IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijpmbe/v21y2025i3p368-400.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative study of benchmarking models for higher education institutions

Author

Listed:
  • Geo Kuruvila George
  • Georgy P. Kurien
  • Ramakrishnan Natarajan
  • Sreerengan V.R. Nair

Abstract

Benchmarking is a systematic and ongoing process of assessing an organisation's business processes against those of business process leaders to obtain data that will enable the firm to take corrective action to enhance performance (Pattison, 1993). Eight benchmarking models, namely the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) excellence model, American Productivity and Quality Centre (APQC) consortium framework, Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service (CHEMS) model, Mckinnon model, Henderson-Smart et al. model, educational development efficiency (EDE) model, Tee benchmarking model, and fourth generation balanced scorecard method are being studied, analysed, evaluated and compared. While most models' effectiveness depends on the cooperation and participation of benchmarking partners, few depends on secondary data are an exception. Most benchmarking models lack the implementation and are fluid and flexible models. This comparative benchmarking study helps an institution understand which benchmarking model needs to be used, as the study details each model's essential features, advantages, and limitations.

Suggested Citation

  • Geo Kuruvila George & Georgy P. Kurien & Ramakrishnan Natarajan & Sreerengan V.R. Nair, 2025. "Comparative study of benchmarking models for higher education institutions," International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 21(3), pages 368-400.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijpmbe:v:21:y:2025:i:3:p:368-400
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=149397
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijpmbe:v:21:y:2025:i:3:p:368-400. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=95 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.