A benchmarking methodology for metalcasting industry

Abstract

Purpose

To provide the basis for the development of a specific benchmarking methodology for the foundry industry.

Design/methodology/approach

The methodology was developed with the support of the Portuguese Foundry Association (APF). The project was structured in two stages: developing the model for the performance assessment (including performance indicators specially designed for the foundry companies); and conducting a pilot benchmarking exercise in order to validate the model. Both stages received the contribution of eight relevant national foundries.

Findings

Provides information about expectations of the benchmarking partners group. Make available a specific benchmarking model for assessing the foudries' performance based on critical factors. Provides foundry‐oriented indicators. Confirms that benchmarking is a time‐consuming tool, demanding continuous commitment of the top‐managers.

Research limitations/implications

A limitation of the study is the number of benchmarking partners (eight foundries). The statistical analysis of the results based on this small sample was not practicable, preventing the definition of the presumed causal relations between improvement practices and performance outcomes.

Practical implications

The benchmarking model is now available at the APF. From now on, this institution can provide its members with a tool for promoting the co‐operation among companies and to enhance and enlarge significantly the available information about this sector. This activity will, certainly, help to improve organisations' performance, upgrading the competitiveness of the metalcasting industry in Portugal.

Originality/value

This paper helps the development of benchmarking in the metalcasting industry in which the number of published studies is very limited.

Citation

Ribeiro, L.M.M. and Sarsfield Cabral, J.A. (2006), "A benchmarking methodology for metalcasting industry", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1/2, pp. 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770610644556