Achieving internal process benchmarking: guidance from BASF

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of the work discussed in this paper is to understand, analyse and benchmark the “Packing and Filling” processes within BASF. A benchmarking project is described in detail which aimed to cover sites in different countries that supplied many different variants of finished goods in order to establish best practice and then to generate some options for their implementation.Design/methodology/approachThe project used an adaptation of accepted benchmarking methodology combined with other techniques (such as rich picture generation, and cluster analysis) to maximise the insight generated.FindingsThe findings of the research showed that one of the main factors effecting the process was how third parties were used (e.g. extent and nature of out‐sourcing, and its degree of centralisation).Research limitations/implicationsThe exercise was challenged by the selection of suitably similar benchmarking candidates because the environment was complex and highly varied; the paper explains practical solutions for dealing with this challenge.Practical limitationsStrategic and tactical options are outlined at the end of the paper and will have applicability to other organisations and industries that are looking to find the answers to frequently asked questions about how to successfully implement an internal process benchmarking project in a large complex organisation that has high variety in end products and delivery methods.Originality/valueThe methodology described in this paper is of a proprietary and unique nature. The paper is structured around some key questions commonly asked of benchmarking, and the answers are provided via a real in‐depth case study from BASF that spans 4 sites in 3 countries using 15 different filling lines.

Measuring the operational performance of intensive care units using the analytic hierarchy process approach

“…They are as follows:Services are multi‐factorial and the factors are both objective and subjective in nature. The proposed model can analyze system performance by consideration of both objective and subjective factors.The model is based on quantitative analysis.The model considers the views of the process owners.Performance measurement is a group‐decision‐making process, and the model works in a group consensus situation.The proposed model is dynamic in nature and helps organizations to continuously monitor performance.The model is easily understandable and user‐friendly.The model enables deficiencies to be identified in the area under investigation allowing specific improvement initiatives to be undertaken.The sensitivity utility of the model allows prioritisation of improvement measures.The model can be computerized.Implementation of the model is supported by a six step methodology.It allows performance benchmarking to be conducted in complex environments (Binder et al , 2007). Consideration of critical success factors for the entire system provides holistic measures of system performance and suggests the means for improving performance.However, the proposed AHP based model suffers from the following limitations:Although this study made every effort to quantify performance measures by modelling all factors of success in specific service operations in accordance with perceptions of experienced process owners, subjectivity could not be eliminated completely.Although this model allows a comparative analysis of performance to be performed arising in suggested improvement measures, it fails to derive an independent absolute performance measurement of a system.Although the study was conducted with the consensus judgement of the concerned stakeholders, differences of opinion were also observed in a few cases, which were resolved by detailed discussions.AHP has an inability to indicate those judgements that need to be revised and Expertchoice™ gives a recommended revision regardless of whether the recommended value fits within the 9‐point scale of AHP.…”

Benchmarking knowledge gaps through role simulations for assessing outsourcing viability

“…This paper proposes that this can be achieved through a well‐structured benchmarking process during the PEP evaluation phase. The importance of benchmarking for evaluating business processes has been pointed out by earlier researchers like Binder et al (2006). The advantage of using a benchmarking process to foster knowledge acquisition has also been highlighted (Massa and Testa, 2004).…”

Barriers to internal benchmarking initiatives: an empirical investigation

“…In our review of the implementation literature, we found great variation in the detailed steps used by companies in carrying out benchmarking (Bhutta and Huq, 1999;Southard and Parente, 2007;Maire et al, 2005;Binder et al, 2006). For example, Bhutta and Huq (1999) report that some companies have used up to 33 steps, while others have used only four.…”