a case asdsaddsf - sadsadwwsacxzc

7/30/2019 A case asdsaddsf - SADSADWWSACXZC

1/18


2/18

A case study of functionalbenchmarking as a source

of knowledge for car parkingstrategies

Ian Straker, Stephen Ison and Ian Humphreys

Transport Studies Group, Department of Civil and Building Engineering,Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK, and

Graham FrancisHenlow, UK

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the process benefits and findings of a functionalbenchmarking exercise. It explores the issues surrounding the potential introduction of a directemployee car parking financial incentive or disincentive measure at an airport, drawing on bestpractice from specific non-airport organisations.

Design/methodology/approach A case study approach is taken in which three differentorganisations are considered from a functional benchmarking perspective.

Findings There are direct findings in terms of how to develop employee parking strategies/policies.

Research limitations/implications This paper adds to the practical literature on functionalbenchmarking by presenting evidence from a benchmarking exercise of three case studyorganisations.

Practical implications There are practical findings in terms of the potential benefits andlimitations from a functional benchmarking exercise. There are also practical recommendations interms of organisations seeking to develop and implement staff car parking strategies.

Originality/value The paper provides an illustration of functional benchmarking in practice.

Keywords Benchmarking, Best practice, Airports, Employees, Financial benefits, Car parks (buildings)

Paper type Case study

1. IntroductionMany international airports are operating close to capacity, a problem that is likely tobecome more acute given the projected long-term growth in air traffic. This growth is

likely to have major implications on runway, terminal, and surface access capacity,infrastructure which is already experiencing constraints. The area of surface access isas much, if not more an issue in terms of employees accessing the airport as it is forpassengers. Employees represent a particular problem for airports in terms of surfaceaccess due to the frequent, peak hour nature of trips made and their higher usage ratesof the car compared to passengers. A range of initiatives exist to encourage the use ofmodes of transport other than the private car by employees but overall these measurestend to be soft in nature and one generally has to look to the non-airport sector to seeexamples of more innovative harder initiatives such as financial incentive anddisincentive car parking measures direct to employees.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

BIJ16,1

30

Benchmarking: An Internationalournal

Vol. 16 No. 1, 2009

p. 30-46q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

463-5771

DOI 10.1108/14635770910936504


3/18

This paper presents evidence from a functional benchmarking exercise whichpotentially has benefits for not just airports, but organisations wishing to learn fromother organisations in the area of employee surface access and specifically car parking.It concludes that there are four key areas that organisations should focus on whenexploring the issues surrounding the implementation of a car parking charge or carparking cash out direct to employees. This includes:

(1) The use of a package approach.

(2) A requirement for top management support.

(3) Gaining acceptance from employees.

(4) The issues surrounding the process of implementation.

2. The problem of surface access to airportsAirport capacity is dependent on a number of factors including air traffic control,runway and taxiway, terminal and apron, and surface access. Constraints in any ofthese areas has a serious impact on the efficient functioning of the airport. Long-termprojections in international air travel show continued growth of over 3-4 percentper annum (Airports Council International (ACI) Europe, 2005). This growth islikely to have major implications on runway, terminal, and surface accesscapacity, infrastructure which is already experiencing constraints to a greater orlesser extent.

Surface access to the airport is a crucial part of the whole journey by air.Transportation time to the airport is one of the three most important factors

affecting the choice of an airport by a passenger, the other two being the numberof flights offered and the price of the flight ticket. It is not just passengers whouse the surface access system however employees, suppliers to the airport,so-called meeters and greeters and other visitors also make use of it (Kazda andCaves, 2000).

At medium and large airports, the number of employees who commute representsbetween one quarter and one half of the daily number of airline passengers (Kazda andCaves, 2000). Employees also account for two access trips to the airport each day,whereas most passengers will only make one access trip in a day. For these reasons theemployee surface access market is of the same order of magnitude as the passengersurface access market.

2.1 The case study airport profileThe case study comprises a large UK airport with many of the employees being

shift workers. As passenger numbers increase over time, so too will the number ofemployees. In addition to the jobs generated directly, the airport is regarded asimportant to the national economy, supporting additional jobs in the local area andwider economy. In addition to surface access the UK Governments Aviation WhitePaper (Department for Transport (DfT), 2003, p. 122) demonstrates the importanceof managing air quality, compliance with air quality limits for nitrogen oxideswill require a concerted effort by the airport operator and the aviation industry toidentify ways of reducing emissions from aircraft, from other airport activity andfrom airport-related road traffic. Cars in particular contribute a substantialamount to the levels and as such are a target area to reduce the airports impact

A case studyof functional

benchmarking

31


4/18


5/18

This range of practices means that a number of typologies exist (Francis andHolloway, 2007). The most commonly used and accepted typology is that of internal,competitive, functional, and generic benchmarking (Zairi and Leonard, 1994; Camp,1995; Francis et al., 1999; Holloway et al., 1999; Hinton et al., 2000). These fourcategories have subsequently been expanded upon by other authors and a wide rangeof typologies now exist. These include results and process benchmarking (Trosaand Williams, 1996), problem-based and process-based benchmarking (Camp,1995), compulsory and voluntary benchmarking (Helgason, 1997; Bowerman et al.,2002) and strategic and operational benchmarking (Camp, 1995).

The most commonly accepted typologies are internal, competitive, functional and

generic benchmarking. The benchmarking activity in this paper is perhaps bestdescribed as functional.

3.1 Functional benchmarkingFunctional benchmarking is when a comparison is made to practices at organisationswith similar processes in the same function but outside the industry (Francis andHolloway, 2007). With functional benchmarking it is the nature of the actual process oractivity which is matched, rather than the organisations business. Benchmarking withorganisations from another industry overcomes any problems surrounding sharinginformation with competitors so long as the activity is properly introduced andapproached in a professional manner with discipline. Searching for benchmarkingpartners to share information within other industries is intensive because it is in thisclass of organisations that the most innovative practices are found. By examining

practices with a fresh perspective from other industries, new solutions can be found toold problems and new innovative approaches can be developed. New practices foundin other industries may also be easier to implement because their discovery isnon-threatening and they do not reflect badly on the organisation because they wereunknown prior to benchmarking. Functional benchmarking may also lead to two-waypartnerships being forged with other organisations, furtherincreasing the opportunitiesfor learning. As functional benchmarking focuses on specific functions, however, then awider benefit to otherareas of the business maynot alwaysbe seen. Care should betakenwhen selecting companies as the nature of the comparison can be complex, for examplecultural or demographic factors may have an impact (Camp, 1995; Zairi and Leonard,1994; Cox and Thompson, 1998; Francis, 2003).

According to Francis and Holloway (2007) benchmarking has tended to be mostreadily adopted in blue collar service organizations, such as engineering maintenanceand transport. Francis and Humphreys (2005, p. 99) state that in civil aviation,

benchmarking may give the following benefits:. Providing information to meet the needs of managers and planners in a volatile

market environment.

. Offering possible solutions drawn from best practice elsewhere in the industry.

. Offering a means of improving efficiency through learning both withinorganisations and between organisations.

. Facilitating effective economic and environmental regulation.

. Maintaining and improving air transport safety through sharing informationand knowledge.


benchmarking

33


6/18

Graham (2005) states that it is only within the last 15-20 years that benchmarking inthe airport industry has begun to be accepted as an important management tool. Thisrelatively recent take up is because of the increase in business pressures sinceprivatisation and because benchmarking was previously viewed as a difficultundertaking due to the range of inputs, outputs, and the operational environment.Airports no longer regard themselves merely as providers of infrastructure andrecognise now the necessity for a wider range of business tools, which has led to agrowing use of continuous performance appraisal and the use of benchmarking(Mackenzie-Williams, 2005).

Research into the use of benchmarking by airports was conducted by Fry et al.(2005) who identified benchmarking as the most commonly used technique forimproving performance with 72 percent of airports revealing they used benchmarking.It was found that airports almost exclusively benchmarked with similar organisations,almost invariably other airports and that some stated that it was difficult to identifysuitable and willing partners. It was recommended by the authors that they shouldlook to exemplar processes at dissimilar airports or other industries to extract fullbenefit from benchmarking (Fry et al., 2005).

4. MethodologyIn this paper, there are two areas involved in the benchmarking exercise. The first wasthe nature of the car parking strategy being used within an airport context and thenon-airport case studies in terms of which instruments are used to reduce the number

of people driving to work. The second focused on how the non-airport organisationshave implemented employee car parking initiatives and how they have gained staffacceptance. Including these issues within the benchmarking exercise allowed theairport to learn from other organisations who have successfully introduced suchstrategies. In this way the benchmarking exercise could be viewed as having twostreams one of practice, focused on the actual measures used in the strategy andone of principle, focused on the process of change, the reasons for the implementingthe strategy and how it was implemented (Figure 1).

Figure 1.The benchmarkingprocess used in theesearch

Planning 1. Identify benchmarking subject

2. Identify benchmarking partners

3. Determine data collection method

4. Collect data

Analysis 5. Determine gaps6. Highlight where improvements could be made

Integration 7. Establish what is to be improved

8. Communicate results

Action

Source: Adapted from Camp (1995)

9. Develop action plans

BIJ16,1

34


7/18

The organisations selected were identified as leaders in terms of the car parkingmeasures they have introduced and overall travel planning, although not necessarilyas leaders in terms of implementing change. It is believed that by selectingorganisations who have proved successful in terms of their car parking strategy andtravel planning, however, that they provide valuable lessons not least in the areas ofimplementation and staff acceptance.

Functional benchmarking is the most suitable approach to benchmarking theprocesses surrounding employee car parking with the processes and experiences ofnon-airport organisations. The organisations chosen from the non-airport sectorrepresented examples of best practice in terms of travel planning and car parking

strategies. As the processes being examined were within the same function of thebusiness but the organisations were from another industry they fitted the definition offunctional benchmarking. It could be argued that the non-airport sites selecteddemonstrated innovative and exemplar processes and hence the nature of thebenchmarking may be generic.

Owing to a need to keep participating organisations anonymous they are not namedbut the chosen cases include an airport from whose perspective the information wasgathered, a hospital, university, and pharmaceutical company. The three non-airportcase studies against which the airport was benchmarked were selected because of theirrecognised position of demonstrating best practice in terms of car parking policy andtravel planning in general. The decision to investigate three case studies was taken sothat a range of experiences could be explored, but without the original researchbecoming too large and unmanageable. Criteria were drawn up to enable a structuredselection as listed below. The criteria developed stated that the organisations needed to:

(1) Have monitored travel plan/parking strategy effectiveness.

(2) Have achieved a reduction in car use.

(3) Exemplify aspects of best practice in travel planning.

(4) Have experience that is relevant to others.

(5) Be comparable to the airport, in terms of:

. confined space on site;

. shift workers;

. range of car park users;

. size of organisation (employees); and

. commitment to travel plans.

(6) Where possible be recognised as being leaders, through:. awards gained; and

. inclusion in guides and document detailing best practice organisations.

(7) Encompass a range of measures in their travel plan/parking strategy.

The comparability of the cases to the airport is summarised in Table I.The data were gathered through a series of semi-structured interviews with

14 managers at the cases study sites. Semi-structured interviews and documentationwere identified as the main methods for providing relevant data. The semi-structuredinterviews allowed for the flexibility required while also ensuring that the specific


benchmarking

35


8/18

areas of interest were fully explored. All the interviews lasted approximately 1 h, theshortest was 45 min and the longest 1 h and 20 min, and were split into various sectionsto be covered. The same schedule of questions was used at each of the case study sites,with minor modifications being made to suit the individual characteristics of each siteand the interviewees area of expertise.

5. Findings from functional benchmarking at three non-airportorganisationsAs stated, the same processes were compared at three non-airport comparatororganisations These processes have been defined as those areas which are mostimportant to the airport in the area of employee car parking. The benchmarkingprocess followed was set out in the methodology section (Figure 1) and in Table II.

Similarities to airport Differences to airport

HospitalConstrained locationHigh proportion of shift workersHigh proportion of relatively low paid bluecollar employeesRange of users staff, patients, visitors,suppliersRange of different employers on site

Not footloose in terms of locationTime critical operationUnion representation of employeesLarge number of employeesOperates in a competitive market

Located in a residential area with good walkingand cycling opportunitiesRequired by government to introduce anemployee parking charge, rather than voluntarydecisionPublic sector organisation

UniversityConstrained locationPlanning constraintsLack of car parking spaces led to action beingrequiredUnion representation of staffLarge number of employeesNot footloose in terms locationDifferent users staff, studentsOperates in a competitive marketPrivate sector organisation

Only one major employerLocated in city centre with good walking andcycling opportunitiesOnly staff allowed to parkStaff working hours are relatively flexibleLow proportion of shift workers and blue collarworkersOperation is not time critical

Pharmaceutical companyRelatively constrained locationLarge number of employeesSite has a large impact on the surrounding areaand road networkCongestion and pressure on the transportnetwork led to action being requiredRequires transport for most employees to reachsiteHigh proportion of blue collar workers?Operates in a competitive marketPrivate sector organization

Only one employerOperation is not time criticalUnion issues not so prominentEmployees account almost entirely for allparking provision

Table I.Organisations selectedand their similarities anddifferences to the airport

BIJ16,1

36


9/18

To this end, the analysis conducted in each sub-section of this section will allow for theincreased understanding from the non-airport organisations, for improvement areas tobe highlighted and for provisional findings and conclusions to be drawn as to how thesituation at the airport could be improved in terms of introducing an employee car

parking measure such as a direct parking charge or financial incentive.Selecting the most suitable measures to deal with the car parking issues Table III

shows the issues surrounding the selection of the most suitable measures to deal withthe car parking issues.

5.1 A package approachThe interviews conducted at the airport revealed a mixed response regarding what wasbelieved to be the most suitable approach to resolving the car parking problem.A parking strategy already exists within the airport charging employers for parkingpermits. An overall Travel to Work strategy also exists alongside the parkingstrategy including a wide range of incentive measures such as public transport,promotion of cycling, and walking, promotion of alternative working policies and carsharing. A range of views existed as to whether a parking charge or financial incentiveshould be incorporated into the strategy or not. There was a consensus, however, that

any solution should involve a combination of measures if it was to be successful inreducing the number of people driving to work.

The employee car parking strategies in use at the non-airport organisations adopt apackage approach with either a financial incentive or disincentive forming the core ofthe strategy. A package designed to reduce car commuting can be seen to currentlyexist at the airport but without there being a core incentive or disincentive aimeddirectly at employees. The measures in place at the airport are aimed at a more generalreduction in car commuting rather than any specific initiatives targeted at encouragingemployees not to park their cars. All three case study organisations have achieved areduction in employee car use whether they have utilised a parking charge or financial

Selecting the most suitable measures to A package approachdeal with the car parking problems The core element of the strategy

Direct and daily chargingThe level of a parking charge or cash paymentParking permit allocationAlternative working practicesAvailability of car parking spacesFlexibility and choiceEquity, fairness, and exemptions

Management support Management understanding

A desire to changeThe importance of a project championGaining acceptance Employee recognition of the problem

Overcoming cultural barriers and attitudes to changeParking hierarchyRecruitment and retentionCommunicating clear and transparent objectivesConsultation

Implementation The process of implementationImplementation of the core element of the strategy

Table II.Template of issues,

activities, and practicesbenchmarked with

non-airport organisations


benchmarking

37


10/18

incentive and there have been a wide range of supporting strategies, ranging frompromotion and subsidisation of public transport travel to the development of flexibleworking policies and teleworking.

5.2 The core car parking measureA key consideration for the airport is whether a financial incentive or disincentive shouldform thecoreof theiremployee carparkingstrategy or whether further developmentof thesoft measures currently in place will achieve the objective of reducing car parking.Although the scale of the schemes implemented at the non-airport organisations is

IssueFindings from airportinterviews

Approach taken at non-airportorganisations

A package approach Feeling that a packageapproach should be adopted

New parking strategiesintroduced as a package ofmeasures

The core element of thestrategy

Unsure what to pursue butrecognised that a core incentiveor disincentive necessary

A core element used in all caseswhether a parking charge orparking cash out

Direct and daily parking

charges or cash payments

Currently employers pay for an

annual permit. Individualcharging complicated by thelarge number of employees

Charges or cash payments

administered on a daily basis

The level of a parking charge orcash payments

Interviewees said a directemployee charge should besufficient to generate ameaningful modal shift

High charges (university) andhigh cash payments(pharmaceutical company) togenerate more meaningfulmodal shift. Low charges(hospital) to gain initialacceptance

Parking permit allocation No real restrictions on permitallocation. The high proportionof shift workers was expectedto have a bearing on anypotential scheme

Both organisations that chargeemployees to park incorporatepermit allocation strategies

Alternative working practices Alternative modes and workingpractices are regarded as beingsuccessful at the airport

Alternatives are important, aspart of a package approach buta core element is required todeliver greater modal shift

Availability of car parkingspaces

Expected to have an importantbearing on travel choices

Regarded as being a majorcontributor to changing travelmode choice

Flexibility and choice Any new strategy shouldcontain flexibility in terms ofallowing employees to make adecision on how they travelledto work

Employees can make a decisionon a daily basis about how tocommute

Equity, fairness, andexemptions

Any strategy should be asfair as possible andexemptions should beminimised

Equitable approach takenoverall. Exemptions minimised,although the pharmaceuticalcompany retained somereserved parking spaces

Table III.ssues surrounding theelection of the mostuitable measures to deal

with the car parkingssues

BIJ16,1

38


11/18

relatively small this does not, preclude the principles of the non-airport organisationschemes from providing useful lessons. All three of the non-airport organisations haveshown that their respectivestrategies, whethera fixedrate low daily charge,salary relateddaily charge, or daily payment to employees, can achieve results in terms of reducing thenumber of employees commuting solo by car. Perhaps, the most simple in design is thatoperated by the hospital whereby all employees pay the same daily rate. The measuresimplemented at the pharmaceutical company and the university would require morecareful thought in terms of their implementation at the airport because they requireemployees to be charged based on individual income or for each individual employee tobe credited when they do not use a car park.

5.3 Direct and daily parking charges or cash paymentsWhile targeting employees individually with charges or payments has proved possibleat the non-airport organisations it would be a much larger undertaking at the airport.At the non-airport sites car parking spaces are owned by the organisation and anyother companies on site are generally small in size, meaning that the management ofcar parks and the administration of parking permits is relatively straight forward. Thisis not the case at the airport where the airport operator owns the majority of carparking spaces and sells annual permits to companies on site. It is therefore made moredifficult to control parking spaces once they have sold permits to another organisation.

5.4 The level of a parking charge or cash paymentsA furtherkey consideration with a parking charge, or indeed a financial incentive, is the

level at which it is set. Interviewees at the airport regarded this as being fundamental tothe success of the scheme and that the monetary value has to be substantial enough todeliver a meaningful modal shift. At both the university and the pharmaceuticalcompany, this too was an important consideration. The university related the charge tosalary and set it at a level whereby it immediately made employees consider their modeof travel to work. At thepharmaceutical company, theparking cash out paymentwas setat a level which reflected thecost of providing a parking space,thereforethose whochosenot to park received the same benefit in financial termsof those who chose to park. Atthehospital a lower charge was introduced initially but the plan was to increase this to alevel above public transport fares.

Rye and Ison (2005) advocate the use of low, income related parking charges. At thenon-airport organisations, the charge at the hospital is relatively low but it is a fixedcharge for everybody, while at the university the charge is considered to be relativelyhigh and is related to salary.The university supporttheir relatively highchargewith the

argument that it enabled a meaningful shift to be generated from the day of introductionand that, because it naturally increases with salary, it removes future periods of unrestwhen charges need to be increased. Supportive of this is the fact that at the hospitalthereis staff opposition every time a charge increase is proposed. The trust stated, however,that a major reason for their charge was to generate revenues to fund alternative modesand not just to directly reduce the demand for parking.

5.5 Parking permit allocationThe hospital and the university both incorporate a system of permit allocation intotheir car parking strategies; the universitys is based on a number of factors and the


benchmarking

39


12/18

trusts is based on the distance employees live from the site. Introducing a strategysuch as the one at the hospital, whereby some employees are effectively barred fromparking, requires a range of alternative modes to be in place. It is only feasible to thinkthat some strategy of parking permit allocation could be introduced at the airport aftersufficient alternative transport links were in place.

5.6 Alternative working practicesAt the non-airport organisations some alternative working practices have beenimplemented but they do not form a major part of the carparking strategy. The strategiesintroduced include teleworking, compressed working weeks, and cash payments insteadof company cars. The hospital is perhaps the most comparable to the airport with regardsto the fact that they have a large proportion of shift workers who undertake jobs whichrequire them to be at their place of work in order to perform their function. In suchsituations, alternative working policies are extremely difficult to implement.

5.7 Availability of car parking spacesExperience from the non-airport organisations suggests that a major contributor tochanging employee travel mode choices is the availability of car parking spaces. At theairport too this was considered to be a factor which would have an important bearingon travel choices. This is the case at both the hospital and the university and at eachorganisation it is felt that the physical lack of available spaces can encourage people totravel by a mode other than car. Verhoefet al. (1995) and Ison and Wall (2002) state thatwhere parking restrictions are in place they are usually found to be complemented by

charges, as was seen to be the case at the hospital and university.

5.8 Flexibility and choiceAll of the non-airport organisations introduced schemes which allow the individualemployee to decide on a daily basis as to how they travel to work. This was moststrongly emphasised by the interviewees at the university who saw flexibility as akey advantage of their scheme. It was felt that by giving people the freedom to decidetheir travel mode every day then there was a greater chance of an employee decidingnot to use the car on a day when they did not need to. At the pharmaceutical companyit was felt that it was easier to encourage people to change their travel mode on one ortwo days a week than five days a week, a view reflected by all three of the non-airportorganisations.

5.9 Equity, fairness, and exemptions

Car parking is regarded as a highly emotive subject and so it was felt important thatany new strategy was equitable, while at the same time effective in achieving itsobjectives. Ideas discussed included charging employees based on salary and a systemwhereby those with the greatest need to park were given priority. Who should beexempted from the rules of any car parking measure introduced was also discussed,with interviewees believing exemptions should be kept to a minimum. From a chargingperspective, the universitys scheme is more equitable than that at the hospital as it isbased on salary and hence more closely linked to each individuals ability to pay.Therefore, if the airport decided to introduce either a parking charge or cash paymentsystem, the experiences of the pharmaceutical company and the university both offer

BIJ16,1

40


13/18

potentially satisfactory examples of the two different approaches they could considerin terms of ensuring a degree of equity. All three non-airport organisations haveensured that exemptions from their parking strategies have been kept to a minimum.At the pharmaceutical company there were complications with certain managers whowanted to retain their reserved parking spaces and it was also felt that certain criticalmembers of staff, such as the site nurse, should be allocated reserved spaces. Both theuniversity and hospital exempt disabled drivers from their parking charges.

5.10 Management supportThe benchmarking exercise not only looked at the potential policies but also the

processes by which they were implemented. These included the nature of managementsupport. These finding are summarised in Table IV and detailed below.

All of the non-airport organisations stated that having management support wascrucial to the success of the parking scheme and that there would have been little pointin proceeding with an implementation had top level managers not fully supported thestrategy.

In all of the non-airport organisations a major driver for a new employee car parkingstrategy was the desire to expand the site and the knowledge that any planningpermission to do so would contain requirements to address transport access. Thismirrors the expected situation at the airport where it was considered that it would benecessary for a crisis point to be reached or for a major development at the airport.Rodier and Johnston (1997) stated that in the USA, local governments were sometimesunwilling to implement new programmes of traffic reduction because of the negativepolitical impact it could have. A similar phenomenon can be seen within airports

management who are regarded as not wanting to implement anything which mayupset staff and in turn make the airport appear in a negative light.

All of the non-airport organisations had a Project Champion who oversaw theimplementation of the scheme. At the university the Assistant Director Facilitieswas a major influence on the development of the travel plan and parking strategy.At pharmaceutical company the project champion no longer works full time for thecompany and has not been replaced which has led to a loss of impact, againemphasising that strong leadership is crucial. Currently the airport has no projectchampion or any group to figurehead the scheme, something which would need to beaddressed should they proceed with the introduction of a financial incentive ordisincentive measure as part of their employee parking strategy. During the interviews

Issue

Findings from interviews at the

airport

Approach taken at non-airport

organisations

Management understanding Top level managers do notrecognise the problems facingthe airport and are unwilling toaddress them

Management support was totaland considered crucial to thesuccess of the scheme

A desire to change It is felt that a crisis point ormajor development is needed tobring about a desire to change

Clear drivers for changeexisted

The importance of a projectchampion

There is no project champion All had a project champion

Table IV.Issues surrounding

management support forchanges to current car

parking strategy and thepotential introduction of

an employee directfinancial incentive ordisincentive measure


benchmarking

41


14/18

some consideration was given to who should figurehead the scheme and it wasgenerally indicated that the company would have to lead by example from the very toplevel of management.

5.11 Gaining acceptanceIn terms of recognition from employees, the non-airport organisations differ from theairport because at all three there was a clear problem that there was either not enoughcar parking spaces for staff or there were high levels of congestion on the local roads.Therefore, staff were aware of the problems even though they were not supportive ofthe parking charge (Table V).

In terms of anyparking hierarchy, at both theuniversityand hospital reserved parkingspaces were taken away. This wasgreeted with some negativitybut did not prove to haveany lasting impact due to the fair and open approach. At the pharmaceutical company,

IssueFindings from interviews at theairport

Approach taken at non-airportorganisations

Recognition of the problem byemployees

Lack of recognition of anyparking problems or awarenessof the parking cap

Different situation to theairport as there were more clearoperational issues

Overcoming cultural barriersand attitudes to change

Adversity to change meant thatreactions were expected to benegative should a new strategybe introduced

Initial negativity that subsidedafter a period of time.Consultation helped achieveacceptance in some cases

Parking hierarchy Potential ly difficult toovercome hierarchies whichhave been in place for severalyears

Two of the organisationsremoved all reserved spaces,and one retained them as it wasregarded as being too sensitivean issue

Hypothecation of parkingrevenues

View that revenues accruedfrom a charge should bereinvested in transportinitiatives

All revenues arising fromparking charges arehypothecated

Recruitment and retention Strong view from employeesthat they would look for workelsewhere if incentive ordisincentive measures wereintroduced to car parking. Moremixed views from interviewees

New parking strategies hadminimal impact on recruitmentand retention

Communicating clear andtransparent objectives

Large number of organisationsmakes communication difficultand many employees wereunaware of all currentinitiatives or the car parkingpressures facing the airport inthe future

Clear reasons for changecommunicated to employees.On-going communicationchannels also available toemployees

Consultation Recognised that extensiveconsultation target atindividuals was required.A structure is in place at theairport for this

Extensive and transparentconsultation conducted withfocus on employee involvement

Table V.ssues surrounding

gaining acceptance for acar parking measure suchas a financial incentive ordisincentive

BIJ16,1

42


15/18

the unrest it would have caused to remove reserved spaces was considered to be too largeand so they were retained for those senior managers who wanted them.

The interviewees at the airport favoured the idea of ringfencing any revenuesgenerated by a parking charge for reinvestment in car parking and alternative modesof transport. It was considered that such an approach could help increase acceptanceshould a parking charge be introduced at the airport. The literature review agreed thatan important part of the package approach to strategy implementation is regarded asbeing the need to hypothecate revenues, something which has been found to increasethe acceptability of new schemes. The ringfenced money should be spent on initiativessuch as improvements in parking, security and alternative transport to the site (Ison

and Wall, 2002; Rye and Ison, 2005). Hypothecation of parking revenues at the hospitaland the university is considered to have generated acceptability amongst employees asthey were seen to respond well to being able to see where their money had beeninvested, particularly when able to experience the changes first hand. At thepharmaceutical company, there is no income from parking but money is still spent onproviding alternatives so that people who do not wish to use the car have other options.

The findings from the non-airport organisations were that recruitment and retentionhad not been seen to suffer after the newparking strategy had been introduced. This wasexpected to be the case at the pharmaceutical company as those who continued to drivewere no worse off financiallyas a result of the parking cash out payments. Employee exitsurveys at the university identified that the car parking charge was a commonly citedreason for those leaving employment at the university, but that it was always incombination with other factors. Similar figures were not available for the hospital but itwas not felt that there had been any detrimental impactas a result of thecharge. Indeed,at the hospital it wasregarded thata number of organisations with carparking problemsused recruitment and retention fears as excuses not to introduce rectifying strategies.This may be the case at the airport; indeed it was mentioned in some of the interviewsthat recruitment and retention were often over emphasised as an argument when anystrategy requiring change was proposed.

The non-airport organisations all regarded communication to be important whenintroducing a new parking measure. This began with a clear communication of thereasons for why a change was necessary. Linked to the need to clearly communicateany new strategy was a recognised importance of conducting an extensive consultationprocess prior to any new strategy being introduced. It was considered that this processneeded to reach each individual employee so they were aware of the need for change,could see the reasons and were able to feed in their opinions. The airport has astructure in place for airport-wide consultation although it was considered that the

introduction of a new parking strategy would require a consultation process greaterthan any other used before at the airport. Rye and Ison (2005) highlight consultation asone of a number of factors to assist parking charge implementation at the workplace,stating that it will take some time and that it should not be expected to resolve allopposition.

5.12 The process of implementationImplementation is an area where the experiences from the non-airport organisationsmay differ from the airport due to the greater scale of the airports implementationthat would be required and the wide range of organisations which would need


benchmarking

43


16/18

to be included. There are, however, several overriding principles regarding the formatof the implementation which are transferable.

The three non-airport organisations have all pursued different implementationstrategies, although they also share similarities. In all cases, implementation of thestrategy did not begin until extensive consultation and communication has been carriedout. In the case of the pharmaceutical company and the university, public transport andother alternative modes were improved before either the parking cash out or parkingchargeelements were introduced. In doing this, when the core element of the strategy wasimplementedemployees had a range of options they could switch to if they desired. At thepharmaceutical company, modal shift was achieved even before the parking cash outelement was introduced purely through the improvements made to alternative modes oftransport and the associated promotional activity. At the hospital public transportimprovements were not made until after the parking charge was in place although it wasrecognised that in hindsight doing so would have been a better approach.

6. Concluding remarksThis paper has presented a discussion of the findings from the functionalbenchmarking study conducted at the airport in comparison to those conducted atthe university, hospital and the pharmaceutical company in order to explore whethergood practice in the non-airport sector could be transferred to an airport context. Fourmain areas were addressed:

(1) Selecting the most suitable measures to deal with the car parking problem.

(2) Management support.

(3) Gaining acceptance.

(4) Implementation.

Within each section the findings from the interviews conducted at the airport andcompared to the findings from the non-airport organisation. This allowed fordifferences in each area of interest to be identified.

This paper has sought to illustrate how functional benchmarking has been used as atool to facilitate the comparison between the airport and non-airport organisations. Thenon-airport organisations had extensive knowledge based on their experiences.Research into the use of benchmarking in the airport sector revealed that it was widelyused as a performance improvement technique but that airports almost exclusivelybenchmarked with similar organisations, almost invariably other airports. It was

stated by Fry et al. (2005, p. 135) that further benefits from benchmarking may berealised if airport managers consider looking for exemplar practices of the processesthey are trying to manage and improve at dissimilar airports or even generic exampleswithin other industries. This is a key contribution of the research as it provides a rarein-depth example of benchmarking being conducted by an airport with non-airportorganisations and therefore adds to the knowledge base in the area.

The benchmarking exercise was conducted from an objective viewpoint in that itwas carried out by a researcher not employed by the benchmarking organisation. Thishelped to remove any bias which may have existed had a similar benchmarkingexercise been conducted by a member of airports management. It can be argued

BIJ16,1

44


17/18

that this may be a limitation because a member of staff from the benchmarkingorganisation would have a greater understanding of the processes being benchmarked.

The notion of finding best practice has been questioned by some authors, mostnotably Cox and Thompson (1998), who argued that best practice differs for eachorganisation depending on their individual circumstances and the particular point intime. It was also stated that the best companies may not wish to take part in thebenchmarking exercise (Anderson et al., 1999). While this potential limitation isimportant, it is considered that the selection of the organisations was justified on soundmethodological grounds. The lack of comparability of the airport and the non-airportorganisations was not sufficient to prevent beneficial inter-organisational learning

taking place using a functional benchmarking approach. Despite the problems thathave been noted with the way in which functional benchmarking has been conductedin this study, the authors contend that it can still be seen to be a useful tool, particularlywhen used together with the other methodologies.

References

Airports Council International Europe (2005), ACI Traffic Forecasts: 2002-2020, AirportsCouncil International, Geneva.

Anderson, B., Fagerhaug, T., Randmoel, S., Schuldmaier, J. and Prenninger, J. (1999),Benchmarking supply chain management: finding best practices, Journal of Business &Industrial Marketing, Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 378-89.

Bowerman, M., Francis, G., Ball, A. and Fry, J. (2002), The evolution of benchmarking in UKlocal authorities, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 429-49.

Camp, R. (1995), Business Process Benchmarking, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.

Camp, R.C. (1989), Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices That Lead to SuperiorPerformance, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.

Cox, A. and Thompson, I. (1998), On the appropriateness of benchmarking, Journal of GeneralManagement, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 1-20.

Department for Transport (2003), The Future of Air Transport White Paper, The StationeryOffice, London.

Francis, G. (2003), Best practice benchmarking, British Economy Survey, Vol. 32 No. 2,pp. 54-60.

Francis, G. and Holloway, J. (2007), What we have learned? Themes from the literature onbest-practice benchmarking, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 3,pp. 171-89.

Francis, G. and Humphreys, I. (2005), Guest editorial: benchmarking in civil aviation,

Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 97-8.Francis, G., Hinton, M., Holloway, J. and Humphreys, I. (1999), Best practice benchmarking:

a routeto competitiveness?,Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol.5 No. 2,pp.105-12.

Fry, J., Humphreys, I. and Francis, G. (2005), Benchmarking in civil aviation: some empiricalevidence, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-37.

Graham, A. (2005), Airport benchmarking: a review of the current situation, Benchmarking:An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 99-111.

Helgason, S. (1997), International benchmarking: experiences from OECD countries,Proc eedi ngs of the Danish Mini stry of Fina nce Conf erence on Internati onalBenchmarking, Copenhagen , February 20-21.


benchmarking

45


18/18

Hinton, M., Francis, G. and Holloway, J. (2000), Best practice benchmarking in the UK,Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 52-61.

Holloway, J., Francis, G., Hinton, M. and Mayle, D. (1998), Making the Case for Benchmarking,Open University Business School, Milton Keynes.

Holloway, J., Hinton, M., Francis, G. and Mayle, D. (1999), Identifying Best Practice inBenchmarking, CIMA, London.

Ison, S. and Wall, S. (2002), Attitudes to traffic-related issues in urban areas of the UK and therole of workplace parking charges,Journal of Transport Geography, Vol.10 No. 1,pp. 21-8.

Kazda, A. and Caves, R.E. (2000), Airport Design and Operation, Pergamon, Oxford.

Leseure, M.J., Bauer, J., Birdi, K., Neely, A. and Denyer, D. (2004), Adoption of promisingpractices: a systematic review of the evidence, International Journal of ManagementReviews, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 169-90.

Mackenzie-Williams, P. (2005), Aviation benchmarking: issues and industry insights frombenchmarking results, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 112-24.

Rodier, C.J. and Johnston, R.A. (1997), Incentives for local governments to implement traveldemand management measures, Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 31 No. 4,pp. 295-308.

Rye, T. and Ison, S. (2005), Overcoming barriers to the implementation of car parking charges atUK workplaces, Transport Policy, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 57-64.

Trosa, S. and Williams, S. (1996), Benchmarking in public sector performance management,OECD Occasional Papers: Performance Management in Government ContemporaryIllustrations, No. 9, pp. 45-58.

Upham, P.J. and Mills, J.N. (2005), Environmental and operational sustainability of airports: core

indicators and stakeholder communication, Benchmarking: An International Journal,Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 166-79.

Verhoef, E., Nijkamp, P. and Rietveld, P. (1995), The economics of regulatory parking policies:the (Im)possibilities of parking policies in traffic regulation, Transportation ResearchPart A, Vol. 29A No. 2, pp. 141-56.

Zairi, M. and Leonard, P. (1994), Practical Benchmarking: The Complete Guide, Chapman & Hall,London.

Further reading

Spendolini, M.J. (1992), The Benchmarking Book, Amacom, New York, NY.

BIJ16,1

46

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

a case asdsaddsf - sadsadwwsacxzc

Documents