The greatest value of benchmarking lies in the quality of the dialogue surrounding it

University hospitals are the best example to highlight the need for benchmarking. Due to the combination of complex care delivery, academic work,referral functions, education and research, they are under significant financial and organisational pressure. At the same time, the conclusions fromour discussions with UZA and UZ Gent reveal something that applies much more broadly: for general hospitals too, benchmarking is only valuable when the underlying data has been validated, the figures are interpreted correctly andthere is sufficient internal support to engage a dialogue around it.

The complexity of a university hospital is greater than that of ageneral hospital. But the fundamental challenges are largely equivalent. Any institution comparing financial performance, length of stay, operating room efficiency, emergency department performance or staff allocation quickly runs the risk of explaining differences to mere performance gaps. Higher costs or deficits are then too readily interpreted as inefficiency, while they may also be the result of patient profile, organisational structure, capacity pressures or funding realities.

Exchanges with Ingrid Cornille, Head of Business Intelligence at UZA,and with Ingrid Steens, Head of the Finance Department at UZ Gent and Liesbeth Van de Velde, Financial Controller at UZ Gent, show that benchmarking can be a powerful tool, particularly in complex hospital environments. Not because the figures alone provide all the answers, but because they facilitate an informed dialogue. This insight applies not only to university hospitals. General hospitals, too, need reliable comparisons with relevant peers, clear interpretative frameworks and sufficient internal coordination to turn data into actions.

The deployment of a tool such as V4H Cockpit therefore requires more than just technical integration. It requires preparatory work: validating data,refining definitions, understanding deviations and jointly determining which insights truly provide direction. In university hospitals, this preparation is often more intensive due to the higher clinical and organisational complexity. But the underlying logic applies to any hospital that wishes to use benchmarking as a basis for better decisions.

Why data validation is no detail, but the core of the journey

In any hospital, a benchmark can be deployed relatively quickly as acore tool for improving efficiency. However, the data must first be validated internally.

At UZA, Ingrid Cornille notes that the first participation in V4HCockpit immediately revealed corrections and data adjustments. The data is therefore thoroughly validated before analyses are widely shared. This validation step is not a mere administrative step taken, but the basic layer for support from clinical departments and management.

The same applies at UZ Gent. Ingrid Steens and Liesbeth Van De Velde putgreat emphasis on standardising interpretations, booking methods andallocation keys. This is indispensable, particularly in a university context, with robotic surgery, various medical structures and high organisational complexity. Otherwise, benchmarking gets narrowed down in discussions about definitions rather than striving to improvement discussions.

What V4H Cockpit really needs to deliver in university hospitals

Both discussions show that V4H Cockpit should not be introduced primarily asa monitoring tool. The tool must help to facilitate objective, nuanced discussions about costs, revenues, organisation and potential for improvement.

At UZA,Ingrid Cornille puts it very clearly: figures should support the frontline, not be used to hold it to account. This makes it possible to engage  heads on material consumption, invoicing, revenue and process optimisation. Among other things, this approach led to the appointment of invoicing managers for each department and enabled quick wins to be achieved.

At UZGent, Ingrid Steens and Liesbeth Van De Velde have opted for a similar approach. Data is not ‘the truth’, but a starting point for improvement.Only when medical and nursing teams trust this framework does the opportunity arise to look together at length of stay, staff deployment or cost differences.

Why external benchmarking is so important

University hospitals often already have robust internal dashboards. UZA,for example, uses its own BI environments for operational monitoring of activities, staffing data and operating room occupancy. But what is usually lacking internally is a solid benchmark against comparable peers. Andthat is precisely where the added value of V4H Cockpit lies.

This makes the tool complementary to existing dashboards. Internal dashboards show what is happening today. External benchmarking shows how a hospital compares to other institutions with similar activities. For university hospitals, which often face major financial challenges whilst simultaneously having acute and specialised care and teaching activities, this is no luxury. Itis an essential foundation for correctly interpreting efficiency gaps andstructural underfunding.

The key focus areas for the implementation and use of V4H Cockpit

Discussions with Ingrid Cornille, Ingrid Steens and Liesbeth Van De Velde highlight five clearfocus areas. These are equally relevant for general hospitals.

1. Start with validation, not visualisation.

Without rigorous data validation, there is no trust, and without trust, no worthy discussion.

2. Explicitly acknowledge structural differences.

Case mix,education, research, reference care and funding logic mean that data from university hospitals must be interpreted differently.

3. Turn the benchmarking tool a learning tool.

Forget: “Who is performing poorly?” Instead ask: “Which differences are structural, and where is there potential for improvement?”

4. Combine internal management with external comparison.

Dashboards and benchmarking complement each other. One provides up-to-date information,the other adds context.

5. Share ownership beyond finance alone.

In university hospitals, this responsibility must be embraced by BI, finance,controllers, management and clinical services. Otherwise, the tool will remain stuck in analysis, without translating into policy and practice.

More benchmarking means more dialogue

Anyone wishing to ensure the successful implementation of V4H Cockpit must first correctly understand the context: acknowledge the complexity, thoroughly validate the data, carefully frame the comparison and organise abroad-based dialogue. Then benchmarking becomes not a simplistic ranking, but a tool for sharper interpretation, better internal dialogue and more targeted improvement.

Perhaps that is the most important conclusion drawn by Ingrid Cornille, Ingrid Steens and Liesbeth Van De Velde: in hospitals, the greatest value of benchmarking lies not in the figures themselves, but in the quality of the dialogue surrounding them.

‍