The Use of Benchmarking in Public Relations PDF

Benchmarking n domeniul relaiilor publice
Daniel ERBNIC
Academia de Studii Economice Bucureti
Gheorghe MILITARU
Universitatea Politehnica Bucureti
Daniel MOISE
Academia de Studii Economice Bucureti
Rezumat
Scopul principal al activitii de benchmarking n domeniul relaiilor publice este acela
de a genera informaii utile n efortul organizaiei de a-i mbunti performana. Este
important s se verifice dac promovarea n benchmarking este o aciune necesar sau
relevant, ca urmare a cercetrii atente a necesarului de informaii i a provocrilor cu
care se confrunt departamentul de relaii publice al organizaiei. Nevoia de
benchmarking n relaii publice pare s fie asociat, n mod fericit, cu dorina liderului
organizaiei de a opera schimbri strategice sau operative, de a oferi dovezi categorice
cu privire la efectele sale asupra performanei n relaii publice i-sau cu privire la
dimensiunea diferenelor de performan percepute, la nivelul departamentelor de relaii
publice, ntre diferite organizaii din aceeai ramur industrial.
Cuvinte-cheie: modelele procesului de benchmarking, cele mai bune practici, tactica

planificrii strategice
Clasificare JEL: L25, M30
Atunci cnd oamenii sunt ateni unii la alii, exist ntotdeauna potenial pentru
ndeplinirea intelor importante. Dac nu ajung la o nelegere, ei creeaz bariere n
calea nelegerii eficiente. Atunci cnd se vorbete despre relaii publice, muli sunt
aceia care cred c publice este cuvntul magic. Lucrurile stau cu totul altfel. Cuvntul
cheie este relaii. Dac orice form de comunicare se bazeaz pe ascultare, atunci
relaiile reprezint fundamentul relaiilor publice. Calitatea de bun asculttor solicit
eforturi considerabile ncepnd cu a nelege ct de important este s fii atent la ce se
petrece n jurul tu. Pe lng informaiile de o valoare inestimabil, dobndite prin
ascultare, managerii de relaii publice care doresc s neleag lumea n care i
28 Daniel ERBNIC, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE

The Use of Benchmarking in Public Relations
Daniel ERBNIC
Academy of Economic Studies (A.S.E.), Bucharest
Gheorghe MILITARU
Politehnica Bucharest University
Daniel MOISE
Academy of Economic Studies (A.S.E.), Bucharest
Abstract
The prime purpose of PR benchmarking is to generate information which can be used to
assist the unit in improving its performance. It is important to assess whether PR
benchmarking is a necessary or relevant course of action given a careful consideration
of a PR units information needs and challenges. The need to benchmark PR appears to
be positively associated with the unit leaders desire to pursue strategic or operational
changes in the function, to demonstrate quantifiable PR performance comparisons, and/
or the magnitude of the perceived gap of PR performance between organizations in an
industry.
Key words: benchmarking process models, best practice, strategic planning tactic
JEL classification: L25, M30
When people listen to each other, the potential to accomplish important goals is
always there. If they tune out, they create barriers to productive relationships. In the use
of the term public relations, many people believe the operative word is public. That is
incorrect. The key word is relations. If listening is the cornerstone of communications,
then relationships represent the foundation public relations. Listening skills require serious
effort, starting with a commitment to the importance of paying attention to what is
going on around you. Aside from the invaluable information that listening provides, PR
managers who want to understand the word in which their organizations do business
will find that many ways of listening are free or have little associated cost.
RRM 2-2007 29
desfoar afacerile organizaiile lor vor constata c multe dintre formele de ascultare
nu i cost nimic, sau au costuri asociate foarte reduse.
O unealt folosit adesea de ctre specialitii n management ai sfritului de secol
XX este benchmarkingul (Bogan i English, 1994; Greengard, 1995). Dei definiiile
termenului de benchmarking pot fi uor diferite, un lucru este cert: benchmarkingul
este procesul prin care ai posibilitatea de a te compara cu cei mai importani competitori
pe pia. De exemplu, Overman (1993) definete benchmarkingul ca form prin care
se msoar valoarea practicilor propriei companii n comparaie cu sistemul practicat
de competitori. n mod similar, Camp (1989) sugereaz c procesul de benchmarking
necesit stabilirea unor inte operative bazate pe cele mai bune practici din industria
de profil.
Benchmark este un termen mprumutat de la sistemul de msurtori cadastrale. Dac
se poate marca poziia i altitudinea pe suprafee teritoriale, aceste msurtori pot servi
drept puncte de referin i pentru alte msurtori, n alte puncte. Cam n acelai mod,
benchmarkingul aa cum este folosit acest termen n management reprezint
identificarea unui punct de referin, pentru comparaie sau msurtori. Prin benchmark,
managerii pot msura diferena de performan ntre punctul n care se afl i cel n
care doresc s ajung i i pot trasa evoluia menit s anuleze acea diferen.
Originile i tendinele benchmarkingului

Comparaiile sunt, de multe decenii, fundamentul pentru afaceri n general i pentru
relaiile industriale n special. Abordarea mai sistematic a domeniului de benchmarking
i are originile n anii 1950 n Statele Unite i Japonia. n Statele Unite, companii ca
General Electric au nceput s foloseasc att controlul valorii ct i exerciiile statistice
comparative pentru evaluarea abordrilor alternative asupra activitilor lor de baz. n
Japonia, ingineria invers reprezenta o activitate major, pe care Toyoda de la Toyota
i-a dezvoltat ideile legate de kaizen - sau mbuntirea continu a activitii, pe baza
studiului pe care tot el l fcuse asupra modului n care firma Ford aborda manevrarea
materialelor n 1950. Totui, dezvoltarea becnhmarkingului, aa cum a fost denumit
aceast activitate, este legat n mare msur de firma Xerox din SUA i a dus la apariia
primei cri din domeniu, scris de eful compartimentului de benchmarking al firmei
n anii 1980 (Camp, 1989). Iniial, spre sfritul anilor 1970 i la nceputul anilor 1980,
Xerox s-a concentrat asupra activitii competitorilor si japonezi. Acest benchmarking
competitiv a fost curnd dublat de benchmarkingul generic prin care Xerox a trecut
de la competitorii imediai la companiile cu modele de practic puternice, oriunde s-ar
fi aflat acestea de exemplu n domeniul cilor ferate, al asigurrilor i generrii de
electricitate.
Benchmarkingul strategic, aprut n anii 1990, este puternic legat de conceptele
nvrii organizaionale i de organizaie de nvare, pe care muli comentatori le
consider drept cheia real n direcia obinerii unui avantaj competitiv ntr-un mediu
n permanent schimbare. Capacitile forei de munc privite colectiv, dar i individual,

A commonly used tool of management practitioners in the late twentieth century is

the tool of benchmarking (Bogan and English, 1994; Greengard, 1995). Although
definitions of benchmarking may vary slightly, the key aspect is generally accepted:
benchmarking is the process of comparing oneself to the best relevant competitors. For
example, Overman (1993) defines benchmarking as measuring the practices of ones
own company against the best practices of the competition. Similarly, Camp (1989)
proposes that the process of benchmarking requires establishing operating targets based
on the industry best practices.
Benchmark is a term we have borrowed from surveyors. If a surveyor can mark a

known position and altitude on a permanent landmark, it can serve as a reference point
for other measurements and other points. In much the same way, benchmarking, as
managers use that term, features the identification of a point of reference for comparison
or measurement purposes. With a benchmark, they can measure the performance gap
between where they are and where they want to be and can track their progress in
closing that gap.
The origins and tendencies of benchmarking

Comparisons have been the lifeblood of business in general and industrial relations
in particular for decades. The more systematic approach involved in benchmarking
had its origins in the 1950s in the US and Japan. In the USA, companies such as General
Electric began to use value control and comparative statistical exercises to evaluate
alternative approaches to basic functional activities. In Japan, reverse engineering
was a major activity, with Toyoda of Toyota developing his ideas on kaizen or continuous
improvement on the basis of his study of the Ford materials handling process in 1950.
However, the development of benchmarking as it has come to be known is very much
associated with Xerox in the USA, leading to the first book on the subject by the
companys head of benchmarking in the 1980s (Camp, 1989). Initially, in the late 1970s
and early l980s, Xerox focused on the activities of its Japanese competitors. This
competitive benchmarking was quickly joined by generic benchmarking, in which
Xerox looked beyond immediate competitors, to include companies with strong practices
wherever they were to be found railways, insurance and electricity generation, for
example.
Strategic benchmarking, which emerged in the 1990s, is closely associated with the
concepts of organizational learning and the learning organization, which many
commentators see as the real key to developing competitive advantage in a rapidly
changing environment. The skills of the workforce viewed collectively as well as
RRM 1-2007 31
formeaz competenele de baz ale organizaiei. Pentru dezvoltarea i amplificarea

acestor competene, organizaiile trebuie s depeasc stadiul n care specializarea
este vzut doar la nivelul indivizilor care nva ceva. elul final este ctigul
organizaiei, atunci cnd organizaia, privit ca o entitate, ncepe s dezvolte modaliti
de nvare colectiv, devenind o organizaie de nvare, al crei scop organizaional
central este nvarea sistematic. Dup cum afirm Keep i Rainbird (1999), n loc s
considerm c pregtirea i competenele sunt un plus deosebit, nvarea ocup locul
central i devine principiul organizaional principal, n jurul cruia pot fi dezvoltate
strategia de afaceri i avantajul competitiv (vezi i Mabey et al, 1998: 310-5) i, n
acelai timp, se poate atinge idealul perfecionrii continue.
Despre benchmarking s-a scris foarte mult n ultimii ani, dup ce conceptul a devenit
cunoscut prin intermediul Internetului, find promovat de consultani i guverne naionale.
ntr-adevr, acum exist reviste specializate care se ocup de acest subiect, de exemplu
Benchmarking for Quality Management and Technology and Benchmarking: an
International Journal. Dei exist i unele voci care pun sub semnul ntrebrii justeea
conceptului de cea mai bun practic, argumentnd c nu respect dovezile venite
din cercetare, conform crora abordarea incidenial i configuraional duc la rezultate
superioare (vezi, de exemplu, Martin i Beaumont, 1998), marea majoritate a
comentatorilor recunosc logica evident a acestui concept.
Cercetrile s-au axat n principal asupra laturii practice a benchmarkingului, abordnd
ndeosebi subiecte ca definirea celei mai bune practici, alegerea comparaiilor i
circumstanele n care poate avea loc acest transfer.
Benchmarkingul contribuie la creterea capacitii organizaiei de a obine o poziie
competitiv prin monitorizarea celor mai bune practici din domeniul indutrial respectiv
i prin determinarea unitilor de msur a performanei (Camp, 1989; Fitz-enz, 1993).
Un alt beneficiu este faptul c autoanaliza obligatorie pentru benchmarking ncurajeaz
identificarea unor modaliti mai eficiente de aciune. Prin monitorizarea sistemului de
lucru din alte organizaii, benchmarkingul ofer alternative pentru practicile la zi n
afaceri ale organizaiei i astfel poate ajuta la creterea performanei organizaiei
(Fitz-enz, 1993). Totui, benchmarkingul are i dezavantaje. Schimbrile necesare pentru
implementarea benchmarkingului solicit mult lucru n echip, angajament, o
concentrare obiectiv asupra problemelor implicate, alturi de dorina i capacitatea
organizaiei i a indivizilor de a se schimba (Fitz-enz, 1993; Greengard, 1995).
Introducerea schimbrilor poate fi costisitoare i dificil (Overman, 1993). n plus, o
abordare greit a bechmarkingului se poate dovedi contraproductiv pentru organizaia
sau organizaiile implicate, subminnd, n cele din urm, eforturile organizaiei de
aplicare a benchmarkingului (Wolfram-Cox et al, 1997). Este important de menionat
c Hamel i Pralahad (1994) sunt de prere c benchmarkingul poate fi doar un mod
de a se menine la acelai nivel cu practicile adoptate de alte organizaii, acolo unde
ele sunt necesare, nefiind ns suficient pentru creterea performanei organizaiei
(Vedder, 1992). Cu alte cuvinte, este posibil ca benchmarkingul s scoat n eviden

individually, form the organizations core competences. In order to develop and enhance
these competences, organizations need to go beyond seeing training as individuals
learning things. The goals are organizational earning, where the organization as an
entity starts to develop ways in which it can learn lessons collectively, and the learning
organization, where the central organizational goal is systemic learning. In Keep and
Rainbirds (1999) words, Instead of training and skills being a bolt-on extra, learning
moves to centre stage and becomes the chief organizational principle around which
business strategy and competitive advantage can be developed (see also Mabey et al.,
1998: 310-5), but also of achieving the holy grail of continuous improvement.
Benchmarking has spawned a voluminous literature in recent years as it has spread

its net and been promoted by consultants and national governments. Indeed, there are
now specialist journals dealing with the topic, for example Benchmarking for Quality
Management and Technology and Benchmarking: an International Journal. Although a
critical strand has questioned the appropriateness of the concept of best practice,
arguing it is at odds with the evidence of research suggesting that contingency and
configurationally approaches bring superior results (see, for example, Martin and
Beaumont, 1998), the great bulk has assumed the logic is self evident.
The main focus has been on the practicalities of benchmarking, with issues such as
the definition of best practice, the choice of comparisons and the circumstances of
transferability being especially prominent.
Benchmarking contributes to an organizations ability to attain a competitive position

by monitoring industry best practices and determining measures of productivity (Camp,
1989; Fitz-enz, 1993). A further benefit is that the self-analysis required by benchmarking
encourages the identification of more efficient ways of operating. Benchmarking, by
monitoring how other organizations function, offers alternatives to an organizations
current business practices and, thus, can assist the performance of the organization
(Fitz-enz, 1993). However, benchmarking is not without disadvantages. The changes
needed to implement benchmarking require a great deal of teamwork, commitment, an
objective focus on the issues concerned, and the willingness and ability on the part of
the organization, and individuals, to change (Fitz-enz, 1993; Greengard, 1995). It can
also be expensive and difficult to implement (Overman, 1993). Further, the use of the
wrong approach to benchmarking can be counter productive for the organization or
organizations involved and can ultimately undermine an organizations benchmarking
efforts (Wolfram-Cox et al, 1997). Importantly, Hamel and Prahalad (1994) suggest that
benchmarking may only be a way of remaining on par with the practices adopted by
other organizations, where such practices are necessary, but not sufficient, for enhanced
RRM 1-2007 33
numai practicile industriale adoptate deja pe scar larg de ctre organizaii, dar nu i
s le identifice pe acelea care determin avantajul competitiv. S-ar prea c nsui
benchmarkingul trebuie s fie supus procedurii de benchmarking. Beneficiile neclare
i nesigure ale benchmarking-ului n practic sunt studiate n acest articol, prin
intermediul unui benchmarking al nsui benchmarkingului, pentru a stabili dac
benchmarkingul este cu adevrat soluia cea mai bun n practic i, dac da, pentru a
vedea care anume practici ar trebui supuse benchmarkingului n AFI. Practicile care
fac deosebirea ntre grupuri, pe baza nivelului de performan, sunt deci necesare pentru
obinerea succesului (Vedder, 1992). Adic, practicile care pot fi descrise ca fiind
cele mai bune sunt acelea care fac diferena ntre performerii buni i ri.
Prin procesul de benchmarking, se pot identifica cele mai bune practici la locul de
munc (Camp, 1989; Fitz-enz 1993). n general, cea mai bun practic este considerat
a fi aceea care implic procedeele utilizate de firmele, industriile sau competitorii cei
mai buni din domeniul lor, considerate ca jaloane n comparaie cu care organizaiile
i pot alinia practicile, n ncercarea de a deveni mai competitive i de a anula diferenele
de performan (Camp, 1989; Mohrman et al, 1995). Gama de practici studiate poate
duce la descoperirea metodelor celor mai potrivite, cu un impact direct asupra
performanei i/sau a celor mai bune practici, indicatori ai unor fore mai profunde.
Componentele caracteristice celei mai bune practici includ adoptarea unor programe
de calitate, de pild managementul de calitate, structurarea organizaiei pe baza lucrului
n echip, o filosofie de mbuntire continu a activitii, aplicarea sistemului de
rezolvare la timpul potrivit a situaiilor i dezvoltarea i aplicarea unei relaii strnse
ofertant-client (Dertouzos et al, 1989; Oliver i Wilkinson, 1992).
Analiza noului instituionalism este cea care ne permite s nelegem mai bine
logica extrem de solid, care i determin pe manageri s foloseasc benchmarkingul
n cutarea unor soluii pentru cea mai bun practic. n exprimarea lui DiMaggio i
Powell (1983), procesul acesta reflect adaptarea, n egal msur, la forme mimetice
i coercitive de izomorfism. De menionat c termenul de cea mai bun practic
ofer soluiilor legitimitate deplin, mai ales dac ele ajung s fie incluse n recomandrile
organizaiilor profesionale i de consultan, atingnd astfel statutul pe care DiMaggio
i Powell l asociaz cu al treilea mecanism instituional, adic izomorfismul normativ.
n acest context legitimitatea poate fi deosebit de important, mai ales pentru a-i ajuta
pe manageri s conving reprezentanii angajailor lor cu privire la aciunile propuse,
dar i s ctige de partea lor pe acei colegi manageri care sunt nc nehotri.
Acest lucru ne amintete i de faptul c benchmarkingul a ajuns s joace un rol
important n funcionarea sistemelor de control n management (Ferner i Edwards,
1995). n ultimii ani, n corporaiile mari s-a putut observa funcionarea unui model
larg rspndit de decentralizare coordonat a responsabilitilor manageriale pe scurt,
marea corporaie este descentralizat din punct de vedere funcional, dar centralizat
din punct de vedere strategic (Whittington i Mayer, 1994). Pe lng rolul su n
descentralizarea bugetelor, benchmarkingul este considerat drept unul din mijloacele

organizational performance (Vedder, 1992). That is, benchmarking may only reveal
industry practices that have been widely adopted by organizations, but not necessarily
identify those that make for competitive advantage. It appears then that benchmarking
itself may need to be benchmarked. The unclear and uncertain benefits of benchmarking
as a practice are examined here by the benchmarking of benchmarking itself, to
determine if benchmarking is a best practice and, if so, what practices should be
benchmarked in the AFI. Practices that can distinguish groups by level of performance
are then necessary for success (Vedder, 1992). That is, the practices that can be described
as the best practices are those that differentiate between good and bad performers.
Through the process of benchmarking, the best workplace practices may be identified
(Camp, 1989; Fitz-enz, 1993). Best practice is generally accepted to involve the internal
processes of best-in-class firms, industries, or competitors as benchmarks towards which
other organizations may align their own practices in a bid to become more competitive
and close the performance gap (Camp, 1989; Mohrman et al, 1995). The range of
practices examined may surface best practices that have a direct impact on performance
and/or best practices that are indicators of deeper forces.
The typical components of best practice include the adoption of quality programs
such as total quality management, the implementation of teamwork-based organization,
a continuous improvement philosophy, the adoption of just-in-time systems and the
development and implementation of close supplier-customer relationships (Dertouzos
et al, 1989; Oliver and Wilkinson, 1992).
It is new institutionalism analysis that enables us to understand better the very

powerful logic underpinning managers use of benchmarking to pursue best practice
solutions. In the language of DiMaggio and Powell (1983), the process reflects the setting
in train of both mimetic and coercive forms of isomorphism. Crucially, the designation
best practice gives solutions great legitimacy, especially if they come to be incorporated
into the prescriptions of consultancy and professional organizations, thereby attaining
the status associated with Dimaggio and Powells third institutional mechanism, i.e.
normative isomorphism. Legitimacy in this context can be especially important in
helping managers not only to persuade employee representatives of the course of action
being proposed, but also to win over uncertain management colleagues.
This also serves as a reminder that benchmarking has come to play a key role in the
operation of management control systems (Ferner and Edwards, 1995). In recent years,
a widespread pattern of co-ordinate devolution of managerial responsibilities has taken
place within large corporations - in a phrase, the large corporation is decentralized
RRM 1-2007 35
prin care se poate realiza un echilibru ntre heteronomie i autonomie, adic

reglementarea de la centru, pe de o parte, i responsabilitatea local, pe de alt parte.
Principala sa valoare, aa cum s-a artat mai sus, const n faptul c pare s evite
impunerea, de ctre managerii generali, a unor soluii venite de sus. Din contr,
managerii locali sunt ncurajai s-i gseasc propriul drum spre perfecioanrea continu.
Caracteristici specifice benchmarkingului

Benchmarking-ul poate fi definit ca unealt pentru perfecionarea continu, prin
intermediul identificrii i mprtirii informaiilor despre cea mai bun practic.
Caracterul i eficiena activitilor de benchmarking sunt determinate de procedeul
cruia i se aplic benchmarkingul, fa de cine i n ce msur nvarea este incorporat
n practicile organizaiei. Catacterul i aplicarea unei game largi de activiti de
benchmarking benchmarking de date; benchmarking procesual; benchmarking
funcional; n sfrit, benchmarking strategic sunt bine documentate n literatura de
specialitate existent. Astzi este un fapt general acceptat c benchmarkingul trebuie
s fac mult mai mult dect simpla relevare comparativ a locului pe care l ocup
performana unei organizaii, n termeni cantitativi (adic benchmarking de date).
Benchmarkingul procesual este considerat mai valoros, deoarece el relev informaii
despre procesele care stau la baza cifrelor de performan, oferind astfel i sugestii
despre modul n care deficienele de performan pot fi anulate (vezi Phillips i
Appiah-Adu 1998). Deficienele de performan pot fi legate de deficienele de cost,
dar, din ce n ce mai mult, benchmarkingul este considerat drept un mijloc de anulare
a deficienelor de calitate a serviciilor.
Muli dintre autorii unor studii de benchmarking au recunoscut c principiul de
baz pentru folosirea acestuia este inovaia n domeniul serviciilor. De exemplu, Zairi
(1994) consider inovaia n domeniul serviciilor drept un nou mod de a oferi clientului
calitate sigur i orientat spre viabilitatea economic. Inovaia n domeniul serviciilor
poate fi mprit n dou tipuri de proces i de produs. Chan et al. (1998) definesc
inovaiile legate de procesul de producie drept cele legate de dezvoltarea unor procedee
mai eficiente de asigurare a serviciilor, de exemplu sistemele de mprire a bugetului,
sistemele de comunicare cu angajaii.
Inovaiile din sfera produsului, pe de alt parte, sunt legate de dezvoltarea unor
servicii noi. Este important ca organizaiile s-i selecteze cu atenie prioritile de
benchmarketing, astfel nct s nu iroseasc resurse valoroase n benchmarking, un
proces a crui mbuntire are un impact redus asupra eficienei sau a rezultatelor
obinute per total de organizaie. Hutton i Zairi sunt de prere c, n general, procesele
studiate n scopuri de benchmarking trebuie s fie prioritare n funcie de importana
lor strategic viitoare (adic de nivelul potenial la care va ajunge afacerea), de importana
economic, de incapacitatea de schimbare perceput i de uurina cu care procesele
pot fi supuse unui benchmarking eficient (1995: 403).

operationally, but centralized strategically. Along with devolved budgets, benchmarking

is to be seen as one of the devices used to help strike a balance between heteronomy
and autonomy, i.e. central regulation, on the one hand, and local responsibility, on the
other. Its great value, as indicated above, is that it supposedly avoids senior managers
having to impose particular solutions from above. Instead, local managers are encouraged
to find their own paths to continuous improvement.
The nature of benchmarking

Benchmarking can be defined as a tool for continuous improvement via the
identification and sharing of best practice. The nature and effectiveness of benchmarking
activities is governed by what you benchmark, against whom and the extent to which
learning is incorporated into the organization. The nature and application of a range of
benchmarking activities data benchmarking; process benchmarking; functional
benchmarking; and strategic benchmarking is well documented in existing literature.
It is now accepted that benchmarking should go beyond revealing the relative position
of the performance of an organization in quantitative terms (i.e. data benchmarking).
Process benchmarking is regarded as more valuable in that it reveals information about
the underlying processes which lie behind the performance figures, thus offering
suggestions as to how performance gaps can be closed (see Phillips and Appiah-Adu
1998). Performance gaps may relate to cost gaps, but increasingly benchmarking is
being advocated as a means of closing service quality gaps.
Many writers on benchmarking have recognized that a key rationale for its use is to
achieve service innovation. For example, Zairi (1994) views service innovation as the
new way of delivering quality to the customer both consistently and with economic
viability in mind. Service innovation can be broken down into two types process and
product. Chan et al. (1998) define process innovations as those relating to the
development of more efficient procedures in the delivery of the services, e.g. budgeting
systems, customer service procedures, employee communication systems.
Product innovations, on the other hand, relate to the development of new services.
It is important that organizations carefully select benchmarking priorities in order to
ensure valuable resources are not wasted in benchmarking, a process whose
improvement has little impact on the organizations overall efficiency or effectiveness.
Hutton and Zairi suggest that, in general, processes under consideration for benchmarking
should be prioritized according to their future strategic importance (i.e. potential business
leverage), economic importance, perceived inability to change and the ease with which
the processes can be benchmarked effectively (1995: 403).
RRM 1-2007 37
Tot mai multe lucrri ncearc s descrie natura valorii adugate a benchmarkingului
privit ca abordare managerial. Cum sunt puini acei teoreticieni care i-au pus ntrebri
cu privire la aplicarea benchmarking-ului n managementul de relaii publice, am
ncercat s evalum msura n care motivele menionate de nespecialiti pentru utilizarea
benchmarking-ului ca surs de mbuntire a activitii manageriale pot fi aplicate
profesionitilor n relaiile publice. Motivele au fost mprite n categorii, ca rezultat fie
al benchmarkingului procesual, de produs sau al amndurora. Aceste motive i modul
n care s-a constatat c ele au fost respectate n benchmarkingul relaiilor publice, pot
fi prezentate astfel:
1. mbuntirea comunicaiilor i a motivrii. Activitile de benchmarking sunt n
general desfurate de ctre echipe alctuite de specialiti asistai de experi din alte
discipline funcionale/operative. Aceast situaie poate duce la mbuntirea relaiilor
ntre relaiile publice i alte departamente organizaionale sau indivizi.
2. Armonizarea cu trendul de msurare a calitii managementului. Benchmarkingul
face parte dintr-un trend recent n marketing, care se orienteaz spre folosirea datelor
empirice pentru msurarea performanei. Aceast abordare aparent mai tiinific a
managementului pare s fie preferabil, n management, tendinei de folosire a intuiiei
i judecii. Adeseori, benchmarkingul este o component necesar n cadrul multor
programe organizaionale de evaluare a calitii managementului (TQM). Performana
efectiv a acestei abordri se bazeaz pe evaluarea constant, cantitativ i calitativ,
a activitii depuse de ctre profesioniti.
3. Obinerea unui avans tehnologic. Benchmarkingul asupra organizaiilor din afara
mediului industrial n cauz duce adesea la identificarea i incorporarea avansului
tehnologic nerecunoscut n industria proprie. De exemplu, folosirea codurilor de bare
pentru catalogarea informaiilor companiei, aa cum se face n magazinele alimentare,
a fost folosit de ctre un birou de relaii publice pentru acumularea mai rapid i
eficient de informaii necesare pentru publicaii importante.
4. Obinerea unor informaii manageriale corecte. Un benchmarking eficient se
bazeaz pe analiza sistematic, de ctre specialitii de relaii publice, a dovezilor
obiective de performan a departamentului respectiv (de exemplu, folosirea valorilor
cifrice pentru comparaii).
5. Identificarea zonelor de oportunitate. Benchmarkingul relaiilor publice poate fi
folosit pentru identificarea circumstanelor n care resursele de relaii publice (adic
cele financiare, umane, de timp i materiale) se folosesc ineficient (adic nu se folosesc
n scopurile potrivite). n termeni de evaluarea calitii managementului, informaiile
de benchmarking s-au folosit n diferite moduri pentru a evalua msura n care resursele
de relaii publice se folosesc n cantitatea necesar pentru a face mereu lucrul potrivit
la timpul potrivit.
6. Evaluarea performanei/capabilitii funcionale. Benchmarkingul de relaii publice
eficient, aplicat ca atare, poate duce la realizarea unei evaluri corecte a pregtirii
fiecrui profesionist n relaii publice i a nevoilor de dezvoltare. Tot astfel se obin i

There is a growing volume of literature which purports to describe the value added
nature of benchmarking as a management approach. Since very few scholars have
addressed questions about the application of benchmarking to the management of PR,
we attempted to assess whether the reasons commonly mentioned by non-PR
professionals for using benchmarking as a management improvement approach were
applicable to PR professionals. The reasons have been categorized as resulting from
benchmarking processes, products or both. These reasons, and the ways in which they
have been observed in use in PR, include the following:
1. To improve communications and motivation. Benchmarking processes are

generally performed by teams consisting of PR professionals who are assisted by experts
from other functional/operational disciplines. This can lead to improved relationships
between PR and other organizational departments or individuals.
2. To coaling with the TQM/measurement trend. Benchmarking is part of a recent

trend in management towards utilizing empirical data for performance measurement.
This seemingly more scientific approach to management is viewed as being preferable
to a predisposition for using intuition and judgment. Benchmarking is often a required
component of many organizational TQM programs. Effective performance of the
approach requires professionals to constantly quantify and qualify their activities.
3. To obtain technological advances. Benchmarking organizations outside ones

own industry often leads to the identification and incorporation of technological advances
not recognized in ones own industry. For example, the use of bar coding for cataloguing
company information, such as that done in grocery stores, has been used by one PR
function to more quickly and efficiently gather information to be used in important
publications.
4. To obtain unbiased management information. Effective benchmarking requires

PR practitioners to systematically analyze objective evidence of the functions
performance (i.e., using metrics for comparison).
5. To identify areas of opportunity. PR benchmarking can be used to identify the

circumstances under which PR resources (i.e., financial, human, time, materials) are
used inefficiently (i.e., they are unproductive or less productive than the benchmark)
and ineffectively (i.e., they are not used for those right purposes). In TQM terms,
benchmarking information has been used in various ways to assess whether PR resources
are being used in the right amount to do the right things at the right times all the time.
6. To assess functional performance/capability. Effective PR benchmarking, when

focused as such, can be used to generate unbiased assessments of each PR professionals
RRM 1-2007 39
datele normative care permit compararea performanei comportamentale a indivizilor

din diferite organizaii. S-a demonstrat c aceasta este deosebit de util, date fiind mai
ales provocrile dificile, din zona comportamental, cu care se confrunt managerii
din relaiile publice atunci cnd trebuie s evalueze performana subordonailor lor.
7. Susinerea schimbrilor manageriale din organizaie i asigurarea supravieuirii
acesteia. Rezultatele din benchmarkingul de relaii publice pot fi folosite pentru a semnala
nevoia de schimbare n cadrul organizaiei de relaii publice. O abordare eficient n
benchmarking poate ajuta la detectarea la timp a problemelor, nainte ca acestea s
devin prea complicate i grave.
8. Folosirea n planificare i evaluare. Procedeele de benchmarking i rezultatele
lor au fost folosite pentru planificarea relaiilor publice, n ceea ce privete stabilirea
prioritilor de alocare a resurselor pentru diferite programe i/sau profesioniti. n ceea
ce privete evaluarea, studiile de benchmarking au fost folosite nainte de a decide
schimbrile majore, iar ulterior, ntr-un anumit moment, pentru evaluarea eficienei
iniiativei respective.
9. mbuntirea sistemului de luare a deciziilor. Ca activitate de constatare a faptelor,
benchmarkingul genereaz dovezi obiective ntr-un mod nepreferenial. Informaiile
valabile sunt o surs esenial pentru luarea deciziilor pentru ca problemele s fie
evitate, pentru ca riscurile i irosirea resurselor (de exemplu resurse de timp, materiale,
umane) s fie minimizate. Datele de benchmarking se dovedesc o surs valabil i de
ncredere, pe baza creia se pot face planuri i se pot lua decizii.
Teme i probleme
Aparent, exist multe similariti n practica de benchmarking la diferite niveluri.
ntre acestea se numr accentul pe nvare, pe identificarea celei mai bune practici
sau a practicii preferate i pe stabilirea anumitor eluri. Multe dintre temele i
problemele ridicate de benchmarking par s fie similare. Astfel, muli cercettori afirm
la unison c, att la nivel micro, ct i la cel macro, benchmarkingul este mai dificil
dect pare (Delbridge et al.,. 1995; Tronti, 1998; Schmid et al., 1999; Arrowsmith i
Sisson, 2001). Definirea celei mai bune practici nu e uoar, mai ales atunci cnd
exist mai multe politici, potenial conflictuale, cu privire la elurile finale. Ca urmare,
benchmarkingul de performan ajunge rareori benchmarking procesual, i cu att mai
puin benchmarking strategic. Cu alte cuvinte, n loc s se concentreze asupra nvrii
i perfecionrii continue, benchmarkingul tinde s se ocupe exclusiv de msurtori
cantitative.
Concentrarea asupra numerelor, aa cum o numesc Elmuti i Kathawala (1997:
236) este mult mai simpl dect analiza motivelor pentru care apar diferene ntre ele.
Din acelai motiv, n loc s fie o for de schimbare, benchmarkingul nu face mare
lucru n afar de copierea celor mai bune practici (deja depite), lucru care s-ar putea
dovedi nepotrivit n funcie de situaie i de moment. Jocul de-a prinselea prin

training and development needs. It also yields normative data enabling comparison
behave the performance of individuals between organizations. This has been shown to
be especially useful in light of the often difficult behavioral challenges faced by PR
managers in having to judge the work performance of their subordinates.
7. To assist with the management of change in the function and to ensure its survival.
PR benchmarking results can be used to signal that adjustments are needed within the
PR organization. An effective benchmarking approach can be a helpful distant early
warning system of problems before they become too complicated and large.
8. To use for planning and evaluation. Benchmarking processes and results have
been used for PR planning with respect to establishing priorities for resource allocation
across programs and/or professionals. For evaluation purposes, benchmarking studies
have been used before undertaking major change initiatives and then again at a
predetermined subsequent point in time to assess the effectiveness of the initiative.
9. To improve decision making. As a fact-finding activity, benchmarking generates

objective evidence in an unbiased manner. Valid information is an essential input to
the decision making process so that problems can be avoided, risks and resources waste
(i.e., time, materials, human) can be minimized. Benchmark data provides valid and
reliable input on which to plan and make decisions.
Issues and problems

Superficially, there are many similarities in the practice of benchmarking at the
different levels. These include the emphases on learning, identifying best practice or
preferred practice and target setting. Many of the issues and problems that benchmarking
raises also appear to be similar. Thus, a common refrain of commentators at both the
micro and macro levels is that benchmarking is more difficult than it seems (Delbridge
et al.,. 1995; Tronti, 1998; Schmid et al., 1999; Arrowsmith and Sisson, 2001). Defining
best practice is no easy matter, especially when there are several and potentially
conflicting policy goals. The result is that performance benchmarking rarely becomes
process benchmarking, let alone strategic benchmarking. Instead of being about learning
and continuous improvement, in other words, benchmarking tends to be concerned
exclusively with quantitative measures.
Focusing on the numbers, as Elmuti and Kathawala (1997: 236) put it, is so much
easier than analyzing the reasons for the differences behind them. For the same reason,
instead of being a force for change, benchmarking can amount to little more that a
lemming-like copying of (yesterdays) best practice, which may be unsuited to different
circumstances or times. The playing of catch-up benchmarking encourages can put a
RRM 1-2007 41
benchmarking risc s pun o frn n calea unei analize serioase a problemelor i/sau
experimentrii soluiilor pentru acestea (vezi, de exemplu, sinteza realizat de
Longbottom, 2000).
Dei formele mai complexe de benchmarking pot minimiza unele dintre aceste
probleme, rmn totui dificulti fundamentale prin deplasarea de la nivelul micro la
cel macro, unde apar diferene majore. Este extrem de important ca relaia dintre cei
implicai s fie foarte diferit la nivel micro, fa de nivelul macro. Evident,
benchmarkingul le poate acoperi pe amndou i, n plus, poate funciona i n
dimensiunea extern. Totui, n funcie de nivel, echilibrul dintre ele este foarte diferit,
cu implicaii profunde pentru alegerea comparaiilor i pentru implementare. La nivelul
micro, benchmarkingul are loc n cadrul structurii verticale, adic iararhice, specifice
pentru organizaiile de afaceri. Fundamental, benchmarkingul are o dimensiune intern.
Compania poate cuta n afar cea mai bun practic, dar problema implementrii
este strict intern. ntmpltor sau nu, acest lucru este caracteristic i pentru cluburile
de benchmarking, n care particip mai multe companii apar probleme serioase de
ncredere i negociere, ns nu legate de implementare, care rmne prerogativa fiecrei
companii n parte.
Benchmarkingul joac un rol important n legitimare, dar marile companii dein un
sistem complex de control, formal i informal, prin care asigur conformarea managerilor
locali (vezi, de exemplu, Ferner i Edwards, 1995).
n practic, ce poate face conducerea firmei pentru ca benchmarking-ul s fie o
strategie eficient, pozitiv? Rspunsul se afl n modelare, o tehnic de schimbare
comportamental care promoveaz creterea gradat de la un comportament iniial la
elul dorit (Grant i Evans, 1994). n modelare, consolidarea sau rsplata depind de
comportamente care sunt din ce n ce mai apropiate de rspunsul final sau int, adic
de benchmark. Ideea central este ncurajarea apropierii treptate de scopul final.
Modelarea amintete, prin caracteristicile ei, de jocul cald sau rece din vremea
copilriei (Morgan, 1974). n general, consolidarea, mai fierbinte, apare numai atunci
cnd micarea se apropie de obiectiv mai mult dect micrile precedente. n acest
mod, se consolideaz numai acele rspunsuri care sunt din ce n ce mai apropiate de
elul final.
Modelarea cu succes cere cunoatere, ndemnare i rbdare: cunoaterea
comportamentelor potrivite i a secvenei comportamentale care constituie performana
dorit; rbdarea de a-i urmri pe alii greind ceva ce tu faci foarte bine; i ndemnarea
de a recunoate i de a consolida chiar i cele mai mici mbuntiri. Cei mai muli
dintre noi nu suntem nali specialiti n identificarea micilor schimbri. i totui, aceast
abilitate este esenial pentru managerii cei mai eficieni i de succes, la fel i pentru
profesori, consilieri sau traineri i ea poate fi nvat. Atunci cnd se aplic aa cum
trebuie, modelarea este cea mai eficient i mai rapid cale spre marea performan
(Daniels, 1989). Un obiectiv despre care se credea c nu poate fi atins devine posibil
printr-o serie de mici schimbri progresive (Quinn, 1980).

stop to serious analysis of problems and/or experimentation with their solutions (see,
for example, the review in Longbottom, 2000).
Though more sophisticated forms of benchmarking can minimize some of these

problems, fundamental difficulties still remain as its use moves from the micro to the
macro levels, with significant differences emerging. Critically important is that the
relationships of those involved are very different at the micro and macro levels. Evidently,
benchmarking can have both an internal and external dimension. Depending on the
level, however, the balance between them is very different, with profound implications
for the choice of comparisons and for implementation. At the micro level, benchmarking
takes place within the vertical or hierarchical structure that typifies the business
organization. Benchmarking has an essentially internal dimension. The company may
look externally for best practice, but the issue of implementation is purely internal.
Incidentally, this is also true of benchmark clubs involving a number of companies
these raise significant issues of trust and negotiation, 17 but not about implementation,
which remains the prerogative of the individual company.
Benchmarking plays an important legitimating role, but large companies also have
a range of controls, formal and informal, to ensure that local managers come into line
(see, for example, Ferner and Edwards, 1995).
From a practical standpoint, what can management do to help ensure that

benchmarking will be an effective, positive strategy? The answer lies in shaping, a
behavior change technique that promotes gradual improvement from a known, initial
behavior to the desired goal (Grant & Evans, 1994). In shaping, reinforcement or reward
depends on behaviors that are increasingly similar to the terminal or goal response, i.e.,
the benchmark. The key idea is to encourage gradual approximations to the end goal.
Shaping shares certain features of the childrens game of hot and cold (Morgan, 1974).
In general, the reinforcing consequence, saying hotter, occurs only when movement
is closer to the object than previous movements. In this way, only responses that are
increasingly similar to the goal are reinforced.
Successful shaping requires knowledge, skill, and patience: knowledge of the proper
behaviors and the sequence of behaviors that constitute the desirable performance; the
patience to watch others make mistakes at something you do well; and the skill to
recognize and reinforce even small improvement. Most of us are not highly skilled at
identifying small improvements in performance and reinforcing them. We tend to look
for all or nothing changes. Yet this ability is essential for the most effective and efficient
managers, teachers, counselors, and coaches and can be learned. When done properly,
shaping is the most efficient and quickest route to high performance (Daniels, 1989).
What was believed to be unattainable becomes reachable through a series of small
incremental changes (Quinn, 1980).
RRM 1-2007 43
Pentru implementarea unei strategii de modelare eficiente, sunt necesare cteva

etape importante (Luthans i Kreitner, 1975):
1. Definirea precis sau evidenierea elului sau a comportamentului int. Acest
comportament int trebuie ntotdeauna s fie legat de performan.
2. Dac acest comportament int este un lan comportamental complex, el trebuie
redus la o secven de pai comportamentali sau evenimente distincte, uor de observat
i, deci, uor de cuantificat.
3. Membrii organizaiei trebuie s fie capabili s ndeplineasc cerinele i abilitile
necesare pentru noul el. Dac este necesar, ei trebuie pregtii pentru comportamentul
corespunztor.
4. Selectarea modalitilor cu potenial pozitiv de eficien n consolidare, pe baza
istoriei organizaiei i percepiei membrilor.
5. Toate consolidrile pozitive trebuie s se realizeze printr-o apropiere treptat de
elul sau scopul final. Lanul comportamental trebuie cldit pas cu pas.
6. Meninerea i ntrirea comportamentului int. Odat ce se atinge elul dorit el
trebuie monitorizat, coordonat i consolidat continuu.
Bugete i benchmarkuri n relaiile publice

Prevederea activitilor ateptate a fost ntotdeauna una din cele mai nesigure sarcini
din relaiile publice, afacerile publice i comunicaiile corporatiste. Ca urmare, multe
operaiuni de relaii publice depesc, aproape firesc, bugetele int alocate. Aceste
defecte apar cu precdere n marile organizaii de relaii publice cu multe uniti
descentralizate. Unii directori executivi de relaii publice cred c aceste probleme
mpiedic acceptarea profesional de ctre ali profesioniti la acelai nivel, n cadrul
organizaiilor lor. Dincolo de asta, presiunea costurilor n cretere necesit justificri
mai mari din partea tuturor unitilor din cadrul organizaiei.
Din cauza naturii activitii pe care o implic, relaiile publice ajung uneori s nu
mai poat face o planificare detaliat. Muli oameni cu experien afirm c nu ar avea
rost s pretindem de la relaiile publice s-i justifice cheltuielile aa cum se ntmpl
n mediul ingineresc, de producie, de vnzri sau de personal. Managerii cu experien
n relaiile publice cunosc realitatea ce decurge din existena costurilor aa-numite
sub linie: ali directori de departamente sunt nemulumii de aceast ficiune contabil;
performana anual a directorilor executivi de relaii publice poate fi afectat; mai
mult, cauzele depirilor de costuri se uit cu timpul.
Benchmarkingul ca planificare strategic are categoric un viitor. Profesionitii relaiilor
publice au ansa de a se afirma n cadrul echipelor de management strategic, nelegnd
principiile benchmarkingului strategic i ajutndu-i organizaiile sau clienii s le aplice
pentru soluionarea problemelor din domeniul de afaceri respectiv. Benchmarkingul
nu definete numai ceea ce produce o organizaie, ci i modul n care produsele i
serviciile sunt proiectate, fabricate i lansate pe pia. n loc s se bazeze doar pe

To implement an effective shaping strategy, several steps should be followed (Luthans

& Kreitner, 1975):
1. Precisely define or pinpoint the goal or target behavior. This target behavior should
always be related to performance.
2. If the target behavior is a complex chain of behavior, reduce it to a discrete,

observable, and thus measurable sequence of specific behavioral events or steps.
3. Make sure organizational members are capable of meeting the skill or ability
requirements for the new goal. Train them in appropriate behaviors if needed.
4. Select potentially effective positive reinforces on the basis of the organizations

history & members perceptions.
5. Make all positive reinforcement contingent upon successively closer

approximations to the target or goal. The behavioral chain must be built link by link.
6. Maintain and strengthen target behavior. Once the desired target response is
achieved, it must be continually monitored, managed, and reinforced.
Budgets and benchmarks in PR

Forecasting expected activities has always been one of the most uncertain tasks in
public relations, public affairs and corporate communications. As a consequence, many
PR operations almost routinely overrun planned budget targets. These shortcomings are
especially prevalent in large PR organizations with many decentralized units. Some PR
executives believe these problems are preventing professional acceptance by peers
within their organizations. Beyond this, increased cost pressures demand greater
accountability from all organizational units.
Because of the nature of its work, public relations are sometimes unable to do detail
planning. And many experienced people say it is unreasonable to expect PR to match
the accountability of engineering, manufacturing, sales or personnel. Experienced
managers in public relations know the realities flowing from having a portion of costs
carried below-the-line: other departmental peers resent this accounting fiction; annual
performance ratings for PR executives can be affected; and the causes of the overruns
can get lost with time.
Benchmarking as a strategic planning tactic is definitely here to stay. Public relations

professionals can earn a spot on the strategic management team by understanding
RRM 1-2007 45
comparaia cu competitorii direci, benchmarking-ul folosete date i din alte domenii

industriale. Totui, costurile de benchmarking pot fi foarte ridicate. Profesionitii din
domeniul relaiilor publice au ansa de a se afirma n cadrul echipei de management
strategic prin nelegerea principiilor de benchmarking, ajutndu-i astfel organizaiile
sau clienii s le aplice, pentru soluionarea problemelor de resort.
Benchmarkingul se deosebete de analiza competitiv prin dou aspecte. El nu
definete numai ceea ce produce o organizaie, ci i modul n care produsele i serviciile
sunt proiectate, fabricate i lansate pe pia. n plus, n loc s se bazeze doar pe
comparaia cu competitorii direci, el folosete date i din alte domenii industriale. n
concluzie, benchmarkingul poate facilita o performan mbuntit, dar asta nu se
ntmpl ntotdeauna. El poate avea efecte atunci cnd are drept rezultat eluri de
dificultate moderat pentru organizaie, dar atunci cnd elurile sunt considerate radical
diferite de activitatea trecut a organizaiei, angajaii fie nu reuesc s neleag
schimbarea, fie o consider inacceptabil sau imposibil de ndeplinit (Reger, Gustafson,
DeMarie i Mullane, 1994). n aceste situaii, ncercrile radicale de nlocuire a vechilor
eluri ale organizaiei cu altele noi, rezultate din benchmarking, au mai multe anse de
a fi primite cu suspiciune.
Se prea poate ca benchmarkingul s fi fost acela care i-a obligat pe manageri s
recunoasc modul eronat n care au neles performana potenial a organizaiei
(Munroe-Faure i Munroe-Faure, 1992). Pe de alt parte, e posibil ca muli dintre cei cu
performane medii i slabe s fi fost copleii de discrepana dintre performana lor i
cea din benchmark, fapt pentru care s considere c atingerea elului este imposibil.
Un mare numr de cercetri au demonstrat c elurile imposibile nu duc la creterea
performanei (Locke i Latham, 1990).
Situaia optim este cea n care diferena dintre actual i ideal este suficient de mare
pentru a crea tensiunea necesar ca motivaie a schimbrii (Huff, Huff i Thomas, 1992),
dar nu att de mare nct elul s fie perceput ca fiind imposibil de atins (Osgood i
Tannenbaum, 1995).
Tipuri i eluri ale benchmarketingului de relaii publice

Benchmarkingul se poate orienta spre procedurile, practicile, rolurile, produsele/
serviciile de relaii publice sau spre problemele strategice. De exemplu, el poate fi
folosit pentru studiul practicilor existente, prin verificarea modului n care diferite practici
de relaii publice susin cele mai importante procedee sau obiectivele eseniale din
program. Cu privire la roluri, benchmarkingul are rolul de a identifica tocmai ce face
un profesionist sau departament de PR pentru organizaie. Din acest punct de vedere,
benchmarkingul se folosete pentru evaluarea misiunii departamentului de relaii publice
i a modului n care se traduce aceasta n termenii serviciilor i operaiunilor din cadrul
organizaiei i ntr-un sens organizaional mai larg.

benchmarking principles and helping their organizations or clients apply them to solve
business problems. Benchmarking not only defines what an organization produces, but
how it designs, manufactures, and markets its products or services. Rather than relying
solely on comparisons with direct competitors, it uses data from other industries.
However, benchmarking can be expensive. Public relations professionals can earn spots
on the strategic management team by understanding benchmarking principles and
helping their organizations or clients apply them to solve business problems.
Benchmarking differs from competitive analysis on two counts. It not only defines
what an organization produces but how it designs, manufactures and markets its products
or services. And, rather than relying solely on comparisons with direct competitors, it
uses data from other industries. In summary, benchmarking may facilitate improved
performance, but not always. Benchmarking can be effective when it results in
moderately difficult goals for an organization, but when the goals are seen as radical
departures from the organizations past, employees either fail to understand the change
or perceive it to be unacceptable or impossible to reach (Reger, Gustafson, DeMarie, &
Mullane, 1994). In these situations, radical attempts to replace old organizational goals
with new benchmarked ones are much more likely to be met with resistance.
Benchmarking also may have forced management to admit that their current beliefs
about potential organizational performance were inaccurate (Munroe-Faure &
Munroe-Faure, 1992). Conversely, many of the medium- and low-performers may have
been overwhelmed by the discrepancy between their performance and that of the
benchmark, therefore viewing the goal as impossible. A large body of research has
demonstrated that impossible goals do not lead to performance enhancement (Locke &
Latham, 1990).
The optimum situation is when the difference between current and ideal is large
enough to create the stress necessary to motivate change (Huff, Huff, & Thomas, 1992),
but is not so great that the goal is perceived as unreachable (Osgood & Tannenbaum,
1955).
Types and targets of PR benchmarking

Benchmarking can focus on PR processes, practices, roles, products/services, or
strategic issues. For example, it can be used to examine existing practices by examining
how various PR practices support major processes or critical program objectives. With
respect to roles, benchmarking is done to identify what a PR professional or function
does for the organization. In this focus, benchmarking is employed to assess on the
mission of the PR unit and how this is translated in terms of services and operations
within the organization and with respect to the broader organizational environment.
RRM 1-2007 47
Obiectivul temelor strategice de benchmarking este acela de a identifica acei factori

de importan major pentru obinerea avantajului competitiv, definind elementele de
excelen specifice pentru aceste probleme, dar i de a identifica organizaiile cunoscute
ca performere de top pe aceste probleme. Dincolo de cunoaterea elementelor crora
trebuie s li se acorde atenie maxim, identificarea organizaiilor crora urmeaz s li
se fac benchmarkingul este i ea util. n general, benchmarkingul de relaii publice
se concentreaz pe trei niveluri int, dup cum urmeaz:
1. Benchmarkingul intern se refer la analiza practicilor de relaii publice existente
n diferite departamente sau divizii ale aceleiai organizaii; analiza celei mai bune
performane a acestora este dublat de identificarea determinanilor sau a cauzelor lor.
Analiza benchmarkingului intern se orienteaz, adeseori, spre cercetarea lanurilor
specifice de valori, sau a secvenei activitilor determinante din cadrul departamentului
respectiv.
Determinanii de performan grbesc o serie de aciuni sau activiti care rspund
cerinelor sau solicitrilor comunitii organizaionale sau ale acionarilor. Determinanii
pot fi interni sau externi. ntre determinanii interni se numr elemente cum sunt cultura
organizaional, structura organizaiei, sistemele, viziunea, resursele, produsele,
serviciile, creterea sau conducerea acesteia. ntre determinanii externi se numr:
contextul industrial al organizaiei, locaia activitilor ei, regulamentele cu care se
confrunt, tehnologia folosit n pentru plasarea pe pia a produselor/serviciilor i
gradul de rivalitate competitiv prezent pe piaa clienilor organizaiei. Multe organizaii
i-au nceput activitile de benchmarking prin benchmarking-ul intern.
2. Benchmarkingul competitorilor apare atunci cnd organizaia i compar
practicile i funcionarea departamentelor proprii de relaii publice cu un produs/serviciu
oferit de un competitor de pe pia. n acelai mod, organizaiile guvernamentale pot fi
supuse i ele unui proces de benchmarking. Un avantaj al acestui tip relativ restrns de
benchmarking este acela c el ajut la susinerea strategiei organizaionale, prin
identificarea slbiciunilor i elementelor de for ale activitilor de PR ale competitorilor
de pe pia i, nainte de orice, prin ncercarea de a obine avantaje de pe urma acestor
factori. Un alt avantaj este c e mai uor s compari procedurile i performanele pe o
singur pia de produse/servicii, dect pe piee diferite.
3. Benchmarkingul funcional/generic/al celor mai bune practici are scopul cel
mai larg. Organizaiile care realizeaz un benchmarking generic studiaz mai multe
domenii sau sectoare industriale, n cutarea unor practici noi sau perfecionate, care
pot fi folosite pentru mbuntirea performanei lor. O problem obinuit legat de
aceast form de benchmarking este cea a efectului de aur. Acest efect sugereaz
c o organizaie cu practici binecunoscute ntr-un domeniu (de exemplu mult ludatele
capaciti de coordonare a comunicaiilor n situaii de criz, ale firmei Johnson and
Johnson) va fi tot cea mai tare sau aproape de perfeciune n toate celelalte tipuri de
comunicare (de exemplu, la firma Johnson and Johnson, comunicarea ntre angajai,
programele de comunicare cu investitorii sau la nielul ntregii comuniti). Companiile

The objective of benchmarking strategic issues is to identify those factors of critical

importance to competitive advantage, defining measures of excellence which capture
these issues, and to identify organizations that are known to be top performers on these
measured attributes. Beyond knowing on what to focus, it is also instructive to identify
the parties that should be benchmarked. In general, PR benchmarking is focused at
three different target levels, including the following:
1. Internal benchmarking refers to the analysis of existing PR practices within various

departments or divisions of the same organization, examining for best performance as
well as identifying drivers or causes of work. Internal benchmarking analysis often looks
at the specific value chains or sequences of driver-activity combinations of the function.
Performance drivers act as precipitators of a series of actions or activities that respond

to the requests or demands of organizational publics or stakeholders. Drivers can be
internal or external. Internal drivers include such matters as the organizations culture,
structure, systems, vision, resources, products, services, growth, or leadership. External
drivers include factors such as the organizations industry context, location of
organizational activities, regulations facing the organization, technology utilized in
producing product/service market outputs, and the degree of competitive rivalry present
in the organizations customer marketplace. Many organizations have begun an ongoing
benchmarking initiative by doing internal benchmarking.
2. Competitor benchmarking occurs when one organization compares its PR practices

and functions with a product/service market competitor. Governmental organizations
can also be benchmarked in similar ways. An advantage of this relatively narrow type
of benchmarking is that it helps to support organizational strategy in that the weaknesses
and strengths of a product market competitors PR activities can be identified and
prioritized plans made to capitalize on these factors. Another advantage is that it is
easier to compare processes and performance within a similar product/service market
than across dissimilar ones.
3. Functional/Generic/Best Practices is the broadest form of benchmarking in scope.

Organizations which perform generic benchmarking look across multiple industries or
sectors for innovative new and/or state of the art practices that can be used to improve
their PR performance. A common problem associated with this form of benchmarking
is associated with the halo effect. This effect suggests that an organization with well
known practices in one area (for example, Johnson and Johnsons well-regarded crisis
communications management abilities) will also be best in class or state of the art in
all other communications areas (for example, Johnson and Johnsons employee
communications, investor communications, or community communications programs).
RRM 1-2007 49
considerate a fi cele mai tari ntr-unul sau mai multe domenii nu sunt n mod necesar
perfecte i n alte domenii.
Modelul procesual al benchmarkingului de relaii publice

Exist mai multe modele procesuale comune de benchmarking, folosite de
departamentele de relaii publice, fiecare dintre aceste modele avnd ntre 4 i 10
etape. Acestea sunt, n general, o adaptare a modelelor folosite de AT&T, Alcoa, DuPont,
Xerox sau a eforturilor altor companii mari, n msura n care aceste eforturi sunt fcute
publice. Modelul n 10 pai, aparinnd lui Robert C. Camp este cel folosit de Xerox i
care a ajutat firma s realizeze cunoscuta revenire din anii 1980.
Pentru a realiza beneficii din benchmarking, Camp (1989) propune s se urmeze
urmtoarele faze ale procesului de benchmarking:
1. planificare (adic, pentru ce se face i pentru ce nu se face benchmarking);
2. analiz (adic, determinarea deficitului de performan);
3. integrare (adic, o corelare a deficitelor cu elurile organizaiei);
4. aciune (adic, mbuntirea etapelor n afaceri); i
5. maturitate (incorporarea celei mai bune practici n desfurarea de zi cu zi a
afacerilor).
Complexitatea coordonrii acestui proces este parial determinat de realizarea
exerciiului de benchmarking la nivel intern, ntr-un sector, cu competitorii direci, sau
cu cei mai buni din domeniu (Camp, 1989). Evident, ncrederea ntre organizaii este o
dimensiune important a succesului n benchmarking, mai ales atunci cnd partenerii
n benchmarking fac parte din acelai sector, sau rivalizeaz pentru clieni i/sau resurse.
La fel de important, aa cum arat Ammons (1999: 105), este starea mental potrivit,
pentru a nva din benchmarking.
n forma sa cea mai simpl, benchmarkingul include 4 pai (Weisendanger, 1993) i
este de tip generic, fiind folosit de mai multe companii mari, deoarece se poate adapta
uor n funcie de preferine: 1. nelegerea i analiza procedeelor i performanelor
companiei ntr-un domeniu dat; 2. studierea altor departamente din companie, dar i a
altor companii, pentru a vedea cine este cel mai bun; 3. colectarea i rspndirea
informaiilor prin sondaje, vizite de lucru, sau cu ajutorul unor consultani, i 4. analiza
datelor, pentru a vedea ce pri din metodele celorlali ar putea funciona n cadrul
companiei.
Primul pas al procesului de benchmarking, identificarea acelor elemente crora ar
trebui s li se aplice benchmarkingul, este adesea cel mai important n iniierea unui
benchmarking de succes. n relaii publice, benchmarkingul se poate aplica unor
procedee, practici, produse/servicii, roluri sau probleme strategice. Pentru ca acest pas
s se ncheie cu succes, este esenial ca echipa de benchmarking n relaii publice s
identifice urmtoarele elemente: factorii eseniali de succes n relaii publice,

Companies which are best in class in one or some areas are not necessarily state of
the art in all others.
Process model of PR benchmarking

There are several common benchmarking process models in use by PR units, each
model having from between 4-10 steps. These are generally adaptations of the models
used by AT&T, Alcoa, DuPont, Xerox or the publicized efforts of other large companies.
Robert C. Camps ten step model is the one used by Xerox which helped them to achieve
their well known comeback during the 1980.
In order to realize the benefits from benchmarking, Camp (1989) suggests that the
following phases of the benchmarking process should be followed:
1. planning (e.g. what to benchmark and whom to benchmark against);

2. analysis (e.g. ascertaining the performance gap);
3. integration (e.g. relating gaps to organizational goals);
4. action (e.g. improvement of business processes); and
5. maturity (incorporating best practice into everyday business processes).
The complexity of managing this process will be partly determined by whether the
benchmarking exercise is carried out internally, within a sector, with direct competitors,
or with the best-in-class (Camp 1989). Clearly, inter-organizational trust is an important
dimension of the success of benchmarking, particularly where benchmarking partners
are within the same sector or are competing for customers and/or resources. Also
important, as Ammons (1999: 105) points out, is a proper frame of mind for receiving
the lessons of benchmarking.
In its simplest form, benchmarking entails 4 steps (Weisendanger, 1993) and is a

generic one used by several large companies which is easily adaptable to customized
approaches: 1. understanding and analyzing the companys processes and performance
in a given area, 2. looking at other departments within the company and other companies
to see who excels, 3. collecting and sharing information through surveys, site visits, or
consultants, and 4. analyzing the data to see what portions of others methods might
work for the company.
The first step of the benchmarking process, identifying what it is that should be
benchmarked, is often the most important with respect to carrying out a successful
benchmarking initiative. It is possible to benchmark PR processes, practices, products/
services, roles, or strategic issues. For this step to be accomplished successfully, it is
critical that the PR benchmarking team identify the following items: critical PR success
RRM 1-2007 51
competenele distinctive, nivelul analizei, procedeele cheie n relaii publice i rezultatele

lor msurabile n cadrul organizaiei care iniiaz benchmarking-ul.
Cum benchmarkingul tuturor aspectelor care in de relaii publice se poate dovedi
att dificil, ct i foarte scump, este important s fie supuse aciunii de benchmarking
numai acele zone de relaii publice care au cele mai multe anse de succes pentru
organizaie. Factorii principali de succes includ acel numr limitat de domenii n care
rezultatele satisfctoare de performan asigur meninerea funciei respective. Un
criteriu extrem de important n aceast faz de debut este acela de a stabili care sunt
cele mai importante procedee, roluri, practici, produse/servicii sau domenii de studiu.
Adesea, acest lucru se realizeaz prin sesiuni de discuii sau brainstorming, la care
particip specialitii n relaii publice i alii, din alte departamente ale organizaiei,
care folosesc produsele sau serviciile de relaii publice.
Zonele care definesc componenta cea mai semnificativ din punctul de vedere al
bugetului sunt primele care ar trebui supuse studiului. Ali candidai potrivii includ
acei factori de la care se ateapt, n mod normal, un impact de maxim satisfacie
din partea clienilor, cei la care exist suficiente detalii care trebuie corectate, sau
acele competene distinctive de PR prin care organizaia respectiv se difereniaz de
ali competitori, sau de alte organizaii din industria de profil, i care reprezint singura
surs de avantaj competitiv a companiei pe pia.
Un alt pas important este specificarea nivelului potrivit de analiz. Exist mai multe
niveluri pe care se axeaz n general cercetrile asupra benchmarkingului n domeniul
relaiilor publice, printre care:
a. nivelul organizaional, prin care unitatea de analiz este chiar organizaia, iar
criteriile de performan studiate sunt acei factori de relaii publice asociai cu
poziionarea favorabil a organizaiei, conform prerii publicului extern;
b. nivelul departamentului de relaii publice; de exemplu, un studiu s-a ocupat de
rolurile strategice ale departamentului n cadrul organizaiei;
c. nivelul practicii de relaii publice; un studiu s-a axat pe practica publicaiilor
interne n cazul unui mare numr de companii multinaionale din diferite domenii
industriale; i/sau
d. nivelul specialistului sau al profesionistului n relaii publice, aici realizndu-se
un studiu prin care s-au comparat abilitile individuale, nivelul academic i de carier,
pregtirea pentru aceast funcie, dar i experienele legate de dezvoltarea profesional,
ale specialitilor n relaii publice din mai multe companii aparinnd aceluiai sector
industrial.
Prin definirea principalilor factori de succes ai organizaiei din domeniul relaiilor
publice, a competenelor distinctive, a nivelului de analiz i a procedurilor cheie de
relaii publice, alturi de definirea ct mai precis a rezultatelor lor msurabile, se
mbuntete i calitatea performanei datelor cutate i adunate. ncheierea cu succes
a acestei etape permite echipei de benchmarking trecerea la pasul urmtor, n care
sunt identificate organizaiile participante.

factors, distinctive competencies, level of analysis, key PR processes, and their

measurable outputs within the benchmark initiating organization.
Since benchmarking all aspects of a PR operation can be both costs prohibitive and
difficult, it is important to benchmark only those PR areas that will add the most value
to the organizations success. Critical success factors include those limited number of
areas in which satisfactory performance results will ensure the continued survival of the
function. A most important criterion at this early step in the process is to establish those
most important processes, roles, practices, products/services, or issues for study. This is
often done through the means of a brainstorming or focus group session of PR practitioners
and others from different parts of the organization who utilize PR products or services.
Areas which compose the largest component of the areas budget tend to be good
candidates for early studies. Other suitable candidates are those factors which are
associated with delivering the greatest customer satisfaction impact, those which have
the most room for improvement, or those distinctive PR competencies which serve to
differentiate the organization from competitors or others in the industry and which
provide the company a unique source of competitive advantage in the marketplace.
It is also critical in step one to specify the appropriate level of analysis. There are
several levels that have been focused on in PR benchmarking research, including:
a. the organizational level, whereby the unit of analysis was the organization and
the performance criteria under study were those PR factors associated with positioning
the organization favorably with its external publics;
b. the PR unit level, for example, one study was done of the strategic roles of the unit
within the organization;
c. the PR practice level, one focus was of the internal publications practices of
numerous multinational companies across multiple industries; and/or
d. the PR practitioner or professional level, whereby a study was done comparing
the skills, academic and career backgrounds, on the job training, and professional
development experiences of PR professionals across companies within a particular
industry.
By defining the organizations critical PR success factors, distinctive competencies,

level of analysis, and key PR processes and their measurable outputs as precisely as
possible, the quality of performance data sought and collected will be improved. The
successful completion of this step allows the benchmarking team to move to the second
step, whereby target participant organizations are identified.
RRM 1-2007 53
Urmtorul pas important al acestei faze necesit o identificare a organizaiilor int

care vor fi invitate s participe la studiu. Aciunea are n vedere practici de benchmarking
intern, industrial, al competitorilor, sau al practicilor generice, n funcie de ce consider
fiecare organizaie c este cel mai important.
Identificarea intelor efortului de benchmarking este mai uoar pentru acei
profesioniti care tiu ce surse de informaii s sondeze pentru a reduce factorul
demografic la dimensiunea unui eantion potrivit de lucru. O tipologie util, pe dou
axe, pentru clasificarea surselor de informaii include canalul de comunicare, care se
refer la modul n care sunt colectate datele, adic direct sau prin surse secundare, i la
sursa de comunicare, aceasta din urm referindu-se la modul n care au fost obinute
datele direct sau indirect.
Echipa de benchmarking poate deduce, din discuii, care sunt acele companii aflate
pe poziie de lideri n eforturile de benchmarking. Dup alctuirea unei liste iniiale de
candidai, e bine n general s se caute cteva informaii de baz despre aceste inte,
sub forma unui raport de recunoatere. Rapoartele de recunoatere sunt rezumate scurte
realizate de companii, n care sunt incluse statistici despre dimensiunea organizaiei,
produsele/pieele sale cheie, mrimea estimat a activitii sale de relaii publice,
calculat dup buget i numrul de angajai i competenele sale distinctive, aa cum
sunt percepute dinafar.
O alt activitate util ce trebuie desfurat n acest punct este colaborarea cu clienii
i furnizorii companiei, pentru a stabili domeniile n care sunt necesare mbuntiri,
factorii principali de succes i competenele distinctive. Ar fi de dorit ca, dac este
posibil, companiile asupra crora se orienteaz benchmarkingul s aib competene
distinctive care s se conformeze n ct mai mare msur factorilor principali de succes
ai organizaiei care realizeaz benchmarkingul.
Decizii eseniale cu privire la benchmarkingul din domeniul relaiilor publice

Scopul fundamental al benchmarkingului din relaii publice este acela de a genera
informaii care pot fi folosite la mbuntirea performanei unitii. Aadar este esenial
ca managerii companiei s stabileasc parametrii de informaii pe care iniiativa de
benchmarking trebuie s i ndeplineasc. Un efort prea mare de benchmarking are
toate ansele de a eua de la bun nceput, dac directorii de relaii publice nu au habar
ce anume s caute. Astfel se ajunge la situaii n care un director nu e n stare s
recunoasc practicile mai bune, nici chiar dac le are n faa ochilor.
Este important s se decid dac benchmarkingul este aciunea corect sau necesar,
dup o cercetare atent a nevoilor de infrmaii i provocrilor cu care se confrunt
departamentul respectiv de relaii publice. Managerii departamentului trebuie s decid
ct efort doresc s dedice, privind realist, activitii de benchmarking. Pentru multe
departamente de relaii publice, nevoia de benchmarking este depit n importan
de nevoia de a se lupta cu vreunul din momentele arztoare sau de criz cu care

The next important step of this phase requires an identification of target organizations
who will be asked to participate in the study. It addresses targets such as internal,
industry, competitor, or generic practices benchmarking who will be most important to
organization.
Identifying the targets of the benchmarking effort is easier for those professionals
who know what information sources to scan in order to whittle down the population to
a workable sample size. A useful two axis typology used to classify information sources
would be channel of communication, referring to whether the data is collected first
hand or through secondary sources, and source of communication which refers to
whether the information was obtained from direct or indirect sources.
The benchmarking team can brainstorm an initial guess of those companies who
may be the leaders with respect to focus of the benchmarking effort. After an initial list
of candidates is developed, it is usually wise to capture some basic information about
targets in the form of a scouting report. Scouting reports are quick company summaries
that include statistics on such things as an organizations size, its key product/markets,
the estimated size of its PR area in terms of staff and budget, and its perceived distinctive
competencies. Another helpful activity to pursue at this point is to work with the
organizations customers and suppliers) to validate areas for improvement, critical success
factors, and distinctive competencies. Companies targeted for benchmarking should,
whenever possible, have distinctive competencies that match, to the greatest extent
possible, the benchmarking organizations critical success factors.
Critical decisions about PR Benchmarking

The prime purpose of PR benchmarking is to generate information which can be
used to assist the unit in improving its performance. Therefore it is critical that
management pre-establish the information parameters that they expect the benchmarking
initiative to accomplish. Too many PR benchmarking efforts have gone awry right from
the start because a PR management had only a fuzzy idea of what to look for. This leads
to situations in which a manager may not recognize better practices even when they
were right in front of them.
It is important to assess whether PR benchmarking is a necessary or relevant course

of action given a careful consideration of a PR units information needs and challenges.
PR unit managers must decide how much effort they want and realistically can devote
to benchmarking. For many PR units, the need to benchmark may be outweighed by
the need to fight any one of the number of PR fires or crises which seem to constantly
face these professionals, or it may be outweighed by a need to do a preliminary
management assessment audit associated with the TQM paradigm. Our observations
RRM 1-2007 55
sunt obinuii acest gen de oameni, sau ar putea fi depit de nevoia realizrii unui
audit de evaluare preliminar a managementului n cadrul paradigmei de testare a
calitii managementului (TQM). Observaiile noastre ne fac s credem c nevoia de a
face benchmarking n relaii publice depinde de dorina efului de a aplica schimbri
strategice sau operaionale n funcia respectiv, de nivelul de interes exprimat de
directorii executivi, care doresc s demonstreze c se poate cuantifica performana din
relaii publice prin comparaie, i/sau de dimensiunea deficitului de performan n
relaii publice, perceput ntre organizaiile dintr-un domeniu industrial anume.
Decizia asupra tipului de benchmarking urmeaz s fie iniiat depinde de mai muli
factori, ntre care se numr resursele existente, datele limit, numrul surselor alternative
ce pot fi identificate i obiectivele stabilite pentru desfurarea acestui proces. Testul
martor al necesarului de inteligen specific este ntotdeauna util n primele faze de
aciune, deoarece permite cunoaterea dimensiunii eforturilor necesare. Ct despre
profunzime, trebuie negociat cantitatea de informaii necesar pentru a asigura un
context practic pentru cifrele rezultate. Rspunznd la aceast ntrebare, este cel mai
bine s ne amintim c ghidul ideal pentru aceste probleme este judecata i sondarea
posibilitilor organizaiei, pentru a decide ce se ctig din practic i experien.
Trebuie evideniat i importana factorului de timp n efortul de benchmarking.
Oriunde este posibil, iniiativele de benchmarking n relaii publice trebuie lansate cu
mult timp nainte ca nevoia s determine deciziile strategice sau schimbarea. Un avans
realizat n timp util ar putea permite implementarea corespunztoare a oricror ajustri
corectoare, care prin benchmarking se dovedesc necesare.
S-au fcut mai multe ncercri de catalogare a factorilor necesari pentru succesul
benchmarking-ului n cadrul organizaiei. Cteva elemente se regsesc, n general, pe
aceste liste:
a) conducerea superioar a firmei trebuie s susin material efortul;
b) el trebuie s reprezinte o parte flexibil a strategiei unitii;
c) trebuie s fie o activitate de echip, iar n echip trebuie s fac parte acele
persoane care urmeaz s fie responsabile de aplicarea schimbrilor rezultate din analiza
de benchmarking;
d) trebuie s fie bine planificat, organizat i coordonat, cu accentul pe pregtirea
corespunztoare nainte de aciune;
e) fiecare trebuie s neleag ce rol, proceduri sau practici i revin, nainte de
nceperea activitii.
Procesul de benchmarking trebuie condus ntotdeauna de ctre acei indivizi care
au responsabilitatea implementrii rezultatelor benchmarkingului. Dei eforturile sunt
n parte uurate de ajutorul acordat de un consultant extern, n fapt cei care sunt cei
mai apropiai de activitile i practicile organizaiei sunt ei nii capabili s neleag
valoarea cantitii imense de date rezultate adesea din efortul acestor persoane.
Dac performana n relaii publice trebuie msurat corect, aa cum susin muli
profesioniti, n scopul punerii n valoare a potenialului de management rezultat, este

has led us to tentatively conclude that the need to benchmark PR appears to be positively
associated with the unit leaders desire to pursue strategic or operational changes in the
function, the level of interest expressed by senior organizational executives to
demonstrate quantifiable PR performance comparisons, and/or the magnitude of the
perceived gap of PR performance between organizations in an industry.
The type of benchmarking initiative to pursue appears to be dependent on several

factors, including available resources, deadlines, the number of alternative sources that
can be identified, and the objectives established for the approach. Pilot testing the
approach on a specific intelligence need is always useful in the early stages as it often
allows for knowledge of whether larger scale efforts are needed. In terms of depth,
there are trade-offs that must be taken into account in terms of the amount of information
needed to provide a practice context to the metrics generated. In answering this question,
it is best to remember that the best guide to these queries is judgment and insight which
is gained through practice and experience.
Must points out the importance of timing the benchmarking effort. Wherever possible,
PR benchmarking initiatives should be launched far in advance of the need to make
key strategic decisions or changes. Sensible advance timing should allow for the proper
implementation of any corrective adjustments that the benchmarking effort reveals are
desirable.
There are several attempts to list the factors necessary for organizational
benchmarking to succeed. These lists tend to have several common factors:
a) senior management must support the effort;
b) it must be a flexible part of the functions strategy;
c) it must be a team activity and the team must include those persons who will be
responsible for making the changes which emanate from the benchmarking analyses;
d) it must be well-planned, organized and managed, with a premium placed on
appropriate up-front preparation;
e) ones own processes, roles, or practices must be understood before embarking on
the approach.
The benchmarking process should always be conducted by those individuals who

will be responsible for implementing the benchmarking results. Although many efforts
are facilitated through the assistance of an external consultant, in the long run, it is
those persons who are closest to the organizations practices and processes that are
best able to make sense of the wealth of data that these efforts often generate.
If PR performance is ever going to be properly measured, as many professionals

claim must eventually occur if the profession is to achieve its management potential, it
RRM 1-2007 57
nevoie de calcule pentru comparaii. Totui, pe lng cifre, la fel de important este i s
se descopere factorii asociai cu obinerea cifrelor. Pentru aceasta este nevoie de un
benchmarker (adic persoana care realizeaz benchmarking-ul) care s studieze
procedeele i contextul de la baza calculelor.
Datele de benchmarking au fost ntotdeauna utilizate ca justificare pentru reducerile
de personal n departamentele de relaii publice. Asta se ntmpl atunci cnd cifrele
rezultate din benchmarking demonstreaz c unitatea folosete ineficient resursele i
costurile sunt mai mari dect sumele obinute n schimb; totui, se poate ntmpla i
invers, cnd datele arat c unitatea este grav afectat de lipsa de resurse i are nevoie
de resurse suplimentare pentru o mai mare eficien.
nainte ca organizaiile s ncerce s aplice benchmarkingul, ele trebuie s fac
exerciii de pregtire, prin intermediul crora s afle natura problemelor existente.
Experiena unor activiti de benchmarking n parteneriat a demonstrat c este absolut
necesar s se realizeze un benchmarking intern, nainte de a face comparaii n exterior.
Concluzii
Aplicarea benchmarking-ului n relaiile publice nu este suficient pentru ca
managerii s rezolve problemele de producie ale organizaiei, ca de pild slaba calitate/
necompetitivitatea produselor sau a serviciilor. Benchmarkingul n relaii publice poate
ajuta profesionitii din departamentul de relaii publice al organizaiei s-i
mbunteasc performana i abilitile, pentru a oferi clienilor firmei servicii i produse
de calitate. Este o unealt de nalt calitate dar, ca orice unealt, nu funcioneaz peste
tot la fel.
Benchmarking-ul n relaii publice nu ofer soluii magice, nu exclude
implementarea i nu determin prioritile n planificare. Dac se realizeaz corect,
benchmarking-ul ofer profesionitilor informaii cu privire la rolurile, subiectele,
unitile, procedurile sau practicile specifice. El i poate ajuta pe profesionitii din
domeniul relaiilor publice s afle cauzele problemelor lor i i ajut s profite de
oportunitile aprute. n sfrit, le ofer managerilor de relaii publice un mod radical
diferit de abordare a muncii lor.
Dar, n lipsa unui studiu longitudinal despre benchmarking n general, nu e suficient
de clar dac benchmarkingul va deveni, ntr-o zi, o practic instituionalizat, folosit
de profesionitii din relaii publice.
Studiul de benchmarking este o unealt prea puin pus n valoare. Odat cu creterea
complexitii problemelor, cu schimbarea rapid a acestora, benchmarkingul a devenit
o unealt nepreuit n crearea schimbrilor din cadrul unei organizaii. Nicieri nu
este mai clar acest lucru dect dac apar probleme, acolo unde necazul unui grup
poate fi o surs nou de cunoatere pentru altul.

will require the generation of metrics for comparison. Yet, in addition to the numbers, it
is just as important to discover the factors associated with the attainment of the numbers.
This requires the PR benchmarker (i.e., the person doing the benchmarking) to look at
the processes and contexts behind the metrics.
Benchmarking data has been used as a justification for staff cutbacks to a PR function.
This will occur when benchmarking metrics demonstrate that the function is inefficiently
using its resources and costs more than it should for the return it generates; however, it
can also serve the reverse role in which the data shows that the function is severely
under-resourced and requires additional resources in order to achieve greater
effectiveness.
Before organizations attempt to perform PR benchmarking, they should undertake

preparatory exercises designed to address the nature of the questions or problems to
address. Several benchmarking partnership experiences have demonstrated that it is a
required prerequisite to do internal benchmarking prior to making external comparisons.
Summary
Benchmarking PR will not enable managers to solve the organizations production
problems such as poor quality/uncompetitive products or services. PR benchmarking
can help the organizations PR professionals improve their performance and abilities to
deliver quality services and products to the functions customers. It is a great quality
tool, but like any tool, it doesnt work for every job.
PR benchmarking will not provide magic bullet answers, prescribe implementation,

or determine planning priorities. If done successfully, PR benchmarking will provide
professionals with information regarding specific roles, issues, functions, processes, or
practices. It can help PR professionals uncover the root causes of their problems and
help them to exploit environmental opportunities. Finally, it can provide PR managers
a dramatically different way in which to approach their work.
But, without the benefit of any longitudinal research on benchmarking in general,

the jury remains out as to whether benchmarking will someday become an
institutionalized practice used by PR practitioners.
The benchmark study is a greatly underused PR tool. As the complexity and volatility
of issues increase, benchmarking others is an often priceless tool to create changes in
an organization. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of adversity, where one groups
misfortune can be anothers cache of new knowledge.
RRM 1-2007 59
La nivel general, benchmarkingul este un proces relativ simplu, orientat spre practicile
celor mai bune organizaii din domeniu. Dac o organizaie de relaii publice
intenioneaz s se restructureze, de ce s nu ncerce s afle ct de bine sunt structurate
alte organizaii de acelai fel? Dac accentul principal este pus pe mbuntirea
comunicrii cu investitorii, de ce s nu nvee de la cei care face cel mai bine acest
lucru? i dac studiul implic momente dificile, de ce ar fi nevoie s trecem noi nine
prin necazuri, dac putem nva din experiena altora?
Oricare ar fi metoda aleas, obiectivul este totui acelai: s nvm ce s-a ntmplat.
Ce a mers bine i ce nu a mers aa de bine? Ce sfaturi a primit directorul executiv? Cum
s-a descurcat el n situaia respectiv? Care au fost punctele de conflict cu organizaia?
La fel de utile pentru programele de relaii publice sunt i sondajele de iniiere, care
realizeaz un benchmarking al percepiei la zi despre o anumit organizaie. Aceste
informaii sunt importante mai ales la nceputul programului, i tim c n final trebuie
s respecte standardele de motivare. Benchmarkingul ofer un mod util, cuantificabil
de msurare a progresului n timp.
Punctul de nceput al programelor de relaii publice se afl la cellalt capt al
drumului, acolo unde are loc aa-numitul audit de comunicare: un sumar calitativ al
prerilor acionarilor despre modul n care comunicai cu ei. Pe baza unei serii de
interviuri cu diferii acionari de exemplu angajai, lideri ai comunitii, demnitari
guvernamentali i reporteri, auditul de comunicare dezvluie dac primesc prea puine
sau prea multe informaii despre organizaie, sau dac ei consider c informaiile sunt
corecte i vin la timp. Rspunsurile la aceste ntrebri sunt foarte valoroase pentru
dezvoltarea unor programe de relaii publice eficiente, dar nu de ele depinde reputaia
conducerii.
Adesea, programele de relaii publice se bazeaz pe o combinaie ntre auditul de
comunicare i benchmarking. Acestea sunt abordri utile, dei, de multe ori, astfel de
programe se pun n micare fr s se in cont de una sau de amndou aceste unelte
importante pentru elementul factual. Dac dorii s realizai un program serios de relaii
publice, facei un audit de comunicare i un pic de benchmarking.
Bibliografie
Ammons, D. N. (1999), A Proper Mentality for Benchmarking. Public Administration
Review, 59:2, 105109
Arrowsmith, J., & Sisson, K. (2001), International competition and pay, working time
and employment: exploring the processes of adjustment, Industrial Relations Journal,
32:2,136-53

Generic benchmarking is a relatively simple process that focuses on best-in-class

practices of other organizations. If a public relations organization is contemplating a
restructuring, why not investigate how highly regarded peer organizations are structured?
If the focus is on improving investor-related communication, why not learn from those
who do it best? And, if the study involves adversity, why is it necessary for us to experience
pain personally when we can learn from the experiences of others?
Whatever the method, though, the objective is usually the same: Learn what
happened. What went well and not-so-well? Where did they encounter obstacles? Who
took the lead internally? What kind of counsel was the CEO receiving? How did the
CEO engage the situation? Where were the points of conflict within the organization?
Also useful to public relations programs are baseline surveys that benchmark current
perceptions about an organization. This information is especially important as a program
starts, and you know it will ultimately be necessary for it to meet rigorous standards of
accountability. Benchmarking provides a helpful, quantifiable way to measure progress
along the way.
The starting point for public relations programs are on the other hand of the spectrum,
at what is known as a communications audit: a qualitative summary of what stakeholders
think about how you are communicating with them. Based on a series of interviews
with various stakeholders employees, community leaders, government officials, and
reporters, for example, a communications audit asks if they are receiving too little or
too much information about your organization, or if they feel information you provide
is accurate and timely. The answers to these questions are valuable to the development
of effective public relations programs, but they are not at the heart of reputation
management.
Frequently, public relations programs are based on a combination of a

communications audit and benchmarking. These are useful approaches, though often
such programs are launched in the absence of either or both of these valid fact-finding
tools. If you want to undertake a serious public relations program, do a communication
audit and some benchmarking.
References
Ammons, D. N. (1999), A Proper Mentality for Benchmarking. Public Administration
Review, 59:2, 105109
Arrowsmith, J., & Sisson, K. (2001), International competition and pay, working time
and employment: exploring the processes of adjustment, Industrial Relations Journal,
32:2,136-53
RRM 1-2007 61
Bogan, C.E. & English, M.J. (1994), Benchmarking for Best Practice: Winning through
Camp, R.C. (1989), Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to
Superior Performance, Milwaukee, ASQC Quality Press
Chan, A., Go, F. M., & Pine, R. (1998), Service Innovation in Hong Kong: Attitudes and
Practice, The Service Industries Journal, 18:2,112124
Daniels, A. C. (1994), Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing
power of positive reinforcement, New York, McGraw-Hill
Delbridge, R., Lowe, J., & Oliver, N. (1995), The process of benchmarking. A study
from the automotive industry, International Journal of Operations and Production
management, Vol.15, No. 4, 50-62.
Dertouzos, M.L., Lester, R.K., & Solow, R.M. (1989), Made in America: Regaining the
Productive Edge, New York, Harper Perennial
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983), The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism
and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review,
48, 161-173.
Elmuti, D., & Kathawala, Y. (1997), An overview of benchmarking process: a tool for
continuous improvement and competitive advantage, Benchmarking for Quality
Management and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 4, 229-243
Ferner, A., & Edwards, P.K. (1995), Power and Diffusion of organisational Change within
Multinational Enterprises, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 1, No. 2,
229-257
Fitz-enz, J. (1993), Benchmarking Staff Performance,(San Francisco, Jossey Bass
Fleisher, C.S., (1995), Tacking Stock of Corporate Benchmarking Practices: Panacea or
Pandoras Box?, Public Relations Review, 21(1). 1-20
Grant, L., & Evans, E. (1994), Principles of behavior analysis, New York, Harper Collins
Greengard, S. (1995), Discover best practice through benchmarking, Personnel Journal,
Vol. 74, No. 11, 62-73
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Boston, Harvard Business
School Press
Higgins, E. T. (1989), Continuities and discontinuities in self-regulatory and self-evaluative
processes: A developmental theory relating self and affect, Journal of Personality,
57, 407-444
Huff, J. O., Huff, A. S., & Thomas, H. (1992), Strategic renewal and the interaction of
cumulative stress and inertia, Strategic Management Journal, 13, 55-75
Hutton, R., & Zairi, M. (1995), Effective Benchmarking through a Prioritization
Methodology, Total Quality Management, 6:4, 399411
Innovative Adaptation, New York, McGraw-Hill
Keep, E. and Rainbird, H. (1999), Towards the learning organization? In Bach, S. and
Sisson, K. (eds) Personnel Management. A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and
Practice, Oxford, Blackwell

Bogan, C.E. & English, M.J. (1994), Benchmarking for Best Practice: Winning through
Camp, R.C. (1989), Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to
Superior Performance, Milwaukee, ASQC Quality Press
Chan, A., Go, F. M., & Pine, R. (1998), Service Innovation in Hong Kong: Attitudes and
Practice, The Service Industries Journal, 18:2,112124
Daniels, A. C. (1994), Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing
power of positive reinforcement, New York, McGraw-Hill
Delbridge, R., Lowe, J., & Oliver, N. (1995), The process of benchmarking. A study
from the automotive industry, International Journal of Operations and Production
management, Vol.15, No. 4, 50-62.
Dertouzos, M.L., Lester, R.K., & Solow, R.M. (1989), Made in America: Regaining the
Productive Edge, New York, Harper Perennial
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983), The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism
and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review,
48, 161-173.
Elmuti, D., & Kathawala, Y. (1997), An overview of benchmarking process: a tool for
continuous improvement and competitive advantage, Benchmarking for Quality
Management and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 4, 229-243
Ferner, A., & Edwards, P.K. (1995), Power and Diffusion of organisational Change within
Multinational Enterprises, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 1, No. 2,
229-257
Fitz-enz, J. (1993), Benchmarking Staff Performance,(San Francisco, Jossey Bass
Fleisher, C.S., (1995), Tacking Stock of Corporate Benchmarking Practices: Panacea or
Pandoras Box?, Public Relations Review, 21(1). 1-20
Grant, L., & Evans, E. (1994), Principles of behavior analysis, New York, Harper Collins
Greengard, S. (1995), Discover best practice through benchmarking, Personnel Journal,
Vol. 74, No. 11, 62-73
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Boston, Harvard Business
School Press
Higgins, E. T. (1989), Continuities and discontinuities in self-regulatory and self-evaluative
processes: A developmental theory relating self and affect, Journal of Personality,
57, 407-444
Huff, J. O., Huff, A. S., & Thomas, H. (1992), Strategic renewal and the interaction of
cumulative stress and inertia, Strategic Management Journal, 13, 55-75
Hutton, R., & Zairi, M. (1995), Effective Benchmarking through a Prioritization
Methodology, Total Quality Management, 6:4, 399411
Innovative Adaptation, New York, McGraw-Hill
Keep, E. and Rainbird, H. (1999), Towards the learning organization? In Bach, S. and
Sisson, K. (eds) Personnel Management. A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and
Practice, Oxford, Blackwell
RRM 1-2007 63
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Longbottom, D. (2000), Benchmarking in the UK: an empirical study of practitioners
and Academics, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7, No.2, 98-117
Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. (1975), Organizational Behavior Modification. Glenview,
Scott Foresman.
Mabey, C., Salaman, G., & Storey, J. (1998), Strategic Human Resource Management,
Oxford: Blackwell.
Martin, G., & Beamont, P. (1998), Diffusing best practice in multinational firms:
prospects, practice and contestation, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 9, No. 4, 672-695
Mohrman, S.A., Tenkasi, R.V., Lawler, E.E., & Ledford, G.E. Jr (1995), Total quality
management: practice and outcomes in the largest US firms, Employee Relations,
Vol. 17, No. 3, 26-41
Morgan, W. G. (1974). The shaping game: A teaching technique, Behavior Therapy, 5,
271-272
Munroe-Faure, L., & Munroe-Faure, M. (1992), Implementing total quality management,
London, Pitman
Ogden, S. M.& Wilson, P., (2000), Bridging the quality gaps: Implementing benchmarking
to deliver Best Value, Public Management, Vol. 2 Issue 4 2000, 525546
Oliver, N., & Wilkinson, B. (1992), The Japanization of British Industry: New
Developments in the 1990s, 2nd ed., Oxford, Blackwell
Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955), The principle of congruity in the prediction
of attitude change, Psychological Review, 62, 42-55
Overman, S. (1993), In search of best practices, HR Magazine, Vol. 38, 48-50
Phillips, P., & Appiah-Adu, K. (1998), Benchmarking to Improve the Strategic Planning
Process in the Hotel Sector, The Service Industries Journal, 18:1, 117
Pringle, J., & Tudhope, J. (1996), Family friendly policies: the experiences of three New
Zealand companies, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 34 No. 3, 77-89
Quinn, J. B. (1980), Strategies for change, Homewood, Irwin
Reger, R. K., Gustafson, L. T., DeMarie, S. M., & Mullane, J. V. (1994), Refraining the
organization; Why implementing total quality is easier said than done, Academy of
Management Review, 19, 565-584
Rodwell, J. J., Lam, J., & Fastenau, M. (2000), Benchmarking HRM and the benchmarking
of Benchmarking: Best practices from outside the square in the Australian finance
industry, Employee Relations, Vol. 22 No. 4, 356-374
Schmid, G., Schtz, & Speckesser, S. (1999), Broadening the Scope of Benchmarking:
Radar Charts and Employment Systems. Labour, Vol 13, No. 4, 879-899
Sisson, K, Arrowsmith, J., &Marginson, P. (2002), All Benchmarkers Now? Benchmarking
and the Europeanisation of Industrial Relations, Working Paper 41/02, Sussex
European Institute, University of Sussex

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Longbottom, D. (2000), Benchmarking in the UK: an empirical study of practitioners
and Academics, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7, No.2, 98-117
Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. (1975), Organizational Behavior Modification. Glenview,
Scott Foresman.
Mabey, C., Salaman, G., & Storey, J. (1998), Strategic Human Resource Management,
Oxford: Blackwell.
Martin, G., & Beamont, P. (1998), Diffusing best practice in multinational firms:
prospects, practice and contestation, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 9, No. 4, 672-695
Mohrman, S.A., Tenkasi, R.V., Lawler, E.E., & Ledford, G.E. Jr (1995), Total quality
management: practice and outcomes in the largest US firms, Employee Relations,
Vol. 17, No. 3, 26-41
Morgan, W. G. (1974). The shaping game: A teaching technique, Behavior Therapy, 5,
271-272
Munroe-Faure, L., & Munroe-Faure, M. (1992), Implementing total quality management,
London, Pitman
Ogden, S. M.& Wilson, P., (2000), Bridging the quality gaps: Implementing benchmarking
to deliver Best Value, Public Management, Vol. 2 Issue 4 2000, 525546
Oliver, N., & Wilkinson, B. (1992), The Japanization of British Industry: New
Developments in the 1990s, 2nd ed., Oxford, Blackwell
Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955), The principle of congruity in the prediction
of attitude change, Psychological Review, 62, 42-55
Overman, S. (1993), In search of best practices, HR Magazine, Vol. 38, 48-50
Phillips, P., & Appiah-Adu, K. (1998), Benchmarking to Improve the Strategic Planning
Process in the Hotel Sector, The Service Industries Journal, 18:1, 117
Pringle, J., & Tudhope, J. (1996), Family friendly policies: the experiences of three New
Zealand companies, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 34 No. 3, 77-89
Quinn, J. B. (1980), Strategies for change, Homewood, Irwin
Reger, R. K., Gustafson, L. T., DeMarie, S. M., & Mullane, J. V. (1994), Refraining the
organization; Why implementing total quality is easier said than done, Academy of
Management Review, 19, 565-584
Rodwell, J. J., Lam, J., & Fastenau, M. (2000), Benchmarking HRM and the benchmarking
of Benchmarking: Best practices from outside the square in the Australian finance
industry, Employee Relations, Vol. 22 No. 4, 356-374
Schmid, G., Schtz, & Speckesser, S. (1999), Broadening the Scope of Benchmarking:
Radar Charts and Employment Systems. Labour, Vol 13, No. 4, 879-899
Sisson, K, Arrowsmith, J., &Marginson, P. (2002), All Benchmarkers Now? Benchmarking
and the Europeanisation of Industrial Relations, Working Paper 41/02, Sussex
European Institute, University of Sussex
RRM 1-2007 65
Smith, H.L. (1996), Accountability in PR: Budgets and Benchmarks, Public Relations
Quarterly, Spring 1996, 41, 1, pg.15
Tronti, L. (1998), Benchmarking Labour Market Performances and Practices, Labour,
Vol 12, No. 3, 489-513
Vedder, J.N. (1992), How much can we learn from success?. Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 6 No. 1, 56-66
Watson, G. H. (1993), Benchmarking, New York, John Wiley & Sons
Weisendanger, B. (1993), Benchmarking Intelligence Fuels Management Moves, The
Public Relations Journal, Vol.49, Iss. 11; pg. 20, 3
Wolfram-Cox, J.R.W., Mann, L., & Samson, D. (1997), Benchmarking as a mixed
metaphor: disentangling assumptions of competition and collaboration, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 34 No. 2, 285-314
Young, D. (1996), Looking at your companys fragile reputation, Public Relations
Quarterly, Winter1995-96, 40, 4, pg.7

Smith, H.L. (1996), Accountability in PR: Budgets and Benchmarks, Public Relations
Quarterly, Spring 1996, 41, 1, pg.15
Tronti, L. (1998), Benchmarking Labour Market Performances and Practices, Labour,
Vol 12, No. 3, 489-513
Vedder, J.N. (1992), How much can we learn from success?. Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 6 No. 1, 56-66
Watson, G. H. (1993), Benchmarking, New York, John Wiley & Sons
Weisendanger, B. (1993), Benchmarking Intelligence Fuels Management Moves, The
Public Relations Journal, Vol.49, Iss. 11; pg. 20, 3
Wolfram-Cox, J.R.W., Mann, L., & Samson, D. (1997), Benchmarking as a mixed
metaphor: disentangling assumptions of competition and collaboration, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 34 No. 2, 285-314
Young, D. (1996), Looking at your companys fragile reputation, Public Relations
Quarterly, Winter1995-96, 40, 4, pg.7
RRM 1-2007 67

The Use of Benchmarking in Public Relations PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Use of Benchmarking in Public Relations PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Benchmarking n domeniul relaiilor publice

Cuvinte-cheie: modelele procesului de benchmarking, cele mai bune practici, tactica

Clasificare JEL: L25, M30

28 Daniel ERBNIC, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE

JEL classification: L25, M30

Originile i tendinele benchmarkingului

30 Daniel ERBNIC, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE

A commonly used tool of management practitioners in the late twentieth century is

Benchmark is a term we have borrowed from surveyors. If a surveyor can mark a

The origins and tendencies of benchmarking

formeaz competenele de baz ale organizaiei. Pentru dezvoltarea i amplificarea

32 Daniel ERBNIC, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE

Benchmarking has spawned a voluminous literature in recent years as it has spread

Benchmarking contributes to an organizations ability to attain a competitive position

34 Daniel ERBNIC, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE

It is new institutionalism analysis that enables us to understand better the very

prin care se poate realiza un echilibru ntre heteronomie i autonomie, adic

Caracteristici specifice benchmarkingului

36 Daniel ERBNIC, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE

operationally, but centralized strategically. Along with devolved budgets, benchmarking

The nature of benchmarking

38 Daniel ERBNIC, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE

1. To improve communications and motivation. Benchmarking processes are

2. To coaling with the TQM/measurement trend. Benchmarking is part of a recent

3. To obtain technological advances. Benchmarking organizations outside ones

4. To obtain unbiased management information. Effective benchmarking requires

5. To identify areas of opportunity. PR benchmarking can be used to identify the

6. To assess functional performance/capability. Effective PR benchmarking, when

datele normative care permit compararea performanei comportamentale a indivizilor

40 Daniel ERBNIC, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE

9. To improve decision making. As a fact-finding activity, benchmarking generates

Issues and problems

42 Daniel ERBNIC, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE

Though more sophisticated forms of benchmarking can minimize some of these

From a practical standpoint, what can management do to help ensure that

Pentru implementarea unei strategii de modelare eficiente, sunt necesare cteva

Bugete i benchmarkuri n relaiile publice

44 Daniel ERBNIC, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE

To implement an effective shaping strategy, several steps should be followed (Luthans

2. If the target behavior is a complex chain of behavior, reduce it to a discrete,

4. Select potentially effective positive reinforces on the basis of the organizations

5. Make all positive reinforcement contingent upon successively closer

Budgets and benchmarks in PR

Benchmarking as a strategic planning tactic is definitely here to stay. Public relations

comparaia cu competitorii direci, benchmarking-ul folosete date i din alte domenii

Tipuri i eluri ale benchmarketingului de relaii publice

46 Daniel ERBNIC, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE

Types and targets of PR benchmarking

Obiectivul temelor strategice de benchmarking este acela de a identifica acei factori

48 Daniel ERBNIC, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE

The objective of benchmarking strategic issues is to identify those factors of critical

1. Internal benchmarking refers to the analysis of existing PR practices within various

Performance drivers act as precipitators of a series of actions or activities that respond

2. Competitor benchmarking occurs when one organization compares its PR practices

3. Functional/Generic/Best Practices is the broadest form of benchmarking in scope.

Modelul procesual al benchmarkingului de relaii publice

50 Daniel ERBNIC, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE

Process model of PR benchmarking

1. planning (e.g. what to benchmark and whom to benchmark against);

In its simplest form, benchmarking entails 4 steps (Weisendanger, 1993) and is a

competenele distinctive, nivelul analizei, procedeele cheie n relaii publice i rezultatele

52 Daniel ERBNIC, Gheorghe MILITARU, Daniel MOISE

factors, distinctive competencies, level of analysis, key PR processes, and their