Benchmarking: Far Beyond Simple Comparison

Although the term benchmark is widely known and used in the business world, benchmarking is constantly present in our lives—whether we apply it consciously or not.

Simply put, benchmarking is evaluating something against a reference. This reference—the benchmark—may be a standard, an average, a best practice, or a desirable performance level. In an increasingly dynamic world, marked by rapid transformation, continuous innovation, and constant shifts in behavior, conducting benchmarking has also become more challenging. It is like analyzing an opponent’s game while the pieces are constantly moving.

From a conceptual standpoint, an important distinction is worth noting:

A benchmark refers to the reference itself, while benchmarking is the structured process of analysis, interpretation, and learning derived from those references.

The role of benchmarking in organizations

In organizational contexts, benchmarking is a key practice and can serve multiple strategic purposes, such as:

• Market positioning and share, helping organizations understand where they stand relative to competitors and reference players;

• Strategy definition, including pricing policies, business models, and value propositions;

• Competitive analysis, encompassing products, services, processes, customer experience, and growth strategies;

• Development of new products and services, through the identification of best practices, trends, and emerging patterns;

• Identification of competitive advantages and gaps, supporting the definition of realistic goals and development plans;

• Assessment of organizational maturity, including processes, capabilities, and operational performance.

  
  

When properly conducted, benchmarking provides valuable inputs for decision-making, far beyond a purely comparative exercise.

Benchmarking in the context of project management

In project management, benchmarking can also play a strategic role—not only in decisions about deliverables, such as products and services —but especially in aligning expectations, supporting decision-making, and evaluating performance.

In recent years, the Project Management Institute - PMI, has conducted relevant research on project success, expanding the traditional view focused solely on execution variables such as scope, schedule, and cost. These studies reinforce the need to incorporate metrics oriented toward value delivery and stakeholder perception.

Within this context, the Net Project Success Score (NPSS) was proposed—a global success metric based on stakeholders’ perceptions of the value delivered by a project. NPSS enables the observation of success references across different industries, project types, and funding sources, while also engaging with dimensions such as measurement, professional impact, sustainability, and social impact.

In the report Project Success: Step Up – Redefining the Path to Project Success With M.O.R.E., these discussions advance further by exploring the relationship between project success—and, consequently, its effects on NPSS—and the adoption of the M.O.R.E. mindset (Motivation, Ownership, Resilience, and Empowerment).

In all these cases, benchmarking does not replace professional judgment. On the contrary, it helps reduce bias, strengthens arguments with sponsors and stakeholders, and expands the dialogue needed to align expectations, needs, and decisions.

Different approaches to benchmarking

There are multiple ways to conduct benchmarking, which can be combined depending on the intended objective. These include:

• Industry benchmarks, focused on specific sectors and based on reports and studies from specialized organizations, research institutes, or consultancies;

• Industry standards and norms, which establish minimum or desired performance, quality, or compliance references;

• Market research, both quantitative and qualitative, aimed at understanding customer expectations, trends, product and service differentiation, and competitive movements;

• Internal benchmarks, comparing units, teams, projects, or programs within the same organization;

• The use of data and analytical tools, increasingly supported by artificial intelligence solutions that enhance analysis, correlation, and pattern identification.

  
  

Regardless of the approach, it is essential that benchmarking be conducted methodically, contextualized, and supported by reliable data.

Before comparing, it is essential to reflect

Before initiating any benchmarking effort, several questions should be considered:

• What is the objective of this benchmarking, and what expectations are associated with it?

• What is intended to be analyzed or referenced?

• How will it be conducted? What resources and competencies are required? What effort and cost are involved?

• Which sources and references will be used? Do they make sense for the evaluated context?

• How will the results be interpreted?

• What concrete actions may be derived from this analysis?

• 
  

Without such reflection, benchmarking risks becoming merely an informational exercise—or an unnecessary expense rather than an investment—or, worse, an empty comparison.

What benchmarking is not

Benchmarking is a tool for evaluation and learning, and it should not be confused with copying or automatically replicating models or strategies. Replicating practices or structures without considering organizational context—including culture, maturity, operational capacity and capability, available resources, and strategy—can create more problems than solutions.

For example, adopting a governance model or delivery approach that works well in a highly mature organization may be unfeasible—or even counterproductive—in contexts with lower levels of structure, autonomy, or capability.

Best practices are not universal. What works well in one organization may not make sense in another.

Therefore, benchmarking should be used as a reference to guide action, grounded in critical analysis and discernment—not as a tool for coercion, manipulation, undue pressure, or team demotivation.

Benchmarking beyond the corporate environment

Even when not explicitly labeled as such, benchmarking is also present in other areas of our lives.

When we undergo a blood test, for example, the results are accompanied by reference values that allow us to assess whether certain indicators are within, above, or below expected ranges.

Other everyday examples include:

• Personal financial indicators compared against market benchmarks, such as in investment decisions or salary analysis;

• Well-being and health metrics used as references for routine adjustments;

• Educational assessments based on averages and standards;

• Fitness apps that compare performance against averages for people of the same age group and gender, supporting goal setting and progress tracking;

• Investment decisions, such as comparing real estate options across different regions based on price, location, infrastructure, and appreciation potential.

  
  

Conclusion

Benchmarking is not an end in itself. It is about a tool to understand where we are and where we can, should, and want to go, based on the critical analysis of external references. In a constantly changing environment, references should be seen as guides—not final destinations.

When well applied, benchmarking becomes a powerful catalyst for learning, evolution, innovation, continuous improvement, and conscious decision-making, helping to answer questions such as: where do we stand relative to our potential and available opportunities? what can be improved? which choices generate the greatest value? and how can expectations be aligned in complex and uncertain contexts?

#Benchmarking #StrategicManagement #DecisionMaking #ContinuousLearning #ProjectManagement #ProjectSuccess #Strategy #CriticalThinking