Multi-site companies already have a plethora of technologies to analyse information: dashboards, ERP, KPIs, templates and regular reviews. As everyone is seeing the same systems and formats, there is a natural assumption among management that all sites are being compared consistently.
Operating in a world of familiarity creates confidence, but it can also create complacency. We have two sites in focus: Site 1 scores materially higher overall, while Site 2 consistently trails.
The technology already exists and the sites appear comparable. But when one site is materially stronger overall, management should not explain away the difference. It should establish what is actually causing it.
Addressing the Gap
Once there is a visible gap between the two site scores, pressure begins to build up the chain of command. People become defensive and explanations appear quickly. A new team is learning the ropes, systems are still bedding in, or local conditions differ between sites.
These explanations may be valid. They might be part of the reason for the gulf between the two sites, but they should not automatically be accepted as the cause. The ifs and ands should not drive corrective action; this should be driven primarily by a clear understanding of how the result was produced.
Two sites using the same criteria: does that guarantee a fair comparison?
Both may be using the same dashboards, ERP and reporting tools but still end up with an unreliable comparison if assessors apply different standards or interpret the criteria differently. The technology may be standardized across sites, but the judgement may not be. The evidence supporting each criterion score must be relevant and attributable. A score should be backed by mapped evidence that directly relates to the criterion being assessed.
Professional judgement matters, but unfettered judgement creates inconsistency. Not everything can be reduced to a formula. This is why expert judgement is valuable. But if each expert applies their own threshold of interpretation, management is left judging assessor behavior rather than plant performance.
Validate the Results
A strong score is not worth the paper it is written on if nobody can say with confidence how it was reached. Management should be able to see what evidence was available, what judgements were made and why the final score was given.
Experts score independently and do not confer. Where scores diverge materially, the Head Expert reviews the evidence, the criterion and the scoring position. The purpose is not to force consensus, but to ensure the final position can be stood over.
Site 1 at 82 and Site 2 at 68 immediately give the impression that there is a major problem. However, the aggregated score does not show where the difference sits. The truth is under the score.
Management should compare criterion scores side by side rather than treating the overall score as the answer. If Site 1 scores 82 and Site 2 scores 79 on a specific criterion, management needs to ask what created that three-point difference. What does each site do, and what evidence supports it?
The site with the lower overall score might perform better in individual criteria. A lower overall score does not mean every practice at that site is inferior.
How can both sites benefit? What can Site 2 learn from Site 1? Equally, what can Site 1 learn from Site 2? Improvement measures and KPIs do not always need to be blanket measures across every site.
Where the evidence identifies a local weakness, the response can be site-specific and targeted at the criteria driving the gap. If management judged only the overall scores and did not examine the truth behind them, the obvious response would be to make Site 2 adopt the way Site 1 operates — problem solved, move on. A higher score does not mean every element of that site’s process is better. The criterion-level evidence shows where Site 1 is strong and weak; the same can be said of Site 2.
Bring the relevant experts and site teams into the discussion. The benchmark tells management where to look; the people closest to the process decide what can realistically be adopted or adapted. Build a third method where appropriate.
Take the strongest element from Site 1, combine it with the strongest element from Site 2 and create a better process than either site was using before. Where the weakness is local, the KPI should be targeted to that site rather than applied as a blanket measure. The best outcome is not always Site 2 becoming more like Site 1. It may be that both sites adopt a better third method.
Benchmark Cycle 1 (BM1) establishes the governed benchmark basis. Criteria, weighting and response requirements are agreed and fixed for the program. These controls remain fixed and carry through unchanged into Benchmark Cycle 2 (BM2).
After BM1, management can use the issued results to decide what needs attention. By examining the overall and criterion-level results, management can identify where sites differ, what practices may be transferable and where targeted action is needed.
The client then decides what operational changes to make before BM2. When BM2 is completed against the same governed basis, management can see whether the assessed position has improved, remained broadly stable or regressed.
Once both benchmark cycles have been issued, trajectory reporting can compare the two governed positions. The Board Trajectory Report gives a higher-level view of movement between the two issued benchmarks. The Management Trajectory Report shows the more detailed movement beneath that, including site- and criterion-level trajectories. Neither report diagnoses operational causation; they show the governed movement between the two positions.
A realistic and useful comparison should show more than which site scores higher. Its value should come from where the differences sit, what evidence supports those differences and where management should look for improvement. When the same governed basis is used again, management can see whether the assessed position improved, held or regressed.
