Convaincus de la puissance du Partage de Pratiques pour l'avoir nous-mêmes expérimenté et animé, nous avons crée avanTilt, parcours innovant réunissant les commerciaux d'entreprises de secteurs d'activités non concurrents, dans un esprit benchmarking.

Ce dispositif, court et ciblé, combine la formation, l'analyse de pratiques, le benchmarking et le coaching individuel avec 3 objectifs :
♦ expliciter ses pratiques et apprendre de celles des autres pour ensuite expérimenter et progresser en situation sur le terrain ;
♦ développer des compétences souvent négligées dans les parcours de formations commerciales classiques : découvrir sa stratégie personnelle de réussite (stratégie d'objectif) ; améliorer son potentiel de créativité ; valoriser la puissance de la coopération en équipe.
♦ transposer son expérience de partage de pratiques dans son équipe et son entreprise pour y favoriser la coopération.

Souhaitez-vous en savoir plus sur ce dispositif innovant ?

Pierre Brémond - Véronique Henaff
pbremond@avantilt.com - vhenaff@avantilt.com
06 75 21 73 44 - 06 87 94 36 98

Código:

[sourcecode language='csharp']
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch sw = new System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch();

sw.Start();
for(int i=0;i<1000;i++)
Program.comUpper("teste");
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(sw.Elapsed.ToString());

sw.Reset();
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
Program.semUpper("teste");
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(sw.Elapsed.ToString());

sw.Reset();
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
Program.comCompare("teste");
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(sw.Elapsed.ToString());

Console.ReadKey();

}

static void comUpper(string val)
{
if (val.ToUpper().Equals("teste"));

}

static void semUpper(string val)
{
if (val.Equals(val, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) ;
}

static void comCompare(string val)
{
if (String.Compare(val, "teste", true) == 0) ;
}
}
[/sourcecode]

Gráfico:

Usando Métodos de Extensão podemos criar um .EqualsIgnoreCase(string) =)

Premiere semaine plutot difficile, heureusement j'ai ramene de tres bon fromages de france donc j ai pu me consoler allegrement...Mais le retour siginifie surtout un retour au boulot...et bien entendu rien n'est simple...faire le bilan des projets...(en retard bien entendu..), faire le bilan des finances...et surtout faire les bilan des heureux vacanciers (les employes) dont evidement certains ne sont toujours pas rentre...normalement demain est un autre jour et tout le monde devrait etre de retour pour pouvoir repartir plein tubes....

Satisfaction neanmoins, suite a un projet recemment gagne j ai du passer pas mal de temps sur internet a faire du benchmarking de site et de la veille technologique ce qui m'a donne pas mal d'idees...evidement pas de details pour l'instant, mais j'espere que une ou deux d'entre elle ressortirons des brainstorming avec l'equipe.

Sur ce je vais potasser sur la redaction d'articles un peu plus orientes Entreprenariat, les idees ne manquent pas mais je ne sais par ou commencer...le top evidement serait que les quelques lecteurs de ce blog m'orientent et "profitent" de moi pour pour aborder des sujets specifiques...

NTPC seems to be truly committed to its tagline, “Generating smiles beyond megawatts”, applying it not only to external stakeholders but also to its 23,500 employees. The company’s HR strategy, which is closely aligned to NTPC’s overall strategy, has four focus areas – Competence, Commitment, Culture and Systems. Apart from an elaborate one-year induction and training program for new employees, NTPC has also put in place a formal mentoring system through which senior executives facilitate the new recruit’s integration into the organizational fabric. Training is in fact the soul of NTPC’s competence building initiatives – the company has 15 project training centers, 2 simulator training centers and a Power Management Center for senior management training.

True to the spirit of a learning organization, NTPC has launched several events to nurture creativity and innovation. In the annual Open Competition for Executive Talent, teams are judged on the basis of oral and written presentations on work-related themes. Quality Circles have been institutionalized, and “professional circles” in each department meet every fortnight to brainstorm on specific issues and share their insights and experience.  The company’s comprehensive talent recognition system uses a combination of monetary incentives and other rewards to celebrate individual and team achievements. The NTPC Development Centers are dedicated to mapping the current and potential competencies of employees and helping them to enhance their capabilities. NTPC also has many programs which propagate the vision and core values of the company across all employee levels.

The organization’s commitment to nurturing its employees has helped create a highly competent and committed workforce with a strong sense of belonging. For those who are not impressed by awards and accolades, here is a more “solid” metric – NTPC has an attrition rate of 0.17% – one of the lowest among Indian companies.

Os sistemas são o Zoomerang e o SurveyGizmo.

Fim de semana promete.

Postarei em breve um resumo das vantagens e desvantagens de cada um destes produtos.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.659799&w=425&h=350&fv=]

BASF is the first paint manufacturing company in India to receive the award, which is based on rigorous assessment of a firm’s quality systems as well as several other criteria including communication, teamwork and strategic alignment. A noteworthy example of the harmony between Ford and BASF is the creation of the sensational new automotive color, “Brushed Steel”, which BASF specially formulated for Ford’s Indian market. Another delighted BASF customer is Audi, the German luxury car manufacturer, who handpicked the company’s eco-friendly “Glasurit” as its official refinish paint.

It is one thing to declare customer delight as your primary objective, and another to actually attain it in tangible terms. So how does BASF manage to do it repeatedly in an industry that is equally competitive and controversial? To answer this, you needn’t look beyond the group’s four-pronged strategy for value-adding growth. The strategy has four objectives or “guidelines” - earning a premium on cost of capital, helping customers to be more successful, forming the best team in the industry and ensuring sustainable development. BASF deploys the strategy through a combination of measures like rapid acquisition and integration of firms, restructuring, research and development, market-driven innovation and most importantly, a strong commitment to the environment.

So that’s one more case in favor of a well-formulated, well-rounded and well-deployed strategy that is based on complementary - rather than mutually exclusive - strategic objectives.

We’ve had more than a few stories about the pros and cons of rankings (e.g., 19 November's  'University rankings: deliberations and future directions'), but, of course, curiosity killed the cat so I eagerly plunged in for a quick scan.

Leaving aside the individual university scale, one of the most interesting representations of the data they collected, suspect though it might be, is this one:

The geographies, especially the disciplinary/field geographies, are noteworthy on a number of levels. The results are sure to propel the French (currently holding the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union) into further action re., the deconstruction of the Shanghai methodology, and the development of alternatives (see my reference to this issue in the 6 July entry titled 'Euro angsts, insights and actions regarding global university ranking schemes').

I’m also not sure we can rely upon the recently established IREG-International Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence to shed unbiased light on the validity of the above table, and all the rest that are sure to be circulated, at the speed of light, through the global higher ed world over the next month or more. Why? Well, the IREG-International Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence, established on 18 April 2008, is supposed to:

review the conduct of "academic ranking" and expressions of "academic excellence" for the benefit of higher education, its stake-holders and the general public. This objective will be achieved by way of:

• improving the standards, theory and practice in line with recommendations formulated in the Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions;
• initiating research and training related to ranking excellence;
• analyzing the impact of ranking on access, recruitment trends and practices;
• analyzing the role of ranking on institutional behavior;
• enhancing public awareness and understanding of academic work.

Answering the explicit request of ranking bodies, the Observatory will review and assess selected rankings, based on methodological criteria and deontological standards of the Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions. Successful ranking will be entities to declare they are "IREG Recognized".

Now, who established the IREG-International Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence? A variety of ‘experts’ (photo below), including people associated with said Shanghai rankings, as well as U.S. News & World Report.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but is it not illogical, best intentions aside, to have rankers themselves on boards of institutions that seek to review “the conduct of 'academic ranking' and expressions of 'academic excellence' for the benefit of higher education, its stake-holders and the general public", while also handing out IREG Recognized certifications (including to themselves, I presume)?

Kris Olds

Para demostrar el valor de esta tecnología, VMware ha medido el rendimiento de varias maquinas virtuales durante la distribución de estas a través de los algoritmos de DRS.

El documento contiene muchos consejos útiles para mejorar la eficiencia de DRS.

Puedes bajarte el documento aquí.

Five UK universities were in the spotlight after having their creditworthiness rated by Standard & Poor’s (S&P's). In total, S&P’s assesses 20 universities in the UK (5 are made public, the rest are confidential), with 90% of this survey considered by the rating agency to be of high investment grade quality (of A- or above).

Universities in the UK, it would appear from S&P’s Report Card, have had a relatively good year from ‘a credit perspective’. This pronouncement is surely something to celebrate in a year when the word ‘credit crunch’ has become the new metaphor for economic meltdown, and when higher education institutions are likely to be worried about the affects of the sub-prime mortgage lending crisis on loans to students and institutions more generally.

But to the average lay person (or even the average university professor), with a generally low level of financial literacy, what does this all mean? Global ratings agencies passing judgments on UK universities, or policies to drive the sector more generally, or, finally, individual institutional governance decisions?

Three years ago, when one of us (Susan) was delivering an Inaugural Professorial Address at Bristol, S&P’s 2005 report on Bristol (AA/Stable/--) was flashed up, much to the amusement of the audience though to the bemusement of the Chair, a senior university leader. The mild embarrassment of the Chair was largely a consequence of the fact that he was unaware of this judgment on Bristol by a credit rating agency headquartered in New York.

Now the reason for showing S&P’s judgment on the University of Bristol was neither to amuse the audience nor to embarrass the Chair. The point at the time was to sketch out the changing landscape of globalizing education systems within the wider global political economy, to introduce some of the newer (and more private) players who increasingly wield policymaking/shaping power on the sector, to reflect on how these agencies work, and to delineate some of the emerging effects of such developments on the sector.

Our view is that current analyses of globalizing higher education have neglected the role of credit rating agencies in the governance of the higher education sector—as specialized forms of intelligence gathering, shaping and judgment determination on universities. Yet, credit rating agencies are, in many ways, at the heart of contemporary global governance. Witness, for example, the huge debates going on now about establishing a European register for ratings agencies.

The release, then, this week of the S&P’s UK Universities 2008 Report Card, is an opportunity for GlobalHigherEd to sketch out to interested readers a basic understanding of global rating agencies and their relationship to the global governance of higher education.

Rating agencies – origins

Timothy Sinclair, a University of Warwick academic, has been writing for more than a decade on rating agencies and their roles in what he calls the New Global Finance (NGF) (Sinclair, 2000). His various articles and books (see, for example, Sinclair 1994; 2000; 2003; 2005)—some of which are listed below—are worth reading for those of you who want to pursue the topic in greater depth.

Sinclair outlines the early development and subsequent growing importance of credit rating agencies—the masters of capital and second superpowers—arguing that there have been a number of distinct phases in their development.

The first phase dates back to the 1850s, when compendiums of information were produced for American financial markets about large industrial infrastructure developments, such as railroads and canals. However, it was not until the 1907 financial crisis that these early compendiums of information were then used to make judgements about the creditworthiness of debtors (Sinclair, 2003: 148).

‘Rating’ then entered a period of rapid growth from the mid-1930s onwards, as a result of state governments in the US incorporating rating standards into their prudential rules for investment by pension funds.

A third phase began in the 1980s, when new financial innovations (particularly low-rated or junk bonds) were developed, and cheaper offshore non-national money markets were created (that is, places where funds are raised by selling debt obligations and equity outside of the current constraints of government regulation).

However this process, of what Sinclair (1994: 136) calls the ‘disintermediation’ of financing (meaning state regulatory bodies are side-stepped), creates information problems for those wishing to lend money and those wishing to borrow it.

The current phase is now characterized by, on the one hand, greater internationalization of finance, and on the other hand hand, increased significance of capital markets that challenge the role of Banks, as intermediaries.

Credit rating agencies have, as a result, become more important as suppliers of the information with which to make credit-worthiness judgments.

New York-based rating agencies have grown rapidly since then, responding to innovations in financial instruments, on the one hand, and the need for information, on the other. Demand for information has also generated competition within the industry, with some firms operating niche specializations – for instance, as we see with Standards & Poor’s and the higher education sector, itself a subsidiary of publishers McGraw Hill,

Credit rating is big, big business. As Sinclair (2005) notes, the two major credit rating agencies, Moody’s and Standards & Poor’s, pass judgments on around a $30 trillion worth of securities each year. Ratings also affect rates or costs of borrowing, so that the higher the rating, the less risk of default on repayment to the lender and therefore the lower the cost to the borrower.

Universities with different credit ratings will, therefore, be differently placed to borrow – so that the adage of ‘the more you have the more you get’ becomes a major theme.

The rating process

If we look at the detail of the ‘issuer credit rating’ and ‘comments’ in the Report Card of, for instance, the University of Bristol, or King’s College London, we can see that detail is gathered on the financial rating of the issuer; on the industry, competitors, and economy; on legal advice related to the specific issue; on management, policy, business outlook, accounting practices and so on; and on the competitive position, quality of management, long term industry prospects, and wider economic environment. As Sinclair (2003: 150) notes:

The rating agencies are most interested in data on cash flow relative to debt service obligations. They want to know how liquid the company is, and where there will be timely problems likely to hinder repayment. Other information may include five-year financial projections, including income statements and balance sheets, analysis of capital spending plans, financing alternatives, and contingency plans. This information which may not be publicly known is supplemented by agency research into the value of current outstanding obligations, stock valuations and other publicly available data that allows for an inference…

The rating that follows – an opinion on creditworthiness—is generated by an analytical team, a report is prepared with the rating and rationale, this is put to the rating committee made up of senior officials, and a final determination is made in private. The decision is subject to appeal by the issuer. Issuer credit ratings can be either long or short term. S&P use the following nomenclature for long term issue credit ratings (see Bankers Almanac, 2008: 1- 3):

• AAA - (highest/ extremely strong capacity to meet financial commitments
• AA - very strong capacity to meet financial commitments
• A – strong capacity to meet financial commitments, but susceptible to adverse affects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions
• BBB - adequate capacity to meet financial commitments
• BB – less vulnerable in the near term than other lower rated obligators, but faces major ongoing uncertainties
• B – more vulnerable than BB – but adverse business, financial or economic conditions will likely impair obligator’s capacity to meet its financial commitments

Rating higher education institutions

In light of the above discussion, we can now look more closely at the kinds of judgments passed on those universities included in a typical Report Card on the sector by Standards & Poor’s (see 2008: 7).

The 2008 Report Card itself is short; a 9 page document which offers a ‘credit perspective’ on the sector more generally, and on 5 universities. We are told “the UK higher education sector has made positive strides over the past few years, but faces increasing risks in the medium-to-long term” (p. 2).

The Report goes on to note a trebling of tuition fees in the UK, the growth the overseas student market and associated income, an increase in research income for research intensive universities – so that of the 5 universities rated, 1 has been upgraded, another has had its outlook revised to ‘positive’, and no ratings were adjusted for the other three.

The Report also notes (p. 2) that the universities publicly rated by S&P’s are among the leading universities in the UK. To support this claim they refer to another ranking mechanism that is now providing information in the global marketplace – The Times Higher QS World Universities Rankings 2007, which is, as we have noted in a recent entry ('Euro angsts'), receiving considerable critical attention in Europe.

However, the Report Card also notes pressures within the system: higher wage demands linked to tuition increases, the search for new researchers to be counted as part of the UK’s Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), global competition for international students, and the heightened expectations of students for better infrastructure as a result of higher fees.

Longer term risks include the fact that by 2020, there will be 16% fewer 18 year olds coming through the system, according to forecasts by Universities UK – with the biggest impact being on the newer universities (in the UK these so-called ‘newer universities’ are previous polytechnics who were given university status in 1992).

Of the 20 UK universities rated in this S&P’s Report, 4 universities are rated AAA; 8 are rated AA; 6 are rated A, and 2 are rated BBB. The University of Bristol, as we can see from the analysts' rating and comments which we have reproduced below, is given a relatively favorable rating. We have also quoted this rating at length to give you a sense of the kind of commentary made and how this relates to the judgment passed.

Credit rating agencies, as instruments of the global governance of higher education

Credit rating agencies are particularly powerful because both markets and governments see them as authoritative sources of judgment, with the result that they are major actors in controlling access to capital markets. And despite the evident importance of credit rating agencies on the governance of universities in the UK and elsewhere, there is a remarkable lack of attention to this phenomenon. We think there are important questions that need to be researched and the results discussed more widely. For example:

• How widely spread is the practice?
• Why are some universities rated whilst others are not?
• Why are some universities’ ratings considered confidential whilst others are not (keeping in mind that they are all, in the above UK case, public taxpayer supported universities)?
• Have any universities contested their credit rating, and if so, through what process, and with what outcome?
• How do university’s management systems respond to these credit ratings, and in what ways might they influence ongoing policy decisions within the university and within the sector?
• How robust are particular kinds of reputational or status ‘information’, such as World University Rankings, especially if we are looking at creditworthiness?

Our reports on these global rankings show that there are major problems with such measures. As we have profiled, and as has University Ranking Watch and the Beerkens’ Blog, there are clearly unresolved debates and major problems with global ranking schemes.

Clearly market liberalism, of the kind that has characterized this current period of globalization, requires new kinds of intermediaries to provide information for both buyer and seller. And it cannot hurt to have ‘outside’ assessments of the fiscal health of institutions (in this case universities) that are complex, often opaque, and taxpayer supported. However, to experts like Timothy Sinclair (2003), credit rating agencies privatize policymaking, and they can narrow the sphere of government intervention.

For EU Internal Market Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, the credit ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P’s contributed to the current financial market turmoil because they underestimated the risks related to their structured credit products. As the Commissioner commented in EurActiv in June.: "No supervisor appears to have got as much as a sniff of the rot at the heart of the structured finance rating process before it all blew up."

In other words, credit rating agencies lack political accountability and enjoy an ‘accountability gap’. And while efforts are now under way by regulators to close that gap by developing new regulatory frameworks and rules, analysts worry that these private actors will now find new ways around the rules, and in turn facilitate the creation of a riskier financial architecture (as happened with global mortgage markets).

As universities become more financialized, as well as ranked, indexed and barometered in the ways we have been mapping on GlobalHigherEd, such ‘information’ on the sector will also likely be deployed to pass judgment and generate ratings and rankings of ‘creditworthiness’ for universities. The net effect may well be to exaggerate the differences between institutions, to generate greater levels of uneven development within and across the sector, and to increase rather then decrease the opacity and therefore accountability of the sector.

In sum, there is little doubt credit rating agencies, in passing judgments, play a key and increasingly important role in the global governance of higher education. It is also clear from these developments that we need to pay much closer attention to what might be thought of as mundane entities – credit rating agencies – and their role in the global governance of higher education. And we are also hopeful that credit ratings agencies will outline their views on this important dimension of the small g governance of higher education institutions.

Selected References

Bankers Almanac (2008) Standards and Poor’s Definitions, last accessed 5 August 2008.

King, M. and Sinclair, T. (2003) Private actors and public policy: a requiem for the new Basel Capital Accord, International Political Science Review, 24 (3), pp. 345-62.

Sinclair, T. (1994) Passing judgement: credit rating processes as regulatory mechanisms of governance in the emerging world order, Review of International Political Economy, 1 (1), pp. 133-159.

Sinclair, T. (2000) Reinventing authority: embedded knowledge networks and the new global finance, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, August 18 (4), pp. 487-502.

Sinclair, T. (2003) Global monitor: bond rating agencies, New Political Economy, 8 (1), pp. 147-161.

Sinclair, T. (2005) The New Masters of Capital: American Bond Rating Agencies and the Politics of Creditworthiness, New York: Cornell University Press.

Standard & Poor’s (2008) Report Card: UK Universities Enjoy Higher Revenues But Still Face Spending Pressures, London: Standards & Poor's.

Susan Robertson and Kris Olds

Che la dimensione dell'apparato amministrativo pubblico italiano sia eccessiva è ormai evidente a tutti. Così come le ragioni della crescita. Tuttavia, al netto della fortunata contingenza per cui nei prossimi anni molti dipendenti pubblici arriveranno all'età pensionabile, non è possibile procedere con ridimensionamenti troppo drastici, proprio a causa della importanza dell'occupazione pubblica per una bella fetta della popolazione italiana.
Allora, perchè non introdurre alcuni "semplici" meccanismi, che utilizzino magari metodi in uso nelle imprese, e che comincino a creare la base per comprendere l'effettivo dimensionamento richiesto per le risorse della pubblica amministrazione in funzione degli obietivi da raggiungere, così da usare le eventuali risorse disponibili per altri obiettivi a beneficio dell'economia italiana?
Prendiamo l'esempio del Ministero della Difesa Britannico (UK-MoD) . Dal 2000 è sato introdotto come metodologia per la strategia ed il controllo dell'efficienza il sistema delle Balanced Scorecards (Kaplan e Norton) effetuato dal DMB (Defence Management Board). Questo tipo di approccio consente di definire in maniera chiara (e trasparente, attraverso i siti internet pubblici del ministero) gli obiettivi strategici di miglioramento da raggiungere, e di utilizzare il livello di raggiungimento di quegli obiettivi come misura di  efficienza del sistema amministrativo del ministero.

In Italia sentiamo parlare di obiettivi per i dirigenti pubblici che sono definiti in modo autonomo dagli interessati, con autovalutazioni che (guarda caso) tendono ad essere fortemente spostate verso i livelli alti. Le amministrazioni si sono specializzate nello scrivere documenti che sono spostati sul tema della qualità dei servizi (carta dei servizi, codici e bilanci etici, ecc.), piuttosto che sul rapporto tra qualità e costo. Non che quanto viene fatto sia deleterio (anche se alla fine è una pura manovra di trasparenza), ma oggi sarebbe più utile analizzare come i servizi offerti possano essere ottimizzati (a parità di qualità), in vista del miglioramento dell'utilizzazione delle risorse disponibili.

Freeware:
MediaMonkey - best media player/library ever. It even includes iTunes and Apple Store support, plus PodCASTing and Internet Radio, plus free ripping and burning, and a smooth interface.
ESET Nod32 A/V - best A/V I've ever used so far. I like it far better than AVG.
Notepad++ - best lightweight extendable-scripting program I've ever used. Ever.
Hamachi - over-the-internet private local area network. You can directly send files to peers, or play LAN games with anyone anywhere on the face of the planet.
Universal Extractor - extracting solution for any type of archive. Yes, including Inno/NIS/WI and all other archived installation software.
GPU-Z - video card benchmarking solution. Gives the most accurate details about the model, build, and statistics of your video card.
SpeedFan - a powerful yet small utility that monitors CPU voltage, fan speed, and resource utilization to max out system performance without overheating.
FlashGet - best download manager I've ever used, and will ever use. Supports eMule, Torrents, and various other download protocols.
NETEagle - a powerful internet tweaking utility to max out optimum net performance.

FireFox Addons:
WOT - early online malsite/phishing site warning system.
NoScript - block any kind of script from running on a certain site/page. Ultimate online anti-malware solution.
DownThemAll! - the only download accelerator/manager inside Firefox.
FlashGot - download manager integration. Control multiple download managers within Firefox all at the same time.
Video DownloadHelper - download and convert media from any sites with embedded Flash objects.
AdBlock Plus - strip out all kinds of ads from every sites not on the whitelist.

Note: All Freeware programs listed above, except NETEagle, is pointing to FileHippo.com - the best freeware downloads site on the net. It contains only the best programs the webmasters found, and they believe in quality, not quantity.

Cette technique peut s'effectuer en interne, c'est à dire entre les différents services ou unités de l'organisation (benchmarking interne) ; ou en externe par l'observation des méthodes et processus de concurrents évoluant dans son secteur d'activité ou en dehors (benchmarking externe).

Cette méthode développée au début des années 1980 est devenue un standard du management en raison de sa capacité à améliorer l'efficacité et la qualité des processus d'une entreprise. Les améliorations que produit cette technique sont :

• Pour le benchmarking interne, un gain du temps (ne pas "réinventer la roue") et une diffusion des connaissances et bonnes pratiques au sein de l'entreprise
• Pour le benchmarking externe, une comparaison des pratiques et processus de l'organisation avec celles de la concurrence (voir s'inspirer des pratiques concurrentes)

Voici un schéma récapitulant brièvement les différentes phases du processus de benchmarking :

_

Améliorer l'efficacité opérationnelle

Le benchmarking sert donc avant tout à améliorer l'efficacité opérationnelle d'une activité ou d'un processus en recherchant les meilleures pratiques d'exécution.
En effet, comme le décrit le concept de chaîne de valeur, l'entreprise est un ensemble d'activités agencées pour servir un type de besoin ou un groupe de clients. La façon dont sont réalisées chacune de ces activités créatrices de valeur a une influence sur l'efficacité globale de la chaîne de valeur et donc sur la rentabilité de l'entreprise.

Dans ce contexte, le benchmarking a pour objectifs de :

• récupérer des informations sur la façon dont sont exécutées des activités similaires chez des concurrents, autres entités ou services de l'entreprise
• les mettre en relation avec leurs performances opérationnelles (maîtrise des coûts, respect des délais de livraison, optimisation des matières premières, technologie plus avancée, salariés plus motivés, etc.)
• comparer ces performances avec celles obtenues par l'entreprise et ainsi déceler les leviers d'amélioration des processus existants

D'autre part, le benchmarking interne est très important pour diffuser les bonnes pratiques au sein même de l'organisation. Cette partie du benchmarking découle des stratégies de knowledge management visant à diffuser et harmoniser les savoir et compétences de l'entreprise.

_

Les limites de cette méthode

L'un des biais dans lequel tombe la plupart des utilisateurs de cette méthode est qu'ils l'utilisent pour observer les stratégies de leurs concurrents et définir leur propre stratégie.

Ils détournent ainsi le benchmarking de sont objectif d'amélioration de l'efficacité opérationnelle, par celui d'outil pour définir la stratégie de leur entreprise. Voir l'explication de Michael E. Porter sur ce qu'est la stratégie :

_
La stratégie consiste à construire une position concurrentielle unique, ce qui nécessite d'accomplir des activités différentes de ses concurrents ou accomplir différemment des activités similaires. La poursuite d'une stratégie impose donc des arbitrages pour créer cette position concurrentielle unique sur le marché. Et ces arbitrages peuvent conduire à renoncer à certaine imitation pour renforcer le positionnement concurrentielle exclusif.

Les imitations mutuelles peuvent aboutir à la convergence des stratégies des entreprises d'un même secteur. D'ailleurs, l'intervention des sociétés de conseil qui diffusent l'expérience qu'elles acquièrent au travers de leurs différentes missions, accentuent le phénomène de convergence vers des pratiques standards d'exécution.

La concurrence engendrée par ces imitations peut s'avérer destructrice en terme de valeur et débouche souvent sur des périodes de fusion et acquisition, seule porte de sortie pour limiter la pression concurrentielle devenue trop forte.

_

D'autre part, plusieurs barrières se dressent devant la mise en pratique d'une méthode de benchmarking externe et rendent incertain les bénéfices attendus.

Tout d'abord, il est particulièrement difficile de réunir des informations précises sur les processus d'entreprises concurrentes. Ces informations ayant une portée stratégique pour ces acteurs, elles sont jalousement gardées et très difficile à obtenir.
Une fois en possession de ces informations, il faut ensuite identifier les sources de la performance du processus observé. Cette phase peut elle aussi s'avérer particulièrement complexe en raison de l'ambiguïté causale qui entour les performances supérieurs réalisées (cette performance peut avoir de multiples causes qui ne sont pas forcement identifiables).
Enfin, une fois identifié les sources de performance de l'activité observée, encore faut-il arriver à transposer les procédures d'exécution sur votre activité. Le transfert des compétences identifiées peut s'avérer très difficile, voir impossible, en raison des divergences de culture entre les deux organisations.

(Plus de détails sur le transfert inter-organisationnel de compétences)

_

Innovation et benchmarking

Dans le concept de stratégie océan bleu, l'accent est mis sur l'innovation pour créer un nouvel espace stratégique et ainsi s'affranchir de la concurrence. Or, une stratégie et à fortiori une stratégie innovante doit faire des choix et arbitrages clairs pour aboutir à une offre différenciée.

Ainsi, lorsque l'on poursuit une stratégie innovante (ou stratégie océan bleu), le benchmarking compétitif des autres acteurs du secteur est un biais particulièrement néfaste. L'alignement stratégique qu'il entraîne va effriter la position concurrentielle de l'entreprise et l'entraîner vers l'océan rouge de la concurrence frontale.

_

D'un autre côté, le benchmarking réalisé à l'intérieur même de l'organisation permet de diffuser les savoirs entre les différentes entités du groupe et les différents services. Il s'inscrit dans une logique de knowledge management qui crée un environnement particulièrement propice à l'innovation.

_

_

Pour conclure, on peut dire que le benchmarking est une technique très efficace pour l'amélioration opérationnelle des activités de valeur d'une entreprise.

Cela dit, il faut bien garder à l'esprit que vouloir imiter le positionnement concurrentiel des concurrents peut conduire à un alignement des stratégies des acteurs du secteur. Ce qui est particulièrement néfaste pour la rentabilité à long terme de l'entreprise et la poursuite d'une stratégie innovante.

Enfin, le benchmarking peut être un levier d'innovation lorsqu'il permet de partager les connaissances et compétences au sein de l'entreprise pour créer un environnement propice à l'innovation.
Mais bien entendu, cette méthode peut produire l'effet inverse lorsqu'elle pousse l'organisation à aligner sa stratégie sur les standards du secteur en perdant de vue l'obtention d'une position concurrentielle unique.

_

Sources :

• Office of Government Commerce (OGC) - Benchmarking
• Erwan Neau - Explication de la méthode de benchmarking
• Frédéric Prévot - Le transfert inter-organisationnel de compétences
• Kim Chan et Renée Mauborgne - Stratégie Océan bleu
• Michael E. Porter - La concurrence selon Porter

3DMark Vantage 1.0.1

Futuremark - 413.80MB (Commercial Trial)

3DMark03 3.6.0 Futuremark - 178.04MB (Freeware) 3DMark03 is a great benchmarking program for your gaming PC. By combining full DirectX 9.0a support with completely new tests and graphics, 3DMark03 c... Download now

3DMark05 1.3.0 Futuremark - 286.83MB (Freeware) 3DMark05 is the latest and hottest version of the very popular 3DMark series. By combining full DirectX 9.0c support with completely new tests and gra... Download now

3DMark06 1.1.0 Futuremark - 579.99MB (Freeware) 3DMark06 is the worldwide standard in advanced 3D game performance benchmarking. A fundamental tool for every company in the PC industry as well as PC... Download now

CPU-Z 1.46 CPUID - 558KB (Freeware) CPU-Z is a freeware utility that gathers information on some of the main devices of your system. CPU-Z does not need to be installed, just unzip the ... Download now

EVEREST Home Edition 2.20 Lavalys Consulting Group - 3.99MB (Freeware) EVEREST Home Edition is a freeware hardware diagnostics and memory benchmarking solution for home PC users, based on the award-winning EVEREST Technol... Download now

Fraps 2.9.4 beepa.com - 969KB (Shareware) Fraps is a universal Windows application that can be used with all games using DirectX or OpenGL technology. In its current form Fraps performs many t... Download now

GPU-Z 0.2.6 techPowerUp - 399KB (Freeware) GPU-Z is a lightweight utility designed to give you all information about your video card and GPU. Download now

Sandra Lite XII (14.24) SiSoftware - 15.03MB (Non-Commercial Freeware) SiSoftware Sandra (the System ANalyser, Diagnostic and Reporting Assistant) is an information & diagnostic utility. It should provide most of the info... Download now

SpeedFan 4.34 Almico - 1.61MB (Freeware) SpeedFan is a freeware program that monitors voltages, fan speeds and temperatures in computers with hardware monitor chips. SpeedFan can even access... Download now

winsat d3d -objs C(20) -texshader -totalobj 50

or

winsat d3d -totalobj 20 -objs C(20) -totaltex 10 -texpobj C(1) -alushader -noalpha -v -time 10

or

winsat d3d -totalobj 20 -objs C(20) -totaltex 10 -texpobj C(10) -alushader -v -time 10

Winsat is Windows System Assessment Tool