European benchmarking with the CAF ROME 17-18th of November1 Table of contents 1. CAF Diagnosis : identification of the improvement areas 2.
Download ReportTranscript European benchmarking with the CAF ROME 17-18th of November1 Table of contents 1. CAF Diagnosis : identification of the improvement areas 2.
European benchmarking with the CAF ROME 17-18th of November 2003 1 Table of contents 1. CAF Diagnosis : identification of the improvement areas 2. Action plan and priorities 3. Choice of the improvement action: benchmarking 4. Choice of type of benchmarking 5. Compose the benchmarking team 6. Plan 7. Identify potential partners 2 Table of contents 8. Develop the screening questionnaire 9. On-site visit 10. Result analysis 11. Improvement plan 12. Implementation 13. Project review 14. A new CAF diagnosis 3 1. The CAF diagnosis Identification of improvement areas following the CAF application 2. Action plan and priorities Draft of action plan Priorities setting by the management: e.g: crossing the strategic weighting(given by the management)of the CAF criteria with the scoring 4 III Action plan - priorities CAF Less important and 5 good scores: divest? Important good scores : status quo and "quick wins" 5,2 4,5 4,4 4 4,1 CAFScoring 3,5 5,3 2,2 3,2 III II 3 2,5 5,1 2 4,6 4,5 1,5 IV I 1 3,1 0,5 less important 0 and bad 0 scores:leave temporarily Important but bad scores: priorities 1 2 3 4 5 Weight of the criteria 5 3. Choice of the improvement action Improvement team internal benchmarking external consultant external benchmarking 6 4. Choice of type of benchmarking Definition 1 The continuous process of comparisons and measurements with other organisations everywhere in the world in order to obtain information about philosophies, politics, practices and measurements which will help our organisations to undertake actions to improve its performance. 7 4. Choice of type of benchmarking (2) Definition 2 « Benchmarking is simply about making comparisons with other organisations and then learning the lessons that those comparisons throw up » 8 4. Choice of type of benchmarking(3) Definition 3 « Improving ourselves by learning from others » « Not reinventing the wheel » 9 Benefits from benchmarking Improvement of performance, quality, performance measurement Innovations Culture change: learning from the others, openess, collaboration Involvement of staff (motivation) Substitute for competition inside public sector Guidance tool to improve processes for the public sector 10 Types of benchmarking What do we compare: Results Which organisation shows the best results? In which area? How does this organisation perform these good results? Which is (are) the enabler(s)? Process Strategy 11 Generic Process benchmarking Benchmarking 7. People results 3.HRM 1.Leadership 2. Strategy & Planificatio n Performance or competitive Benchmarking 5. Process and change management 4. Partnership & Resources Strategic benchmarking 6. Citizen/ customer results 9.Key performance results 8. Society results 12 5. The benchmarking team Form the benchmarking team: the selfassessment group? Some members? With an expert? Criteria: Knowledge and experience of benchmarking General skills: project management, oral and written communication, gathering and data analysis, change management, team work,... Knowledge of the activity or process in question; its role within the organisation 13 6. Plan the benchmarking project Develop realistic objectives (SMART), Specific: avoid misunderstanding Measurable: achieved or not Action oriented: focused on improving a specific process or activity Realistic: can be tackled with the available time and resources Time related: can be carried out within reasonable period of time 14 7. Identify a potential partner Essential to succeed with benchmarking will depend on a combination of factors such as the: type of benchmarking activities or process in question availability of time and resources information needed sources of information (likely sources of good practices) level of experience with benchmarking 15 Internal ou external? Internal: with another unit inside the organisation itself External: with a similar organisation (or not- if functional or generic benchmarking) national or foreign organisation (international benchmarking) Advice: firstly internal then external if possible to increase the benchmarking 16 experience Internal benchmarking From units located in different areas Advantages disadvantages access to sensitive lacking of real data and innovation, information, best in class less time and performance likely resources to be external consuming, easy to transfer across the same organisation 17 External benchmarking Advantages Seeking outside best in class organisations Disadvantages transfer sometimes difficult (« not invented here » syndrome!), more time and resources needed to ensure the comparability of data and information Language 18 How to find a partner in Europe? EIPA - Maastricht http:\\www.eipa.nl European databank of CAF applications in the public sector National databank in Spain and Belgium 19 Components of a CAF databank Organisation (contact) Sector of activity Level of authority (central, regional,local) External Evaluation Other quality tools used Strengths (N° of CAF sub-criteria) Good practice description National and/or international selection for an award 20 Methodology: following steps 8. Develop the screening questionnaire (common indicators) 9. Manage the on-site visit 10. Analyse the results: What they achieve and how? Compare the results 11. Develop improvement plans 12. Implement good practice in the organisation 13. Hold a project review 14. Apply the CAF again 21 benchmarking in 5 steps 2. Measure 1. Plan 5. Control Source: R. CAMP 3. Compare/Analyse 4. Implement 22 Progress with benchmarking in an organisation Good practice shared as part of knowledge management system Formal structure to support benchmarking activities Rigourous application of benchmarking Performance measures developed as basis of comparisons « industrial » Tourism 23 Conditions for success of Benchmarking Senior managers support benchmarking and are committed to continuous improvement Objectives are clearly defined at the outset Scope of the project aligned with objectives, resources, available time and the experience level of the team To have a clear picture of the organisation’s performance before approching partners for comparisons Benchmarking team have competencies or support Staff kept permanently informed of progress made Realistic recommendations 24 Pitfalls to avoid Benchmarking for the sake of it Focusing entirely on comparisons of performance measures rather than the process that enables good practice Expecting benchmarking to be quick or easy Spending too long time on one part of the process Expecting to find benchmarking comparable in all respects to your organisation Asking information without sharing its own information (see the European Benchmarking Code of Conduct) 25 Jean-Marc DOCHOT 0477-32.98.79 E-mail: [email protected] 26