Benchmarking Criteria and Adoption in Designing Business School’s Performance Management System

Abstract

This paper aims to present a principle to the business school institution that have slight familiarity in espousing benchmarking toward better performance. This is done since designing performance management system, espescially in defining key indicators is essential in achieving improvement process and better service. One approach to assist institution -notwithstanding with some pitfalls in it- is benchmarking. Moreover given the fact that industry best practice may never be found as it also relate with organizational culture, the criteria to adopt benchmarking strategy become crucial. The study conducts through a series of descriptive study to top nine Indonesia’s business schools. The research stages start with literature surveys of several published article in international journal related with benchmarking criteria and adoption that have been done by previous researchers. Followed by descriptive study through observation, interviews, document reviews, and filling out the questionnaire by the dean or vice dean of academic as well as the quality assurance administrator. By accomplishing analysis, it revealed four factors with internal factors as the most influential factors on benchmarking criteria and adoption, followed by functional; competitive factors; and the last is process, and along with factor analysis came up ten criteria for benchmark strategy implementation. By carrying out such research finding, it will be useful as a basis for decision maker in formulating the business school’s strategy for enhancing the global competitiveness for the foreseeable future.

Enhancing the Islamic education in Kurikulum Merdeka through international benchmarking: A transdisciplinary study

“…This wide-ranging approach looks at the processes by which results are accomplished (Ali Al-Khalifa, 2015;Ruby, 2013b;Scott, 2011). The type of benchmarking is not restricted to any institution (Rashed & Un, 2018), such as conducting benchmarking by visiting other schools once a year (Azis et al, 2013). The seventh type of benchmarking, functional benchmarking, involves comparing a single process (Vught et al, 2008) of an institution with another institution that is not a competitor but shares a standard function.…”

Layout Criteria for Enhancing Indonesian SMEs Production’s Performance

“…Several common problems often occured for designing layout for small factory, i.e. difficulties in locating the facilities (e.g., machines, departments) in a plant (Chikwendu & Okechukwu, 2016;Drira, Pierreval, & Hajri-Gabouj, 2007) ineffective material flows (Sharma, Singh, & Singhal, 2013) unflexible layout as difficult and slow in changing the production type (De Carlo, Arleo, Borgia, & Tucci, 2013) critical and complex task due to the increasing demands (Azise, Simatupang, Wibisono, & Basri, 2013;Benabes, Poirson, & Bennis, 2013) and hard modules of unequal dimensions in open space (Tasadduq, Imam, & Ahmad, 2015).…”

B-School’s Readiness Standards for Encountering Asean Economic Community

“…Furthermore those skills are needed to become an effective employees and effective leaders in their field in the future. 8 9 However, based on real situation in Indonesia, the institution of higher education is facing lots of obstacles in graduating student with those above characteristics or skills, due to standards incongruity; 10 11 various frameworks; blurred vision, strategies, and incompact fundamental foundation in managing institution performance; 12 13 and the failures of self evaluation and fuzziness of benchmarking processes, [14][15][16][17][18][19] likewise these issues has been on solemn agenda for last twenty years. 20 Furthermore, in line with it, although quality assurance has long been considered as one of main pillars for higher education development in four ASEAN countries, i.e., Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand, the level of quality development among countries in this region is still quite diverse.…”

“…27 28 In addition, the existing performance standards despite of their relative benefits also have limitations. Several identified limitations are: (1) Override the existing system; 29 (2) Neglect the contextuality externally or internally; (3) Not equipped with guidance for benchmarking processes; 17 (4) No formulation for improvement recommendations for each poor performance. Moreover, it takes a systemic perspective on managing improvement and critically review dominant approaches to quality in higher education, and suggested to shift the quality activities focus from accountability and control to improvement.…”