Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

72
Benchmarking Concept and Implementation Oleh : Aekram Faisal Supriyadi Sripeni Inten Cahyani Dosen : Prof. Ir. Syamsir Abduh , MM, Ph.D Program Doktor Strategic Management Universitas Trisakti

Transcript of Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Page 1: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Benchmarking

Concept and Implementation

Oleh :

Aekram FaisalSupriyadi

Sripeni Inten Cahyani

Dosen : Prof. Ir. Syamsir Abduh , MM, Ph.D

Program Doktor Strategic ManagementUniversitas Trisakti

Page 2: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

MISKIN AKAN

MODAL

SUMBER ALAM

SUMBERDAYA MANUSIA

KONDISI JEPANG SAAT ITU....

Page 3: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)
Page 4: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

BENCHMARKING YG TERBARU DIKEMBANGKAN OLEH

Page 5: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

What is Benchmarking?

Author Definitions

Camp 1989 the continuous process of measuring products,

services and practices against the toughest

competitors or those companies recognised as

industry leaders.

Codling 1992 An ongoing process of measuring and improving

products, services and practices against the best.

Page 6: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Author Definitions

What is Benchmarking?

Vaziri 1992 A continuous process comparing an organisation’s

performance against that of the best in the industry

considering critical consumer needs and

determining what should be improved.

Watson 1993 The continuous input of new information to an

organisation.

Page 7: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Author Definitions

Evans 1993 Measuring own performance against best-in-class

organisations to determine how they achieve their

performance levels and use the knowledge to

improve own performance.

Kleine 1994 An excellent tool to use in order to identify a

performance goal for improvement, identify

partners who have accomplished these goals,

identify applicable practices to incorporate into a

redesign effort.

What is Benchmarking?

Page 8: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Author Definitions

Cortada 1995 A method for finding how to improve processes

quickly by learning from others dealing with

similar issues.

Cook 1995 A kind of performance improvement process by

identifying, understanding and adopting

outstanding practices from within the same

organisation or from other businesses.

What is Benchmarking?

Page 9: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Author Definitions

APQC 1999 The process of continuously comparing and

measuring an organisation against business

leaders anywhere in the world to gain

information which will help the organisation take

action to improve its performance.

What is Benchmarking?

Page 10: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

• At its simplest, benchmarking means:

"Improving ourselves by learning from others."

What is Benchmarking?

Page 11: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

• Conditions are never identical

• You can pick up critical variables and apply them …

• Create a system – a comprehensive set of reinforcing practices that are responsible for success

Benchmarking ≠ Copying

What is Benchmarking?

Page 12: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

• Helps organisations understand strengths and weaknesses

• Helps better satisfy the customer’s needs by establishing new standards and goals

• Motivates employees to reach new standards and to be keen on new developments

• Allows organisations to realise what level(s) of performance is really possible by looking at others

• Documents reasons as to why these differences exist

• Helps organisations improve their competitive advantage

• Is a cost-effective and time-efficient way of establishing a pool of innovative ideas

Why Benchmarking?

Page 13: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Why Benchmarking?

Page 14: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

• In Japan, benchmarking is a part of their manager's job descriptions (Boxwell, 1994).

• This is one of the ways that the Japanese are able to keep up with and surpass others in industries such as automobiles, motorcycles, electronics, etc.

Why Benchmarking?

Page 15: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Benchmarking

as a strategic improvement methodology

• Lucertini et al. (1995), who state that “The concern about performance evaluation has always existed in corporations, and has traditionally been realised on an historical basis (by comparing the performance to the one of the year before) and, sometimes, on a competitive basis (by comparing the company to a competitor).”

• Skaplan (1984), As a methodology for assessing company performance, concerns were raised in the middle and late 1980s.

• Hamel and Prahalad (1989), who state that “Traditional competitor analysis is like a snapshot of a moving car. By itself, the photo yields little information about the car’s speed or direction – whether the driver is out for a Sunday drive or warming up for a grand prix.”

Page 16: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

History of benchmarking Implementation

• the concept of benchmarking is, however, captured by the word “Dantotsu” which when translated means “striving to be the best” (Ohinata, 1993).

• Kearns defines benchmarking as “the continuous process of measuring products, services and practices against the toughest competitors or those companies recognised as industry best leaders” (Camp, 1989).

• Bendell et al. (1998), “benchmarking” was used by the Japanese to improve their position on the international market in respect of their Western competitors.

• Codling (1992), who states that “In the late 1970s benchmarking was pioneered in the realms of management practice by the Xerox Corporation in the US.”

Page 17: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Interface between

knowledge transfer and the law

• There is potentially a fundamental misalignment between the purpose of benchmarking and the underlying objectives of intellectual property law.

• The purpose of benchmarking is to obtain knowledge that is made available on an informal, non-contractual basis where no financial obligation is attached to its release, acquisition and subsequent use.

• Conversely, the objective of intellectual property law is to guarantee a monopoly over the exploitation of creative efforts and to recoup through royalties, the resulting benefits.

• a survey of benchmarking practices conducted by Boulter (1998) addresses the legal implications of benchmarking practices, across the three groups of survey respondents (English private sector, European private sector and English public sector), indicate lack of awareness , that only one survey respondent out of 60 specifically identified intellectual property as constituting an issue for benchmarking.

Page 18: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

• The survey analysis of benchmarking practices (Boulter, 1998), across the three groups of survey respondents

• 29 percent claim that there is no organizational control for the release of “best practice” information.

• 50 per cent claim that they do not use a non-disclosure agreement when exchanging “best practice” information as part of benchmarking practice.

• the practice of benchmarking can cross national boundaries, a company undertaking a benchmarking study might identify companies from a number of different countries, however, no common legal regime against which to measure the legal risk stemming from an international benchmarking study

Interface between

knowledge transfer and the law

Page 19: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

• Boulter and Bendell, 1999, Potential competition law risks for knowledge transfer

Interface between

knowledge transfer and the law

Page 20: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Since the concept of benchmarking can lead to unscrupulous and sometimes unethical behavior. To guide benchmarking encounters, to advance the professionalism and effectiveness of benchmarking, and to help protect its members from harm, the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse, a service of the American Productivity & Quality Center, has adopted this Code of Conduct. Adherence to this Code will contribute to efficient, effective and ethical benchmarking.

Benchmarking Ethics

Page 21: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Code of Conduct

• 1. Principle of Legality

• 2. Principle of Exchange

• 3. Principle of Confidentiality

• 4. Principle of Use

• 5. Principle of Contact

• 6. Principle of Preparation

• 7. Principle of Completion

• 8. Principle of Understanding and Action

http://ateam.lbl.gov/cleanroom/benchmarking/code.html

Benchmarking Ethics

Page 22: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

4 Questions

• What should we benchmark?

• Whom should we benchmark?

• How do we perform the process?

• How do they perform the process?

How The Benchmarking Process?

Page 23: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

How The Benchmarking Process?

Page 24: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

How The Benchmarking Process?

Page 25: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

How The Benchmarking Process?

Page 26: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

ImplementAnalyseDecide

What toBM

IdentifyBMPartners

Gatherinfo

How The Benchmarking Process?

Page 27: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Benchmarking Process

Benchmark Practices

How to close the Gap:

* Improved Knowledge

* Improved Practices

* Improved Process

Employee Participation

Organization

Communication

Management Commitment

Benchmark Gap:

* How much

* Where

* When

Benchmarking Standards

How The Benchmarking Process?

Page 28: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

How The Benchmarking Process?

Page 29: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

• https://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html

• http://apo-tokyo.org/productivity/116_prod.htm

• http://ateam.lbl.gov/cleanroom/benchmarking/code.html

• https://www4.uwm.edu/cuts/bench/bm-desc.htm

• Boxwell, Robert (1994), Benchmarking for a Competitive Advantage, McGraw Hill, 1994

• Bendell, A., Boulter, L. and Goodstadt, P. (1998), Benchmarking for Competitive Advantage, Pitman/Financial Times, London.

• Boulter, L. (1998), “Legal aspects in the practice of benchmarking”, PhD thesis, The Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham.

• Boulter, L. and Bendell, A. (1999), “Competition risks in benchmarking”, Sweet and Maxwell European Competition Law Review, pp. 434-44.

• Camp, R. (1989), Benchmarking the Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to Superior Performance, Quality Press American Society for Quality Control, Milwaukee, WI.

• Camp, R. (1998), Global Cases in Benchmarking, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.

• Codling, S. (1992), Best Practice Benchmarking, Industrial Newsletters Ltd.

• Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1989), “Strategic intent”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 200, pp. 21-8.

• Lucertini, N., Nicolo, F. and Telmon, A. (1995), “Integration of benchmarking and benchmarking of integration”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 38, pp. 59-71.

• Ohinata, Y. (1993), “Benchmarking: the Japanese experience”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 48-53.

• Skaplan, R. (1984), “Yesterday’s accounting undermines production”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 105, pp. 32-8.

Reference

Page 30: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Articles

Page 31: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Transportation price benchmarking: implications for firm performance

DOSEN : Prof. SYAMSIR ABDUH, Ph. D

Aekram Faisal

DOKTORAL MANAJEMEN STRATEGIK

PROGRAM PASCASARJANA

UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI

2016

Page 32: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)
Page 33: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to understand how transportationprice benchmarking impacts firm performance.

Design/methodology/approach

• In this study, firm transportation costs and other financialvariables are examined with regression analysis.

• This study extends empirical research on benchmarking byusing current data, taking a longitudinal approach, usingadditional research methods, and by taking a contingencytheory approach to examine firm performance contingenton the relative size of benchmarking information.

Page 34: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Findings

• Firms can reduce prices paid for transportation (therebyimproving firm performance) by participating in benchmarkingconsortiums, and the amount of price reduction is contingenton the size of firm transportation spending relative to that ofthe benchmarked firms.

• Furthermore, the contingent relationship is concave, whichindicates that participation in benchmarking consortiums canbe optimized.

Page 35: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Research limitations/implications

Despite the wide range of companies in this sample and thelongitudinal approach of this research, this study examinedbenchmarking performance in just one marketplace (truckloadtransportation).

Practical implications

The findings help managers to lower transportation costs andoptimize the benefits that can be obtained from benchmarking.

Page 36: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Originality/value

• Transportation prices paid by firms are difficult to obtainbecause firms are not required to isolate and disclose thisinformation on financial statements.

• Therefore, the transparency of transportation pricing datain this study which include a wide cross-section of firmsprovides a unique examination of actual transportationprices and how they can be used for benchmarking.

Page 37: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

SUPRIYADI

222141510

DOKTORAL MANAJEMEN STRATEGIK

PROGRAM PASCASARJANA

UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI

2016

Evaluation and Benchmarking of Lean Manufacturing System Environment: A Graph Theoretic Approach

DOSEN : Prof. SYAMSIR ABDUH, Ph. D

Page 38: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

I. POKOK PIKIRAN

• Penelitian Lean Manufacturing ini menekankan pada penghematanterhadap pemborosan (waste) pada proses produksi, antara lain :• Barang cacat (defect product)

• Persediaan ( Inventory)

• Operasional (Motion)

• Penambahan produk (Added processes)

• Kelebihan produksi ( Excess Production)

• Biaya transportas (transportation cost)

Page 39: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

II. KELEBIHAN DARI ARTIKEL

• Proses manufacturing yang panjang, dan banyaknya sistem yangdigunakan (JIT suppliers, Kanban, Supplier development,Supplier Feedback, TPM, LT Reduction, Kaizen, dsb) mampu diringkas menjadi beberapa kegiatan pokok saja.

• Kegiatan pokok tersebut dibagi menjadi :

1) Supplier oriented practices (Suppler Participation)2) Manufacturing oriented practices (Operational initiatives)3) Employees involvement in lean practices (employees involvement)4) Customer oriented practices (Customer Participation)

Page 40: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)
Page 41: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

1. Supplier Paricipation

Page 42: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

2. Operational initiatives

Page 43: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)
Page 44: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)
Page 45: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

3. Employee’s involvment

Page 46: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

4. Customer Participation

Page 47: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Relative importance of Lean Attributes

Page 48: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

• Peneliti terlalu optimis, sehingga kurang memperhatikan sisi lemahdari penerapan Lean Manufacturing ini, antara lain :1) Masalah pada Suppliers

Karena dalam LM, sistem invetory dibuat sekecil mungkin, bahkandihilangkan, hal ini guna mengurangi biaya-biaya yang berkaitan denganinvetory. Pada LM perusahaan sangat tergantung sekali terhadap suppliersuntuk kelangsungan proses produksi. Ini artinya jalur suppliers tidak bolehterputus, bila masalah pada suppliers muncul seperti employee strikes,transportasi tertunda, dan kualitas barang kurang bagus. Maka hal tersebutakan berakibat fatal bagi perusahaan. Aktivitas produksi perusahaan akanterganggu secara berantai ke yang lainya (domino effect)

III. KELEMAHAN PADA ARTIKEL

Page 49: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Lanjutan

2) Implementasi biaya tinggiPenerapan LM bertujuan untuk membuat lebih lengkap (completely) sistem danphysical plant setups dari yang sebelumnya. Tentu hal ini memelukan waktu yangcukup panjang utk memberi pelatihan kepada karyawan menjalankan proses LM ini.Dan tentu hal ini dibutuhkan biaya yang tidak sedikit oleh perusahaan.

3) Penolakan dari para pekerjaProses LM tentu akan merubah hampir semua peralatan produksi. Bahkan yangsemula dikerjakan oleh manusia, kini diganti dengan mesin. Tentu hal ini akanmembuat stress para pekerja yang telah ada. Terutama bagi mereka yang terkenadampak sistem LM ini, antara lain para pekerja yang telah berusia lanjut. Bagi yangmasih muda mungkin mereka tidak begitu sulit utk penyesuaian, karena padaumumnya mereka sdh terbiasa dgn teknologi. Sehingga kejadian ini akanmenimbulkan bayak penolakkan (demonstrasi) dari pegawai. Dan bila ini terjadimaka akan berdampak pada proses produksi perusahaan, ketidakpuasan pelanggan,dsb.

Page 50: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

4) Masalah ketidakpuasan (dissatisfaction) pelanggan .

Karena proses LM juga tergantung dari ketepatan dan kecepatan penyalur(suppliers), bila terjadi gangguan pada rangkaian supply chain, maka prosesproduksi akan terganggu. Sehingga pengiriman ke pelanggan juga akanterganggu. Hal ini akan membuat kecewa/ketidakpuasan pelanggan.

• Peneliti terlalu mengeneral industri di India. Padahal tidak semuaindustri mampu menjalankan sistem LM tersebut.

Lanjutan

Page 51: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

IV. CARA MEMPERBAIKI KELEMAHAN

• Selektif dalam menjalin kerjasama kepada banyak supplier, hal ini gunamencegah bila terjadi masalah pada supply chain. Yahya and Kingsman (1999)menggunakan the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method untuk menyeleksipara supplier nya.

Page 52: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

• Sebelum menerapkan LM, pimpinan harus melihatterlebih dahulu kesiapan internalnya, baik sdm, lokasi,teknologi, finansial, dsb. (De Ciery, H. : 2005)

Page 53: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

• Sebagaimana kita ketahui bahwa LM merupakan upaya yangdilakukan oleh perusahaan utk mencegat pemborosan (waste)shg bisa meningkatkan nilai tambah produk untuk konsumen.Tentu hal ini diperlukan kerja keras semua komponenperusahaan, tidak terkecuali karyawan. Bila perusahaan telahmendapatkan profit atas kerja keras karyawan, maka sebailiknyaperusahaan juga harus mengimbangi dgn memperhatikankaryawannya. Peningkatan atas salarynya, kesehatan,kesejahteraan, dsb. Agar hal ini memicu dan memacu(memotivasi) kerja karyawan perusahaan.

• Motivation are towards addressing the aforementioned issuesand aproaching to mitigate the negative effect of active powermismatch. (Cecati, F. And P. Siano: 2010)

Page 54: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

• Bila hal di atas telah dapat teratasi oleh perusahaan tentu kepuasan pelanggan akan dapat terealisasikan.

Page 55: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

V. SARAN

• Peneliti jangan terlalu fokus pada sisi menghilangkan pemborosan (waste) saja.Akan tetapi harus memasukkan juga variabel lian, yakni variabel kearifan lokal(local wisdom).

• Karena melakukan benchmarking tanpa memperhatikan local wisdom akanmenemui banyak rintangan, bahkan kegagalan.

• Sebagaiamana kita ketahui bahwa antara satu perusahaan dengan perusahaanlain, tentu akan memiliki karakteristik yang berbeda-beda. Apalagi untuktingkatan negara, ini akan jauh lebih kompleks lagi. Norma budaya, sosial,ekonomi, demograpi, geograpi, yang berbeda-beda.

Page 56: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)
Page 57: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Local wisdom is basic knowledge gained from living in balance with nature. It isrelated to culture in the community which is accumulated and passed on. Thiswisdom can be both abstract and concrete, but the important characteristics arethat it comes from experiences or truth gained from life. The wisdom from realexperiences integrates the body, the spirit and the environment. It emphasizesrespect for elders and their life experiences. Moreover, it values morals morethan material things (Nakorntap et. Al., 1996)

Page 58: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)
Page 59: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)
Page 60: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Anand, G., & Kodali, R. (2008). Selection of lean manufacturing systems using thepromothee. Journal of modelling in management, 3(1), 40-70.

Cecati, F. Ciancetta, and P. Siano. (2010). A multilevel inverter for photovoltaicsystems with fuzzy logic control. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron, vol. 57, no 12. 4115-4125

De Ciery, H. (2005). Human resource management is Austrlia. Strategy peopleperformance. New York. McGraw.

Dombrowski, U., Mielke, T., & Engel, C. (2012). Knowledge management inlean production systems. Procedia CIRP, 3, 436-441.

Khadse, P. B., Sarode, A. D., & Wasu, R. (2013). Lean manufacturing in Indianindustries: A Review International Journal of Latest Trends inEngineering and Technology, 3(1), 175-181.

Kim & Berry. (2006). Idigenous and Cultural Psychology: Understanding Peoplein Context. New York: Springer.

REFFERENCES

Page 61: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

LANJUTAN

Kumar, R., & Kumar, V. (2015). Lean manufacturing in Indian context A survey.Management Science Letters, 5(4), 321-330.

Nakhorn Thap, S. (1996). Report of the Study on Patterns of Process in PromotingTeacher an School Participation for Prevention and Solution ofProblems Concerning Child Labor in Thailand. Journal of Research onHunanities Information Study. Office of the National Education

Commision.

Phongphit, Seri, and Wichit Nantasuwan. (2002). The Learning Process toSustainable Development. Bangkok: Charoenwit.

Seri Pongpit and Vichit Nantasuwan. (2002). Community Model Scheme, PeopleResearch and Development. Phthumtani University.

Singh, B., Garg, S. K., & Sharma, S. K. (2009). Lean can be a survival strategyduring recessionary times. International Journal of productivityand performance management, 58(8), 803-808

Page 62: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Terdchai Chuaybamroong. (2011). Local Wisdom for Creative CommunityDevelopment, Bangkok : King Prajadhipok’s Institute.

The Center of Folklore Research, Faculty of Arts. (2007). Local WisdomProtection Fieldwork. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.

Yahya S, Kingsman R B. (1999). Vendor rating for an entrepreneourdevelopment programme: a care study using the analytic hierarchy

process method.

LANJUTAN

Page 63: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Sripeni Inten Cahyani

DOKTORAL MANAJEMEN STRATEGIK

PROGRAM PASCASARJANA

UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI

2016

Multicriteria analysis for benchmarking sustainability development

DOSEN : Prof. SYAMSIR ABDUH, Ph. D

Page 64: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)
Page 65: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Purpose & Methodology

• Purpose : to formulate the process of measuring and benchmarking the performance of sustainability development of organizations as a multi-criteria analysis problem and presents an objective approach for solving the problem in a simple manner.

• Design/methodology/approach : to developed for benchmarking the sustainability development performance of individual organizations in the context of multi-criteria analysis. The result, an unbiased overall ranking of individual organizations on the performance of their sustainability development can be obtained.

• An empirical study of several leading countries on their sustainability development performance is conducte

Page 66: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Previous Study• Sustainability reporting is the process of measuring and benchmarking the performance of sustainability

development of individual organizations with respect to a set of specific indicators in a given situation (Atkinson, 2000; Munda, 2005a, b; Lozano and Huisingh, 2011).

• evaluating the organizational sustainability performance :

• from ‘top-down’ annual reporting against standardized indicator sets with varying degrees of auditing assurance (Brunner and Starkl, 2004), The top-down approach focuses on assessing the performance of sustainability development of an organization with respect to the Global Reporting Initiative indicators and guidelines (Atkinson, 2000; Veleva et al., 2001).

• to ad hoc, one-off or semi-periodic assessments against ‘bottom-up’ and locally grown measures (Fraser et al., 2006; Munda, 2007; Magee et al., 2013). The bottom-up approach concentrates on identifying the potential improvement in sustainability development while evaluating the performance of sustainability development of individual organizations (Atkinson, 2000; Agger, 2010).

• The performance of sustainability development of individual organizations is often reflected from different perspectives including (a) economy, (b) politics, (c) ecology, and (d) culture (Brunner and Starkl, 2004; Munda, 2004, 2007; Scerri and James, 2010).

• To adequately assess the relative progress of individual organizations on sustainability development, the use of the multi-criteria analysis methodology (Chen and Hwang, 1992; Yeh et al., 1999; Wibowow and Deng, 2012) is appropriate. This is because the multi-criteria analysis methodology can adequately address the multi-dimensional nature of the inter-organization comparison problem on sustainability development (Deng, 1999; Deng et al., 2000; Munda, 2005; Tang and Zhou, 2012).

• Numerous approaches have been developed :

• for solving the general multi-criteria analysis problem (Chen and Hwang, 1992; Deng et al., 2000; Deng, 2009; Wibowow and Deng, 2012).

• along the multi-attribute utility theory (Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Yeh and Deng, 2004; Deng and Yeh, 2006) are suitable for the interorganization comparison problem requiring a cardinal preference of alternatives in a given situation (Yeh et al., 1999; Wibowow and Deng, 2012).

• the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) for solving the inter-organization comparison problem on sustainability development is revised (Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Deng et al., 2000; Deng, 2008).

Page 67: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

FindingThe proposed approach is applicable for measuring and benchmarking the performance of organizational sustainability development through the presentation of an example.1. hardware, (c) social infThe International Data Corporation (IDC) publishes a

Worldwide Information Society Index annually as an indication of the relative progress of individual countries worldwide on the progress of the sustainability development of individual countries

2. The published index is based on four sustainability criteria including (a) information, (b) hardware, (c) social infrastructure, and (d) internet infrastructure.

Page 68: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Finding3. To facilitate the inter-country analysis on their sustainability development performance, Table II

shows the overall performance rankings of these countries on sustainability development and the rankings of these countries on individual sustainability criteria.

4. To provide a commonly acceptable overall ranking for these countries above on their sustainability development performance, the objective approach developed in this paper is used.

5. Following the objective approach developed above, the decision matrix contained in Table I needs to be normalized by (2). Table III shows the result.

Page 69: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Finding6. To facilitate the comparative study on the ranking outcomes of different countries on their

sustainability development between different weighting methods, two additional objective weighting methods including the CRITIC (CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation) method (Diakoulaki et al., 1992) and the standard deviation (SD) method (Deng et al., 2000) are used for determining the criteria weights shown as in Table IV as well.

7. Table V shows the index values and the corresponding rankings of these countries with the use of three sets of objective criteria weights.

Page 70: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Finding

8. Table V shows that

• USA has the best performance on sustainability development, no matter which methods for criteria weighting are used. This shows that US has excelled in every aspect of sustainability development in this specific evaluation situation.

• that rankings of the ten countries with respect to their relative performance in sustainability development using the objective criteria weights are different from the rankings resulted from the use of the IDC approach

• the rankings resulted from the use of the EW weights and CRITIC are consistent.

• the bias of the decision maker in assessing the criteria weights is effectively avoided.

9. An empirical study on the real data available is presented that shows that the approach is effective in presenting an objective view of individual countries on their relative progress on sustainability development and the resulting comparison results are better acceptable to all the stakeholders involved

Page 71: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Originality, Contribution & Further Study

• The originality of the paper is on the development of the objective approach within the context of multi-criteria analysis for measuring and benchmarking the performance of sustainability development of individual organizations.

• As a result, the methodology developed can be used as a decision making tool to support various levels of government and consultancy organizations worldwide in their effort to evaluate the adoption of specific strategies and policies in sustainability development so that effective decisions can be made for actively pursuing sustainability development in individual countries as well as organizations.

• Further study could be conduct with the multidimensional nature of the problem of measuring and benchmarking the organizational sustainability development, these approaches have the potential for helping better addressing such a problem in real world setting.

Page 72: Benchmarking Concept & Implementation (prof. syamsir a)

Referensi

Atkinson, G. (2000), “Measuring corporate sustainability”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 235-252.

Atkinson, G. (2000), “Measuring corporate sustainability”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 235-252.

Deng, H. (1999), “Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison”, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 215-231.

Deng, H. (2008), “Towards objective benchmarking of e-government: an inter-country analysis”, Transformational Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 162-176.

Deng, H. (2009), “Developments in fuzzy multicriteria analysis”, Fuzzy Information and Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 109-115.

Deng, H. and Yeh, C.H. (2006), “Simulation-based evaluation of defuzzification-based approaches to fuzzy multiattribute decision making”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 968-977.

Deng, H., Yeh, C.H. and Willis, R.J. (2000), “Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights”, Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 963-973.

Munda, G. (2004), “Social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE): methodological foundations and operational consequences”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 158 No. 3, pp. 662-677.

Munda, G. (2005a), “Multi-criteria decision analysis and sustainable development”, in Figuera, J., Greco, S. and Ehrgott, M. (Eds), Multiple – Criteria Decision Analysis. State of Art Surveys, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 953-986.