Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of Benchmarking Techniques for Application in Pavement Management

  • Review
  • Published:
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Benchmarking has been adopted by private organisations in search of commercial efficiency gains and public sector organisations in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. One such sector that has considerable potential to benefit from benchmarking is the transport sector. Focusing on the pavement management of road networks, this paper reviews a number of popular benchmarking techniques cited in the literature and undertakes a comparative analysis of their suitability with respect to a number of selection criteria. The audience for the paper is researchers and practitioners in pavement management and, consequently, the benchmarking techniques presented range from simple ratios or regression analyses to more complex frontier-based methods incorporating optimisation of weightings. Two of these frontier-based methods, Data Envelopment Analysis, a non-parametric data-orientated approach, and Stochastic Frontier Analysis, a parametric stochastic approach, are shown to be the most suitable for use in the pavement management sector. As the true level of efficiency is unknown in benchmarking, it is not possible to determine which technique is the best. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, however, we have stated a preference for Data Envelopment Analysis recognising that its non-parametric form offers a possible advantage in pavement management given the complexity and number of influencing variables.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Neely, A., & Bourne, M. (2000). Why measurement initiatives fail. Measuring Business Excellence, 4(4), 3–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Henning, T. F. P., Muruvan, S., Feng, W. A., & Dunn, R. C. (2011). The development of a benchmarking tool for monitoring progress towards sustainable transportation in New Zealand. Transport Policy, 18(2), 480–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Codling, S. (1995). Best practice benchmarking: A management guide. Hampshire: Gower Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bhutta, K. S., & Huq, F. (1999). Benchmarking–best practices: An integrated approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 6(3), 254–268.

  5. Voss, C. A., Åhlström, P., & Blackmon, K. (1997). Benchmarking and operational performance: Some empirical results. Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, 4(4), 273–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Armstrong, M., Brown, S., & Smith, H. (2014). Benchmarking and threshold standards in higher education. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Goncharuk, A. G., & Monat, J. P. (2009). A synergistic performance management model conjoining benchmarking and motivation. Benchmarking, 16(6), 767–784. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770911000105

  8. Gurumurthy, A., & Kodali, R. (2009). Application of benchmarking for assessing the lean manufacturing implementation. Benchmarking, 16(2), 274–308. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770910948268

  9. Wei-Wen, W., Lan, L. W., & Yu-Ting, L. (2013). Benchmarking hotel industry in a multi-period context with DEA approaches: A case study. Benchmarking, 20(2), 152–168. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635771311307650

  10. Sufian. F. (2011). Benchmarking the efficiency of the Korean banking sector: A DEA approach. Benchmarking, 18(1), 107–127. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635771111109841

  11. Raymond, J. (2008). Benchmarking in public procurement. Benchmarking, 15(6), 782–793. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770810915940

  12. Welborn, C., & Bullington, K. (2013). Benchmarking Award Winning Health Care Organizations in the USA. Benchmarking, 20(6), 765–776. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2012-0012

  13. Yasin, M., Alavi, J., Sallem Koubida, & Small, M. H. (2011). An assessment of the competitiveness of the Moroccan tourism industry. Benchmarking, 18(1), 6–22. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635771111109797

  14. Galoro C.A.O., Mendes, M. E., & Nascimento Burattini, M. (2009). Applicability and potential benefits of benchmarking in Brazilian clinical laboratory services. Benchmarking, 16(6), 817–830. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770911000132

  15. Srivastava, S. K., & Ray, A. (2013). Benchmarking Indian general insurance firms. Benchmarking, 20(1), 4–24. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635771311299461

  16. Seong-Jong Joo, & Fowler, K. L. (2014). Exploring comparative efficiency and determinants of efficiency for major world airlines. Benchmarking, 21(4), 675–687. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2012-0054

  17. Tutie, A., Zailani, S., & Fernando, Y. (2010). Best practices for the effectiveness of benchmarking in the Indonesian manufacturing companies. Benchmarking, 17(1), 115–143. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635771011022343

  18. Goncharuk, A. G. (2014). Competitive benchmarking technique for "the followers": A case of Ukrainian dairies. Benchmarking, 21(2), 218–225. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2012-0027

  19. Magd, H., & Curry, A. (2003). Benchmarking: Achieving best value in public-sector organisations. Benchmarking, 10(3), 261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goncharuk, A. G. (2008). Performance benchmarking in gas distribution industry. Benchmarking, 15(5), 548–559. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770810903141

  21. Braadbaart, O. (2007). Collaborative benchmarking, transparency and performance. Benchmarking, 14(6), 677–692. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770710834482

  22. Kovacic, A. (2007). Benchmarking the Slovenian competitiveness by system of indicators. Benchmarking, 14(5), 553–574. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770710819254

  23. Hjalmarsson, L., Kumbhakar, S. C., & Heshmati, A. (1996). DEA, DFA and SFA: A comparison. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 7(2–3), 303–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Costello, S. B., Smith, N. E., Henning, T. F. P., & Hendry, M. (2014). Towards measuring road maintenance efficiency and effectiveness in local authorities. ARRB Road & Transport Research Journal, vol. 23.

  25. Putterill, M. S., Maani, K. E., & Sluti, D. G. (1990). Performance ranking methodology for roading operations management. Transport Reviews, 10(4), 339–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Thanassoulis, E., Boussofiane, A., & Dyson, R. G. (1996). A comparison of data envelopment analysis and ratio analysis as tools for performance assessment. Omega, International Journal of Management Science, 24(3), 229–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Abbott, M., & Wu, S. (2002). Total factor productivity and efficiency of Australian airports. Australian Economic Review, 35(3), 244–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. ASTM. (2018). “Standard practice for roads and parking lots pavement condition index surveys.” D6433, West Conshohocken, PA.

  29. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review, 71–79.

  30. Punniyamoorthy, M., & Murali, R. (2008). Balanced score for the balanced scorecard: A benchmarking tool. Benchmarking, 15(4), 420–443. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770810887230

  31. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part I. Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chia, A., Goh, M., & Sin-Hoon Hum. (2009). Performance measurement in supply chain entities: Balanced scorecard perspective. Benchmarking, 16(5), 605–620. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770910987832

  33. Gurd, B., & Ifandoudas, P. (2014). Moving towards agility: The contribution of a modified balanced scorecard system. Measuring Business Excellence, 18(2), 1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hoque, Z., & James, W. (2000). Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors: Impact on organizational performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12(1), 1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Turnbull, K. F. (2005). Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems: Summary of the Second National Conference. (Vol. 36)Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Costello, S. B., Nuttall, S. R., Powell, J. E., & Arrowsmith, R. (2012). Performance Management Framework for Managing Agent Contractors. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Transport, 165(TR4), 2012

    Google Scholar 

  37. Adler, N., Friedman, L., & Sinuany-Stern, Z. (2002). Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context. European Journal of Operational Research, 140(2), 249–265

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Battese, G. E., & Coelli, T. J. (1995). A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empirical Economics, 20(2), 325–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Anderson, R. I., Fish, M., Xia, Y., & Michello, F. (1999). Measuring efficiency in the hotel industry: A stochastic frontier approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(1), 45–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rosko, M. D. (2001). Cost efficiency of US hospitals: A stochastic frontier approach. Health Economics, 10(6), 539–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu, Y., & Myers, R. (2009). Model selection in stochastic frontier analysis with an application to maize production in Kenya. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 31(1), 33–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rouse, P., & Swales, R. (2006). Pricing public health care services using DEA: Methodology versus politics. Annals of Operations Research, 145(1), 265–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ruggiero, J. (2007). A comparison of DEA and the stochastic frontier model using panel data. International Transactions in Operational Research, 14(3), 259–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Aigner, D., Lovell, C. K., & Schmidt, P. (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics, 6(1), 21–37

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  45. Sickles, R and Zeleniuk, 2019. Measurement of productivity and efficiency : theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 6 page 185

  46. Dharmapala. S., & Saber, H. M. (2007). Resource allocation within academic units. Benchmarking, 14(2), 202–210. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770710740396

  47. Rickards, R. C. (2003). Setting benchmarks and evaluating balanced scorecards with data envelopment analysis. Benchmarking, 10(3), 226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ramanathan, R. (2003). An introduction to data envelopment analysis: A tool for performance measurement. New Delhi: Sage Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ozbek, M. E., de la Garza, J. M., & Triantis, K. (2009). Data envelopment analysis as a decision-making tool for transportation professionals. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 135(11), 822–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rouse, P., & Chiu, T. (2009). Towards optimal life cycle management in a road maintenance setting using DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(2), 672–681. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.02.041

  51. Rouse, P., Putterill, M., & Ryan, D. (1997). Towards a general managerial framework for performance measurement: A comprehensive highway maintenance application. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 8(2), 127–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Garza, J. M., Triantis, K., & Fallah-Fini, S. (2009, June). Efficiency measurement of highway maintenance strategies using data envelopment analysis, Proceedings of NSF Engineering Research and Innovation Conference. Honolulu, Hawaii.

  53. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  54. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Cooper W.W., Seiford L.M., Zhu J. (2011) Data Envelopment Analysis: History, Models, and Interpretations. In: Cooper W., Seiford L., Zhu J. (eds) Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 164. Springer, Boston, MA

  56. Cooper, W. W. (2013). Data envelopment analysis. Encyclopaedia of Operations Research and Management Science, 349–358.

  57. Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2004). Data envelopment analysis. Handbook on data envelopment analysis (pp. 1–39) Springer.

  58. Thanassoulis, E. (2001). Introduction to the theory and application of data envelopment analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  59. Gong, B., & Sickles, R. C. (1992). Finite sample evidence on the performance of stochastic frontiers and data envelopment analysis using panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 51(1–2), 259–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Simar, L. and P. Wilson. 2008. Statistical Inference in Nonparametric Frontier Models: Recent Developments and Perspectives. Chapter 4 in Fried H.O., Lovell, C.A.K. and S.S. Schmidt (eds). The Measurement of Productive Efficiency and Productivity Growth. Oxford University Press

  61. Battese, G. E., Heshmati, A., & Hjalmarsson, L. (2000). Efficiency of labour use in the Swedish banking industry: A stochastic frontier approach. Empirical Economics, 25(4), 623–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Golany, B., & Roll, Y. (1989). An application procedure for DEA. Omega, 17(3), 237–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rouse, A. P. B. (1997). A methodological framework of performance measurement with applications using data envelopment analysis (Doctoral dissertation). Available from e-Theses University of Auckland. (MMS ID: 9967651614002091)

  64. Cook, W. D., Kazakov, A., & Roll, Y. (1994). On the measurement of relative efficiency of highway maintenance patrols. (pp. 195–210). Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Cook, W. D., Roll, Y., & Kazakov, A. (1990). A DEA Model for Measuring the Relative Efficiency of Highway Maintenance Patrols. Infor, 28(2), 113–124

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ganley, J. A., & Cubbin, J. S. (1992). Public sector efficiency measurement: Applications of data envelopment analysis. New York: Elsevier Science Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Mia, M. N. U., Henning, T. F. P., Costello, S. B., & Foster, G. (2015). Application of fuzzy logic based risk analysis to identify the moisture damage potential in flexible road pavements. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 8(5), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.6135/ijprt.org.tw/2015.8(5).325

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the partial funding provided by the New Zealand Transport Agency in making this research possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand

    Harish Shivaramu, Seosamh B. Costello & Theunis F. P. Henning

  2. Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand

    Maryam Hasannasab & Paul Rouse

Authors
  1. Harish Shivaramu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seosamh B. Costello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Theunis F. P. Henning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maryam Hasannasab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul Rouse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seosamh B. Costello.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shivaramu, H., Costello, S.B., Henning, T.F.P. et al. Analysis of Benchmarking Techniques for Application in Pavement Management. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 15, 196–212 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-021-00018-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-021-00018-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation