Chapter 6 Operational Benchmarking

6.3. Product quality benchmarking Rapid changes in consumer preferences (fashion, tastes, attitudes, etc.) put enterprises in difficult conditions for survival at the current stage of restructuring the economic mechanism of the Russian economy. Thus, each

Chapter 9. Benchmarking I was distracted from thinking about the polygraph, agents, deceptions and other unpleasant things by Natasha who came into the office, she appeared unexpectedly and asked from the doorway: – Oleg, I have a question, allow me? she said. “What is your question, Natasha?” “Yesterday I

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Similar Documents

Characteristics of the bottled water market. Planning of the benchmarking process, description of LLC "Barnaul Water Company". Identification, collection and analysis of information about benchmarking objects. Designing the future level of measurements of the object of comparison.

test, added 02/22/2012


The concept of benchmarking, benefits for organizations, significance in strategically oriented marketing research. Creation of applied developments facilitating its implementation in the activities of domestic enterprises. Competitive benchmarking at Ford.

test, added 12/18/2014


Analysis of the possibilities of using benchmarking in assessing the competitive positions of enterprises. Competitive integration benchmarking as a marketing interaction tool. Formation of goal-oriented instrumental benchmarking material.

monograph, added 09/26/2010


Stages of development and reasons for the popularity of benchmarking. Characterization of organizational and economic forms of manifestation of competitive integration benchmarking. Analysis of the possibilities of its use in assessing the competitive position of a service sector enterprise.

thesis, added 09/26/2010


Definition, types and principles of benchmarking in the modern market economy. Benchmarking as a tool for improving business and achieving competitive advantages, its difference from the Soviet "exchange of best practices" and from industrial espionage.

term paper, added 01/17/2012


Implementation of new principles in the management system of a medical organization. The concept and types of benchmarking. Factors that determine the process of internal benchmarking in a medical organization. Internal benchmarking as a tool for organizational development.

thesis, added 09/17/2012


Benchmarking - an approach to planning a company's activities, a continuous process of assessing the level of products; classification, evolution, generations of benchmarking: reengineering, competitiveness assessment, business process; main performance indicators.

(source: http://benchmarkingclub.ru/ - Gregory H. Watson. Benchmarking in examples)

Internal benchmarking at Hewlett-Packard

At one time, Hewlett-Packard Corporation lost to its direct competitors from Japan. The latter managed to produce new products much faster and no less qualitatively. In order to remain competitive, the company's subsidiaries and divisions decided to conduct R&D benchmarking and identify the most effective ways to speed up production. The criterion by which the efficiency of the work of different divisions of the corporation was compared was the payback period of the project ( breakeventime, or BET). Quality Function Deployment (QFD) technology was actively used to keep projects focused on meeting real market requirements. As a result of the research carried out in Hewlett Packard the ground was prepared for the implementation of the Six Sigma methodology. The corporate approach to improvement production processes included documenting the process, measuring its characteristics and reducing the variations in their values, identifying ways to continuously improve the process in question. It is easy to see that the same logic can be traced in this sequence as in the cycle DMAIC(Define - Measure - Analyze - Improve - Manage).

Competitive benchmarking at Ford

Prior to benchmarking, the corporation Ford significantly inferior to its competitors in terms of design parameters and functional properties of its products. She lost a large market share, which she could return only by creating a new, advanced family cars. The stake was placed on Taurus. In order for the new car to be no worse than its competitors and even surpass them, a benchmarking study was conducted during its development. First, we found out which properties of the cars on the market are most attractive to consumers. Then, for each of these properties, the best cars in their class were determined, the level of which Taurus had to be achieved and surpassed. The study covered the entire global automotive industry from bmw and ending OpelSenator. They were never considered direct rivals FordTaurus, but possessed attractive properties for consumers. More than 50 car models were analyzed according to approximately 400 design parameters. The foundations were laid in the company for the implementation of the principles of developing new products using the cycle DMADV(Define - Measure - Analyze - Develop - Verify) aimed at achieving a six-sigma level of quality. As a result, the new car Ford was named car of the year and became the undisputed leader in sales. In subsequent years, the design flaws that emerged in the transmission Taurus, greatly undermined the reputation of the car and entailed a series of improvements, each of which deviated more and more from the original concept. By the end of the 1990s, sales Taurus fell from 400 to 60 thousand, and in August 2006 the last batch of cars of this family will be released. Ford learned the main lesson for himself: competitive benchmarking cannot be a one-time event. In order for the results to remain relevant, they must be regularly updated and adjusted. This approach is in good harmony with the system of views adopted in the Six Sigma methodology, where the search for sources of variation and the knowledge gained from this provide not only an instant snapshot of the level of competitiveness of the enterprise, but allow you to trace the entire history of its change. Managers of the enterprise get the opportunity to take into account all the consequences of the decisions made, and not just the short-term effects associated with changing product models.





Functional benchmarking at General Motors

From 1982 to 1984, General Motors conducted a benchmarking study aimed at finding alternative ways to manage quality and reliability. At the time, most managers accepted W. Edwards Deming's challenge: "If Japan can, why can't we?" NBC. They began to care about quality, recognizing it as the main distinguishing feature of competitive products. Participants in a study conducted General Motors, became such well-known companies as Hewlett Packard, 3M, John Deer. Getting Started with Benchmarking General Motors formulated 10 hypotheses about the factors most influencing quality. Their legitimacy had to be confirmed by data on the work of partner companies in benchmarking.

As a result of the study General Motors managed to give an objective comprehensive assessment of the quality management systems that existed in the companies participating in benchmarking. This made it possible to understand to what extent the overall performance of enterprises depends on quality management. The discovery of the relationship between quality and enterprise performance presaged two major developments in quality management in the 1980s: the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and the ISO 9000 series of standards that established General requirements to quality management systems. Research Report General Motors and partners, was published in September 1984, while similar research results, substantiating the criteria of the Baldridge model and the requirements of ISO 9000 standards, became available for general use only at the end of 1998. This advance in knowledge provided study participants GeneralMotors certain advantages over competitors. They were able to improve their own quality management systems in such a way that the opinion of consumers about the level of quality of their products was higher than the corresponding perceptions of competitors' products.

So, again there is a lack of a focused, systematic study of the working conditions of the organization and its main production processes, the main means for self-improvement of the company, characteristic of many benchmarking studies. General Motors satisfied its urgent needs in determining the basic parameters of the QMS and did not re-study. Furthermore, the company shifted its focus to complying with the QS 9000 industry standard, an automotive-specific version of the ISO 9000 standards, to competing for the Malcolm Baldrige Award, and to mastering Six Sigma methodology. But as experience shows, the process of improving the quality management system should be evolutionary.

General Benchmarking at Xerox

Xerox's benchmark comparison of its logistics system with those of other, more successful businesses is a well-known example of benchmarking. Xerox's experience has confirmed Deming's observation that quality improvement is often the result of a crisis in a company, forcing its leaders to focus on making the necessary changes. In the late 1970s, the company faced a number of serious problems. At that time, Xerox began to gradually oust its Japanese competitors from the copier market. The return on assets, which was 22% in 1974, decreased to 4% by 1984. To overcome the crisis, it was decided to conduct benchmarking, which will allow us to find more competitive methods of managing the company.

Japan-based FujiXerox, a Xerox subsidiary, was very helpful in conducting the research. Xerox compared its processes and costs, its affiliate's internal costs and practices, and its competitors' processes and costs. Using information about the market price of copiers as a basis for comparison, Xerox was able to evaluate the cost of operations of its competitors and identify areas where they demonstrated the best financial indicators. The conducted research allowed Xerox to estimate the size of its backlog from competitors, but did not help to eliminate it. Turning to the experience of the world's leading companies, by 1987, Xerox caught up with its competitors in areas where it had previously had obvious shortcomings. However, Xerox's benchmarking was not the magic wand that would help the company avoid major problems. In the early 1990s, there was a transition from analog to digital technology. In the same period of time, a radical organizational restructuring of the company was carried out, accompanied by the rejection of a cumbersome functional structure and transition to a simplified scheme. At the same time, the previous focus on improving production processes and gaining a leading position through product quality improvement and benchmarking has been weakened. Xerox experience proves that benchmarking should be considered only as a tool for improving companies, but not as a panacea that allows you to solve all problems by simply copying the best practices of competitors to increase your own efficiency.

· Questions and tasks:

1. What is the purpose of benchmarking?

2. What are the pros and cons this method? Why is it not always effective?

3. Which companies need to use this analysis method?

4. Do small companies need benchmarking?

5. Is it always necessary to look for the best companies as a benchmark in benchmarking?

Introduction


This research in the field of benchmarking is devoted to the most complete analysis of benchmarking activities.

The relevance of the research topic is determined by the fact that at present there are more and more enterprises that turn to the help of benchmarking.

We are dealing with a completely new phenomenon, in which the traditional exchange of experience is only a small part of a complex and well-structured process with clearly defined stages, a methodology for choosing objects of study, collecting and processing data. A significant place in it is occupied by the process of measuring and comparing the results obtained in different companies, in order to select reference solutions.

The main feature of benchmarking is that it is built on the basis of partnership with those whose experience is borrowed. Benchmarking lives on and is gaining more and more popularity in the world as an effective method of improving the activities of any enterprises and organizations: from transnational companies to departments of city and regional governments.

Benchmarking is the best method to ensure that the company's goals meet the requirements of the global market. It provides answers to questions such as:

Where is the company currently located?

What does she want?

What will be the next level?

Who is at the top of the competition?

Why own company is not the best?

What needs to be changed in the company to become better?

The solution of this problem is of theoretical and practical importance. There are a sufficient number of vivid examples that have allowed this business to be promoted to a high level.

This topic was chosen by us for the full disclosure of the main issues related to benchmarking activities. She really needs:

The main thing is in full understanding, as well as in detailed consideration on the example of specific organizations.

This term paper is an:

formation of a holistic view of benchmarking;

the formation of creative thinking through the assimilation of the theoretical foundations and practical experience of benchmarking.

In accordance with the goal, consider the following tasks:

To study the theoretical basis of benchmarking;

Determine the types, principles, stages of benchmarking;

Identify the components of the benchmarking process;

Consider benchmarking as a tool to improve business and achieve competitive advantages;

Analyze the marketing system of specific enterprises.

The object of the course work is MESI University.

The subject is the process of improving the business of this university.

As a theoretical basis, the works of scientists are used: Terry Pilcher, Gregory H. Watson and others.

The course work has the following structure: introduction, two chapters, conclusion, list of references, applications.


1. Theoretical foundations of benchmarking

1.1 Origin and essence of benchmarking


The term "benchmarking"<#"663451.files/image001.gif">


I phase - "Planning".

The use of benchmarking requires the development of a clear plan for the future project with a detailed description of all stages. Planning contains 4 steps.

Selection of the benchmarking object. It can be anything that, in principle, can be measured: a business process, a production process, products, services, etc. The more precisely what needs to be measured, the more useful the information about the partner company collected for comparative analysis will be. The most common benchmarking targets include inventory levels, work in progress, scrap rates, waste amounts, and so on.

Formation of a benchmarking team that takes responsibility for the execution of the research. Its number can vary from three to eight people, depending on the amount of research and available resources.

Process documentation. The benchmarking team reviews the selected process and documents it if it has not been done prior to the decision to conduct benchmarking.

Definition of process indicators. The benchmarking team determines their current level for later comparison with the performance of a benchmarking partner and measuring their improvement.

I phase - "Search".

The partner search phase requires much more time than the planning phase. If you first complete the planning phase and then start the search phase, then the pace of work will be lost. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out the search for partners in parallel with the planning processes. It is possible to start the search early in the planning phase.

The benchmarking partner search phase consists of the following steps:

Determining the criteria that an ideal benchmarking partner must meet;

Search for potential partners for benchmarking;

Comparison of candidates and selection of one or more partners;

Establishing contacts with partners, ensuring their participation in the study.

If you start looking for partners for benchmarking among all existing organizations, then it will turn into an extremely complex procedure. Therefore, it is necessary to determine a list of criteria that an ideal partner for benmarking must meet, and then purposefully look for partners that meet these criteria. The criteria include such typical features as geographic location; size; technology; sales markets; industry; organization of the process, etc.

Several sources are used to find potential benmarking partners. The necessary information is often contained in the local computer network of the organization. Considerable assistance can be provided by experts in the field of activity of the organization. Useful information can be obtained from the media and the Internet.


The level that the benchmarking partner wants to achieve should be taken into account. The "ambition pyramid" of benchmarking partners (Figure 2.) shows the number of potential partners available for benchmarking at each level of indicators. For a world-class enterprise, it can be best case only one candidate for each business process. The number of potential partners increases as their level of ambition decreases. Thus, it is easier to find a middle-level partner than to try to reach the world level. More appropriate is step by step way, since it is impossible to get access to the best samples right away.

I phase - "Observation".

The essence of the phase is to document the process with the partner by

· Assessment of information needs (1st step);

· Choice of methods and tools for collecting information (2nd step);

Collection of information, its processing (3rd step);

For benchmarking, information is obtained at 3 levels (Fig. 3): indicators, practice, opportunities.

used to collect data and information various methods and tools. Their most successful combinations are marked in the matrix "X" (Table 1.).

The first step of observation is the interpretation of the data, which is carried out immediately after the completion of their collection.

I phase- "Analysis"

Data analysis is carried out in order to identify the conditions due to which the benchmarking partner achieved high results, as well as to formulate proposals for improvement.

It includes 5 steps:

1.-sorting information and data;

Quality control of information and data;

Data normalization;

Identification of gaps in the levels of indicators;

Identification of the causes of gaps.

The first and second steps are preparatory. They allow you to establish the reliability and representativeness of information and data.

Before proceeding with the analysis of the data, they should be normalized in a certain way. The traditional argument against using benchmarking is that everything that comes out of a comparison is unique and there are no comparisons that fit. However, in most cases, the comparison is appropriate if it is preceded by normalization of the data. Normalization of data refers to their adjustment to take into account differences in conditions.

Identifying and evaluating gaps in indicators allows you to establish that one of the partners is really doing something that allows him to get ahead of the other partner. The mere fact of the existence of differences in the compared processes. To do this, use the method of direct comparison of flowcharts of two processes, a cause and effect diagram, a means diagram, and root cause analysis.

I phase - "Adaptation"

The adaptation (implementation) phase is the hallmark of benchmarking. It consists of four steps:

Setting goals for improvement;

Development of an implementation plan, its implementation, process monitoring;

Writing a final report. It includes a description of the study, lessons learned and recommendations for future research. The report must be sent to benchmarking partners. It should note all participants in benchmarking, as well as possible participants in similar studies in the future.

There are several models for conducting benchmarking within an organization and taking into account its relationships with other organizations (see Annex 2).

Model 2 (most common) - an organization starts benchmarking with several other organizations as partners.

Then a comparison is made with each of the partners.

Model 2 - several organizations come together to conduct benchmarking and cross-compare all partners.

Yaya model - for benchmarking, an intermediary is used, which collects and analyzes data, transfers the results to organizations that have provided them with their data.

Summarizing all of the above, it should be noted that this stage benchmarking is used only in large Russian companies with foreign partners and guided by world standards. Its wider distribution would allow many Russian companies to enter the international market and, as a result, create competitive advantages for Russia.


2. Practical application of benchmarking


The application of benchmarking consists of four consecutive steps: 1. Understanding the details of your own business processes. 2. Analysis of business processes of other companies. 3. Comparison of the results of their processes with the results of the analyzed companies. 4. Implement the necessary changes to reduce the gap. Benchmarking cannot be a one-time analysis. To get the benefit from this process, you need to make it an integral part of your business innovation and improvement process. In recent years, organizations such as government agencies, hospitals, and universities have also begun to discover the benefits of benchmarking and apply its basic tenets to improve their processes and systems. In Europe, the use and popularity of benchmarking is still very moderate. Significant differences in the understanding of business processes in different countries significantly slow down its implementation in business processes in various sectors of the economy. Benchmarking is the art of identifying what other firms are doing better, as well as studying their methods of work. Benchmarking is based on the idea of ​​comparing the activities of not only competing enterprises, but also leading companies in other industries. Practice shows that the competent use of the experience of competitors and successful companies allows you to reduce costs, increase profits and optimize the choice of strategy for your organization. In fact, benchmarking is an alternative method strategic planning, in which tasks are determined not on the basis of what has been achieved, but on the basis of an analysis of the performance of competitors. Benchmarking technology combines strategy development, industry analysis and competitor analysis into a single system. To understand the methods of benchmarking, it is necessary to determine its relationship with strategic planning.

2.1 Types of benchmarking in examples

benchmarking strategy creative practical

1. Internal benchmarking at Hewlett-Packard. At one time, Hewlett-Packard Corporation lost to its direct competitors from Japan. The latter managed to produce new products much faster and no less qualitatively. In order to remain competitive, the company's subsidiaries and divisions decided to conduct R&D benchmarking and identify the most effective ways to speed up production. The criterion by which the efficiency of the work of different divisions of the corporation was compared was the payback period of the project (breakeventime, or BET). Quality Function Deployment (QFD) technology was actively used to keep projects focused on meeting real market requirements. As a result of the research conducted at Hewlett-Packard, the ground was prepared for the implementation of the Six Sigma methodology. The corporation's approach to improving manufacturing processes included documenting the process, measuring its characteristics and reducing variation in their values, and identifying ways to continuously improve the process in question. It is easy to see that this sequence follows the same logic as in the DMAIC cycle (Define - Measure - Analyze - Improve - Manage).

Competitive benchmarking at Ford.

Prior to the benchmark comparison, Ford Corporation was significantly inferior to its competitors in terms of design parameters and functional properties of its products. She lost a large market share, which she could only regain by creating a new, advanced family of passenger cars. The bet was made on Taurus. In order for the new car to be no worse than its competitors and even surpass them, a benchmarking study was conducted during its development. First, we found out which properties of the cars on the market are most attractive to consumers. Then, for each of these properties, the best-in-class cars were identified, the level that the Taurus had to reach and surpass. The study covered the entire global automotive industry from BMW to OpelSenator. They were never considered direct rivals to the Ford Taurus, but they had attractive properties for consumers. More than 50 car models were analyzed according to approximately 400 design parameters. The company laid the groundwork for implementing new product development principles using the DMADV (Define-Measure-Analyze-Design-Verify) cycle aimed at delivering six-sigma quality. As a result, the new Ford car was named Car of the Year and became the undisputed sales leader. In the years that followed, design flaws in the Taurus' powertrain severely damaged the car's reputation and led to a series of revisions, each deviating more and more from the original concept. By the end of the 1990s, Taurus sales fell from 400 to 60 thousand, and in August 2006 the last batch of cars of this family will be released. Ford has learned a major lesson for itself: competitive benchmarking cannot be a one-time event. In order for the results to remain relevant, they must be regularly updated and adjusted. This approach is in good harmony with the system of views adopted in the Six Sigma methodology, where the search for sources of variation and the knowledge gained from this provide not only an instant snapshot of the level of competitiveness of the enterprise, but allow you to trace the entire history of its change. Managers of the enterprise get the opportunity to take into account all the consequences of the decisions made, and not just the short-term effects associated with changing product models.

Functional benchmarking at General Motors.

From 1982 to 1984, General Motors conducted a benchmarking study aimed at finding alternative ways to manage quality and reliability. At the time, most managers accepted W. Edwards Deming's challenge: "If Japan can, why can't we?" on an NBC television program. They began to care about quality, recognizing it as the main distinguishing feature of competitive products. Such well-known companies as Hewlett-Packard, 3M, JohnDeer became participants in the study conducted by General Motors. Starting to conduct benchmarking, General Motors formulated 10 hypotheses about the factors that most affect quality. Their legitimacy had to be confirmed by data on the work of partner companies in benchmarking. As a result of the study, GeneralMotors was able to give an objective comprehensive assessment of the quality management systems that existed in the companies participating in benchmarking. This made it possible to understand to what extent the overall performance of enterprises depends on quality management. The discovery of the relationship between quality and enterprise performance presaged two major developments in quality management in the 1980s: the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award and the ISO 9000 series of standards, which established general requirements for quality management systems. A study report by General Motors and partners was published in September 1984, while similar research results, justifying the criteria of the Baldridge model and the requirements of ISO 9000 standards, became available for general use only at the end of 1998. This advance in knowledge provided the participants in the General Motors study with certain advantages over competitors. They were able to improve their own quality management systems in such a way that the opinion of consumers about the level of quality of their products was higher than the corresponding perceptions of competitors' products. So, again there is a lack of a focused, systematic study of the working conditions of the organization and its main production processes, the main means for self-improvement of the company, characteristic of many benchmarking studies. General Motors satisfied its urgent needs in determining the main parameters of the QMS and did not re-study. Furthermore, the company shifted its focus to complying with the QS 9000 industry standard, an automotive-specific version of the ISO 9000 standards, to competing for the Malcolm Baldrige Award, and to mastering Six Sigma methodology. But as experience shows, the process of improving the quality management system should be evolutionary.

General Benmarking at Xerox.

Xerox's benchmark comparison of its logistics system with those of other, more successful businesses is a well-known example of benchmarking. Xerox's experience has confirmed Deming's observation that quality improvement is often the result of a crisis in a company, forcing its leaders to focus on making the necessary changes. In the late 1970s, the company faced a number of serious problems. At that time, Xerox began to gradually oust its Japanese competitors from the copier market. The return on assets, which was 22% in 1974, decreased to 4% by 1984. To overcome the crisis, it was decided to conduct benchmarking, which will allow us to find more competitive methods of managing the company. Japan-based FujiXerox, a Xerox subsidiary, was very helpful in conducting the research. Xerox compared its processes and costs, its affiliate's internal costs and practices, and its competitors' processes and costs. Using information about the market price of copiers as a basis for comparison, Xerox was able to evaluate the cost of operations of its competitors and identify areas where they showed the best financial performance. The conducted research allowed Xerox to estimate the size of its backlog from competitors, but did not help to eliminate it. Turning to the experience of the world's leading companies, by 1987, Xerox caught up with its competitors in areas where it had previously had obvious shortcomings. However, Xerox's benchmarking was not the magic wand that would help the company avoid major problems. In the early 1990s, there was a transition from analog to digital technology. In the same period of time, a radical organizational restructuring of the company was carried out, accompanied by the rejection of a cumbersome functional structure and the transition to a simplified scheme. At the same time, the previous focus on improving production processes and gaining a leading position through product quality improvement and benchmarking has been weakened. Xerox experience proves that benchmarking should be considered only as a tool for improving companies, but not as a panacea that allows you to solve all problems by simply copying the best practices of competitors to increase your own efficiency.

Strategic benchmarking study at Hewlett-Packard Corporation. Through strategic benchmarking, Hewlett-Packard Corporation (HP) sought to set the direction for its continued efforts to improve product quality over the next 25 years. The main goals were to test the concept of "Quality as a means of competition" and to search for the distinctive features of leading companies, the study of which would allow HP to choose the strategic directions of its own development. In preparation for the study, senior management at HP made the following decisions:

· Analyze the experience of world leaders in their own industry from three regions: USA, Europe and Japan.

Choose for research companies that have achieved the highest rates of development and are successfully developing innovative products that meet market requirements.

· Limit the scope of the study to five companies from each region.

To each of its benchmarking partners, HP sent two managers, accompanied by a consultant. They had to conduct interviews with employees of the host company using a special questionnaire. The consultants summarized the collected information, compiled trip reports, held meetings after each visit, at which they reported on the main provisions and conclusions of the report, prepared presentations on the possibilities of implementing the acquired experience. HP management was provided with copies of reports with observations and conclusions about the work of each specific company, critical comments on their quality management systems, were sent to all benchmarking partner companies. As a result of the study, HP representatives identified two approaches to quality assurance for the company:

1. The quality of products should be monitored already at the design stage.

2. It is necessary to create production processes that, in a mass production environment, provide product quality aimed at meeting the needs of an ever-expanding consumer electronics market.

To apply these two approaches, HP required two different business models and their corresponding quality management systems. One suited the needs of a small, mass production of custom-made electronic appliances and systems. The second took into account the peculiarities of mass production of consumer radio electronics and computer systems.

So Nokia, based on the results of a benchmarking study conducted at Hewlett-Packard, made many of its discoveries regarding quality as a means of competition (Fig. 3.).

.2 Creative strategic benchmarking

A strategic benchmarking study undertaken by NokiaMobilePhones (NMP) at Motorola and Ericsson revealed fundamental differences in the three companies' approaches to quality management. The purpose of the work was to identify their weaknesses in order to use this information when rebuilding the system in NMP. The shortcomings in Motorola's approach were discovered during a visit to one of its factories. According to the R&D manager, the mandatory use of Six Sigma in their enterprise only slows down the creation of new technology. The point is that this methodology requires a lot of additional work to bring all the important parameters to the Six Sigma level and then confirm it, while Motorola's task was to quickly enter the market with new products. It turned out that the high requirements for product reliability were dictated by the ideas of the corporation's leaders about the needs of consumers, and not by objective data. It is clear that consumers do not want their mobile phone to last 150 years. It will be replaced by more modern model at the most in five years. In other words, the phone will become morally obsolete much earlier than physically, and, therefore, will cease to be in demand! A visit to Ericsson's Spanish factory revealed that the company's manufacturing system did not have the flexibility needed to mass-produce high-tech products. In order to make even a small change in the production process, Ericsson managers submitted a proposal to the Central Quality Council, which meets once a quarter. The Board considered the proposal and formulated recommendations, on the basis of which, in order to disseminate best practices, all similar processes were revised. Such a high level of standardization of production processes, on the one hand, provides equally high quality of all products, and on the other hand, it greatly slows down decision-making. Under the same bureaucratic rules, managers were given permission to change production processes, even when the need for innovation was due to external factors, such as the emergence of more modern technologies, more productive processes. The system adopted by Ericsson is very different from the system of organization of production, for example, at Toyota Corporation, where many small experiments are carried out at the local level and where the managers who proposed them are responsible for innovations. If the change implemented at the local level confirms its effectiveness, all similar processes in the corporation are reworked accordingly, and without bureaucratic delays. The benchmarking results helped Nokia draw the following conclusions: it needed to get ahead of Motorola in speed to market with new products and make its production system more flexible than Ericsson's. In particular, NMP needed to create a complex, adaptable system for the production of cell phones, achieve a balance between centralized and distributed management, abandon the vertical management and control system in favor of a horizontal structure that can respond flexibly to frequent fluctuations in demand and the flow of incoming product orders. After conducting strategic benchmarking, Nokia had an idea of ​​the competitive advantages it could gain. From 1995 to 1999, during the transition from analog to digital telephony technologies, the corporation carried out a number of projects to achieve superiority over its competitors.

· Reorganization of the R&D process.

During this period, the team, led by the heads of the R&D coordination department and the development department, streamlined the process of developing new technology. Advanced design principles such as software reuse, modularization, standardization of auxiliary devices were introduced. Nokia has been able to streamline its product development process and create three versions of new digital products in a period in which Motorola launched just one.

· Increased attention to product design.

By reinforcing its brand image, Nokia positioned its products as consumer-friendly. The company created a telephone that fits easily in the hand and has an interface that is understandable to the buyer. In order for the device to have such properties, much has been done by the vice president of the company, Frank Nuovo, who acted as the chief designer of the NMP.

· Development of production technology.

Recognizing that modern manufacturing technology is a factor that determines the company's capabilities, NMP established an experienced development center in the city of Salo.

· Reliability management.

A special reliability group was created in the quality service, whose task was to improve the reliability of Nokia products and avoid the mistakes made by Motorola. Instead of designing a six-sigma level for all product features, the group focused on the sources of so-called early failures, that is, those constituent parts or features that are least likely to last the useful life of the phone. This approach allowed Nokia engineers to take constructive measures to improve the reliability of a relatively small number of component parts, instead of wasting energy and resources on improving all the parts, which are about 400 in a typical mobile phone. A special reliability group was created in the quality service, whose task was to improve the reliability Nokia products and avoid the mistakes made by Motorola. Instead of designing a six-sigma level for all consumer properties products, the group focused on the sources of so-called early failures, that is, those components or functions that are least likely to survive the entire useful life of the phone. This approach allowed Nokia engineers to take design measures to improve the reliability of a relatively small number of component parts, instead of wasting effort and money on improving all the parts that are in typical mobile phone about 400.

· Program "Single tariff".

One of the largest US telecommunications companies, AT&T, decided to capture the digital market that had just been created in the US. mobile communications. To do this, she needed to enter into a strategic partnership with a leading cell phone manufacturer and sell them in the US as a bundle with the mobile phone provider's own services. With such a unique business application, she turned to NMP. AT&T promoted the then unfamiliar idea of ​​a flat rate: 10 cents per minute on a cell phone without additional charges for roaming and long-distance calls throughout the country. Nokia had to first prove its ability to produce phones in unlimited quantities, after which it could become the exclusive supplier of telephones for the new AT&T concept. NMP adequately responded to the commercial challenge thrown to it: it developed and organized the mass production of digital devices model 6110, for which it carried out the so-called Lean-sigma project.

· Lean-sigma project.

To confirm the absence of restrictions on production volumes and shipping capacities, a large-scale Lean-sigma project was launched. The principle of its operation was based on the integrated application of the Six Sigma methodology and the concept lean manufacturing. A specially organized team carried out seven interconnected subprojects. Their goal was to rationalize production flows, eliminate deficiencies in manufacturing processes, ensure high quality components, create error-free assembly processes, ensure testing confirms the required level of product quality, and identify and correct any problems as early as possible.

Today, the Finnish company NokiaMobilePhones is a recognized leader among mobile phone manufacturers. Her models are distinguished by elegance, ergonomics, meet the latest ideas about the fashion for cellular devices and even shape it. This is possible due to the fact that Nokia has learned to quickly adapt to market requirements and embody all the latest trends in IT design in its technology. And the stable reputation of Nokia devices as strong and durable, obtained as another result of the application of benchmarking results in the quality management system, attracts those who appreciate quality and reliability.

3. Benchmarking on the example of MESI

1) Situational analysis of the enterprise

Moscow State University of Economics, Statistics and Informatics (MESI) was established in 1932 as the Moscow Institute of Economic Accounting, later transformed into the Moscow Institute of Economics and Statistics. It was the first special higher statistical educational institution in the world.

In 1949, two faculties were created at MESI:

· faculty of economic statistics for the training of statistician economists;

· faculty of mechanization of accounting for the training of engineers-economists in the organization of mechanized processing of economic information.

In 1969, the Faculty of Economic Cybernetics was opened at the Institute, which solved the problems of training economists-mathematicians in computer software, and since 1971 - system engineers with a degree in Automated Control Systems.

In subsequent years, the institute trained specialists in the field of statistics, the application of economic and mathematical methods, computer science And information systems in the study and management of economic processes.

In 1982, the institute was awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor for the great work in training highly qualified specialists for the national economy. A large group of employees was awarded orders and medals of the USSR.

In 1993, another faculty of the Institute began accepting students - the Faculty of Economics and Management, which trains specialists in the field of finance and credit, accounting and auditing, management and commerce.

The entire long history of MESI is inextricably linked with the formation and development of domestic scientific schools application of mathematical methods and computer technology in the economy.

The history of the institute is associated with the names of such Soviet statisticians as academicians Nemchinov V.S. and Strumilin S.G., Corresponding Members of the USSR Academy of Sciences Buslenko N.P., Ryabushkin T.V., Starovsky V.N. and many others.

The scientific potential of MESI has been formed over its long history, inextricably linked with the formation and development of domestic scientific schools, the use of mathematical methods, computer technology and information technology in the economy.

MESI is now a recognized leader in the training of specialists in the field of economics, management, statistics, business, law and information technology with the assignment of qualifications corresponding to the international level.

More than 100,000 people study at MESI in various educational programs and receive education at various levels: secondary vocational, higher professional, postgraduate or additional.

MESI University currently has 26 branches.

One of the first branches of MESI is the Yaroslavl branch of MESI, founded in 1996.

Openness and accessibility of education for everyone, the use of advanced information technologies that allow you to get a quality education that meets the challenges of the innovative economy - these are the priorities of the branch.

) Using benchmarking in MESI.

MESI is one of best universities countries in terms of the quality of education and technological equipment.

University motto:

"Education throughout life"

University values:

Continuous improvement of the parent university and its branches

openness and accessibility

use of advanced information technologies

Student Approval

government financial support

student union, etc.

MESI, in the process of becoming one of the most effective universities in the world, went through many stages that strengthened its status.

MESI strives to become not only an educational, but also a scientific, innovative and cultural center. The university has the necessary potential to confirm and strengthen the status of a "smart" university working for the information society.

Its aspirations have made it the first Russian university to successfully pass the external review procedure for compliance with the European Education Quality Assurance Standards (ESG-ENQA).

Eight educational programs implemented at MESI were recognized as the best, according to the reference book "The Best Educational Programs of Innovative Russia 2011".

The university uses the principles of benchmarking implementation. For MESI benchmarking - effective remedy choosing a successful increase in importance among other universities.

The object of research within the framework of benchmarking at MESI is its branch network (YaF MESI).

Benchmarking results are the basis for the development of three main strategies to improve the status of the university:

improving the quality of education;

job security;

increase in teaching staff and incoming students.

Benchmarking allows not only to identify and summarize the best examples of high-performance work, it also seeks the participation of the university in various events.

MESI received the status of a full member in international consortiums and European associations that are recognized leaders in the field of e-learning: EADTU, IMS, the E-xcellenceAssosiate

MESI - participates in the largest international forums that bring together the world's leading IT companies and universities: CeBIT, OnlineEduca, eLearnExpo. In addition, the university became the initiator and organizer of similar events in our country (International Educational Forum E-Learning Russia).

The University actively develops science and holds various scientific events: the SMART E-Learning Russia Forum, the annual Science Week, and an expanded UMO meeting. MESI is one of the sites of the traditional Moscow Science Festival and a partner university of the IT Planet Olympiad in Moscow. Weeks of student science are held annually at the university, a student scientific society and two scientific centers have been created and are actively working. Students take part in Russian and international competitions, olympiads, quizzes.

The university organizes specialized training for students and trains graduates for specific customers.

Participation in such events, carried out as a result of the implementation of benchmarking techniques, helps MESI to take a leading position among other universities in the world.

MESI is the first university in Russia that has passed international certification of all areas of activity for compliance with international standards ISO quality 9001:2000. And in 2011 he received an international certificate in new version. In the same year, it successfully passed the evaluation of six educational programs EADTU and was recognized as meeting the international criteria for assessing the quality of e-learning technologies.

In 2012, MESI successfully passed the UNIQUe certification - one of the projects of the European Foundation for Quality Assurance in e-learning (EFQUEL).

In April 2012, the university was given the status of the base organization of the CIS member states in the field of distance and e-learning.

MESI is recognized as one of the best Moscow universities in terms of organizing academic work with students. The University has a Student Council, the KVN movement is actively developing, the Miss MESI contest is held annually, and the KAZUS student theater is a laureate of Russian and international competitions.

The combined teams of the university in various sports annually take part in the European and world championships among universities and achieve serious results.

MESI, having branches at its disposal, helps them to break through to the same level.

Currently, YaF MESI (see Appendix 3):

participates, is and cooperates with various structures that ensure the implementation of regional programs (events), such as:

Early professional development programs "First Steps to Leadership"

Children's summer educational camp INFOCamp

Competition "Young Marketer"

Competition of Creative Youth "OKNO"

Project Student Technopark "Business-Start-Up"

Competition of subject teachers who effectively use Information Technology and many others;

· supervises the professional development of the teaching staff to ensure the integration of education and business;

Creates special structures related to the implementation of tasks.

· implements a system of continuous education for the training of state and municipal employees, which includes higher (specialty "State and municipal management") and additional professional education (special courses "Anti-crisis consulting", "Incentive strategy economic growth Russia”, etc.), postgraduate studies.

· Uses advanced information and educational technologies, including e-learning and Smart-education and many others.

Today, the Yaroslavl branch of MESI justifies its existence. It has become one of the most effective universities, passing by 5 indicators.

Over the years of work, the university has gained a high status among the general public, government officials, teachers, veterans, foreign experts, students and graduates. "MESI is the flagship of Russian education!".

Thus, we can conclude that for MESIbenchmarking is effective way increasing the importance of the university. In addition, knowledge of the main problems and successes of the branches helps the university to make timely changes that meet the requirements of reality, improve the quality of education, maintain its advantages and develop successfully.

MESI is not going to stop there - the university has great prospects ahead.

) Suggestions for improving the benchmarking method in MESI

MESI is a self-developing organization.

In his management, it is necessary to highlight such qualities as:

availability;

openness;

prevalence;

significance;

novelty, etc.

In order for these qualities to combine and improve, continuous implementations are necessary.

YaF MESI, as one of the best branches, is an example of improving such qualities.

Yaroslavl branch of MESI is holding a competition "Young Marketer". Why not hold this competition in all branches, with the final stage in Moscow.

It also organizes professional development programs for teachers and school administrations; e-pedagogics takes place: a competition is held for subject teachers who effectively use information technology; for 10 years, the contest of Creative Youth "OKNO" has been implemented; an infrastructure is being created to support small and medium-sized businesses in the Yaroslavl region and municipal districts.

And many others. other areas of activity that can be implemented not only in the Yaroslavl branch, but also in other branches at the disposal of the university.

On the contrary, the experience and knowledge accumulated by one of the branches can be replicated throughout the entire branch network.

For example, the Scientific and Practical Conference “Youth. The science. Culture”, to be made mandatory in the entire structure of MESI.

Organize and conduct city and regional job fairs on the basis of branches.

At YaF MESI:

strengthen the education system;

solve the problem with the hostel, after which the number of incoming students will increase;

if possible, expand its scope, in terms of building or completing another building.

Because the branch is one of the best branches in Yaroslavl, it must confirm its status every year.

Benchmarking methods must be constantly developed. There are no restrictions in this field of activity. The deeper you go into this process, the more the best result will be in the end.

Thus, MESI will maintain its place in the field of education, and improve, supplement in its field, as many effective methods as possible for the development of its educational network.


Conclusion


In the course of writing the term paper, a benchmarking analysis of the activities of MESI was carried out.

In this example, we learned that benchmarking is widespread in the activities of organizations.

Unfortunately, the scope of the course work does not allow to fully show all aspects of the functioning of benchmarking activities. However, based on the tasks set, it was possible to reveal the essence of benchmarking as a management method in global business.

Initially, basic things were revealed, including a description general concepts and the history of the development of benchmarking companies.

The following reasons for the popularity of benchmarking can be identified: global competition, remuneration for quality, the need to adapt and use world achievements.

The use of benchmarking tools gives the organization various advantages: the ability to overcome the stagnation in the leadership, point out their inaccurate idea of ​​​​the state of affairs; provides the organization with early warning signals of backlog; discovers new technologies and methods of organization management; creates a culture of continuous improvement, etc.

The standard benchmarking process can be represented using benchmarking models. One of them is called the “Benchmarking Wheel” and consists of a number of stages: planning, searching, observing, analyzing, adapting.

In the process of choosing a partner company, special attention should be paid to three key points:

It is critical to build on the results of a full and comprehensive desk review of a potential external benchmarking partner.

It is necessary to draw up a detailed plan for choosing a partner company and follow it clearly without missing a single point of the plan.

When collecting data on potential benchmarking partners, it is necessary to strictly comply with the framework of the law and accepted ethical standards.

Over the past 10 years, benchmarking has become one of the most effective and popular tools for improving Western business. The Russian market is also beginning to gain more and more fame. Some Russian companies are already using benchmarking as part of a strategy to increase their competitiveness, but there are only a few such companies. For most executives, benchmarking is still an insignificant concept, more often perceived as a simple analysis of the activities of competitors or marketing research, and not as a management method, which is one of the reasons why benchmarking methods are so slowly implemented in Russian activities.

The development of benchmarking contributes to openness and increase in business efficiency. Mastering this management method and improving business will allow Russian companies - not only large, but also medium and small ones - to keep up with the times and take a worthy place in the near future both in the domestic and global markets.

Thus, summarizing all of the above, we can conclude that benchmarking today is an integral element of company management. It is of particular importance in quality management, allowing you to constantly monitor the level of quality, track the latest trends in the production of goods and the provision of services. Moreover, this tool gives companies using it the opportunity to directly study, see the latest, best experience other companies, as it provides for cooperation between the initiating company and the benchmarking partner company.


Bibliography


1. Danilov I.P., Danilova T.V. "Benchmarking as a basis for creating the competitiveness of an enterprise". M: RIA "Standards and Quality", 2005.

2. Uvarov, V.V. Benchmarking as a modern method of business management [Text] / V.V. Uvarov. - // Management in Russia and abroad. - 2005. - No.: 4. - P.35

3. Generalova, S. Formation of competitive potential using the benchmarking method [Text] / S. Generalova. - // Problems of theory and practice of management. - 2007. - No.: 1. - p.16

4. Titova V.A., Makarenko O.V. Benchmarking as a tool for forming the innovative potential of an enterprise // Innovations. - 2006. - No. 7. - p.104

5. Mikhailova E. A. Fundamentals of benchmarking. - M.: Jurist, 2002. - S.

Baumgarten, L. V. The use of benchmarking to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of activities travel companies[Text] / L. V. Baumgarten. - // Marketing in Russia and abroad. - 2010.

6. Watson G.H. IL Benchmarking / edizioneitaliana A/ cura di Piercarlo Ceccarelli, Franco Angeli, - Milano, 1995

7 Shetty Y.K. Setting a high goal: competitive benchmarking for best performance. 1993.

8. Assel Henry. Marketing: principles and strategy. - M.: INFRA-M, 2001

9.

10.