Research update: an essential management tool: benchmarking has become an essential management tool for park and recreation agencies.

Benchmarking has been widely used in the business world as well as in the private industry, where managers are looking for better ways to do business by using benchmarking as a management improvement tool. Today, productivity and quality management is not just a matter for private businesses, but also for public agencies.

In the park and recreation field, public agencies are under pressure to improve their service quality and effectiveness, especially when faced with budgetary pressures and uncertain economic conditions. Under the pressure of fiscal retrenchment, public agencies must keep up with fiscal changes, and administrators must become better managers of limited financial resources. Benchmarking is a significant element of the quality management technique that allows organizations to cope with changes and continue to meet citizen expectations (Bogan & English, 1994; Keehley et al., 1997).

In parks, recreation and leisure services, there have been some efforts to use benchmarking techniques to improve service quality and management at the municipal and state government levels. However, the documentation of the process has been very limited. There is a need for more research in this area, and agencies should begin to learn benchmarking technique and its potential applications in the park and recreation field.

Benchmarking Concept

The idea behind benchmarking, i.e., learning from others, is not new. For centuries, people have observed those good ideas and practices around them, then adopted those ideas into their own practices to meet their own needs and improve. Modern concepts of benchmarking did not gain prominence until Xerox started using a process of learning from its Japanese partner in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Camp, 1989; Spendolini, 1992; Zairi, 1998; Zairi & Ahmed, 1999).

In 1979, Xerox started a benchmarking process by tearing down the mechanical components of the copiers produced by its competitors. Xerox not only evaluated the physical composition of mechanical components, but also the manufacturing costs and how the competitors achieved much lower costs. Then, Xerox's manufacturing quickly adopted these set benchmarks into its business plans. At first, only a few of the operating units used them. By 1981, Xerox adopted benchmarking as a corporate-wide effort.

Xerox, as one of the pioneers in modern benchmarking practice, defines benchmarking as "a continuous, systematic process of evaluating companies recognized as industry leaders, to determine business and work processes that represent 'best practices' and establish rational performance goals" (Cross & Iqbal, 1995, p.4; Zairi, 1998, p.13-14). Other benchmarking experts, such as Robert C. Camp (1989), Spendolini (1992) proposed similar definitions. In essence, benchmarking measures and compares against "the best" and concentrates on achieving superior performances. It is a systematic process and a structured methodology that requires systematic data collection and investigation.

It should be noted that "best practices" have different levels. In the real world, the ideal type of benchmarks, the "world class products, services or work processes" may never be found due to limited resources, costs, time and other factors. Sometimes, only relative or local optima may be found as benchmarks. Therefore, benchmarking is not only a process of searching for the best, but also a process that permits setting realistic performance goals in the environment by incorporating feasible practices into operations.

Jarrar & Zairi (2001) conducted a global survey of 227 organizations in 32 countries to assess the trends and future directions of benchmarking. The findings revealed that benchmarking was widely used worldwide and across various industries, from manufacturing to government to educational institutions. The findings also showed that benchmarking was capable of producing significant benefits including: improving quality; increasing speed of service; improving processes; understanding customer requirements; setting internal standards; influencing strategic decision-making process; managing resources more effectively; deploying resources; and improving personnel management and changing leadership style within the organization.

Types of Benchmarking

Benchmarking has both internal and external dimensions (Zairi & Ahmed, 1999). Internally, an organization must critically examine itself in order to identify the gaps between its operation and the best practices. More importantly, benchmarking has an external dimension where an organization searches within or outside the industry to identify external and competitive benchmarks and practices, which may be implemented in one's own operational environment.

Internal benchmarking compares similar operations to one another within one's own organization. It assumes that some of the work processes or functions in one part of an organization are more effective or efficient than that of in other parts. "The objective of internal benchmarking activity is to identify the internal performance standards of an organization." (Spendolini, 1992, p.16) Internal benchmarking may help bridge the gaps that divide organizations by encouraging internal communications and joint problem-solving within an organization.

For example, if a youth program within a park and recreation agency demonstrates the best practices in program operations, programs of other divisions may emulate and apply such practices to their operations by identifying youth program practices as the benchmark. Internal benchmarking may serve as a basis for external benchmarking because it not only helps organizations focus on the critical issues, but also helps organizations define the scope of the external benchmarking study. However, internal benchmarking should not be regarded as a substitute for external benchmarking because the information collected may be limited (Camp, 1989).

External benchmarking includes competitive benchmarking and non-competitive benchmarking. Competitive benchmarking compares the best of the direct competitors to identify specific information about the products, services, processes and business results of the market. The identification of similarities with competing organizations helps an organization learn lessons about itself without a lot of transition. In competitive benchmarking, it must be ensured that the operations or services are truly comparable.

Competitive benchmarking is more commonly seen in the commercial sector in park and recreation services, such as travel and tourism industries, than in public park and recreation agencies. For example, Morey & Dittman (1995) conducted a benchmarking study on hotel operations. Others (Kozak & Remmington 1998; Siguaw & Enz, 1999; Fuchs & Weiermair, 2004) conducted benchmarking research on food and beverage management in the hospitability industry and tourism destinations.

In competitive benchmarking, "good benchmarking partners, moreover, are not only excellent in their own fields, but should also be comparable with your own organization to the highest degree possible" (Karlof, & Ostblom, 1993, p.81). One of the difficulties of conducting competitive benchmarking is the sharing of information because of the sensitivity of proprietary information (Camp, 1989; Spendolini, 1992). Non-controversial issues such as facility management, human resource practices, and industrial policy issues are often benchmarked. The participation of several businesses is better than one-on-one exchanges with competitors (Spendolini, 1992).

Non-competitive benchmarking refers to functional benchmarking or generic benchmarking (Camp, 1989; Camp, 1995; Karlof, & Ostblom, 1993; Spendolini, 1992). Public agencies tend to do more functional benchmarking than competitive benchmarking since seeking a larger market share is not necessarily the central mission of public agencies-rather, it's providing quality services for the public. Functional benchmarking compares companies with similar processes and services, but not necessarily in the same industry, to discover best practices (Camp, 1989; Camp 1995; Karlof & Ostblom, 1993). It is a comparison of products, services and work processes regardless of the nature of the business.

For example, the Arlington Parks and Recreation Department in Texas conducted a benchmarking study in 1994 on four functions of the agency: customer service, front desk operation, athletic field reservations and speed of golf play. The agency chose different types of businesses as benchmarking partners, including Marriott Corporation and the Fort Worth Zoo. Although Arlington Parks and Recreation Department and Marriott Corporation are completely different in the nature of their businesses, providing excellent customer services for clients were the same goal for both.

Benchmarking Process Models

A benchmarking process model out lines the steps that are followed in a benchmarking study. It provides the basic framework for the successful planning and execution of a benchmarking investigation--it is a map for action (Spendolini, 1992). Xerox's ten step model, Motorola's five-step model, Aluminum Company of America's (ALCOA) six-step model, Florida Power & Light's seven-step model, and AT&T's twelve-step model are the most commonly seen models in the literature (APQC, 1993; Boxwell, 1994; Spendolini, 1992).

Regardless of the number of steps used in these models, there are four common fundamental components in almost every kind of benchmarking model, which are "plan, do, check and act." These four steps are often referred to as the "Deming Cycle," named after W. Edward Deming, a quality management expert who is "... recognized around the world as the one who gave the modern quality movement the principles by which to think and act" (Delavigne & Robertson, 1994, p. xxi). The model is presented in a circle, which means that benchmarking is a continuous process (see Figure 1.)

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Benefits of Benchmarking for Public Agencies

Benchmarking helps public agencies identify variability in performance and reduces performance gaps by optimizing processes through learning from others. Benchmarking helps public organizations determine criteria that measure performances, which will in turn provide the basis and foundation for making comparisons and making improvements tier an organization. Benchmarking also helps public organizations recognize the problematic areas of particular services and improve service delivery. "Finding and importing best practices will encourage public agencies to replace reactionary measures with preventive ones" (Keehley & MacBride, 1997, p. 79).

Pioneer public organizations have demonstrated that benchmarking can work for a wide range of government functions to help them seek opportunities, think entrepreneurially and overcome public perceptions of inefficient performance (National Performance Review, 1997). For example, the state of Oregon has been a leader in benchmarking in state government. Oregon started their benchmarking through a program called "Oregon Shines" as part of strategic planning for the economic development in 1989. Oregon benchmarks used 90 quality of life indicators to measure progress towards the strategic vision identified in "Oregon Shines" (Oregon Progress Board, n.d.).

Successful benchmarking in public agencies requires a great deal more than mastering the technical process (Keehley et al. 1997). Public agencies may face unique problems or pressing issues that are influenced by local, public and political environments. For instance, political factors, governmental culture, different regulatory and legislative requirements should be taken into consideration when conducting benchmarking in the public sector (Keehley et al, 1997; Swiss, 1992). Benchmarking should take advantage of opportunities to mobilize the interested stakeholders to search for the best practices collaboratively.

More and more public park and recreation agencies are recognizing the important function of benchmarking in strategic planning processes. For example, Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department conducted a comprehensive evaluation study of the Oklahoma state parks system from 2003 to 2004. One of the major components of this evaluation was a benchmarking study on state park systems across the country (Caneday, Jordan, and Liang, 2005).

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Recreational Educational Services Division recently initiated a statewide benchmarking program among municipal parks and recreation agencies to establish criteria in services and facilities (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Recreation Educational Services Division, n.d.). In Washington D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation, a benchmarking analysis of urban park districts is one of the major components of its 2005 Master Plan, which included nine major cities as benchmarking partners. (District of Columbia, Department of Parks & Recreation, n.d.)

"Benchmarking allows park and recreation professionals to position the profession better with policy makers, collect data to improve agency operations, stimulate strategic planning, forecast industry trends and identify best practices" (California Park & Recreation Society, n.d.). As California Park and Recreation Society indicated on their Web site, benchmarking is an important planning tool for an organization. Benchmarking can help mobilize an organization to turn their planning strategies into actions. Public parks and recreation agencies should take advantage of the benefits of benchmarking and incorporate benchmarking as a management tool into their management practices.

Where Did Benchmarking Come From?

Benchmarks can be traced back thousands of years to Egypt. In construction work, the Egyptians cut a notch in a stone at an accurately determined point, and a flat strip of iron was placed horizontally in the incision to act as the support (bench), which was then used as the reference (mark) to measure additional heights and distances.

Therefore, the word "benchmark" comes from the geographic surveying and construction world, and means to take a measure against a reference point to determine one's current position (APQC, 1993; Bogan & English, 1994; Harrington & Harrington, 1996).

Research into Action: How to Conduct a Benchmarking Study

1. Determine benchmarking measures

Identifying what is to be benchmarked, referred to as "critical success factors," "key business processes/practices," or "performance measures," can be one of the most difficult steps in the benchmarking process. For an organization new to benchmarking, start out by selecting an area that is relevant to the objectives of the organization, not the most complex or sensitive issue facing the organization (Spendolini, 1992). Such strategic issues may include: (1) financial performance; (2) operating efficiency; (3) customer satisfaction; (4) employee performance; (5) innovation/change; or (6) community/ environment.

2. Identify benchmarking partners

Identifying benchmarking partners includes three major steps: developing a candidate list through some preliminary research; reducing the list to a target number of candidates focused on the function; and preparing for a contact (Camp, 1995). Look for possible benchmarking partners by examining: lists of organizations that are best in class as judged by a publication, organizations receiving recognition or awards for some outstanding effort, citations from others, or organizations that receive positive feedback from customers (Camp, 1995).

3. Establish contact with potential benchmarking partners

After an organization determines benchmarking partners, they must obtain agreement from the chosen benchmarking partners to participate in the study. Schedule a meeting with potential benchmarking partners to explain the project and supply the information that the potential partners need to help decide whether they will participate in the benchmarking study. Communicate with potential partners about the detailed plan of the benchmarking study and show the potential benchmarking partners that the organization is serious about the project.

4. Data collection and analysis

With one's own business as a frame of reference, it helps to define and specify what information is needed. Using questionnaires is a common choice for collecting the information from benchmarking partners. Telephone interviews, video conferences and on-site interviews are also the frequently used benchmarking methods in data collection in a benchmarking study.

5. Implementation of benchmarking findings

Several activities can take place in the implementation stage of benchmarking. Such activities include producing a report, presenting findings to benchmarking customers, communicating benchmarking findings to other members of the organization, identifying possible process improvements and making a plan of action help capitalize on benchmarking results. Implementation is the most critical stage that determines the success of a benchmarking study.

References

American Productivity & QuaLity Center [APQC] (1993). The benchmarking management guide. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Australian Government, Department of the Environment and Heritage (n.d.). Best practices reports. Retrieved on September 1, 2005 from http://www.deh.gov.au/porks/best-practice/reports/index.html

Bogan, C.E. & English, M.J. (1994). Benchmarking for best practices: winning through innovative adaptation. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

California Park & Recreation Society (n.d.). VIP planning tools. Retrieved on September 1, 2005 from http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/best-practice/reports/index.html

Camp, R.C. (1989). Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.

Camp, R.C. (1995). Business process benchmarking: Finding and implementing best practices. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQC Quality Press.

Caneday, L., Jordan, D., Liang, Y. (2005). Benchmarking Oklahoma State Parks: Phase 3 report. Oklahoma State University & Dornbusch Assoc.

Carr, D.K. & Littman, I.D. (1993). Excellence in government: Total Quality Management in the 1990s (2nd ed.). Arlington, VA: Coopers & Lybrand.

Codling, S. (1992). Best practice benchmarking: a management guide. Brookfield, VT: Gower.

Coe, C. (1999). Local government benchmarking: Lessons from two major multigovernment efforts. Public Administration Review, 59 (2), 110-115.

Cross, R. & Iqbal, A. (1995). The Rank Xerox Experience: Benchmarking ten years on. In A. Rolstad_s (ed.), Benchmarking theory and practice (pp.1-10). London: Chapman & Hall.

Delavigne, K.T. & Robertson, J.D. (1994). Deming's profound changes: When will the sleeping giant awaken? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PTR Prentice Hall.

District of Columbia, Department of Parks and Recreation. Master plan. Retrieved on September 1, 2005 from http://www.bakerprojects.com/dprmasterplan/

Fuchs, M. & Weiermair (2004). Destination benchmarking: An indicator-systems potential for exploring guest satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 42(2), 212-225.

Harrington, H. J. & Harrington, J.S. (1996). High performance benchmarking: 20 steps to success. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jarrar, Y.F. & Zairi, M. (2001). Future trends in benchmarking for competitive advantage: A global survey. Total Quality Management, 12 (7 & 8), 906-912.

Keehley, P., Medlin, S., MacBride, S., & Longmire, L. (1997). Benchmarking for best practices in the public sector. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kozak, M. & Remmington, M. (1998). Benchmarking: Destination attractiveness and small hospitality business performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(5), 184-188.

Moray, R.C. & Dittman, D.A. (1999). Evaluation of a hotel GMs performance. Cornell hotel and restaurant administration, 30 (5), 30-35.

National Performance Review (1997). Serving the American public: best practices in performance measurement: Benchmarking Study Report, Al Gore, Vice President of the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Performance Review.

Oregon Progress Board (n.d.). Oregon Benchmarks. Retrieved on April 14, 2004, from http://egov.oregon.gov/DAS/OPB/obm.shtm

Performance management, benchmarking and reengineering within government (1996). Hearing before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives, 104th Congress, first ession, June 20th, 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Siguaw, J.A. & Enz, C.A. (1999). Best practices in food and beverage management. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40 (5), 50-57.

Spendolini, M.J. (1992). The benchmarking book. New York: Amacom, a division of American Management Association.

Swiss, J. (1992). Adapting Total Quality Management (TQM) to government. Public Administration Review, 52(4), 356-362.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Recreation Educational Services Division (n.d.). Parks and recreation program 3-tier benchmarking program. Retrieved on September 1, 2005 from http://www.state.tn.us/environment/recreation/pdf/ BenchmarkingProgram_3_Tier.pdf

Zaifi, M. (1998). Effective Management of benchmarking projects: Practical guidelines and examples of best practice. Oxford, U.K.: Butterworth Heinemann.

Zairi, M. & Ahmed, P. K. (1999). Benchmarking maturity as we approach the millennium? Total Quality Management, 10 (4/5), S810-S816.

Yating Liang is an assistant professor of Recreation and Leisure Studies in the Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation at Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri. Her research interests include park and resource management, outdoor recreation and tourism.