Page 12 - Proceeding 2015

FAMP PROFIROIU Constantin Marius and SORRENTINO Daniela
CCASP BENCHMARKING IN ROMANIAN AND ITALIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: A TOOL FOR SCORING
OR LEARNING?

The questionnaire we are going to build for the inquiry aims at addressing following core features of

benchmarking implementation in LGs (Tilema, 2010; Kuhlmann and Bogumil, 2015):

? Reasons for adoption: for a matter of internal consistency, to the extent the benchmarking has
been claimed as a managerial tool able to increase efficiency and effectiveness in the public

sector, we want to detect whether these drivers are acknowledged when translated into the
local governments under investigation. Moreover, it is interesting to understand the motivations
in the remaining cases, in which it is not adopted, acknowledging the possibility of technical

and cost problems (Siverbo, 2014), as well as the perception that the expected benefit may not
surpass the costs;

? Object of the benchmarking: Cowper and Samuels (2005) describe benchmarking as an

efficiency tool having three main aspects. First, standard benchmarking, according to which
organizations relates to a set standard of performance that it could expected to achieve.
Second, results benchmarking, by which one can use the performance of a number of

organizations as a means of comparisons. Finally, in the process benchmarking, the focus is
on the process through which other organizations produce a particular output, thus attempting

to capture the reasons behind variations in the performance. Our research points at PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11 TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ”Strategic Management for Local Communities” 30 th – 31 st October 2015 Bucharest
investigating the presence of whichever of these aspects used as objects of the benchmarking
activity;

? External vs. internal adoption: the circumstances in which the benchmarking is externally
required or internally adopted must be discerned as well. Such a differentiation is often linked
to the opposition between, respectively, top-down and bottom-up adoption (Goddard &

Mannion, 2004).

? Voluntary vs. compulsory adoption: it represents a further specification of the external vs.
internal dichotomy (Jäkel, 2013);

? Sanctions-rewards system: following from the previous, an external/top-down/compulsory

benchmarking system may provide for a sanctions-rewards system, in connection to the
benchmarking results;

? Information disclosure: regardless the compulsiveness or voluntariness in the adoption of the

benchmarking, LGs may or may not disclose benchmarking-related information to external
stakeholders.

10