Project Follow-Up by Benchmarking

  • Jean-Michel Josselin
  • Benoît Le Maux


Benchmarking is a follow-up evaluation tool that compares the cost structure of facilities with that of a given reference, the benchmark or yardstick. What is assessed is not a policy per se, but the facilities in charge of implementing it (Sect. 12.1). The method is applicable to any public service operating within a multiple-input multiple-output setting and equipped with a cost accounting system (Sect. 12.2). As the demand for a set of services plays a determinant role in explaining the average cost of a facility, the first step is to delineate the effects of the demand structure on cost (Sect. 12.3). Benchmarking also assesses whether an extra cost observed in one facility is due to price effects or to the allocation of inputs among services (Sect. 12.4). The stakeholders of the public project may also wish to get alternative or complementary information on the role each input plays within the production structure. A simple reorganization of the data allows it (Sect. 12.5). Last, the method can be used to motivate operations improvement or to help a decision-maker understand where the performance falls in comparison to others (Sect. 12.6).


Benchmarking Cost accounting system Demand structure Price effect Quantity effect 


  1. Agarwal, R., Green, R., Agarwal, N., & Randhawa, K. (2016). Benchmarking management practices in Australian public healthcare. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 30, 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hansen, K., & Zwanziger, J. (1996). Marginal costs in general acute care hospitals: A comparison among California, New York and Canada. Health Economics, 5, 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Llewellyn, S., & Northcott, D. (2005). The average hospital. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 555–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. OECD. (1997). International benchmarking. Experiences from OECD countries.Google Scholar
  5. OECD. (2013). International benchmarking for school improvement. OECD tests for schools (based on PISA).Google Scholar
  6. Veillard, J., Champagne, F., Klazinga, N., Kazandjian, V., Arah, O., & Guisset, A. (2005). A performance assessment framework for hospitals: The WHO regional office for Europe PATH project. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 17, 487–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Veillard, J., Schiotz, M., Guisset, A., Brown, A., & Klazinga, N. (2013). The PATH project in eight European countries: An evaluation. International Journal of Health Care Quality Insurance, 26, 703–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Michel Josselin
    • 1
  • Benoît Le Maux
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of Rennes 1RennesFrance

Personalised recommendations