Systems Thinking and the Case Against Benchmarking
Systems Thinkers know that benchmarking is the wrong thing to do. In effect copying, it undermines learning. And yet this is at odds with the Audit Commission and the concept of beacon councils.
Paul Buxton argues that whilst benchmarking sounds like a plausible method for improving service, actually it harms service quality and hampers learning. Learning with good method allows for real learning to be focused upon your own systems.
Read the article here.
Comments
Copying undermines learning? Not necesarily or at least not in all circumstances. Depends whta you want to learn and posibly whta you mean learning in the first place. I'm not sure benchmarkng, if it's done properly, is about copying. It's about setting, and hopefully, raising standards. Mind you, done badly (which is the argument here I guess) it can get in the way if people interpret a benchmark as a standard to meet, rather than a quality to surpass.
posted over 2 years ago
msweeks:
Why else would one benchmark? Other than to copy or compare. Systems are different with different customer demands, workers, policies, work design, technology, etc. Benchmarking becomes a waste of time to "compare" without benefit. People use benchmarking to support "best practices" (technology language for copying), shared services and outsourcing. The standardization comment is the problem. Governments standardize before understanding demand and set standards as targets where the defacto purpose is to meet the standard and not serve the customer or public.
No, a better way is to strive for perfection without benchmarking. Why limit ourselves?
posted over 2 years ago