A BENCHMARKING CLUB FOR CHARITIES ?
IMPLICATIONS AND KEY POINTS FROM A SURVEY OF 750 CHARITIES,
OPEN UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL 1997
IMPLICATIONS
- Charities would welcome the formation of a Club which helps them to improve their performance - they felt that a club fitted with their values, could offer substantial benefits relative to the outlay and would be "worth a try"
- A benchmarking club, to command wide support, would need to be run by a respected, not for profit, organisation .
- The focus of the club should be performance improvement and it should offer broadly two types of facilities - access to information (most important ) and access to other organisations to get ideas, exchange information etc
- Whilst enthusiasm for the various elements of performance improvement grows with size there is a significant base level for each element among small charities - which means that whichever constituency we choose to serve - small / medium / large - the facilities we will have to provide will be the same
- Charities want practical help - in particular on where to start, how to start and where to find the necessary information
- where to start - strong interest in the self-assessment model to identify their strengths and weaknesses
- how to start - strong interest in written guidance on "how to benchmark"
- info sources - strong interest in identifying good practice / performance indicators / problems and pitfalls / critical success factors
- If charities are persuaded to undertake benchmarking projects they are likely to find them rewarding and their enthusiasm is likely to grow as they carry out more projects
KEY POINTS
- We achieved a good response rate -26% overall
- 194 charities completed the questionnaire
- The response rate did not vary substantially by size of charity - 31% for large charities , 22% for small charities ( 18% for those small charities under £500K income )
- Benchmarking appears to mean performance comparison for most charities
- Over 60% of charities compare their performance with other charities or with other parts of their organisation
- We believe that only a handful of charities are carrying out process benchmarking in a structured way - as set out in the introduction to the questionnaire. Follow up calls to large charities who appeared to have carried out process benchmarking established that they had not in fact done so - typically, they had not visited exemplars to understand how the exemplar had achieved superior performance and had not worked out how to adopt and adapt their approach to their own organisation .
- Benchmarking is relevant to charities, has substantial potential to improve performance and compares favourably with other means of improving performance
- Some 80% of charities rated benchmarking's relevance and potential to increase performance as good or excellent
- 60%+ of charities viewed benchmarking to be as effective or more effective than other ways of improving performance
- Benchmarking and Self-Assessment models were judged to offer greater benefits than Total Quality Management , Investors in People and ISO 9000
- There is substantial interest in elements of benchmarking - performance comparison , identifying best practice etc - but benchmarking projects are a minority sport carried out on an ad hoc basis ; the number of such projects appears unlikely to increase materially in the short term . However, those projects which are carried out usually lead to material change - small charities appear to be substantially more successful than large charities in this respect
- 65% of respondents compare their performance with other charities occasionally or regularly
- 79% of respondents had identified best practice to some extent
- only 29% had undertaken a benchmarking project - and only 32% planned to undertake (further ) projects
- only 10% of large charities carry out benchmarking projects as part of a planned programme of work
- 72% of benchmarking projects led to some material changes being made - 42% for large charities and 89% for small charities
- Benchmarking projects are usually targetted at support services and raising money - rather than service provision .
- 70% of benchmarking projects consisted of Raising money , "How are we doing?" type activities and staff related activities
- only 10% related to service provision and charities plan to increase that proportion to only 15%
- The more projects charities do the keener they get - 86% of those who had done 4 or more projects planned to do more
- The most difficult aspects of benchmarking projects are obtaining the necessary information and staff resistance .
- Obtaining information (re suitable benchmarking partners, common bases of measurement etc) and negative staff attitudes were the most oft cited difficulties associated with benchmarking projects.
- The more projects charities do the keener they get - 86% of those who had done 4 or more projects planned to do more
- Further benchmarking projects and willingness to join a club are both inhibited mainly by lack of time and resource - rather than by doubts about the value of benchmarking.
- Charities' enthusiasm for benchmarking and their interest in the facilities which could be offered by a club increase - in most cases - with the size of charity
- Charities are most interested in using the club to obtain information - rather than to make contact with other organisations in order to initiate benchmarking projects . Out of 11 facilities the top 5 identified were all concerned with obtaining information ; charities wanted help to identify :
- good practice
- the appropriate performance indicators
- the critical success factors
- which processes to benchmark
- how they compared with other charities
- Small charities :
- are about half as enthusiastic about benchmarking as medium / large charities
- however they view benchmarking and self-assessment as having 2 to 3 times the potential of TQM / IIP / ISO
- are very unlikely to carry out benchmarking projects - 15% versus 45% for large charities
- however they are twice as successful at benchmarking projects than large charities - in terms of achieving material change
- are very reluctant to pay for a benchmarking club - but 36% would join if it were free
- are less interested in the facilities offered by a club - they attached relatively substantial importance to obtaining written guidance on : how to benchmark and the problems and pitfalls
- Medium / large charities :
- are very positive about benchmarking and the potential benefits of a club - over 80% rate benchmarking's potential to improve performance as good or excellent
- 60%+ rate benchmarking as, or more, effective than other ways to improve performance
- are keen on the use of self-assessment models - some 50% rated the potential benefits as large or very large
- are planning to carry out benchmarking projects in reasonable numbers - 36% and 45%
- reported that staff attitudes were a key problem associated with benchmarking projects
- are much more interested than small charities in using the club to contact exemplars to understand how superior performance is achieved
- are prepared to pay a club membership fee in the region of £250 - large charities significantly more
GEOFF PAYNE Email: G.J.Payne@open.ac.uk
OPEN UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL 5/97