Making the best use of data in IT benchmarking and controlling

 

While both IT benchmarking and IT controlling aim to drive corporate performance, they do so from different perspectives and through different approaches. As an externally focused tool, IT benchmarking compares an organisation’s own performance against industry peers or market leaders to facilitate mutual learning, identify weaknesses, and adopt best practices. Controlling, by contrast, is internally focused, concentrating on planning, monitoring, and steering activities. It establishes KPIs and budgets to safeguard company efficiency and profitability. Consequently, controlling can improve its own target-setting by integrating benchmark data, while benchmarking can be refined using the precise KPIs captured within controlling.

IT Benchmarks: Budgeted vs Actual Figures

Selecting the right baseline for comparison is one of the central challenges in IT benchmarking. The question of whether to use budgeted (planned) or actual figures is particularly critical. The answer heavily influences the validity of results, determining whether a company identifies realistic, actionable areas for improvement or inadvertently misleads itself. Choosing between budgeted and actual figures is therefore not merely a technical detail, but a strategic steering decision.

Budgeted figures reflect corporate ambitions: Benchmarking against planned targets verifies whether an organisation’s goals are appropriate, overly ambitious, or under-ambitious relative to the market. This approach is highly effective for calibrating targets and ensuring planned performance levels remain realistic.

Actual figures, on the other hand, reveal real performance: They provide the foundation for an objective comparison with competitors or best-practice peers. Benchmarks based on actual data deliver robust insights into a company’s current market position, helping to pinpoint genuine performance gaps or strengths.

 

Mind the Gap Between Budget and Actuals

Problems arise when budgeted and actual figures diverge – which, in practice, is almost always the case. Building an IT benchmark solely on planned figures risks over-indexing on theoretical targets. The insights lose substance because they are not grounded in actual operational capability. A clear example of this is when large budget provisions for upcoming transformations are included in the planning figures but are ultimately deferred or never realised. Conversely, relying purely on actual-data benchmarking can fall short, as it merely reproduces existing weaknesses rather than sparking ambitious development.

Choosing the Right Timing

Seasonal fluctuations, varying maturity levels of ongoing initiatives, shifting budget-to-actual variances, and fiscal closing cycles can significantly distort KPIs. Early in the year, robust actual data is often lacking, while later in the year, exceptional factors – such as unplanned acquisitions or economic shifts – can skew the picture. This creates variances that reflect temporary timing effects rather than true operational capability, severely complicating comparisons across periods or between companies.

To navigate this challenge successfully, organisations can use two primary reference points: corporate maturity or, if in doubt, a combined hybrid approach.

Decision based on operational maturity: IT services with a high level of standardisation and process maturity deliver stable performance data. However, if services are still being established or undergoing transformation, normalised actual figures provide a more reliable foundation for realistically assessing true capability. As service maturity increases, the IT benchmark can gradually shift towards budgeted figures to mirror ambitious yet achievable targets.

The mid-year hybrid approach: When conducting a benchmark mid-year, a hybrid approach combining both budgeted and actual figures is highly effective. By this point, sufficient actual data is available, yet enough time remains in the fiscal year to actively address variances. Integrating both perspectives allows for a precise assessment of both current market standing and target achievement. Companies can spot early on whether planned performance levels remain realistic, where steering is required, and which measures need adjusting in time to meet year-end goals.

 There is no one-size-fits-all approach or perfect timing that works for every organisation. What matters most is early alignment and careful planning to ensure an IT benchmark delivers targeted, highly realistic results and recommendations.