Consortial benchmarking: a method of academic-practitioner collaborative research and its application in a b2b environment

Purpose of the paper and literature addressed:\ud Development of a new method for academicpractitioner collaboration, addressing the literature on collaborative research\ud \ud Research method:\ud Model elaboration and test with an in-depth case study\ud \ud Research findings:\ud In consortial benchmarking, practitioners and academic researchers form a consortium and together benchmark best-practices firms. Consortial benchmarking includes practitioners as co-researchers, thus facilitating research relevant for both academics and practitioners. Rigorous research informs the entire process since consortial benchmarking collects evidence from multiple sources and uses different comparison techniques. We develop the method and illustrate it in a business-to-business environment with a case that identifies the nature of innovative suppliers\ud \ud Main contribution:\ud Consortial benchmarking combines rigor and relevance and can thus boost the stagnating field of academic-practitioner collaborative research

Consortium benchmarking: Collaborative academic-practitioner case study research

Consortium benchmarking is a scholar–practitioner collaborative case study approach joining rigor and relevance in management research. In consortium benchmarking practitioners and academic researchers form a consortium and together benchmark best-practices. Consortium benchmarking includes practitioners as co-researchers, facilitating research relevant for both academics and practitioners. Rigorous research informs the entire process since consortium benchmarking collects evidence from multiple sources and uses various comparison techniques. This paper introduces the concept of consortium benchmarking and then illustrates its application with a case study that identifies the nature of innovative suppliers. The study shows how consortium benchmarking supports the production of relevant knowledge for both academics and practitioners in a rigorous way. In order to evaluate these contributions, the study develops criteria for assessing rigor as well as theoretical and practical relevance. Finally, the study compares consortium benchmarking with multi-case research and presents five aspects either not accounted for or neglected in “traditional” multi-case research