DTU ProjectLab - User contributions [en-gb]

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-28T16:57:39Z

Dimak:

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organizations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organizations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities, and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthermore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in General'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research, among the best performers, in order to extract useful information for improving the organizational or project performance of a company, and not just copying or imitating what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organization’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organization take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General Purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming known as the “'''Deming Cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own inside the same market, and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“Benchlearning”''' and '''“Network Benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future project.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organization''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organizational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

===='''Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management'''====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project Cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel

• Information technology costs of project management tools

• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

The most suitable formula for project investment evaluation is by dividing net benefits by cost. The key point that makes this metric effective, is the placement of a dollar value on each unit of data that can be retrieved and applied to assess net benefits. More specific, this data can be contribution to profit, cost savings, increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Handling of people can be one of the most critical project management resources and define its overall effectiveness. It is vital for any organization to possess not only the optimal number of employees but also the appropriate personnel ratios among the people who are responsible for project management.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews are also an important and widely used metric. As it was also stated above, project managers can gain valuable information, identify lessons learned and generally obtain feedback from any formal reviews of completed projects. All these information, can be used in the improvement of future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

It is vital for any organization to align its projects with its organizational strategy, if portfolio success is to be reached. This can be done by creating an accordance between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the associated level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

If a company is to earn customers loyalty against its competitors, then it is crucial to deliver consistent customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be achieved if the customer expectations have been met, and if clients are pleased, based on the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among them. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management, can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating trust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate, and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. As a reflection, the manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will impact the success of the project the most.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations though, can be counterbalanced by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking and can lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project, not only in outcomes for the immediate project, but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results, while benchmarking the management of a project, would be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations that the use of effective benchmarking project management practices has, it is expected that this evaluation tool will be widely used in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance being the main elements that characterize competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards.

Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure, something that will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment, they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues, and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation gives project manager the opportunity to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-28T11:33:08Z

Dimak: /* Benchmarking in general */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organizations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organizations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthermore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in General'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organizational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organization’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organization take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General Purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming known as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organization''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organizational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

===='''Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management'''====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project Cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel

• Information technology costs of project management tools

• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

The most suitable formula for project investment evaluation is by dividing net benefits by cost. The key point that makes this metric effective, is the placement of a dollar value on each unit of data that can be retrieved and applied to assess net benefits. More specific, this data can be contribution to profit, cost savings, increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Handling of people can be one of the most critical project management resources and define its overall effectiveness. It is vital for any organization to possess not only the optimal number of employees but also the appropriate personnel ratios among the people who are responsible for project management.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews are also an important and widely used metric. As it was also stated above, project managers can gain valuable information, identify lessons learned and generally obtain feedback from any formal reviews of completed projects. All these information, can be used in the improvement of future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

It is vital for any organization to align its projects with its organizational strategy, if portfolio success is to be reached. This can be done by creating an accordance between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the associated level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

If a company is to earn customers loyalty against its competitors, then it is crucial to deliver consistent customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be achieved if the customer expectations have been met, and if clients are pleased, based on the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among them. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management, can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating trust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate, and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. As a reflection, the manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will impact the success of the project the most.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations though, can be counterbalanced by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking and can lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project, not only in outcomes for the immediate project, but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results, while benchmarking the management of a project, would be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations that the use of effective benchmarking project management practices has, it is expected that this evaluation tool will be widely used in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance being the main elements that characterize competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards.

Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure, something that will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment, they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues, and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation gives project manager the opportunity to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-28T11:32:51Z

Dimak: /* General purpose of Benchmarking */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organizations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organizations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthermore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organizational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organization’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organization take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General Purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming known as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organization''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organizational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

===='''Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management'''====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project Cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel

• Information technology costs of project management tools

• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

The most suitable formula for project investment evaluation is by dividing net benefits by cost. The key point that makes this metric effective, is the placement of a dollar value on each unit of data that can be retrieved and applied to assess net benefits. More specific, this data can be contribution to profit, cost savings, increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Handling of people can be one of the most critical project management resources and define its overall effectiveness. It is vital for any organization to possess not only the optimal number of employees but also the appropriate personnel ratios among the people who are responsible for project management.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews are also an important and widely used metric. As it was also stated above, project managers can gain valuable information, identify lessons learned and generally obtain feedback from any formal reviews of completed projects. All these information, can be used in the improvement of future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

It is vital for any organization to align its projects with its organizational strategy, if portfolio success is to be reached. This can be done by creating an accordance between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the associated level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

If a company is to earn customers loyalty against its competitors, then it is crucial to deliver consistent customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be achieved if the customer expectations have been met, and if clients are pleased, based on the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among them. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management, can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating trust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate, and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. As a reflection, the manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will impact the success of the project the most.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations though, can be counterbalanced by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking and can lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project, not only in outcomes for the immediate project, but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results, while benchmarking the management of a project, would be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations that the use of effective benchmarking project management practices has, it is expected that this evaluation tool will be widely used in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance being the main elements that characterize competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards.

Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure, something that will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment, they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues, and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation gives project manager the opportunity to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-28T11:32:01Z

Dimak: /* Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organizations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organizations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthermore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organizational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organization’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organization take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming known as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organization''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organizational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

===='''Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management'''====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project Cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel

• Information technology costs of project management tools

• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

The most suitable formula for project investment evaluation is by dividing net benefits by cost. The key point that makes this metric effective, is the placement of a dollar value on each unit of data that can be retrieved and applied to assess net benefits. More specific, this data can be contribution to profit, cost savings, increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Handling of people can be one of the most critical project management resources and define its overall effectiveness. It is vital for any organization to possess not only the optimal number of employees but also the appropriate personnel ratios among the people who are responsible for project management.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews are also an important and widely used metric. As it was also stated above, project managers can gain valuable information, identify lessons learned and generally obtain feedback from any formal reviews of completed projects. All these information, can be used in the improvement of future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

It is vital for any organization to align its projects with its organizational strategy, if portfolio success is to be reached. This can be done by creating an accordance between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the associated level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

If a company is to earn customers loyalty against its competitors, then it is crucial to deliver consistent customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be achieved if the customer expectations have been met, and if clients are pleased, based on the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among them. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management, can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating trust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate, and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. As a reflection, the manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will impact the success of the project the most.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations though, can be counterbalanced by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking and can lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project, not only in outcomes for the immediate project, but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results, while benchmarking the management of a project, would be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations that the use of effective benchmarking project management practices has, it is expected that this evaluation tool will be widely used in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance being the main elements that characterize competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards.

Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure, something that will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment, they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues, and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation gives project manager the opportunity to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T21:55:42Z

Dimak:

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organizations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organizations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthermore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organizational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organization’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organization take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming known as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organization''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organizational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

===='''Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management'''====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel

• Information technology costs of project management tools

• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

The most suitable formula for project investment evaluation is by dividing net benefits by cost. The key point that makes this metric effective, is the placement of a dollar value on each unit of data that can be retrieved and applied to assess net benefits. More specific, this data can be contribution to profit, cost savings, increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Handling of people can be one of the most critical project management resources and define its overall effectiveness. It is vital for any organization to possess not only the optimal number of employees but also the appropriate personnel ratios among the people who are responsible for project management.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews are also an important and widely used metric. As it was also stated above, project managers can gain valuable information, identify lessons learned and generally obtain feedback from any formal reviews of completed projects. All these information, can be used in the improvement of future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

It is vital for any organization to align its projects with its organizational strategy, if portfolio success is to be reached. This can be done by creating an accordance between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the associated level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

If a company is to earn customers loyalty against its competitors, then it is crucial to deliver consistent customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be achieved if the customer expectations have been met, and if clients are pleased, based on the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among them. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management, can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating trust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate, and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. As a reflection, the manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will impact the success of the project the most.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations though, can be counterbalanced by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking and can lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project, not only in outcomes for the immediate project, but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results, while benchmarking the management of a project, would be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations that the use of effective benchmarking project management practices has, it is expected that this evaluation tool will be widely used in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance being the main elements that characterize competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards.

Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure, something that will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment, they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues, and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation gives project manager the opportunity to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T19:30:33Z

Dimak: /* What to Benchmark */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organizations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organisation''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

===='''Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management'''====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel

• Information technology costs of project management tools

• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

The most suitable formula for project investment evaluation is by dividing net benefits by cost. The key point that makes this metric effective, is the placement of a dollar value on each unit of data that can be retrieved and applied to assess net benefits. More specific, this data can be contribution to profit, cost savings, increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Handling of people can be one of the most critical project management resources and define its overall effectiveness. It is vital for any organization to possess not only the optimal number of employees but also the appropriate personnel ratios among the people who are responsible for project management.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews are also an important and widely used metric. As it was also stated above, project managers can gain valuable information, identify lessons learned and generally obtain feedback from any formal reviews of completed projects. All these information, can be used in the improvement of future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

It is vital for any organization to align its projects with its organizational strategy, if portfolio success is to be reached. This can be done by creating an accordance between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the associated level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

If a company is to earn customers loyalty against its competitors, then it is crucial to deliver consistent customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be achieved if the customer expectations have been met, and if clients are pleased, based on the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among them. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management, can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating trust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate, and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. As a reflection, the manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will impact the success of the project the most.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations though, can be counterbalanced by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking and can lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project, not only in outcomes for the immediate project, but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results, while benchmarking the management of a project, would be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations that the use of effective benchmarking project management practices has, it is expected that this evaluation tool will be widely used in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance being the main elements that characterize competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards.

Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure, something that will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment, they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues, and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation gives project manager the opportunity to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T18:40:27Z

Dimak: /* What to Benchmark */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organizations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organisation''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

====Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel

• Information technology costs of project management tools

• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

The most suitable formula for project investment evaluation is by dividing net benefits by cost. The key point that makes this metric effective, is the placement of a dollar value on each unit of data that can be retrieved and applied to assess net benefits. More specific, this data can be contribution to profit, cost savings, increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Handling of people can be one of the most critical project management resources and define its overall effectiveness. It is vital for any organization to possess not only the optimal number of employees but also the appropriate personnel ratios among the people who are responsible for project management.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews are also an important and widely used metric. As it was also stated above, project managers can gain valuable information, identify lessons learned and generally obtain feedback from any formal reviews of completed projects. All these information, can be used in the improvement of future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

It is vital for any organization to align its projects with its organizational strategy, if portfolio success is to be reached. This can be done by creating an accordance between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the associated level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

If a company is to earn customers loyalty against its competitors, then it is crucial to deliver consistent customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be achieved if the customer expectations have been met, and if clients are pleased, based on the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among them. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management, can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating trust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate, and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. As a reflection, the manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will impact the success of the project the most.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations though, can be counterbalanced by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking and can lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project, not only in outcomes for the immediate project, but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results, while benchmarking the management of a project, would be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations that the use of effective benchmarking project management practices has, it is expected that this evaluation tool will be widely used in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance being the main elements that characterize competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards.

Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure, something that will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment, they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues, and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation gives project manager the opportunity to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T18:36:58Z

Dimak: /* Limitations */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organizations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organisation''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

====Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel

• Information technology costs of project management tools

• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

The most suitable formula for project investment evaluation is by dividing net benefits by cost. The key point that makes this metric effective, is the placement of a dollar value on each unit of data that can be retrieved and applied to assess net benefits. More specific, this data can be contribution to profit, cost savings, increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Handling of people can be one of the most critical project management resources and define its overall effectiveness. It is vital for any organization to possess not only the optimal number of employees but also the appropriate personnel ratios among the people who are responsible for project management.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews are also an important and widely used metric. As it was also stated above, project managers can gain valuable information, identify lessons learned and generally obtain feedback from any formal reviews of completed projects. All these information, can be used in the improvement of future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

It is vital for any organization to align its projects with its organizational strategy, if portfolio success is to be reached. This can be done by creating an accordance between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the associated level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

If a company is to earn customers loyalty against its competitors, then it is crucial to deliver consistent customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be achieved if the customer expectations have been met, and if clients are pleased, based on the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among them. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management, can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating trust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate, and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. As a reflection, the manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will impact the success of the project the most.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations though, can be counterbalanced by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking and can lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project, not only in outcomes for the immediate project, but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results, while benchmarking the management of a project, would be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations that the use of effective benchmarking project management practices has, it is expected that this evaluation tool will be widely used in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance being the main elements that characterize competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards.

Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure, something that will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment, they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues, and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation gives project manager the opportunity to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T18:27:23Z

Dimak: /* Conclusion */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organizations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organisation''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

====Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel

• Information technology costs of project management tools

• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

The most suitable formula for project investment evaluation is by dividing net benefits by cost. The key point that makes this metric effective, is the placement of a dollar value on each unit of data that can be retrieved and applied to assess net benefits. More specific, this data can be contribution to profit, cost savings, increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Handling of people can be one of the most critical project management resources and define its overall effectiveness. It is vital for any organization to possess not only the optimal number of employees but also the appropriate personnel ratios among the people who are responsible for project management.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews are also an important and widely used metric. As it was also stated above, project managers can gain valuable information, identify lessons learned and generally obtain feedback from any formal reviews of completed projects. All these information, can be used in the improvement of future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

It is vital for any organization to align its projects with its organizational strategy, if portfolio success is to be reached. This can be done by creating an accordance between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the associated level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

If a company is to earn customers loyalty against its competitors, then it is crucial to deliver consistent customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be achieved if the customer expectations have been met, and if clients are pleased, based on the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project, not only in outcomes for the immediate project, but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results, while benchmarking the management of a project, would be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations that the use of effective benchmarking project management practices has, it is expected that this evaluation tool will be widely used in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance being the main elements that characterize competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards.

Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure, something that will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment, they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues, and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation gives project manager the opportunity to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T18:16:13Z

Dimak:

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organizations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organisation''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

====Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel

• Information technology costs of project management tools

• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

The most suitable formula for project investment evaluation is by dividing net benefits by cost. The key point that makes this metric effective, is the placement of a dollar value on each unit of data that can be retrieved and applied to assess net benefits. More specific, this data can be contribution to profit, cost savings, increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Handling of people can be one of the most critical project management resources and define its overall effectiveness. It is vital for any organization to possess not only the optimal number of employees but also the appropriate personnel ratios among the people who are responsible for project management.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews are also an important and widely used metric. As it was also stated above, project managers can gain valuable information, identify lessons learned and generally obtain feedback from any formal reviews of completed projects. All these information, can be used in the improvement of future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

It is vital for any organization to align its projects with its organizational strategy, if portfolio success is to be reached. This can be done by creating an accordance between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the associated level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

If a company is to earn customers loyalty against its competitors, then it is crucial to deliver consistent customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be achieved if the customer expectations have been met, and if clients are pleased, based on the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T16:43:26Z

Dimak: /* Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organisation''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

====Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel

• Information technology costs of project management tools

• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

The most suitable formula for project investment evaluation is by dividing net benefits by cost. The key point that makes this metric effective, is the placement of a dollar value on each unit of data that can be retrieved and applied to assess net benefits. More specific, this data can be contribution to profit, cost savings, increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Handling of people can be one of the most critical project management resources and define its overall effectiveness. It is vital for any organization to possess not only the optimal number of employees but also the appropriate personnel ratios among the people who are responsible for project management.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews are also an important and widely used metric. As it was also stated above, project managers can gain valuable information, identify lessons learned and generally obtain feedback from any formal reviews of completed projects. All these information, can be used in the improvement of future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

It is vital for any organization to align its projects with its organizational strategy, if portfolio success is to be reached. This can be done by creating an accordance between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the associated level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

If a company is to earn customers loyalty against its competitors, then it is crucial to deliver consistent customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be achieved if the customer expectations have been met, and if clients are pleased, based on the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T16:42:10Z

Dimak: /* Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organisation''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

====Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel

• Information technology costs of project management tools

• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

The most suitable formula for project investment evaluation is by dividing net benefits by cost. The key point that makes this metric effective, is the placement of a dollar value on each unit of data that can be retrieved and applied to assess net benefits. More specific, this data can be contribution to profit, cost savings, increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Handling of people can be one of the most critical project management resources and define its overall effectiveness. It is vital for any organization to possess not only the optimal number of employees but also the appropriate personnel ratios among the people who are responsible for project management.

* '''Project cycle time'''

Project's life-cycle mainly sets boundaries by defining the beginning and the end of a project. Cycle-time measures are based on standard performance, meaning similar projects can be benchmarked to determine a Standard Project Life-Cycle Time. Measuring cycle times can also mean measuring the length of time to complete any of the processes that comprise the project life-cycle.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews are also an important and widely used metric. As it was also stated above, project managers can gain valuable information, identify lessons learned and generally obtain feedback from any formal reviews of completed projects. All these information, can be used in the improvement of future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

It is vital for any organization to align its projects with its organizational strategy, if portfolio success is to be reached. This can be done by creating an accordance between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the associated level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

If a company is to earn customers loyalty against its competitors, then it is crucial to deliver consistent customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be achieved if the customer expectations have been met, and if clients are pleased, based on the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Talk:Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T16:29:42Z

Dimak: /* Answer to reviewers */

Anna: Just a few pointers for you article: It is very important that you keep you focus on the tool/method itself and that you really relate it properly to the overall topic of project management. The article you are making should be a contribution that others can read if they ever need this specific tool when managing a project. So maybe focus more on the use of benchmarking within project management and a little less on the overall use of benchmarking in the external/internal environment of a company.

Reviewer 1, S997303
Hi Dimak

• Benchmarking is a very interesting topic, and it seems a bit difficult to structure, but I think you do it nicely and according to the requirements for the method article.

• Your point 2.2 is very fine and I think it is relevant to describe the development. I like your figure 2 with benchmarking generations, but the figure could be more readable, especially if you print out the article the figure is blurred.

• Also Figure 4 could be a little bigger and clearer, especially because I am curious to read the benchmarking parameters in the score card chart.

• In section 3 I could suggest you to consider creating a table listing different phases in project management and the benchmarking tools to be recommended in the different phases. This could provide the reader with an overview of how to use benchmarking in different PM phases.

• In section 3.1 I have a question because I am not 100% clear if “Iron triangle” and “Square Root” are tools which are used for benchmarking today, or if you are actually suggesting to consider to use these as benchmarking tools if adapted to PM.

• The content of your article in very interesting and you guide your reader, however, you could consider tightening up your writing style a little bit to make the text a little shorter and more precise. E.g. in section two you have a sentence of 54 words.

• I miss the listing of all the references you refer to, but I am sure you have overseen this being under time pressure. Also remember annotations.

Good luck with the completion of your article.
Jane

===Reviewer 3, lessisv===

'''Overall overview'''.
This is a very interesting topic and the article totally succeeds in presenting it in a very clear and straightforward
way to the reader.

'''Formal aspects.'''
The writing is very clean, and precise vocabulary is used. All figures make sense and are well explained through the
text.

'''Content aspects.'''
The article clearly relates to project management and in fact dedicates a whole section on it "Benchmarking in Project Management". It takes full advantage of the word limit (3000 words) and the content is presented in a very logical way. Excellent use of references throughout the article. I also really liked the detailed '''Limitations''' section as it is very important for the reader not only to understand what a method can do, but also when is not advised to use.

''' Conclusion and advices.'''
All in all a well structured article, giving the reader to understand the topic in a very satisfactory depth. My only advice would be to maybe use bullet points to better illustrate some parts. For example after Figure 3, when talking about the different phases that benchmarking could be applied, it would be cleaner for the reader to have it presented
through bullet points.
eg.
*Early on benchmarking
*Benchmarking during project execution
*Post-project benchmarking

===Reviewer 2, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330===

Good overall image, nice topic and fantastic reference link both inside and outside wiki!

'''Formal aspects'''
*Good grammar, not a lot of spelling mistakes. The long sentences, that the others noticed are fixed a lot in this version.
*The quality of some figures is not good (eg figure 3-4) and I could recommend to re-make them (figure 4) since it is simple and it would improve the readability of some key aspects.
*Also I would say that the eight primary competencies could be graphical represented in order to visualize important information.
*Finally, it would be nice to use ''"italian"'' when the expression is a directly taken from another document.

'''Content aspects'''
*The article is characterized by good cohesion and flow between chapters. It gradually 'zooms in' from general to specific. However, I would recommend the chapter '''What to benchmark''' to be more focused on the project management aspects.
*Also someone good argue that there should be and some examples in order to help the reader understand general definitions. For example it could be mentioned as a success story of a benchmarking the development of the computer operational systems 'WINDOWS'.

===Answer to reviewers===

Dear reviewers, thank you for your valuable comments. They indeed helped me to formulate my article on a better way. I have taken into account more or less everything that you stated in your comments. I enlarged the images, created bullet points for the phases of benchmarking, created need categories giving examples and further analyzing all the points on the What to Benchmark section and presented the competencies in bullet points. If it is possible I would like a final feedback on these changes. Thank you once again and good luck with your articles.

Dimitris

Talk:Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T16:29:00Z

Dimak:

Anna: Just a few pointers for you article: It is very important that you keep you focus on the tool/method itself and that you really relate it properly to the overall topic of project management. The article you are making should be a contribution that others can read if they ever need this specific tool when managing a project. So maybe focus more on the use of benchmarking within project management and a little less on the overall use of benchmarking in the external/internal environment of a company.

Reviewer 1, S997303
Hi Dimak

• Benchmarking is a very interesting topic, and it seems a bit difficult to structure, but I think you do it nicely and according to the requirements for the method article.

• Your point 2.2 is very fine and I think it is relevant to describe the development. I like your figure 2 with benchmarking generations, but the figure could be more readable, especially if you print out the article the figure is blurred.

• Also Figure 4 could be a little bigger and clearer, especially because I am curious to read the benchmarking parameters in the score card chart.

• In section 3 I could suggest you to consider creating a table listing different phases in project management and the benchmarking tools to be recommended in the different phases. This could provide the reader with an overview of how to use benchmarking in different PM phases.

• In section 3.1 I have a question because I am not 100% clear if “Iron triangle” and “Square Root” are tools which are used for benchmarking today, or if you are actually suggesting to consider to use these as benchmarking tools if adapted to PM.

• The content of your article in very interesting and you guide your reader, however, you could consider tightening up your writing style a little bit to make the text a little shorter and more precise. E.g. in section two you have a sentence of 54 words.

• I miss the listing of all the references you refer to, but I am sure you have overseen this being under time pressure. Also remember annotations.

Good luck with the completion of your article.
Jane

===Reviewer 3, lessisv===

'''Overall overview'''.
This is a very interesting topic and the article totally succeeds in presenting it in a very clear and straightforward
way to the reader.

'''Formal aspects.'''
The writing is very clean, and precise vocabulary is used. All figures make sense and are well explained through the
text.

'''Content aspects.'''
The article clearly relates to project management and in fact dedicates a whole section on it "Benchmarking in Project Management". It takes full advantage of the word limit (3000 words) and the content is presented in a very logical way. Excellent use of references throughout the article. I also really liked the detailed '''Limitations''' section as it is very important for the reader not only to understand what a method can do, but also when is not advised to use.

''' Conclusion and advices.'''
All in all a well structured article, giving the reader to understand the topic in a very satisfactory depth. My only advice would be to maybe use bullet points to better illustrate some parts. For example after Figure 3, when talking about the different phases that benchmarking could be applied, it would be cleaner for the reader to have it presented
through bullet points.
eg.
*Early on benchmarking
*Benchmarking during project execution
*Post-project benchmarking

===Reviewer 2, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330===

Good overall image, nice topic and fantastic reference link both inside and outside wiki!

'''Formal aspects'''
*Good grammar, not a lot of spelling mistakes. The long sentences, that the others noticed are fixed a lot in this version.
*The quality of some figures is not good (eg figure 3-4) and I could recommend to re-make them (figure 4) since it is simple and it would improve the readability of some key aspects.
*Also I would say that the eight primary competencies could be graphical represented in order to visualize important information.
*Finally, it would be nice to use ''"italian"'' when the expression is a directly taken from another document.

'''Content aspects'''
*The article is characterized by good cohesion and flow between chapters. It gradually 'zooms in' from general to specific. However, I would recommend the chapter '''What to benchmark''' to be more focused on the project management aspects.
*Also someone good argue that there should be and some examples in order to help the reader understand general definitions. For example it could be mentioned as a success story of a benchmarking the development of the computer operational systems 'WINDOWS'.

===Answer to reviewers===

Dear reviewers, thank for your valuable comments. They indeed helped me to formulate my article on a better way. I have taken into account more or less everything that you stated in your comments. I enlarged the images, created bullet points for the phases of benchmarking, created need categories giving examples and further analyzing all the points on the What to Benchmark section and presented the competencies in bullet points. If it is possible I would like a final feedback on these changes. Thank you once again and good luck with your articles.

Dimitris

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T16:21:26Z

Dimak: /* Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organisation''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

====Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel

• Information technology costs of project management tools

• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

Any organization involved in project management must at some point determine what the value of project management is to its operation. The most appropriate formula for evaluating project investment (and project management investment) is net benefits divided by cost. By multiplying this result by 100, you can determine the percentage return for every dollar you have invested, the key to the effectiveness of this metric is in placing a dollar value on each unit of data that can be collected and used to measure net benefits. This data can include contribution to profit, cost savings, an increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Effective project management requires an adequate staffing of project personnel. People are the most critical project management resource. Project managers oversee project teams and are aided by project support personnel. Organizations need to be certain that they have not only the optimum number of staff but also the appropriate personnel ratios among those responsible for, and involved with, all aspects of project management.

* '''Project cycle time'''

Project's life-cycle mainly sets boundaries by defining the beginning and the end of a project. Cycle-time measures are based on standard performance, meaning similar projects can be benchmarked to determine a Standard Project Life-Cycle Time. Measuring cycle times can also mean measuring the length of time to complete any of the processes that comprise the project life-cycle.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews are also an important and widely used metric. As it was also stated above, project managers can gain valuable information, identify lessons learned and generally obtain feedback from any formal reviews of completed projects. All these information, can be used in the improvement of future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

It is vital for any organization to align its projects with its organizational strategy, if portfolio success is to be reached. This can be done by creating an accordance between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the associated level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

If a company is to earn customers loyalty against its competitors, then it is crucial to deliver consistent customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be achieved if the customer expectations have been met, and if clients are pleased, based on the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T16:20:10Z

Dimak: /* Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organisation''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

====Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel
• Information technology costs of project management tools
• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

Any organization involved in project management must at some point determine what the value of project management is to its operation. The most appropriate formula for evaluating project investment (and project management investment) is net benefits divided by cost. By multiplying this result by 100, you can determine the percentage return for every dollar you have invested, the key to the effectiveness of this metric is in placing a dollar value on each unit of data that can be collected and used to measure net benefits. This data can include contribution to profit, cost savings, an increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Effective project management requires an adequate staffing of project personnel. People are the most critical project management resource. Project managers oversee project teams and are aided by project support personnel. Organizations need to be certain that they have not only the optimum number of staff but also the appropriate personnel ratios among those responsible for, and involved with, all aspects of project management.

* '''Project cycle time'''

Project's life-cycle mainly sets boundaries by defining the beginning and the end of a project. Cycle-time measures are based on standard performance, meaning similar projects can be benchmarked to determine a Standard Project Life-Cycle Time. Measuring cycle times can also mean measuring the length of time to complete any of the processes that comprise the project life-cycle.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews are also an important and widely used metric. As it was also stated above, project managers can gain valuable information, identify lessons learned and generally obtain feedback from any formal reviews of completed projects. All these information, can be used in the improvement of future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

It is vital for any organization to align its projects with its organizational strategy, if portfolio success is to be reached. This can be done by creating an accordance between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the associated level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

If a company is to earn customers loyalty against its competitors, then it is crucial to deliver consistent customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be achieved if the customer expectations have been met, and if clients are pleased, based on the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T16:04:42Z

Dimak: /* Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organisation''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

====Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management====

Taking into account what was presented above, it is clear that there are no universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_metric ''metrics''] for the project management processes. It is therefore essential that each organization selects performance indicators that suit its own particular strategies and situations the best.

Some of the common metrics that are suggested for effective benchmarking in project management are <ref name="Davies (2003)"> Cooke-Davies T. et al (2003), ''Effective Benchmarking for Project Management'', Courtesy of the Project Management Institute, Compliments of Microsoft Business Solutions, and Project Management Institute </ref>:

* '''Project cost'''

Organizations should have a spherical knowledge on how much is invested in project management. To do that they must keep track of various cost factors such as:

• Salaries, wages and benefits of project managers and project support personnel
• Information technology costs of project management tools
• The amortized value of training, consulting, building rent, travel, etc.

* '''Project Schedule Performance'''

Another helpful metric is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). SPI can be defined as the earned value, divided by the planned value delivered by project. It is a metric that mainly helps the organization to schedule in a more accurate way. Adding to that, the ability of an organization to estimate costs and schedule accurately enables it to make the most efficient use of its resources, both human and capital.

* '''Return on Investment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment ROI])'''

Any organization involved in project management must at some point determine what the value of project management is to its operation. The most appropriate formula for evaluating project investment (and project management investment) is net benefits divided by cost. By multiplying this result by 100, you can determine the percentage return for every dollar you have invested, the key to the effectiveness of this metric is in placing a dollar value on each unit of data that can be collected and used to measure net benefits. This data can include contribution to profit, cost savings, an increase in quality of output converted to a dollar value, etc. Costs could include project design and development costs, cost of resources, cost of travel and expenses, overhead etc.

* '''Staffing'''

Effective project management requires an adequate staffing of project personnel. People are the most critical project management resource. Project managers oversee project teams and are aided by project support personnel. Organizations need to be certain that they have not only the optimum number of staff but also the appropriate personnel ratios among those responsible for, and involved with, all aspects of project management.

* '''Project cycle time'''

Project's life-cycle mainly sets boundaries by defining the beginning and the end of a project. Cycle-time measures are based on standard performance, meaning similar projects can be benchmarked to determine a Standard Project Life-Cycle Time. Measuring cycle times can also mean measuring the length of time to complete any of the processes that comprise the project life-cycle.

* '''Post-Project Reviews'''

Post-project reviews represent a particularly important metric. Project practitioners holding formal reviews of their projects at completion greatly facilitate the process of identifying lessons learned while providing valuable feedback that can be very useful for future projects.

* '''Alignment to Strategic Business Goals'''

For an organization to attain portfolio success within its project management function, its projects must be aligned with organizational strategy. This includes an alignment between project spending and corporate strategic goals, as well as the overall corporate level of project delivery against plan, scope and budget.

* '''Customer Satisfaction'''

Delivering consistent customer satisfaction enables an organization to command greater loyalty from its customers than can its competitors. It is often the difference between simply doing business and doing business well. Customer satisfaction means that customer expectations have been met and that clients are pleased with the performance of projects.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T15:19:48Z

Dimak: /* What to Benchmark */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organisation''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

====Metrics for Effective Benchmarking in Project Management====

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T15:12:08Z

Dimak: /* Project Success */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' model, in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organisation''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T15:10:48Z

Dimak: /* Limitations */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organisation''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation through benchmarking. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T15:08:13Z

Dimak: /* Project Success */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

In order to have a better overview of whether a project is successful or not -and thus use it as a benchmark, success needs to be measured. When the success is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors that define this tool, will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He explains that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

It is logical to assume then that if the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, it will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more holistic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are '''information systems''', '''benefits to the organisation''' and '''benefits to the stakeholder community'''. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T14:42:49Z

Dimak: /* What to Benchmark */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

===='''Project Success'''====

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T14:35:30Z

Dimak: /* Benchmarking in Project Management */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: scorecard3.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

File:Scorecard3.PNG

2015-09-27T14:34:37Z

Dimak:

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T13:44:27Z

Dimak: /* What to Benchmark */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master ten primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the ten primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge]:

* Project Scope Management
* Project Time Management
* Project Cost Management
* Project Integration Management
* Project Human Resource Management
* Project Communications Management
* Project Risk Management
* Project Procurement Management
* Project Quality Management
* Project Stakeholders Management

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T13:29:08Z

Dimak: /* What to Benchmark */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective, and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs, as well as the ability to get things done. As a result, the eight primary competencies that should be mastered according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T13:22:13Z

Dimak: /* What to Benchmark */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As the Project Management Institute stated in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge ''Project Management Body of Knowledge''] <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T13:19:30Z

Dimak: /* What to Benchmark */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T13:13:56Z

Dimak: /* Benchmarking in Project Management */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''After the project is completed'''. '''Post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T13:07:31Z

Dimak:

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ''indicators''] that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking. These indicators, mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''Post-project benchmarking'''. It is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T13:00:53Z

Dimak: /* Benchmarking in Project Management */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different indicators that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking that mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. More specifically, it can be applied during the following phases:

* '''Early on the project'''. When benchmarking is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome.

* '''During the execution of the project'''. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project.

* '''Post-project benchmarking'''. It is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons.

Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T12:48:28Z

Dimak: /* Conclusion */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different indicators that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking that mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. For instance, when it is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project. Finally, '''post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons. Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘''Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process''’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T12:47:51Z

Dimak: /* What to Benchmark */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different indicators that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking that mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. For instance, when it is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project. Finally, '''post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons. Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘''cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management''’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T12:38:25Z

Dimak: /* Definition */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different indicators that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking that mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘''Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques''’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “''A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance'' ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. For instance, when it is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project. Finally, '''post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons. Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-27T12:33:31Z

Dimak: /* Benchmarking in Project Management */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different indicators that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking that mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|500px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=5|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. For instance, when it is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project. Finally, '''post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons. Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-23T01:57:50Z

Dimak: /* General purpose of Benchmarking */

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different indicators that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking that mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA ''Plan–Do-Check-Act'']. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|400px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. For instance, when it is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project. Finally, '''post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons. Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-23T01:55:47Z

Dimak:

Nowadays, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management ''project management''] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking ''benchmarking''] is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different indicators that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking that mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: “'''Plan–Do-Check-Act'''”. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|400px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. For instance, when it is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project. Finally, '''post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons. Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Talk:Project Financing Initiative

2015-09-22T22:30:42Z

Dimak: /* Feedback from Dimak (reviewer 3) */

Kristine:
Interesting subject, as the finance can be a major showstopper for projects.
I am not exactly certain if you are going to describe a specific tool in your article?
Have you considered how you will relate this subject to project management? (You don't need to answer me on these questions, just make certain you consider it yourself)
Furthermore I can recommend to look at the main page when figuring out how to structure your article.

== Feedback from 113129 ==
* The beginning sections consists of a lot of short sentences – they are fine, but maybe you can combine one or two of them? It’s just a suggestion ☺

* The financial management structure-figure is good, but not cropped very well. Maybe you should crop the “empty” areas away from the picture, so the figure becomes clearer? ☺ Maybe also make the picture a bit bigger? It’s a good figure! ;)

* Maybe add an explanation/introduction to the table? It brings forward some interesting points, which could be explained in depth. ☺

* The language in this article is very impressive. It’s easy to read and easy to understand, yet you keep the level high and avoid “dumbing it down”. There are a few “mistakes” here and there, but they are so minor that it hardly matters.

* Remember to start with capital letters in BOOT/BOT and BOO.

* The key words (although good to have) could maybe be moved to the beginning of the article? It seems a bit strange to almost be in the middle of the article, and suddenly key words appear ☺ Just a suggestion!

* In the “When is PF appropriate?”-section, you start a sentence with “have little uncertainty”. The following text seems to be lacking some punctuation!

* Just going to remind you of the [link wiki] tag in the implement-section, in the Controlling the risks-section and in the benefits-section! ;)

* Once in a while, sentences are either cut off or starts out of the blue. An example: “hen the ratio of debt to equity” in the “Planning Project Finance”-section. The following sentence ends without a punctuation and the sentence overall seems confusing as well.

* First few lines in “Arranging the financial package”-section are a bit strange. Maybe they should’ve been bullet points?

* The benefits-section is really good; I suggest maybe making a bullet list with keywords and explanations to the different benefits. Like a summery from before, but also more “straight forward”, making it easier to see just how many benefits there are. Just a suggestion! ☺

* Remember to fix the ref-link in the limitations-section!

Overall I think this was a really well-written and interesting article. I felt like I really learned something new. Other than a couple of strange sentences here and there, I really can’t put my finger on anything specific. Great job! ☺

// This concludes the feedback from 113129
----
==Feedback from s150821 (reviewer 1)==
*The topic of the article is in line with Project Management themes;
*The article structure well follows the “method” structure requested by the assignment and provide a clear explanation of how article develops.
*Section where are explained various format of PFI is a bit hard to understand also because of argument complexity. Maybe it would be better to explain more in detail what are the differences between various format of PFI.
*The table at the beginning of the article is a really good idea but maybe with an introduction could be better;
*References are well done, enough in quantity and quality ( they all refer to reliable sources);
*Basically article is well written except some mistake about capital letters ; to make clearer the understanding of the article it would be better to write in bold some important concepts.

// This concludes the feedback from 150821
----

==Feedback from Dimak (reviewer 3)==

Hi,

I really liked your article and I believe that you developed this topic by using a nice and clear structure. I also believe it is really nice and helps the reader follow your thought when you give various examples after explaining distinct points. The references are sufficient but there are some points that you can add some more. There are some general remarks that I would like to make :

* In my opinion at some points of your article you should try to connect the sentences and use connectors more often.

* Do not forget to start with capital after a dot.

* It would be a nice idea to enlarge the image you use in section 1 and connect it with the text (write a sentence as a label for instance).

* I also believe that the table you use afterwards has some really interesting points but in my opinion you should write a few words and name it (e.g. Table 1: Comparison between Conventional and Project finance). Also, I think that the title of the table (Comparison Conventional Finance Vs Project Finance) should be centered in order to make it looking better. Finally, try to add some references here.

* In section 2.1, do not forget to start with capitals when explaining each form. I like a lot the key words section.

* In section 4, I suggest that you use some references. A general remark that applies to all sections could be to maybe use some more images to illustrate the things you are suggesting and thus give more illustrative examples.

* In section 4.3.2, I think it would be nice to develop a bit further the "PMI in portfolio management" section but again that is only a suggestion.

* In section 5, I believe that you can create different paragraphs and use connectors to improve even more the flow of your arguments. Another idea, could be to use some bullet-points.

* In the limitations section, I find your bullet-points very interesting and I think it would be nice to write a small paragraph as an introduction and as a connection (in contrast) to your previous section.

* I believe that you will fix the reference in section 7 when you review your article.

Good job. You created a nice and well-structured article that it is easy to follow even for someone who is not familiar with the topic. I wish you good luck with your final article.

Dimitris

Talk:Project Financing Initiative

2015-09-22T22:00:04Z

Dimak:

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-22T21:37:17Z

Dimak:

Nowadays, [[project management]] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, '''benchmarking''' is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different indicators that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking that mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: “'''Plan–Do-Check-Act'''”. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|400px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. For instance, when it is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project. Finally, '''post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons. Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-22T21:36:25Z

Dimak:

Nowadays, [Project Management] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, '''benchmarking''' is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different indicators that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking that mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: “'''Plan–Do-Check-Act'''”. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|400px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. For instance, when it is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project. Finally, '''post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons. Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-22T21:36:11Z

Dimak:

Nowadays, [project management] tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, '''benchmarking''' is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different indicators that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking that mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: “'''Plan–Do-Check-Act'''”. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|400px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. For instance, when it is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project. Finally, '''post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons. Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-22T21:32:54Z

Dimak: /* Limitations */

Nowadays, project management tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, '''benchmarking''' is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different indicators that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking that mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: “'''Plan–Do-Check-Act'''”. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|400px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. For instance, when it is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project. Finally, '''post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons. Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that these performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems. On the contrary, they do not focus that much on pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-22T21:26:17Z

Dimak: /* Benchmarking in Project Management */

Nowadays, project management tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, '''benchmarking''' is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different indicators that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking that mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: “'''Plan–Do-Check-Act'''”. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|400px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. For instance, when it is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project. Finally, '''post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons. Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that the performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems, and less by pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-22T21:25:47Z

Dimak: /* Evolution of Benchmarking Generations */

Nowadays, project management tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, '''benchmarking''' is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different indicators that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking that mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: “'''Plan–Do-Check-Act'''”. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=4|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|400px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. For instance, when it is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project. Finally, '''post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons. Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that the performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems, and less by pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Benchmarking in Project Management

2015-09-22T21:24:07Z

Dimak: /* Evolution of Benchmarking Generations */

Nowadays, project management tools and methodologies have been highly useful for organizations that seek to implement changes in order to increase their performance. Adding to that, organisations are constantly striving to find new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as much as possible. One of these opportunities is to examine the outcomes and the lessons learnt from various similar projects that have been completed in the market from similar organisations and thus, use benchmarking.

As a business term, '''benchmarking''' is the series of actions in order to compare a business' distinct processes, practices or procedures, to other businesses with similar activities and have a leading role in the world market. Benchmarking is mainly used so that a company gains valuable information in pursuance of improving its performance and, as a natural outcome, to increase its competitiveness. Usually, there are different indicators that companies use to assess their performance during the process of benchmarking that mainly focus on the aspects of time, cost and quality.

It has been proved that benchmarking against companies that have a leading role in the industry has effectively helped average organizations to improve their performance. <ref name="Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A (2008)">Luu V.T, Kim S.Y and Huynh T.A. (2008), ''Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach'' International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 758-769</ref> Based on that, this article will present how improvements in the performance of companies can be achieved by benchmarking projects. This article will firstly explore the general purpose of benchmarking. Then, it will be examined how the distinct types of benchmarking can be applied to the management of projects. Furthemore, there will be a discussion on what to benchmark and what aptitudes are needed to do so. Finally, an analysis about the limitations of benchmarking in project management will be held.

=='''Benchmarking in general'''==

==='''Definition'''===

Benchmarking is a constant process of analysis and research among the best performers in order to extrude useful information for improving the organisational or project performance of a company, and not just copy or imitate what others do to thrive. As Bent and Humphrey suggest about benchmarking, ‘‘Benchmarking is the technical core of the Total Quality Management (TQM) process. It identifies the quality of current personal skill levels and company procedures/methods, and then compares this quality with the latest state-of-the-art techniques’’. <ref name="Bent J, Humphreys K (1996)"> Bent J., Humphreys K. (1996), ''Eﬀective project management through applied cost and schedule control'', Marcel Dekker, New York </ref>

Another definition of benchmarking was suggested from the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse (IBC) Design Steering Committee, which concluded in 1992 that benchmarking is: “A systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organisation’s business processes against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information which will help the organisation take action to improve its performance ”. <ref name="American Productivity & Quality(APQC) (1992)"> American Productivity & Quality(APQC). (1992), ''Planning, Organizing, and Managing Benchmarking Activities: A User’s Guide'', APQC, Houston, TX </ref>

==='''General purpose of Benchmarking'''===

[[File:Plan_do_check_act.PNG|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 1''': Deming's Benchmarking Cycle]]

It is clear from these definitions that benchmarking is not only a process in which performance, compared to others, can be measured, but also a tool to describe how notable performance can be accomplished. This kind of performance can be described by measures of performance indicators, called '''benchmarks'''. The activities that are used in order to achieve this performance are called enablers <ref name="Camp, R. (1989)"> Camp, R. (1989), ''Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance'', ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee </ref> and their main purpose is to analyze the logic for reaching this kind of notable performance. Usually, benchmarking studies are conducted by taking into account these two components and thus, it can be stated that benchmarks can be attained by acquiring the right enablers.

As part of the benchmarking process, many models and approaches have been used but they all take into consideration an iterative benchmarking process proposed by W.E Deming know as the “'''Deming cycle'''”. The Deming cycle includes a minimum of four phases: “'''Plan–Do-Check-Act'''”. This is presented in Figure 1.

=='''Types and Generations of Benchmarking'''==

==='''Common Types of Benchmarking'''===

The types of benchmarking indicate what is compared when they involve comparisons that are closely associated with process, performance and strategic benchmarking. These are the three major types of benchmarking. Apart from that, when internal, functional, generic and competitive comparisons and approaches are used, then they usually refer to whom the organization is compared against. <ref name="Andersen B, Pettersen P. (1996)"> Andersen B. and Pettersen P. (1996), ''The Benchmarking Handbook'', Chapman & Hall, UK </ref>,<ref name="Evans A. (1994)"> Evans A. (1994), ''Benchmarking taking your organisation towards best practice'', Business Library, Melbourne </ref> All these types of benchmarking are further analyzed in the table below.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Types of Benchmarking'''
! scope="col" style="width: 225px;" | '''Definition'''
|-
| Performance Benchmarking || Comparison of products and services in order to determine how good an organization is if compared to competitors.
|-
| Process Benchmarking || Comparison of methods and processes that similar organizations use, in order to improve the processes in an organization.
|-
| Strategic Benchmarking || Comparison of the current organization’s strategy with other successful strategies from organizations in the market.
The organizations use this type of benchmarking to improve their competence or to spot new strategic choices.
|-
| Internal Benchmarking || Comparisons of the performance of different departments inside the same organization in order to find and apply the best practices and increase the overall performance of the organization.
|-
| External or Competitive Benchmarking || Comparison made against the “best” competition inside the same industry to compare products and services and find new practices.
|-
| Functional Benchmarking || Comparisons regarding particular functional areas in a company with functional areas of other companies. The purpose is to master a specific functional area instead of just improving separate processes.
|-
| Generic Benchmarking || Comparison of processes against generally accepted best standards regardless the type of industry.
|} '''Table 1''': Types of Benchmarking [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html]

==='''Evolution of Benchmarking Generations'''===

[[File: Benchmarking_as_a_developing_evaluation_tool.PNG‎|thumb|upright=3|'''Figure 2''': Benchmarking as a developing evaluation tool]]

Benchmarking has been characterized as a developing science and thus many generations can be identified. As it can be seen in Figure 2 [http://www.publicprocurementguides.treasury.gov.cy/OHS-EN/HTML/index.html?1_3_project_lifecycle.htm], the '''first generation''' of benchmarking, called '''“Reverse Benchmarking”''', was entirely focused on the comparisons based on products' characteristics, functionality and performance with similar products. Thus, it was mainly product-oriented. <ref name="Watson G.H. (1993)"> Watson G.H. (1993), ''Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best'', John Wiley, New York </ref>

Furthermore, the '''second generation''', or as called '''“Competitive Benchmarking”''', involved comparisons of processes with those of the competitors. The '''“Process Benchmarking”''', which was the '''third generation''' of benchmarking, suggested that comparisons were developed outside the environment of the organization. Adding to that, evaluations mostly targeted companies with recognized strong practices, regardless of the industry and the competitors. The '''fourth generation''' is referred as '''“Strategic Benchmarking”''' and is the systematic process of the assessment of numerous alternatives, the implementation of strategies and the improvement of performance. This can be achieved by trying to understand and adapt to successful strategies that external partners, who participate in an ongoing business alliance, use.

More specific, strategic benchmarking is about trying to compare a competitor's strategy to one's own in the same market and compare the features and performance of actual products. Although, as Gattorna and Walters <ref name="Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996)"> Gattorna J.L. and Walters D.W. (1996), ''Managing the supply chain a strategic perspective'', MacMillan Press, Basingstoke </ref> argue, unless the strategic direction of the addressed benchmark company is understood in depth, it is improbable that any comparison will have successful outcomes, especially when management strategies of projects are concerned.

The '''fifth generation''' or '''“Global Benchmarking”''' has to do with a global development and application of benchmarking, and thus is dealing with the globalization of industries. <ref name="Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997)"> Ramabadron R., James W. Dean Jr and James R.Evans (1997), ''Benchmarking and Project Management: a review and organizational model'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 47-58 </ref> This generation of benchmarking is helping organizations to identify who are the best in class and then, try to link with them. As it was suggested by some researchers <ref name="Kyro P.(2003)"> Kyro P. (2003), ''Revising the concepts and forms of benchmarking'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 210-225 </ref>, a few extensions of the model are starting to arise, and predictions that suggest a sixth and a seventh generation called '''“benchlearning”''' and '''“network benchmarking”''' respectively are close on becoming a reality.

=='''Benchmarking in Project Management'''==

Improvement can be characterized as the primary driver behind any benchmarking initiative, including that of project management. As it can be seen in Figure 3, Maylor <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"> Maylor H. (2005), '' Project management'', 3rd Edition, Financial Times, London, UK </ref> presented the four distinct phases regarding the process of project management. In particular, the main idea behind “Develop the process” phase is that constant learning and improvement can be achieved by using information to improve the management process of any forthcoming projects, by evaluating the project progress and by learning from any previous experience. The improvement process can be split into two parts. The first one is '''"learn by doing"''' and the second one is '''"learn before doing"'''. As far as the project progress is concerned, tools, such audit reviews, lesson learnt during the project and scorecards[http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/9/case-study-team-development-of-simulation-based-application-training] -as it is presented in Figure 4, are vastly used. However, benchmarking is used to link “learn by doing” and “learn before doing” with the aim of learning and improving managerial processes of any future projects.

[[File: Project_life_cycle_phases2.PNG|400px]] '''Figure 3''': Maylor's project life-cycle phases

[[File: Scorecard2.PNG‎|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 4''': Example of a scorecard used in project management]]

Furthermore, benchmarking can be applied during different phases of a project for distinct purposes. For instance, when it is applied early on, such as in project authorization, it can be used to identify features that may be closely bonded with possible future problems. Adding to that, it can be used to identify aspects of project management (e.g. [[Risk management in project portfolios]]) that require proper attention and precise handling so that the project leads to a favorable outcome. When applied during the project execution phase, benchmarking can be used as a useful project management tool that can guide decisions regarding the project. Finally, '''post-project benchmarking''' is mainly used in order to assess the performance of a project delivery system, to analyze the lessons learned during the project and to exploit feedback so that it can be used to enact benchmarks in future comparisons. Post-project comparisons are usually the first comparisons that organizations use. As the benchmarking process builds, they progress to its earlier uses as well. As time goes by, when satisfactory data are available, trends can be analyzed so that a clear vision into the performance of project management systems can be provided.

==='''What to Benchmark'''===

Benchmarking is a method of assessing the quality of a project’s management and learning from it for the management of future projects. Based on literature, the project manager is responsible for orchestrating the management progress of a project. <ref name="Barber E. (2004)"> Barber E. (2004), ''Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp.301-307 </ref> Therefore, and as it will be analyzed afterwards, the project manager should be endowed with certain skills and competencies to achieve superior results in project management.

As it was stated by the Project Management Institute <ref name="PMI (2000)"> Project Management Institute (2000), ''Guide to project management body of knowledge'', PYMBOK, Pennsylvania </ref>, the effective project management should possess and master eight primary competencies. Competence can be defined as the knowledge, skills and personal aspects that bring about superior results or match performance standards. <ref name="Crawford L.H. (2003)"> Crawford L.H. (2003), ''Assessing and developing the project management competence of individuals'' in J.R.Turner(Ed), People in Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK </ref> Project managers are required to be highly eﬀective people and possess knowledge of all the technical details of their jobs as well as the ability to get things done. So this eight primary competencies that should master according to PMI are: scope, time, cost, human resource, communication, risk, quality and contract management. <ref name="PMI (2000)"></ref>

[[File: The_iron_triangle.PNG|thumb|upright=2|'''Figure 5''': The iron triangle]]

When the success of a project is to be measured, then the so-called '''‘‘Iron Triangle’’''' -which is recognized as the cornerstone of project success evaluation- is used ('''Figure 5'''). As Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"> Atkinson R. (1999), ''Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp.337-342 </ref> states: ‘‘cost, time and quality (the iron triangle) over the last 50 years have become inextricably linked with measuring the success of project management’’. <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> Atkinson claims though that these three factors will not signify whether the management of a project has been exemplary or not. He argues that these three estimations (especially time and cost) are put together at a time when the least amount of information is available regarding the project – typically in the planning stages.

If the benchmarking process that focuses on these three criteria is translated carelessly, regarding time, budgeting and quality, then benchmarking the management processes will probably be flawed.

Apart from that, Atkinson <ref name="Atkinson R. (1999)"></ref> also suggests the adoption of the '''‘‘Square Root’’''' in order to create a more pragmatic view of project management ('''Figure 6'''). He combines the three criteria of the iron triangle into a single touchstone and adds three supplementary criteria, which are information systems, benefits to the organisation and benefits to the stakeholder community. The attributes comprising each of the four components include both tangible and in-tangible elements, which would increase the difficulty of initiating a benchmarking process. For instance, information systems usually consist of maintainability, reliability, validity and information-quality usage. Generally, the benefits to the organization are related to improved eﬃciency, improved eﬀectiveness, increased profits, achievement of strategic goals, organisational learning and reduced waste. For the stakeholders point of view, the benefits are akin to satisfying customers and users, minimizing social and environmental impacts, achieving personal development and professional learning, and others.

[[File: Atkinson's_square_root.PNG|400px|]] '''Figure 6''': Atkinson's "Square Root" criteria for project management success

Even though the scope of Atkinson's method is logical, substantial disaggregation will still be needed for benchmarking the management of a specific project.

As other researchers claim <ref name="Belout A. (1998)"> Belout A. (1998), ''Eﬀects of human resource management on project eﬀectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework'', International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, pp.21-26 </ref>, the key areas of interest, when evaluating the management of a project, are eﬀectiveness and eﬃciency. Eﬃciency can be defined as the maximization of the output for a given level of input while eﬀectiveness is directed to the level of achievement of goals or targets.

Subsequently, there is a variety of sources and opinions on what to benchmark. Though, only if a common ground on what are the needed skills and competencies of a manager is created, will benchmarking become generally acceptable. So far, the only agreement is on an agreeable generic benchmark evaluation of project managers' competencies.

=='''Limitations'''==

Benchmarking the management of projects has its own limitations that support the fact that is not always a good idea to introduce evaluation via benchmarking of project management. First of all, projects are by nature unique and have a specific life-cycle. Hence, it is difficult to find common ground among projects. The uniqueness of projects is mirrored in the way they are managed, which is something that increases the complexity to identify the best management practices among them.

Moreover, another limitation can be that benchmarking is lacking effectiveness when a problem that has not been previously recognized has to be encountered. If for instance a managerial aspect is facing a diﬃculty and the comparable partner has not experienced that kind of diﬃculty before, then it is most probable that a benchmarking process will not provide any feasible solution.

Furthermore, it is obvious that benchmarking is based on expense, meaning that it requires excessive time and cost of gathering and evaluating performance data. As a result, this can consume a vast number of resources and at the same moment waste a great amount of time. For example, the process of finding the right company to benchmark the right aspects of management can be time and money consuming. Adding to that, benchmarking is based on sharing knowledge and creating thrust among the distinct organizations which might in the end cultivate unwillingness to cooperate and raise suspicions.

Different factors and their interrelationships during a project can also be a limitation, and have a significant effect on its management. It is almost impossible to manage all of these factors during a large and complex project and thus it is crucial to separate the important few for the trivial many. This means that a manager should waste time to clearly identify the "key factors" that will have the greatest impact on the success of the project.

Finally, benchmarking has often been found problematic because it only highlights the performance gaps between organizations, without giving the reasons that led to these gaps. This can be explained by the fact that the performance gaps, identified through benchmarking, are more connected with the diﬀerences in the way the distinct organizations measure and track the performance of their systems, and less by pointing out any significant inequalities on how a manager should control a specific project.

All these limitations that were mentioned above can be counterbalanced somewhat, by the various benefits that arise from benchmarking that lead to reciprocal benefits for everyone involved in this process.

=='''Conclusion'''==

'''‘‘Considering the role of world-class performers through benchmarking and adopting their principles is just one tool in the improvement process’’'''. <ref name="Maylor H. (2005)"></ref>

The above statement, is made in the context of gaining the maximum benefit from a project not only in outcomes for the immediate project but also by improving the performance of management in future projects. This maximum benefit can be partially obtained by giving effective evaluations regarding the quality of project management.

As it was mentioned earlier, there is no single benchmark that will cover all the aspects of project management evaluation. The only way to achieve optimal results while benchmarking the management of a project whould be to use the right criteria for each aspect of the management process that undergoes evaluation.

Regardless of the various limitations of using effective benchmarking project management practices it is expected that the use of this evaluation tool will increase in the near future. The markets are constantly changing, with speed and top performance describing competition. <ref name="Razmi J. (2000)"> Razmi J. (2000), ''The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners'', Benchmarking: An international Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7 </ref> Customers nowadays are becoming more aware on what to expect, and as a result they raise their demand standards. Furthermore, changes can be unexpected and difficult to measure which will eventually make it apparent for organizations to redesign and reconsider their processes, their products and their services. In such a volatile environment they should be dexterous and agile in order to handle changes. That is where a manager should demonstrate its virtues and work hand in hand with the organization to institute change. At the end of the day, evaluation is more than vital in pursuance of a positive change and successful projects.

One of the principal characteristics of project management is that a change is demonstrated in the system. Adding to that, evaluation give the opportunity to the project manager to look at what was done well, what was done poorly and identify any future improvements that can be done in possible future projects. The nature of project management is that it is transitory and lays the ground for quick change but it is crucial to know where this will lead. Benchmarking as an evaluation tool can lead to this direction.

=='''References'''==
<references/>

Talk:Scrum Methodology in Agile Software Development

2015-09-22T20:23:40Z

Dimak: /* 113129's comments: */

== 113129's comments: ==
General thoughts:
* Your language varies greatly; sometimes it is very simple, other times very advanced. You need to work on this – maybe use Microsoft Word when writing the article? Word will make grammatical suggestions (and corrections) if needed.
* You often make very long sentences. I’m personally not very good at using commas (I use them way too much, hehe!) but I think that if you maybe insert a few commas in your long sentences, then it will be easier for the reader to understand :)
* You make several references for the same book or website, but you can actually use one reference more than once! You can find a link on how to do that on the frontpage! (Can't put an example in here, sadly!) By doing this, you wont have the same website listed 5 times, but will just reference the same number more than once! :)
* Maybe make it clearer why Scrum and ASD is important for project/program/portfolio managers.
* Please note, that I have not worked with Scrum myself, so I have no experience with this topic. I can mostly help you with general explanations, language and the like.
Abstract:
* You start the article with an interesting perspective, however the choice of language varies greatly between the two sections.
Scrum Methodology:
* Maybe explain in more detail what the quote “work is divided into small chunks to manage complexity and to get early feedback from customers and end users” means. You only use this quote and the following sentence to explain the scrum methodology. I don’t feel like I fully understood the scrum methodology after reading this.

Manifesto of Agile Software Development:
* Remember to put a reference to the quote “Welcome changing requirements, even late in development” (http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html)
* Good and interesting section!

Application:
* I do not understand how, by focusing on communication, the team is able to make decisions quicker and respond faster. Why are they even focusing on communication in the first place?
* What does it mean to work “in close location”?
* Does the team always consist of seven people? That is an odd group number – why seven?
* I feel like I understand the roles within the Scrum framework now, but I do not understand the “sprints”. Are they “just” timeframes within the project? You keep mentioning them, but you haven’t explained them yet.
* You answer some of these questions later in the article, but it does not feel like there is a natural flow. When introducing a new concept, I suggest you should explain it shortly afterwards. I feel like you mentioned and used some concepts before explaining what they meant, which I found very confusing.

Main Figures in Scrum:
* What are customer-centric items?

Sprint:
* Really good! This one cleared up a lot. It was short and concrete. I liked it.

Scrum Meetings:
* The text is italic in the end of the first section (sprint planning meeting).
* Remember to reference the figure! :)
* These are some good sections. They are informative and easy to understand, however there are a few grammatical errors and a few words missing once in a while.

Artefacts:
* Maybe make an example of a PBI or of what a product backlog could include? ☺
* Maybe explain the Sprint Burndown Chart a bit more – use the picture for examples.

Limitations:
* “because” not “cause” ;)
* This sections is called limitations, but you seem to only refer to M. James’ limitation condition, in stead of discussion it. Maybe you could bring forward a few examples when scrum is used and when it is not? :)

All in all: I liked the article. At times it was a little confusing, and the order of the sections was a little confusing as well. However it was informative and covered a lot of knowledge about Scrum. Maybe work a bit on your language, make a few examples and remember to put references on pictures. Maybe also refer to other wiki-articles on the website, to direct the reader towards similar articles (about the same topic!)

// This concludes 113129's comments! :)
----
Reviewer 3, S997303

Hi Giacomo

Formal aspects

• Interesting methodology and your writing style is clear and fluent to me

• You use appropriate figures, but consider making them larger, so they become less blurred. Especially I suggest making the Scrum Framework figure larger in scale, because this is the visual overview of the Scrum Methodology in your article.

• Also it could be an advantage to enlarge the Product Backlog figure as well as the Sprint Backlog so they can better visualize and support your text.

Content aspects

• If I look at the balance of the sections in your article I could suggest to focus more on the limitations section and for example supporting your facts with additional literature about use of Scrum methodology in software development.

• Your article is very detailed described for a practitioner – and if I was a practitioner I would also be very interested in knowing more about the Scrum Reference Card and how to evaluate when a project belongs in the chaotic field of the Predictability figure and therefore should select a Scrum Methodology.

Good luck with the completion of your article.
Best Regards Jane
----

'''Reviewer 2, Dimak'''

Hi,

I found your article very interesting with a lot of information about Scrum methodology and a lot of illustrations. Expect from some points the referencing was good. As far as the structure and the language are concerned, I believe that there are some improvements that can be made and thus I will give some examples by commenting each section of your article.

'''Abstract'''

You have a nice abstract and you nicely analyze what is the purpose of your article but there are some points that in my opinion you should focus on improving. More specifically:

• Customer’s and market’s needs can be reformulated to customers' and markets' needs.
• When you first mention Agile Software Development, you can write (ASD) in brackets so that you will not have to use it as a whole again
• In general I believe that you can revise a bit your syntax in some sentences. Also you can try to keep them a bit shorter. I always use big sentences myself so I definitely cannot judge you for that!
• You can use http://www.thesaurus.com/ to find some expressions or synonyms for your article. Personally it helped me a lot ;)

'''Scrum Methodology'''

• In the point you say about rugby -which by the way find very interesting as a connection, you can maybe use a reference.
• Not only in this section, but also in the whole article, it will be more easier for someone to follow if you use connectors (e.g. Furthermore, Moreover etc.)

'''Agile Software Development'''

There are some really nice points here but again a bit of reformulation is needed. I like that you use bullet-points.

'''Manifesto for the Agile Software development'''

Just a small suggestion. You can write seventeen instead of 17 to make your article a bit more formal

'''Application'''

Again I believe that there are some points that you can reformulate to make it easier for a practitioner to follow. I like the contents you have in this section.

• You can write a few words as a small introduction and as a connection to the previous section.
• Maybe you can connect the illustration about scrum framework to the text because for me, the connection is a bit unclear.
• Just a small suggestion. Maybe you can write actors instead of figures.

'''Main figures in Scrum'''

I got a little confused in this section because I thought that you talked about the figures earlier. Maybe you can consider a way to connect these two sections. For instance, when you mention them for the first time you can write : "these figures will be further analyzed in a following section" or something like that.

• Maybe you can use a bit more references when you talk about the Product Owner, the Development team and the Scrum Master.
• Here you mention some artefacts that are used in Scrum methodology. Maybe it will be better to analyze them here and not on another part because I believe it can be more difficult for a practitioner to follow. For instance, when I first read your article I was not sure on what a product backlog is until I found it below and I went back to make the connection. This bullet point covers the '''Artefacts''' section as well.

'''Team self-organization'''

Again I like that you have bullet points. It makes it easier for someone to follow.

• At some point you say “it is told developer what needs to be done not how to do it”. Maybe you can use a reference on that.
• You say: "Conversely there are some conditions that can hander self-organization". Maybe you meant harden instead of hander.

'''Scrum Meetings'''

Nice points here as well. There are still some grammatical and syntax errors I think you should check.

• Remember to use a reference for your illustration.

'''Sprint'''

This section is cohesive and straight forward but as a minor suggestion I believe that you could have explained it a bit earlier when you talk about Sprints in the Application section.

'''Limitations'''

Maybe you can use an image to illustrate the scrum reference card.

I hoped that I helped you by giving these suggestions and I wish you good luck with your final article.

Dimitris

Talk:Scrum Methodology in Agile Software Development

2015-09-22T20:18:47Z

Dimak: /* 113129's comments: */

== 113129's comments: ==
General thoughts:
* Your language varies greatly; sometimes it is very simple, other times very advanced. You need to work on this – maybe use Microsoft Word when writing the article? Word will make grammatical suggestions (and corrections) if needed.
* You often make very long sentences. I’m personally not very good at using commas (I use them way too much, hehe!) but I think that if you maybe insert a few commas in your long sentences, then it will be easier for the reader to understand :)
* You make several references for the same book or website, but you can actually use one reference more than once! You can find a link on how to do that on the frontpage! (Can't put an example in here, sadly!) By doing this, you wont have the same website listed 5 times, but will just reference the same number more than once! :)
* Maybe make it clearer why Scrum and ASD is important for project/program/portfolio managers.
* Please note, that I have not worked with Scrum myself, so I have no experience with this topic. I can mostly help you with general explanations, language and the like.
Abstract:
* You start the article with an interesting perspective, however the choice of language varies greatly between the two sections.
Scrum Methodology:
* Maybe explain in more detail what the quote “work is divided into small chunks to manage complexity and to get early feedback from customers and end users” means. You only use this quote and the following sentence to explain the scrum methodology. I don’t feel like I fully understood the scrum methodology after reading this.

Manifesto of Agile Software Development:
* Remember to put a reference to the quote “Welcome changing requirements, even late in development” (http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html)
* Good and interesting section!

Application:
* I do not understand how, by focusing on communication, the team is able to make decisions quicker and respond faster. Why are they even focusing on communication in the first place?
* What does it mean to work “in close location”?
* Does the team always consist of seven people? That is an odd group number – why seven?
* I feel like I understand the roles within the Scrum framework now, but I do not understand the “sprints”. Are they “just” timeframes within the project? You keep mentioning them, but you haven’t explained them yet.
* You answer some of these questions later in the article, but it does not feel like there is a natural flow. When introducing a new concept, I suggest you should explain it shortly afterwards. I feel like you mentioned and used some concepts before explaining what they meant, which I found very confusing.

Main Figures in Scrum:
* What are customer-centric items?

Sprint:
* Really good! This one cleared up a lot. It was short and concrete. I liked it.

Scrum Meetings:
* The text is italic in the end of the first section (sprint planning meeting).
* Remember to reference the figure! :)
* These are some good sections. They are informative and easy to understand, however there are a few grammatical errors and a few words missing once in a while.

Artefacts:
* Maybe make an example of a PBI or of what a product backlog could include? ☺
* Maybe explain the Sprint Burndown Chart a bit more – use the picture for examples.

Limitations:
* “because” not “cause” ;)
* This sections is called limitations, but you seem to only refer to M. James’ limitation condition, in stead of discussion it. Maybe you could bring forward a few examples when scrum is used and when it is not? :)

All in all: I liked the article. At times it was a little confusing, and the order of the sections was a little confusing as well. However it was informative and covered a lot of knowledge about Scrum. Maybe work a bit on your language, make a few examples and remember to put references on pictures. Maybe also refer to other wiki-articles on the website, to direct the reader towards similar articles (about the same topic!)

// This concludes 113129's comments! :)
----
Reviewer 3, S997303

Hi Giacomo

Formal aspects

• Interesting methodology and your writing style is clear and fluent.

• You use appropriate figures, but consider making them larger, so they become less blurred. Especially I suggest making the Scrum Framework figure larger in scale, because this is the visual overview of the Scrum Methodology in your article.

• Also it could be an advantage to enlarge the Product Backlog figure as well as the Sprint Backlog so they can better visualize and support your text.

Content aspects

• If I look at the balance of the sections in your article I could suggest to focus more on the limitations section and for example supporting your facts with additional literature about use of Scrum methodology in software development.

• Your article is very detailed described for a practitioner – and if I was a practitioner I would also be very interested in knowing more about the Scrum Reference Card and how to evaluate when a project belongs in the chaotic field of the Predictability figure and therefore should select a Scrum Methodology.

Good luck with the completion of your article.
Best Regards Jane

'''Reviewer 2, Dimak'''

Hi,

I found your article very interesting with a lot of information about Scrum methodology and a lot of illustrations. Expect from some points the referencing was good. As far as the structure and the language are concerned, I believe that there are some improvements that can be made and thus I will give some examples by commenting each section of your article.

'''Abstract'''

You have a nice abstract and you nicely analyze what is the purpose of your article but there are some points that in my opinion you should focus on improving. More specifically:

• Customer’s and market’s needs can be reformulated to customers' and markets' needs.
• When you first mention Agile Software Development, you can write (ASD) in brackets so that you will not have to use it as a whole again
• In general I believe that you can revise a bit your syntax in some sentences. Also you can try to keep them a bit shorter. I always use big sentences myself so I definitely cannot judge you for that!
• You can use http://www.thesaurus.com/ to find some expressions or synonyms for your article. Personally it helped me a lot ;)

'''Scrum Methodology'''

• In the point you say about rugby -which by the way find very interesting as a connection, you can maybe use a reference.
• Not only in this section, but also in the whole article, it will be more easier for someone to follow if you use connectors (e.g. Furthermore, Moreover etc.)

'''Agile Software Development'''

There are some really nice points here but again a bit of reformulation is needed. I like that you use bullet-points.

'''Manifesto for the Agile Software development'''

Just a small suggestion. You can write seventeen instead of 17 to make your article a bit more formal

'''Application'''

Again I believe that there are some points that you can reformulate to make it easier for a practitioner to follow. I like the contents you have in this section.

• You can write a few words as a small introduction and as a connection to the previous section.
• Maybe you can connect the illustration about scrum framework to the text because for me, the connection is a bit unclear.
• Just a small suggestion. Maybe you can write actors instead of figures.

'''Main figures in Scrum'''

I got a little confused in this section because I thought that you talked about the figures earlier. Maybe you can consider a way to connect these two sections. For instance, when you mention them for the first time you can write : "these figures will be further analyzed in a following section" or something like that.

• Maybe you can use a bit more references when you talk about the Product Owner, the Development team and the Scrum Master.
• Here you mention some artefacts that are used in Scrum methodology. Maybe it will be better to analyze them here and not on another part because I believe it can be more difficult for a practitioner to follow. For instance, when I first read your article I was not sure on what a product backlog is until I found it below and I went back to make the connection. This bullet point covers the '''Artefacts''' section as well.

'''Team self-organization'''

Again I like that you have bullet points. It makes it easier for someone to follow.

• At some point you say “it is told developer what needs to be done not how to do it”. Maybe you can use a reference on that.
• You say: "Conversely there are some conditions that can hander self-organization". Maybe you meant harden instead of hander.

'''Scrum Meetings'''

Nice points here as well. There are still some grammatical and syntax errors I think you should check.

• Remember to use a reference for your illustration.

'''Sprint'''

This section is cohesive and straight forward but as a minor suggestion I believe that you could have explained it a bit earlier when you talk about Sprints in the Application section.

'''Limitations'''

Maybe you can use an image to illustrate the scrum reference card.

I hoped that I helped you by giving these suggestions and I wish you good luck with your final article.

Dimitris

Talk:Scrum Methodology in Agile Software Development

2015-09-22T20:18:07Z

Dimak: /* 113129's comments: */

== 113129's comments: ==
General thoughts:
* Your language varies greatly; sometimes it is very simple, other times very advanced. You need to work on this – maybe use Microsoft Word when writing the article? Word will make grammatical suggestions (and corrections) if needed.
* You often make very long sentences. I’m personally not very good at using commas (I use them way too much, hehe!) but I think that if you maybe insert a few commas in your long sentences, then it will be easier for the reader to understand :)
* You make several references for the same book or website, but you can actually use one reference more than once! You can find a link on how to do that on the frontpage! (Can't put an example in here, sadly!) By doing this, you wont have the same website listed 5 times, but will just reference the same number more than once! :)
* Maybe make it clearer why Scrum and ASD is important for project/program/portfolio managers.
* Please note, that I have not worked with Scrum myself, so I have no experience with this topic. I can mostly help you with general explanations, language and the like.
Abstract:
* You start the article with an interesting perspective, however the choice of language varies greatly between the two sections.
Scrum Methodology:
* Maybe explain in more detail what the quote “work is divided into small chunks to manage complexity and to get early feedback from customers and end users” means. You only use this quote and the following sentence to explain the scrum methodology. I don’t feel like I fully understood the scrum methodology after reading this.

Manifesto of Agile Software Development:
* Remember to put a reference to the quote “Welcome changing requirements, even late in development” (http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html)
* Good and interesting section!

Application:
* I do not understand how, by focusing on communication, the team is able to make decisions quicker and respond faster. Why are they even focusing on communication in the first place?
* What does it mean to work “in close location”?
* Does the team always consist of seven people? That is an odd group number – why seven?
* I feel like I understand the roles within the Scrum framework now, but I do not understand the “sprints”. Are they “just” timeframes within the project? You keep mentioning them, but you haven’t explained them yet.
* You answer some of these questions later in the article, but it does not feel like there is a natural flow. When introducing a new concept, I suggest you should explain it shortly afterwards. I feel like you mentioned and used some concepts before explaining what they meant, which I found very confusing.

Main Figures in Scrum:
* What are customer-centric items?

Sprint:
* Really good! This one cleared up a lot. It was short and concrete. I liked it.

Scrum Meetings:
* The text is italic in the end of the first section (sprint planning meeting).
* Remember to reference the figure! :)
* These are some good sections. They are informative and easy to understand, however there are a few grammatical errors and a few words missing once in a while.

Artefacts:
* Maybe make an example of a PBI or of what a product backlog could include? ☺
* Maybe explain the Sprint Burndown Chart a bit more – use the picture for examples.

Limitations:
* “because” not “cause” ;)
* This sections is called limitations, but you seem to only refer to M. James’ limitation condition, in stead of discussion it. Maybe you could bring forward a few examples when scrum is used and when it is not? :)

All in all: I liked the article. At times it was a little confusing, and the order of the sections was a little confusing as well. However it was informative and covered a lot of knowledge about Scrum. Maybe work a bit on your language, make a few examples and remember to put references on pictures. Maybe also refer to other wiki-articles on the website, to direct the reader towards similar articles (about the same topic!)

// This concludes 113129's comments! :)
----
Reviewer 3, S997303

Hi Giacomo

Formal aspects

• Interesting methodology and your writing style is clear and fluent.

• You use appropriate figures, but consider making them larger, so they become less blurred. Especially I suggest making the Scrum Framework figure larger in scale, because this is the visual overview of the Scrum Methodology in your article.

• Also it could be an advantage to enlarge the Product Backlog figure as well as the Sprint Backlog so they can better visualize and support your text.

Content aspects

• If I look at the balance of the sections in your article I could suggest to focus more on the limitations section and for example supporting your facts with additional literature about use of Scrum methodology in software development.

• Your article is very detailed described for a practitioner – and if I was a practitioner I would also be very interested in knowing more about the Scrum Reference Card and how to evaluate when a project belongs in the chaotic field of the Predictability figure and therefore should select a Scrum Methodology.

Good luck with the completion of your article.
Best Regards Jane

'''Reviewer 2, Dimak'''
Hi,

I found your article very interesting with a lot of information about Scrum methodology and a lot of illustrations. Expect from some points the referencing was good. As far as the structure and the language are concerned, I believe that there are some improvements that can be made and thus I will give some examples by commenting each section of your article.

'''Abstract'''

You have a nice abstract and you nicely analyze what is the purpose of your article but there are some points that in my opinion you should focus on improving. More specifically:

• Customer’s and market’s needs can be reformulated to customers' and markets' needs.
• When you first mention Agile Software Development, you can write (ASD) in brackets so that you will not have to use it as a whole again
• In general I believe that you can revise a bit your syntax in some sentences. Also you can try to keep them a bit shorter. I always use big sentences myself so I definitely cannot judge you for that!
• You can use http://www.thesaurus.com/ to find some expressions or synonyms for your article. Personally it helped me a lot ;)

'''Scrum Methodology'''

• In the point you say about rugby -which by the way find very interesting as a connection, you can maybe use a reference.
• Not only in this section, but also in the whole article, it will be more easier for someone to follow if you use connectors (e.g. Furthermore, Moreover etc.)

'''Agile Software Development'''

There are some really nice points here but again a bit of reformulation is needed. I like that you use bullet-points.

'''Manifesto for the Agile Software development'''

Just a small suggestion. You can write seventeen instead of 17 to make your article a bit more formal

'''Application'''

Again I believe that there are some points that you can reformulate to make it easier for a practitioner to follow. I like the contents you have in this section.

• You can write a few words as a small introduction and as a connection to the previous section.
• Maybe you can connect the illustration about scrum framework to the text because for me, the connection is a bit unclear.
• Just a small suggestion. Maybe you can write actors instead of figures.

'''Main figures in Scrum'''

I got a little confused in this section because I thought that you talked about the figures earlier. Maybe you can consider a way to connect these two sections. For instance, when you mention them for the first time you can write : "these figures will be further analyzed in a following section" or something like that.

• Maybe you can use a bit more references when you talk about the Product Owner, the Development team and the Scrum Master.
• Here you mention some artefacts that are used in Scrum methodology. Maybe it will be better to analyze them here and not on another part because I believe it can be more difficult for a practitioner to follow. For instance, when I first read your article I was not sure on what a product backlog is until I found it below and I went back to make the connection. This bullet point covers the '''Artefacts''' section as well.

'''Team self-organization'''

Again I like that you have bullet points. It makes it easier for someone to follow.

• At some point you say “it is told developer what needs to be done not how to do it”. Maybe you can use a reference on that.
• You say: "Conversely there are some conditions that can hander self-organization". Maybe you meant harden instead of hander.

'''Scrum Meetings'''

Nice points here as well. There are still some grammatical and syntax errors I think you should check.

• Remember to use a reference for your illustration.

'''Sprint'''

This section is cohesive and straight forward but as a minor suggestion I believe that you could have explained it a bit earlier when you talk about Sprints in the Application section.

'''Limitations'''

Maybe you can use an image to illustrate the scrum reference card.

I hoped that I helped you by giving these suggestions and I wish you good luck with your final article.

Dimitris

Talk:Contracting as a PM

2015-09-22T18:22:57Z

Dimak:

Mette: Hey, I like your idea. Perhaps you need to be more specific of what exactly it is you want to look at in your article, what you want to study and discuss in your article. Keep in mind the structure of a "method article".

Reviewer 2, S997303

Hi Elizabeth

• I find it an interesting subject to compare stakeholder management in construction projects with stakeholder management in SCM;
And it is a good idea to rename the article to match the abstract as you have written under notes.

• Your abstract gives a good introduction, but I suggest you to consider moving the last three lines in your abstract to the beginning of the abstract, because these lines tell exactly what this article is about. Maybe you could also consider stating more clearly why you want to compare/analyze stake holder management in construction projects with/in relation to SCM networks.

• Your article is very interesting for a practitioner. I believe, however, that it has been a challenge to put this article into the method structure and I miss some limitations pointed out e.g. in relation to the stakeholder models used.

• It is a god idea with the illustrations /figures, and if you make them a little bigger and clearer, it will be easier to read them. They are complementing your text.

• Your language is fluent and precise. I would though re-consider writing statements like a large project “can either save a company from bankruptcy or put them in the grave” at least if you do not have a reference to back up this statement.

Good luck with the completion of your article. Best Regards Jane

'''Reviewer 1, Dimak'''

Hi,

I believe that this article gives a complete overview of connecting the management of stakeholders in a construction project with the principles used in SCM. I saw that you used Martin Christopher's book as a reference, which I have read in the past, and I believe that vastly explores the
different aspects of SCM. The article in general has all the characteristics of a Wiki-style article. The language used is fluent with only a few grammatical and syntax errors and the sentences are short and conclusive. Generally, your article has a nice structure which a good flow and nice illustrations.

Some remarks I have are the following:

• One point is that you can consider having bigger images as you do in the representation of the Power/Interest Matrix. For instance, the Winch-Bonke framework looks very interesting and I would like to see a bigger representation of it in order to connect it with the text.

• Another point is that you can try and use more references especially in some parts that you provide many information. One example can be the analysis process section. Also, I would suggest to use references in some sentences you use (example: save a company from bankruptcy or put them in the grave).

• I understand that it might be difficult, but try to express contractors in a different way. A practitioner might find it easier to follow if you do so. I believe you can try finding synonyms or expressing it differently. For example, you can use instead of contractors "everyone that works in the construction site".

• Furthermore, I believe it would be nice if you present a bit more difficulties, drawbacks and limitations for your method.

Some of minor changes that I have spotted and you can consider doing are:

• You can maybe label or put a short description under the Power/Interest Matrix.

• On the general section and at some other parts, I would use a position in the market instead of a position on the market

• Again on the general section, you say: goal of supply chain management differs from each chain. I believe you can change "from each chain" to "from chain to chain"

• You can think of changing the section's name "A Management Contractor" to "The Management Contractor". In my opinion it fits better as a heading to an article

I hope that these remarks will help you. Good luck with your article.

Dimitris