The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

BIJ
19,6 Exploring current benchmarking
practices in the Egyptian
hotel sector
730
Mohamed Nassar
College of Business Administration,
Gulf University for Science and Technology, West Mishref, Kuwait

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the current state, understanding and opinions
of benchmarking in the Egyptian hotel sector in order to establish its perceived benefits, obstacles, and
possible improvements.
Design/methodology/approach – By way of a three part structured self-administrated
questionnaire, a representative sample of 128 two, three, four and five star hotels (giving a response
rate of 29 percent) in Sharm El-Sheikh, Cairo, Alexandria and Luxor were examined. Descriptive
statistics were drawn from general hotel data, in addition to data pertaining to the understanding of
benchmarking and the impressions or experiences of its barriers and future use.
Findings – A generally positive attitude towards benchmarking predominated, with the majority of
participants understanding benchmarking to be a quality enhancement tool that can bring about
better service. Most perceived it to be a useful and inexpensive strategy to connect to other businesses.
Furthermore, senior management staff were seen to play a crucial role in quality improvement.
However, barriers to its wider or continuing use exist, with 25 percent of participants unwilling or
unsure to consider its usage in the future. Limitations of benchmarking included too much data
collection and the unwillingness of potential benchmarking partners in sharing data.
Research limitations/implications – Identifying specific obstacles to effective benchmarking
must be undertaken so that they may be practically overcome. In addition conducting multiple case
studies to compare benchmarking practices around the Arab world, or in conjunction with the US and
UK, would be of great value to the industry.
Originality/value – There is an absence of empirical research into benchmarking applications in the
hospitality industry, especially in North Africa and the Middle East. The present study addresses the
lack of data regarding benchmarking within the context of the Egyptian hotel sector.
Keywords Benchmarking, Hotels, Egypt, Quality improvement, Tourism
Paper type Research paper

Benchmarking: An International
Journal
Vol. 19 No. 6, 2012
pp. 730-742
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-5771
DOI 10.1108/14635771211284297
Introduction
Benchmarking is the exercise of establishing the highest standards of excellence for
products, services, or processes and identifies the improvements necessary to reach
those standards, commonly termed “best practices” (Camp, 1989a, b; Elmuti and
Kathawala, 1997; Zailani et al., 2008). Specifically, “benchmarking is a continuous
systematic process for evaluating the products, services and work of organizations that
are recognized as representing best practices for the purpose of organizational
improvement” (Spendolini, 1992, p. 9). This method has recently been developed as a
management tool and has drawn wide attention from various disciplines including
engineering, education, business and hospitality. It was originally initiated by Xerox in
the 1970s as Japanese competition in the copier market prompted the company to
increase its productivity and decrease costs. The ultimate objective of benchmarking is Current
to improve processes to meet customer expectations (Omachonu and Ross, 1994). benchmarking
Benchmarking essentially promotes learning and quality improvement through
management. By allowing companies to become aware of new and innovative practices
approaches to solving issues facing management, it facilitates learning which in turn
provides the basis for training. A valuable aspect of the benchmarking process is the
opportunity it presents to learn from contexts outside an organization’s usual frame of 731
reference (Cox et al., 1997). Further, by helping organizations set achievable goals that
have been proven successful in other settings, benchmarking is a vehicle to improve
performance. It thus works to overcome disbelief in or resistance to alternative
approaches to achievement and overall organizational enhancement (Fuller, 1997).
Camp (1989a) and Zairi (1996) observe that benchmarking is a way to contrast
organizational practice with desired outcomes in order to produce improvement. Other
benefits include assisting firms to better meet client requirements, recognizing
organizational strengths and weaknesses, inspiring constant operational enhancement
and functioning as a cost-effective means of gathering inventive ideas (Smith et al., 1993).
Kozak (2003) presented an excellent analysis of organization benchmarking, performance
evaluation of a particular organization and its departments, and destination
benchmarking, which involves all service elements such as transport, accommodation,
leisure and sport, hospitality and local attitudes, for developing a specific benchmarking
methodology that is relevant in the context of international tourism destinations.
Benchmarking is increasing in popularity, particularly as a tool for continuous
improvement and cost cutting (Rigby, 2011). Organizations using benchmarking
strategies have been found to achieve savings of as much as 30-40 percent of their
operating costs (Elmuti and Kathawala, 1997; Camp, 2006; Zailani et al., 2008). Because
it establishes methods of measuring each area within an organization in terms of units
of output as well as cost, the process generates data that can support more effective
budgeting, strategic planning, and capital planning.
Benchmarking is therefore “a positive, practical process to change operations in a
structured fashion to achieve superior performance” (Camp, 1998, p. 10). Elmuti and
Kathawala (1997) assure that benchmarking enables companies to learn recent
innovative approaches and provides a basis for learning; therefore it can cause a desirable
change in a company’s culture involving searching inside the company for improvement
and growth. Benchmarking, especially when used in association with a well-structured
total quality management program and a continuous quality improvement program,
plays an absolute role in today’s business organization. All of these benefits are
considered important motivations for hotel businesses to learn and acquire suitable
benchmarking approaches, which will in turn have a positive effect on the performance
and overall level of service quality.

Types of benchmarking
The type of benchmark method depends on the nature of the operations used to
quantify an attribute. Two types may be distinguished depending on the nature of the
operations used to quantify:
(1) qualitative; and
(2) quantitative.
BIJ Benchmarking involves a wide range of instruments and can be linked to other
improvement instruments and strategies. Depending on approaches adopted,
19,6 benchmarking can be classified into two main categories (Hegalson, 1997). The first
category of benchmarking, called the top down approach, is imposed externally,
usually by a central department or central management agency. Such externally
imposed benchmarking is often used to set target for an agency. The second category
732 of benchmarking is called the bottom-up approach, where individual organizations
develop their own internal benchmarking projects and try to find relevant
benchmarking partners (Southard and Parente, 2007). Central departments can
support such initiatives by developing methods and helping organizations to achieve
relevant expertise and find benchmarking partners. It is also possible, especially for
larger organizations, to initiate an internal benchmarking. Internal benchmarking is
often seen as a useful first step in benchmarking. Organizations with many divisions
working on similar issues may get substantial benefits from benchmarking the
divisions internally. In the public sector this approach is particularly important for
organizations with many regional offices. Benchmarking can be used in resource
allocation decisions, for example to give an incentive to improve performance or to
introduce internal competition. It is not simple to design incentives that have no
dysfunctional effects. The measures used to assess performance have to be carefully
selected to avoid that the competitive elements introduced have undesired effects.
Externally imposed benchmarking has a number of benefits compared to internally
generated benchmarking. First, it secures participation and that experiences from many
organizations are studied and shared, particularly when large number of organizations
provide relatively homogeneous services. Second, it ensures a better overview on the
effects of different processes on performance and also on the effects of external factors on
performance. Third, it ensures standardization of method, and finally it ensures links
to the budget process and other relevant decision making. This is particularly important
if benchmarking is to be used in relation to internal competition in the sector.

Benchmarking methods
Generally benchmarking methods can be classified into three groups depending on:
(1) what is benchmarked;
(2) against what is an organization benchmarked; and
(3) how is benchmarking used (Hegalson, 1997).

Either processes or results can be benchmarked against other organizations or

standards for continuous development or for evaluation. Process benchmarking
studies and compared processes and activities that turn inputs into outputs. The
results of organizations are benchmarked more directly through results benchmarking
or macro-benchmarking. Results benchmarking compares actual performance of
organizations using performance indicators or measures. There is a close relationship
between results and process benchmarking. Results benchmarking is necessary to
identify the processes that need improvement. Process benchmarking improves the
processes and contributes to better results.
The hotel sector in Egypt was chosen as the subject of investigation for this study
for two reasons. First, it represents an important segment of the Egyptian national
economy as it is one of the biggest employers. According to national statistics, total
hotel capacity rose almost 24 percent during the last few years. General average hotel Current
occupancy in all of Egypt’s tourist governorates rose to 70 percent; hotels in the benchmarking
Red Sea region, Greater Cairo and Sharm El-Sheikh had more than 95 percent
average occupancy (AfDB, 2009). Second, one of the prior means of establishing practices
competitive advantage in this sector is through quality assessment, and benchmarking
allows an institution to determine how it is performing in relation to competitors.
The employment of innovative management strategies enable an improvement in 733
performance of the hotel sector and hence the tourism industry in Egypt in relation to the
rest of the world.

Benchmarking in the hotel sector

Benchmarking has become a popular technique by which learning enables the
possibility of elevating quality. Understanding other companies’ processes and how
their work is organized may demonstrate innovative ideas, improve competitiveness
and inspire employees. Benchmarking is becoming an increasingly important business
practice and it has been applied by many small-scale businesses to help them respond
to rapid growth (Wireman, 2004).
Both small and large businesses have realized the importance of benchmarking
(Dudden, 2007). Despite the fact that there are some barriers to successful
implementation of the practice, it may confer key advantages such as understanding
the needs and demands of customers and pooling a variety of innovative ideas that can
help to increase an organization’s customer base.
In the highly competitive and rapidly changing global marketplace, many in the hotel
industry have had to consider and adopt a wide variety of innovative management
philosophies and techniques.
Benchmarking may involve comparisons of similar businesses such as larger hotels,
or with different hospitality sector businesses that have certain service characteristics,
such as customer care, in common. Although larger hotel chains typically face unique
operational concerns and operate in a strategic environment that differs from that of
smaller hotels, they share business goals and objectives with small and medium-sized
hotels and because of this they can serve as bases for comparison. Alternatively,
benchmark partnering of larger hotels may be more effective with peers in the leisure or
travel industries; benchmarking partners may be more willing to contribute and share
suggestions for improvement when there is no direct competition involved.
Benchmarking can be used in a variety of ways to acquire knowledge and to enable
hotels to reach world class standards of service quality. In the diverse hotel sector,
business performance varies widely and benchmarking can assist in keeping hotel
services in line with changing consumer requirements and satisfying market potential.
Although many businesses seem to still be unaware of the advantages of benchmarking,
there are many hotels that have worked to implement it because they realize that
benchmarking has an important role to play in hotel quality.
Benchmarking has been successfully implemented in the hospitality industry by use of
the strategic planning index and marketing planning index managerial tools (Zhu, 2008).
These tools, which determine the efficacy of strategic planning exercises, enable better
marketing or strategy planning that can be more helpful in the implementation of the
quality improvement process. Kozak (2002) examined the extent to which the
benchmarking approach could be applied to tourism destinations. The findings suggest
BIJ that surveys resulted in data that were able to identify the performance gaps between two
19,6 destinations Mallorca and Turkey as case studies, and observations were useful to explore
the possible reasons. It was suggested that the application of benchmarking to
destinations could be limited due to cultural, political, economic, and practical reasons, but
it could be regarded as a learning experience from others’ good practices. Pizam and
Holcomb (2008) confirm that hotel managers implementing these managerial strategies in
734 the UK have realized three important aspects of hotel management: adaptability,
effectiveness and efficiency.
Research has demonstrated that benchmarking is not being implemented in most
small hotel businesses and that the main reason for this is an information and
knowledge gap. Sadgrove (2005) notes that small business managers need to realize
the barriers they face in implementing benchmarking. Specifically, managers need to
identify the factors that create competitive advantages. Furthermore, they must
recognize that, without understanding the impact of these factors on hotel efficiency
and effectiveness, managers pursue the wrong strategies. Chase (2006) observes that
measurements of competitive advantage are critical for success and that hotel
managers need reliable assessment tools. Significantly, Berman and Evans (2001)
argue that in the absence of benchmarking small hotel managers have problems in
measuring their competitiveness, efficiencies and effectiveness.

Research gap
There is an absence of empirical research into benchmarking applications in the
hospitality industry, especially in areas like North Africa and the Middle East. The present
study addresses the lack of data regarding benchmarking within the context of the
Egyptian hotel sector.
Dorsch and Yasin (1998) argue that the academic community is lacking in terms
of providing and advancing models and frameworks that integrate the many facets
of organizational benchmarking. The authors also state that most of the benchmarking
knowledge available is the result of the efforts of practitioners, rather than of
researchers.
Only a few studies in the hospitality sector (Breiter and Kline, 1995; Yasin and
Zimmerer, 1995; Monkhouse, 1995; Min and Min, 1996, 1997; Phillips and Moutinho,
1998a, b, 1999; Dubé et al., 1999; Ogden, 1998; Parkan, 1996; Sadgrove, 2005) have
considered the role of benchmarking in hotel quality and have proposed various
approaches and models to improve hotel quality via benchmarking. For example,
Monkhouse (1995) examined the penetration of benchmarking in the small and medium
sized enterprise (SME) sector and confirmed that benchmarking practices in SMEs are
still embryonic. Monkhouse also argues that a range of techniques and tools capable of
accepting the idiosyncrasies of the sector need to be developed. Min and Min (1996)
conducted a competitive benchmarking study of service quality in six luxury Korean
hotels. Phillips and Moutinho (1998a, b, 1999) proposed a managerial tool to measure
the effectiveness of strategic planning that could enable the process of benchmarking
in a selected sample of hotels in the UK. Dubé et al. (1999) conducted a comprehensive
study of the US lodging industry’s best practices with the aim to “foster innovations in
current management thinking” (Dubé et al., 1999, p. 14). Studying the attitudes towards
benchmarking and current practice within the Egyptian hotel sector is a necessarily
step toward developing and improving its effectiveness.
The Egyptian hotel sector Current
The Egyptian hotel market has shown strong growth over the past few years. Many of benchmarking
the older hotel properties are currently undergoing renovation while new supply has
been created in the upper end of the market. Visitors to the country are now able to practices
choose products across a wide range of geographical destinations rather than in a
distinct center (Cairo, Luxor, Aswan, etc.) and across better-defined market segments
such as luxury or niche brands. As a result hotels are more able to protect their yield, 735
whereas previously all hotels were competing within the same market. Many
established international hotel chains such as Sheraton, Hyatt, Hilton, Meridian, Forte
and Intercontinental currently dominate the management of first-class hotels in Egypt,
with more than 90 percent of the total rooms available in the region being owned and
managed by these well established brands. This domination of hotel chains may
encourage small and medium-sized hotels to seek service quality improvement through
the application of benchmarking to the best practices of these larger hotel chains
(Cityscapeintelligence, 2010).
The Egyptian hotel market follows the star rating system determined by the
Egyptian Hotel Association (EHA) and the Ministry of Tourism. Each registered hotel
is inspected at regular intervals by hotel registration officers from the Ministry of
Tourism. The purpose of this inspection is to assess the extent to which the hotel
complies with both a list of basic requirements and a graduated list of specifications
essential to each grade. The latter specifications are in the form of scale points
allocated in varying proportions to six factors: structural features; furnishings and
fittings; services and facilities; food; cleanliness; and amenities. In the grading of the
hotels, tests attempt to adhere to objective criteria and to avoid, as far as possible,
intangible, subjective considerations.

Methodology
This study used a descriptive approach to investigate and report on current
benchmarking practices in the Egyptian hotel sector. The main aim of the descriptive
approach is the exploration and clarification of some phenomena where accurate
information is lacking (Gay and Airasian, 2000). Such approach is intended to provide
thorough descriptions, with a view to providing material and generating assumptions
and targets for subsequent research. The descriptive approach is the most widely used
research method in behavioural science. It also serves as the “reconnaissance” phase of
an investigation in a new area in which the purpose is to identify factors, which are
most promising for experimental investigation (Gay and Airasian, 2000; McMillan
and Schumacher, 2001). The descriptive research method has proven useful for
investigating a variety of business and management problems (Gay and Diehl, 1992).
The sampling frame included hotels in four major cities in Egypt, namely Cairo
(metropolitan area), Alexandria, Aswan and Sharm el-Sheikh. The list of hotels was
drawn from the Egyptian hotel directory[1].
Data was collected using a structured self-administrated questionnaire in order to
facilitate ease of response, not least because the study population was geographically
so dispersed. The questionnaire included three sections. The first section asked
respondents to provide general data about themselves and about their hotels,
which were then statistically tested for associations with their experience of
benchmarking (where benchmarking experience is indicative of current or previous
BIJ use of benchmarking tools). Section two explored the respondents’ general
understanding of benchmarking and their attitudes towards the process. This
19,6 section also included questions about hotel managers’ perceptions of the advantages of
and barriers to benchmarking. The final section of the questionnaire explored the
hoteliers’ current and possible future intentions to utilize the process of benchmarking
with respect to other quality improvement measures.
736 Responses were collected from a total of 128 two, three, four and five star hotels,
giving aggregate response rate of 29 percent. The respondents (hotel managers/senior
management executives) comprised a representative sample of hotels of different
grades in each of the four major cities studied. Sharm El-Shiekh posted the highest
number of respondents (43 percent), followed by Cairo (24 percent), Alexandria
(19.3 percent) and Luxor (14 percent). More than half (53 percent) of the total hotels
have 50-100 rooms available for guests. There were approximately equal numbers of
responses from three, four and five star hotels, which collectively made up the majority
of participants (90 percent).
Data analysis was performed using SPSS 17 statistical software. The data under
study is classified as categorical. Therefore, two-tailed Pearson’s x 2 statistics
technique was used in order to identify whether there was any significant association
between two components or questions. This technique is fairly robust. Higher the
x 2 statistic, stronger is the relationship.

Results and discussion

Benchmarking experience across the hotel sector
Three-quarters of the sample of hotels were found to have benchmarking experience
and this was not associated with the location of the hotel ( p ¼ 0.659) or with the
number of rooms ( p ¼ 0.886) (Figure 1). This indicates a general good understanding
of the process across the hotel sector. However, it was associated with the grade of the
hotel (also known as the hotel star rating; p ¼ 0.047; Figure 2), which may be a
consequence of improved knowledge and expertise held within higher grade hotels,
or of greater budget allocation toward the exercise. Interestingly, the lack of an
association between hotel size and benchmarking experience is in conflict with
findings in other studies, such as that of Magd (2008), regarding organization size and
benchmarking. Given the representative sampling in the present study, it may be
indicative of the Egyptian hotel sector being a special case with regard to business size
100 100
Benchmarking experience (%)
Benchmarking experience (%)

90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
Figure 1. 40 40
Hotel size by number of 30 30
rooms (left), hotel location 20 20
(right) and benchmarking
10 10
experience, where
p ¼ 0.659 and 0.886, 0 0
respectively Less than 50 Between Over 100 Sharm El Cairo Alexandria Luxor
50 and 100 Sheikh
 100
n = 36 Current
Benchmarking experience (%)

90 benchmarking
80
70 n = 21 n = 31 practices
60 n=5
50
40 737
30
20
10
0
2* 3* 4* 5*
Hotel grade Figure 2.
Notes: Numbers above bars indicate frequency; three hotels (not shown) were not Significant association
graded but were categorized as “under classification”; these were not included in the between benchmarking
and hotel grade
calculation of the x2 statistic; p = 0.047

and benchmarking. However, that most hotels in the locations selected – and hence in
the sample under investigation – are owned or managed by international chains is a
feature of the sample data that cannot be ignored. The absence of statistically
significant associations of hotel size and location with benchmarking experience may
be a result of many international hotel chains using benchmarking tools as a well
established and mandatory part of their protocol.
Attitudes towards benchmarking. The majority of hotels surveyed have introduced
benchmarking to their business in an attempt to achieve the highest standard of
excellence in their services for their customers (69 percent). Among those who have
experience in benchmarking, almost two-thirds (65 percent) reported its effectiveness
in their hotel operation.
A large and significant proportion of participants perceived benchmarking as
a useful practice to assess performance (Table I) and it was commonly found to be a
useful way to establish connections with other hotel businesses. Most did not view
benchmarking as a tool suitable exclusively for large hotel chains which supports the
finding that small, medium and large hotels did not significantly differ in their
experience of benchmarking. As the majority of participants agreed that benchmarking
is both a competitive strategy and a way of improving quality, it belies the general
understanding of the benchmarking process as intended in essence to be a learning
process as well as a means of increasing competitiveness and quality. These findings

Agree (%) Disagree (%) Unsure (%)

Useful way to assess hotel performance 87 4 9

Means of connecting to other players in the sector 62 13 25
Expensive 20 70 10
Only usable for large/chain hotels 18 67 15
Means to understand how others operate 57 38 5
Competitive strategy 77 13 10 Table I.
Means to share knowledge 81 8 11 Perceptions of
Means to enhance quality of services 84 14 2 benchmarking
BIJ correspond with that of Matias et al. (2009), who observed from many studies that
19,6 performance is one of the most important measures in small hotel businesses after they
implement a strategic planning index or a marketing planning index. Benchmarking can
enhance hotels’ adaptability, which has been found to increase businesses’ chances of
survival in competitive markets.

738 Current and future quality improvement

A lack of qualified staff was not widely perceived as a barrier to carrying out
benchmarking (Table II). Senior management staff, who made up 83 percent of
respondents to the questionnaire, were the primary drivers of quality improvement in
their hotels. This demonstrates the belief that successful execution of the benchmarking
process is dependent upon the buy-in and acceptance of the employees. Driven by
management, involving the entire employee hierarchy can ensure successful
implementation of operational changes by instilling a belief and clear understanding
of the process. This may be referred to as the “benchmarking team”. Matters and Evans
(1995) consider this to be an important step in the process: a team responsible for
“maintaining commitment to the process throughout the organization.”
Despite the widespread agreement among respondents that benchmarking is a
valuable tool, many identified challenges involving its implementation. Some
participants were unsure that they would be capable of successfully executing such a
qualitative study, perceiving the work as complicated. This might suggest that technical
expertise and detailed knowledge of how to carry out a benchmarking study is lacking.
This finding complements that of Bendell et al. (1993), who found that time constraints,
competitive barriers, cost, lack of both management commitment and professional
human resources, resistance to change, poor planning and short term expectations are
the main problems affecting successful benchmarking implementation. A significant
proportion of respondents regarded a lack of knowledge sharing between hotels as one
of the greatest obstacles to successfully performing benchmarking. It could be perceived
that liaising with competitors would leave individual businesses in a position of
vulnerability, where it may in fact bear reward for all parties involved by establishing
standards of good practice in various key areas. Hence an improvement in the general
understanding that sharing knowledge can yield shared benefit may increase the
implementation of benchmarking.
Of the different tools currently employed by hotels to improve quality, quality
assurance and benchmarking were the two most popular (Figure 3). The most popular
reasons for implementing benchmarking were that it is effective in quality enhancement
and that it would help improve the services for guests (Table III). Interestingly, to
increase profits was deemed to be less important although this is a principle driving
factor of any business.

Barrier Percentage of participants

Not having qualified staff 13

Too much quantitative data collection 27
Too much complicated work 22
Table II. Hotels do not share knowledge 23
Barriers to benchmarking Just another performance assessment tool 16
 100 n = 118 Current
90 benchmarking
80
70
n = 91 practices
n = 76
% of hotels

60
n = 65
50
40 739
30 n = 34
20
10
0 Figure 3.
TQM Monitoring and Quality Benchmarking Other The different quality
Evaluation Assurance improvement tools
Notes: Numbers above bars indicate frequencies; a number of hotels use a currently adopted by
hotels
combination of tools

Reason to adopt %

Management chain company recommend it 17

Approved by top hotel management 17 Table III.
Increases profits 16 Reasons to adopt or to
Helps to provide better services for guests 24 continue to adopt
Proven to be effective in quality enhancement 27 benchmarking

The survey asked respondents to identify what factors would encourage them to adopt
or to continue to adopt benchmarking in their business (Table III). Respondents
indicated that they would be encouraged to adopt benchmarking if its effectiveness
could be proven in their operation (27 percent) and if it could help them provide quality
service to their customers (24 percent). When respondents were asked about their
intention in using benchmarking, hotel businesses expressed that they will adopt
benchmarking or will still use benchmarking in their hotel operation (67 percent).
Determining organizational readiness is therefore a worthwhile exercise. This finding
supports Paddock (1997), who argued that more businesses will use benchmarking if
they recognized that it could enhance an organization’s understanding of its own
operations, support the strategic planning process and encourage the development of
accurate measures of productivity.
About 75 percent of participants stated that they are planning to use or will
continue to use benchmarking in the future. Although this is not an overwhelming
majority (approximately 16 percent were unsure and 9 percent stated they would not
adopt the practice), this positive attitude does reinforce the usefulness of benchmarking
as a successful venture.

Conclusions and implications

Many hotels in Egypt are embracing benchmarking in their businesses and it
has proven its effectiveness in the business of many hotel operations with no regard
to their size, grade or location. Hoteliers agree that it is a tool that improves their
businesses’ service quality, is a useful way to assess their hotel’s performance,
BIJ and provides them with a competitive advantage. Benchmarking also gives them a
19,6 way to share their knowledge with others in order to raise the industry standard.
However, the amount of quantitative data collection involved and a lack of any system
for easy information sharing posed major barriers for some in the implementation of
benchmarking. These obstacles in planning and implementing benchmarking may be
resolved by establishing clear guidelines and protocols that are relevant industry-wide.
740 In order to achieve this, more comparative study across the Arab world, or in
conjunction with the USA and the UK, would be highly valuable. This dissemination of
knowledge will not only improve the benchmarking experience of those already using
it, but it will encourage the significant proportion of hotels that are not currently
implementing it to do so by making it more accessible. Ensuring hotels’ organizational
readiness to embrace benchmarking is a worthwhile exercise. Hotel businesses have
confirmed their interest in benchmarking solutions if this would improve the quality of
their services in order to be more competitive in this market.
Egyptian hotels have a great potential for success in the country’s thriving tourism
industry. In an era of economic uncertainty, hotels must be enabled to take advantage
of concerted economic development efforts to encourage business growth. In order to
achieve this, it is imperative that hotel management has as much information as
possible. Benchmarking strategies can enable them to withstand competition and to
improve their service quality.

Note
1. Egyptian hotel directory, www.eha.org.eg

References
AfDB (2009), Egypt Private Sector Country Profile, African Development Bank, Cairo.
Bendell, T., Boulter, L. and Kelly, J. (1993), Benchmarking for Competitive Advantage, Financial
Times Pitman Publishing, London.
Berman, B. and Evans, J.R. (2001), Retail Management – A Strategic Approach, 8th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Breiter, D. and Kline, S. (1995), “Benchmarking quality management in hotels”, FIU Hospitality
Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 45-52.
Camp, R.C. (1989a), “Benchmarking: the search for best practices that lead to superior
performance. Part I. A definition”, Quality Progress, January, pp. 62-8.
Camp, R.C. (1989b), “Benchmarking: the search for best practices that lead to superior
performance. Part II. Key process steps”, Quality Progress, February, pp. 70-5.
Camp, R.C. (1998), “Best practice benchmarking (the path to excellence)”, CMA Magazine, Vol. 72
No. 8, pp. 10-15.
Camp, R.C. (2006), Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to Superior
Performance, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Chase, M. (2006), Operations Management for Competitive Advantage, 11th ed., Tata
McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
Cityscapeintelligence (2010), “Growing tourism demand provides positive outlook for Cairo’s
hospitality market”, available at: www.cityscapeintelligence.com/growing-tourism-
demand-provides-positive-outlook-for-cairos-hospitality-market?country¼Egypt
(accessed 14 December).
Cox, J., Mann, L. and Samson, D. (1997), “Benchmarking as a mixed metaphor: disentangling Current
assumptions of competition and collaboration”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 34 No.
2, pp. 285-314. benchmarking
Dorsch, J. and Yasin, M. (1998), “A framework for benchmarking in the public sector: literature practices
review and directions for future research”, International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 11 Nos 2/3, pp. 91-115.
Dubé, L., Enz, C., Renaghan, L. and Siguaw, J. (1999), American Lodging Excellence: The Key to 741
Best Practices in the US Lodging Industry, American Express and the American Hotel
Foundation, Washington, DC.
Dudden, R. (2007), Using Benchmarking, Needs Assessment, Quality Improvement, Outcome
Measurement, and Library Standards, Neal-Schuman, New York, NY.
Elmuti, D. and Kathawala, Y. (1997), “An overview of benchmarking process: a tool for
continuous improvement and competitive advantage”, Benchmarking for Quality
Management & Technology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 229-43.
Fuller, C. (1997), “Key performance indicators for benchmarking health and safety
management in intra and inter-company comparisons”, Benchmarking for Quality
Management & Technology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 166-74.
Gay, L. and Diehl, P. (1992), Research Methods for Business and Management, Macmillan,
New York, NY.
Gay, L.R. and Airasian, P. (2000), Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and
Application, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hegalson, S. (1997), “International benchmarking experience from OECD countries”, paper presented
at Conference on International Benchmarking, Copenhagen, 20-21 February.
Kozak, M. (2002), “Destination benchmarking”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 497-519.
Kozak, M. (2003), Destination Benchmarking: Concepts, Measures and Practices, CABI
Publishing, Wallingford.
McMillan, J.H. and Schumacher, S. (2001), Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction,
5th ed., Longman, New York, NY.
Magd, H.A.E. (2008), “Understanding benchmarking in Egyptian organizations: an empirical
analysis”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 742-64.
Matias, A., Nijkamp, P. and Sarmento, M. (Eds) (2009), Advances in Tourism Economics,
Chapter 14, Springer, Berlin, pp. 217-34.
Matters, M. and Evans, A. (1995), The Nuts and Bolts of Benchmarking, Benchmarking link-up
Australia.
Min, H. and Min, H. (1996), “Competitive benchmarking of Korean luxury hotels using analytic
hierarchy process and competitive gap analysis”, The Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 58-72.
Min, H. and Min, H. (1997), “Benchmarking the quality of hotel services: managerial perspectives”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 582-97.
Monkhouse, E. (1995), “The role of competitive benchmarking in small to medium-sized
enterprises”, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Ogden, S. (1998), “Benchmarking and best practice in the small hotel sector”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 189-90.
Omachonu, V. and Ross, J. (1994), Principles of Total Quality, St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.
Paddock, S.C. (1997), “Benchmarks in management training”, Public Personnel Management,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 441-60.
BIJ Parkan, C. (1996), “Measuring the performance of hotel operations”, Socio-Economic Planning
Sciences, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 257-92.
19,6 Phillips, P.A. and Moutinho, L. (1998a), Strategic Planning Systems in Hospitality and Tourism,
CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Phillips, P.A. and Moutinho, L. (1998b), “The marketing planning index: a tool for measuring strategic
marketing effectiveness”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 41-60.
742 Phillips, P.A. and Moutinho, L. (1999), “Measuring strategic planning effectiveness in hotels”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 349-58.
Pizam, A. and Holcomb, J. (2008), International Dictionary of Hospitality Management, Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Rigby, D.K. (2011), Management Tools 2011: An Executive Guide, Bain & Company Inc., Boston, MA.
Sadgrove, K. (2005), The Complete Guide to Business Risk Management, 2nd ed., Gower
Publishing, Aldershot.
Smith, G., Ritter, D. and Tuggle, W. (1993), “Benchmarking: the fundamental questions”,
Marketing Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 43-8.
Southard, P.B. and Parente, D.H. (2007), “A model for internal benchmarking: when and how?”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 161-71.
Spendolini, M. (1992), The Benchmarking Book, Amacom, New York, NY.
Wireman, T. (2004), Benchmarking Best Practices in Maintenance Management, Industrial Press,
New York, NY.
Yasin, M. and Zimmerer, T. (1995), “The role of benchmarking in achieving continuous service
quality”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 27-32.
Zailani, S., Asrofah, T. and Fernando, Y. (2008), “Factors influencing the effectiveness of
benchmarking practice among manufacturing companies in Indonesia”, paper presented
at 8th Global Conference on Business and Economics, Florence, Italy, 18-19 October.
Zairi, M. (1996), Benchmarking for Best Practice: Continuous Learning Through Sustainable
Innovation, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Zhu, J. (2008), Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking: Data
Envelopment Analysis with Spreadsheets, 2nd ed., Springer, Boston, MA.

Further reading
ElAmin, A. (2007), “Benchmarking essential to improving supply chain, report states”,
12 January, available at: www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id¼73317-prologis-
benchmarking-logistics (accessed 10 June 2011).

About the author

Mohamed Nassar is an Assistant Professor of Management and Marketing at the College of
Business Administration. He earned his doctoral degree (PhD) from the Cardiff School of
Management at the University of Wales, UK. His research interest is mainly in marketing,
branding and on-line advertising. He is particularly interested in the application of
information and communication technologies within the broader travel and tourism industry.
Mohamed Nassar can be contacted at: Nassar.M@gust.edu.kw

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.