EMGT 364 BENCHMARKING John Checco Joe Dashiell EMGT 364 28 Feb 01

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING

John CheccoJoe Dashiell

EMGT 36428 Feb 01

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING

AGENDA• References

• Benchmarking Defined

• Concept of Benchmarking

• Application in Product Development

• Legal Aspects

• Conclusion

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING

Application in Product Development

References(1 of 4)

Product Design and Development

Karl T. UlrichSteven D. Eppinger

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING

• The Product Development Benchmarking Association

www.pdba.com

• Competitive Benchmarking Associateswww.competitiveanalysis.com

• The Benchmark Exchangewww.benchnet.com


References(2 of 4)

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING

• Quirk’s Marketing Research Review“Measuring Competitiveness”

By Michael Branham, Oct 1997

• Marketing Tools Magazine“Measuring What Matters”

By Michael Branham, Apr 1997


References(3 of 4)

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING

• Re-Engineering at Work Michael Loh

• Business Process Improvement Toolbox Bjorn Anderson

• Global Cases in Benchmarking Robert Camp


References(4 of 4)

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING

Benchmarking Defined

• Judging and modifying one’s business product, service, or process based on standards developed from performance measures of other selected businesses.

• Benchmarking Versus Indexing

• Same Industry Versus Different Industry

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING

Concept of Benchmarking

Core Components

• Measurement - Self and Partners

• Comparison - Performance, Process, Pracitces

• Learning -Introduce Ideas

• Improvement - Objective

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING


Types of Comparisons

WHO? • Internal - Same Orgainization• Competitive - Competitor or Parallel Class• Functional - Related Tasks / Technologies• Generic - Best in Any Class

WHAT?• Performance - Key Figures• Process - How Performed• Strategic - Higher Level

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING


Benchmarking Value

Inte

rna

l

Co

mpe

tito

r

Fun

ctio

nal

Ge

neri

c

Performance M H M L

Process M L H H

Strategic L H L L

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING


Conducting a Study

• Plan: Select Focus, Study Self

• Search: Find Benchmark Partners

• Observe: Document Partner

• Analyze: Identify Gaps and Causes

• Adapt: Implement Change

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING


• Generic Development Process

• Concept Development

• Case Study

• Data Sources

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING


Generic Development Process

• Planning

• Concept Development

• System Level Design

• Detail Design

• Testing and Refinement

• Production Ramp-Up

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING


Concept DevelopmentMissionStatement

IdentifyCustomer

Needs

DevelopmentPlan

EstablishTargetSpecs

GenerateProduct

Concepts

SelectProductConcept

RefineSpecs

PlanRemaining

Project

ApplyBenchmarking

ApplyBenchmarking

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING

• Specialized Bicycle Components

• Establish Target Specifications

– Develop List of Metrics

– Collect Competitive Benchmark Data

– Develop Competitive Benchmarking Charts


Case Study(1 of 7)

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING


Case Study(2 of 7)

Competitive Benchmarking Chart Based on Metrics

Metric No. Need Metric Imp. Units

ST Tritrack

Maniray 2

Rox Tahx

Quadra

Rox Tahx TI 21

Tonka Pro

Gunhill Head Shox

1 1,3Attenuation from

dropout to 3 dB 8 15 10 15 9 13

2 2,6 Spring Preload 3 N 550 760 500 710 480 680

3 1,3Maximum value

from the Monster 5 g 3.6 3.2 3.7 3.3 3.7 3.4

4 1,3Minimum descent time on test track 5 s 13 11.3 12.6 11.2 13.2 11

5 4Damping coefficient adjustment range 3 N-s/m 0 0 0 200 0 0

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING


Case Study(3 of 7)

Competitive Benchmarking Chart Based on Needs

No. Need Imp.ST

TritrackManiray

2

Rox Tahx

Quadra

Rox Tahx TI 21

Tonka Pro

Gunhill Head Shox

1Reduces vibration

to the hands 3 * **** ** ***** ** ***

2Allows easy

traversal 2 ** **** *** ***** *** *****

3Enables high-speed

descents 5 * ***** ** ***** ** ***

4Allows sensitivity

adjustment 3 * **** ** ***** ** ***

5Preserves steering

characteristics 4 **** ** * ** ****** *

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING


Case Study(4 of 7)

Metric No. Need Metric Imp. Units

Marginal Value

Ideal Value

1 1,3Attenuation from

dropout to 3 dB >10 >15

2 2,6 Spring Preload 3 N 480-800 650-700

3 1,3Maximum value

from the Monster 5 g <3.5 <3.2

4 1,3Minimum descent time on test track 5 s <13.0 <11.0

5 4Damping coefficient adjustment range 3 N-s/m 0 >200

• Set Ideal and Marginally Acceptable Target Values

• Develop Solution Concept

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING

• Refining the Specifications

– Develop Technical Models of the Product

– Develop a Cost Model of the Product

– Refine the Specifications, Making Trade-offs Where Necessary


Case Study(5 of 7)

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING


Case Study(6 of 7)

Competitive Map

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8

Score on Monster (g's)

Est

ima

ted

Mfc

. C

ost

($)

Maniray

Rox Tahx Ti

Gunhill

Rox Tahx Q

Tonka Pro

ST Tritrack

Marginal Values

IdealValues

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING


Case Study(7 of 7)

The Refined Specifications

Metric No. Metric Units Value

1Attenuation from

dropout to dB >12

2 Spring Preload N 600-650

3Maximum value

from the Monster g <3.4

4Minimum descent time on test track s <11.5

5Damping coefficient adjustment range N-s/m >100

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING

• Time Investment

• Purchasing

• Competitors Catalogs and Supporting Literature

• Outside Firms


Data Sources

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING


Ethical and Legal Aspects

• Treat Partners Fairly• Refrain from Questionable Activity• International Considerations• Avoid Competitors for

Pricing Marketing Production Capacity Product Standards Sensitive Information

EMGT 364

BENCHMARKING

Conclusion

Benchmarking is the practice of being humble

enough to admit that someone else is better at

something, and being wise enough to learn how

to match them and even surpass them at it.

(APQC, 1993)

Documents

EMGT 364 BENCHMARKING John Checco Joe Dashiell EMGT 364 28 Feb 01