Conceptual benchmarking implies providing the necessary information of the adaptive aspects of the operation and the functional concepts that drive it in order to be able to recreate the function that is being benchmarked.
This process is a backward-chaining thinking process that requires the use of ontological reverse engineering and the operational benchmarking process, which is a forward-thinking process that requires a systemic approach.
The objectives implicit in business benchmarking
The objective of benchmarking is to learn from the environment. Benchmarking forces individuals to face the environment and confront with the possible weaknesses of its value proposal.
The learning processes are materialized in a recreation process that allows integrating the benchmark by upgrading the value proposition at a conceptual level.
There is also the possibility of copying solutions that are not protected by intellectual property.
Recreation is energy consuming but allows overcoming the benchmark with better solutions.
Copying tends towards cloning solutions which probably will be at a lower level than the benchmark but might have lower costs.
The recreation process requires apprehending the ontology of the benchmark to build a better operational solution. Creation, and also recreation, requires sound knowledge.
Ontological benchmarking requires understanding the ontological structure of the adaptive aspects that are being compared.
It allows apprehending the nature of the activity and widening the possibilities of the expansion of the functionality of the value proposition.
Therefore, it is necessary to have the ontological structures of what is being compared. Ontological benchmarking is an energy consuming activity.
On the other hand, operational benchmarking is an energy conservative activity because the comparison of the operational aspects of what is being compared is easy and the conclusions are evident for those who understand the process.
Benchmarking requires both homologous and analogous comparison
It is necessary to compare both the homologous aspects that define the nature of an object and the analogous aspects that define the functionality of the object to achieve a reliable knowledge in order to be able to use this knowledge to upgrade a business value proposition.
Homologous benchmarking is necessarily the first step in order to be sure that what is being compared belongs to the same “category”, “class” or “unified field”. This means that the elements that are being compared are substitutes within the same essential function.
This is what we call ontological benchmarking, which is based on the comparison of the ontologies of the elements.
Analogous benchmarking can begin after the elements have been proven to be homologous. Analogous benchmarking implies operational benchmarking in order to compare the functions of the elements.
The need of both benchmarking processes is basic to have a valid benchmarking. People who start with the operational/analogous benchmarking process consider that the elements are implicitly homologous.
This is the major problem of benchmarking and the cause of most of the business failures.
Ontological segments of benchmarking
To learn from benchmarks, it is necessary to cover all the aspects that need to be benchmarked, implying both the ontological and the operational benchmarking processes.
The maximal strategy which allows benchmarking the adaptive aspects of businesses requires ontological benchmarking. The minimum strategy is focused on the administrative, operational and control aspects. It requires the use of operational benchmarks.
The ontological benchmarking process is a backward-chaining thinking process that requires the use of ontological reverse engineering and the operational benchmarking process is a forward-thinking process that requires a systemic approach.
Ontological benchmarking implies providing the necessary information of the adaptive aspects of the operation and the functional concepts that drive it in order to be able to recreate the value proposition that is been benchmarked.
This requires dealing with the homology of the elements that are being compared considering two different segments:
- The comparison of the essential aspects of the elements
- The comparison of the homological functionality of these elements
Operational benchmarking is based on comparing the methodic operation and the operational concepts that define the functionality of the element that is being compared with “our element” in order to make a materialistic functional comparison of both.
Operational benchmarking implies dealing with the analogical aspects of the operational functionality. It defines two different segments:
- The comparison of the operational analogies.
- The comparison of the functionality of the analogous elements.
The ontological algorithm defines the encapsulated method within the benchmarking process.
The benchmarking process is an operational object that requires quality control of the activity and has to be considered as a catalyst for growth in the case that it is fulfilled integrating both the ontological and the operational benchmarking processes.
When the process degrades towards an operational benchmarking activity it might work as an entropy inhibitor.
The Benchmarking Process
Step 1:
Definition of the aspects that will be benchmarked. These aspects are the ones that need to be controlled in order to upgrade them. This definition defines the final purpose of the benchmarking process.
Step 1A:
Accessing the ontological structures of the aspects that will be benchmarked. These ontological structures define the fundamentals that underlie the activity, fact or idea being benchmarked.
Step 1B:
Validation of the technical-analytical knowledge that defines the systemic cause-effect relations that need to be benchmarked. This information provides the basic information to sustain the operational benchmarking process.
Step 1C:
Defining the validity of the knowledge that needs to be benchmarked. This reliable knowledge confirmation is the driver of the benchmarking process. If compared with the benchmarks the knowledge does not confirm its full reliability to produce the defined results, the upgrading process has to begin with a recreation activity.
Step 2:
The recreation process is triggered by the need to upgrade the business aspects that are being benchmarked. The goal to be achieved in the recreation process is proposed at this level.
Step 3:
The assessment of the adaptive process of the business aspects provides the structural information of the fundamentals that need to be revised. This stage requires managing the ontological algorithms that underlie the business aspects.
Step 4:
The comparison of the functional concepts between the benchmarked elements provides the information of what needs to be structurally improved. The knowledge of the functional concepts, which provide the maximal strategy to improve the business aspects, is the catalyst for the minimum strategy that provides an operational improvement.
Step 5:
The recreation process ends when an upgrade of the benchmarked aspects can be defined. The recreation benchmarking process ends with the definition of the conceptual design of the upgrade.
Step 6:
Definition of the operational aspects that need to be improved based on the comparison with the benchmarks. These aspects need to be accessed through substitutes or succedaneums.
Step 7:
Comparison of the operational methods of the aspects being benchmarked to find functional advantages or disadvantages that need to be considered. Operational methods need to be compared in an extremely detailed way.
Step 8:
The operational concepts are the visible, observable and manageable elements of the business aspects that are being benchmarked. They can be influenced through valid actions that improve the operational functionality of the benchmarked activity or fact. This stage is the entropy inhibitor of the benchmarking process.
Step 9:
Confirmation that the eventual operational disadvantages can be solved through substitutes or succedaneums. The final stage of the minimum strategy is the development of an action plan to implement the improvements of the operational functionality.
Annex
Expert Systems to Sustain Methods
The unicist expert systems are alternative tools for any method that deals with business problem solving or solution building.
They were developed to manage the fundamentals of business processes by managing the root causes of processes to develop solutions in adaptive environments.
With multiple specialized modules to solve specific problems, these systems manage the unified field of the business processes to manage their functionality, dynamics and adaptability.
Note: The R&D work of this technology/methodology was led by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute.
The Unicist Research Institute