Skip to content

ACCA Strategic Professional · Advanced Performance Management · Performance improvement models and techniques

Tavita Airlines benchmarks its on-time departure rate against five airlines and sets a target equal to the best performer's 92%. Tavita currently achieves 85% but operates mainly from congested airports, while the best performer uses uncongested regional airports. Over two years Tavita improves to 90% and management considers the programme a failure because the 92% target was missed. Which evaluation is most appropriate?

The target ignored comparability, so Tavita should judge progress against a context-adjusted target and its improvement trend rather than the raw gap to 92%. Congested airports make the best performer's figure an unfair standard, though a five-point improvement is substantial and benchmarking remains useful with adjustments.

  1. AThe programme failed because the target was not achieved
  2. BBenchmarking should be abandoned because comparators are not identical
  3. CThe target ignored comparability, so progress should be judged against a context-adjusted target and trend, not only the raw gapCorrect
  4. DTavita should switch to comparing only against its own past results

Explanation

Benchmark gaps need adjusting for structural differences such as airport congestion. A 5-point improvement is substantial, and the raw target was not comparable. Abandoning benchmarking or relying only on historic internal data would lose the external perspective, so the best approach is adjusted targets and trend analysis.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Performance improvement models and techniques shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Performance improvement models and techniquesFree diagnostic mock

More Performance improvement models and techniques questions