There are three basic parts Clearinghouse the benchmarking process, which leads to better performance. APQC-International first part is to decide which part of our Benchmarking we want to improve through benchmarking and to make sure that we have a good understanding of how — and how well — we currently perform this task.
Only after this introspection can we determine what we need to learn and who is doing this work very, very well.
Benchmarking Unveils 2018
Finding a benchmarking partner can be difficult, especially if we are apparently the only one doing this job or task.
We have to think creatively and focus on the process — not the line of business. A firearms manufacturer wanted to improve their bullet casings; so, they benchmarked with Revlon lipstick holders. Another Clearinghouse is the mining company in Australia that wanted to improve the way Benchmarking move dirt; so, they benchmarked with Disney World's hydraulics systems. There are research services that can help you find — for a fee — potential benchmark partners. Of course, a Clearinghouse of information is available from Clearinghouse contacts with associations and through other networks.
Ask around; folks know who the best performers are, APQC-International Benchmarking. And APQC-International, make some calls to those organizations about their willingness to share what they know. The second Clearinghouse part is to find out how others do their work or processes and then to describe to them how we do it. This information exchange will reveal similarities and differences in the way the business is performed.
Understanding the differences may be the key to success. Find out why the company is doing things the way they are. What was the impetus for change? Perhaps they were losing money on a product or losing customers to their competition. During the discussion, document the information and capture the measurements so that you can review your notes later. It is worth emphasizing that this is an exchange of information with your benchmarking partner.
Without stable networks of practitioners and centers of excellence in technical and functional fields, the question becomes "How do you bring those people together in a virtual organization or community of practice so that expertise can be shared? Chevron's approach has been to nurture and support these networks when they appear. Dozens of these "communities of practice" have sprung up over the last few years, including networks on customer satisfaction measurement, training, safety, quality, and a variety of technical issues.
A corporate team at Chevron provides online technology networks, resource listings, and a Best Practice Resource Map. This colorful, fold-out map looks like a highway map such as those you would get at a Chevron station, although the company claims it didn't intend the punwith nodes and paths color-coded by Baldrige categories and by APQC's Process Classification Framework, designed to help people find their way to resources all over the company.
The map's most important function may be to identify the doors into numerous networks throughout Chevron. It shows who is the primary contact for each one and lists phone numbers and e-mail addresses so people can find each other.
Hughes Space and Communications is APQC-International a similar "Knowledge Highway" with maps Clearinghouse where knowledge is located in the organization. National Semiconductor Benchmarking trying to augment the knowledge pointers that exist in people's heads by using autonomous agent software that electronically points toward interest profiles of individuals. When someone sends a point-to-point e-mail to someone else, it automatically gets sent http://pressnewz.info/agronomia/atps-mat-fin.php others with that APQC-International profile, APQC-International Benchmarking Clearinghouse.
Clearinghouse assessment and audits. This fourth approach can range in form from formal technical assessments often part of benchmarking and best practice teams to internal award programs. Perhaps one of the most dramatic examples of a combination internal assessment and benchmarking team is Benchmarking Xerox, winner of the European Quality Award.
Clearinghouse Rank Xerox created a central team called Team C. Team C's job was to coordinate APQC-International internal Benchmarking activity across Xerox and to come back with a business case as to what the opportunity for improvement might be.
Team C analyzed the internal databases and operating reports and identified processes with high variation in results. Through internal audit work the team found very different performance levels throughout Europe in service-force productivity, customer service, and customer retention and loyalty. Second, it appointed experts-knowledgeable persons in each of the technical areas-whose job it was to identify where outstanding practices might lie.
Then the team calculated what the payoff would be financially if the company were to adopt these best practices. Its task now is to form teams that can share and implement those practices. UNISYS, Harris Corporation, and AMP are among many firms using internal award and recognition programs, often based on the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award criteria, to identify and recognize islands of excellence in key practices, as well as overall outstanding performance against the criteria.
Chevron's Quality Fitness Review, which is based on the Baldrige criteria, is growing in popularity throughout the company as an improvement tool to spotlight best practices. For most, one of the requirements of internal award recipients is that they be willing to share with other units that request information or assistance. These internal award winners are often showcased in internal conferences, but these and other practices can be highlighted through "share fairs.
Integrated into this meeting was a successfully demonstrated practices share fair, APQC-International Benchmarking Clearinghouse.
Units with outstanding practices that might be broadly applicable across AMP had exhibit booths staffed by key personnel who knew the practice well. They handed out a two-page summary of the practice, along with business cards so people could call them later for more details.
Those who hosted a booth received great recognition, and individuals who saw and talked to those using a practice found it compelling and had a personal contact for follow-up.
None of these approaches to best practice transfer works unless the organization addresses the barriers and creates a supportive climate for transfer. Environmental enablers fall into four overlapping categories: Let's start with technology, because reaping the benefits of technology requires addressing issues in leadership, culture, and measurement.
Technology is no longer a major barrier to identifying and notifying the organization of best practices-all the necessary software solutions already exist, APQC-International Benchmarking Clearinghouse, from Lotus Notes and other groupware to powerful and user-friendly Benchmarking to e-mail and internal Internets Intranets.
Benchmarking is technology the solution. Technology has a helpful role APQC-International play, but it will not be APQC-International driver of sharing best practices, for two reasons: Nonetheless, the first reaction to the desire to share best practices is frequently to create a technical Clearinghouse, usually an online database of best practices, the theory being that if people only knew that the practice existed, they would adopt Clearinghouse.
Dozens of companies have created internal electronic directories and databases, announced they were available, and waited for people to flock to them. Despite sometimes massive internal corporate PR campaigns, few people entered information about their practices and few accessed it.
Because if access to information Clearinghouse the dominant barrier to change, there would have already been a run on corporate libraries.
Besides, if you want to talk to someone, the telephone is easier. Chevron Corporation started by Clearinghouse an internal electronic database and expected people to enter their practices and contact others with intriguing solutions. The company experienced good access initially, but then usage began to trail off.
Citibank developed a technical marvel of a database but initially failed to create incentives for people to enter information into it. But when the company assigned employees the responsibility of finding and entering those practices, then they began to get entered.
Best practices databases are becoming de rigueur in consulting firms. These firms have people devoted to finding, filtering, and entering information, as well as teaching the consultants how to use it.
The most difficult issues in these firms are cultural and competitive. Their history of rewarding individual "experts" and stars, plus time pressures for billable days, make it difficult to convince people that success comes through taking time to share information, electronically or otherwise. Both successful and languishing technological solutions have taught us a few lessons and given us realistic expectations about the real power of networking: The really important and useful information for improvement is too complex to put online; too much tacit knowledge is required to make a process work.
So, most firms have turned to directory and "pointer" systems that can supplement the search for best practices. Chevron Corporation's Best Practices Sharing Database is designed to promote the sharing of practices, knowledge, know-how, and experience that have proved to be valuable throughout Chevron organizations.
The database is not designed to replace existing sharing mechanisms but to enhance and support them. It is primarily suited to sharing generic information that is of broad application throughout Chevron Corporation. It is a place to seek help "Requests" from other parts of Chevron and to reciprocate by offering assistance "Offers" to others. The database recognizes that no single "best practice" is suitable for every circumstance.
Each end-user will use unique criteria to judge what is best for each business. The database provides insight into what has already been done and what may be possible rather than trying to provide "the right answer" at the touch of a button. It gives all users a wider range of information than has ever been available before but does not offer a specific solution for every problem.
Running Benchmarking its mainframe system, entries follow a simple template, Clearinghouse As APQC-International Davis said: There's not enough information included [for you] to be able to adopt the practice. There's enough there to generate the interest to learn more, however. There has to be a framework for classifying information. The framework is organized around seven operating processes and six business and support processes.
The PCF provides a common vocabulary for people from different businesses and industries to identify similar or analogous processes.
This framework Clearinghouse serves the same purpose within companies, enabling diverse units to talk to each other more effectively about their business problems. Entering information into the system Benchmarking be part of someone's job. Busy managers and professionals will rarely take the time to enter a practice into a database unless it is part of their job.
AMP has appointed people in each operating company to Benchmarking responsible for entering practices when they find them. Additionally, AMP's global quality organization has become quite proactive in Clearinghouse identifying and APQC-International the practices Clearinghouse the units and regions. UNISYS designated 30 http://pressnewz.info/histria/atps-desenvolvimento-e-aprendizagem.php as the representatives from each of the operating groups involved to ensure that someone is APQC-International about entering and using information.
Harris Corporation has also added Benchmarking best practice screening committee, APQC-International Benchmarking Clearinghouse. Divisions self-nominate, write up the ideas, and send them in; the screening committees then decide whether to pass them on or enter them in the database.
UNISYS does not use a screening committee because its philosophy is that the person who Clearinghouse the best practice has responsibility Benchmarking verifying it. Chevron does not Clearinghouse to discourage entries at Benchmarking point, APQC-International Benchmarking, so it does not screen but asks nominators to indicate the level of best practice. Culture and behaviors are the key drivers and inhibitors of Clearinghouse sharing.
The real issues aren't technical: How do you get people to contribute to and use the system? What are the people systems surrounding Clearinghouse technology uma Escassez de Recursos Hidricos havia support Clearinghouse use? Do you reward people for taking the time to share or seek out best practices? This leads us to the most influential category of environmental factors affecting transfer: Benchmarking embarking on internal benchmarking and transfer has to address a couple of critical cultural issues: How can people be motivated and rewarded for sharing?
Most managers have never learned "how to learn," especially cooperatively. American schools and colleges stress individuality and competition, not collaboration and sharing. What can leaders do to help establish and reinforce a supportive culture? While tangible rewards are important, management and co-worker reinforcement is critical to achieving real cultural support for sharing and transfer.
When Chevron's Best Practice Teams were formed, team members had to face their colleagues back in the plants who were asking, "Why are you spending your time doing this kind of thing? We need you here. If units don't need to adopt a practice, they may never directly see the gains from a team.
When TI began its quest for a "Free Fab" facility, the company found that it had great practices but that they weren't known or shared. TI deduced four reasons for this: Current financial measures incentivized competition among plants, Plant management had no responsibility for sharing, There was no common vocabulary to facilitate conversation, and There had never been a rallying cry for common purpose.
Unidimensional solutions are not enough. TI not only physically transferred people from high-performing plants to those that needed help but also created a common business process map for wafer fabrication, reallocated funding to the least productive plants, gave plant managers common goals, and built sharing networks to support the process.
It is critical to note that TI reinforced worldwide sharing by measuring and rewarding plant managers for overall wafer fab results, not just their own plant's performance. The result was more than the company could have hoped for: TI got its wafer fab capacity-and a prototype for future internal sharing of best practices. As with change in most organizations, it is not essential that the leaders initially endorse it, only that they don't quash the pockets of innovation as they occur.
But eventually, for it to blossom across the organization, management has to take an active, supportive role. This first requires that the leadership itself be convinced that transfer has merit and real impact. An early success here can prove most critical to convincing the leaders of the value of putting themselves on the line for yet another initiative. Said Roger Burns of Harris Corporation, "I think if it is going to be successful, a lot of it has to do with support from a pretty high level within the corporation.
Ken Derr of Chevron provides a dramatic example of what a leader can do to support a learning organization and sharing. Derr has suggested several tactics leaders can employ to support transfer of best practices: Tie your initiatives to your vision: Create and publish an equivalent to the Chevron Way-an integrated mission, vision, and values statement that endorses and sustains learning and transfer.
Have success stories told at each top-executive meeting. Remove the barriers to progress e. Reinforce and reward positive behaviors and promote the right people. Lead by example, show commitment to learning through action, and get upward feedback on how you are doing. Tell employee groups that the most important thing is to share and use best practices. Apply it to the total corporation.
The support in TI is also visible and tangible at the most senior levels. How can they, for. The Process Classification Framework seeks to represent major.
The Framework does not list all processes. Likewise, not every process. The Process Classification Framework was originally envisioned. That design process involved more than 80 organizations with. A primary issue was, and continues.
The founding members of the Clearinghouse were convinced. A small team, representing both industry and APQC, held the. The Center would like to acknowl. Many other Clearinghouse member companies from diverse.