Benchmarking firm performance

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of the paper is to provide a framework for benchmarking firm performance (profitability) using panel data. Further, to illustrate how the estimation results can be used for simulation (what if?) exercises.Design/methodology/approachThe authors apply the econometric techniques used in panel data to estimate profit functions, thereby enabling us to compute measures of firm efficiencies which can subsequently be used as benchmarking tools.FindingsThe results suggest that both large firms and those highly specialised, enjoy higher profit margins, whereas the more capital intensive a firm is, the lower is its profitability. As with previous studies there is strong evidence of the U‐shaped relationship between market share and profitability. The authors present an analysis of the distribution of firm efficiencies across industries as a whole, and by a number of industry groups.Research limitations/implicationsOnly a limited sample (with regard to the time span) of Australian firms is used. A major assumption of the procedure is that firm efficiencies are constant over time. Given the short time period used in the empirical application, this does not appear to be unrealistic.Practical implicationsThe paper provides firms with easy‐to‐use tools with which to benchmark their performance relative to other firms, conditional on their base characteristics.Originality/valueThis is the first time that this type of benchmarking exercise has been applied to firm profitability using relatively simple panel data techniques: it will be of use to market analysts, managers and shareholders alike.

Relationship Between Inflation and Real Economic Growth in Rwanda

“…Smith and Verner (2006) found that the proportion of women in top management jobs had a positive effect on a firm's performance and that the effect depended on the qualifications of female top managers in Denmark. Dawkins et al (2007) argue that both large firms and those which are highly specialized, enjoy higher profit margins, whereas the more capital intensive the firm the lower its profitability.…”

En route to a theory of benchmarking

“…For example, Argyris (1977) applies benchmarking to double loop organizational learning and McAdam and McCreedy (1999) to knowledge management initiatives. Furthermore, benchmarking is explicitly referred to in the more tactical areas of total quality management (Franceschini et al, 2006), supply chain management (Deming, 1982;Zairi and Baidoun, 2003), balanced scorecards (Kaplan and Norton, 1992), Six Sigma (Xerox, 1979), innovation (Radnor and Robinson, 2000), performance measurement (Carpinetti and de Melo, 2002;Anderson and McAdam, 2004;Dawkins et al, 2007;Alstete, 2008), and business excellence models (EFQM, 2003;NIST, 2007). These applications refine the definition of benchmarking.…”

The Effect of Training and Informational Technology Management on Organizational Performance of Sharjah Police

“…Studies of this caliber (e.g., Dawkins, Feeny & Harris, 2007;Debnath & Shankar, 2008) explained that benchmarking is a tool that enhances organizational performance. Based on the above, organizations that fail to practice benchmarking as a main process of performance measurement will realize little to no improvement, highly dissatisfied employees and high turnover.…”