An evolutionary approach to benchmarking · organisational types. To catalogue such diversity and to facilitate learning between different configurations requires a classification

An evolutionaryapproach to

benchmarking

281

Benchmarking An InternationalJournal Vol 8 No 4 2001

pp 281-305 MCB UniversityPress 1463-5771

An evolutionary approachto benchmarking

P Fernandez IP McCarthy and T Rakotobe-JoelOrganisational Systems and Strategy Unit

Warwick Manufacturing Group University of Warwick Coventry UK

Keywords Benchmarking Development Classification

Abstract Introduces a framework for benchmarking organisations plusmn ` evolutionary benchmarkingrsquorsquoDiscusses the concept and operation of the framework along with its proposed advantages in aidingbenchmarking The benchmarking approach proposed utilises an evolutionary classification methodcalled cladistics Uses an example classification of automotive assembly plants to show how theproposed framework helps benchmarking in terms of providing a framework for representingbenchmarking information enhancing the quality and validity of the information according to theclassification rules of parsimony congruence and homology and providing a comparison thatindicates how the practices should be adopted This framework is considered to be useful toresearchers who study benchmarking methodologies and those that categorise the findings ofbenchmarking studies

IntroductionFierce competition globalisation and the development of new information andcommunication technologies have forced organisations to continuously search forand adopt new configurations (processes and structures) by which to exist Inother words organisations are undergoing changes to evolve survive and competein their respective industrial environments The explosion of management toolsand techniques in the 1990s to help organisations successfully change is evidenceof this situation Among these techniques is benchmarking which has proved tobe valuable in helping individual companies evaluate their competitive positionrelative to their competitors The Xerox Corporation was one of the first companiesto develop and apply benchmarking techniques as a legitimate aspect of theirorganisational quality programme To this day Xerox along with many otherorganisations is still applying and developing benchmarking in order to learncompetitive practices from the rich diversity of organisations that exist

To understand and classify organisational differences this paper has adoptedthe theory of organisational evolution as proposed by Aldrich (1999) Campbell(1969) and Allard (1967) This theory states there are four processes (variationselection retention and struggle) and that they accompany organisationalchange and are responsible for new ways of working ie new configurations ororganisational types To catalogue such diversity and to facilitate learningbetween different configurations requires a classification of some sortTherefore if organisational diversity and the accompanying configurations aredue to evolutionary processes then it would seem appropriate to use aclassification that distinguishes between different organisational typesaccording to how they have evolved and developed new ways of working Thisclassification is cladistics

T h e r e s e a r c h r e g is te r fo r th is jo u r n a l is a v a i la b le a t

httpwwwm cbupcomresearch_registers

T h e c u r r e n t i s s u e a n d fu l l t e x t a r c h iv e o f t h is jo u rn a l i s a v a ila b le a t

httpwwwemerald-library comft

BIJ84

282

In summary this paper is divided into three parts First a review of thebenchmarking process is presented This is followed by an outline of thecladistic method and its relevance to organisations Finally the integration ofthe cladistic method with the benchmarking process is discussed along with anillustrative example that focuses on automotive assembly plants and the issueof agile working practices

Background on benchmarkingDefining benchmarking and its various forms can be a confusing task as bothmanagers and academics tend to create their own definitions according to theirperceptions and applications of the technique and philosophy Allan (1993)among others defines benchmarking as a technique that helps in measuring andcomparing the performance of an existing process product or service againstthat of the recognised best in class both outside and inside the company Allangoes further by stating that benchmarking can be seen as one of the qualityactivities that can be applied to process improvement Similarly Shetty (1993)explained that benchmarking is a continuous process of measuring productsservices and practices against the best competitors or those recognised asindustry leaders OrsquoDell states in The Benchmarking Workbook Adopting BestPractices for Performance Improvement (Watson 1992) that benchmarking is asequential process of learning the recipe for organisational success

In summary benchmarking is a process that facilitates learning andunderstanding of the organisation and its processes It enables organisations toidentify the key processes that need improvement and to search for applicablesolutions from the best in class

The application of benchmarking varies in terms of purpose and style TableI illustrates the different types of benchmarking whilst Table II shows that allbenchmarking models follow five generic stages

(1) planning

(2) analysis and data collection

(3) comparison and results

(4) change and

(5) verification and maturity

Among the advantages of benchmarking is its ability to draw on existingknowledge and tools for strategic planning competitive analysis processanalysis and improvement team building data collection and perhaps mostimportant organisational development Also benchmarking provides a highpayoff in terms of quality productivity and customer satisfaction when linked toa strategic planning framework (Daniels 1996) Consequently benchmarking is atechnique that helps in the implementation of change

Equally benchmarking provides an insight into prevailing businessperformance by observing the achievement of other organisations Thisinformation is often obtained through the examination of onersquos competitors Thus


benchmarking

283

benchmarking is equally an awareness technique that could help organisations tobecome familiar with new technological and managerial breakthroughs that otherorganisations are already using in their processes (Allan 1993)

In summary benchmarking has been shown to offer organisations thefollowing benefits

It adequately meets end-usercustomer requirements in terms ofbusiness improvement (Camp 1989 Shetty 1993)

It establishes pragmatic goals based on a concerted view of externalconditions (Spendolini 1992)

It determines authentic measures of productivity (Allan 1993)

It helps to change internal paradigms and ` see out of the boxrsquorsquo(Spendolini 1992)

It supports the quest for a competitive position (Camp 1989)

It creates awareness of industry good practice (Camp 1989 Shetty 1993)

It provides significant leaps in performance not always attained byother management techniques (Sedgwick 1995)

Despite these benefits and the fact that existing benchmarking literaturestrongly promotes the advantages benchmarking like most managementtechniques has some areas that could be further developed (Wareham andGerrits 1999 Bhutta and Huq 1999 Cox and Thompson 1998) These areas

Type ofbenchmarking Focus of comparison Advantages Disadvantages

Internal Primarily within thecompany departmentsbusiness units sistercompanies

Relatively easy to accessinformationTransferability ofprocesses should besimple

Processes might not bethe best in class

Competitive Made with a directcompetitor and can bebenchmarked processesproducts services etc

If successful can lead tostep changes andproductive results

Difficult to accessinformation

Functional andgeneric

Focused on a specificfunction of a process(functional) or againstthe whole process(generic)

Can create partnershipsand rewards with otherorganisationsIt decreases the difficultyof accessing information

The processes orfunctions might not beapplicable to theprocess where it isintended to be applied

Strategic A benchmark ofstrategies (markettechnology costs etc)

It illustrates acompetitive strategy

One fundamental factorfor becoming first classis the development ofthe strategy strategycannot be imitated

Table IBenchmarking styles

BIJ84

284A

Pamp

QC

mod

elB

axte

rrsquos

mod

elShet

tyrsquos

mod

elW

atso

nrsquos

mod

elSpen

dol

inirsquos

mod

elC

amprsquos

mod

el

Phas

e1

Pla

nnin

g1

Sel

ect

apro

cess

toben

chm

ark

1Id

enti

fyth

epro

cess

toben

chm

ark

1Id

enti

fica

tion

ofth

efu

nct

ion

tobe

ben

chm

arked

1P

lanunde

rsta

nd

and

mea

sure

crit

ical

succ

ess

fact

ors

1Id

enti

fyw

hat

toben

chm

ark

2E

stab

lish

man

agem

ent

com

mit

men

t

2D

eter

min

eth

epro

ject

rsquossc

ope

3Id

enti

fyth

eben

chm

arkin

gte

am

2Sel

ecti

onof

the

super

ior

per

form

ers

2Sea

rchre

sear

chap

pro

pri

ate

com

pan

ies

for

pro

cess

com

par

ison

2Id

enti

fyco

mpar

ativ

eco

mpan

ies

4D

efin

ean

dunder

stan

dth

epro

cess

tobe

ben

chm

arked

Phas

e2

Anal

ysi

san

ddat

aco

llec

tion

3C

hoo

seth

ere

levan

tm

easu

res

5Id

enti

fym

etri

csan

dim

ple

men

tth

ech

ange

3C

olle

ctio

nan

dan

alysi

sof

dat

a3

Obs

erve

mon

itor

proc

ess

per

form

ance

and

anal

yse

perf

orm

ance

gap

3Id

enti

fyben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

s

3D

eter

min

edat

aco

llec

tion

met

hod

and

collec

tdat

a

6Id

enti

fyth

era

nk

and

imple

men

tin

tern

alpro

cess

impro

vem

ent

4Stu

dy

per

form

ance

boo

stin

gbes

tpra

ctic

es

7Id

enti

fyben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

s

4E

stab

lish

per

form

ance

goa

ls4

Anal

yse

det

erm

ine

the

root

cause

sof

the

per

form

ance

gap

4C

olle

ctan

dan

alyse

ben

chm

arkin

gin

form

atio

n

4D

eter

min

ecu

rren

tper

form

ance

gap

Phas

e3

Com

par

ison

and

resu

lts

5Ju

dge

appro

pri

aten

ess

and

adap

tpra

ctic

es(c

onti

nued

)

Table IIBenchmarking genericstages

Anevolutionaryapproach to

benchmarking

285

AP

ampQ

Cm

odel

Bax

terrsquo

sm

odel

Shet

tyrsquos

mod

elW

atso

nrsquos

mod

elSpen

dol

inirsquos

mod

elC

amprsquos

mod

el

6Id

enti

fycu

lture

issu

esan

dfa

ctor

s8

Col

lect

pro

cess

dat

afr

omben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

s5

Pro

ject

futu

reper

form

ance

level

s

Phas

e4

Chan

ge

9A

nal

yse

ben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

srsquopro

cess

dat

aan

dco

mpar

e

6C

omm

unic

ate

ben

chm

arkin

gfi

ndin

gs

and

gai

nac

cepta

nce

7P

lan

and

imple

men

tch

ange

5Im

ple

men

ting

pla

ns

and

mon

itor

ing

resu

lts

5A

dap

tse

lect

best

pra

ctic

esan

dm

odify

the

com

pany

envir

onm

ent

5T

ake

acti

on7

Est

ablish

funct

ional

goa

ls

10Sit

evis

its

inte

rvie

ws

and

rean

alyse

dat

a

8D

evel

opac

tion

pla

ns

9Im

ple

men

tsp

ecif

icac

tion

san

dm

onit

orpro

gre

ss

Phas

e5

Ver

ific

atio

nan

dm

aturi

ty

11Im

ple

men

tim

pro

vem

ents

and

mon

itor

resu

lts

10R

ecal

ibra

teben

chm

arks

8M

easu

rere

sult

sdo

paybac

kan

alysi

s8

Impro

veen

han

cean

din

tegra

tebusi

ness

pro

cess

impro

vem

ents

Lea

der

ship

pos

itio

nat

tain

ed

12C

onti

nue

toco

nduct

ben

chm

arkin

gof

this

pro

cess

Pra

ctic

esfu

lly

inte

gra

ted

into

pro

cess

Table II

BIJ84

286

are essentially based on the appropriateness of the information used during thebenchmarking study This paper has categorised these areas using thefollowing headings static perception transferability diversity lack ofdirection and reductionist approach The sections below describe how theclassification-based framework proposed by this paper will help to developthese areas or avoid their limitations whilst facilitating the learning processthat is pivotal to benchmarking

Static perceptionOrganisations exist in an evolving business environment and thus there is anecessity for companies to make decisions using information sources that arealways changing Carroll (1984) suggests that the general trend inorganisational empirical research has been focused on static analyses where atemporal equilibrium is assumed He promotes studies of organisations thatuse dynamic analyses of longitudinal data Undoubtedly this shift hasoccurred because of the increased attention and development of ecological andevolutionary theories on the processes of business change The benchmarkingprocess offers large amounts of information however there is an opportunityfor improvement by having a system of organisational information thataccommodates the dynamic and evolving nature of the information Thiswould help to achieve the view that benchmarking is an ` ongoing process not aone-time projectrsquorsquo (Freytag and Hollensen 2001)

Benchmarking is often a static comparison or snapshot of the company andits environment Although such snap shots are useful they can lead to misfitsbetween the reality of the company and the capability of the benchmarkingtechnique This is considered to be a drawback as the resulting analysis doesnot represent the dynamic issues of organisational development Ideallybenchmarking would consider the environment (industrial sector nichemarket forces etc) in which the company exists and competes

Figure 1 illustrates how the classification process in general is used tounderstand and formulate rules and models about most problems and entitiesThis process is central to the learning process that benchmarking seeks toachieve To explain Figure 1 we will focus on industrial issues and inparticular different types of manufacturing organisation Stage (i) of Figure 1represents industrial diversity and contains the rich diversity of industrialsectors and organisational types that all exist to manufacture products Tounderstand this diversity academics and practitioners have always usedclassifications such as job batch and mass and make-to-order and make-to-stock and numerous other schemes (McCarthy 1995) Stage (ii) represents thisprocess of classification but unlike the ones mentioned above it is based on aformal classification method (cladistics) with rules and guidelines Once aclassification of different manufacturing types has been produced academicsand practitioners observe the relationships between the different types anddevelop taxonomic rules on how each manufacturing type operates in terms oftechnology strategies operational strategies plant layout supply chains etc


benchmarking

287

This is stage (iii) of Figure 1 Academics use these rules for teaching andresearch purposes and practitioners use these rules to help guide their businessdecisions This is a natural cognitive process and it is also central to the processof benchmarking Therefore stages (ii) and (iii) are essential elements of thebenchmarking process

In summary Figure 1 illustrates how the benchmarking process relates to theclassification process In particular to a classification method that considers theevolving nature of industrial landscapes and the organisations that exist in suchlandscapes Also it is important to note that for existing classifications (such asthose listed below) it is almost impossible to integrate them into one universalclassification that could serve as a comprehensive system for co-ordinatingbenchmarking studies Each of these existing classifications has beenconstructed and represented using a variety of ad hoc approaches

Organisational strategies (Chrisman et al 1988)

General organisational classifications (Burns and Stalker 1961 Milesand Snow 1978 Mintzberg 1979 Thompson 1967 Perrow 1970 VanRipper 1966)

Classifications of manufacturing organisations and their operationaland technological systems (Constable and New 1976 Wild 1971 1989Johnson and Montgomery 1974 Schmitt et al 1985 Barber and Hollier1986 Woodward 1980)

Figure 1Benchmarking and

classification

BIJ84

288

A cladogram provides a system that overcomes this issue of integration as itcan continually contain and represent different organisational types regardlessof when and how they were formed and identified One of the greatest strengthsof the cladistic approach is that the representation of the classification (thecladogram) illustrates the data assumptions and results making allclassification decisions transparent

TransferabilityAs stated earlier benchmarking is about ` learningrsquorsquo from other organisationswith a view to adopting competitive practices The key issue here is whether suchpractices in their entirety can be successfully adopted by the organisation This isan issue of ` transferabilityrsquorsquo and part of the learning process is to understandwhether the identified practices could conflict with an existing organisationalculture management style and structure This is especially the case when tryingto transfer competitive practices across cultures ie between organisations indifferent parts of the world (Zairi and Ahmed 1999 Andel 1999)

If there is a conflict then the options are determine if the benchmarkedpractices could be adapted to suit the organisation or whether the organisationcan change to accommodate the benchmarked practices successfully This viewis reported by Wareham and Gerrits (1999) who suggest that in order totransfer practices or processes from one organisation to another it must beunderstood that

organisations are different

organisations are operating in diverse institutional and culturalenvironments and

that sometimes the processes can be tacit socially embedded orinalienable

The tacit conditions of benchmarking include

It is not a universal yardstick as it is impossible to establish an absolutemeasurement in the benchmarking process Cox and Thompson (1998)commented on this point

Transferability as the adaptation of some processes or practices toanother environment is not guaranteed Processes that operate in agiven environment may not necessarily operate in another environment

Validation as a ` best practicersquorsquo is mostly a subjective attribute sincethere is no single ` best practicersquorsquo (American Productivity and QualityCentre 1997)

Therefore in order to prevent cases similar to those reported by Simpson et al(1999) where organisations start off being very supportive of benchmarkingmethods but become disillusioned due to a lack of business change it isimportant to assist the transferability process that accompanies learning Tohelp achieve this the taxonomic framework proposed by this paper seeks to


benchmarking

289

provide a system to understand organisational diversity the accompanyingstrategies behaviours and relationships between the different organisationaltypes that may exist due to different cultures and locations

DiversitySome benchmarking studies are performed using information from a largenumber of organisations For example the UK government through theDepartment of Trade and Industry (DTI) performed a benchmarking study toidentify competitive practices in the use of information and communicationtechnologies in countries such as France Sweden Germany the USA andJapan (DTI 2000) Similarly organisations like The Benchmarking Exchangeperform benchmarking studies by analysing hundreds of organisations in eachof their surveys (httpwwwbenchnetcom) Using a large number oforganisations helps to ensure that relevant information is collected and thatgood practice is identified It also helps to avoid the drawbacks of one-to-onecomparisons that cannot ensure an eventual process improvement because thesample of companies was too small to identify new and innovative workingpractices

In reality the number of partners involved in a benchmarking study canvary enormously and this is often due to issues such as cost time and access topartner companies (Camp 1989) For instance there are organisations thatperform large benchmarking studies using the Internet (eg The BenchmarkingExchange httpwwwbenchnetcom) Whilst on the other hand there arebenchmarking studies that are performed on a one-to-one basis such as theoriginal Xerox study and the study performed by the Kodak Rochester plant inthe early 1990s (Bhutta and Huq 1999) Therefore despite the recognition thata large study sample helps maximise the benefits of benchmarking a commonproblem in benchmarking is the failure to expand the scope of companiesstudied (Freytag and Hollensen 2001)

Carper and Snizek (1980 p 65) argue that ` the most important and basicstep in conducting any form of scientific inquiry involves the orderingclassification or other grouping of object or phenomena under investigationrsquorsquoIn a similar line Ulrich and McKelvey (1990) argue that all successful sciencesare supported by a general classification that allows scientific developmentThe use of formal taxonomies would help benchmarking to avoid one-to-onestudies by providing diversity and a sample at the outset Also organisationalstructures and management systems are best understood in terms of overalltaxonomic patterns rather than in terms of analyses of narrowly drawn sets oforganisational properties (Rich 1992)

Lack of directionWhilst benchmarking informs managers and directors about the competitivegap that their organisations may face it does not necessarily inform them ofthe improvement programme needed to bridge the gap In other wordsbenchmarking provides a situational analysis ie `Where do you want to gorsquorsquo

BIJ84

290

and ` How are we doingrsquorsquo but it does not automatically provide a strategicroadmap ie ` How are we going to get therersquorsquo The ability to inform managersabout the required organisational changes is crucial to the transferability orimplementation aspect of benchmarking so much so that Freytag andHollensen (2001) coined the term ` Benchactionrsquorsquo to emphasise the need to learnthe answer to the question ` How are we going to get therersquorsquo

As will be introduced later in this paper a cladogram not only representsorganisational diversity but also it illustrates the parsimonious paths (changeprogrammes with least effort) between the different types This is achievedbecause the dominant method for constructing a cladogram is the parsimonymethod This method selects the classification tree with the least number ofevolutionary changes ie the longer the tree length the worse the fit and theshorter the tree length the better the fit

Reductionism approachOrganisations particularly manufacturing companies are complex entitiesthat are made up of many interacting components (people departmentstechnology routines structure etc) and as such they resist a reductionistapproach to understanding their behaviour and performance A reductionistapproach to systems seeks to understand them by reducing the whole system(eg the whole manufacturing organisation) to manageable individual parts(eg manufacturing departments) By studying the individual parts of asystem managers attempt to formulate rules about the behaviour of the wholesystem The opposing view (the systemic view) is that the whole system cannotbe truly understood by reducing it into smaller manageable units The whole ismade of parts that are self-organising and have rules that are independent ofthe rules passed down from the whole system For instance even though thedirectors of a manufacturing company will create strategies and rules for thecompany its employees and the operating procedures employees withinindividual departments always create their own informal rules based on theirknowledge and understanding of the department Such rules and the resultingdepartmental systems are self-organising and it is not possible to extrapolateobservations about the departments to the whole company (McCarthy et al2000a)

The boundaries of a benchmarking study can vary depending on theinterests of the organisations undertaking the analysis (eg DTIrsquos Informationand Communication Technologies study (DTI 2000) or the SupplierManagement Survey by wwwindustrymetricscom) Current benchmarkingmodels can be used to benchmark both single functions and an entireorganisation Nevertheless in order to maximise benchmarking success asystemic approach should ideally be adopted (Ackoff 1993) Therefore the casestudy given in this paper is based on a holistic approach to organisationalcomparison rather than focusing on one or some of the parts of theorganisation


benchmarking

291

In summary benchmarking is a valuable management technique and themotivation for integrating a formal and evolutionary classification methodwith the benchmarking process is to help minimise and avoid the limitationsdiscussed whilst attempting to fully exploit the learning and transferabilitypotential that benchmarking offers businesses

Evolutionary benchmarkingMcKelvey (1975) reports that a fundamental issue when performing a formalinvestigation of organisations is to order and classify them This argument isbased on the fact that a classification enables the storage and retrieval ofinformation to facilitate learning and the application of generalisations Rich(1992) describes how the classification of organisations

helps to refine hypotheses strategically

aids in the validity and utility of existing typologies based on logical andintuitive considerations

serves as a basis for guiding organisational decisions on change

permits researchers to specify readily boundaries from which theirsamples of organisations could be drawn

The cladistic school of classification as defined by Fitch (1984) involvesstudying the evolutionary relationships between entities with reference to thecommon ancestry of the group This is referred to as phylogeny Evolutionprovides the classification with an external reference point because lineages donot change with a researcherrsquos interest in a particular aspect of an organisationThus cladistics attempts to reveal a change-induced structure and thesimilarity represented is a similarity of change This process of identifyingancestral relationships provides a focus by which researchers makeassumptions about organisational configurations and the definingcharacteristics

As organisations are complex dynamic systems ie evolving and adaptingcontinuously to their environment it is common sense and almost a necessityto adopt an evolutionary approach to studying them In other words using astatic framework will not fully capture the essence of an organisationrsquosevolution Therefore the relevance of creating and using an evolutionaryclassification to analyse good practice identify the organisationalcharacteristics responsible for such practice and to formulate the most effectivedevelopment programme would appear to be beneficial

Using an evolutionary classification system as the basis for benchmarkingtackles the problems of transferability and diversity as discussed in theprevious section of this paper In fact by allowing the analysis to focus onspecific groups of evolutionarily similar organisations the possibility ofachieving a smooth adaptation of good practice is enhanced Also by usinginformation that relates to the evolution of an industrial sector or a selection ofindustrial sectors comparisons can be made using a greater population sample

BIJ84

292

Finally as an evolutionary study exhibits the processes that the desiredorganisations underwent in their own evolution a clear-cut roadmap to thedesired location can be identified

A cladistic classification provides a system for conducting documentingand co-ordinating comparative studies of similar and related organisationsThus the value that cladistics offers benchmarking is primarily to the firstthree stages shown in Table II (planning analysis and data collectioncomparison and results) For illustrative purposes this paper focuses onmanufacturing organisations and the concept of agility It will show howcladograms can represent the landscape (the diversity of competitive forms) forany industry (or a competitive niche) thus providing knowledge andobservations on the patterns of the distributed characteristics exhibited bymanufacturing organisations over their evolutionary development

If we consider manufacturing agility Yusuf et al (1999 p 33) note that` there is yet no company that is truly agile in the sense of having acquired allthe essential characteristics identified in the growing body of literature on agilemanufacturingrsquorsquo The use of cladograms for benchmarking agility couldprovide a framework and information for understanding what agility meansfor different organisational forms Such comprehension could not be used toextrapolate the future but it does inform organisations of where they are andhow they got there and this information is vital for any organisation intendingto embark on a journey of change towards agility

Cladistics plusmn an introductionFor a detailed discussion on the cladistic method readers are referred to Foreyet al (1992) Minelli (1994) McCarthy et al (2000bc) McCarthy and Ridgway(2000) Based on these articles the following is an introductory account of themethod

As stated in the previous section the cladistic school of classificationinvolves studying the evolutionary relationships between entities withreference to the common ancestry of the group (a phylogenetic relationship)The entities do not have to be biological they simply have to demonstrateevolution For instance if we consider computational devices we can observean evolutionary path which includes devices such as the abacus Babbagersquoscomputing device Sinclairrsquos calculator through to modern computingtechnology Similar evolutionary paths exist for manufacturing organisationsand thus the application of cladistics to manufacturing organisations is a formof industrial archaeology or technological palaeontology

Classification methods are assessed on their ability to produce natural andobjective classifications rather than artificial and subjective classificationsCladistics conforms to both criteria because it represents a real unambiguous andnatural property of the entity (evolutionary relationships) and thus differentrational people working independently should be able to agree on a classificationAny disagreements about the exact nature of organisational forms (technologyprocesses structure etc) could be addressed because the information (and the


benchmarking

293

assumptions about industrial reality) is clearly shown on the branches of thecladogram This tree structure represents the evolutionary history the diversityand the relationships between the different manufacturing forms The networksof branches on the tree are the evolutionary paths that have accompaniedorganisational change programmes Each path is formed according to theacquisition and polarity of certain characteristics such as new technologyworking practices plant layout or management techniques Figure 2 shows agroup of manufacturing organisations consisting of Just in Time SystemsFlexible Manufacturing Systems Toyota Production System Lean Producersand Agile Producers

The numbers shown on the branches of Figure 2 indicate manufacturingcharacteristics (also known as ` charactersrsquorsquo) that have been adopted in order tosurvive and compete Table III outlines a list of these characteristics

Agile Producers have a position on the cladogram between Lean Producersand JIT Systems The total defining characteristics of Agile Producers (not justthe characteristics which differentiate agile from lean) extend back to theancestor of the cladogram ie Ancient Craft Systems This evolutionary lineageis represented by a series of branches which are thicker and bolder Thecharacteristics on this lineage were found from the defining characteristics ofan agile manufacturing organisation as stipulated in the Iacocca Institute(1991) report 21st Century Manufacturing Enterprise Strategy as well as fromSharp et al (1999) who compare mass production lean production and agilemanufacturing practices in UK industries

Figure 2Section of the

automotivemanufacturing

cladogram

BIJ84

294

With this introductory account of cladistics the following section describes theevolutionary benchmarking method Step 1 of the method describes theprocedure for producing a cladogram

An evolutionary benchmarking approachThe approach consists of seven stages (see Figure 3)

Stage 1 Construct the evolutionary classification When classical benchmarkingis performed there are several questions that need to be answered before startingWhat is to be benchmarked (eg the organisation a process a product) Whattype of benchmarking should be used (eg internal competitive generic) Whichindustry sector to choose for benchmarking Which companycompanies tobenchmark against

For the purposes of this paper and the example that follows the first stage ofthe framework is to construct a cladogram that will provide informationrelevant for the organisation wishing to change In other words if a companywants to benchmark manufacturing systems the taxon (classification group)and the characteristics on the tree must be relevant to manufacturing systemsThe cladogram constructed in the example within this paper was theautomotive assembly industry It focused on manufacturing system types andthe data that would provide relevant information to help companies achieve amore competitive organisational form

Once the system to be benchmarked has been identified an appropriateindustrial group is selected ie Is the benchmark against an organisation in thesame industry or is it a different sector This stage is consistent with classicalbenchmarking in terms of finding the best-in-class industrial sector to make thecomparison

Once these issues have been addressed the procedure for creating acladogram is as follows

(1) Study group The starting point is to define the industrial sectorpopulation of companies to be studied This is known as the ` cladersquorsquoWithin a manufacturing context the term clade can be defined as

8 Pull procurement planning 11 Employee innovation prizes

12 Job rotation 15 Exchange of workers with suppliers

23 Open book policy with suppliersSharing of cost data and profits

27 TQM sourcing Suppliers selectedon the basis of quality

29 U-shape layout 35 Toyota Verification of AssemblyLine (TVAL)

49 Employees are system developers Ifmotivated and managed they cansolve problems and create value

43 Agile automation for differentproducts

51 Parallel processing (in equipment) 54 Open and responsive technologysystems

55 Customer driven 56 Adaptive knowledge basedprocesses

57 Make to orderTable IIIList of characters


benchmarking

295

A group of manufacturing organisations that exist in an organisational environment(market segments geographical regions niches etc) and includes an ancestralorganisational species (McKelvey 1978) ` In other words a form of organisation thatexists through generations which are members of the speciesrsquorsquo (McKelvey 1978pp 1431)) The organisations included in the clade share a set of common ancestrycharacteristics

(2) Search and select Once a study group has been chosen a number ofdifferent organisational types (ways of organising and operating amanufacturing plant) would appear to be members of that group (masslean agile craft job etc) but the complete membership is not known Infact a primary objective of a cladistic study is to identify all the membersof the group This is a process of `mining for organisational typesrsquorsquowhereby evidence is sought to suggest the possible existence of aparticular type of manufacturing organisation This evidence tends to bein the form of published material or archives which describe the adventof new ways of working and new breeds of organisation The overallaim of this step is to determine the different organisational forms andthe organisational characteristics (technological behavioural structuraletc) that distinguish the various forms

Figure 3Evolutionary

benchmarking technique

BIJ84

296

(3) Coding Once a set of characteristics has been identified along with thevarious organisational forms that are a consequence of thesecharacteristics the relationship between the characteristics and theorganisations is examined in order to allow the construction of thecladogram The coding of a characteristic facilitates the statisticalprocessing of the set of characteristics

(4) Polarity Ordering is that property of a characteristic that refers to thepossible change sequences that can occur The characteristic propertydirection refers to the transition between the characteristic states Whenthe direction of transformation for a characteristic has been determinedit is said to have a ` polarisedrsquorsquo state

(5) Conceptual cladogram The construction and testing of a cladogram isessentially based on its ability to explain the evolution of the clade Withthis aim there are two sets of problems

The proposed relationships are not acceptable or are not historicallycoherent

Several conflicting cladograms of the same length are obtained

Using tools such as the software MacCladeTM (see Maddison andMaddison 1992) a cladogram is constructed according to some simplerules parsimony homology and congruence (see Morrison 1996 Brookset al 1984 Wiley et al 1991) Once a cladogram has been produced thefirst step is to map the characteristic changes onto the tree in order to havea global view of the proposed phylogeny It is common practice to shapetest the cladogram by adding additional organisations and characteristicsMacCladeTM allows the user to manipulate cladogram structures andcharacteristic data and to visualise the characteristics on each branchFinally MacCladeTM provides tools for moving branches re-rooting cladesand automatically searching for the most parsimonious tree

(6) Working cladogram This stage involves visiting organisations in orderto observe the systems and processes that they operate This typicallyconsists of plant inspections discussions with employees assessment ofplanning and control procedures and assessment of documentation(annual reports business plans and surveys etc) The study aims tovalidate the existence of the characteristics identified during theprevious stages It will test the validity of any proposed tree structure byensuring that the characteristic data matrix is complete (ie noimportant historical events which relate to a characteristic have beenomitted) and that the assigned polarity is correct This stage is to anextent validation by dissemination because the factual data will beused to verify the conceptual data Allocating existing organisations aposition on the cladogram will also test the validity of any proposed treestructure


benchmarking

297

(7) Naming As with any classification the identified organisational formswould be allocated names or labels that reflect the ` essencersquorsquo or definingnature of the organisation

Stage 2 Locate actual companyrsquos position This stage involves analysing thecladogram and relating it to known information about the study companyrsquoscharacteristics attributes strengths and weaknesses The aim is locate theposition of the study company on the cladogram and to confirm that thecharacteristics on the identified branch represent the company in terms of itsorganisational behaviour and form This stage is crucial because without asuccessful diagnosis of the current position assumptions and decisions aboutthe pending organisational development could be invalid During this phase thetemporal and the internal environment are assessed

In the example given below it is assumed that the study company isbelieved to occupy the branch mass producers as shown in Figure 4 Thecharacteristics found are shown in Table IV

It is important to note that despite containing numerous characteristics andinformation the cladogram does not necessarily contain every characteristic ofan organisational type The cladogram is never universal as the classificationprocess is based on a contingency approach ie it contains only thosecharacteristics that are defining ie they distinguish one organisational typefrom another

The activities in Stage 2 of the method are concerned with transferring theinformation from the cladogram (Figure 4) into what has been called anevolutionary benchmarking matrix (Figure 5) The matrix consists of a numberof sections that have been numbered 1 to 7 Two principal sections of thematrix are section 7 ` current characteristicsrsquorsquo and section 1 ` desiredcharacteristicsrsquorsquo of the organisation These are located on the bottom and leftpart of the matrix The main body of the matrix is where the comparison takesplace Sections 2 and 3 show which characteristics to keepremove whilstsections 5 and 6 prioritise the decisions for developing the organisation

Stage 3 Locate goal branch The process of constructing a cladogram(collecting information on different organisational forms) helps the company tobecome more knowledgeable about its landscape and the different strategicopportunities that exist This process is the basis of benchmarking as it allowscompanies to identify a goal branch that represents the fit between thecompanyrsquos strategy and the evolution and diversity of an industrial sector Ascompany improvement is usually focused on achieving the best-in-classcharacteristics the goal branch is often the most evolved form in the clade iethe most recent branch Identifying the goal branch is a contextual andobjective management technique for comprehending perceived organisationalchanges and improvement

In the example the previous step assumed that the actual companyrsquos currentposition was the mass producer type If we also assume that businesscircumstances have led to the company developing a strategy that focuses on

BIJ84

298

Figure 4Current position andgoal branch


benchmarking

299

the creation of flexible and high quality systems whilst accepting variable costas a trade-off then the goal branch is considered to be the ` agile manufacturingbranchrsquorsquo (see Figure 4)

So far the current position and the desired position have been identified Thenext step in the technique is to find the most parsimonious route to achieve thechange and the characteristics that should be acquired and removed

Step 4 Locate the most parsimonious route This step determines thecharacteristics that need to be acquired transformed or removed The twobranches (ie the goal branch and the companyrsquos current position) represent themanufacturing change strategy of the company under study It is important tonote that cladograms are constructed according to a number of rules

Parsimony (a rule where the cladogram with the smallest number ofevolutionary changes is the simplest and is the one to be considered)

Congruence (the cladogram is produced to minimise inconsistenciessuch as parallel evolution where the same characteristics appear twice inthe cladogram)

Homology (where groups are formed using characteristics shared by aset of organisational types and present in their common ancestor)

For the purposes of benchmarking the parsimony rule has the greatestsignificance It shows the shortest organisational change path required toachieve the desired manufacturing type along with the defining strategy Thusthe parsimonious route illustrates the route to the desired manufacturing typethe characteristics of the type (section 1 of the matrix) and the order in whichthey should be adopted (the marked path in Figure 4) This information is boththe strategy and change management plan

Step 5 Benchmark the current system against the desired one An importantstep in any benchmarking methodology is the comparison of the characteristicsbetween the companies involved and the subsequent knowledge andapplication of any good practice processes With evolutionary benchmarkingthe information displayed by the cladogram and the matrix encourage acomparison that involves all the different organisational types

1 Standardisation of parts 16 Training through socialisation

2 Assembly time standards 20 Multiple sub-contracting

3 Assembly line lay-out 32 Sequential dependency of workers

4 Reduction of craft skills 46 Dedicated automation

5 Automation 47 Division of labour

13 Large volume production 48 Employees are system tools

14 Mass sub-contracting by price billing 50 Product focus

52 Dependence of written rulesTable IV

List of characters

BIJ84

300

Figure 5Evolutionarybenchmarking matrix


benchmarking

301

The comparison consists of contrasting the characteristics that were mapped inthe previous step with those characteristics that the company already possessesTherefore the aim of this step is to find out which characteristics are absent fromthe companyrsquos current branch and would if acquired lead to an appropriateimprovement in the performance of the company

Using the evolutionary benchmarking matrix (Figure 5) the comparison ismade by assessing the characteristics listed on the left part (Section 1 of Figure5) against those that correspond to each category in the bottom part plusmn Section 7of Figure 5 (eg pull production system against push production system) It isimportant to note that the comparison could only be performed between thosecharacteristics that match and are comparable Thus when matching thecategories and comparing the different characteristics it is necessary to followthe row of the mapped characteristics and the column of the actualcharacteristics A comparison of matching characteristics is made in the cellwhere the column and row meet If the mapped characteristic represents animprovement over the actual characteristic then a symbol ` +rsquorsquo is written in thecell otherwise the symbol ` plusmnrsquorsquo is used The symbol ` =rsquorsquo is used when the mappedcharacteristic is considered to be the same as the actual characteristic Anillustration is given in Figure 5

As a result the prioritisation of the improvement and the planning ofchanges are complete when the goals and schedules for acquiring andremoving the different characteristics have been established The result isplaced in section 6 of the matrix located in the far right column of the table inFigure 5

Step 6 Implement change Steps 1-5 of the evolutionary benchmarkingframework contribute to the analysis planning and comparison tasks of thebenchmarking process To understand and encourage what has been learntfrom stages 1-5 step 6 focuses on the transferability aspect of benchmarking

Despite the fact that a cladogram is a system that can capture and representevolving snapshots of a companyrsquos situation it is vital that the companyrecognises that it is only a snap shot and that it is up to the management andthe employees to change it

Organisational development is not easy particularly when existingpractices habits and routines have been in place and have for many years Tohelp learn new practices and develop a supporting culture the information in acladogram can help organisations and individuals ` learnrsquorsquo It also helps toidentify conflicts or barriers to change For instance if a desired benchmarkingscenario stipulates high levels of team working but the company currentlyoperates an individual-based pay incentive scheme then this scheme and itsresulting culture will be in direct conflict with the practice of team working

Step 7 Verification of achievements This step is an assessment of theresulting improvement in business performance It is consistent with the plan-do-check-act cycle (Deming 1986) that helps to monitor the development and tostimulate opportunities for further improvement It is also essential forensuring operational improvement as it provides a feedback mechanism to

BIJ84

302

steps 1-6 This feedback helps guide decisions on the future selection of bestpractices assessing the impact of the desired performance and formulatingappropriate measures

ConclusionBenchmarking is a management technique that seeks to achieve businessimprovement by helping organisations and individuals learn and develop Toachieve successful business development a good basis for benchmarking isimportant in order to address questions such as Whom to benchmark againstWhat processes functions etc to benchmark How to perform the benchmarkingIt is also vital to the benchmarking process to provide answers to the questionsWhere are we now Where do we want to be How are we going to get there

The term ` evolutionary benchmarkingrsquorsquo has been used to describe aframework that helps to encourage researchers to find answers to both sets ofquestions It is a framework that captures and represents the relevantinformation for the analysis planning and comparison tasks involved inbenchmarking organisations

This framework places a greater emphasis upon benchmarking as a seriousresearch methodology to take its place alongside the cognitive and qualitativeprocesses that are an integral part of classification and vital to the success ofbenchmarking and organisational development By integrating an evolutionaryclassification method with the benchmarking process it is hoped that such anapproach in time may lead to a greater degree of uniformity communicationand acceptance of different benchmarking studies

References

Ackoff RL (1993) ` Benchmarkingrsquorsquo Systems Practice Vol 6 No 6 p 581

Aldrich HE (1999) Organisations Evolving Sage Publications London

Allan CF (1993) ` Benchmarking practical aspects for information professionalsrsquorsquo SpecialLibraries Vol 84 No 3 pp 123-30

Allard A (1967) Evolution and Human Behaviour Natural History Press New York NY

American Productivity and Quality Centre (1997) What is Benchmarking APQC ReportHouston TX

Andel T (1999) `You canrsquot benchmark culturersquorsquo Material Handling Engineering Vol 54 No 2February pp 20-42

Barber KD and Hollier RH (1986) ` The use of numerical analysis to classify companiesaccording to production control complexityrsquorsquo International Journal of Production ResearchVol 24 No 1 pp 203-22

Bhutta KS and Huq F (1999) ` Benchmarking plusmn best practices and integral approachrsquorsquoBenchmarking An International Journal Vol 6 No 3 pp 254-68

Brooks DR Caira JN Platt TR and Pritchard MH (1984) Principles and Methods ofPhylogenetic Systematics A Cladistics Workbook The University of Kansas LawrenceKS

Burns T and Stalker GM (1961) The Management of Innovation Tavistock London

Camp RC (1989) Benchmarking The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to SuperiorPerformance ASQC Quality Press amp Quality Resources Milwaukee WI


benchmarking

303

Campbell DT (1969) ` Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolutionrsquorsquo GeneralSystems Vol 14 pp 69-85

Carper WB and Snizek WE (1980) `The nature and types of organizational taxonomies anoverviewrsquorsquo Academy of Management Review Vol 5 No 1 pp 65-75

Carroll GR (1984) ` Organizational ecologyrsquorsquo Annual Review of Sociology Vol 10 pp 71-93

Chrisman J Hofer C and Boulton W (1988) ` Toward a system for classifying businessstrategiesrsquorsquo Academy of Management Review Vol 13 No 3 pp 413-28

Constable CJ and New CC (1976) Operations Management A Systems Approach through Textand Cases John Wiley amp Sons New York NY

Cox A and Thompson I (1998) ` On the appropriateness of benchmarkingrsquorsquo Journal of GeneralManagement Vol 23 No 3 pp 1-20

Daniels S (1996) `Benchmarkingrsquorsquo Work Study Vol 45 No 3 pp 18-20

Deming WE (1986) Out of the Crisis Cambridge University Press Cambridge

DTI (2000) Business in the Information AgeBusiness in the Information Age DTI London

Fitch WM (1984) ` Cladistics and other methods problems pitfalls and potentialrsquorsquo in CladisticsPerspectives on the Reconstruction of Evolutionary History Columbia University PressNew York NY pp 221-54

Forey PL Humphries CJ Kitching IJ Scotland RW Siebert DJ and Williams DM (1992)Cladistics A Practical Course in Systematics Clarendon Press Oxford

Freytag PV and Hollensen S (2001) ` The process of benchmarking benchlearning and bench-actionrsquorsquo The TQM Magazine Vol 13 No 1 pp 25-33

Iacocca Institute (1991) 21st Century Manufacturing Enterprise Strategy An Industry Led ViewVols 12 Iacocca Institute Bethlehem PA

Johnson LA and Montgomery DC (1974) Operation Research in Production PlanningScheduling and Inventory Control John Wiley amp Sons New York NY

Maddison WP and Maddision DR (1992) McClade Sinauer Associates SunderlandMA

McCarthy IP (1995) `Manufacturing classification lessons from organisational systematics andbiological taxonomyrsquorsquo The International Journal of Manufacturing Technology Managementplusmn Integrated Manufacturing Systems ISSN 0-957-6061 Vol 6 No 6 pp 37-49

McCarthy IP and Ridgway K (2000b) ` Cladistics a taxonomy for manufacturingorganizationsrsquorsquo The International Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management plusmnIntegrated Manufacturing Systems Vol 11 No 1 pp 16-29

McCarthy IP Frizelle G and Rakotobe-Joel T (2000a) ` Complex systems theory plusmnimplications and promises for manufacturing organizationsrsquorsquo International Journal ofTechnology Management Vol 1 pp 6-12

McCarthy I Leseure M Ridgway K and Fieller N (1997) `Building a manufacturingcladogramrsquorsquo International Journal of Technology Management Vol 13 No 3 pp 269-86

McCarthy IP Leseure M Ridgway K and Fieller N (2000c) ` Organisational diversityevolution and cladistic classificationsrsquorsquo The International Journal of Management Scienceplusmn OMEGA Vol 28 pp 77-95

McKelvey B (1975) ` Guidelines for empirical classification of organisationsrsquorsquo AdministrativeScience Quarterly Vol 20 pp 509-25

McKelvey B (1978) ` Organizational systematics taxonomy lessons from biologyrsquorsquo ManagementScience Vol 24 No 13 pp 1428-40

Miles R and Snow C (1978) Organizational Strategy Structure and Process McGraw-Hill NewYork NY

Minelli A (1994) Biological Systematics The State of the Art Chapman amp Hall London

BIJ84

304

Mintzberg H (1979) The Structuring of Organizations Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ

Morrison DA (1996) ` Phylogenetic tree-buildingrsquorsquo International Journal of Parasitology Vol 26No 6 pp 589-617

Perrow C (1970) Organisational Analysis A Sociological Review BrooksCole Belmont CA

Rich P (1992) Òrganizational taxonomy definition and designrsquorsquo Academy of ManagementReview Vol 17 No 4 pp 758-81

Schmitt TG Klastorin T and Shtub A (1985) `Production classification system concepts modelsand strategiesrsquorsquo International Journal of Production Research Vol 23 No 3 pp 563-78

Sedgwick S (1995) ` Benchmarking and best practice promise and performancersquorsquo AustralianJournal of Public Administration Vol 54 No 3 pp 401-7

Sharp JM Irani Z and Desai S (1999) `Working towards agile manufacturing in the UKindustryrsquorsquo The International Bi-Monthly for Total Quality Management InternationalJournal of Production Economics Vol 62 No 1 pp 155-69

Shetty YK (1993) Àiming high competitive benchmarking for superior performancersquorsquo LongRange Planning Vol 26 No 1 pp 39-44

Simpson M Kondouli D and Wai HP (1999) ` From benchmarking to business process re-engineering a case studyrsquorsquo Total Quality Management Journal Vol 10 Nos 45 pp 717-25

Spendolini MJ (1992) The Benchmarking Book American Management Association New YorkNY

Thompson JD (1967) Organisations in Action McGraw-Hill New York NY

Ulrich D and McKelvey B (1990) `General organizational classification an empirical test usingthe United States and Japanese electronics industriesrsquorsquo Organization Science Vol 1 No 1pp 99-118

Van Ripper PP (1966) ` Organisations basic issues and proposed typologyrsquorsquo in Bowers RV(Ed) Studies on Behaviour in Organisations University of Georgia Press Athens GA

Wareham J and Gerrits H (1999) ` De-contextualising competence can business best practicebe bundled and soldrsquorsquo European Management Journal Vol 17 No 1 pp 39-49

Watson GH (1992) The Benchmarking Workbook Adopting Best Practices for PerformanceImprovement Productivity Press Portland OR

Wild R (1971) The Techniques of Production Management Holt Reinhart and Winston London

Wild R (1989) Production and Operations Management Cassel London Ch 1

Wiley EO Siegel-Causey D Brooks DR and Funk VA (1991) The Compleat Cladist APrimer of Phylogenetic Procedures The University of Kansas Lawrence KS

Womack JP Jones DT and Roos D (1990) The Machine that Changed the World RawsonAssociates New York NY

Yusuf YY Sarhadi M and GunasekaranA (1999) Àgile manufacturing the drivers conceptsand attributesrsquorsquo International Journal of Production Economics Vol 62 Nos 1-2 pp 33-43

Zairi M and Ahmed PZ (1999) ` Benchmarking maturity as we approach the millenniumrsquorsquoTotal Quality Management Nos 45 July pp 810-16

Further reading

Aldrich HE (1979) Organizations amp Environments Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ

Cheng TCE and Musaphir H (1996) ` Theory and practice of manufacturing strategyrsquorsquoInternational Journal of Production Research Vol 35 No 5 pp 1243-1259

Dence R (1995) `Best practices benchmarkingrsquorsquo in Holloway JL Performance Measurementand Evaluation Sage Publishers London pp 124-52


benchmarking

305

Emery FE and Trist EL (1965) ` The casual texture of organisational environmentsrsquorsquo HumanRelations Vol 18 pp 21-32

Everitt B (1986) Cluster Analysis 2nd ed Gower Publishing Aldershot

Garvin DA (1993) `Manufacturing strategic planningrsquorsquo California Management Review Vol 35No 4 pp 85-106

Gordon CW and Babchuk N (1958) À typology of voluntary organisationsrsquorsquo AmericanSociological Review Vol 24 pp 22-3

Hannan MT and Freeman J (1977) ` The population ecology of organisationsrsquorsquo AmericanJournal of Sociology Vol 82 pp 929-64

Lenz S Myers S Nordlund S and Vasista V (1994) `Benchmarking finding ways to improversquorsquoJournal of Quality Improvement Vol 20 No 5 pp 250-9

Leong GK and Ward PT (1995) ` The six Ps of manufacturing strategyrsquorsquo International Journalof Operations and Production Management Vol 15 No 12 pp 32-45

LeseureM (1998) Using Phylogenetic Classifications to Understand and Manage the Complexificationof Manufacturing Systems University of Sheffield Sheffield

Lewin K (1951) Field Theory in Social Science Harper amp Row New York NY

March JC (1994) ` The evolution of evolutionrsquorsquo in Baum JAC and Singh JV (Eds)Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations Oxford University Press Oxford pp 39-52

McCalman J and Paton RA (1992) Change Management A Guide to Effective ImplementationPaul Chapman London

McKelvey B (1982) Organizational Systematics Taxonomy Evolution Classification Universityof California Press London

Pearce CL and Osmond CP (1996) `Metaphors for change the ALPs model of changemanagementrsquorsquo Organisational Dynamics Vol 24 No 3 pp 23-35

Ridley M (1985) The Problems of Evolution Oxford University Press London

Senior B (1997) Organisational Change Pitman Publishing London

Skinner W (1969) `Manufacturing plusmn missing link in corporate strategyrsquorsquo Harvard BusinessReview Vol 47 No 3 pp 136-45

Wheelwright SC (1984) `Manufacturing strategy environmental uncertainty and performancea path analytic modelrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 33 pp 509-24

Wolfram JR Mann L and SamsonD (1997) ` Benchmarkingas a mixed metaphor disentanglingassumptions of competition and collaborationrsquorsquo Journal of Management Studies Vol 34No 2 pp 285-315

Woodward J (1980) Industrial Organisation Theory and Practice Oxford University PressOxford pp 22-49

BIJ84

282

In summary this paper is divided into three parts First a review of thebenchmarking process is presented This is followed by an outline of thecladistic method and its relevance to organisations Finally the integration ofthe cladistic method with the benchmarking process is discussed along with anillustrative example that focuses on automotive assembly plants and the issueof agile working practices

Background on benchmarkingDefining benchmarking and its various forms can be a confusing task as bothmanagers and academics tend to create their own definitions according to theirperceptions and applications of the technique and philosophy Allan (1993)among others defines benchmarking as a technique that helps in measuring andcomparing the performance of an existing process product or service againstthat of the recognised best in class both outside and inside the company Allangoes further by stating that benchmarking can be seen as one of the qualityactivities that can be applied to process improvement Similarly Shetty (1993)explained that benchmarking is a continuous process of measuring productsservices and practices against the best competitors or those recognised asindustry leaders OrsquoDell states in The Benchmarking Workbook Adopting BestPractices for Performance Improvement (Watson 1992) that benchmarking is asequential process of learning the recipe for organisational success

In summary benchmarking is a process that facilitates learning andunderstanding of the organisation and its processes It enables organisations toidentify the key processes that need improvement and to search for applicablesolutions from the best in class

The application of benchmarking varies in terms of purpose and style TableI illustrates the different types of benchmarking whilst Table II shows that allbenchmarking models follow five generic stages

(1) planning

(2) analysis and data collection

(3) comparison and results

(4) change and

(5) verification and maturity

Among the advantages of benchmarking is its ability to draw on existingknowledge and tools for strategic planning competitive analysis processanalysis and improvement team building data collection and perhaps mostimportant organisational development Also benchmarking provides a highpayoff in terms of quality productivity and customer satisfaction when linked toa strategic planning framework (Daniels 1996) Consequently benchmarking is atechnique that helps in the implementation of change

Equally benchmarking provides an insight into prevailing businessperformance by observing the achievement of other organisations Thisinformation is often obtained through the examination of onersquos competitors Thus


benchmarking

283


























BIJ84

284A

Pamp

QC

mod

elB

axte

rrsquos

mod

elShet

tyrsquos

mod

elW

atso

nrsquos

mod

elSpen

dol

inirsquos

mod

elC

amprsquos

mod

el

Phas

e1

Pla

nnin

g1

Sel

ect

apro

cess

toben

chm

ark

1Id

enti

fyth

epro

cess

toben

chm

ark

1Id

enti

fica

tion

ofth

efu

nct

ion

tobe

ben

chm

arked

1P

lanunde

rsta

nd

and

mea

sure

crit

ical

succ

ess

fact

ors

1Id

enti

fyw

hat

toben

chm

ark

2E

stab

lish

man

agem

ent

com

mit

men

t

2D

eter

min

eth

epro

ject

rsquossc

ope

3Id

enti

fyth

eben

chm

arkin

gte

am

2Sel

ecti

onof

the

super

ior

per

form

ers

2Sea

rchre

sear

chap

pro

pri

ate

com

pan

ies

for

pro

cess

com

par

ison

2Id

enti

fyco

mpar

ativ

eco

mpan

ies

4D

efin

ean

dunder

stan

dth

epro

cess

tobe

ben

chm

arked

Phas

e2

Anal

ysi

san

ddat

aco

llec

tion

3C

hoo

seth

ere

levan

tm

easu

res

5Id

enti

fym

etri

csan

dim

ple

men

tth

ech

ange

3C

olle

ctio

nan

dan

alysi

sof

dat

a3

Obs

erve

mon

itor

proc

ess

per

form

ance

and

anal

yse

perf

orm

ance

gap

3Id

enti

fyben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

s

3D

eter

min

edat

aco

llec

tion

met

hod

and

collec

tdat

a

6Id

enti

fyth

era

nk

and

imple

men

tin

tern

alpro

cess

impro

vem

ent

4Stu

dy

per

form

ance

boo

stin

gbes

tpra

ctic

es

7Id

enti

fyben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

s

4E

stab

lish

per

form

ance

goa

ls4

Anal

yse

det

erm

ine

the

root

cause

sof

the

per

form

ance

gap

4C

olle

ctan

dan

alyse

ben

chm

arkin

gin

form

atio

n

4D

eter

min

ecu

rren

tper

form

ance

gap

Phas

e3

Com

par

ison

and

resu

lts

5Ju

dge

appro

pri

aten

ess

and

adap

tpra

ctic

es(c

onti

nued

)



benchmarking

285

AP

ampQ

Cm

odel

Bax

terrsquo

sm

odel

Shet

tyrsquos

mod

elW

atso

nrsquos

mod

elSpen

dol

inirsquos

mod

elC

amprsquos

mod

el

6Id

enti

fycu

lture

issu

esan

dfa

ctor

s8

Col

lect

pro

cess

dat

afr

omben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

s5

Pro

ject

futu

reper

form

ance

level

s

Phas

e4

Chan

ge

9A

nal

yse

ben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

srsquopro

cess

dat

aan

dco

mpar

e

6C

omm

unic

ate

ben

chm

arkin

gfi

ndin

gs

and

gai

nac

cepta

nce

7P

lan

and

imple

men

tch

ange

5Im

ple

men

ting

pla

ns

and

mon

itor

ing

resu

lts

5A

dap

tse

lect

best

pra

ctic

esan

dm

odify

the

com

pany

envir

onm

ent

5T

ake

acti

on7

Est

ablish

funct

ional

goa

ls

10Sit

evis

its

inte

rvie

ws

and

rean

alyse

dat

a

8D

evel

opac

tion

pla

ns

9Im

ple

men

tsp

ecif

icac

tion

san

dm

onit

orpro

gre

ss

Phas

e5

Ver

ific

atio

nan

dm

aturi

ty

11Im

ple

men

tim

pro

vem

ents

and

mon

itor

resu

lts

10R

ecal

ibra

teben

chm

arks

8M

easu

rere

sult

sdo

paybac

kan

alysi

s8

Impro

veen

han

cean

din

tegra

tebusi

ness

pro

cess

impro

vem

ents

Lea

der

ship

pos

itio

nat

tain

ed

12C

onti

nue

toco

nduct

ben

chm

arkin

gof

this

pro

cess

Pra

ctic

esfu

lly

inte

gra

ted

into

pro

cess

Table II

BIJ84

286






benchmarking

287







classification

BIJ84

288













benchmarking

289






BIJ84

290






benchmarking

291










BIJ84

292








benchmarking

293






cladogram

BIJ84

294



















benchmarking

295





BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305





















benchmarking

283


























BIJ84

284A

Pamp

QC

mod

elB

axte

rrsquos

mod

elShet

tyrsquos

mod

elW

atso

nrsquos

mod

elSpen

dol

inirsquos

mod

elC

amprsquos

mod

el

Phas

e1

Pla

nnin

g1

Sel

ect

apro

cess

toben

chm

ark

1Id

enti

fyth

epro

cess

toben

chm

ark

1Id

enti

fica

tion

ofth

efu

nct

ion

tobe

ben

chm

arked

1P

lanunde

rsta

nd

and

mea

sure

crit

ical

succ

ess

fact

ors

1Id

enti

fyw

hat

toben

chm

ark

2E

stab

lish

man

agem

ent

com

mit

men

t

2D

eter

min

eth

epro

ject

rsquossc

ope

3Id

enti

fyth

eben

chm

arkin

gte

am

2Sel

ecti

onof

the

super

ior

per

form

ers

2Sea

rchre

sear

chap

pro

pri

ate

com

pan

ies

for

pro

cess

com

par

ison

2Id

enti

fyco

mpar

ativ

eco

mpan

ies

4D

efin

ean

dunder

stan

dth

epro

cess

tobe

ben

chm

arked

Phas

e2

Anal

ysi

san

ddat

aco

llec

tion

3C

hoo

seth

ere

levan

tm

easu

res

5Id

enti

fym

etri

csan

dim

ple

men

tth

ech

ange

3C

olle

ctio

nan

dan

alysi

sof

dat

a3

Obs

erve

mon

itor

proc

ess

per

form

ance

and

anal

yse

perf

orm

ance

gap

3Id

enti

fyben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

s

3D

eter

min

edat

aco

llec

tion

met

hod

and

collec

tdat

a

6Id

enti

fyth

era

nk

and

imple

men

tin

tern

alpro

cess

impro

vem

ent

4Stu

dy

per

form

ance

boo

stin

gbes

tpra

ctic

es

7Id

enti

fyben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

s

4E

stab

lish

per

form

ance

goa

ls4

Anal

yse

det

erm

ine

the

root

cause

sof

the

per

form

ance

gap

4C

olle

ctan

dan

alyse

ben

chm

arkin

gin

form

atio

n

4D

eter

min

ecu

rren

tper

form

ance

gap

Phas

e3

Com

par

ison

and

resu

lts

5Ju

dge

appro

pri

aten

ess

and

adap

tpra

ctic

es(c

onti

nued

)



benchmarking

285

AP

ampQ

Cm

odel

Bax

terrsquo

sm

odel

Shet

tyrsquos

mod

elW

atso

nrsquos

mod

elSpen

dol

inirsquos

mod

elC

amprsquos

mod

el

6Id

enti

fycu

lture

issu

esan

dfa

ctor

s8

Col

lect

pro

cess

dat

afr

omben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

s5

Pro

ject

futu

reper

form

ance

level

s

Phas

e4

Chan

ge

9A

nal

yse

ben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

srsquopro

cess

dat

aan

dco

mpar

e

6C

omm

unic

ate

ben

chm

arkin

gfi

ndin

gs

and

gai

nac

cepta

nce

7P

lan

and

imple

men

tch

ange

5Im

ple

men

ting

pla

ns

and

mon

itor

ing

resu

lts

5A

dap

tse

lect

best

pra

ctic

esan

dm

odify

the

com

pany

envir

onm

ent

5T

ake

acti

on7

Est

ablish

funct

ional

goa

ls

10Sit

evis

its

inte

rvie

ws

and

rean

alyse

dat

a

8D

evel

opac

tion

pla

ns

9Im

ple

men

tsp

ecif

icac

tion

san

dm

onit

orpro

gre

ss

Phas

e5

Ver

ific

atio

nan

dm

aturi

ty

11Im

ple

men

tim

pro

vem

ents

and

mon

itor

resu

lts

10R

ecal

ibra

teben

chm

arks

8M

easu

rere

sult

sdo

paybac

kan

alysi

s8

Impro

veen

han

cean

din

tegra

tebusi

ness

pro

cess

impro

vem

ents

Lea

der

ship

pos

itio

nat

tain

ed

12C

onti

nue

toco

nduct

ben

chm

arkin

gof

this

pro

cess

Pra

ctic

esfu

lly

inte

gra

ted

into

pro

cess

Table II

BIJ84

286






benchmarking

287







classification

BIJ84

288













benchmarking

289






BIJ84

290






benchmarking

291










BIJ84

292








benchmarking

293






cladogram

BIJ84

294



















benchmarking

295





BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305




















BIJ84

284A

Pamp

QC

mod

elB

axte

rrsquos

mod

elShet

tyrsquos

mod

elW

atso

nrsquos

mod

elSpen

dol

inirsquos

mod

elC

amprsquos

mod

el

Phas

e1

Pla

nnin

g1

Sel

ect

apro

cess

toben

chm

ark

1Id

enti

fyth

epro

cess

toben

chm

ark

1Id

enti

fica

tion

ofth

efu

nct

ion

tobe

ben

chm

arked

1P

lanunde

rsta

nd

and

mea

sure

crit

ical

succ

ess

fact

ors

1Id

enti

fyw

hat

toben

chm

ark

2E

stab

lish

man

agem

ent

com

mit

men

t

2D

eter

min

eth

epro

ject

rsquossc

ope

3Id

enti

fyth

eben

chm

arkin

gte

am

2Sel

ecti

onof

the

super

ior

per

form

ers

2Sea

rchre

sear

chap

pro

pri

ate

com

pan

ies

for

pro

cess

com

par

ison

2Id

enti

fyco

mpar

ativ

eco

mpan

ies

4D

efin

ean

dunder

stan

dth

epro

cess

tobe

ben

chm

arked

Phas

e2

Anal

ysi

san

ddat

aco

llec

tion

3C

hoo

seth

ere

levan

tm

easu

res

5Id

enti

fym

etri

csan

dim

ple

men

tth

ech

ange

3C

olle

ctio

nan

dan

alysi

sof

dat

a3

Obs

erve

mon

itor

proc

ess

per

form

ance

and

anal

yse

perf

orm

ance

gap

3Id

enti

fyben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

s

3D

eter

min

edat

aco

llec

tion

met

hod

and

collec

tdat

a

6Id

enti

fyth

era

nk

and

imple

men

tin

tern

alpro

cess

impro

vem

ent

4Stu

dy

per

form

ance

boo

stin

gbes

tpra

ctic

es

7Id

enti

fyben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

s

4E

stab

lish

per

form

ance

goa

ls4

Anal

yse

det

erm

ine

the

root

cause

sof

the

per

form

ance

gap

4C

olle

ctan

dan

alyse

ben

chm

arkin

gin

form

atio

n

4D

eter

min

ecu

rren

tper

form

ance

gap

Phas

e3

Com

par

ison

and

resu

lts

5Ju

dge

appro

pri

aten

ess

and

adap

tpra

ctic

es(c

onti

nued

)



benchmarking

285

AP

ampQ

Cm

odel

Bax

terrsquo

sm

odel

Shet

tyrsquos

mod

elW

atso

nrsquos

mod

elSpen

dol

inirsquos

mod

elC

amprsquos

mod

el

6Id

enti

fycu

lture

issu

esan

dfa

ctor

s8

Col

lect

pro

cess

dat

afr

omben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

s5

Pro

ject

futu

reper

form

ance

level

s

Phas

e4

Chan

ge

9A

nal

yse

ben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

srsquopro

cess

dat

aan

dco

mpar

e

6C

omm

unic

ate

ben

chm

arkin

gfi

ndin

gs

and

gai

nac

cepta

nce

7P

lan

and

imple

men

tch

ange

5Im

ple

men

ting

pla

ns

and

mon

itor

ing

resu

lts

5A

dap

tse

lect

best

pra

ctic

esan

dm

odify

the

com

pany

envir

onm

ent

5T

ake

acti

on7

Est

ablish

funct

ional

goa

ls

10Sit

evis

its

inte

rvie

ws

and

rean

alyse

dat

a

8D

evel

opac

tion

pla

ns

9Im

ple

men

tsp

ecif

icac

tion

san

dm

onit

orpro

gre

ss

Phas

e5

Ver

ific

atio

nan

dm

aturi

ty

11Im

ple

men

tim

pro

vem

ents

and

mon

itor

resu

lts

10R

ecal

ibra

teben

chm

arks

8M

easu

rere

sult

sdo

paybac

kan

alysi

s8

Impro

veen

han

cean

din

tegra

tebusi

ness

pro

cess

impro

vem

ents

Lea

der

ship

pos

itio

nat

tain

ed

12C

onti

nue

toco

nduct

ben

chm

arkin

gof

this

pro

cess

Pra

ctic

esfu

lly

inte

gra

ted

into

pro

cess

Table II

BIJ84

286






benchmarking

287







classification

BIJ84

288













benchmarking

289






BIJ84

290






benchmarking

291










BIJ84

292








benchmarking

293






cladogram

BIJ84

294



















benchmarking

295





BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305





















benchmarking

285

AP

ampQ

Cm

odel

Bax

terrsquo

sm

odel

Shet

tyrsquos

mod

elW

atso

nrsquos

mod

elSpen

dol

inirsquos

mod

elC

amprsquos

mod

el

6Id

enti

fycu

lture

issu

esan

dfa

ctor

s8

Col

lect

pro

cess

dat

afr

omben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

s5

Pro

ject

futu

reper

form

ance

level

s

Phas

e4

Chan

ge

9A

nal

yse

ben

chm

arkin

gpar

tner

srsquopro

cess

dat

aan

dco

mpar

e

6C

omm

unic

ate

ben

chm

arkin

gfi

ndin

gs

and

gai

nac

cepta

nce

7P

lan

and

imple

men

tch

ange

5Im

ple

men

ting

pla

ns

and

mon

itor

ing

resu

lts

5A

dap

tse

lect

best

pra

ctic

esan

dm

odify

the

com

pany

envir

onm

ent

5T

ake

acti

on7

Est

ablish

funct

ional

goa

ls

10Sit

evis

its

inte

rvie

ws

and

rean

alyse

dat

a

8D

evel

opac

tion

pla

ns

9Im

ple

men

tsp

ecif

icac

tion

san

dm

onit

orpro

gre

ss

Phas

e5

Ver

ific

atio

nan

dm

aturi

ty

11Im

ple

men

tim

pro

vem

ents

and

mon

itor

resu

lts

10R

ecal

ibra

teben

chm

arks

8M

easu

rere

sult

sdo

paybac

kan

alysi

s8

Impro

veen

han

cean

din

tegra

tebusi

ness

pro

cess

impro

vem

ents

Lea

der

ship

pos

itio

nat

tain

ed

12C

onti

nue

toco

nduct

ben

chm

arkin

gof

this

pro

cess

Pra

ctic

esfu

lly

inte

gra

ted

into

pro

cess

Table II

BIJ84

286






benchmarking

287







classification

BIJ84

288













benchmarking

289






BIJ84

290






benchmarking

291










BIJ84

292








benchmarking

293






cladogram

BIJ84

294



















benchmarking

295





BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305




















BIJ84

286






benchmarking

287







classification

BIJ84

288













benchmarking

289






BIJ84

290






benchmarking

291










BIJ84

292








benchmarking

293






cladogram

BIJ84

294



















benchmarking

295





BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305





















benchmarking

287







classification

BIJ84

288













benchmarking

289






BIJ84

290






benchmarking

291










BIJ84

292








benchmarking

293






cladogram

BIJ84

294



















benchmarking

295





BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305




















BIJ84

288













benchmarking

289






BIJ84

290






benchmarking

291










BIJ84

292








benchmarking

293






cladogram

BIJ84

294



















benchmarking

295





BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305





















benchmarking

289






BIJ84

290






benchmarking

291










BIJ84

292








benchmarking

293






cladogram

BIJ84

294



















benchmarking

295





BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305




















BIJ84

290






benchmarking

291










BIJ84

292








benchmarking

293






cladogram

BIJ84

294



















benchmarking

295





BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305





















benchmarking

291










BIJ84

292








benchmarking

293






cladogram

BIJ84

294



















benchmarking

295





BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305




















BIJ84

292








benchmarking

293






cladogram

BIJ84

294



















benchmarking

295





BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305





















benchmarking

293






cladogram

BIJ84

294



















benchmarking

295





BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305




















BIJ84

294



















benchmarking

295





BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305





















benchmarking

295





BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305




















BIJ84

296









benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305





















benchmarking

297








BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305




















BIJ84

298



benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305





















benchmarking

299

















List of characters

BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305




















BIJ84

300



benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305





















benchmarking

301








BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305




















BIJ84

302





References













benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305





















benchmarking

303

























BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305




















BIJ84

304






















Further reading





benchmarking

305





















benchmarking

305




















Documents

An evolutionary approach to benchmarking · organisational types. To catalogue such diversity and to facilitate learning between different configurations requires a classification