This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]

On: 15 May 2013, At: 23:08

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Construction Management and Economics

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20

Benchmarking for construction: theory and

practice
Naomi Garnett & Simone Pickrell
Published online: 21 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Naomi Garnett & Simone Pickrell (2000): Benchmarking for construction: theory and practice,
Construction Management and Economics, 18:1, 55-63

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014461900370951

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the
contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and
drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for
any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused
arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Construction Management and Economics (2000) 18, 55± 63

Benchmarking for construction: theory and practice

NAOMI GARNETT AN D SIMONE PICKRELL
Department of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, Building 22, London Road,
Reading, RG1 5AQ, UK

Received 15 May 1998; accepted 29 October 1998

The UK construction industry has identi® ed benchmarking as one of a number of initiatives to assist in the
drive for major improvements in ef® ciency and economy. At the outset, the industry struggled to see how
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013

a technique based upon comparison of similar goods and processes could be used effectively in a project
based industry where products, processes and teams changed regularly. This paper discusses the develop-
ment and testing of a benchmarking model and study methodology for use in construction. The model was
derived from an extensive literature review which considered the underlying theoretical basis of benchmarking.
The case is made that, to be successful, the benchmarking process is as important as the benchmarks them-
selves, and that it is based upon constructivist foundations, rather than positivist. As such, any methodology
for undertaking benchmarking must take place in a similar vein, i.e. be interactive, team based and ¯ exible
but with an underlying rigour provided by the benchmarking model. The paper outlines two case studies to
test the benchmarking model and study methodology, discusses the learning and bene® ts that accrued and
introduces further developments.

Keywords: Benchmarking methodology, process mapping, case studies, social constructivism

Introduction 1996). Likewise The Royal Academy of Engineering

(RAE, 1996) recommends that the industry needs to
The UK construction industry and benchmarking have adopt `a more structured and determined approach
something of a love± hate relationship. In the drive for to analysis and benchmarking of business processes’ .
improvement during the early 1990s, techniques from The issue of benchmarking as a means of identifying
other industries were sought for use in construction. best practice has become pertinent also for the
From the outset, the construction industry struggled DETR best practice initiative.
to see how benchmarking, a technique based upon If construction benchmarking could achieve similar
comparison of similar goods and processes, could be bene® ts to those readily accomplished in manufac-
used effectively in a project based industry where prod- turing and the service industries, improvements in the
ucts, processes and teams all change regularly (Garnett order of 30% seem plausible.
and Pickrell, 1995; Pickrell and Garnett, 1996). To support the industry in its adoption of bench-
With the publication of the Latham report (1994), marking, the research set out to investigate this man-
more pressure was put on the industry to develop its agement tool, in particular its theoretical underpinning,
own benchmarking capability. Latham speci® cally and demonstrate its applicability to construction.
suggested that benchmarking would be useful to the The aim was to provide output, which could be used
industry in achieving the 30% cost reductions he was to improve construction quality and productivity
advocating and that `early agreement on a bench- through the application of benchmarking. The research
marking system’ was a priority. Subsequently, the CIB objective was to develop and test a generic bench-
has strengthened this call for companies to invest in marking methodology for use in the construction
benchmarking to achieve better performance (CIB, industry.

Construction Management and Economics

ISSN 0144± 6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online € 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd
 56 Garnett and Pickrell

Literature review Construction related benchmarking

McGeorge and Palmer (1997) give the most succinct
Benchmarking literature falls into three categories;
overview and are critical in their description of the
general benchmarking guidance, case studies and
way the construction industry has attempted to adopt
construction speci® c commentaries.
benchmarking as a tool rather than as part of an inte-
grated management programme for change. One of the
Background and guidance reasons for this is that the recognition of processes in
construction has not been adopted by practitioners
This approach, adopted by management writers and
until the mid to late 1990s.
academics, focuses on three main questions: 1. what
Construction processes have been discussed by acad-
is benchmarking?, 2. how can it be used?, and 3. when
emics for over 20 years (O’ Reilly, 1972; Sanvido,
can it be used? Often the literature is supplemented
1992). Walker (1996), in his project management text,
by case study material from a variety of companies
promotes the concept of construction process models
who have successfully completed some form of bench-
marking work. Seminal texts of this nature include as providing a theoretical basis for the discipline of
Camp (1989, 1995), Codling (1992) and Bendell project management. Until recently, however, few
construction practitioners have viewed their work
et al. (1993). They include de® nitions, benchmarking
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013

models and variations of the benchmarking process. actively in this way. Adopting a process view enables
Three types of benchmarking are identi® ed, i.e. process benchmarking to take place in both physical
product, performance or process. Product bench- transformation processes, such as constructing a
marking concentrates on understanding how one retaining wall; and soft, less tangible processes such as
product compares with another. Performance bench- project management. Furthermore although the project
marking compares one company performance with may change in nature, often the processes used to
another. achieve it are similar and this builds a basis for bench-
Process benchmarking is the most recent develop- marking. Construction speci® c problems include the
ment. It offers additional bene® ts over product or following.
performance benchmarking by enabling work to be 1. Construction is a project based industry with
viewed as a series of holistic transformation events with various locations (Baden and Baden, 1993) and
identi® able inputs and outputs. This approach stems no two projects are the same. This hinders team
from the systems theories of the 1960s and developed building, learning from experience and feed-
subsequently by authors such as Checkland (1981, back. Additionally, a common misconception is
1987). that this perceived industry fragmentation
The literature also provides information on the prob- directly hinders the use of process techniques
lems involved in implementing benchmarking both and the ability to compare processes or
generally and in construction. A Coopers & Lybrand subprocesses with other organizations or indus-
(1994) survey of other industries re¯ ected the following tries.
dif® culties: (a) insuf® cient resources, time, money, 2. d’Arcy(1994) reported that the inability to iden-
staff, etc.; (b) internal resistance; (c) previous bad tify best practice, together with dif® culty in
experiences; (d) dif® culty in identifying and obtaining measuring processes, also contributed to an
partners; and (e) dif® culty in obtaining data. unwillingness to adopt benchmarking.
In essence all these works are aimed at practitioners 3. Few good examples of `benchmarking’ exist in
and are intended as guidance manuals to bench- the construction industry. They are result
marking. Few of them address the theoretical basis of focused and dif® cult to emulate. This was a
benchmarking or consider its underlying epistemology. contributory factor in the low uptake of bench-
This needs to be made explicit to enable use of the
marking in construction.
benchmarking process in a range of contexts.

Case studies Critical analysis

The second category concerns the publication of From the literature there arises a need to clarify the
examples of benchmarking work and comments on its difference between benchmarking and benchmarks.
effectiveness. They are either results orientated Technically, although general benchmarks may provide
(Bemowski, 1991; d’Arcy, 1994) or method orientated, the catalyst for change, organization speci® c bench-
advertising the bene® ts that can be achieved (Baden marks are developed during the benchmarking process
and Baden, 1993; Clayton and Luchs, 1994). as a result of the analysis phase. They provide
 Benchmarking for construction 57

information about the current situation which then can (manufacturing industry examples revealed a
be used to set targets to focus the change strategy. more rigorous and interactive benchmarking
Often data, loosely termed benchmarks, are deter- process, based within companies dedicated to
mined by comparative analysis, experience and gut tackling dif® cult core business processes);
feeling rather than through focused analysis. In 2. although there were many examples of bench-
these circumstances, it is dif® cult to be successful in marking methodologies and snapshots from case
achieving them, since the underlying processes on studies, there was little discussion of the theor-
which they are based are not well de® ned. etical underpinning of benchmarking in the
Benchmarking provides the means to identify why `best existing body of knowledge (research suggests
practice’ organizations are high achievers, and how that the benchmarking process has a construc-
others can learn from best practice processes to tivist dynamic and any methodology needs to
improve their own approach. align with this);
Confusion of the two terms was seen to jeopardize 3. well detailed construction industry case studies
the uptake of benchmarking in the construction emphasizing the process of benchmarking not
industry. A de® nition, (Pickrell et al., 1997), encapsu- the benchmarks are unavailable.
lating the key elements of the benchmarking was devel-
oped with this in mind: `benchmarking is a continuous
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013

process of establishing critical areas for improvement Research strategy

within an organization, investigating the extent to
which others carry out the same or similar tasks more Following the literature review and de® nition of bench-
ef® ciently, identifying the techniques that give rise to marking, a benchmarking model was required which
better performance, implementing them and measuring would be implemented through a workshop-based
the outcome’ . methodology.
This difference in approach between benchmarks
and benchmarking re¯ ects the theoretical schools of
positivism and social constructivism; the former being Benchmarking model
based on fact ® nding, the latter an interactive activity The Reading benchmarking model was developed
whose bene® ts are as much in the social interaction as during the early stages of the literature review by
the measurement process. summarizing the main benchmarking models from
The evidence from the literature review is that other industries, which ranged from 5 step to 11 step
successful benchmarking depends upon undertaking an processes (including Camp, 1989; Codling, 1992;
interactive activity ± the benchmarking process. Simply Coopers & Lybrand, 1994). Many of these models
gathering and analysing data does not constitute were too detailed for application in the construction
successful benchmarking. To establish useful measures industry. In addition, experience in encouraging the
within a change programme requires those involved in use of other techniques in the industry showed that
improving the process to act as a team, to identify the any methodology needed to be simple and ¯ exible. The
consensus view of the process and the appropriate resulting generic, 7-step model shown in Figure 1 was
measures that will allow best practice to be identi® ed.
In adopting the position that benchmarking is an
interactive process, it follows that the methodology
for using it needs to be aligned with this epistemolog-
ical foundation. This has important implications for
devising a research methodology to develop and test
the benchmarking methodology, and these are discus-
sed later.
As process benchmarking lends itself to soft systems
issues, the success of benchmarking is rarely validated
formally by objective measurement. The bene® ts arise
from focusing on core areas of business and identifying
inef® ciencies in the way processes are carried out. The
proof of its bene® t comes from understanding and
illustrating the change in processes. In summary:
1. the understanding of benchmarking in construc-
tion was within a scienti® c context where absol- Figure 1 The Reading model (Pickrell, Garnett and
ute measurements or benchmarks were common Baldwin, 1997)
 58 Garnett and Pickrell

based on those steps considered most relevant to 6. Implementation. The data collection phase provides
construction. The key features of each stage and their both a benchmark from which to commence and, by
relevance to construction are as follows identifying best practice for each metric within the
l. The need for change. It is important to establish partnership, a base from which to set goals. Monitoring
whether change is necessary, if the organization is ready and re-calibration stages are agreed and all those
to accept it and who will take responsibility for any affected are kept involved and informed.
initiatives. The construction industry has been unsuc- 7. Feedback. As benchmarking is a continuous
cessful with many previous initiatives because these process, feedback is essential. This may be communi-
basic questions were not asked. cated in a number of ways consistent with the groups
2. The decision to benchmark. There are many receiving information. At this point a continuous moni-
examples of improvement techniques. Therefore, the toring and improvement strategy is identi® ed for the
suitability of benchmarking should be established area benchmarked, and new areas are identi® ed for
particularly with respect to whether any other initia- further studies.
tives are underway, the number of staff willing to be Although the model is illustrated as a formal
or having been trained in the technique and so forth. approach, it is very ¯ exible in the order of the stages,
Benchmarking is an excellent technique to stand alone, what is measured, and how this is achieved. For
or be used in support of other initiatives; however, it example, identi® cation of suitable partners may
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013

does require suf® cient resourcing for the purpose and, precede the decision on type of benchmarking study,
as such, a decision has to be taken on its use. which will set the type. In the case of a study on
Stages 1 and 2 are important because they should `change management’ , the initiating partner chose
result in senior management commitment to bench- partners who were competitors in their core business
marking. area (outside of construction), but were functionally
3. Identifying what to benchmark. Organizational similar in the area identi® ed for benchmarking
charts are used to identify the level of business at which (construction). Additionally, the area of focus can be
the study is taking place. Process mapping workshops anything from management issues on the strategic
identify core business areas, and further issues such business to daily site activities, which will require very
as customer focus, added bene® t and quick wins different approaches. It is recommended that a ® rst
are considered. Critical success factors and strategic study is relatively easy and provides a quick win.
metrics are applied to the chosen core area. This stage
is essential in identifying a manageable focus for the
Case study methodology
study.
4. Design of the benchmarking study. Early prepara- An action research approach of case study work to test
tion allows identi® cation of the most appropriate type the benchmarking model was adopted. To support the
of benchmarking, i.e. internal, competitive, functional use of the model in practice, a case study methodology
or generic, and the types of partners to approach. was devised using a series of workshops to progress
Partners may be involved from the earliest process through the benchmarking process. In designing the
mapping stages, or after an area has been identi® ed. methodology, the principles of naturalistic enquiry
Either way, they work together to re® ne the measure- (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) were considered: i.e. the
ments and produce `rules for measurement’ relating to research must take place within the natural setting or
the boundaries of the study. The outputs from this context, and the researcher has to be fully involved
stage include a con® dentiality agreement, a partners’ and all those taking part are important to the study.
charter and the framework for a pilot study. The model was tested in two case studies, one func-
5. Data collection and analysis. This traditionally tional benchmarking, the other generic (Figure 2).
commences with a pilot data collection phase, from The key objectives were that learning points from
which partners identify what is available, from whom the case studies were fed back into both the model and
and how it is held within their organizations. The the case study methodology, a neutral role was created
results of this lead to re® ning of collection methods to encourage greater openness amongst the bench-
and resources for the main collection phase. The pilot marking partners and study momentum was main-
stage is essential, as it is rare for partners to be aware tained. The studies commenced with several meetings
of the complications of data collection in new areas. aimed at focusing on the level of business, identi® ca-
The analysis phase should not be underestimated, and tion of potential partners and establishing answers to
requires a dedicated person within each organization. steps 1 and 2 (Figure 1). Once the benchmarking part-
Communication of the results is crucial to getting the ners were in place a series of structured workshops
messages across and underpinning implementation of were followed from steps 3± 7 (Figure 1). This generic
change. framework is described in Figure 3.
 Benchmarking for construction 59
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013

Figure 2 Case studies

Case studies

The generic framework is discussed in general terms,

in the context of the case studies. Greater case study
detail is provided by Pickrell and Baldwin (1997). The
® rst case study was identi® ed by asking the project
partners to either highlight areas in which they may be
interested in benchmarking, or to indicate the level of
interest in several areas which were suggested by the
research team. This was a preliminary attempt to focus Figure 3 Generic framework
on suitable benchmarking topics from which core areas
of business speci® c to those carrying out the bench-
marking study could be identi® ed later. The ¯ exibility part of the organization’ s property group. The initial
of benchmarking enables `cutting the cloth to suit focus was on supply chain management. However, this
resources’ and therefore the case studies were achieved was considered to be too large for the ® rst case study.
part-time over a period of 9± 14 months, in line with Several meetings were carried out to identify a more
the agreed workshop timetable. Shorter studies are manageable study, which resulted in consideration of
possible if they are small, well de® ned and fully the detail design process (Figure 2). The early meet-
resourced. ings also identi® ed: organizational and departmental
The main objectives of the case studies, within the structures; who the property group interfaced with;
project context were: 1. the research team should internal and external clients; and the core areas of the
establish how appropriate the methodology was; 2. the detail design process. Several critical success factors
partners should learn how to carry out benchmarking; were identi® ed, of which change management was the
and 3. the partners should gain useful information in highest priority. More speci® cally, change management
a core area of their business. related to identifying ways of gaining greater control
over the receipt and execution of instructions during
Case study 1: Construction retail clients construction projects.
Traditionally, retailers do not talk to each other; how-
Preparatory meeting ever, a retailer’ s benchmarking forum had provided the
The ® rst benchmarking study was initiated by the means for property related representatives from several
research project’ s retail client representative, who was retailers to meet. It was from this source, and general
 60 Garnett and Pickrell

contacts, that potential partners were identi® ed. Those

organizations who chose improvement of the change
management process as a high priority agreed to take
part and were interviewed to obtain background infor-
mation relating to steps 1 and 2, and organizational
information in preparation for workshop 1.
Members became `benchmarking partners’ and their
relationship was initially reinforced by the signing of
a `code of conduct’ and `con® dentiality agreement’ ,
which gave the partners assurance that their data would
not be shared in any but the agreed way, and that they Figure 4 Number of changes per change item
would abide by the same rules in the study.
Workshop 1 ± Step 3
1. Partners shared organizational and departmental identi® ed metrics. These included metrics such as
structures and their initial attempts at a change hand-over / approved cost for a range of project types,
management process map, prior to the workshop. cost per change, number of changes per million pounds
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013

2. The workshop followed a `¯ exible’ agenda covering: of project cost, and number of changes per change
1. partners familiarization with each other and their item, which is illustrated in Figure 4. Each partner
organizations; 2. agreement of the level of business that identi® ed their highest priority metrics and the best
the study was taking place in; 3. general concerns about practice partner for this metric, in order to discuss how
change management; and 4. preparation of the change better results had been achieved. For example, one
process map. Thirteen types of change, and the means partner wishing to improve on approved cost compared
of measuring them, were identi® ed for the pilot study. with hand-over cost discussed this with the partner
Partners collected their data and returned it to the achieving near 100% accuracy for this metric.
research team for analysis prior to workshop 2. The format for the ® nal report was agreed. A two-
Workshop 2 ± Steps 4 and 5 level report, one public/one con® dential and using only
The pilot study identi® ed the types of information alphabetical letters to identify each partner, was
available within each organization and the resources prepared by the research team and returned to the
required to collect it. The 13 change types were partners prior to workshop.
reduced to seven as they were found to be too Workshop 4 ± Steps 6 and 7
ambiguous. The ® nal list included: 1. corporate change
(for example, brand image); 2. design development; 3. Report amendments were agreed. Discussion of, and
speci® c brief change (client instructions); 4. statutory agreement on, implementation of the ® ndings took
authority (such as building control); 5. estates (relating place. Partners provided feedback on the case study.
to estates and property management); 6. construction An of® cial feedback meeting was scheduled for 6
change (arising from problems on site); and 7. other. months ahead of the ® nal report, to encourage the part-
Tighter parameters were agreed for some of the ners to share their progress.
metrics: for example, approved cost was further de® ned
as `approved project cost the day before site work Case study 2: Research organizations ±
commences’ . De® nitions were agreed. The design construction/other
stage was clari® ed as `the time between receiving
the authorization to proceed and the contract start The generic framework was similar; however case study
date’ . Amendments were made to the data collection 2 differed in the following ways.
tables. Preparatory meeting
Partners collected the main study data and returned
it to the research team for analysis prior to workshop Two construction related partners from the project,
3. At this point, two of the original seven partners both representing research departments, identi® ed
dropped out prior to sensitive data being shared, as their major concerns for the core areas of business.
they were unable to resource the study. Partners and researchers brainstormed organizations in
and outside of the construction industry who dealt with
Workshop 3 ± Step 5 similar issues. The researchers contacted and inter-
The results were presented in tabular form and graphs, viewed those potential partners who were interested in
illustrating the performance of each partner on 24 the study.
 Benchmarking for construction 61

section gives the ® ndings related to the methodology

in general, since Pickrell and Baldwin (1997) discuss
the speci® c ® ndings of the processes being bench-
marked.

Benchmarking process
Case study 2 ran much more smoothly than case study
1, due partly to improvements in and experience of
the process, and due partly to a more straightforward
process.
The partners and research team approached the ® rst
Figure 5 Number of successful and unsuccessful proposals benchmarking study in each case, with the intention
of getting important metrics in a core area of business.
They completed the studies appreciating that priority
had been to `learn how to benchmark’ on the ® rst occa-
sion, with core area metrics being a priority for the
Workshop 1 ± Step 3 second study. However, it is dif® cult to imagine how
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013

The information dissemination process was mapped. the ® rst studies could have been approached any other
It had four stages of which three, action, output and way initially, as partners bought-into the expectation
distribution, were considered core areas, and led to a of obtaining hard results.
second level of six subcore areas as illustrated in Figure Management approval was essential and needed to
2. Critical success factors were identi® ed for each of be gained ahead of an external study where sensitive
the subcore areas, e.g. `understanding the problem’ for information was to be shared. More information is
client needs and `using the right language’ for quality required on how this can best be handled.
of communication. Metrics were agreed for each of The pilot study was essential in identifying problems
these, in readiness for the pilot study. with collection and de® nition.
The number of workshops was appropriate for both
Workshop 2 ± Steps 4 and 5 studies, but with a ¯ exible agenda allowing for some
The data were collected quickly and without much modi® cation, where necessary.
dif® culty, therefore requiring little amendment. This Process maps were essential for creating a focus for
meant the majority of the main study was complete. the study.
As the collected information was already appearing The con® dentiality agreement and charter created
useful, some amendments were made to the tables, in the important initial basis of trust.
order that they could be used in the future. Partners reported that external facilitators had been
essential in providing a neutral role and maintaining
Workshop 3 ± Step 5 momentum.
Although the results were presented in a similar
manner to case study 1 (see Figure 5) they were of a Case study results
nature that was much easier to follow, and therefore In the ® rst study it was thought that the partners would
partners were getting quicker `messages’ and identi- use the results to talk to each other about the speci® cs of
fying fast ways to implement improvements. For differences in performance gaps. The majority of
example, one partner, having identi® ed a bottleneck in the discussions ended up as a general forum for ideas.
report preparation which delayed completion unnec- The bene® ts of this study were more subjective than
essarily, was in the process of identifying why this expected. Those partners only anticipating hard mea-
occurred and how it could be improved. sures considered it had been a disappointment, as they
did not see the bene® t of sharing ideas in this forum ± a
Workshop 4 ± Steps 6 and 7 relatively new situation in that these parties would not
Several of the partners had already initiated imple- have `teamed up’ in the past. As a result of this they were
mentation strategies and were getting more feedback. unaware of much of the new information they were gain-
ing. The remaining partners were pleased with the open
Case study learning environment which the study had provided.
There were many ® ndings from the case studies. Those A range of metrics were developed and measured in
from the ® rst study led to re® nement of the bench- both studies, giving useful information to those part-
marking model and case study methodology, in prepa- ners involved. The response to these results and the
ration for case study 2. Due to the large number, this level of business at which the case studies had been
 62 Garnett and Pickrell

carried out was mixed, with some partners using Frequently, the issue of an underpinning theory is
the metrics to directly improve their daily business, overlooked, particularly where there is a need to be
whereas others believed the study needed to be at a `doing’ , rather than thinking. The research project itself
higher level. created an environment in which construction acade-
It was fairly easy to establish metrics that encom- mics and practitioners could come together to consider
passed a bene® t for all partners, and every partner was the nature of benchmarking and its application in
able to contribute as they were highest performers in construction, an area outside of its normal ® eld of
several areas each. application.
Benchmarking has proved to be a ¯ exible tool that
Implementation can be used in isolation or to support other strategies.
Implementation from the ® rst study has included the Enthusiasm is growing, particularly as the Government
initiating partner freezing changes on a project until pushes for productivity and process improvement
close to the end, at which time a lump sum is handed (Barrett, 1998). In the construction industry interest
to the client. This highlights how much the changes is gaining momentum. However, it is still the case
will cost and the potential delay likely, which is that benchmarking is more often `sold’ initially on the
hoped will encourage the client to decide against some opportunity to gain hard benchmarks rather than
of them. In addition, the forum with which most of the underlying improvements.
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013

the partners were connected had decided to take

several of the metrics forward.
The partners of the second study gained objective References
and subjective measures. They also found that many
of the areas identi® ed were not suf® ciently documented Baden, R.H. and Baden, R. (1993) Total Quality in
within their organizations, such as time from ® nishing Construction Projects, Thomas Telford, London.
a research project to producing the report and feed- Barnett, A. (1998) Work hard, pay hard leaves UK off the
back on their services, which prompted them to initiate pace. The Observer, 3 May.
Bemowski, K. (1991) The Benchmarking Bandwagon, Quality
more structured mechanisms.
Progress, 19± 24.
Bendell, T., Boulter, L. and Kelly, J. (1993) Benchmarking
for Competitive Advantage, Pitman, London.
Discussion and conclusions Camp, R.C. (1989) Benchmarking: The Search for Industry
Best Practices that Lead to Superior Performance, American
The research project goal of determining a benchmark- Society for Quality Control, Quality Press.
ing methodology that can be used in construction has Camp, R.C. (1995) Business Process Benchmarking: Finding
been achieved successfully. There is a clear model avail- and Implementing B est Practices, American Society for
able and a supporting methodology which enables its Quality Control, Quality Press.
practical use. A key strength of the methodology Checkland, P.B. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice,
is that its theoretical basis is aligned with that of bench- Wiley, Chichester.
marking, i.e. social constructivism instead of positivism. Checkland, P.B. (1987) Soft systems methodology: an
overview, paper given at a plenary session of the 31st
The ® ndings, which range from general (like the
Annual Meeting of the International Society for General
methodology) to case study speci® c, enabled the model Systems Research, Budapest.
and case study methodology to be tested rigorously. CIB (1996) Towards a 30% Productivity Improvement in
The results suggest that benchmarking could be a Construction, Working Group 11, Construction Industry
powerful tool in investigating and managing change on Board.
construction projects. Clayton, T. and Luchs, B. (1994) Strategic benchmarking
This benchmarking work has been furthered through at ICI ® bres. Long Range Planning, 27, 54± 63.
industry studies ranging from project/site-based bench- Codling, S. (1992) Best Practice B enchmarking: The
marking, such as dust management on live retail Management Guide to Successful Implementation, Gower,
projects (Pickrell and Leveson, 1998) to studies, such London.
Coopers & Lybrand/CBI. (1994) Survey of Benchmarking in
as strategic and operational business improvement with
the UK, Executive Summary.
SMEs.
d’ Arcy, J. (1994) Measuring up to the best. Contract Journal,
The individual study partners are equipped with March.
knowledge and data that they are now using on a daily Garnett, N. and Pickrell, S. (1995) Construction industry
basis in managing change and the costs associated with benchmarking, in Proceedings of School of Business and
them. Industrial Management Conference, London.
 Benchmarking for construction 63

Latham, Sir M. (1994) Constructing the Team, HMSO, Pickrell, S., Garnett, N. and Baldwin, J. (1997) Measuring
London. Up: A Practical Guide to Benchmarking in Construction,
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Enquiry, Construction Research Communications Ltd. Garston,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. UK.
McGeorge, D. and Palmer, A. (1997) Construction Pickrell, S. and Leveson, R. (1998) Collaboration in a
Management New Directions, Blackwell, Oxford. competitive industry: using process improvement to gain
O’ Reilly, J.J.N. (1972) Building design: a proposed process model strategic advantage, unpubliswhed paper University of
incorporating the performance approach, Internal note Reading.
IN60/72, Building Research Station, Garston, UK. Sanvido, V.E. (1992) Linking levels of abstraction of
Pickrell, S. and Baldwin, J. (1997) Benchmarking ± Focusing a building design. Building and Environment, 27(2),
the Construction Industry, unpublished paper, University 195± 208.
of Reading. RAE (1996) A Statement on the Construction Industry, The
Pickrell, S. and Garnett, N. (1996) Generic benchmarking in Royal Academy of Engineering, London.
construction, in Proceedings of the 1996 CIB Beijing Inter- Walker, A. (1996) Project Management in Construction, 3rd
national Conference Construction Modernization and Education. Edn, Blackwell, Oxford.
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 23:08 15 May 2013