When we talk about quality, the conversation often focuses on production and manufacturing. We discuss commonalities in what it means and how to assess it. Things like rework, scrap, and defects are common quality measures, but they are limited. The focus is only on reducing expenditures caused by not meeting expectations (e.g., contractual, customer perceptions, regulations). These measures are the compass that guides many organizations. But quality is much more complicated. Creating a culture that focuses on quality is even more challenging.

Making sure your benchmarking has real return on investment is not easy. Most of our projects start with someone saying, "My boss told me we had to do benchmarking. Leadership wants to know how we compare to similar organizations."  This request is based on a fear that the organization is missing something that others already know and are using to create better value for customers.  As Chris Gardner pointed out in his last blog, there is a missed opportunity simply due to the fact that this fear is based in reality.

Recently, several in-depth articles that review shared services center (SSC) performance with headquarter (HQ) and business unit (BU) performance were updated with new benchmarking data. According to APQC’s Open Standard Benchmarking in accounts receivable, accounts payable, payroll, and general accounting and reporting, SSCs outperform HQ and BU locations.

Have you noticed that meetings have changed in the past decade? Increasingly meetings occur virtually, via teleconference, on desktop video conferences, and in mixed environments where people meet in a room and “conference in” attendees. The biggest change might be the attention people give during meetings. With mobile phones and portable technologies, people can be physically present in a meeting, yet electronically whisper to others.