Hagan School of Business

Implementing Changes

Finally, after the data has been collected and analyzed, and the process enablers identified, the benchmarking efforts must be converted into actions for improving the processes which were studied. It is well known that managers receive many reports and often just allow them to collect dust on a shelf. Although very interesting to most managers, benchmarking results should be more than an academic exercise. Short-term and long-term goals should be established by the manager in charge of the project to eliminate the negative performance gaps uncovered. The short-term goals should include reducing the negative gap and at least reaching parity by adapting the best-practices discovered at other organizations. Long-term goals should seek to maximize the positive performance gap and become the standard by which other organizations will benchmark against. Part of the long-term plan should be to integrate benchmarking into all of the vital processes within the company, with continual evaluation at regular intervals. Benchmarking should not be a one-time project or snapshot of a process performance, it should be ongoing (no less than quarterly) and use longitudinal data that can be charted and graphed. If benchmarking is fully integrated and implemented, then the organization will always be staying current and changing with market conditions (Camp, 1989).

Spendolini (1992) states there are a number of actions that should be taken during this final stage of the first benchmarking iteration. The following actions are offered in random order:

• Produce a benchmarking report/summary
• Present benchmarking findings to benchmarking customers
• Communicate findings
• Internal--other functional groups
• Benchmark partners
• Look for opportunities
• Product /process improvements
• Learning--bring new ideas and concepts into the organization
• Forming functional networks
• Encourage recycling efforts
• Modify/improve the use of the process
• Introduce new/related subjects for benchmarking

The benchmarking report is intended to be delivered to the benchmarking customers. A summary of the data that were collected and analyzed should be included, with a record of the organizations that were benchmarked. In the corporate world, lengthy reports are becoming less common (Spendolini, 1992), but benchmarking reports generated by organizations such as NACUBO can be of significant length (Kempner, 1993). The report may contain the statement of need or purpose for the project, a list of the project customers, the project team, calendars of events, the subjects which were benchmarked, the information sources, methodology, results, analysis, and future actions to be taken (Spendolini, 1992). When the findings are presented to the benchmarking customers, both a written and oral version of the benchmarking report are suggested for maximum effectiveness. Of course, in addition to the data results and analysis, the recommendations for process improvements by the benchmarking team/committee must be communicated at this time, along with specific goals, timetables, and funding requirements to enact meaningful changes. The majority of the process improvements recommended will involve one or more of the following improvement outcomes:

• Product/process improvements--the primary goal, where the benchmarkers use the information collected to alter the actual processes that were analyzed
• Learning - for many of the benchmarking projects reviewed, one of the most common reports was that the benchmarking process was very valuable for institutional self-analysis and for seeing the college/university from an external point of view. Also, the opportunity to learn new ideas and return them to the home organization is very rewarding.
• Forming functional networks - Often an unexpected outcome and by-product occurs when the benchmarking participants establish valuable contacts at other institutions, whom they can call for information about benchmarking or non-benchmarking related improvement activities.

Aside from the overall benchmarking report, Gregory Watson (1992) suggests the creation of an action plan for implementing each individual process enabler. This action plan can follow the general format of a Japanese hoshin plan, which he defines as "a system for establishing process objectives and goals and implementing them through a set of strategies that are monitored at particular milestones to determine if the process is on target" (Watson, 1992, p. 92). Breakthrough improvements can be readily identified if a significant gap in performance is seen in the critical success factors of the key processes being studied. For each process, a process "owner" should be identified who will have responsibility for the process’s functions and work activities. The owner can be an individual or group within the institution, who will oversee the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the process by eliminating waste and implementing the improvements. To help the process owner build the action plan, Watson outlines the form in Figure 1, which identifies the key process and critical success factor for each improvement being implemented. The form begins by listing the key process being measured and the critical success factor for it. Next, the date that the action plan is written and the summary of the benchmarking study results are entered. Under objective, the there should be the recorded actual changes that this action plan will carry out, the expected date of completion, and the performance level of the critical success factor which is sought. The short-term goals are typically six months to one year in length, and long term goals should have an expected date of achievement. The benchmark or peg against which this process is measured is recorded with the date of the observation, the institution’s name, level, and rate of performance. The last section of the form lists specific strategies required for achieving the changes, along with the name of the owner responsible for completion. Each of the strategies should have targets and milestones for the performance. The data from the action plan can be used in conjunction with the performance charts to set realistic and achievable performance goals.

As with any organizational improvement technique, there is the possibility that action taken on the benchmarking project will not be successful. One proven way to avoid this is to study the causes of failure found by others and take steps not to repeat them.

Figure 1 - Benchmarking Action Plan - adapted from (Watson, 1992, p. 92)
 

Process: ______________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Critical Success Factor:__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Process Owner:__________________________________Date:__________________
Summary of the Study Results
Objective	Goals Short-term     Long-Term
Benchmark Institution:_________________________ Date Observed:_____________________ Level:____________________Rate:____
Strategy (owner)	Targets and Milestones

 

The American Productivity and Quality Center conducted a research study on the causes of benchmarking project failures. Survey respondents were asked to rate factors identified for failure on a five-point scale (5 = high cause) to indicate the significance of the factor’s contribution to an unsuccessful benchmarking study. Multiple answers to the survey question were not allowed. The results are listed as follows:

Table 1 - Causes of Benchmarking Study Failures (APQC, 1993, p. 131)
 

Question	Rating (1-5)
Poor planning	3.78
No top management support	3.76
No process owner involved	3.56
Insufficient Benchmarking skills	3.54
Low priority	3.14
Results not believed	2.93
Lack of interest	2.76
Lack of funding	2.68
Poor teamwork	2.67
Personnel turnover	2.20
No better practices found	2.17
Interpersonal conflicts	2.07

 

APQC. (1993). The Benchmarking Management Guide - American Productivity and Quality Center. Portland, Oregon: Productivity Press.

Camp, R. C. (1989). Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices That Lead to Superior Performance. Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press.

Kempner, D. E. (1993). The Pilot Years: The Growth of the NACUBO Benchmarking Project. NACUBO Business Officer, 27(6), 21-31.

NACUBO. (1995). Benchmarking Prospectus . Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers.

Spendolini, M. J. (1992). The Benchmarking Book. New York: AMACOM.

Watson, G. H. (1992). The Benchmarking Workbook: Adapting Best Practices for Performance Improvement. Portland, Oregon: Productivity Press.