applications of benchmarking

7/30/2019 Applications of Benchmarking

1/30

Industrial Engineering and Productivity Management

Application of

Benchmarking with

case studies


2/30

Benchmarking

Definition

Benchmarking is the process of identifying "best practice" in relation to both products (including)

and the processes by which those products are created and delivered. The search for "best practice"can take place both inside a particular industry, and also in other industries (for example - are there

lessons to be learned from other industries?).The objective of benchmarking is to understand and

evaluate the current position of a business or organisation in relation to "best practice" and to

identify areas and means of performance improvement. Since when it has come to mean any

standard against which something is compared; and some of the leading exponents in business

include Xerox and GE. In business terms there are numerous definitions of benchmarking, but

essentially it involves learning, sharing information and adopting best practices to bring about step

changes in performance.

So at its simplest, benchmarking means:

'Improving by learning from others - i.e. - benchmarking is simply about making comparisons with

other organisations and then learning the lessons that those comparisons throw up'

Another Definition is:

'Benchmarking is the continuous process of measuring products, services and practices against the

toughest competitors or those companies recognised as industry leaders (best in class)'

Robert Camps Definition:

'A positive, proactive process by which a company examines how another company performs a

specific function in order to improve how it performs the same, or similar function. Operational

processes must be comparative or analogous if the highest degree of knowledge transfer between

benchmarking partners is to be achieved'

Benchmarking allows you to discover the gaps in your performance when compared with someone

else. Nothing will happen, however, unless you actually do something to close the gap - or surpass it.

The real payback comes from changing what you do to improve your operations - and as we all

know change is difficult - actual benchmarking is the easy part.

Benchmarking for competitive advantage

There has been a progressive increase in the topic of benchmarking - but for all that there is still a

great deal of ignorance about what it actually is. It has taken its place as a management buzzword

along with Business process reengineering, Total Quality Management, Change Management, EVA

and many others - but its true nature is poorly understood. Some see it as stealing (or 'borrowing')

ideas; others as a mechanism for comparison with a competitor; whilst others view it as a form of

industrial espionage. In fact it is all of these and none of these at the same time, but instead involves

understanding strategic gaps; cooperation; hard work; a willingness to question and where

necessary to change fundamental precepts (sacred cows) and also - giving.


3/30

In practice, benchmarking usually encompasses:

regularly comparing aspects of performance (functions or processes) with others;

identifying gaps in performance;

developing performance improvements to close the gaps thus identified;

implementing the improvements;

monitoring progress and;

reviewing the benefits

The key questions on which successful benchmarking turns are:

How do we do it?

How do they do it?

In other words a comparison of your processes with (a) more successful organisation(s) to establish

exactly where the differences lie - and then taking steps to use the knowledge to close the gaps.

What it is not

Although benchmarking involves making comparisons of performance, it is not:

just competitor analysis - benchmarking is best when it involves collaboration

comparison of league tables - the aim is to learn about the circumstances and processes that

underpin superior performance

Once a gap has been identified

the key question is: 'How

much of the gap do you wish

to close?' Do you wish to

improve a little, a lot or

become best-in-class? i.e.,

what is the benefit from eachstage of change and what will

it cost? Some areas will need

greater effort to change than

others but all must be

compared to probable

benefit/return for that effort

(e.g. revenue, cost efficiency

or customer satisfaction). It

may not be cost effective to go

the whole way and in some

cases best-in-class may be a

step too far! But it may act asa stretch target to which you

aspire - or re-visit later.


4/30

a quick fix, done once for all time - benchmarking projects may extend over a number of

months or even years, and it is vital to repeat them periodically so as not to fall behind as

the background environment changes

catching up - in rapidly changing circumstances, good practices become dated very quickly

and anyway you want to gain competitive, or possibly prime mover, advantage

copying - the fact that others are doing things differently does not necessarily mean they are

better

spying or espionage - openness and honesty are vital for successful benchmarking

The underlying reason for benchmarking is to learn how to improve your business processes and

thereby increase your competitiveness. Organisations choose to benchmark outstanding companies

whose business processes are analogous to their own - even if they are in different industries!

Benchmarking allows you to identify those practices that have facilitated those successful

companies' superior performance and that can be adapted to your own business. Accordingly,

benchmarking is an operational process involving continuous learning and adaptation which enables

you to improve your organisation's competitive position.

Why Benchmarking is required?

Although many organisations initiate benchmarking projects because of some dubious reasons; for

practical purposes the only reason to benchmark is because you recognise that somewhere,

somehow you are not as efficient or as capable of satisfying your customers as your competition -

whether currently or because you have spotted a trend in the market that you need to exploit,

follow or respond to.

There are two key drivers for an organisation - profitability and revenue growth (the former being a

function of the latter after costs) and there are many variables that impact on these. The key to

maximising both is to understand where competitors are better than you - where customers value it.

It is of little value having the best process for selling insurance if what customers really want is an

easy to use claims process and yours isn't! Similarly it is no good having an extremely slick sales

process for commodities if the delivery is poor, patchy and unreliable.

As the diagram shows, processes,

although an ephemeral component of anorganisation (as opposed to more durable

items such as hardware and fixed assets)

because they change easily, are critical for

profitability as delivery of

products/services is crucial to customer

satisfaction, payments and ultimately

profit. Similarly reputation (ephemeral) is

critical to growth but can be lost all too

easily - especially if processes/people do

not deliver .


5/30

Although benchmarking is a measurement process and does generate comparative performance

measures, it also about attaining exceptional performance. The practices that lead to exceptional

performance are called enablers. Thus the process of benchmarking results in two types of outputs:

benchmarks, or measures of superior performance, and enablers. Process enablers are developed to

meet a specific business need within the context of a specific business environment and company

culture. This is why it is of little value to 'steal' from others because you will not have explored

whether and where their business practices are relevant or transferable to yours.

Types of Benchmarking

There are several 'types' of benchmarking

Generic - e.g. comparisons in a general sense - often using terms such as customer, strategic

or operational

Functional - e.g. Finance, Sales or HR efficiency (e.g. HR staff to total employees)

Process - e.g. insurance claims or delivery of bulk commodities

Global - across the world

Cost - focussing on cost dynamics

Performance - looking at revenue or growth

The problem with more general benchmarking is that you are unable to drill down to the right level

of granularity unless you get inside information. Analysts often compare Unilever and Procter &

Gamble but at group levels it is not a fair benchmark as Unilever doesn't sell nappies and Procter and

Gamble doesn't sell ice-cream. Similarly benchmarking LloydsTSB with Barclays at group level misses

the subtle nuances of their operations - LloydsTSB for example has a much greater focus on retail

banking than Barclays which has extensive corporate business. In order to gain value from

benchmarking it is necessary to look at analogous processes - e.g. cashiering in branches. The closer

you get to a benchmark then the more value that you will receive - but of course you must also give

something in return as a quid quo pro or the other firm will not be interested in giving you access to

its workings.

Benchmarking can take place at different levels:

Internal

Competitor/peer

Best in industry

World class

and these are explored below.

Internal- is looking at the differing levels of performance within your own organisation and

highlighting best practice for dissemination to other parts. For example if an organisation has several

factories making the same goods then it can analyse the best performing areas in each and then

extrapolate these features to its other operations thus bringing all operations up to the best internal


6/30

levels of operation. Due regard must be given to the context of the analysis as due to past decisions

there will be differences in operations which must be allowed for, such as different IT or logistics

systems, local variations in staff competencies or even raw material access, rail links etc such that

the comparison is 'normalised'.

The benefits of internal benchmarking are that it is cost effective, that it is easy to gain access to allthe information required, that it does not require you to give anything away to competitors or other

outside parties and that the processes will be analogous. The diagram shows an example where an

'efficiency frontier' of several units has been plotted. The boundary maps the most efficient units on

two fronts - transactions and revenue. This allows you to identify quickly the poorer performers

(those inside the frontier) and where they fall behind. Extrapolating the current position up to the

boundary or frontier gives you an idea of the possible gains - assuming it is possible.

The drawbacks of internal benchmarking include that fact that even the very best internal practices

may not be adequate in the face of external pressures (e.g. having very competent cashiers is better

than not having them but if customers want internet banking it misses the point); that it is only

looking internally and may miss the bigger picture; and that it is unlikely that you will find a radical

solution internally (but not impossible). It is generally considered a good idea therefore to

benchmark externally (possibly as well)

Competitor/peer - is analysing those firms that you regard as competitors or peers. For example a

peer group in banking might include Barclays, LloydsTSB, HSBC, RBS, HBOS - but might also include

Egg or Smile or Cahoot depending on which facet you wish to explore; whilst looking at say retailing

you might include Sainsburys, Tesco, Asda, M&S, Waitrose, Coop and so on but might include

organisations such as Amazon or e-bay if looking at on-line retailing. The diagram shows some

potential outputs from a peer group of banks.

Typically this type of benchmarking is carried out as part of a cooperative study involving a

significant number of players - e.g. the major banks; or the global custodians or the major retailers;

often with the cooperation and involvement of the 'trade association' body which ensures that the

study is 'fair' and using independent consultants/advisors who retain the level of confidentiality

required. Each participant gives information to the study in the knowledge that it will remain

confidential to it and only it will know where it lies in the study.

The great advantage of this type of study is that the information so gained can be at a very detailed

level of granularity which allows comparison; for example down to activity level. This facilitatesidentification of those important enablers as well as allowing a greater range of comparisons than

with just one. It also allows you to decide what level of excellence you wish to target in your changes

- which might not be the leader - especially if the majority of benefits can be gained from going part

of the way. As all participants benefit, they will all give the information to enable the study to add

real value.

Best in industry - is focussing on the firm that you consider to be the leader in your own

field/industry sector and finding out what it is that it does that is so much better than you. This

involves getting close to it and learning - but also exchanging information. Also it is likely that others

in the industry will also wish to contact it so competition will be intense.


7/30

World class - is simply deciding that no matter what industry sector you are in - you wish to compare

what you do against the best in the world. Of course the process must still be analogous, but it

means that you are looking for a (probably) very stretching target. The issue here is - what can you

offer the best-in-class firm to tempt it into helping you - and to make it choose you rather than any

of the other firms wishing to benchmark it as well?

Competencies and competition

When operating in a market it is not the competition that is very different from you that matters - in

fact your most dangerous competitors are those that are most like you. This is because for most

products and services there will be many features in common which give customers a 'comfort'

factor and allows customers to differentiate between offerings without feeling that they are looking

at something so completely different that they will disregard it.

It is, however, the differences between you and your competitors that are the basis of competitive

advantage and leads you to offer a distinct customer value proposition that compels customers to

use you rather than the competition. To be successful in business you must have some kind of

competitive advantage, no matter how small or how subtle.

This allows you to construct a Customer Value Proposition (CVP) which distinguishes you from your

competitor's products but which also equalises the price/value trade-off in the customers' mind - in

your favour. A superior CVP will exist because your competencies are more in tune with market

'needs and wants' than the competition - otherwise you will lose customers to those competitors

that have organisational competencies that are better or more in tune with the customers. It is

important to keep abreast of customers' needs and wants which change constantly - as shown in the

diagram - and update your competencies accordingly.

Usually insufficient attention is paid to CVPs and organisational competencies - but that is exactly

where benchmarking can add value.


8/30

In this context competency refers to all aspects of the organisation that are inputs into the CVP (IT,

customer handling processes, premises etc) - not just staff skills. This set of competencies is unique

to you and is why you have competitive edge. It is not set in tablets of stone, however, and an edge

can be dulled or even worn away. To maintain and enhance it you must:

keep evaluating the needs and wants in the market place and how they will metamorphose;

understand what your customers' value now and their needs moving forward;

take a long term time horizon;

understand competitive movements (current and potential);

keep a close eye on changes in the substitutes market; and

put in hand the changes to your own competencies to continue to meet the evolving market

needs and therefore sustain your competitive advantage.

This is where benchmarking can be of great value and successful benchmarking, therefore, will

involve focussing on key, cross-functional business processes that support the long-term strategicintent and enable you to develop process capability, or focussing on those areas that develop and

enhance core competencies.

Steps in benchmarking

There are five key stages in benchmarking:

1. Proto-planning

1. Decide what you wish to benchmark

2. Decide against whom you need to benchmark


9/30

3. Identify outputs required

4. Determine data collection methodologies

2. Data collection

1. Secondary/background research

2. Primary research - from the benchmark

3. Analysis

1. Of the gaps

2. Of the factors that create the gaps (enablers)

4. Implementation

1. Implementation planning

2. Roll-out of new modus operandi (changes)

5. Monitoring

1. Collecting data

2. Evaluating progress

3. Iterative change

Proto-planning

Choosing what to benchmark

Before starting a programme you must choose what to compare. It is of little value benchmarking

irrelevant processes or activities [e.g. how efficient cleaners or night watch men are] - they should

be areas that have the potential to add real sustainable competitive advantage to your business.

Those areas that you benchmark should be chosen with reference to key criteria such as:

Core to you and your competition

Important to you in terms of [some or all of]:

o Volume (large number of transactions undertaken)

o Cost (high costs - based on time and FTE's)

o Value (significant in terms of revenue to you and/or benefit to the customer)

Easy to measure and offering comparisons

Risk inherent:

o Processes that are difficult to control, thus presenting a risk to the business

o Processes that vary in performance and impact profits and costs


10/30

..so that you can maximise the benefits from improvements. NB - not every process needs to be

world class, it is` only those that will deliver sustainable competitive advantage. Similarly one

process should not shine at the expense of the entire system or there will be an efficiency mis-match

leading to ineffectiveness.

The company must understand its strategic intent, and identify core competencies, key businessprocesses, and critical success factors. Then the particular process to be benchmarked must be

documented and flowcharted, to determine its inherent capability.

Specific activities are:

Understand business strategic intent

Identify core competencies, and map company capabilities

Select the specific process to benchmark.

Select a benchmarking team leader and participants.

Identify the customer profiles and expectations.

Analyse process flow and performance measures.

Define process inputs and outputs.

Document and flow chart the process.

Identify, understand and measure critical success factors.

Select critical success factors to benchmark.

Develop the company selection criteria.

Establish the data collection method.

Develop a preliminary questionnaire.

Choosing your benchmark

Having decided what you want to benchmark the next question is: 'against whom will we

benchmark?' - The choice of organisation is key and dependent on several factors as discussed

above. Requirements must be established for selecting benchmarking partners, given thebenchmarking objective, or for characterising the degree of relevance that any particular company

may have as a potential benchmarking partner. At this stage you need to decide if it will be a one :

one exercise or a peer group.


11/30

Deciding on outputs

Before collecting data it is vital that you decide on the format of the outputs. This will in turn shape

both how you collect the data and the method you use for analysis. This should lead to developing

benchmark metrics for use during the project.

Defining the data collection methods

This will be driven by:

The outputs required

The form of the information

The nature of the exercise (group versus one : one)

Time

Process to be benchmarked

Data collection

Data collection is based on 'secondary research - public background - and primary research - directlyfrom benchmarks

Secondary- it is important to learn as much as possible before making any direct contact and this can

be accomplished using 'desk research including publications and websites etc. This enables you to

get a picture of the firm(s) that you might wish to benchmark and an understanding of what you can

bring to them. From this you can develop a shortlist.

Primary- direct data collection from the benchmark. If this is a one to one exercise then it will involve

staff 'living' with the organisation to understand what it does and how; if it is part of a larger exercise

say of peers/competitors then it will be a formal data collection programme in which you will

participate.


12/30

This will involve:

Planning the data collection

Developing an interview guide/questionnaire

Conducting primary research (telephone survey, mail survey, or individual interviews);

Monitoring process performance and analyse performance gaps;

Making on-site observations to clarify and verify previous observations;

Conducting a post-site-visit debriefing with team members, to record observations;

Preparation of a report

Analysis

The analysis consists of two aspects:

Determining the magnitude of the performance gaps between you and the other companies,

using the benchmarking metrics identified during the proto-planning step

Identifying the process enablers that facilitated the performance improvements at the

leading companies

The analysis step in the benchmarking process model consists of five phases:

1. Data analysis

2. Data presentation

3. Root cause analysis

4. Results projection

5. Enabler identification

The goal of this step is to identify adaptable process enablers for implementation

The specific activities are:

Organise and graphically present the data for identification of performance gaps

Normalise performance to a common measurement base

Compare current performance against the benchmark

Identify performance gaps and determine the root causes

Project the performance 3 to 5 years into the future

Develop scenarios case studies for discussion

Isolate process enablers that correlate to process improvements

Valuate the nature of the process enablers to determine their relevance to your organisation


13/30

A typical comparison is shown below:

Implementation

The objective of this phase is to make the changes to your processes to improve performance and

this involves, implementation planning - i.e. developing the how of the change; rolling out the new

methods etc and finalising measures for excellence. The main activities are:

set goals to close, meet, and then exceed the performance gap

select best practices and enablers for consideration

modify process enablers to match the company culture and organisational structure

enhance these enablers based on team observations for integrating process improvements

develop a formal action plan for implementing improvements

obtain management buy-in and ownership of the required changes

commit resources

implement the plan - piloting where sensible

iterate changes based on pilot

roll-out elsewhere as appropriate

Monitoring

This is about ensuring that the new processes work and that any 'edge' created is sustained, and

involves collecting data on the new process, evaluating progress and if necessary, iterating changes,

monitoring and reporting improvement progress, identifying opportunities for future benchmarking

and recalibrating the measure regularly.


14/30

Conclusion

Benchmarking is more than just a comparative analysis - this sort of analysis has been undertaken

for many years with little benefits. What benchmarking contributes is that 'lessons are learned'. Thedifference with a benchmarking study is that a better way of doing things is analysed and then the

key factors - the enablers - are then used to close the gap. NB techniques and enablers that were

critical in recent past will not remain the same so the processes should be revisited periodically to

see if they are still extant and if not to find out what needs to be done. There are a few key issues for

organisations beginning benchmarking efforts:

top management commitment and participation are necessary

sufficient time must be allowed for the project as it takes time

an able, well-trained team is critical - where appropriate get outside help (consultants)

it is heavy on resources: people, travel, research, consultants, and other factors are involved

process rigour is an absolute sine qua non for success - you cannot 'graze the surface'

quantitative data is often difficult and time consuming to obtain

In addition there are some principles that have evolved over time which form a framework to such

studies:

legality - you must be open and honest

exchange - a quid pro quo

confidentiality - it remains between you and the benchmark

use - only for the purpose agreed

preparation - is essential to succeed

completion - of all tasks and implementation must be carried out

understanding - of your processes, gaps, enablers [and their relevance to you] and the action

to close the gap are key to success

Successful benchmarking requires three basic ingredients: a real problem with management willing

to solve it; access to benchmarking partners who have previously resolved that problem; a

knowledgeable benchmarking team with the ability to use quality tools and research practices to

investigate process problems to their root cause. In most cases it is advisable to use external

consultants who bring expertise and experience and can help you carry out a benchmarking exercise

avoiding pitfalls and maximising return from effort.


15/30

Case Study Xerox

Background Note

The history of Xerox goes back to 1938, when Chester Carlson, a patent attorney and part-time

inventor, made the first xerographic image in the US. Carlson struggled for over five years to sell the

invention, as many companies did not believe there was a market for it. Finally, in 1944, the Battelle

Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio, contracted with Carlson to refine his new process, which

Carlson called 'electrophotography.' Three years later, The Haloid Company, maker of photographic

paper, approached Battelle and obtained a license to develop and market a copying machine based

on Carlson's technology.

Haloid later obtained all rights to Carlson's invention and registered the 'Xerox' trademark in 1948.

Buoyed by the success of Xerox copiers, Haloid changed its name to Haloid Xerox Inc in 1958, and toThe Xerox Corporation in 1961. Xerox was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 1961 and on the

Chicago Stock Exchange in 1990. It is also traded on the Boston, Cincinnati, Pacific Coast,

Philadelphia, London and Switzerland exchanges. The strong demand for Xerox's products led the

company from strength to strength and revenues soared from $37 million in 1960 to $268 million in

1965.

Throughout the 1960s, Xerox grew by acquiring many companies, including University Microfilms,

Micro-Systems, Electro-Optical Systems, Basic Systems and Ginn and Company. In 1962, Fuji Xerox

Co. Ltd. was launched as a joint venture of Xerox and Fuji Photo Film. Xerox acquired a majority

stake (51.2%) in Rank Xerox in 1969. During the late 1960s and the early 1970s, Xerox diversified intothe information technology business by acquiring Scientific Data Systems (makers of time-sharing

and scientific computers), Daconics (which made shared logic and word processing systems using

minicomputers), and Vesetec (producers of electrostatic printers and plotters).

In 1969, it set up a corporate R&D facility, the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), to develop

technology in-house. In the 1970s, Xerox focused on introducing new and more efficient models to

retain its share of the reprographic market and cope with competition from the US and Japanese

companies. While the company's revenues increased from $ 698 million in 1966 to $ 4.4 billion in

1976, profits increased five-fold from $ 83 million in 1966 to $ 407 million in 1977. As Xerox grew

rapidly, a variety of controls and procedures were instituted and the number of management layerswas increased during the 1970s. This, however, slowed down decision-making and resulted in major

delays in product development.

In the early 1980s, Xerox found itself increasingly vulnerable to intense competition from both the

US and Japanese competitors. According to analysts, Xerox's management failed to give the

company strategic direction. It ignored new entrants (Ricoh, Canon, and Sevin) who were

consolidating their positions in the lower-end market and in niche segments. The company's

operating cost (and therefore, the prices of its products) was high and its products were of relatively

inferior quality in comparison to its competitors. Xerox also suffered from its highly centralized

decision-making processes. As a result of this, return on assets fell to less than 8% and marketsharein copiers came down sharply from 86% in 1974 to just 17% in 1984. Between 1980 and 1984,


16/30

Xerox's profits decreased from $ 1.15 billion to $ 290 million (Refer Exhibit I).

In 1982, David T. Kearns (Kearns) took over as the CEO. He discovered that the average

manufacturing cost of copiers in Japanese companies was 40-50% of that of Xerox. As a result,

Japanese companies were able to undercut Xerox's prices effortlessly. Kearns quickly began

emphasizing reduction of manufacturing costs and gave new thrust to quality control by launching a

program that was popularly referred to as 'Leadership through Quality.' As part of this quality

program, Xerox implemented the benchmarking program. These initiatives played a major role in

pulling Xerox out of trouble in the years to come. The company even went on to become one of the

best examples of the successful implementation of benchmarking.

Benchmarking at Xerox

The 'Leadership through Quality' program introduced by Kearns revitalized the company. The

program encouraged Xerox to find ways to reduce their manufacturing costs. Benchmarking against

Japanese competitors, Xerox found out that it took twice as long as its Japanese competitors to bring

a product to market, five times the number of engineers, four times the number of design changes,

and three times the design costs.

The company also found that the Japanese could produce, ship, and sell units for about the same

amount that it cost Xerox just to manufacture them. In addition, Xerox's products had over 30,000

defective parts per million - about 30 times more than its competitors. Benchmarking also revealed

that Xerox would need an 18% annual productivity growth rate for five consecutive years to catch up

with the Japanese. After an initial period of denial, Xerox managers accepted the reality.

Following this, Xerox defined benchmarking as 'the process of measuring its products, Services, andpractices against its toughest competitors, identifying the gaps and establishing goals. Our goal is

always to achieve superiority in quality, product reliability and cost.' Gradually, Xerox developed its

own benchmarking model. This model involved tens steps categorized under five stages - planning,

analysis, integration, action and maturity (Refer Figure I for the Xerox benchmarking model).

The five-stage process involved the following activities:

Planning: Determine the subject to be benchmarked, identify the relevant best practice

organizations and select/develop the most appropriate data collection technique.

Analysis: Assess the strengths of competitors (best practice companies) and compare Xerox's

performance with that of its competitors. This stage determines the current competitive gap and the

projected competitive gap.

Integration: Establish necessary goals, on the basis of the data collected, to attain best performance;

integrate these goals into the company's formal planning processes. This stage determines the new

goals or targets of the company and the way in which these will be communicated across the

organization.

Action: Implement action plans established and assess them periodically to determine whether the

company is achieving its objectives. Deviations from the plan are also tackled at this stage.


17/30

Maturity: Determine whether the company has attained a superior performance level. This stage

also helps the company determine whether benchmarking process has become an integral part of

the organization's formal management process.

Xerox collected data on key processes of best practice companies. These critical processes were then

analyzed to identify and define improvement opportunities. For instance, Xerox identified ten key

factors that were related to marketing. These were customer marketing, customer engagement,

order fulfillment, product maintenance, billing and collection, financial management, asset

management, business management, human resource management and information technology.

These ten key factors were further divided into 67 sub-processes. Each of these sub-processes then

became a target for improvement. For the purpose of acquiring data from the related benchmarking

companies, Xerox subscribed to the management and technical databases, referred to magazines

and trade journals, and also consulted professional associations and consulting firms.

Having worked out the model it wanted to use, Xerox began by implementing competitive

benchmarking. However, the company found this type of benchmarking to be inadequate as the

very best practices, in some processes or operations were not being practiced by copier companies.

The company then adopted functional benchmarking, which involved a study of the best practices

followed by a variety of companies regardless of the industry they belonged to. Xerox initiated

functional benchmarking with the study of the warehousing and inventory management system of

L.L. Bean (Bean), a mail-order supplier of sporting goods and outdoor clothing.

Bean had developed a computer program that made order filling very efficient. The program

arranged orders in a specific sequence that allowed stock pickers to travel the shortest possible

distance in collecting goods at the warehouse. This considerably reduced the inconvenience of filling

an individual order that involved gathering relatively less number of goods from the warehouse. The

increased speed and accuracy of order filling achieved by Bean attracted Xerox. The company was

convinced it could achieve similar benefits by developing and implementing such a program.

Similarly, Xerox zeroed in on various other best practice companies to benchmark its other

processes. These included American Express (for billing and collection), Cummins Engines and Ford

(for factory floor layout), Florida Power and Light (for quality improvement), Honda (for supplier

development), Toyota (for quality management), Hewlett-Packard (for research and product

development), Saturn (a division of General Motors) and Fuji Xerox (for manufacturing operations)

and DuPont (for manufacturing safety). Benchmarking was implemented at Xerox in the following

manner:

Supplier Management System

Xerox found that all the Japanese copier companies put together had only 1,000 suppliers, while

Xerox alone had 5,000. To keep the number of suppliers low, Japanese companies standardized

many parts. Often, half the components of similar machines were identical. To ensure part

standardization, Japanese companies worked closely with their suppliers. They frequently trained

vendor's employees in quality control, manufacturing automation and other key areas. Cooperation

between the company and the vendor extended to just-in-time production scheduling, i.e. delivery


18/30

in small quantities, as per the customer's production schedule.

In line with the best practices, Xerox reduced the number of vendors for the copier business from

5,000 to just 400. Xerox also created a vendor certification process in which suppliers were either

offered training or explicitly told where they needed to improve in order to continue as a Xerox

vendor. Vendors were consulted for ideas on better designs and improved customer service also.

Inventory Management

Xerox's efforts to improve inventory management practices drew inspiration from the innovative

spare parts management practices of its European operations. Traditionally, technical

representatives decided the level of spare parts inventory to be carried; little information was

available on the actual usage pattern of the spare parts. Xerox's European operations developed a

sophisticated information system to get around this problem. Actual usage, rather than mere

withdrawal from the stocking point, was used to determine inventory levels. In the late 1980s, Xerox

replicated the system in the US and saved tens of millions of dollars in the process.

The stocking policy followed by Xerox branch managers was to hold fully finished, fully configured

products near to the customer. Because of this policy, they carried vast amounts of inventory, some

of which was not even sold during a given period. The company changed the above setup by asking

branch managers to match the stocking policy to the customer's installation orders, which

considerably reduced the inventory holding time. As a result, working capital cycle time was cut by

70% leading to savings of about $200 million.

he process of benchmarking helped Xerox revamp its manufacturing techniques. Each 'family unit' (a

manager and his direct subordinates) was encouraged to identify its internal as well as externalcustomers and to meet their needs. For instance, the group that built paper trays identified its

external customer as the end user who would load the paper. Its internal customers were the

assembly-line workers, who would combine the paper tray with hundreds of other components to

assemble the copiers. This process significantly improved the operational efficiency of the work

groups.

Marketing

Xerox introduced a Customer Satisfaction Measurement System that integrated customer research

and benchmarking activities. The company sent out over 55,000 questionnaires monthly to its

customers to measure customer satisfaction and record competitors' performance. It then

benchmarked against those competitors that had scored high marks on specific measures of

customer satisfaction. Xerox also used the vast amount of information gathered by the system to

develop business plans for improving quality and meeting customer needs.

Quality

As a part of its "Leadership Through Quality" program, Xerox reformulated its quality policy. The new

policy supplemented the company's benchmarking efforts. Xerox's new quality policy stated, "Xerox

is a quality company. Quality is the basic principle for Xerox. Quality means providing our external

and internal customers with the innovative products and services that duly satisfy their

requirements. Quality improvement is the job of every Xerox employee" (Refer Exhibit III for a


19/30

comparison between new and old quality policies). Following this, the company embarked on a

complete organizational restructuring exercise that focused on research and development,

employee involvement and customer orientation.

Xerox also formed a transition team consisting of 24 senior managers and consultants from

McKinsey & Co to help make Total Quality Management (TQM) a part of its organizational culture.

The transition team took action at two levels. Firstly, it conveyed the message clearly to the world

that Xerox was pursuing more widespread use of TQM, and secondly, it identified and addressed the

obstacles that were likely to slow down the spread of TQM. These ranged from the corporation's

function-dominated matrix structure to the need for new training programs. Consequently, the

transition team also replaced the existing complex matrix by three Strategic Business Units (SBUs) -

Enterprise Service Business, Office Copiers and Home Copiers. Each of these SBUs was given

considerable autonomy in engineering, marketing and pricing.

By the late 1980s, benchmarking had become a day-to-day activity in every division of the company.

According to company sources, Xerox's guiding principle was, 'anything anyone can do better, we

should aim to do at least equally well." In 1991, Xerox developed Business Excellence Certification

(BEC) to integrate benchmarking with the company's overall strategies. This was also done to ensure

continuous self-appraisal of the overall quality performance of the company. The key performance

factors measured by BEC were management leadership, human resource management, customer

focus, quality support and tools, process management and business priorities/results.

These factors, which were further divided into forty sub-factors, had their specific measuring targets.

Each unit's self-appraisal was validated by representatives from sister divisions. BEC helped Xerox

determine the causes for the success or failure of a specific quality process and identify the keysuccess factors or obstacles for achieving a specific quality goal. It also helped the company establish

key functions for removing obstacles that prevented it from reaching the set quality goals.

By the mid-1990s, benchmarking was extended to over 240 key areas of product, service and

business performance at Xerox. The initiatives were also adopted, at varying levels, at Xerox units

across the world. The benchmarking process encouraged Xerox's employees to learn from every

situation. This new philosophy was dubbed 'steal shamelessly,' though the company used only those

ideas that the best practice companies willingly gave away. The salient rule at Xerox for

benchmarking was to 'ask no question of another firm that you would be unwilling to answer about

your own.' This change in attitude was just the beginning of the payoffs of the benchmarking moves.

Reaping the Benefits

The first major payoff of Xerox's focus on benchmarking and customer satisfaction was the increase

in the number of satisfied customers. Highly satisfied customers for its copier/duplicator and

printing systems increased by 38% and 39% respectively. Customer complaints to the president's

office declined by more than 60%. Customer satisfaction with Xerox's sales processes improved by

40%, service processes by 18% and administrative processes by 21%. The financial performance of

the company also improved considerably through the mid and late 1980s.


20/30

Overall customer satisfaction was rated at more than 90% in 1991. Some of the other benefits Xerox

derived were:

Number of defects reduced by 78 per 100 machines.

Service response time reduced by 27%.

Inspection of incoming components reduced to below 5%.

Defects in incoming parts reduced to 150ppm.

Inventory costs reduced by two-thirds.

Marketing productivity increased by one-third.

Distribution productivity increased by 8-10 %.

Increased product reliability on account of 40% reduction in unscheduled maintenance.

Notable decrease in labour costs.

Errors in billing reduced from 8.3 % to 3.5% percent.

Became the leader in the high-volume copier-duplicator market segment.

Country units improved sales from 152% to 328%.

Xerox went on to become the only company worldwide to win all the three prestigious quality

awards: the Deming Award (Japan) in 1980, the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award in 1989,

and the European Quality Award in 1992. Xerox Business Services, the company's document

outsourcing division, also won the Baldridge Award in the service category in 1997. In addition, over

the years, Xerox won quality awards in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China,

Colombia, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,

the UK, and Uruguay. Analysts attributed this success to the 'Leadership Through Quality' initiative,

and, more significantly, to the adoption of benchmarking practices.

The success of benchmarking at Xerox motivated many companies to adopt benchmarking. By the

mid-1990, hundreds of companies implemented benchmarking practices at their divisions across the

world. These included leading companies like Ford, AT&T, IBM, GE, Motorola and Citicorp. During

the 1990s, Xerox, along with companies such as Ford, AT&T, Motorola and IBM, created the

International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) to promote benchmarking and guide companies

across the world in benchmarking efforts.

The institute offers information on various companies and best practices through its electronic

bulletin board. Soon after its establishment, more than 100 companies joined IBC to gain access to

extensive database. By 2001, benchmarking had become a common phenomenon in manycompanies across the world. Analysts remarked that continuous benchmarking helped companies

deliver best quality products and services and survive competition in all businesses (Refer Exhibit V

for successful benchmarking guidelines).


21/30

Water Use Benchmarking in the Beverage Industry

(A Study by Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable [BIER])

Clean, high-quality water is the essential ingredient for all products of the beverage industry.For

years, beverage companies have focused on water use avoidance and conservation to demonstrate

one aspect of environmental stewardship. Since 2007, the Beverage Industry Environmental

Roundtable (BIER) has completed an annual quantitative benchmark to evaluate water use and

efficiency in the beverage industry. This article shares some of the water use and performance

information collected as part of this study.

Further, some of the best practices employed to drive water use avoidance and efficiency are

summarized.

Trends and Observations, 2010Benchmarking Process

BIER completed its fourth annual water use benchmark in 2010, evaluating the performance

of more than 1,500 beverage manufacturing locations representing 16 beverage enterprises.

Each year the study evolves, as BIER members fine-tune the benchmarking process by redefining

benchmarking metrics (Table 1), determining the most critical data to collect, and adjusting the

data analysis process for an ever-expanding data set. In 2010, BIER membership determined the

benchmarking process was sufficiently mature to share results with external stakeholders in

support of the Transparency Principle of World Class Water Stewardship in the Beverage Industry2010: Water Efficiency and Beyond.In 2010, each of the 16 member enterprises submitted three

years (2007, 2008, 2009) of facility-specific data, as described in Table 1. At a minimum, all

enterprises provided facility-specific data for total water use, total beverage production, facility type

and location. The basis for efficiency analysis is the water use ratio,which describes how efficiently a

facility uses water for beverage production. The Global Corporate Consultancy of AnteaGroup, a

third-

party consultant, has managed the annual study since its inception, including data collection,

analysis, verification and reporting.

For the purposes of this study, four types of beverage production facilities were identified:Bottling, brewery, distillery and winery. While all water uses at these facility types (including

Water used for employee services, on-site landscaping, etc.) were included, non-

manufacturing facilities, such as office buildings and warehouses, were excluded from the study.

Facility type was determined by the primary process conducted at each facility. Bottling

facilities were assigned additional sub-categories based on product mix to account for the various

product types processed at bottling facilities. All facilities reported a beverage product mix, or a

percentage breakdown of the different beverage types produced at each facility (Table 1).

Characteristics of each facility and beverage type are further explained in the following sections.


22/30

Table 1: Quantitative Facility-Level Data Set

Total Water Use (kL): all water used by the facility (including bottling and industrial water) from all

sources used for activities as identified below:

Includes water used for:

Facility-level beverage production and packaging (accounts for water contained in

product)

Cleaning/sanitizing processes

Cooling waters

Heating waters

Sanitation

Landscaping

Stormwater captured for aforementioned activities

Excludes water used for:

Return water (underground water returned to the aquifer, recharge area, or natural

drainage basin without significant modification).2

Concentrate, syrup or flavor production

Agriculture

Production of raw materials (plastic, glass, etc)

Shipment of raw materials

Distribution of finished product

User consumption purposes (e.g. addition of ice cubes, spirits dilution, etc.)

BIER members determined that benchmarking would focus on the manufacturing and packaging

sections of the value chain only, as upstream and downstream processes vary dramatically between

the four beverage types. As noted in Table 1, water used in upstream processes such as agriculture

(water used to grow ingredients), production of flavors or concentrates, and production of other raw

materials (e.g., plastics,metals, etc.) was not included in water use totals.Similarly, water used in

downstream processes such as distribution of finished product was not included in water use totals.

Upstream and downstream processes are addressed under Principle VI of World Class WaterStewardship in the Beverage Industry. It should be noted that water contained in the final beverage

product was included in water use totals and beverage production totals. However, any water added

to finished product by users as ice or to dilute product was excluded. Further information on the

processes included in water use is defined for each facility type.

Enterprises were also asked to submit supplemental process information for their distillery, brewery

and winery facilities. Process-specific information such as package type,pasteurization type, and

alcohol content was collected to evaluate trends observed during data analysis.


23/30

2010 Water Stewardship Benchmarking Results

The 2010 study was the most robust report to date, with over 1,500 facilities spread throughout six

continents reporting data into the study. However, to maintain consistency in data evaluation, only

facilities which reported data in each of the three study years were included in these analyses. Due

to acquisitions, divestitures, site openings and closures, or gaps in data reporting; this results in a

data set of 1,178 facilities for detailed analysis.

Analyses were conducted to determine industry water use, production, and water use ratio over the

three year period.Industry aggregate water use ratio improved by 7 percent from 2007 to 2009.

Aggregate beverage production remained relatively stable, increasing 1 percent from 2007 to 2009.

Industry aggregate water use decreased approximately 6 percent from 2007 to 2009. By improving

water efficiency, the industry avoided the use of approximately 19 billion liters of water in 2009,

enough water to supply the average daily water use for the entire population of the United Kingdom

for two days.

Further analysis was performed on each of the four facility types to identify trends in water use.

Facility types, general process steps, and associated water use ratio trends are described in the next

section. Annual water use benchmarking has revealed the unique processes that use water at each

facility type and the many variances between facility processes within the same facility types. BIER

recognizes that it is impossible to compare water use ratios across different facility types or with

other consumer goods industries because of these unique processes. Similarly, BIER abstains from

ranking facility efficiency within beverage types in consideration of the unique characteristics of

individual facilities.

Bottling

For the purposes of the benchmarking study, bottling facilities were defined as locations where

concentrate, syrup, flavors/infusions, and/or bulk alcohol are blended with water and packaged into

various container types. Bottling facilities also encompass facilities which receive finished bulk

product (such as completely brewed beer or matured whiskey). No fermenting or distilling processes

are conducted at bottling facilities. All nine beverage categories were represented in this facility type

(Table 1).

Bottling represented the largest data set of the study, with bottling facilities accounting for 82

percent (by volume) of the industry data set. Bottling facilities generally use the least amount of

water to make a liter of product, since there are fewer water-intensive processes as compared to

other beverage types (e.g. cooking,fermenting and distilling). However, bottling facilities typically

package a mix of several different products and beverage types; 29 percent of these facilities had a

beverage product mix of more than one type of beverage.

If a facility manufactures more than one product, water is used during rinse cycles to switch

between products. Water used for rinse cycles and sanitization is a known driver of water use.

The bottling facility data set included a range of beverage types, processes, and production volume.

This article focuses on the two largest subgroups within the bottling data set: Carbonated Soft Drinks

and Bottled Water.


24/30

Carbonated Soft Drinks

Carbonated soft drinks are defined as non-alcoholic, flavored carbonated beverages. This category

includes colas, ginger ales, and seltzers but excludes non-carbonated beverages such as ready to

drink teas, coffees, fitness drinks, energy drinks, and juice drinks. Facilities included in this subgroup

reported a beverage production mix (percentage of each type of beverage produced at the facility,

totaling to 100) of 50 percent or more carbonated soft drinks. Figure 1 shows the boundaries of the

operations where water use was included in the benchmarking report.

In 2010, 687 carbonated soft drink bottling facilities submitted three years of data for the

benchmarking study. Carbonated soft drinks were the most well represented subgroup with facilities

located on six continents. This subgroup also contained some of the largest facilities by production

volume in the entire study.

Of the 687carbonated soft drink bottling sites, 64 percent showed an improvement in water use

ratio from 2007 to 2009. As seen in Figure 44, the overall carbonated soft drink subset water useratio showed a 3 percent improvement from 2007 to 2009. Facilities with a beverage product mix of

100 percent carbonated soft drinks (523 facilities) showed a similar improvement of 4 percent from

2007 to 2009.

Fig 1: Process Map Carbonated Soft Drinks

Bottled Water

Bottled water is defined as all unflavored bottled waters including spring water, purified water

(produced by distillation, deionization, reverse osmosis or other processes), mineral water, sparkling

bottled water or well water. The study process data sheets offered three choices for specifying

bottled water mix: spring water, natural water or mineral water. For the purposes of this article,

data is presented for facilities that had a beverage product mix of 50 percent or more of any bottled

water type. As seen in Figure 5, benchmarking accounts for water treatment (as applicable) and

bottling processes In 2010, 105 bottled water facilities submitted three years of data for the

benchmarking study, or 14 percent (by volume) of the bottling facility data set. As seen in Figure 2,

the water use ratio range reported in this subgroup had the smallest range of all subgroups.

Of these 105 sites, 60 percent showed an improvement in water use ratio from 2007 to 2009. The

overall bottled water subgroup water use ratio showed a 2 percent improvement from 2007 to

2009. Facilities with a beverage product mix of 100 percent bottled water (62 facilities) showed a

similar water use improvement of 4 percent from 2007 to 2009.

Agriculture Concrete

Production

Water

TreatmentDistil

latio

Blending

and

Bottlin


25/30

Figure 2

Brewery

For the purposes of the benchmarking study, a brewery was defined as a facility conducting all

processes after the malting process to produce beer (mashing/lautering, boiling,fermenting, aging,

and packaging). All breweries in this study also conducted bottling operations on site; a small

number also shipped product off site in bulk containers to a separate bottling facility. Breweries may

have also produced other beverages (carbonated soft drinks, bottled water) in addition to beer, butin all cases, the majority of beverage product mix was beer. Brewery (beer only) facilities accounted

for 16 percent (by volume) of the industry data set, the second largest facility type of the study. As

seen in Figure 3, benchmarking accounted for all process steps except for upstream agricultural

growth, malting and distribution of finished product.

Fig 3: Process Map Brewery

In 2010, a total of 142 breweries submitted three years of data for the benchmarking study. Of these

breweries, 117 manufactured beer only, while 25 facilities produced other beverages in addition to

beer. Figure 8 presents the water use ratios of the 117 facilities that produced beer only. The range

in water use ratios observed in the brewery data set can be attributed to several factors, including:

Breweries that package the majority of their product in small package configurations (such as 12oz

Water

Treatment

Bottling Distill

ation

Malting

Agriculture

Mashing Boiling Fermenting Aging Packaging

Disti

llati


26/30

or 33cL bottles and cans) typically use more water than a facility which packages a majority of

product in large format containers (such as kegs).

Within larger facilities, there was less variation in water use ratio. Facilities with a 2009 production

volume greater than 1,000,000 kiloliters reported water use ratios below 5.0 L/L. Additionally, these

facilities demonstrated a 19 percent improvement in water use ratio from 2007 to 2009.

Of these 117 breweries, 70 percent showed an improvement in water use ratio from 2007 to 2009.

The overall data set water use ratio improved 14 percent from 2007 to 2009, the greatest

improvement in the study.

Distillery

For the purposes of the benchmarking study, a distillery was defined as any facility that takes

agricultural inputs (grains, agave, molasses, etc.) and conducts processes (cooking, fermenting,

distilling and storage/maturation) to make bulk alcohol.

Production volume at distilleries is reported as wineliters, or the bulk volume of alcohol produced

at the facility independent of alcohol content. As seen in Figure 4, benchmarking did not account for

upstream agricultural processes or distribution of finished product. Approximately one-quarter of

reporting facilities also gauged and packed product on site; however, based on a statistical analysis,

there was no discernible trend of water use ratios at these locations compared to those which

shipped product off site for blending and bottling.

Similar to bottling facilities, distilleries produce a wide variety of products, each of which can require

a different number of manufacturing processes that can impact the total water use at the facility,

including differences in the distillation process itself. Additionally, facilities that produce a single

product or product-type experience lower water use ratios due to reduced cleaning requirements

than those facilities that produce more than one type of spirit. Distillery production processes varied

by type of spirit manufactured and by each facility and enterprise.

Similarly, facilities that produce one type of product would use less water for cleaning between

cycles. Alcohol content is also a driver for water use ratio in distilleries. The spirits that result from

the distilling process have a range of alcohol content; a lower proof spirit has more water in the final

beverage product than a high proof spirit. Additionally, due to transportation regulations and

proximity to the bottling facility, some products are partially blended to a lower proof at the

distillery.


27/30

Fig 4: Process Map Distillery

In 2010, 41 distilleries provided three years of data. Distilleries had the greatest water use ratio

range in the industry data set. One of the main drivers for this range was the extensive cooling water

requirements of distilleries. The type of cooling water system is one of largest drivers of water use.

For example, a once-through cooling water system which draws from a surface water body typically

uses more water than either an open recirculating or a closed loop cooling system.

Of these 41 facilities, 54 percent improved their water use ratio from 2007 to 2009. The overall

distillery data set showed an improvement of 2 percent from 2007 to 2009 a smaller-scale

improvement than other data sets.

Winery

For the purposes of the benchmarking study, the scope of winery processes included the crushing

and pressing of grapes, fermentation, storage/aging and bottling of product. As seen in Figure 5,

water used for agriculture, including crop irrigation, was not included in total water use data. Water

used for concentrate production and distribution also was not included in benchmarking. Only some

facilities included the blending and bottling process in benchmarking data.

Wineries represented the smallest data set, with 37 facilities reporting three years of data in 2010,

accounting for less than 1 percent (by volume) of the industry data set. Like distilleries, wineries also

had a large range of water use ratios among facilities, which was the result of various facility sizes,

type of inputs used (concentrated juice, grapes or both), and the type/blend of product (red, white

or sparkling wine).

Agriculture

Cooking Fermenting Distilling Storage/

Maturation

Blending/

Bottling

Disti

llati


28/30

Fig 5: Process Map Winery

Of these 37 facilities, 59 percent improved their water use ratio from 2007 to 2009. The overall

winery data set showed an improvement of 4 percent from 2007 to 2009, which similar to

distilleries, is likely attributed to a range of water use ratios and facility production volumes

throughout the data set.

Wineries were the only facility type where the year to year change in production volume at

individual facilities showed a statistically significant correlation to a change in water use ratio. This

was most notable from 2008 to 2009, when the aggregate production of wineries in the data set

decreased 13 percent, and water use ratio increased 5 percent. This indicated that the size (or

production volume) of a winery is a factor in determining its water use ratio.

Water Use Efficiency DriversWater use ratios vary in the beverage industry due to availability of advanced technology, packaging

requirements for different beverage types, and general company practices. BIER has identified some

of the following water use drivers through four cycles of water use benchmarking and best practice

sharing:

Process Automation and Efficiency: Facilities with newer equipment often report lower water use

ratios. Automated processes, where water use is more closely controlled and regulated, will also

result in water use efficiency and improvement.

Number of Unique Products: Facilities that produce more than one unique product (e.g. different

brews of beer, types of soft drink, etc) will require additional water use for cleaning of equipmentbetween products.

Juice/Conce

ntrate

Crushing/

Pressing

Fermenting Aging Blending

/Bottling

Disti

llati

Agriculture


29/30

Use of Returnable Containers: Returnable container use is known to be a driver of higher water use

ratios, as the bottle washing and sterilization process is water intensive.

Use of Non-returnable Containers: Rinsing practices associated with non-returnable containers

represent another potential source of water use at beverage facilities. However, new applications in

non-returnable bottle use, such as air rinsing and improved controls on bottle production, reduce

the need for water rinse.

Water Recovery and Re-use: Water recovery and re-use for non-product purposes can significantly

reduce the total volume of water used by a facility. Water that is not suitable for product (e.g.

treatment reject, rinse water, used cooling water, etc.) can be recovered and reused for irrigation,

sanitary water supply, line lubrication,facilities maintenance, cooling/heating water,or other

cleaning purposes.

Clean-in-place Technology: Commercial beverage manufacturing operations useautomated clean-in-

place technologies to sanitize process lines and tanks to preserve product quality. Automatedcontrols of chemical concentration, cycle duration,system temperature, and mechanical flow/system

pressure can be modified and regulated to efficiently clean equipment with less water and fewer

downtime periods.

Facility Water Efficiency Efforts: Most BIER members publically report sustainability data, including

annual water use ratio (or similar value) and long-term conservation goals.Dedicated enterprise and

facility-level efficiency management systems (establishing key performance indicators, clear targets,

accountability for targets, monitoring, monthly reporting, etc) establish a culture of water

conservation are significant drivers of water use ratio improvement.

Bibliography:

http://bieroundtable.com/files/BIER%20Benchmarking%20Publication%202011.pdf

http://energybenchmarking.lbl.gov/

http://www.kmgma.org/source/acmpe%20study%20group/week%203/Benchmark%20Reporting%2

0-%20A%20key%20to%20practice%20improvement.pdf

http://rru.worldbank.org/documents/toolkits/labor/toolkit/module3/benchmarking.html

http://www.enotes.com/business-finance-encyclopedia/benchmarking
http://bieroundtable.com/files/BIER%20Benchmarking%20Publication%202011.pdfhttp://bieroundtable.com/files/BIER%20Benchmarking%20Publication%202011.pdfhttp://energybenchmarking.lbl.gov/http://energybenchmarking.lbl.gov/http://www.kmgma.org/source/acmpe%20study%20group/week%203/Benchmark%20Reporting%20-%20A%20key%20to%20practice%20improvement.pdfhttp://www.kmgma.org/source/acmpe%20study%20group/week%203/Benchmark%20Reporting%20-%20A%20key%20to%20practice%20improvement.pdfhttp://www.kmgma.org/source/acmpe%20study%20group/week%203/Benchmark%20Reporting%20-%20A%20key%20to%20practice%20improvement.pdfhttp://rru.worldbank.org/documents/toolkits/labor/toolkit/module3/benchmarking.htmlhttp://rru.worldbank.org/documents/toolkits/labor/toolkit/module3/benchmarking.htmlhttp://www.enotes.com/business-finance-encyclopedia/benchmarkinghttp://www.enotes.com/business-finance-encyclopedia/benchmarkinghttp://www.enotes.com/business-finance-encyclopedia/benchmarkinghttp://rru.worldbank.org/documents/toolkits/labor/toolkit/module3/benchmarking.htmlhttp://www.kmgma.org/source/acmpe%20study%20group/week%203/Benchmark%20Reporting%20-%20A%20key%20to%20practice%20improvement.pdfhttp://www.kmgma.org/source/acmpe%20study%20group/week%203/Benchmark%20Reporting%20-%20A%20key%20to%20practice%20improvement.pdfhttp://energybenchmarking.lbl.gov/http://bieroundtable.com/files/BIER%20Benchmarking%20Publication%202011.pdf


30/30

applications of benchmarking

Documents