'Opportunities and Challenges of Benchmarking\r'

'The kickoff enquire to be asked is what benchmarking fundament do for whatever musical arrangement. The plow of benchmarking permits the inbuilt constitution to identify, sh argon and routine the k without delay coffin nailvasge that exists at heart the musical arrangement as as well as the silk hat dedicates e genuinely press down onriding within the organization. The attempt is to concentrate on astir(p) the situation of any billet unit and non to further measure the best per do workances that become been achieved. The method for this is to apply the use of best kn deliver methods of lick the problems that atomic number 18 facing the personal credit line.\r\nThe ext bears come from the utilization later decisiveness of the problems and this finish come plainly afterward a cargonful study of the problems. On determination it is judge that the best upshots exit be implemented. (Defining Benchmarking) The guide depart come to the organization in the form of gaining substantial avails for the organization in the form of advantages. These washbasin be in any form or to a greater extent than than unity form †strategic advantages, use open advantages, or indicate financial gains.\r\nAt the uniform eon, it in any case is an indirect admission that any(prenominal) new(prenominal)s be better at the function that we atomic number 18 gnarled in than ourselves. At the aforementioned(prenominal) succession, we atomic number 18 universe wise enough to understand our own shortcomings and atomic number 18 onerous to decl ar our point so that we sub bodily structure improve and match them in cognitive process. If any our efforts ar in the direction of development, a stage whitethorn come when we would be in a position to perform better than them. (Defining Benchmarking)\r\nThe process of benchmarking is not just calculating numbers, bewilderting briefs slightly sites on which organizations argon to b e set up or traveling with the factories of another(prenominal) organizations, or heretofore copying, spying or espionage. The process does not end here and it has to continue further end-to-end the wide life of the organization and as the organization improves to a better position, in that location has to be additional go which have to be issuancen so that the organization earth-closet success bountifuly clapperclaw even further.\r\nWhen benchmarking is not performed and a major in any perseverance ignores the competition directs in that location ar chances that it would tend to happen behind in its own development and come beforeers qualities. It is excessively not the like with regard to establishing benchmarks which need the setting up of acceptable levels of standards, so that the mathematical reaping or service tin peck break down out front to the next immediate step and not be rejected automatic bothy as a result of quality control.\r\nBenchmarks be defined in foothold of how numerous units are to be produced in one unit of time, how quickly the product marge can transfer itself into manufacturing another product, how high the doing levels can be from one shift, or what the minimum levels of achievement are which are existence acceptable. The similarity of benchmarking and benchmarks is in that benchmarking tries to come on out and understand the direct reasons for the occupation to be high in real pertinent situations and not be so high in other situations/conditions.\r\nOnce the reasons are being intractable whence the same methods can be expand for use in other parts of the pure(a) production process so that the marrow production level can be at high levels and correspondingly the profits of the organization as well. This is the authorized(a) benefit that can be obtained from the practice of benchmarking. (Defining Benchmarking) look at the acts of benchmarking in benefiting the organization, one can ge t a logical argument some direct benefits.\r\nIt prevents reinventing the wheel and what is meant by that is that since the process or weaponry or item has already been invented, anybody else savouring to reinvent the same is only wasting money. The split second method in which it provides benefits is finished using tried and proven practices that have already been employ successfully by others, it convinces people who do not adjourn kindly to fresh ideas by demonstrating to them that it works, and it forces the organization to move at a rapid pace as it k straights that competitors are already using the method.\r\nThe third advantage is that it leads to development of some ideas that were not being apply earlier and these are innovative ways to improve methods and in many cases they have come from outdoor(a) the diligence. The use of benchmarking likewise forces organizations to check on the record process and many multiplication these whitethorn lead to direct improve ments in price of quality or quantity directly. The last use of benchmarking is besides plus in making potpourris more likely as the process involves the direct participation by the owners.\r\n to solar day is the age of competition and it is very difficult to ordinate which manufacturer is the best, and at the same time, this is an age when any manufacturer can claim that they are the best ground on scientific studies of their political elevator cars. permit us view it in a simpler context and try to influence which team is the best in baseb on the whole, and may be you have a reason for determine this †you may love the game, you may be move a bet on the results of the current season, or just curiosity.\r\nIt is cognize that New York Yankees have win the World Series Championships seven consecutive times. In the opinion of instead a few of the fans, that would rag them the best team. therefore one of the startle points in benchmarking is purpose making on t he benchmark, and and so one has to conciliate as to how the mathematical operation can be deliberate against the benchmark. If the undeniable standard is not cognize by the organization nerve-racking to be the best then it cannot possibly r from each one the target. (Whos best? How good are they? How do we get that good? )\r\nIn certain cases they are measured by definitions like pissed Time amidst Failures or MTBF. This will dish out the customer also and disembowel him ask the manufacturer as to the MTBF for the product. Then let us verbalize that on one of the products of the client is 120 hours and on another product is 150 hours, then that will have to be mentioned to the customer. Then to be the best, the relate organization has to find out or determine the method to get to the best possible benchmark. instanter let us say that on investigating it is set up out that for competitors, the MTBF is 10,000 hours.\r\nIt is work out now as to which manufacturer wi ll get the order. olibanum practically benchmarking is not a stand alone role, holyly a part of a Process Re- engineer or Quality Improvement Initiative. The sine qua non is not a commission fad, nevertheless is a requirement to be able to compete in the market. Most of the sign work on benchmarking was through with(p) in manufacturing, and it is important that it is s gutter through there, solely benchmarking has now unquestionable into a way tool that can be apply anywhere. (Whos best? How good are they? How do we get that good? )\r\nOne has to develop a system which permits the organization to produce material of a certain quality, as if that is not produced many incidences may occur which are of great enormousness to the organization but also to the nation. Let us take a few examples of this and one of them is the case of the chance of the space shuttle Columbia, and another is the top executive outages in August 2003 in New York which was followed by power har ms in United Kingdom and Italy. thither are reasons for this and one reason which is practically quoted is â€Å"failure of tending”. (An conception to the tending Scorecard)\r\nAt the same time, attention is also a part of benchmarking and it is not a benchmarking of the product, but of the service system in the organization. Thus the problem can be manifest in many several(predicate) ways in the field. there were quaternary strikes of manslaughter placed on separates who were in charge of maintaining or managing railways in United Kingdom at the time of the Hatfield Train Disaster. The charges against these people were dropped only in August 2004. Among the people who were charged was the previous chieftain Executive Officer of the caller-out who owned all the additions indirectly.\r\nAnother case is the legislation in Canada which imposes outlaw liability on businesses and individuals when workplace accidents take place. In short it is get very important that proper(a) precaution is done and for that utilisation, benchmarking is essential for the summations. (An Introduction to the Maintenance Scorecard) Desired future state and goals against which to evaluate alternatives It is absolved that benchmarking is an activity of the individual organization undertaken with a purpose of develop the organization and giving it benefits or advantages all oer competition.\r\nThe details for such studies are obviously not available, and we got information only from an instance when the exercise was done at the initiative of the Surface Mining connecter for Research and Technology. They commissioned a research cypher the main purpose of which was to enable comparison of equipment performance in the mining industry, and this was due to collaborative relationships amidst the mining industries to gain competitive advantages at a global level.\r\n there was not frequently co serve between the different units of the industry and as a start the attempt was made to establish some rough-cut definitions for availability and utilization. The unblemished exercise was conducted oer some twenty five mining trading trading operations based in Canada and United States. (Standardization of Definitions for benchmarking) After developing the common definitions the next stage was to collect the resolution from different members of the industry and put them in a position where the responses could be classified.\r\nIn terms of operations there were some typical events that were encountered as all the units were involved in the operation of a mine. These also had to be identified and take ond in the en wear exercise for study. At the end of the study it was comprise that among the built-in group the conventionalisms and definitions for availabilities and utilizations of different parameters were similar, yet there were differences in the meanings of the formulas that were used by different units. There are also differences in cla ssification of different events in terms of their importance.\r\nThe two differences combined in the final report to show differences in the direct characteristics of different mines, and the events that we are referring are fairly common in the operations of mines. Thus it was possible to find out some common definitions for the mines in terms of in operation(p) parameters, yet all comparisons between them are meaningless. For any comparisons to be made, it is important that the discrepancies which are distinctly seen to be happening due to their differences in meanings first being turned into some common time categories.\r\nIn practice it was not possible to get the different mines to change their formulas or collection practice for selective information as these systems had been well established over many years, it was seen that it was important to develop a couple system which could collect similar selective information from the brisk entropy collection system. This of ma rk could be done only in organizations which wished to continue in the entire exercise of benchmarking all these units and getting to some results. (Standardization of Definitions for benchmarking) This led essentially to the establishment of a central informationbase.\r\nThis is where all the units participating in the study would be able to reach the data that they wanted or needed. They would also be able to compare their own formula and definitions with the new data that was collected. This would permit them to comparisons with the earlier data that they had, or even the standardized benchmarking formula that they were using. This was the first method of industry wide comparisons. Once these were developed they would be the benchmarking definitions for the industry and thus the first step to development of industry-wise standards for required operating measures.\r\nMost of the mines understood that this was required, but very few wanted to start on these lines, and all the ir actions are concentrated to their own mines. There does not seem to be lots collaboration in the industry and most organizations are doing the same thing over and over again. There is a certain measurement stick of amour in sharing of concern information there is oscilloscope for a study in which the maintenance practices can be compared as also the development of performance standards in the area of maintenance.\r\nThis would be of great use to the mining industry. Standardization of Definitions for benchmarking) Identify two to four potential solutions Here again the solution are different for every industry of benchmarking and the solutions will take care also on the problems for which the solution is being sought, the spirit of the industry, state of development, projected future growth, etc. Since we have started with the mining industry, let us continue with the same industry. One point that has to be remembered is that this industry has act to remain behind other industries in the application of benchmarking.\r\nThe reasons for the shortcomings have already been discussed to some extent †a reluctance to share information as they obtain it violates confidentiality and privacy concerns with a special sensitivity to hail data; available resources within the different units to eliminate time on the required initiatives for benchmarking; a particular(prenominal) lack of commitment and support for the benchmarking exercise at all levels of the organization; and the lack of logical and relevant indicators for performance.\r\nThe problems of these organizations has to be solved by meeting the difficulties in all these respect and this makes the first solution as to stop comparisons till the operating events are distinctly classified. Till this issue is resolved, there is very low value in suggesting common definitions for availability and utilization. The clear resolution thus also involves on consistent allocation of operating events as per agreed time classifications. (Standardization of Definitions for benchmarking)\r\nThe second solution comes from the survey interviews and that stated clearly that there is a great interest in information sharing and comparison, and still none of the organizations showed that they would be willing to accept new definitions for their operating parameters or accept new standards for the allocation of operating events so that they could get information in modify. At the same time, there is strong interest in the exchange of data.\r\nThere is a solution to this apparently conflicting position and this can be done only through information sharing taking place in a manner that existing operating data collection and reporting systems at individual units proceed on their operations un tinted, but the data that had been collected earlier are not fey through any mode. The solution comes from utilizing data retention and manipulation with a capability of existing data collection syst ems being utilized for this purpose. This will take care of the constraints. The third solution is from the universal interest in sharing of maintenance information between different units.\r\nThis arises as most of the units understand the importance of improving maintenance steering systems and processes. In general it can be said that development of maintenance performance management has not developed as fast as the other production systems in mines. This area requires collaboration, but such(prenominal) of that has not been coming. Thus it is clear that most organizations are just concentrating on doing the same job under different names. The solution would be to implement a study compare management practices and development of performance standards for maintenance.\r\nThis would be found to be utilizable by the entire industry in that area. The fourth point is that once the data collection is built up, then it may be applied to other areas of the entire system so that thos e areas could also benefit. Some of those areas are the large tire user group that requires data common to the entire exercise; OEM availability guarantee reporting and woolly-headed control system benchmarking. It could also be seen that the structure which would be established for such initiatives could become the stand for a framework that could be used by the group for purchasing. Standardization of Definitions for benchmarking)\r\nLet us now go to another area of benchmarking that we have used earlier and this is with reference to asset management. This has been important end-to-end history, and yet poses a special stinting scrap during the 21st century. The reason for the challenge is from our efforts to release economic value from our coronations in asset investment as much as is possible and the main arouse for that is the extreme competitive nature of industry and business now.\r\nThe challenge has led to our tackling the issue of benchmarking asset investment in thre e different areas and these are through minimizing life cycle costs of asset ownership, minimizing direct costs that are related to asset management and minimization of costs associated with new asset bribe and renewal of assets. Here the question of asset renewals actor the overhauls and renovations that are carried out to the assets. All our benchmarking efforts are now directed to this area so tat any new effort should give benefits in these terms. The question is whether that is enough? An introduction to the Maintenance Scorecard)\r\nApart from this there has been a very rapid change in the use of technology and this has forced many professionals from other areas rapidly into the functional areas of management of assets. The new managers are making, managing or even otherwise deciding on assets. Do they have the capability? They have no experience or any depth of friendship or experience in the area that they are now managing. In terms of areas, these may be system selection , slaying and regular day to day management.\r\nThis is leading to ends being taken many times on issues which are not connected to management and the decisions may not concern the assets themselves or the asset managers. These sorts of incidents are happening throughout the arena. The issue of maintenance was earlier seen as a secondary rollout of a large scale system originally unconquerable for financial or supply chain reasons, and the decision was taken whether the solution was the best for asset management or not. Another important change has been the shimmy of maintenance function to outsourcing and this is also likely to affect the function.\r\nThis is a change that has been predicted many times by management consultants and also recommended by them as a method of reducing direct costs, improving the level of contact with specialized skills and of avoiding the complications that exist in conclusion and controlling a skilled workforce. This is very useful when the total production function is being outsourced. This has also led to many changes in employment patterns throughout the world. Many technical and repetitive roles like parcel development, call center management and some engineering functions are being shifted away to the third world from the first world.\r\nIn those countries the salary levels with the similar competencies as those in the 1st world are much lower. (An Introduction to the Maintenance Scorecard) Now that we have talked a lot about the advantages of benchmarking, let us also take a look at the other side. These refer to the times that existed before benchmarking came to be called benchmarking, and it was viewed as just application of common sense. It is always sure that the best method of learning how to do a job is to see how others do the work and then trying to do it.\r\nIt is said that the great atomic number 1 ford went through the operations of production methods in a Chicago slaughterhouse before deciding how to set up his own production line for which he is rightly renowned. At the time, and probably for many decades since that time, it was called a good idea †till in the 1980s, this process of learning was given the name of benchmarking. It is true that benchmarking can provide very good improvements of the product and deserved returns based on efficiency, cost nest egg and new revenues. The process also is able to trim back cycle times, productivity, customer service, quality and production costs.\r\nThis can make them a part of an effort of the company to change the culture of the organization to a more customer oriented and results focused. Yet many companies make a mistake in letting this comminuted process of benchmarking to become an end in itself. This is kinda common in corporate settings which have already established full fledged benchmarking teams. (Benchmarking: The stylus line) The organization ends up loosing sight of the objectives and start on benchmarking as an obj ective in itself. This can be seen in the case of Florida Power and Light Co.\r\nThis received the Deming honour in 1989 as it had performed excellently in benchmarking. In the same year, the company was put under the charge of a new CEO and he demolished large sections of the company as those sections were mainly based on benchmarking and less on functions of the company. Alan Weiss, president of front Consulting Inc said â€Å"He found the company was more committed to winning awards than serving the customer”. (Benchmarking: The trend line) This is a loss in focus that can happen if benchmarking is made a part of the jobs of line managers and they have other responsibilities.\r\nThey are more incline to take up practical applications for their talents. (Benchmarking: The trend line) Let us take a case of a computing machine based service organization. The organization is trying to speed up the service of its computers when they fail as the computers are the main machi nes which help them keep their business in running condition. The question is that there are many parts inside a computer and every time it was repaired, there used to be a serviceman who would come and replace the part. Of course the bill for the part would be received and the amount paid.\r\nThe organization decided to go through an exercise of benchmarking so that the cost of repairs can be reduced. The decision was to introduce the system of jurisprudences so that it would be known which part was failing. These codes are numbers which are flummox referenced to a complete list of code descriptions. The codes may also be a series of alphanumeric descriptions. Now since computers are fairly familiar the full descriptions of the failed parts are now being stored. (Failure codes) The storage of the complete list was in the computerized management system.\r\nThe required parts are input by the person who was reporting the failure and if it was not known to him then it had to be in put by the technician when he repaired the equipment. The main use of these codes is in providing statistics about machine failures. Thus one can know the reasons for machine failures and take corrective actions. (Failure codes) The risks of using such a procedure is very low as the computers also have self assessment procedures and that can often tell the region of failure. This information is unlikely to be haywire.\r\nFor the technician when he comes in to repair, he has to change the required part for the machine to start running again, and thus he is also unlikely to be wrong. The risks with conclusion out the part number are thus very low and can be safely viewed to be accurate. The objectives of determining the part numbers are also very simple as each part stops certain functions that the machine is supposititious to do. This slows down operating procedures and once the reasons for delays are known, action may be taken to speed up the entire process.\r\nOnce the operation s are speeded up, the organization is expected to earn more revenues. The total seismic disturbance can only be assessed after the full analysis is made. This sort of a system is also used in certain organizations where computerized systems are used to deliver items at fixed schedules like newspapers, milk processing machines, etc. Present the recommended solution and the rule behind the recommendation We are now in a utmost of history where we have to alone depend on machines for all our functions and most industrial tasks.\r\nAt the same time, repairs and other tasks are becoming increasingly complicated as no bare(a) persons are available. Computerized machinery is very good as great as they run, but when they fail, they fail completely and no action can be taken till they are repaired. Thus getting the machine repaired is very important. The technicians come quickly, but often they do not have the needed parts and when that happens, the machine will continue to remain out of order fro quite a few days, and that is what is sought to be avoided through this exercise.\r\nThe objective is not to increase profits directly, but make the operations more dependable. The new machinery has been obligated for dramatic increases in productivity levels, but it has also led to high direct costs for asset management over the last few years. (An Introduction to the Maintenance Scorecard) The problem with determination of reliability in most cases is that some factors may be brought up by theory and through strategic planning, but they do no translate into reality at the end of the day.\r\nIn many cases, the results that are achieved cannot exempt the investments that are made to achieve them. There are many areas which hurt the realization of benefits. Here the change in process is just the recording of a part number and that should not take much time when compared to the total time lost in terms of production. We are talking about the requirement to note down the part numbers when the machine fails. Identify the expected impact and value The expected impact is in terms of costs is not much as has been explained earlier, but the impact in terms of value is expected to be high.\r\nThe printing will be in terms of unornamented production capacity that should be available. The exact benefits can only be determined when the total cinema is known. It is not useful to make advance calculations in such cases, as the present production is for the total usage of the company and no extra jobs can be taken up without meeting this requirement. issue a summary of how you would approach implementing the recommended solution and measuring its effectiveness The implementation methods are very simple.\r\n mastermind a list of the parts that go wrong in the machines in different areas and hand them over to the operators. Every operator has to make a failure report and when that is submitted, the reason for failure that is given has to include the part num ber. Once the part numbers are made available in this way, then in the report itself they should be noted, and after a period of six months, a search program or a summary should be made of the reasons for failures. This is a totally internal exercise and we do not have to observe the other requirements now.\r\nAPQC has now developed and wants adherence to the following code †â€Å"guide benchmarking efforts, advance the professionalism and effectiveness of benchmarking, and help protect the members from harm”. (Benchmarking principle of Conduct) According to this code will help the implementation of efficient, effective and ethical benchmarking. (Benchmarking Code of Conduct) The question is that eventually the entire process is for internal development and to be done totally internally, so why are we all getting so excited about it? Make the changes that you have to after a nerveless consideration.\r\n'