VMS vs Conventional Benchmarks
“Nothing that has once been measured, will ever be the same again.”
Daniel Kehlmann, from the novel “Die Vermessung der Welt” (“Measuring the World”), Rowohlt Publishing, 2005
Benchmarks are used to determine comparative values for a real system. The path to comparative values depends entirely on the objective that one is trying to achieve.
In the early 1980s, benchmarks were used primarily in technical areas. A new generation of processors was defined by a comparison of its actual performance with that of its predecessors. In terms of methodology, the process was restricted to technical assessments.
In the 1990s, when companies wanted to compare costs and performance parameters, peer group benchmarking was popularized by the Gartner Group. In order to allow for company specifics, the first task was to define those companies that could be compared. Typically, the choice fell on one’s own industry.
The disadvantage of the process is a more or less random selection of the partner to be compared with. While for example, service providers introduced the exact cost structure based on the SAP software, and the peer group benchmark consciously put on “blinders”.
A second critical disadvantage of the process is its strong fixation with costs. It is virtually a pre-requisite that companies of a peer group must have the same processes in order to compare them. All that has to be done then is to distinguish between the cost structures. Since then, benchmarking has often (and incorrectly) been equated with simply looking at costs.
VMS Develops a Completely New Benchmark Process
In developing its DNA-level benchmark, VMS put an end to these limitations.
DNA-level means that the processes used are ascertained by measurement and are included in the benchmarking in detail – a kind of “genetic analysis” of SAP systems, if you will.
The result is an accurate comparison of different companies. Where their processes are similar, technical or administrative processes should also be similar; where the processes deviate - either industry-specific or individually, this difference is identified and reported.
The analysis of the VMS DNA-level benchmark is accurate in its detail and precision to a degree never achieved before, which makes it possible to obtain practically-oriented results direct from a benchmark for the first time.
Read more here:
-
Complex – Dynamic
SAP systems are complex, dynamic systems, and the benchmarking method selected must be capable of showing that.
-
Choice of Model and Method
The methods VMS uses to describe, investigate and compare SAP systems are closely related to some renormalization procedures. That makes it possible to carry out analyses and comparisons in differing structures and in varying scales, with the same precision.
-
Comparative Processes
The essential requirement of the comparative process is – although this might sound trivial – the comparability of guarantees. To put it in more colloquial terms, “We don’t want to compare apples with oranges.”
-
Conventional Benchmark Processes
Conventional benchmark processes measure and compare the performance of the IT services of one company with those of other companies. Performance combines both criteria for efficiency and effectiveness. The objective of benchmarking is to identify optimization potential, and to derive recommendations as to how performance can be optimized.
-
The VMS Benchmark
The fundamental objective of the VMS benchmark is to use mathematical processes to avoid the disadvantages related to simple indicators and peer groups.



