H. James Harrington has published two different benchmarking process models, both with great details, but one as flowchart and one in pure text format. The latter one in pure text format published in Harrington and Harrington (1996), was chosen for evaluation. The 4 studied models of pure text format developed for the production environment, varied in number of steps from 5 to 20 with average no. of steps equal 10,75. None of them displays any extreme features or widespread use, and a selection of one of the models could be done arbitrary. Due to the low or medium number of steps in the other models selected for evaluation, the reason for choosing this model was it’s high number of steps or what the Harrington and Harrington call activities.
The number of activities are 20. Thus, the 5 selected models would have a good variety of number of steps and therefore represent models with different number of steps quite well. The model is shown in Table 10.2.
Benchmarking Phase Related Activities
1. Identify what to benchmark 2. Obtain top management support 3. Develop the measurement plan 4. Develop the data collection plan 5. Review the plans with location experts 6. Characterize the benchmark item 7. Collect and analyze internal published
information
8. Select potential internal benchmarking sites 9. Collect internal original research information 10. Conduct interviews and surveys
11. Form an internal benchmarking committee 12. Conduct internal site visits
13. Collect external published information 14. Collect external original research
information
15. Identify corrective actions 16. Develop an implementation plan
17. Gain top management approval of the future-state solution
18. Implement the future-state solution and measure its impact
19. Maintain the benchmarking database 20. Implement continuos performance
improvement
Table 10.2: Benchmarking process model by Harrington and Harrington.
An evaluation of this benchmarking process follows below:
Process criteria
1. Steps: Even though this process contained as many as 20 steps, important activities such as organizing the benchmarking study and team selection were missing. Between step 14 and 15, there seem to lack a step like analysis or establishing the reasons for the performance gap.
The number of steps were so many that it got confusing, and the steps seemed to be addressed to a specific environment within production. In sum, the steps could not be used as they were and would need adjustments if they were to be used for benchmarking of project management processes.
2. Sequence: The activities that were present did not always follow a natural flow.
Step 11 (Form an internal benchmarking committee) seemed to appear in an awkward order, since “team selection” was non-existent and not in the early steps. It is left in the open what personnel that are going to do the ten steps up to step 11. Another step that seem to be in an awkward order is step 6 (Characterize the benchmark item), that appears after step 3 (Develop the measurement plan). One should characterize or get to know the benchmarking item, before the metrics and measures are decided upon. The model would seem to follow a better flow, if step 6 was moved up before step 3. In sum, the criterion was not fully satisfied.
3. Organize: There were a focus on organizing the benchmarking study. Activities like forming a benchmarking committee and obtain management support were relevant. However, the organization issues should be addressed more specifically.
4. Processes: There were no focus on processes at all in this benchmarking process. The word process was non-existent. Thus, the criterion was not met.
5. Overview: The first step was: “Identify what to benchmark”. It did not focus on getting an overview of what different items (or processes) that could be improved by a benchmarking study. The criterion was not met.
6. Metrics: The benchmarking process step 3 stated a need for developing a measurement plan, but it did not specifically state that metrics should be developed. The focus on developing metrics and measures could have been more direct. The criterion was partially met.
7. Improvement: The process did focus well on improvement and had focus on improvement action in several steps, i.e. as many as 5, thus ensuring this important part of a benchmarking study.
8. Understand: While 20 steps provided detailed instructions for the user, it seemed to bee too detailed to be user-friendly and allowing for making any personal adaptions of the benchmarking process. The number of steps itself could make it hard to memorize and keep track of the progress of the benchmarking study. However, the language was in general easy to understand, although it is not clear what the step 6 and the term “characterize” includes in this context.
Model criteria
1. Key issues: Since no graphics were used, this criterion did not apply to this model.
2. Temporary: The process states clearly a continuos nature of benchmarking, and not a temporary that is believed to be the nature of benchmarking in the project environment. Although in text form, the criterion was not met.
3. Understand: Since no graphics were used, this criterion did truly not apply to this model. However, the lack of a graphic illustration did clearly not add
any features that could help to understand or memorize the process better.
4. Aesthetic: A pure textual representation did not help to enhance the process itself. The appearance of such a model was not attractive, but rather plain, adding nothing to the appeal of the benchmarking process model.