Relations between Benchmarking Management and ICS

王若曦

Abstract: This paper introduces Benchmarking Management andIntellectual Capital Statement in first as they are not that popular inJiangsu,and show the situation of these two management systems（Benchmarking Management as a managing tool as well） in Jiangsu atthe same time.Then it will give a glance on how they work to helporganisations make progress during each step of their life cycle.Afterthat,it will analyze and give a discussion of the similarities,differences and interactions between Bencbmarking Management andIntellectual Capital Statement.

Keywords: Benchmarking Management,Intellectual CapitalStatement.

Benchmarking Management （hereinafter referred to as BM） stillstays at the level of theoretical arguments and "learning imitation"here in China.Theoretical arguments for BM have not been unified ei-ther.One of the mainstream definitionsi argues that BM is a kind ofmanaging method,and another group of experts prefer it to be a man-aging tool for proving processes instead.Dr.Robert Camp,father ofBM,told us in IBCON 2016ii that BM is a process used by organisa-tions to seek for leading to best practice.This argument was acceptedby International Benchmarking Centre as a main definition of BM.Most of the concepts about benchmarking came from these two argu-ments even they never stopped arguing with each other about detaileddifferences.This paper argues that BM should be treated as a manag-ing tool which can be used in any process.It is a multi-purpose instru-ment to make a benchmarking among any processes possible.Thecontrasts could he basic technology/management/service processes orcorporate strategies,even organisation's vision.Also,BM should becombined with other management systems and/or methods,especiallyfor small and medium enterprises （SMEs） as it could be really hard toimplement pure BM for SMEs.This paper will analyze similarities,differences and interactions between BM and Intellectual CapitalStatement （hereinafter referred to as ICS）.

In the age of data,BM and ICS have a number of similarities.Plans and data are always the basics of a management system.De-tailed,methodical,changeable and orderly plans,and accurate,diver-sified data from reliable sources are always of extreme importance tostart any system including BM and ICS.Other similarities exist afterthe implementation of BM or ICS.To give a glance from the view oftop design,gaining support from top decision makers gives the bestguarantee to ensure the smooth implementation of a system.Prop[J].sion given by decision makers could sometimes has outstanding effecton implementing the system or shows surprising results.

Another action must be taken before starting the collection of da-ta is to clearly define the system boundaries.System boundariesshould be set and defined as clearly as possible.It should be also care-fully documented to avoid any misunderstanding[J].Clearly definedboundaries decide the range of basic data collection and the difficultyof overall implementation.Generally,positive proportional growth ex-ists between the range and difficulties.Definition of boundaries is ex-tremely important for organisations which are the first time to adopt asystem.These organisations must carefully consider which part orparts will be analyzediv.BM and ICS also have other similarities eventhough the detailed focuses are not the same.Basic data is the founda-tion of everything in both BM and ICS.Ability assessment is one ofthe purposes for making the organisation easy to implement BM orICS.The detailed differences of collecting data here are: BM needsdata for each index and plan,data are gathered from field investiga-tions,and all databases and plans need to be updated timely.Data forICS are normally collected by using Questionnaire for Universitiesand Research institutes.This questionnaire series have personalisedcustomisation versions for each country.

This paragraph will list out other similarities that can be recog-nised.First,complete implementation in these two systems will neverbe easy and be accomplished at one stroke so guidance experts havepivotal positions because most organisations need experts' profes-sional knowledge reserve to help them push the process of implemen-tation.On the side of BM,experts could help companies to cardingmajor breakdowns including the selection and sequencing of bench-marking partnersv.On the side of ICS,ICS moderators who will havebeen trained according to the standard European ICS approach to en-sure an ICS implementation with the respect to the basic ICS qualityrequirementsvi.Second,both systems have requirements on innova-tion.An organisation must try to innovate if it wants to go beyond its'benchmarks' （benchmarking partners）.Innovation should be the on-ly way to enter the higher stage of BM.ICS also emphasizes innova-tion,but normally consulters will suggest flexibly using the Question-naire as mentioned above.Third,the ultimate goal and the most criti-cal stage of both BM and ICS are to improve the organisation includ-ing performance,business processes and business models,etc.Fourth,BM and ICS promote targeting best practices and leaming from them.Organisations can make themselves better by absorbing successful ex-perience of benchmarks.Fifth,comparison among organisations,in-dexes and process,ate.is emphasized in both systems.Other similari-ties of BM and ICS will not be mentioned in this paper.

So far we have discussed the similarities between BM and ICS.The next section will move on to differences between BM and ICS.One difference is that ICS only has the theoretical guidance at the pre-sent stage even though contributors of this system hope it could be putin practice in the near future.BM,however,is much easier to be im-plemented as a managing tool.Next,field trip and review are one ofthe most significant chains in BM and have detailed descriptions inmany chapters of The Complete Benchmarking ImplementationGuidevii.BM also expects the detailed impact assessment for each ex-ecution plan.However ICS not even mentioned these two points.Then BM often requires the cycle of repeating every step and ICS of-ten asks organisations to repeat the last one or two steps.Another dif-ference relates to balance score card （BSC）.BM draws lesson fromBSC to a large extent and can be applied by a good combination toeach other.Yet,BSC only plays a supporting role towards ICS.Fur-thermore,ICS focuses on the management of macroscopic intangibleassets which is the meaning of intellectual capital,but BM focusesmore on `improving' itself.

Conventional management instruments and balance sheets do notcover the systematic management of IC,because intangible assets arenot considered so farv[J].As prof Marie-Elise Lucida-Jamin said be-fore,'The participative side of the methodology is the reverse of thetraditional top/down management.This greatly helped to gain accep-tance.Results confirmed the previously identified trends,but alsomade it possible to identify and highlight some unknown new facts'.Use ICS with BM could be great help when traditional methods arenot suitable any longer.The built of ICS system was meant to formthe basis for high quality products and services as well as innovationsfor organisations （especially for SMEs）ix when they find conventionalmethods are out of date.Organisations will progress faster if they cor-porate with other ones which also implemented ICS.Mutual bench-marking of ICS reports could help both sides find self-deficiencies anddisadvantages,and ways to improve more easily.In other words: anorganisation can keep innovating and extending its life cycle if it hasbenchmarks and is able to find new,suitable methods by comparingindexes in ICS reports with them.BM and ICS have another interac-tion as well:the assessment of individual IC factors becomes compa-rable when these factors that are harmonised on an aggregated levelbecome starting points.Thus,an IC Benchmarking becomes possible,while individual definitions of standard factors and additional specificfactors still allow the right amount of individualisation for each organ-isation.With the help of IC Benchmarking concept,organisations cancompare their strengths and weaknesses in IC with others （in and outof the organisation） and also make it possible to find suitable bench-marking partners for exchanging experiences and learning from bestpractice cases in a specific area of IC managementx.

BM & ICS are relatively unfamiliar management systems here inJiangsu,even in China.They still have a lot of room to develop.Coor-dination of BM and ICS,and the cooperation of these two systemswith other management systems,methods and tools could bring com-prehensive help and development to organisations.Improvement is al-ways the final goal of implementing a management system or tool,nomatter how an organisation uses it.It is obvious that global integrationwill be very hard to achieve in the atmosphere of seeking personaliza-tion nowadays.Requirements of localisation in different regions madethe formulated international standards more hardly to be implementeddirectly.We hope organizations in the forefront of Jiangsu could at-tach importance to introduce advanced ideas and develop themselveswith international standards.

Bibliography （Alphabet）

[1]Sik Wah Fong,Eddie W.1.Cheng,Danny C.K.Ho,Bench-marking: A General Reading for Management Practioners

[2]Robert C.Camp,Development of Benchmarking and the Fu-ture of Benchmarking.IBCON （International Benchmarking Confer-ence） 2016

[3]OECD.European ICS Guideline-InCas: Intellectual CapitalStatement-Made in Europe

[4]H James Harrington.楊燕綏et al.translated.The CompleteBenchmarking Implementation Guide: Total Benchmarking Manage-ment（標(biāo)桿管理完全操作手冊）