The need for adaptive processes of benchmarking in small business‐to‐business services

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore current management attitudes towards benchmarking and its implementation within small business‐to‐business service firms in order to enhance a deeper understanding of benchmarking within such contexts. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses in‐depth case analysis of small architectural services to collect empirical data on benchmarking initiatives, attitudes, key characteristics and constraints on benchmarking. Findings Findings suggest that there are significant variations in the receptiveness of small business‐to‐business firms towards the adoption of benchmarking. There may be an inherent distrust of benchmarking, as it is primarily perceived as being a tool for larger organizations, where productivity improvements are the main driver. Evidence of perceived constraints in both the implementation of benchmarking and in the definition of what constitutes best practice highlighted a cultural difficulty for small architectural firms when adopting a business process orientation. Traditionally, when evaluating their services, architectural practices are oriented towards professional design criteria, often with creative rather than business process priorities. Results suggest less cumbersome measurement models than key performance indicators (KPI) are needed to allow organically developing firms, such as architectural services, to apply benchmarking and quality ideas flexibly. Originality/value Research on current management attitudes towards benchmarking or actual implementation of benchmarking techniques in small business‐to‐business service firms is scarce. This paper addresses this by developing a deeper and richer contextual understanding of benchmarking within such contexts.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.