Consortium benchmarking: Collaborative academic-practitioner case study research
Consortium benchmarking is a scholar-practitioner collaborative case study approach joining rigor and relevance in management research. In consortium benchmarking practitioners and academic researchers form a consortium and together benchmark best-practices. Consortium benchmarking includes practitioners as co-researchers, facilitating research relevant for both academics and practitioners. Rigorous research informs the entire process since consortium benchmarking collects evidence from multiple sources and uses various comparison techniques. This paper introduces the concept of consortium benchmarking and then illustrates its application with a case study that identifies the nature of innovative suppliers. The study shows how consortium benchmarking supports the production of relevant knowledge for both academics and practitioners in a rigorous way. In order to evaluate these contributions, the study develops criteria for assessing rigor as well as theoretical and practical relevance. Finally, the study compares consortium benchmarking with multi-case research and presents five aspects either not accounted for or neglected in "traditional" multi-case research.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Halinen, Aino & Tornroos, Jan-Ake, 2005. "Using case methods in the study of contemporary business networks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(9), pages 1285-1297, September.
- Esser, James K., 1998. "Alive and Well after 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(2-3), pages 116-141, February.
- L. J. Bourgeois, III & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 1988. "Strategic Decision Processes in High Velocity Environments: Four Cases in the Microcomputer Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(7), pages 816-835, July.
- Foss, Nicolai J., 1999. "Networks, capabilities, and competitive advantage," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, March.
- John A. Mathews, 2002. "special issue: A resource-based view of Schumpeterian economic dynamics," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 29-54.
- Wilson, Elizabeth J. & Vlosky, Richard P., 1997. "Partnering relationship activities: Building theory from case study research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 59-70, May.
- Ragatz, Gary L. & Handfield, Robert B. & Petersen, Kenneth J., 2002. "Benefits associated with supplier integration into new product development under conditions of technology uncertainty," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 389-400, May.
- Alfred Kieser & Lars Leiner, 2009. "Why the Rigour-Relevance Gap in Management Research Is Unbridgeable," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 516-533, 05.
- Gerard P. Hodgkinson & Denise M. Rousseau, 2009. "Bridging the Rigour-Relevance Gap in Management Research: It's Already Happening!," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 534-546, 05.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:64:y:2011:i:10:p:1137-1145. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.