This maturity grid can be used as a simple self-assessment tool for assessing how well developed your organisation’s systems are for applying benchmarking. It presents 12 characteristics of successful benchmarking approaches and classifies them in terms of four stages of benchmarking maturity. This enables your organisation to assess its stage of development in terms of innocence/awareness, understanding, competence, and excellence.
2010 revisions compiled by Dr John Bullivant, Good Governance Institute and Paul Cherrett, BT & peer reviewed by members of the Benchmarking Institute 24 8 2010.
|Benchmarking Maturity Matrix (2010)||Innocence / Awareness||Understanding||Competence||Excellence||Maturity|
|Reasons for Adopting the Benchmarking Process||Self Assessment has identified that we should get some positioning benchmarks||Recognise the value. Need to know how others do it better. Can we get some process improvement by its use. Benchmarking not benchmarks||Benchmarking positioned against other tools and techniques.||To gain a competitive edge and achieve best in class. In a position to win awards. EFQM, Baldrige etc||Sophisticated systematic application, proud to share with others|
|Sponsoring of Benchmarking||Lip Service||Provision of resources and championing||Active participation by senior management. Awareness of the costs of using the tool.||Full involvement, benchmarking is built into the management process. Value versus cost attributed.||Board level commitment; Advocates are willing to promote on public platforms.|
|Use and Commitment of Resources||None or part time||Benchmarking skill recognized as part of job/role descriptions.||Dedicated centralised or decentralised expertise available to operational business units||Systematic and Business as Usual integrated. All management support the necessary data gathering and time commitment to execute successful studies||Investment is secured- spend to gain|
|Innovative Selection of Benchmarking Partners||Industrial tourism. Anyone willing to talk to us.||Process selection before partner selection but partners often within the same industry Generally competitors/look-a-likes only.|
Senior ‘best guess’ selection choices.
|Creative selection outside of industry in search for world class||Screening of partners based on key metric surveys coupled with desk research investigation for collateral evidence.||Embedded tracking of best practice process exemplar companies. Relationships built and maintained to secure continuous learning.|
|Use of a Benchmarking Process||Trial and error||Seen or read the handbook||Facilitated expertise available||Review of the process takes place as part of the benchmarking activity||Own benchmarking system reviewed against best practice, measured with outcome benefit tracked to confirm delivery of business benefit.|
|Appropriateness of Benchmarking Team||Interested untrained parties||Team or leader trained at recognised external/internal training courses||Specially selected and all team members are trained. Teams are facilitated or facilitation skills are available as and when required.||Self generation from within and without the organisation, e.g. customers/suppliers||Qualified Peer group of experienced benchmarkers available in-house to lead and support new teams|
|Understanding of the Process to be Benchmarked||No documented knowledge||Understand strengths and weaknesses||Process mapped, documented, measured and owned at all levels||Reviewed and continually improved. KPIs fully integrated and quantified against external benchmarks||Organisation has key ‘mission-critical’ processes mapped and reviewed at planned intervals; New high risk/opportunity processes added through systematic sifting process|
|External Research Methods||Ear to the ground Industrial tourism. Random internet searches. Conference attendance.||Use of off-shelf sources of information.. Leveraging central data resources. Members of benchmarking networks and standards bodies..||Application of structured data capture mechanisms, questionnaires.. More systematic and sophisticated in their approach to research. Pro-active use of benchmarking networks and standards bodies.||Subject Matter Experts engaged in Creative participation and facilitation of bespoke Special Interest Networks for focus topic areas.||Research and Audit processes are linked to CQI/Benchmarking. Benchmarking Networks encouraged and sponsored at senior level|
|Probity||Industrial spies. Illegal or damaging approaches to partners||Awareness of the need for some form of partner non disclosure agreement||Advocate and comply fully with spirit of benchmarking code of conduct,|
Address all issues and concerns of stakeholders.
|Improving the code of conduct through legality and refinements of compliance law.||Compliance with code of conduct audited at corporate level. Lawyers constructively support benchmarking whilst complying with ‘competition’ law constraints|
|Making the Results of Studies Happen||Denial or piecemeal acceptance of benchmarking analysis||Output from analysis assessed Reports produced and accepted by sponsor.||Implementation resource provided AllTrial adoption of learning., then adapted to best fit situation||Seamless integration into action. Best Practice assimilation accepted as the norm||Anticipated outcomes built into forward plans|
|Measurement of Organisational Change||Don’t know if it made a difference. Benefits not quantified||Process measurements in place and improvements tracked||Seen as a driver for creativity and innovation. External stakeholder feedback received as a result of improved performance||Improved competitive advantage as direct result of study implementation cycle.||Return on Investment built into investment/funding decision. Non implementation triggers root cause analysis|
|Win-Win Relationships||Mutual relationships not established||Results passed back to partners. Projects used as internal case studies to attract others||Relationships established with partners. Mutually recognized success is agreed and promoted externally.||Benchmarking Partner Relationship is ongoing and open for further two-way opportunities||An open-door relationship is established at working and executive level.|
© 2017 Good Governance Ltd.