The need for adaptive processes of benchmarking in small business-to-business services Anne Broderick De Montfort University, Leicester, UK Tony Garry University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, and Mark Beasley De Montfort University, Leicester, UK Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to explore current management attitudes towards benchmarking and its implementation within small business-to-business service firms in order to enhance a deeper understanding of benchmarking within such contexts. Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses in-depth case analysis of small architectural services to collect empirical data on benchmarking initiatives, attitudes, key characteristics and constraints on benchmarking. Findings – Findings suggest that there are significant variations in the receptiveness of small business-to-business firms towards the adoption of benchmarking. There may be an inherent distrust of benchmarking, as it is primarily perceived as being a tool for larger organizations, where productivity improvements are the main driver. Evidence of perceived constraints in both the implementation of benchmarking and in the definition of what constitutes best practice highlighted a cultural difficulty for small architectural firms when adopting a business process orientation. Traditionally, when evaluating their services, architectural practices are oriented towards professional design criteria, often with creative rather than business process priorities. Results suggest less cumbersome measurement models than key performance indicators (KPI) are needed to allow organically developing firms, such as architectural services, to apply benchmarking and quality ideas flexibly. Originality/value – Research on current management attitudes towards benchmarking or actual implementation of benchmarking techniques in small business-to-business service firms is scarce. This paper addresses this by developing a deeper and richer contextual understanding of benchmarking within such contexts. Keywords Service industries, Benchmarking, Total quality management, Small enterprises, Performance management Paper type Research paper Introduction Benchmarking as a management methodology gained notable attention from academics in the early 1980s; and focus within benchmarking has been on its link with total quality management (TQM); on cultural changes that benchmarking can engender: and on “best practice”. Research in benchmarking has predominantly been conducted within manufacturing industries and most studies have identified and evaluated practices in large organizations. McCarthy (2003) notes the dearth of benchmarking studies in SMEs; while McAdam and O’Neill (1999) identify the inapplicability of some benchmarking approaches in small firms; and Monkhouse (1995) highlights the lack of consideration in benchmarking approaches for the idiosyncrasies of the small business environment. In particular, contemporary criticisms of the “metric” approach to benchmarking and its inappropriateness for SMEs, have been taken forward in the work of McKay and Chung(2005) and of Hwang and Lockwood(2006). In considering benchmarking in small-scale services, research is also limited and Longbottom et al. (2000) have identified the need for further research on benchmarking in services firms. Similarly, Holloway et al. (1998) identified that service sector organizations record the lowest indices of benchmarking and urged that more research be undertaken. Although more recent work (e.g. Drew, 1995; Crespy et al., 1993; Lee, 2001, Hwang and Lockwood, 2006; and Cheng et al., 2007) have all addressed some aspects of performance management in services, there nonetheless remains limited research on small service firm benchmarking and, in particular, benchmarking in business to business contexts in the UK. This paper addresses this by examining current management attitudes towards benchmarking, actual implementation of benchmarking techniques and the The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0885-8624.htm Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 25/5 (2010) 324–337 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624] [DOI 10.1108/08858621011058098] Received: March 2008 Revised: November 2008 Accepted: January 2009 324