Talk:Benchmarking/Archives/2013

References supporting the given definition?
Are there references to back up the given definition of benchmarking? I would agree that "benchamrking" is a comparison of a quantitative indicator against a reference (the benchmark), but the reference does not necessarily have to be the "best" (or "most" or "highest"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.96.110.66 (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Organizations list
Does this article really need a list of organizations that do benchmarking? After all, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Aapo Laitinen 19:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree and tagged the section with a spam cleanup message. Rfrisbietalk 03:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The title for that section may be inappropriate, but SPAM is a harsh label to assign it - ot this topic. Some of these firms, including the one that I work for, actually have the publications and papers that established portions of the discipline over 25 years ago. I thought the article was a bit "shallow" in not mentioning Deming and his early work with measurement. But a "list of organizations is used with many other "Wiki" articles - so "consistency" is another issue that must be considered. G. Beat 14:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Aapo Laitinen that this list is undesirable. And I think it was appropriate for Rfrisbie to insert the  template. Whether the term spam is harsh or not, or whether the links were intended as spam does not matter. What matters is that the list violates guidelines on external links.  And it also violates guidelines on what Wikipedia is not&mdash;namely a repository of links. As for consistency, the guidelines are the only things we need to be consistent with.  The fact that there are other poorly structured articles is not an excuse for refraining from fixing this article. &mdash; Veyklevar 01:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, G. Beat. In this case, "SPAM" is a bit of a "technical" wikiterm that applies to any section like this. Based on your expertise, it should be easy and more "encyclopedic" to make a statement in the body of the article and then back it up with a reference. If it's from one of your company's publications, then it should stand up on its own merit as an authoritative source. I'm going to reinsert the tag and ask it remain until the underlying issue is addressed through a consensus of editors here. Rfrisbietalk 01:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If a commercial site is truly useful as a source for some fact stated in the article, I have no problems with that. But the list of consulting organizations is just a "spam-magnet" that will only get worse with time.  I suggest deleting it and replacing it with a link to a directory of benchmarking related sites, e.g. an ODP category.  That way this article wouldn't be a link repository, yet someone who needed such a link repository could quickly find one. &mdash; Veyklevar 02:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion seems reasonable. There seems to be plenty there, e.g., ODP - search on "benchmarking". Rfrisbietalk 03:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps http://dmoz.org/Business/Management/Benchmarking_and_Best_Practices/ -- Veyklevar 03:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A consistent approach and reasonable handling - although the DMOZ list is quite different (broader defintion than here in Wiki). G. Beat 06:30. 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Rfrisbietalk 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Rfrisbie - Why is ZATA, a commercial firm listed in References? 207.232.123.40 was addition. Time for WHOIS? Did we not just agree to to remove these listings? G. Beat 08:30. 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternate, Statistical Definition, unrelated to usage in this article (perhaps this should be a new article?)
Yes, absolutely. The correct term should be "calibration of (sampling) weights", or "reweighting". Just a few basic sources: Särndal, Swensson and Wretman: Model Assisted Survey Sampling by Springer, 1992; Deville and Särndal: Calibration estimators in survey sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association 87, 376-382, Holt and Smith: Post Stratification, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), Vol. 142, 33-46. etc. They are plenty.

I would like to suggest this paragraph to be moved under "calibration" with proper description.

Suggestion for minor enhancement to article
I would like to see a brief discussion of the concept of 'normalization' of data so that, for instance, productivity comparisons to a benchmark standard compare apples to apples. If an organization captures hours worked, but the standard is days billed, the organization's data has to be normalized, or converted from hours worked to days billed in order for the comparison to be meaningful. W.Chandler --71.8.193.249 (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yardstick competition
Should it have its own article or redirect to natural monopolyor here as I have now set it? Xodó (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the disadvantages of using benchmarking? To what extent benchmarking is useful? meaningful? creating value? difficulty? historical information comparision only? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.214.5.22 (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
It seems that the Benchmark disambiguation page contradicts the origin of the term 'Benchmarking' used in this article. GrimFang4 (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Is it not just a buzzwordAlnpete (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this was resolved M0z (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)