Benchmarking and competitive analysis techniques. Compares performance, processes, and practices against industry standards, competitors, and best-in-class organizations.
Systematically compare your performance against industry leaders to identify gaps and improvement opportunities. Use this when benchmarking processes, setting performance targets, or analyzing competitors to drive strategic improvements.
/plugin marketplace add melodic-software/claude-code-plugins/plugin install business-analysis@melodic-softwareThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
Use this skill when:
Systematically compare performance, processes, and practices against internal units, competitors, industry standards, or best-in-class organizations. Identifies gaps and improvement opportunities.
Benchmarking is the process of measuring your organization's processes, products, or services against those of recognized leaders to identify gaps and improvement opportunities.
| Goal | Description |
|---|---|
| Identify Gaps | Where do we fall short of leaders? |
| Set Targets | What level of performance is achievable? |
| Learn Practices | How do leaders achieve superior results? |
| Drive Improvement | What changes will close the gaps? |
| Aspect | Benchmarking | Competitive Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Processes and practices | Products and market position |
| Goal | Improve own performance | Understand competitors |
| Scope | Can include non-competitors | Direct competitors |
| Outcome | Improvement plan | Competitive strategy |
Compare across internal units, teams, or locations:
| Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|
| Easy data access | Limited to internal best |
| Common context | May miss external innovations |
| Quick to implement | Political sensitivities |
| Low cost | May perpetuate mediocrity |
When to Use: Multiple locations, varied performance, starting point
Compare against direct competitors:
| Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|
| Relevant comparison | Data hard to obtain |
| Direct market context | May be biased/incomplete |
| Stakeholder understanding | Legal considerations |
| Strategic relevance | Competitors may not be best |
When to Use: Market positioning, product comparison, pricing
Compare similar functions across different industries:
| Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|
| Best-in-class practices | Context differences |
| Innovative ideas | May not transfer directly |
| Less competitive sensitivity | Harder to arrange |
| Broader perspective | More complex adaptation |
When to Use: Process improvement, breakthrough thinking
Compare strategies and business models:
| Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|
| Strategic insights | High-level, less actionable |
| Transformative potential | Longer time to implement |
| Industry-changing ideas | Harder to measure |
| Vision-setting | May require significant change |
When to Use: Strategy development, transformation, disruption
## 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]
## 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] |
| Criteria | Description |
|---|---|
| Relevant | Similar processes or challenges |
| Best-in-class | Superior performance in area |
| Willing | Open to sharing |
| Accessible | Data or contact available |
## Internal Performance Data
| Process/Area | Metric | Current Performance | Trend |
|--------------|--------|--------------------:|-------|
| [Process 1] | [Metric] | [Value] | [Up/Down/Stable] |
| [Process 2] | [Metric] | [Value] | [Up/Down/Stable] |
| Source | Type | Reliability |
|---|---|---|
| Industry reports | Secondary | Medium-High |
| Public filings | Secondary | High |
| Surveys | Primary | Medium |
| Site visits | Primary | High |
| Conferences | Secondary | Medium |
| Published case studies | Secondary | Medium |
Ensure comparability:
## 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% |
For each significant gap:
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]
## 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]
| Approach | Description | When to Use |
|---|---|---|
| Match benchmark | Achieve same level | Realistic, proven possible |
| Exceed benchmark | Surpass best-in-class | Competitive advantage |
| Incremental | Close gap by X% | Resource-constrained |
| Breakthrough | Leapfrog to new level | Transformational |
| Force | Benchmarking Focus |
|---|---|
| Rivalry | Direct competitor comparison |
| New Entrants | Emerging competitor practices |
| Substitutes | Alternative solution benchmarks |
| Supplier Power | Supply chain efficiency |
| Buyer Power | Customer satisfaction metrics |
## 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
Benchmarking informs SWOT:
| SWOT Element | Benchmarking Input |
|---|---|
| Strengths | Where we exceed benchmarks |
| Weaknesses | Where we fall short |
| Opportunities | Best practices to adopt |
| Threats | Competitor advantages |
## 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]
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"
## 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
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]
| Pitfall | Prevention |
|---|---|
| Wrong metrics | Align with strategic objectives |
| Poor partners | Select truly best-in-class |
| Apples to oranges | Normalize data carefully |
| Data without action | Focus on actionable insights |
| One-time exercise | Continuous improvement cycle |
| Copying blindly | Adapt to your context |
swot-pestle-analysis - Strategic environmental analysisprioritization - Prioritizing improvement actionsdecision-analysis - Evaluating improvement optionscapability-mapping - Capability maturity benchmarkingUse when working with Payload CMS projects (payload.config.ts, collections, fields, hooks, access control, Payload API). Use when debugging validation errors, security issues, relationship queries, transactions, or hook behavior.
Applies Anthropic's official brand colors and typography to any sort of artifact that may benefit from having Anthropic's look-and-feel. Use it when brand colors or style guidelines, visual formatting, or company design standards apply.
Creating algorithmic art using p5.js with seeded randomness and interactive parameter exploration. Use this when users request creating art using code, generative art, algorithmic art, flow fields, or particle systems. Create original algorithmic art rather than copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.