Find out how NASA and the Kennedy Space
Center used benchmarking to progress from
incremental to breakthrough improvement.
Benchmarking: A Tool for
Sharing and Cooperation
Denise DeVito
Sara Morrison
56 Association for Quality & Participation www.aqp.org
K ennedy Space Center (KSC),
the United States’ gateway
to the universe, leads the world
in preparing and launching
missions from earth to the
frontiers of space. The mission
of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA)
is to advance and communicate
scientific knowledge and
understanding; explore, use,
and develop space; and research,
develop, and transfer aerospace
technologies. Like any private or
public organization, NASA and
its contractors are faced with
the challenge of improving
processes while maintaining
world-class levels of safety and
quality.
In 1994 KSC was beginning its
quality journey. Quality groups
were formed to address improving
processes; these changes were
mostly incremental in nature.
An audit for the President’s
Quality Award, an award process
similar to the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award, suggested
that KSC consider benchmarking
as a way to progress from
incremental improvement to
breakthrough improvements. KSC
and its contractor organizations
were challenged to begin sharing
information in a collaborative
approach to improve processes.
This concept of sharing was
initially met with resistance; the
contractor organizations were
essentially competitors and had
closely guarded their process
information and performance
levels.
To address both the recommen-
dation of using benchmarking and
the challenge of working together,
KSC chartered a pioneering
benchmarking team, the Kennedy
Benchmarking Clearinghouse, with
representatives from the major
contractor organizations. The team
was formed as a collaborative
effort between NASA and the
major contractors at KSC to
facilitate effective benchmarking,
optimize efficiencies, and leverage
quality improvements across all
organizations at KSC. The team
recognized that these goals
required a new approach to
benchmarking. The new approach
would have to take into account
the diverse and competitive
contractor organizations, as
well as their history of working
independently and resulting
reluctance to share information.
Consortium approach
to benchmarking
To address the special needs of
a benchmarking study with
competitive organizations working
together to function as one, the
Kennedy Benchmarking
Clearinghouse team developed a
consortium approach to bench-
marking. The new approach
adapted the fundamentals of the
proven traditional process models
to a methodology that addressed
the constraints of competing
organizations collaborating on a
common process.
The consortium approach to
benchmarking was driven by many
factors. At the time there were very
few people at KSC trained in a
benchmarking process; participants
in a consortium project would
generally have minimal training or
experience in benchmarking. This
would require the expertise of a
benchmarking facilitator to assist
the participants through the
process. Also, some amount of just-
in-time training would be required
for the consortium benchmarking
team in order for it to successfully
complete a project. The Kennedy
Benchmarking Clearinghouse team
also recognized that limited
resources from both contractors
and NASA meant that the
benchmarking project would have
to effectively use time and money
to complete the project. Several
other factors favored the new
approach to benchmarking: NASA
and its contractors at Kennedy
Space Center shared the same
aerospace culture, had somewhat
similar measurement systems, and
used similar technologies,
processes, and systems. In several
cases, an existing forum for
meeting on a regular basis about a
particular process or system was
already in place.
The new approach would have to take into
account the organizations’ history of
working independently and resulting
reluctance to share information.
The consortium approach to
benchmarking requires that
benchmarking among the
participants occur prior to that
with an external partner. After this
initial exchange, each participant
may select the best practices to be
adapted to his/her own
organization. When conducting the
benchmarking study with an
external partner, the consortium
group presents itself as an
integrated group. Each participant
then adapts the findings from the
external project that are best suited
to his/her unique organization and
situation.
This approach fostered
cooperation among competitive
organizations, and each participant
organization shared in the effort
(time, resources, and research) to
benchmark a common process.
The consortium approach was
tested with a pathfinder project
conducted in 1995. It was
important that the process selected
for the pilot study be 1) common
to all major contractors, 2) non-
threatening to the participants and
3) a process in which none of the
participants was perceived to have
exceptionally poor or outstandingly
Fall 2000 The Journal for Quality & Participation
excellent performance. The
Kennedy Benchmarking
Clearinghouse realized that the
non-threatening aspect would be
important to mitigate the expected
reluctance to sharing data and
information.
The selected process, Govern-
ment Property Management, is a
process required of all contractors
at Kennedy Space Center for NASA.
Each contractor had different
methods for accomplishing the
same task, with varying degrees of
success. There were several process
measures that were common to all
because they were reported to
NASA on a regular basis. However,
the organizations did not know the
performance levels of the other
participating organizations.
Initially, the idea of sharing
information about this process was
met with resistance; traditionally
competitive organizations were
reluctant to work together on a
common project that included the
sharing of data and process
information.
The reluctance to share process
information was overcome by both
time and by the participants
learning to work together as a
team. Furthermore, participants
realized that the team’s objective
was to provide an opportunity to
learn from one other and to
improve their own processes, not
to force every participant’s process
into the same mold.
57
 as a result of the unique
methodology and the
NASA and the Kennedy Space Center
results achieved.

A fter years of early missile testing and space development in New Mexico, along
with numerous advances, it became clear that a new site was needed to ensure
long-term progression of missile and space research in the United States. Accordingly,
Consortium
benchmarking steps
in October 1949, the Joint Long Range Proving Grounds was established at Cape The benchmarking
Canaveral, Florida. Years later, with the American public clamoring for an expanded process follows the plan-
space program, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration came into being do-study-act (PDSA)
on October 1, 1958. quality improvement cycle.
The initial steps involve
I n July 1962, the Launch Operations Center, renamed the John F. Kennedy Space
Center (KSC) in December 1963, became an independent NASA installation. KSC
is located at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport on Florida’s east coast. It is the nation’s
planning the process and
selecting benchmarking
premier launch site offering space access for the United States and for international process participants.
partners. Initially, there is an
KSC is made up of many different contractor organizations. United Space Alliance investigation into the
is the prime contractor for the Space Shuttle Program; the Boeing Company is the significant processes of
prime contractor for the International Space Station. importance to KSC as a
Launch facilities occupy 2,000 acres; this is shared with over 140,000 acres of whole, as well as of
wildlife on the Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge, an ideal site for following the importance to each of the
progress of missiles in flight. Space Shuttle vehicles, including Columbia, Discovery, participant organizations.
Atlantis, and Endeavour, have been in use since 1981 and routinely place satellites
in orbit.
Step 1. Candidates for
consortium benchmarking
To break down the barriers, the and learn more about how each are identified through the NASA-
team informally reviewed how each organization achieved its results. KSC strategic plan, the strategic
organization accomplished As the various practices were plans of the major KSC
Government Property discussed, the team began to contractors, and through the
Management, and how one identify those which contributed collective knowledge and experience
organization was similar to or to performance superior to the of the Kennedy Benchmarking
different from the others. other organizations. These were Clearinghouse members.
The fear of sharing performance identified as best practices; team Step 2. Potential processes are
data was overcome by having the participants then adapted the then analyzed to determine which
benchmarking facilitator best practices to their own might most benefit from a
coordinate the handling of the organizations. benchmarking project. Candidate
data. Data from each participant In adapting and implementing processes are further studied to
organization were provided to the these best practices, contractors determine that there are measures
facilitator, who then compiled and produced a combined savings of and that the process owners would
blinded the source of the results. $41,000 and reduced cycle time be willing to participate in a
Visual comparisons were developed by 57 percent. These results consortium benchmarking project.
for each measure and the results benefited each participant For initial consortium
from each organization were simply organization as well as NASA— benchmarking projects, it is
labeled alphabetically to preserve their common customer. suggested that the process be non-
the confidentiality of the data. The Kennedy Bench-marking threatening to the participants in
The visual display of the data Clearinghouse received the Silver order to mitigate the reluctance of
galvanized the attention of the Award for applied benchmarking sharing data and information. A
participants and their manage- research from the International non-threatening process is one in
ment. It encouraged the Bench-marking Clearinghouse which none of the participants is
participants to share practices (IBC) in Houston, Texas, considered to have exceptionally

58 Association for Quality & Participation www.aqp.org

poor or outstandingly excellent
performance. Each participant
should have the perception of being
approximately equal to the others
in performance and/or process
techniques.
Step 3. The matrix outlining the
criteria and the rating for each of
the candidate processes is presented
to NASA and contractor
management. The final selection
for a KSC consortium bench-
marking project is done by the
consensus of this group after
verifying the level of commitment
of the process owners and their
management
Step 4. Once the consortium
benchmarking team is organized,
the participant organizations begin
with an exchange of information.
This is a level of benchmarking
between the traditional internal
and external benchmarking.
Although participants on a
consortium benchmarking team
represent distinct companies, this
benchmarking activity is not
considered to be truly external
because the participants are part of
the KSC “family” and tend to
follow each other in their methods.
This quasi-internal bench-
marking among the participant
organizations serves a dual
function of providing practice in
the benchmarking process in
addition to helping to define the
particular process aspects the
group will focus on with its
external partner.
Each participant organization
thoroughly documents its major
process steps and measures of the
process to be benchmarked.
Step 5. This is followed with an
informal exchange of information
about how each participant does
the process. Data from each
participant’s measures are
submitted to the benchmarking
facilitator, who compiles and blinds
the data to preserve confidentiality.
Step 6. After the potential best
practices are verified and
documented by the team, each
participant adapts and implements
those practices best suited to
improve his/her own organization’s
process.
Step 7. Following the internal
benchmarking project among the
consortium participants, the team
may then decide to benchmark
with companies outside KSC for
a true external benchmarking
project. This carries the intent of
benchmarking to the next level
and helps foster thinking outside
the box.
Step 8. To prepare for an external
benchmarking project, the
consortium team documents the
criteria it deems to be important
for the selection of a benchmarking
partner.
Participants realized that the team’s
objective was to provide an opportunity
to learn from one other, not force every
participant’s process into the same mold.
Thorough preparation for
benchmarking is essential for the
project to be beneficial both for the
consortium team and its bench-
marking partners. Prior to
contacting potential partner
companies, the consortium team
prepares for benchmarking by
developing two questionnaires. The
first is a brief list of questions to
determine the suitability of a
potential partner. It is intended to
serve as a screening tool and is sent
Fall 2000 The Journal for Quality & Participation
to each potential partner company.
This single-page questionnaire is
designed to elicit responses that
provide information to evaluate the
suitability of each partner based on
previously determined partner
selection criteria.
The second questionnaire is a
list of process-related questions for
the selected benchmarking partner.
It is much more detailed and asks
questions that specifically address
the process being benchmarked. It
is important that these process-
related questions are not
extraneous and that they only
address the specific aspects of the
process which are important to the
consortium team members.
The process-related questions
are grouped in a logical sequence
for ease of responding. Prior to
sending this detailed questionnaire
to any partner, the team develops
its own responses to each question.
This ensures that the consortium
team thoroughly understands its
own process and will be well
prepared to share the information
with its partner.
Step 9. After the preparation of
questionnaires is complete, the
consortium team is ready to begin
contacting potential benchmarking
partner companies. This first
communication should include
the names of the team members,
the companies represented, and
the purpose of the benchmarking
project. It includes a list of
59
 measures the consortium team
wishes to use to compare
performance levels and the
screening questionnaire for the
potential partner to complete if
they are interested in participating
in the project. Also included is a
copy of the APQC International
Benchmarking Clearinghouse’s
Benchmarking Code of Conduct
to reinforce the team’s
commitment to recognized
standards of confidentiality,
preparation, and legality during
the benchmarking project.
Thorough preparation for benchmarking
is essential for the project to be beneficial
for the consortium team and its
benchmarking partners.
Step 10. The questionnaire
responses from potential partners
are reviewed by the consortium
team against the criteria for
selecting a partner company. Those
companies fitting the criteria for an
external partner are notified.
In all dealings with the selected
external partner company, the
consortium team functions as a
single unit with a single point of
contact. Individuals and their
represented companies are
identified to the partner, but only
as team participants. The selected
external partner company is sent
the list of detailed process-related
questions for its review.
Data and information gathered
from external partners are analyzed
by the consortium team to deter-
mine relative levels of performance,
and process information provides
the basis for identifying best
practices enabling superior
60 Association for Quality & Participation www.aqp.org
performance; this information is
sent to the partner company. Each
consortium team participant
reviews the information gleaned
from the project to identify the
practices with the most potential to
produce desired strategic business
results in their organization. This
implementation is unique for each
consortium team member. Team
members may discuss among
themselves ideas to facilitate
implementation, but the actual
changes are an individual
responsibility.
Step 11. Finally, the consortium
benchmarking teams at KSC are
required to document the findings
and benefits resulting from the
benchmarking project. These are
presented to NASA and contractor
executives to provide project
closure. Each consortium team
participant outlines those aspects
of the project of particular interest
to his organization.
At the formal conclusion of a
consortium benchmarking project,
the benchmarking facilitators
encourage continued learning and
momentum through follow-up
meetings. A meeting is scheduled
six months after the conclusion of
the project, at which participants
return to provide status on the
progress they have made. This
helps reinforce the commitment
to improvement activities and to
lend encouragement and support
to one another.
Lessons learned
Benchmarking requires a
significant expenditure of
resources. It is possible to expend
large amounts of time in a
benchmarking study and receive
little in return for the effort. To
avoid this pitfall, it is crucial to
evaluate whether the right process
is selected for the study.
The selected benchmarking
project must have the potential
to result in a return on the invest-
ment. Organizations must be
prepared to make a large time
commitment, analyze the findings,
adapt the best practices to their
process, and monitor performance
for improvement.
It is crucial to have a trained
facilitator lead the consortium
team through the benchmarking
steps. Most participants have
neither training nor experience in
benchmarking and need guidance.
Facilitators also provide a service by
gathering the results data from the
participants, compiling it into
meaningful comparisons, and
blinding the sources before
providing the information to the
participants.
At the completion of a
consortium benchmarking project,
periodic follow-up meetings should
be scheduled to keep the synergy of
the learning process going and to
help foster the development of new
ideas for continuous improvement.
Benefits of consortium
approach
Consortium benchmarking is
a cost-effective alternative to
conventional benchmarking
approaches and has provided a
foundation for continued
benchmarking at Kennedy Space
Center. By joining forces, the cost
to each participant is generally less
than it would be for each
contractor to conduct a study
individually. It also tends to
Team members may discuss ideas to
facilitate implementation, but the actual
changes are an individual responsibility.
increase the willingness of best-in-
class companies to become study
partners with KSC organizations.
Continued informal bench-
marking among the consortium
process owners has a synergistic
benefit. In addition to enhancing
benchmarking skills among
participant members, the approach
strengthens a culture that values
continual improvement and
teamwork to achieve excellence. It
builds a foundation for continued
benchmarking, formal and/or
informal, through the use of
common terminology, tools, and
techniques.
The collaboration of NASA and
its contractors on a common
process promotes an understanding
among the participants of their
common process, the differences as
well as best practices which can be
adapted. Consortium bench-
marking spreads the cost of
benchmarking among the
participant organizations with all
participants realizing the benefits
of the study. With the diverse
contractors working toward a
common goal, communication and
cooperation are greatly enhanced.
Consortium benchmarking is a
technique any organization, public
or private, can use to its benefit. It
can help organizations gain a
thorough understanding of a
process and provide an environ-
ment to share best practices. Some
examples might include:
1) Local area hospitals. They can
engage in consortium benchmarking
to determine the best method for
scheduling surgical suites.
2) Municipalities.They can work
together to determine the most
effective way in selecting a public
works consultant.
3) Business units. Within a company,
business units can cooperatively
benchmark to determine the most
optimal accounting system.
At the Kennedy Space Center, a
component of developing world-
class space partnerships for global
cooperation is being an open and
willing partner in an effective
benchmarking study. Our
experience with consortium
benchmarking has resulted in
cooperation among contractors,
and has led the way to incorporate
the synergy of ideas from multiple
organizations toward the common
goal of mission success.
The structured approach
prevents “industrial tourism,” or
plant visits simply to see what is
out there. Benchmarking can
provide a wealth of ideas on which
to build significant improvement.
The commitment of resources to
participate in a benchmarking
study is typically well worth the
Fall 2000 The Journal for Quality & Participation
effort involved due to the insights
that result from learning from
others.
We all work in a competitive
business environment; through
consortium benchmarking projects
we foster teamwork and network-
ing, and benefit from the synergy
of working together on a common
project and building on the ideas
of one other. Those organizations
that participate and then follow
up on a benchmarking project by
adapting and applying best
practices are the organizations
that can best enhance their own
competitive edge.
Denise DeVito currently
works for Boeing at the
Kennedy Space Center in
Florida. She has also worked
as an urban planner and
Community Development
Director. DeVito holds a BS degree in Urban
Planning from Michigan State University, an
Executive MBA from Florida Tech, and an MA
in Human Resources Development from
Webster University in Merritt Island, Florida.
You may reach DeVito at 321-383-2867.
Sara Morrison, a graduate
of Westminster College in
New Wilmington,
Pennsylvania, is a senior
business operations analyst
for United Space Alliance,
the space shuttle maintenance contractor
located in Cape Canaveral, Florida. She has
served for five years on the Board of
Examiners for the Florida Governor’s Sterling
Award for quality management. Morrison’s
background includes industrial engineering
experience with a number of leading firms.
You may reach Morrison via e-mail at
sara.c.morrison@usago.ksc.nasa.gov.
61