Imported from majiayu000/claude-skill-registry-data (analysis/benchmarking-prorise-cool-prorise-claude-skill/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add majiayu000/claude-skill-registry-data --skill benchmarking-prorise-cool-prorise-claude-skill. Copyright stays with the author.

Benchmarking

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when:

• Benchmarking tasks - Working on benchmarking and competitive analysis techniques. compares performance, processes, and practices against industry standards, competitors, and best-in-class organizations
• Planning or design - Need guidance on Benchmarking approaches
• Best practices - Want to follow established patterns and standards

Overview

Systematically compare performance, processes, and practices against internal units, competitors, industry standards, or best-in-class organizations. Identifies gaps and improvement opportunities.

What is Benchmarking?

Benchmarking is the process of measuring your organization's processes, products, or services against those of recognized leaders to identify gaps and improvement opportunities.

Benchmarking Purpose

Benchmarking vs Competitive Analysis

Types of Benchmarking

Internal Benchmarking

Compare across internal units, teams, or locations:

When to Use: Multiple locations, varied performance, starting point

Competitive Benchmarking

Compare against direct competitors:

When to Use: Market positioning, product comparison, pricing

Functional Benchmarking

Compare similar functions across different industries:

When to Use: Process improvement, breakthrough thinking

Strategic Benchmarking

Compare strategies and business models:

When to Use: Strategy development, transformation, disruption

Benchmarking Process

Phase 1: Plan

Step 1: Define Scope

## Benchmarking Scope

**Subject:** [What to benchmark]
**Type:** [Internal/Competitive/Functional/Strategic]
**Objective:** [Why benchmarking]
**Owner:** [Who's leading]
**Timeline:** [Start to finish]

### Success Criteria

- [What constitutes a successful benchmark study]
- [How results will be used]

Step 2: Identify Metrics

## Key Performance Indicators

| Category | Metric | Current | Definition |
|----------|--------|---------|------------|
| Efficiency | [Metric 1] | [Value] | [How measured] |
| Quality | [Metric 2] | [Value] | [How measured] |
| Speed | [Metric 3] | [Value] | [How measured] |
| Cost | [Metric 4] | [Value] | [How measured] |

Step 3: Select Benchmarking Partners

Phase 2: Collect

Step 1: Gather Internal Data

## Internal Performance Data

| Process/Area | Metric | Current Performance | Trend |
|--------------|--------|--------------------:|-------|
| [Process 1] | [Metric] | [Value] | [Up/Down/Stable] |
| [Process 2] | [Metric] | [Value] | [Up/Down/Stable] |

Step 2: Gather External Data

Step 3: Normalize Data

Ensure comparability:

• Common definitions
• Same time periods
• Equivalent scope
• Currency/unit conversion
• Size adjustments (per employee, per revenue)

Phase 3: Analyze

Step 1: Calculate Gaps

## Gap Analysis

| Metric | Our Performance | Benchmark | Gap | Gap % |
|--------|----------------:|----------:|----:|------:|
| [Metric 1] | 85% | 95% | -10% | -11% |
| [Metric 2] | 24h | 4h | +20h | +500% |
| [Metric 3] | $50 | $30 | +$20 | +67% |

Step 2: Identify Root Causes

For each significant gap:

• Why does the gap exist?
• What practices enable superior performance?
• What barriers prevent us from closing the gap?
• What resources would be required?

Step 3: Prioritize Gaps

quadrantChart
    title Gap Prioritization
    x-axis Low Impact --> High Impact
    y-axis Difficult to Close --> Easy to Close
    quadrant-1 Strategic Initiatives
    quadrant-2 Quick Wins
    quadrant-3 Low Priority
    quadrant-4 Major Projects
    "Gap A": [0.8, 0.7]
    "Gap B": [0.3, 0.8]
    "Gap C": [0.7, 0.3]
    "Gap D": [0.2, 0.3]

Phase 4: Adapt

Step 1: Develop Improvement Actions

## Improvement Plan

### Gap: [Metric] - [Our Value] vs [Benchmark Value]

**Root Cause:** [Why the gap exists]

**Best Practice:** [What benchmark leaders do differently]

**Adaptation:**
| Action | Owner | Timeline | Resources | Expected Impact |
|--------|-------|----------|-----------|-----------------|
| [Action 1] | [Name] | [Date] | [Cost] | [Target] |
| [Action 2] | [Name] | [Date] | [Cost] | [Target] |

**Success Metric:** [How we'll measure improvement]

Step 2: Set Targets

Step 3: Implement and Monitor

• Execute improvement actions
• Track progress against targets
• Report on gap closure
• Iterate and refine

Competitive Analysis Framework

Porter's Five Forces Context

Competitive Profile Matrix

## Competitive Profile Matrix

| Success Factor | Weight | Company A | Company B | Company C |
|----------------|-------:|----------:|----------:|----------:|
| | | Rating | Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score |
| Product Quality | 0.20 | 4 | 0.80 | 3 | 0.60 | 5 | 1.00 |
| Price | 0.15 | 3 | 0.45 | 4 | 0.60 | 2 | 0.30 |
| Market Share | 0.15 | 4 | 0.60 | 2 | 0.30 | 5 | 0.75 |
| Customer Service | 0.20 | 3 | 0.60 | 4 | 0.80 | 3 | 0.60 |
| Innovation | 0.15 | 2 | 0.30 | 3 | 0.45 | 5 | 0.75 |
| Distribution | 0.15 | 4 | 0.60 | 3 | 0.45 | 4 | 0.60 |
| **Total** | **1.00** | | **3.35** | | **3.20** | | **4.00** |

Rating: 1=Major Weakness, 2=Minor Weakness, 3=Neutral, 4=Minor Strength, 5=Major Strength

SWOT Integration

Benchmarking informs SWOT:

Output Formats

Narrative Summary

## Benchmarking Summary

**Subject:** [What was benchmarked]
**Date:** [ISO date]
**Type:** [Internal/Competitive/Functional/Strategic]
**Analyst:** benchmarking-analyst

### Executive Summary

[2-3 sentence overview of key findings]

### Benchmarking Partners

| Partner | Type | Why Selected |
|---------|------|--------------|
| [Partner 1] | [Type] | [Reason] |
| [Partner 2] | [Type] | [Reason] |

### Key Findings

#### Gap 1: [Area]
- **Our Performance:** [Value]
- **Benchmark:** [Value]
- **Gap:** [Delta]
- **Root Cause:** [Why]
- **Best Practice:** [What leaders do]

#### Gap 2: [Area]
[Same structure]

### Recommendations

| Priority | Gap | Action | Impact | Effort |
|----------|-----|--------|--------|--------|
| 1 | [Gap] | [Action] | High | Medium |
| 2 | [Gap] | [Action] | Medium | Low |

### Next Steps

1. [Immediate action]
2. [Short-term action]
3. [Long-term initiative]

Structured Data (YAML)

benchmarking:
  version: "1.0"
  date: "2025-01-15"
  subject: "Customer Service Operations"
  type: "competitive"
  analyst: "benchmarking-analyst"

  partners:
    - name: "Company A"
      type: "direct_competitor"
      selection_reason: "Market leader"
    - name: "Industry Average"
      type: "industry_benchmark"
      source: "Gartner Report 2024"

  metrics:
    - name: "First Response Time"
      category: "speed"
      our_performance:
        value: 24
        unit: "hours"
      benchmark:
        value: 4
        unit: "hours"
        source: "Company A"
      gap:
        absolute: 20
        percentage: 500
      priority: "critical"

    - name: "Customer Satisfaction"
      category: "quality"
      our_performance:
        value: 78
        unit: "percent"
      benchmark:
        value: 92
        unit: "percent"
        source: "Industry Average"
      gap:
        absolute: -14
        percentage: -15
      priority: "high"

  findings:
    - gap: "First Response Time"
      root_cause: "Manual ticket routing, no AI triage"
      best_practice: "AI-powered auto-routing and chatbot first response"
      impact: "high"
      effort: "medium"

  recommendations:
    - priority: 1
      gap: "First Response Time"
      action: "Implement AI ticket triage"
      owner: "Support Director"
      timeline: "Q2 2025"
      expected_improvement: "80% reduction"
      investment: "$50,000"

  targets:
    - metric: "First Response Time"
      current: 24
      target: 4
      timeline: "6 months"
    - metric: "Customer Satisfaction"
      current: 78
      target: 90
      timeline: "12 months"

Comparison Table

## Competitive Comparison

| Dimension | Us | Competitor A | Competitor B | Industry Avg | Best-in-Class |
|-----------|---:|-------------:|-------------:|-------------:|--------------:|
| Response Time | 24h | 8h | 12h | 10h | 1h |
| Resolution Rate | 78% | 85% | 82% | 80% | 95% |
| Cost per Ticket | $45 | $35 | $40 | $38 | $20 |
| NPS Score | 32 | 45 | 38 | 35 | 72 |

**Legend:** Green = above average, Yellow = average, Red = below average

Gap Visualization

xychart-beta
    title "Performance vs Benchmark"
    x-axis ["Response Time", "Resolution", "Cost", "NPS"]
    y-axis "Performance (% of benchmark)" 0 --> 150
    bar [25, 82, 88, 44]
    line [100, 100, 100, 100]

Benchmarking Ethics

Do's

• Use publicly available information
• Get permission for site visits/interviews
• Share appropriately if participating in consortium
• Protect confidential information
• Give credit to sources

Don'ts

• Use deceptive practices to gather data
• Violate NDAs or trade secrets
• Misrepresent benchmarking data
• Use competitive intelligence unethically
• Ignore legal and antitrust considerations

Common Pitfalls

Integration

Upstream

• swot-pestle-analysis - Strategic context
• stakeholder-analysis - Who cares about benchmarks
• Requirements - Performance requirements

Downstream

• Gap analysis - Improvement priorities
• prioritization - Resource allocation
• Roadmap - Improvement initiatives

Related Skills

• swot-pestle-analysis - Strategic environmental analysis
• prioritization - Prioritizing improvement actions
• decision-analysis - Evaluating improvement options
• capability-mapping - Capability maturity benchmarking

Version History

• v1.0.0 (2025-12-26): Initial release