Using benchmarking as a tool for organisational improvement
By Ruslan Zhechkov
Individuals and groups tend to believe that their own ways of seeing and doing things are best, and that they alone are best suited to teach others how to improve or move forward.
This kind of thinking is, of course, part of human nature, but in the parlance of organisational management it's called 'paradigm blindness.' Management personnel are too often blind to the consequences of their own way of doing things, but there is always a realm of alternatives to choose from. Benchmarking is one of them.
Benchmarking is all about recognising the possibility that someone, somewhere, is capable of doing something better than you can. Merely admitting that there are stronger organisations out there is often the first step for many companies and organisations on the road to change and improvement.
The benchmarking concept, which has the potential to have a hugely positive impact in terms of improving and protecting natural environments, is now making its way into South-Eastern Europe (SEE).
In recent years, six county environmental inspectorates in Romania's Cluj-Napoca region have introduced benchmarking successfully. During this time, the regional commissariat closely monitored the performance of county commissariats in Cluj, Bihor, Nistirca Nasaud, Maramares, Satu Mare and Salaj counties.
A number of penalties were imposed within each county, and each country commissariat was assessed annually in terms of penalty amounts levied and number of inspections.
An effort was made to use indicators that can illustrate the activity of one commissariat, and thus enable a comparison of activity against the other five groups, said Regional Commissar of the National Environmental Guard Mihaela Beu.
In fact, the numbers varied quite significantly. In Cluj, for example, there were many inspections but few fines; in Satu Mare, fewer inspections produced a greater number of penalties.
Salaj County, however, emerged as the hands-down winner: Its commissariat conducted the most inspections, issued the most fines, and generated the highest revenue.
After analysing causes of the widely differing performances, respective commissariat management personnel were able to take concrete action. Beo organised meetings with all the chief commissars from county commissariats at least once per month. Those agencies lagging behind were finally given some motivation to gain ground, and this led to an improvement in overall performance, Beu claimed.
