This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Why Benchmarking Efforts Fail
The cause of failed benchmarking projects is the same as those for other failed projects (DeToro, 1995): 1. Lack of sponsorship: A team should submit to management a one – to four page benchmarking project that describes the project, its objectives, and potential costs. If the team can’t gain approval for the project or get a sponsor, it makes little sense to proceed with a project that’s nor understood or appreciated or that is unlikely to lean to corrective action when completed. 2. Wrong People on them: Who are the right people for a benchmarking team? Individuals involved in benchmarking should be the same ones who own or work in the process. It’s useless for a team to address problems in the business areas that are unfamiliar or where the team has no control or influence.
3. Teams don’t understand their work completely: If the benchmarking team didn’t map, flowchart, or document its work process, there can’t be an effective transfer of techniques. The intent in every benchmarking project is for a team to understand how its process works and compare to another company’s process at a derailed level. The exchange of process steps is essential for improved performance. 4. Teams take on too much: The task a team undertakes is often so broad that it becomes unmanageable. This broad area must be broken into smaller, more manageable projects that can be approached logically. A suggested approach is to create a functional flowchart of an entire area, such as production or marketing, and identify its process to be benchmarked that would best contribute to the organization’s objectives.
Page 1 of 3
5. Lack of long-term management commitment: Since managers aren’t as familiar with specific work issues as their employees, they tend to under-estimate the time, cost, and effort required to successfully complete a benchmarking project. Managers should be informed that while it’s impossible to know the exact time it will take for a typical benchmarking project, a rule of thumb is that a team of four or five individuals requires a third of their time for five months to complete a project. 6. Focus on metrics rather than processes: Some firms focus their bench-marking efforts on performance targets (matrices) rather than processes. Knowing that a competitor has a higher return on assets doesn’t mean that its performance alone should become the new target (unless an understanding exists about how the competitor differs in the use of its assets and an evaluation of its process reveals that it can be emulated or surpassed)
7. Not positioning benchmarking within a larger strategy: Benchmarking is one of many total quality management tools- such as problem solving, process improvement, and process reengineering – used to shorten cycle time, reduced costs, and minimize variation. Benchmarking is compatible with and complementary to these tools, and they should be used together for maximum value. 8. Misunderstanding the organization’s mission and vision by first attaining the
short-term objectives: All benchmarking activity should be launched by
management as part of an overall strategy to fulfill the organization’s mission and vision by first attaining the short-term objectives and then the long-term goals.
9. Assuming every project requires a site visit: Sufficient information is often available from the public domain, making a site visit unnecessary. This speeds the benchmarking process and lowers the cost considerably. Page 2 of 3
10. Failure to monitor progress: Once benchmarking has been completed for a specific area or process benchmarks have been established and process changes implemented, managers should review progress in implementation and results.
For Article on Quality visit my blog http://iso-qms.blogspot.com/ Go to Blog Directory and find more articles.
Page 3 of 3