No abstract

This study suggests that the most recent developments in the content, forms and targets of benchmarking represent a challenge to revise its concept and classification for both theoretical and practical purposes. This problem is approached through the interpretative, heuristic‐descriptive concept method that aims to understand the concepts and their definitions in order to re‐interpret the entity of the meanings. The first phase of the study applies the idea of the evolving concept, originally introduced by Watson and further modified by Ahmed and Rafiq. Its five generations are supplemented with two newcomers – competence, and as an option, network benchmarking. In the second phase these generations are then categorised by further developing Bhutta and Huq's two‐dimensional matrix. This provides a three‐dimensional profiling tool that could be used in analysing and conducting benchmarking processes. It covers the newest forms of benchmarking and is suitable for different targets. It also leads to a definition depicting the current outlook on benchmarking. The findings indicate that the evolving nature of the concepts and forms encourages us to revise our understanding of the theoretical bases of benchmarking. The results also indicate that benchmarking has potentials in many directions, encouraging both theoretical and empirical studies as well as their interaction.

No abstract

No abstract

This study participates in the debate on advancing theoretical developments in the field of benchmarking processes. It suggests that approaching benchmarking as a research method helps to explicate the basis of benchmarking processes and at the same time offers tools for scientific research in this field. Adopting an interpretative, comparative concept analysis the study approaches benchmarking as an action research. The results indicate that benchmarking might be regarded as a special kind of action research; however, in that case, more attention would need to be addressed to the preliminary planning, observation, reflection and the use of theoretical frames, all of which are essential for distinguishing a scientifically‐conducted action research process from practical work. Thus, adopting an action research approach might improve the implementation as well as the theoretical foundation of the benchmarking process.