990s, techniques from
other industries were sought for use in construction.
From the outset, the construction industry struggled
to see how benchmarking, a technique based upon
comparison of similar goods and processes, could be
used effectively in a project based industry where prod-
ucts, processes and teams all change regularly (Garnett
and Pickrell, 1995; Pickrell and Garnett, 1996).
With the publication of the Latham report (1994),
more pressure was put on the industry to develop its
own benchmarking capability. Latham speci® cally
suggested that benchmarking would be useful to the
industry in achieving the 30% cost reductions he was
advocating and that `early agreement on a bench-
marking system’ was a priority. Subsequently, the CIB
has strengthened this call for companies to invest in
benchmarking to achieve better performance (CIB,
(RAE, 1996) recommends that the industry needs to
adopt `a more structured and determined approach
to analysis and benchmarking of business processes’ .
The issue of benchmarking as a means of identifying
best practice has become pertinent also for the
DETR best practice initiative.
If construction benchmarking could achieve similar
bene® ts to those readily accomplished in manufac-
turing and the service industries, improvements in the
order of 30% seem plausible.
To support the industry in its adoption of bench-
marking, the research set out to investigate this man-
agement tool, in particular its theoretical underpinning,
and demonstrate its applicability to construction.
The aim was to provide output, which could be used
to improve construction quality and productivity
through the application of benchmarking. The research
objective was to develop and test a generic bench-
marking methodology for use in the construction
industry.

Construction Management and Economics

ISSN 0144± 6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online € 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd
 56
Literature review
Benchmarking literature falls into three categories;
general benchmarking guidance, case studies and
construction speci® c commentaries.
Background and guidance
This approach, adopted by management writers and
academics, focuses on three main questions: 1. what
is benchmarking?, 2. how can it be used?, and 3. when
can it be used? Often the literature is supplemented
by case study material from a variety of companies
who have successfully completed some form of bench-
marking work. Seminal texts of this nature include
Camp (1989, 1995), Codling (1992) and Bendell
et al. (1993). They include de® nitions, benchmarking
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013
models and variations of the benchmarking process.
Three types of benchmarking are identi® ed, i.e.
product, performance or process. Product bench-
marking concentrates on understanding how one
product compares with another. Performance bench-
marking compares one company performance with
another.
Process benchmarking is the most recent develop-
ment. It offers additional bene® ts over product or
performance benchmarking by enabling work to be
viewed as a series of holistic transformation events with
identi® able inputs and outputs. This approach stems
from the systems theories of the 1960s and developed
subsequently by authors such as Checkland (1981,
1987).
The literature also provides information on the prob-
lems involved in implementing benchmarking both
generally and in construction. A Coopers & Lybrand
(1994) survey of other industries re¯ ected the following
dif® culties: (a) insuf® cient resources, time, money,
staff, etc.; (b) internal resistance; (c) previous bad
experiences; (d) dif® culty in identifying and obtaining
partners; and (e) dif® culty in obtaining data.
In essence all these works are aimed at practitioners
and are intended as guidance manuals to bench-
marking. Few of them address the theoretical basis of
benchmarking or consider its underlying epistemology.
This needs to be made explicit to enable use of the
benchmarking process in a range of contexts.
Case studies
The second category concerns the publication of
examples of benchmarking work and comments on its
effectiveness. They are either results orientated
(Bemowski, 1991; d’Arcy, 1994) or method orientated,
advertising the bene® ts that can be achieved (Baden
and Baden, 1993; Clayton and Luchs, 1994).
Garnett and Pickrell
Construction related benchmarking
McGeorge and Palmer (1997) give the most succinct
overview and are critical in their description of the
way the construction industry has attempted to adopt
benchmarking as a tool rather than as part of an inte-
grated management programme for change. One of the
reasons for this is that the recognition of processes in
construction has not been adopted by practitioners
until the mid to late 1990s.
Construction processes have been discussed by acad-
emics for over 20 years (O’ Reilly, 1972; Sanvido,
1992). Walker (1996), in his project management text,
promotes the concept of construction process models
as providing a theoretical basis for the discipline of
project management. Until recently, however, few
construction practitioners have viewed their work
actively in this way. Adopting a process view enables
process benchmarking to take place in both physical
transformation processes, such as constructing a
retaining wall; and soft, less tangible processes such as
project management. Furthermore although the project
may change in nature, often the processes used to
achieve it are similar and this builds a basis for bench-
marking. Construction speci® c problems include the
following.
1. Construction is a project based industry with
various locations (Baden and Baden, 1993) and
no two projects are the same. This hinders team
building, learning from experience and feed-
back. Additionally, a common misconception is
that this perceived industry fragmentation
directly hinders the use of process techniques
and the ability to compare processes or
subprocesses with other organizations or indus-
tries.
2. d’Arcy(1994) reported that the inability to iden-
tify best practice, together with dif® culty in
measuring processes, also contributed to an
unwillingness to adopt benchmarking.
3. Few good examples of `benchmarking’ exist in
the construction industry. They are result
focused and dif® cult to emulate. This was a
contributory factor in the low uptake of bench-
marking in construction.
Critical analysis
From the literature there arises a need to clarify the
difference between benchmarking and benchmarks.
Technically, although general benchmarks may provide
the catalyst for change, organization speci® c bench-
marks are developed during the benchmarking process
as a result of the analysis phase. They provide
 Benchmarking for construction
information about the current situation which then can
be used to set targets to focus the change strategy.
Often data, loosely termed benchmarks, are deter-
mined by comparative analysis, experience and gut
feeling rather than through focused analysis. In
these circumstances, it is dif® cult to be successful in
achieving them, since the underlying processes on
which they are based are not well de® ned.
Benchmarking provides the means to identify why `best
practice’ organizations are high achievers, and how
others can learn from best practice processes to
improve their own approach.
Confusion of the two terms was seen to jeopardize
the uptake of benchmarking in the construction
industry. A de® nition, (Pickrell et al., 1997), encapsu-
lating the key elements of the benchmarking was devel-
oped with this in mind: `benchmarking is a continuous
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013
process of establishing critical areas for improvement
within an organization, investigating the extent to
which others carry out the same or similar tasks more
ef® ciently, identifying the techniques that give rise to
better performance, implementing them and measuring
the outcome’ .
This difference in approach between benchmarks
and benchmarking re¯ ects the theoretical schools of
positivism and social constructivism; the former being
based on fact ® nding, the latter an interactive activity
whose bene® ts are as much in the social interaction as
the measurement process.
The evidence from the literature review is that
successful benchmarking depends upon undertaking an
interactive activity ± the benchmarking process. Simply
gathering and analysing data does not constitute
successful benchmarking. To establish useful measures
within a change programme requires those involved in
improving the process to act as a team, to identify the
consensus view of the process and the appropriate
measures that will allow best practice to be identi® ed.
In adopting the position that benchmarking is an
interactive process, it follows that the methodology
for using it needs to be aligned with this epistemolog-
ical foundation. This has important implications for
devising a research methodology to develop and test
the benchmarking methodology, and these are discus-
sed later.
As process benchmarking lends itself to soft systems
issues, the success of benchmarking is rarely validated
formally by objective measurement. The bene® ts arise
from focusing on core areas of business and identifying
inef® ciencies in the way processes are carried out. The
proof of its bene® t comes from understanding and
illustrating the change in processes. In summary:
1. the understanding of benchmarking in construc-
tion was within a scienti® c context where absol-
ute measurements or benchmarks were common
57
(manufacturing industry examples revealed a
more rigorous and interactive benchmarking
process, based within companies dedicated to
tackling dif® cult core business processes);
2. although there were many examples of bench-
marking methodologies and snapshots from case
studies, there was little discussion of the theor-
etical underpinning of benchmarking in the
existing body of knowledge (research suggests
that the benchmarking process has a construc-
tivist dynamic and any methodology needs to
align with this);
3. well detailed construction industry case studies
emphasizing the process of benchmarking not
the benchmarks are unavailable.
Research strategy
Following the literature review and de® nition of bench-
marking, a benchmarking model was required which
would be implemented through a workshop-based
methodology.
Benchmarking model
The Reading benchmarking model was developed
during the early stages of the literature review by
summarizing the main benchmarking models from
other industries, which ranged from 5 step to 11 step
processes (including Camp, 1989; Codling, 1992;
Coopers & Lybrand, 1994). Many of these models
were too detailed for application in the construction
industry. In addition, experience in encouraging the
use of other techniques in the industry showed that
any methodology needed to be simple and ¯ exible. The
resulting generic, 7-step model shown in Figure 1 was
Figure 1 The Reading model (Pickrell, Garnett and
Baldwin, 1997)
 58
based on those steps considered most relevant to
construction. The key features of each stage and their
relevance to construction are as follows
l. The need for change. It is important to establish
whether change is necessary, if the organization is ready
to accept it and who will take responsibility for any
initiatives. The construction industry has been unsuc-
cessful with many previous initiatives because these
basic questions were not asked.
2. The decision to benchmark. There are many
examples of improvement techniques. Therefore, the
suitability of benchmarking should be established
particularly with respect to whether any other initia-
tives are underway, the number of staff willing to be
or having been trained in the technique and so forth.
Benchmarking is an excellent technique to stand alone,
or be used in support of other initiatives; however, it
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013
does require suf® cient resourcing for the purpose and,
as such, a decision has to be taken on its use.
Stages 1 and 2 are important because they should
result in senior management commitment to bench-
marking.
3. Identifying what to benchmark. Organizational
charts are used to identify the level of business at which
the study is taking place. Process mapping workshops
identify core business areas, and further issues such
as customer focus, added bene® t and quick wins
are considered. Critical success factors and strategic
metrics are applied to the chosen core area. This stage
is essential in identifying a manageable focus for the
study.
4. Design of the benchmarking study. Early prepara-
tion allows identi® cation of the most appropriate type
of benchmarking, i.e. internal, competitive, functional
or generic, and the types of partners to approach.
Partners may be involved from the earliest process
mapping stages, or after an area has been identi® ed.
Either way, they work together to re® ne the measure-
ments and produce `rules for measurement’ relating to
the boundaries of the study. The outputs from this
stage include a con® dentiality agreement, a partners’
charter and the framework for a pilot study.
5. Data collection and analysis. This traditionally
commences with a pilot data collection phase, from
which partners identify what is available, from whom
and how it is held within their organizations. The
results of this lead to re® ning of collection methods
and resources for the main collection phase. The pilot
stage is essential, as it is rare for partners to be aware
of the complications of data collection in new areas.
The analysis phase should not be underestimated, and
requires a dedicated person within each organization.
Communication of the results is crucial to getting the
messages across and underpinning implementation of
change.
Garnett and Pickrell
6. Implementation. The data collection phase provides
both a benchmark from which to commence and, by
identifying best practice for each metric within the
partnership, a base from which to set goals. Monitoring
and re-calibration stages are agreed and all those
affected are kept involved and informed.
7. Feedback. As benchmarking is a continuous
process, feedback is essential. This may be communi-
cated in a number of ways consistent with the groups
receiving information. At this point a continuous moni-
toring and improvement strategy is identi® ed for the
area benchmarked, and new areas are identi® ed for
further studies.
Although the model is illustrated as a formal
approach, it is very ¯ exible in the order of the stages,
what is measured, and how this is achieved. For
example, identi® cation of suitable partners may
precede the decision on type of benchmarking study,
which will set the type. In the case of a study on
`change management’ , the initiating partner chose
partners who were competitors in their core business
area (outside of construction), but were functionally
similar in the area identi® ed for benchmarking
(construction). Additionally, the area of focus can be
anything from management issues on the strategic
business to daily site activities, which will require very
different approaches. It is recommended that a ® rst
study is relatively easy and provides a quick win.
Case study methodology
An action research approach of case study work to test
the benchmarking model was adopted. To support the
use of the model in practice, a case study methodology
was devised using a series of workshops to progress
through the benchmarking process. In designing the
methodology, the principles of naturalistic enquiry
(Lincoln and Guba, 1985) were considered: i.e. the
research must take place within the natural setting or
context, and the researcher has to be fully involved
and all those taking part are important to the study.
The model was tested in two case studies, one func-
tional benchmarking, the other generic (Figure 2).
The key objectives were that learning points from
the case studies were fed back into both the model and
the case study methodology, a neutral role was created
to encourage greater openness amongst the bench-
marking partners and study momentum was main-
tained. The studies commenced with several meetings
aimed at focusing on the level of business, identi® ca-
tion of potential partners and establishing answers to
steps 1 and 2 (Figure 1). Once the benchmarking part-
ners were in place a series of structured workshops
were followed from steps 3± 7 (Figure 1). This generic
framework is described in Figure 3.
 Benchmarking for construction
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013
Figure 2 Case studies
Case studies
The generic framework is discussed in general terms,
in the context of the case studies. Greater case study
detail is provided by Pickrell and Baldwin (1997). The
® rst case study was identi® ed by asking the project
partners to either highlight areas in which they may be
interested in benchmarking, or to indicate the level of
interest in several areas which were suggested by the
research team. This was a preliminary attempt to focus
on suitable benchmarking topics from which core areas
of business speci® c to those carrying out the bench-
marking study could be identi® ed later. The ¯ exibility
of benchmarking enables `cutting the cloth to suit
resources’ and therefore the case studies were achieved
part-time over a period of 9± 14 months, in line with
the agreed workshop timetable. Shorter studies are
possible if they are small, well de® ned and fully
resourced.
The main objectives of the case studies, within the
project context were: 1. the research team should
establish how appropriate the methodology was; 2. the
partners should learn how to carry out benchmarking;
and 3. the partners should gain useful information in
a core area of their business.
Case study 1: Construction retail clients
Preparatory meeting
The ® rst benchmarking study was initiated by the
research project’ s retail client representative, who was
59
Figure 3 Generic framework
part of the organization’ s property group. The initial
focus was on supply chain management. However, this
was considered to be too large for the ® rst case study.
Several meetings were carried out to identify a more
manageable study, which resulted in consideration of
the detail design process (Figure 2). The early meet-
ings also identi® ed: organizational and departmental
structures; who the property group interfaced with;
internal and external clients; and the core areas of the
detail design process. Several critical success factors
were identi® ed, of which change management was the
highest priority. More speci® cally, change management
related to identifying ways of gaining greater control
over the receipt and execution of instructions during
construction projects.
Traditionally, retailers do not talk to each other; how-
ever, a retailer’ s benchmarking forum had provided the
means for property related representatives from several
retailers to meet. It was from this source, and general
 60
contacts, that potential partners were identi® ed. Those
organizations who chose improvement of the change
management process as a high priority agreed to take
part and were interviewed to obtain background infor-
mation relating to steps 1 and 2, and organizational
information in preparation for workshop 1.
Members became `benchmarking partners’ and their
relationship was initially reinforced by the signing of
a `code of conduct’ and `con® dentiality agreement’ ,
which gave the partners assurance that their data would
not be shared in any but the agreed way, and that they
would abide by the same rules in the study.
Workshop 1 ± Step 3
1. Partners shared organizational and departmental
structures and their initial attempts at a change
management process map, prior to the workshop.
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013
2. The workshop followed a `¯ exible’ agenda covering:
1. partners familiarization with each other and their
organizations; 2. agreement of the level of business that
the study was taking place in; 3. general concerns about
change management; and 4. preparation of the change
process map. Thirteen types of change, and the means
of measuring them, were identi® ed for the pilot study.
Partners collected their data and returned it to the
research team for analysis prior to workshop 2.
Workshop 2 ± Steps 4 and 5
The pilot study identi® ed the types of information
available within each organization and the resources
required to collect it. The 13 change types were
reduced to seven as they were found to be too
ambiguous. The ® nal list included: 1. corporate change
(for example, brand image); 2. design development; 3.
speci® c brief change (client instructions); 4. statutory
authority (such as building control); 5. estates (relating
to estates and property management); 6. construction
change (arising from problems on site); and 7. other.
Tighter parameters were agreed for some of the
metrics: for example, approved cost was further de® ned
as `approved project cost the day before site work
commences’ . De® nitions were agreed. The design
stage was clari® ed as `the time between receiving
the authorization to proceed and the contract start
date’ . Amendments were made to the data collection
tables.
Partners collected the main study data and returned
it to the research team for analysis prior to workshop
3. At this point, two of the original seven partners
dropped out prior to sensitive data being shared, as
they were unable to resource the study.
Workshop 3 ± Step 5
The results were presented in tabular form and graphs,
illustrating the performance of each partner on 24
Garnett and Pickrell
Figure 4 Number of changes per change item
identi® ed metrics. These included metrics such as
hand-over / approved cost for a range of project types,
cost per change, number of changes per million pounds
of project cost, and number of changes per change
item, which is illustrated in Figure 4. Each partner
identi® ed their highest priority metrics and the best
practice partner for this metric, in order to discuss how
better results had been achieved. For example, one
partner wishing to improve on approved cost compared
with hand-over cost discussed this with the partner
achieving near 100% accuracy for this metric.
The format for the ® nal report was agreed. A two-
level report, one public/one con® dential and using only
alphabetical letters to identify each partner, was
prepared by the research team and returned to the
partners prior to workshop.
Workshop 4 ± Steps 6 and 7
Report amendments were agreed. Discussion of, and
agreement on, implementation of the ® ndings took
place. Partners provided feedback on the case study.
An of® cial feedback meeting was scheduled for 6
months ahead of the ® nal report, to encourage the part-
ners to share their progress.
Case study 2: Research organizations ±
construction/other
The generic framework was similar; however case study
2 differed in the following ways.
Preparatory meeting
Two construction related partners from the project,
both representing research departments, identi® ed
their major concerns for the core areas of business.
Partners and researchers brainstormed organizations in
and outside of the construction industry who dealt with
similar issues. The researchers contacted and inter-
viewed those potential partners who were interested in
the study.
 Benchmarking for construction
Figure 5 Number of successful and unsuccessful proposals
Workshop 1 ± Step 3
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013
The information dissemination process was mapped.
It had four stages of which three, action, output and
distribution, were considered core areas, and led to a
second level of six subcore areas as illustrated in Figure
2. Critical success factors were identi® ed for each of
the subcore areas, e.g. `understanding the problem’ for
client needs and `using the right language’ for quality
of communication. Metrics were agreed for each of
these, in readiness for the pilot study.
Workshop 2 ± Steps 4 and 5
The data were collected quickly and without much
dif® culty, therefore requiring little amendment. This
meant the majority of the main study was complete.
As the collected information was already appearing
useful, some amendments were made to the tables, in
order that they could be used in the future.
Workshop 3 ± Step 5
Although the results were presented in a similar
manner to case study 1 (see Figure 5) they were of a
nature that was much easier to follow, and therefore
partners were getting quicker `messages’ and identi-
fying fast ways to implement improvements. For
example, one partner, having identi® ed a bottleneck in
report preparation which delayed completion unnec-
essarily, was in the process of identifying why this
occurred and how it could be improved.
Workshop 4 ± Steps 6 and 7
Several of the partners had already initiated imple-
mentation strategies and were getting more feedback.
Case study learning
There were many ® ndings from the case studies. Those
from the ® rst study led to re® nement of the bench-
marking model and case study methodology, in prepa-
ration for case study 2. Due to the large number, this
61
section gives the ® ndings related to the methodology
in general, since Pickrell and Baldwin (1997) discuss
the speci® c ® ndings of the processes being bench-
marked.
Benchmarking process
Case study 2 ran much more smoothly than case study
1, due partly to improvements in and experience of
the process, and due partly to a more straightforward
process.
The partners and research team approached the ® rst
benchmarking study in each case, with the intention
of getting important metrics in a core area of business.
They completed the studies appreciating that priority
had been to `learn how to benchmark’ on the ® rst occa-
sion, with core area metrics being a priority for the
second study. However, it is dif® cult to imagine how
the ® rst studies could have been approached any other
way initially, as partners bought-into the expectation
of obtaining hard results.
Management approval was essential and needed to
be gained ahead of an external study where sensitive
information was to be shared. More information is
required on how this can best be handled.
The pilot study was essential in identifying problems
with collection and de® nition.
The number of workshops was appropriate for both
studies, but with a ¯ exible agenda allowing for some
modi® cation, where necessary.
Process maps were essential for creating a focus for
the study.
The con® dentiality agreement and charter created
the important initial basis of trust.
Partners reported that external facilitators had been
essential in providing a neutral role and maintaining
momentum.
Case study results
In the ® rst study it was thought that the partners would
use the results to talk to each other about the speci® cs of
differences in performance gaps. The majority of
the discussions ended up as a general forum for ideas.
The bene® ts of this study were more subjective than
expected. Those partners only anticipating hard mea-
sures considered it had been a disappointment, as they
did not see the bene® t of sharing ideas in this forum ± a
relatively new situation in that these parties would not
have `teamed up’ in the past. As a result of this they were
unaware of much of the new information they were gain-
ing. The remaining partners were pleased with the open
environment which the study had provided.
A range of metrics were developed and measured in
both studies, giving useful information to those part-
ners involved. The response to these results and the
level of business at which the case studies had been
 62
carried out was mixed, with some partners using
the metrics to directly improve their daily business,
whereas others believed the study needed to be at a
higher level.
It was fairly easy to establish metrics that encom-
passed a bene® t for all partners, and every partner was
able to contribute as they were highest performers in
several areas each.
Implementation
Implementation from the ® rst study has included the
initiating partner freezing changes on a project until
close to the end, at which time a lump sum is handed
to the client. This highlights how much the changes
will cost and the potential delay likely, which is
hoped will encourage the client to decide against some
of them. In addition, the forum with which most of
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013
the partners were connected had decided to take
several of the metrics forward.
The partners of the second study gained objective
and subjective measures. They also found that many
of the areas identi® ed were not suf® ciently documented
within their organizations, such as time from ® nishing
a research project to producing the report and feed-
back on their services, which prompted them to initiate
more structured mechanisms.
Discussion and conclusions
The research project goal of determining a benchmark-
ing methodology that can be used in construction has
been achieved successfully. There is a clear model avail-
able and a supporting methodology which enables its
practical use. A key strength of the methodology
is that its theoretical basis is aligned with that of bench-
marking, i.e. social constructivism instead of positivism.
The ® ndings, which range from general (like the
methodology) to case study speci® c, enabled the model
and case study methodology to be tested rigorously.
The results suggest that benchmarking could be a
powerful tool in investigating and managing change on
construction projects.
This benchmarking work has been furthered through
industry studies ranging from project/site-based bench-
marking, such as dust management on live retail
projects (Pickrell and Leveson, 1998) to studies, such
as strategic and operational business improvement with
SMEs.
The individual study partners are equipped with
knowledge and data that they are now using on a daily
basis in managing change and the costs associated with
them.
Garnett and Pickrell
Frequently, the issue of an underpinning theory is
overlooked, particularly where there is a need to be
`doing’ , rather than thinking. The research project itself
created an environment in which construction acade-
mics and practitioners could come together to consider
the nature of benchmarking and its application in
construction, an area outside of its normal ® eld of
application.
Benchmarking has proved to be a ¯ exible tool that
can be used in isolation or to support other strategies.
Enthusiasm is growing, particularly as the Government
pushes for productivity and process improvement
(Barrett, 1998). In the construction industry interest
is gaining momentum. However, it is still the case
that benchmarking is more often `sold’ initially on the
opportunity to gain hard benchmarks rather than
the underlying improvements.
References
Baden, R.H. and Baden, R. (1993) Total Quality in
Construction Projects, Thomas Telford, London.
Barnett, A. (1998) Work hard, pay hard leaves UK off the
pace. The Observer, 3 May.
Bemowski, K. (1991) The Benchmarking Bandwagon, Quality
Progress, 19± 24.
Bendell, T., Boulter, L. and Kelly, J. (1993) Benchmarking
for Competitive Advantage, Pitman, London.
Camp, R.C. (1989) Benchmarking: The Search for Industry
Best Practices that Lead to Superior Performance, American
Society for Quality Control, Quality Press.
Camp, R.C. (1995) Business Process Benchmarking: Finding
and Implementing B est Practices, American Society for
Quality Control, Quality Press.
Checkland, P.B. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice,
Wiley, Chichester.
Checkland, P.B. (1987) Soft systems methodology: an
overview, paper given at a plenary session of the 31st
Annual Meeting of the International Society for General
Systems Research, Budapest.
CIB (1996) Towards a 30% Productivity Improvement in
Construction, Working Group 11, Construction Industry
Board.
Clayton, T. and Luchs, B. (1994) Strategic benchmarking
at ICI ® bres. Long Range Planning, 27, 54± 63.
Codling, S. (1992) Best Practice B enchmarking: The
Management Guide to Successful Implementation, Gower,
London.
Coopers & Lybrand/CBI. (1994) Survey of Benchmarking in
the UK, Executive Summary.
d’ Arcy, J. (1994) Measuring up to the best. Contract Journal,
March.
Garnett, N. and Pickrell, S. (1995) Construction industry
benchmarking, in Proceedings of School of Business and
Industrial Management Conference, London.
 Benchmarking for construction
Latham, Sir M. (1994) Constructing the Team, HMSO,
London.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Enquiry,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
McGeorge, D. and Palmer, A. (1997) Construction
Management New Directions, Blackwell, Oxford.
O’ Reilly, J.J.N. (1972) Building design: a proposed process model
incorporating the performance approach, Internal note
IN60/72, Building Research Station, Garston, UK.
Pickrell, S. and Baldwin, J. (1997) Benchmarking ± Focusing
the Construction Industry, unpublished paper, University
of Reading.
Pickrell, S. and Garnett, N. (1996) Generic benchmarking in
construction, in Proceedings of the 1996 CIB Beijing Inter-
national Conference Construction Modernization and Education.
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013
63
Pickrell, S., Garnett, N. and Baldwin, J. (1997) Measuring
Up: A Practical Guide to Benchmarking in Construction,
Construction Research Communications Ltd. Garston,
UK.
Pickrell, S. and Leveson, R. (1998) Collaboration in a
competitive industry: using process improvement to gain
strategic advantage, unpubliswhed paper University of
Reading.
Sanvido, V.E. (1992) Linking levels of abstraction of
a building design. Building and Environment, 27(2),
195± 208.
RAE (1996) A Statement on the Construction Industry, The
Royal Academy of Engineering, London.
Walker, A. (1996) Project Management in Construction, 3rd
Edn, Blackwell, Oxford.