- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
- Posts
Dear Sir,
I’m quite confused for (iii) evaluating the approach to benchmarking used.
My evaluation starts from the idea of 7 steps for benchmarking exercise.
1. There is no predefined objective for this benchmarking. The purpose of this exercise is not clear. Is it for improvement of quality? or production efficiency?
2. The organization, I.e. GM, chose for performing comparative study is inappropriate. There is not a single area of GM which is better than Boltzman itself. Therefore it is not an effective benchmarking exercise for Boltzman.
Is it the biggest problem of the benchmarking? Is my point valid?
Thanks
1 – Benchmarking can be across a wide range of measures. There is no reason why financial performance, efficiency and quality cannot all be benchmarked. Indeed, it might suggest linkages: low efficiency, leading to poor financial performance.
2 – More information about GM would be useful. If GM is the only major competitor, then benchmarking against that organisation will be useful. If it is an insignificant competitor the benchmarking is rather pointless (however, revenues indicate they are of comparable size so benchmarking against GM is probably useful). However, I don’t think benchmarking is undermined just because you find out you are good or better at something. Perhaps no other firm is better than you.
[Note: the performance prism (part (a)) is no longer on the syllabus]
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.