Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ZOYA MALIK
University Institute of management sciences, PMAS Arid Agriculture university
Rawalpindi
(zoyamalik1237@gmail.com)
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. Acknowledgement3
2. Abstract.4
3. Introduction...5
4. Literature review...7
5. Methodology...14
6. Results.17
7. Discussion and analysis...21
8. Conclusion...22
9. Limitations...23
10.Implications.23
11.references.............24
ACKNOLEGEMENT
I would like to thanks all employees who participate in the research and also like to thanks
Mam Rabia without her, I am not able to study the deep root of the research, and also thanks
to the administration of the university who gives me a platform for this research.
Abstract
Benchmarking is concerned with enhancing organizational performance by establishing
standards against which processes, products and performance can be compared and
consequently improved. The importance of creative thinking of employees for organization is
widely accepted. Creative thinking of employees refers to the processes by which organizations
develop new knowledge and core competences in order to improve the organization
performance.
Purpose: This paper examines the effect of benchmarking on organization performance when
it is coupled to creative thinking of employees. By examining the creative thinking of
employees, evidence is presented that supports the argument that benchmarking brings the
greatest benefit to organization performance when combined with creative thinking of
employees.
Sample: The sample is the 200 employees of the banking sector in Rawalpindi/Islamabad and
we use questionnaires as the sampling technique in order to find the impact of benchmarking
on organization performance when it is coupled to effective thinking of employees.
Results: The results show that there is the positive relationship between benchmarking and
organization performance and creative thinking of employees within a company is an essential
ingredient in strengthening the relationship between benchmarking and organization
performance.
INTRODUCTION
Globalization has changed the business scenario generally and competition, in particular. The
modern business environment is characterized by radical changes due to technological
developments, increase competition, and the developments of customers desires and needs.
Many innovative approaches to management, often emanating from Japan, have emerged
during the last thirty years, and have been embraced by Western businesses in the quest for
improved performance. During this period, the theory and practice of benchmarking has also
developed. While many denitions and variations exist, benchmarking is essentially a set of
tools and approaches designed to assist in achieving continuous improvement. By using
objective external standards an organization can assess its performance in relation to
competitors but, more importantly, by creative thinking of employees can lead to the improved
organization performance (Schumpetes, 1994).
The mechanics of benchmarking, and varying approaches to it, are examined later in this paper,
but the identication and management of organizational expertise built around customers,
products, processes, technology and competitors are integral elements of the organization
process. Here the notion of creative thinking of employees arises which has emerged as an area
of increasing importance over the last few years (Shalley, 1995). It is primarily concerned with
the development and management of an organizations information and knowledge assets and
thy improved the organization performance (Nonaka, 1991 and wing, 1997).
According to Jusoh (2006), the pressure from domestic and global competitors and customers,
demands for quality and reliable products, a high expectation from the stakeholders and usage
of new and advanced manufacturing technology. As well as, the increased competition has
forced organizations to continually monitor their products and services as well as that of the
competitors. Therefore, studies have advocated that benchmarking are a key for survival (Mia
& Clarke, 1999).
This paper explores the relationship between benchmarking and organization performance and
the impact of creative thinking of employees on the realationship.. First, this paper proceeds
with a brief explanation on the the benchmarking and creative thinking of employess and
literature review; Second, it discusses the methodology adopted, the objectives of the study
5
and the test conducted to obtain the reliable measures of variables. Third, it determines the
correlations between the variables. Fourth, it highlights the results of correlations, regression
and descriptive analyses. Finally, the results are then discussed and implications for academics
and practitioners highlighted.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Benchmarking
Continuous change and improvement are now integral features of global business activity.
Outstanding customer service, eradication of flawed products, elimination of waste and the
creation of a quality culture are major aspects of the philosophy of continuous improvement,
and are central to the total quality management (TQM) paradigm (Dale and Bunney, 1999).
Many different approaches to management have emerged during last 30 years and adopted by
western businesses in order to achieve improved performance. During the period the practice
of benchmarking has also developed. Benchmarking is a set of tools in order to achieve
continuous improved performance (Pemberton and Stonehouse, 2001). By using external
standards an organization can assess its performance in relation to competitors.
A benchmark can be defined as a physiological or biological reference value against which
performance is compared (Zairi, 1992). In its narrowest sense, therefore, benchmarking in a
business context is concerned with comparing a companys performance with that of
competing organizations in an attempt to improve how it performs the same, or similar,
functions (Watson, 1992). As a starting point, it represents an attempt to identify and
subsequently implement best practice (Camp, 1995).
There is no single, agreed approach to benchmarking and its benefits are largely governed by
the nature of the process adopted. Camp, for example, identifies four distinct methods of
benchmarking, whereas Bhutta and Huq argue that there are seven different approaches to
benchmarking (Camp, 1989; Bhutta and Huq, 1999). In this paper, attention is focused on
metric, process and diagnostic benchmarking, three broad categories encompassing many of
the features of methods discussed by other authors (Appleby, 1999).
Metric Benchmarking:
Metric benchmarking is based upon comparisons of certain performance data which are
perceived to be both important and relevant. For example, manufacturing companies use such
data to compare their delivery reliability, scrap rates and absenteeism levels, among several
other measures, with those of other competitors and award-winning companies (DTI et al.,
7
Process Benchmarking:
Process benchmarking involves in-depth comparisons of specific areas of activity between two
or more organizations in an attempt to learn how improved performance might be achieved
(Zairi, 1992; Camp, 1995). However, while offering potentially greater benefits in this respect,
the approach is both difficult and expensive. As a consequence, few organizations embarking
upon process benchmarking have fully capitalized upon its potential to significantly enhance
performance, with research indicating that as few as 5% of benchmarking projects actually
result in the transfer of best practice (CCI, 1993). It is worth stressing, however, that process
benchmarking can and does produce impressive results. For example, Camp presents six case
studies outlining the success of companies such as AT&T, Ritz-Carlton and Westinghouse, for
example (Camp, 1995). Zairi and Codling cite further examples of companies that have
experienced success in this arena (Zairi, 1998; Codling, 1998). However, Friedewald describes
such examples as a few leading lights, arguing that the amassed survey evidence is limited and
of dubious reliability, fraught with problems of definition and methodology, with all but the
most quality mature organizations tending to focus on metrics, as opposed to best practices
(Friedewald, 2000, unpublished dissertation). The observed difficulties center predominantly on
the inability of all but the most sophisticated and innovative companies to recognize the
importance of benchmarking (Pemberton and Stonehouse, 2001).
Diagnostic Benchmarking:
It is clear that a necessary precursor to process benchmarking is a detailed understanding of the
organizations own processes. Naturally, in most organizations, the first step in a process
8
benchmarking exercise concerns a study and mapping of the processes in question, an often
informative procedure in itself. Ultimately, valuable lessons are subsequently learned by
comparing the businesss own processes with those of other organizations, although the
preparatory step of pooling of knowledge about the processes from various internal sources is
often the most informative and beneficial consequence of the process. Codling, for example,
notes that the first benefits from benchmarking usually occur at this stage, with waste, error
and duplication being identified and, subsequently, eradicated (Codling, 1998).
Diagnostic benchmarking has features of metric and process benchmarking, seeking to explore
both practices and performance, as well as identifying areas of relatively weak company
performance and organizational practices showing room for improvement (Appleby, 1999). The
technique builds upon the idea of performance comparisons, but recognizes the limitations of
using such a benchmark in isolation by inviting an organization to compare its practices or
processes to those of other organizations, simultaneously assessing the results arising from
their practices (Pemberton and Stonehouse, 2001).
Creative Thinking
The importance of innovative thinking of employees for organization is widely accepted (Van de
Van, 1986). In particular employee innovative behavior e.g developing, adopting and
implementing new ideas is an important asset in order to achieve superior performance (West
and Farr, 1990).
Creative thinking as an employees intention, introduction and application of new ideas,
products, process and procedures to his/her work role, work unit and organization (Pemberton
and Stonehouse, 2001). Examples of such behavior include searching out new technologies,
new ways to achieve objectives, apply new work methods and investigating resources to
implement new ideas. One major reason people innovate in workplace is to bring performance
gains. Expected positive performance outcomes are positively related to creative thinking of
employees (Pemberton et all, 2001).
Entrepreneurial Creativity:
Entrepreneurial activity involves carrying out of new combinations of an existing equilibrium
within an industry (Schumpeter, 1994). The implementation of novel, useful ideas to establish
a new business or new program to deliver product or service.
Recognizing Creativity:
Many managers assume that although they can assess productivity, product, revenue, quality
and other features of work done in firms. They cant asses or even recognize creativity.
However years of research suggest that creativity can be recognized and assessed as long as
people making assessment have a good degree of familiarity with work done in particular
domain (Ambaile, 1982).
10
1995). Psychological process that would explain how and why individual thinking affects
innovative thinking (Shalley, 2004).
Organization performance
The concept of performance is related to the survival and success of an organization. Majority
of studies have used both financial and non-financial indicators to measure performance
(Johannessen et all, 1999). The financial and non-financial can be used to operational
performance but use of financial measure in more common even to some extent in certain
organization (Pemberton et all, 2001).
Organization performance comprises the actual output of an organization as measured against
its intended objectives and goal. Organization performance focuses on four areas financial
performance, product performance, process performance and shareholder return (Stonehouse
et all, 2001).
Financial Performance:
It is a subjective measure of how well a firm can use assets from its primary mode of businesses
and generate revenue. This indicates the financial health of an organization can be used to
compare similar firms across the same industry.
Customer Service:
Customer service is a provision of service to customer before, during and after a purchase.
Customer service is directly related to customer satisfaction that brings superior performance
(Turban, 2002). A customer service experience can change the entire perception a customer
has of the organization. Many organizations have employed a variety of methods to improve
customer service that enhance the performance.
Social responsibility:
Social responsibility is an ethical entity has an obligation to act to benefit the society but
actually it improves the performance of the organization. Any welfare act is directly related to
enhancement of performance of organization. (Stonehouse et all, 2001)
Employee stewardship:
11
It is an ethic that embodies the responsible planning and management of resources. When
employees are responsible in their work it automatically enhances the organization
performance.
12
creativity can be of greater for organization. Creative employees have substantial effect of
organization performance.
In reality an organizational culture promotes shared vision and clear goal and encourages
creative thinking. The use of benchmarking techniques in such a cultural setting improved the
organization performance (Yarrow, 2001).
13
METHODOLGY
Problem Statement:
To what extent benchmarking deliver improved organization performance when it is coupled to
creative thinking of employees.
Theoretical Framework:
ORGANIZATION
PERFORMANCE
BENCHMARKING
CREATIVE
THINKING
Type of investigation:
This is a causal study because it shows the cause and effect relationship between the variables.
Study setting:
14
In our research we do a field study because this study is conducted to establish cause an effect
relationship using the same natural environment in which employee normally functions.
Unit of analysis:
In our study the unit of analysis is individual; we want to know the effect of benchmarking on
organization performance when it is coupled to the creative thinking of employees then for this
we are interested in individual employees in the organization in order to find out the result.
Time horizon:
The present study used a cross-sectional study as it provides the user with a snapshot of
business elements at a given point in time (Hair et al., 2003). This type of study seemed
appropriate as it can be used within a short space of time and data can be summarized
statistically.
Population:
The population for the present study consisted of employees of banking sector in Rawalpindi
and Islamabad. The table below illustrates the detail of our total population:
Banks
No of employees
HBL
1200
MCB
900
UBL
700
BOP
890
BankIsamic
650
Faysal Bank
1100
Silk Bank
750
15
Sample size:
In our study we take sample size as 50 i.e. we take the sample of 50 employees to find out the
results. The below table explains about that how we select our sample.
Banks
Sample Size
HBL
60
MCB
50
UBL
50
BOP
40
Sampling design:
The sampling design that was considered appropriate for the present study was simple random
sampling. In probability sampling, we use simple random sampling in which every person has an
equal chance of selection.
Instrument:
We used questionnaire as an instrument in order to find out the result.
16
RESULTS
Table- 1
Frequency%
Gender
Age
Education
Organization
Income
Experience
Organization Size
Management Level
Training Received
Male
Female
Under 20
20 to 30
30 to 40
Above 40
Bachelor
Master
M-Phill
Public
Private
Less than 20000
20000 to 30000
30000 to 40000
Above 40000
1 to 3 years
3 to 7 years
More than 7 years
Large
Medium
Small
Low
Middle
Top
Yes
No
78.9
21.1
86.8
13.2
34.2
47.4
18.4
44.7
55.3
21.1
44.7
34.2
57.9
26.3
15.8
71.1
18.4
10.5
13.2
57.9
28.9
81.6
18.4
Table-1 shows the demographic analysis: The demographics results indicates that
the participants who filled our questionnaire are 78.9% male and 21.1% female, 86.8%
participants are the age of 20 to 30 and 13.2% participants are the age of 30 to 40. The results
show 57.9% participants have experience of 1 to 3 years, 26.3% participants have experience of
4 to 7 years and the employees who have experience of 7 and above years are 15.8% . 44.7%
participants belong to the public sector and remaining 55.3% participants belong to the private
sector. The participants who filled our questionnaire out of them 34.2% are bachelors, 47.4%
are Masters holder and remaining 18.4% are M-Phil holder. 21.1% participants have income of
17
less than 20000, 44.7% have 20000 t0 30000 and 34.2% have 30000 to 40000 income. 13.2%
are low level managers, 57.9% are middle level and 28.9% are top level managers. Training
received by 81.6% of employees.
Table - 2
Descriptive statistics of Study Variable
Variables
Min
Max
Mean
S.D
Benchmarking
1.89
5.00
3.5409
.70043
Creative
2.00
5.00
3.5585
.73180
2.29
4.59
3.5108
.58282
Thinking
Organization
Performance
Table -2 shows the descriptive analysis show the maximum and minimum values
and mean and standard deviation of the variables.
The minimum and maximum value of benchmarking is 5.00 and 1.89 respectively with mean of
3.54 and standard deviation of 0.70. The minimum and maximum value of creative thinking is 2
and 5 respectively with mean and standard deviation of 3.55 and 0.73. The minimum and
maximum value of organization performance is 2.29 and 4.59 respectively with mean and
standard deviation of 3.51 and 0.58.
18
Table - 3
Correlation Matrix of Study Variable
Variable
II
III
Benchmarking
0.755*
0.632*
II
Creative
0.755*
0.749*
0.632*
0.749*
Thinking
III
Organization
Performance
*P <0.01
any relationship between the variables or not. The strong relationship between benchmarking
and creative thinking is 0.755, strong relationship between creative thinking and organization
performance is 0.749 and moderate relationship between benchmarking and organization
performance is 0.632.
Table - 4
Reliability of Scale
Variable
No of Items
Alpha
Benchmarking
0.808
Creative Thinking
0.841
Organization Performance
17
0.807
Table 4 shows the reliability analysis which is very important. According to Nelney (1978) the
Cronbachs alpha is the most common measure of internal consistency (reliability). According to
19
Nelney the reliability value should be greater than 0.7.The reliability value of benchmarking,
creative thinking and organization performance is greater than 0.7 it means it is accepted.
Table 5
Regression Analysis of Independent and Moderator
Variable
S/E
Beta
Constant
1.649
0.388
Benchmarking
0.526
0.107
Constant
1.263
0.348
Benchmarking
0.129
0.140
0.155
0.364
Creative
0.503
0.134
0.632
0.001
Model 1
4.252
0.632
4.892
Model 2
0.001
Thinking
R=0.756, R2=0.571, adjusted R2=0.547, F=23.321
R=0.979, R2=0.959, adjusted R2=0.956, .F=267.487
20
21
Conclusion
Benchmarking represents an attempt by an organization to assess, compare and advance its
performance using acknowledged benchmarks of good and best practice. However, as the
research presented here demonstrates, benchmarking is most likely to deliver significantly
improved organizational performance when it is coupled to creative thinking of employees.
Indeed, the term benchThinking is perhaps a more instructive term when examining
competitive performance in a benchmarking context.
While more detailed research is clearly required to assess potential causality, the evidence
presented in this paper further advances the argument that when assessing performance and
practice in a benchmarking context, the presence of creative thinking appears a key
determinant of success.
Ultimately, organizational performance improves when a company does things differently to its
competitors and behaves in a distinctive way through, for example product innovation etc. The
challenge for businesses embracing benchmarking revolves around their ability to develop a
creative culture that goes beyond imitation of existing best practice by developing new ideas
and processes to improve efficiency and enhance quality, as well as striving to improve upon
the practices of competitors. In effect, creative thinking of employees would appear to be an
essential ingredient if companies are to optimize the outputs of the benchmarking process in
the pursuit of superior performance.
22
LIMITATIONS
There are several limitations of this study. First, the work units studied here were embedded
within a four organization of Rawalpindi and Islamabad only; therefore it may have only offered
the cultural identity of that organization. Performing a larger study encompassing more
organizations would alleviate this limitation and assist in making the results more generalize.
Since the data population for this study was city employees it has added to the variety of
organizations that have been surveyed.
One aspect that cannot be overlooked is that the employees involved in this study reported
their own perception. Lying on the questionnaire could have played a role in the study. One
never knows if it did or not without access to names and their records at the organization.
Confidentiality is always an issue with any study that uses self-report.
Additionally, creative thinking is very complex concepts because definitions of creativity cannot
be narrowed to certain variables listed by the researcher. Attempting to define these would be
difficult because each individual has their own construct as to what creativity is to them.
Therefore, finding what creative employees can be considered to be a little subjective.
IMPLICATIONS
This study intends to present understanding of those variables that are likely to determine the
impact in banking sector and hopes that company managers will find these findings valuable to
both service and manufacturing sectors.
23
REFERENCES
Fullerton, R. & McWatters, C., 2002. The role of performance measures and incentive systems
in relation to the degree of JIT implementation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(8),
pp. 711-735.
Gordon, L. & Narayanan, V., 1984. Management accounting systems, perceived environmental
uncertainty and organization structure: an empirical investigation. Accounting Organization and
Society, 9(1), pp. 33-47.
Hawawini, G., Subramanian, V. & Verdin, P., 2003. Is performance driven by industry-or firmspecific factors? A new look at the evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), pp. 1-16.
Henri, J.-F., 2006. Organizational culture and performance measurement systems. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Volume 31, pp. 77-103.
Ittner, C., Larcker, D. & Randel, T., 2003b. Performance implications of strategic performance
measurement in financial services firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(7-8), pp.
715-741.
Camp RC. 1995. Business Process Benchmarking: Finding and Implementing Best Practices.
ASQC Quality Press: Milwaukee, WI.
Codling S. 1998. Benchmarking. Gower: Aldershot.
Confederation of British Industry. 1997. Fit for the Future: How Competitive is U.K.
Manufacturing? CBI: London.
Dale B, Bunney H. 1999.
Total Quality Management Blueprint. Blackwell: Oxford. DTI, Training and Enterprise Councils
and Department of Employment Group. 1995. Manufacturing Winners Creating a world-class
manufacturing base in the U.K.
DTI/TECs/DoEG: London.
Friedewald TM. 2000. Group Benchmarking: Process, Outcomes and Analysis. Unpublished PhD
thesis, University of Northumbria at Newcastle
24