BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 245

Business Process Reengineering in the

Public Sector: The Case of the Housing
Development Board in Singapore
JAMES Y.L. THONG, CHEE-SING YAP, AND KIN-LEE SEAH

JAMES Y.L. THONG is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Information and

Systems Management, School of Business and Management, Hong Kong University
of Science and Technology. He received his Ph.D. and M.Sc. in Information Systems,
and B.Sc. (Hons.) in Computer Science from the National University of Singapore.
His research interests include information technology adoption and implementation,
small business computerization, computer ethics, and IS personnel management. He
has published in European Journal of Information Systems, Information & Manage-
ment, Information Processing & Management, Information Systems Research, Jour-
nal of Information Technology, Journal of Management Information Systems, Journal
of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, and Omega.

CHEE-S ING YAP is an Associate Professor in the Department of Information Systems,

School of Computing, National University of Singapore. He holds a Ph.D. in Infor-
mation Systems from Cambridge University and a B.Sc. (Eng.) from Imperial Col-
lege, London. His research interests include the use of IT in small business, government
policy, and IT in Asia-Pacific countries. He is on the Editorial Boards of Information
& Management and Telecommunications Policy. His publications have appeared in
many international journals, including Information Systems Research, Journal of
Management Information Systems, European Journal of Information Systems, Omega,
Information Society, Journal of the Operational Research Society, and Journal of
Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce.

KIN-L EE SEAH is a technical consultant with Reuters Asia Risk Systems. He has ten
years of IT experience in various organizations and positions. He received his M.Sc.
in Information Systems and B.Sc. (Hons.) in Computer Science from the National
University of Singapore. His research interest is in organizational change, with a
specific focus on the impact and enabling factor of IT.

ABSTRACT: Our existing knowledge of business process reengineering (BPR) is mainly

derived from the experiences of private sector organizations, which have fundamen-
tally different characteristics from public organizations. This paper represents a first
step in understanding how BPR may be different in public organizations. Drawing on
the public administration literature, it examines the differences between public and
private organizations and their implications for BPR. Following that, it examines the

Journal of Management Information Systems / Summer 2000, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 245–270.
© 2000 M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
0742–1222 / 2000 $9.50 + 0.00.
246 THONG, YAP, AND SEAH

BPR experience of a large public organization through an intensive case study. The
case analysis shows that while there are similarities in the BPR experiences of public
and private organizations, there are also notable differences. In this specific case,
there were social and political pressures to reengineer, press publicity to promote
BPR, a reengineering team comprised mainly of neutral staff, performance bench-
marks adapted from the private sector, high-level approval for redesigned processes,
and a pilot site implementation to secure further funding. It concludes with lessons
learned for implementing BPR in public organizations.

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: business process reengineering, case study, information
technology, public sector

COMPANIES NOWADAYS FACE A RAPIDLY CHANGING BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT, with

increased competition and higher customer expectations. Work processes organized
along the principle of division of labor can no longer deliver the required perfor-
mance. In response to the changing business environment, companies are turning to
business process reengineering (BPR), involving significant investments in informa-
tion technology (IT). BPR advocates the redesign of business processes using en-
abling IT to bring about a quantum leap in performance [23, 26, 39, 40]. Successful
BPR projects have been widely reported in the IS literature (e.g., [13, 14, 34, 51, 55])
and in the popular press. Polls have shown that more than 70 percent of large U.S.
companies have been reengineering their business processes [12]. With the advent of
the new millennium, the popularity of BPR remains undiminished [1, 41].
In view of the changing business environment, the public sector also faces similar
challenges. Public organizations are increasingly finding it difficult to meet the de-
mands of a better-educated public in a fast-changing social environment. This is be-
cause the existing bureaucratic model of public organizations was developed in a
slower-paced society, in a time of mass markets, and when only those at the top of the
pyramid had enough information to make informed decisions [59]. While public orga-
nizations have adopted IT to improve their operational efficiency [16, 17, 47, 48, 57,
67], the changing environment calls for more radical changes to improve the quality of
public service. The need to reengineer the government to meet these new demands has
led to the call for the “reinvention of the government” [3, 45, 59, 61]. As part of this
reinvention, it is foreseeable that BPR will be beneficial to public organizations. For
example, in a report entitled “Reengineering Through Information Technology,” the
U.S. government identified a three-pronged strategy, with major initiatives to reengineer
government services to meet the demand for better performance [69].
There is an extensive literature on BPR in the academic journals, besides the popu-
lar press and magazines. In general, the IS literature on BPR can be divided into four
main groups. The first group provides lessons learned from BPR experiences in indi-
vidual companies (e.g., [10, 13, 14, 20, 24, 32, 34, 37, 51, 55, 68]). The second group
examines interorganizational BPR (e.g., [18, 19, 50, 64]). The third group introduces
 BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 247

BPR methodologies, tools, and techniques (e.g., [22, 28, 29, 43, 46, 56]). Finally, the
fourth group examines the impact of BPR using mathematical modeling (e.g., [2, 11,
58, 66]). While the BPR literature is substantial, they have mainly documented the
BPR experiences of private sector organizations. In the few studies that did include
public organizations in their sample [36, 44], no details were provided on the specific
BPR experiences of the public organizations. In summary, we know very little about
the BPR experiences in public organizations.
The public administration literature recognizes that private and public organiza-
tions are not homogeneous. There are critical environmental and organizational dif-
ferences between private and public organizations [6, 7, 8, 9, 21, 63]. Unique
characteristics include the absence of market incentives; the existence of multiple,
conflicting goals; and a political context with a broader range of constituent groups,
higher levels of accountability, and more rules, regulations, and constraints [65]. As
such, the lessons learned from applying BPR methodologies, tools, and techniques in
the private sector may not be transferable without adaptation to the public sector. At
the very least, these differences should require modification of many managerial pre-
scriptions, typically based on results from the private sector [9, 60]. Hence, research
is needed to determine whether public organizations face similar or unique issues in
successful BPR implementation.
This paper examines the BPR experience of a large public organization through an
intensive case study. This study represents a first step in understanding how BPR may
be different in public organizations. In the next section, we examine the literature on
differences between public and private organizations and their implications for BPR.
Following that, we describe the methodological approach adopted for this study. The
case study is then presented, followed by a case analysis that identifies the character-
istics of BPR in public organizations. Finally, we conclude with lessons for BPR
implementation in public organizations.

BPR and Public Organizations

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS have been acknowl-
edged and studied in the public administration literature [7, 8, 21, 35, 62, 63]. The
seminal paper on this topic was by Rainey et al. [63], who summarized the differences
between public and private organizations around three categories: environmental fac-
tors (i.e., factors outside the organization), organization–environment transactions (i.e.,
transactions of organizations with their environments), and internal structure and pro-
cesses (i.e., factors within the organization). Stated in terms of the public sector’s
characteristics relative to those of the private sector, these differences include:

1. Environmental Factors: Less market exposure (and therefore more reliance on

appropriations), resulting in less incentive for productivity and effectiveness,
lower allocational efficiency, and lower availability of market information;
more legal and formal constraints; and higher political influences, including
impacts of interest groups and the need for support of constituencies.
248 THONG, YAP, AND SEAH

2. Organization–Environment Transactions: More mandatory actions due to the

unique sanctions and coercive powers of government; wider scope of concern
and significance of actions in the public interest; higher level of scrutiny of
public officials; and greater expectation that public officials act fairly, respon-
sively, accountably, and honestly.
3. Internal Structure and Processes: More complex criteria (e.g., multiple, con-
flicting, and intangible); managers with less decision-making autonomy, less
authority over subordinates, greater reluctance to delegate, and a more political
role for top managers; more frequent turnover of top managers due to elections
and political appointments; difficulties in devising incentives for individual per-
formance; and lower work satisfaction and organizational commitment.
The differences between public and private organizations have implications for their
respective management of IT. In a review of various IT evaluation models, Hoff [42]
concluded that the economic goal attainment evaluation methods—such as the tradi-
tional cost-benefit analysis—that are popular in the private sector are not suited to
public organizations with their diverse and intangible goals. Robertson and Seneviratne
[65] found that it is more difficult to implement changes in public organization work
settings. The political environment in which public sector organizations operate ex-
acerbate the risk involved in IT development [52]. Further, frameworks developed in
the private sector for managing IT projects fail in the public sector because they do
not take into account the inherent differences between managing in public and private
organizations [15]. Finally, Bretschneider [8] identified five implications. First, pub-
lic management information systems (PMIS) managers must contend with greater
levels of interdependence across organizational boundaries than private MIS manag-
ers. Second, PMIS managers must contend with higher levels of red tape than private
MIS managers. Third, criteria for the evaluation of hardware and software, which
ultimately lead to purchasing decisions, are different for PMIS and private MIS. Fourth,
PMIS planning is more concerned with extraorganizational linkages, while private
MIS is more concerned with internal coordination. Finally, PMIS tend to place the
director lower in the organizational structure than private MIS. Hence, PMIS operate
in a more constrained environment and the management of PMIS must adapt to the
more constrained environment.
Similarly, we expect the differences between private and public organizations to
have an impact on BPR. Based on the differences enumerated by Rainey et al. [63],
we identified issues that are relevant to BPR in the public sector. The unique charac-
teristics of public organizations will have significant effect on BPR in public organi-
zations, particularly in the following areas: (1) deciding to adopt BPR; (2) setting
objectives of BPR; and (3) implementing BPR. The potential implications on BPR
are summarized in the last column of Table 1.

Deciding to Adopt BPR

Because public organizations rely more on appropriations and less on market expo-
sure, there is less incentive to reduce cost and improve operating efficiency. This
Table 1. Salient Characteristics of Public Organizations and their Implications for BPR†
Topic
Environmental Factors
1.1 Degree of market exposure
(reliance on appropriations)
1.2 Legal, formal constraints
(courts, legislature, hierarchy)
1.3 Political influences
Proposition
1.1.a. Less market exposure results in less incentive
for cost reduction, operating efficiency,
effective performance.
1.1.b. Less market exposure results in lower allocational
efficiency (reflection of consumer preferences,
proportioning supply to demand, etc.).
1.1.c. Less market exposure means lower availability
of market indicators and information (prices,
profits, etc.).
1.2.a. More constraints on procedures, spheres of
operations (less autonomy of managers in
making such choices).
1.2.b. Greater tendency toward proliferation of formal
specifications and controls.
1.2.c. More external sources of formal influence, and
greater fragmentation of those sources.
1.3.a. Greater diversity and intensity of external informal
influences on decisions (bargaining, public opinion,
interest group reactions).
1.3.b. Greater need for support of “constituencies”—client
groups, sympathetic formal authorities, etc.
Implications for BPR
Increased reluctance to adopt massive
changes required for BPR.
BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
Slower adoption of BPR.
Increased difficulties in setting BPR objectives
and benchmarking.
Increased difficulties in redesigning procedures
to support redesigned processes.
Longer time required for specification and
approval of redesigned procedures.
Increased difficulties in obtaining approval for
reengineering project and redesigned processes.
Increased difficulties in BPR prioritization and
setting objectives of BPR.
Increased difficulties in obtaining approval for
reengineering project and redesigned processes.
249
 250
THONG, YAP, AND SEAH
Table 1. Salient Characteristics of Public Organizations and their Implications for BPR† (Continued)

Topic Proposition Implications for BPR

Organization–Environment Transactions
2.1 Coerciveness (“coercive,”
“monopolistic,” unavoidable
nature of many government
activities)
2.2 Breadth of impact
2.3 Public scrutiny
2.4 Unique public expectations
2.1.a. More likely that participation in consumption and Lower incentives to reengineer services.
financing of services will be unavoidable or mandatory.
(Government has unique sanctions and
coercive powers.)
2.2.a. Broader impact, greater symbolic significance of Increased difficulties in evaluating impact and
actions of public administrators. (Wider scope of benefits of BPR.
concern, such as “public interest.”)
2.3.a. Greater public scrutiny of public officials and their Increased hesitance in adopting BPR.
actions.
2.4.a. Greater public expectations that public officials will Increased difficulties in setting BPR objectives,
act with more fairness, responsiveness, designing process alternatives, and selection of
accountability, and honesty. redesign alternatives.

Internal Structures and Processes

3.1 Complexity of objectives,
evaluation and decision criteria
3.1.a. Greater multiplicity and diversity of objectives Increased difficulties in setting BPR objectives,
and criteria. designing process alternatives, and selection of
redesigned processes.
3.1.b. Greater vagueness and intangibility of objectives
and criteria.
3.1.c. Greater tendency of goals to be conflicting
(more tradeoffs).
3.2 Authority relations and the
role of the administrator
3.3 Organizational performance
3.4 Incentives and incentive
structures
3.5 Personal characteristics of
employees
† Columns 1 and 2 are from Rainey et al. [63].
3.2.a. Less decision-making autonomy and flexibility on the
part of public administrators.
3.2.b. Weaker, more fragmented authority over subordinates
and lower levels. (1. Subordinates can bypass, appeal
to alternative authorities. 2. Merit system constraints.)
3.2.c. Greater reluctance to delegate, more levels of review,
and greater use of formal regulations. (Due to difficulties
in supervision and delegation, resulting from 3.1.b.)
3.2.d. More political, expository role for top managers.
3.3.a. Greater cautiousness, rigidity. Less innovativeness.
3.3.b. More frequent turnover of top leaders due to elections
and political appointments results in greater disruption
of implementation of plans.
3.4.a. Greater difficulty in devising incentives for effective
and efficient performance.
3.4.b. Lower valuation of pecuniary incentives by employees.
3.5.a. Variations in personality traits and needs, such as
higher dominance and flexibility, higher need for
achievement, on part of government managers.
3.5.b. Lower work satisfaction and lower organizational
commitment.
Reduced autonomy to drive a BPR project, which
could lead to lower success or failure.
Increased difficulties in redesigning the human
resource system to support the redesigned
processes.
Insufficient level of empowerment given to staff to
BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
support the redesigned processes.
Insufficient devotion of top management time and
effort to BPR project.
Greater barrier to achieving breakthrough in
thinking required for BPR.
Increased difficulties in sustaining a BPR effort.
Increased difficulties in redesigning the human
resource system to support the redesigned
processes.
251
252 THONG, YAP, AND SEAH

results in increased reluctance to adopt the massive changes that come naturally with
BPR. Public organizations also have a monopoly in providing mandatory services,
which lowers their incentive to reengineer existing operations. Further, public offi-
cials are often characterized as being less innovative and exercising greater cautious-
ness and rigidity in their actions, presenting a barrier to achieving the breakthrough in
thinking required for BPR. Because public organizations are subject to multiple and
diverse formal checks by authorized institutions (e.g., courts, legislature, and hierar-
chy) and there is a greater need for political influences, it is likely there will be more
difficulties in obtaining approval for reengineering projects and redesigned processes.
In addition, due to the breadth of impact in public organizations, there are difficulties
in evaluating impact and benefits of BPR. In summary, adoption of BPR is likely to
be slower in the public sector.

Setting Objectives of BPR

Because public organizations rely more on appropriations and less on market expo-
sure, there is lower availability of market indicators and information (e.g., prices and
profits). This results in increased difficulties in setting BPR objectives and
benchmarking. Due to the greater diversity and intensity of external influences (e.g.,
interest group demands and lobbying; interventions by congressman) on decisions,
there will be difficulties in setting and prioritizing objectives of BPR. Further, there
are greater public expectations that public officials will act with more fairness, re-
sponsiveness, accountability, and honesty. There also tends to be greater multiplicity,
diversity, vagueness, and conflicting objectives in public organizations. In summary,
these factors will lead to difficulties in setting BPR objectives, designing alternative
processes, and selecting the redesigned processes.

Implementing BPR
Public organizations operate under legal and formal constraints, resulting in less au-
tonomy for the managers. This increases the difficulties in redesigning procedures to
support the redesigned processes. Due to the greater tendency toward proliferation of
formal specifications and controls, a longer time frame is required for specification and
approval of redesigned procedures. Public administrators have less decision-making
autonomy and flexibility, resulting in reduced autonomy to lead a BPR project, which
could result in an unsuccessful BPR. Public administrators also have weaker and more
fragmented authority over subordinates. As a result, there is greater reluctance to del-
egate, there are more levels of review, and there is greater use of formal regulations.
Hence an insufficient level of empowerment is given to staff to support the redesigned
process. Because public managers have a more political and expository role, there may
be insufficient devotion of top management’s time and effort to the BPR project. More
frequent turnover of top managers due to elections and political appointments will re-
sult in greater disruption to implementation of plans. This suggests that there will be
difficulties in sustaining a BPR effort if there is a change in the top manager. Further,
 BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 253

the rigid incentive structure in public organizations will present difficulties in rede-
signing the human resource management system to support the redesigned processes.

Methodology
AN IN-DEPTH CASE STUDY OF A BPR PROJECT at the Housing and Development
Board (HDB), the public housing authority of Singapore, was conducted to explore
and identify the unique characteristics of BPR in public organizations. The HDB
presents a unique case, as it is a key public organization that affects the lives of
almost all Singaporeans. While the single case study has limited generalizability, it is
useful at the initial or exploration stage of research [5, 70]. The case study method
was used in this study, as it allows examination of the BPR phenomenon in a natural
setting, generation of theories from practice, and understanding the nature and com-
plexity of the phenomenon, and because it is appropriate when few previous studies
have been carried out [4].
The data collection involved site visits and multiple interviews with the parties
involved in the reengineering. The reengineering of the HDB was led by the in-house
Management Services (MS) Department, with the Information Services Department
(ISD) delivering the computer solutions. Officers from these two departments and
staff from the Model Branch Office were interviewed for this study.1 The interviewees
had a high degree of involvement with the reengineering project. Each interview,
using a list of open-ended questions, lasted for one to three hours. The interview
questions were designed based on the interviewee’s department (which reflects the
type of involvement), the level of responsibility (managerial versus operational), and
inputs from document reviews and previous interviews. Two main groups of ques-
tions were developed. The first group of questions solicited factual information. The
second group of questions asked the respondents for their insights or opinions on
various aspects of the reengineering project. Interview notes were transcribed within
24 hours. The interview notes were then reviewed for consistency with other docu-
ments in the case study database. Inconsistencies were clarified with the relevant
officers. The data collection also involved establishing a case study database consist-
ing of archival records, including reengineering project documentation, internal
memos, annual reports, press releases, in-house bulletins, internal surveys, and news-
paper articles. This multimethod data collection strategy allowed for triangulation of
findings, which increased the reliability and validity of the results [70]. As recom-
mended by Duchessi and O’Keefe [30], a final case write-up documenting the
reengineering events and lessons learned was verified with the HDB.

Case Description

The Public Organization

THE HDB WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1960 as the public housing authority of Singapore
under the charge of the Ministry of National Development. Its mission is to provide
254 THONG, YAP, AND SEAH

affordable housing of a high quality and to help build communities. Back then, only
9 percent of Singapore’s population lived in public housing, and many people lived in
overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. In response to the limited land and increas-
ing population in Singapore, the HDB concentrated on a massive building program
involving high-rise flats to overcome the housing shortage. By 1998, 86 percent of
Singapore’s three million people lived in HDB flats. The HDB now focuses on im-
proving the quality of public housing through better planning and design, efficient
estate management, and the upgrading of older HDB estates.
The HDB builds 30,000 flats a year and manages more than 730,000 units of resi-
dential properties, about 50,000 commercial and industrial properties, and over 500,000
parking lots. Services provided to the residents of HDB flats include: (1) financial
services, such as administration of mortgage loans and collection of rent, monthly
parking charges, and conservancy charges; (2) lease and tenancy services, such as
transfer of ownership, surrender of flats, and renewal of tenancy; and (3) mainte-
nance services, such as rectification of defects and approval of renovation works.
Service points in the form of 21 branch offices are strategically located around the
island-nation for convenient delivery of these services.

The Model Branch Office Study

The Management Services (MS) team was based at the Model Branch Office for a
one-year intensive hands-on study. Every step and procedure in the existing processes
was scrutinized. Redundant steps and procedures were removed, and others were
collapsed or streamlined from the customer’s perspective. The MS team met with
staff from the Model Branch Office, relevant headquarters departments, and Informa-
tion Services Department regularly to examine the proposed new business processes
and identify new information systems requirements. A new organizational structure
was also proposed to support the new job responsibilities and facilitate the new
workflow. The Model Branch Office concept was successfully piloted before an 18-
month rollout plan was drawn up to implement the new systems and procedures
throughout the remaining 20 branch offices. One year later, the revamp of all branch
office operations was successfully completed, six months ahead of schedule.

Before BPR
Before reengineering, the branch offices had a matrix organization structure with
multiple layers of authority. Sections within a branch office had to report to their
respective headquarters (HQ) departments. The Head of the Branch Office reported
to the Housing Administration Department. The Finance Section reported to the Fi-
nance Department, while the Car Parks, Hawkers, and Maintenance Sections reported
to the Estate Management Department. Within the constraints of the various line re-
sponsibilities to the HQ departments, the Head of Branch Office had a fair degree of
autonomy in the running of the branch office. In each branch office, the Housing
Maintenance Inspectors (HMIs) reported to the estate officers for housing adminis-
 BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 255

tration work assignment and the Senior Housing Maintenance Inspector (SHMI) for
maintenance work assignment. Hence a housing block could be under one HMI for
housing administration and another HMI for maintenance work. Further, clerks were
grouped by functions and reported to multiple estate officers. For example, some
clerks specialized in transfer of flat ownership, while others specialized in arrears
management.
The branch offices provided services to residents through five types of special-
ized counters, viz., finance, car parks, renovation, maintenance, and lease and ten-
ancy. Residents were served by specialized counters on different floors and had to
shuttle from counter to counter to obtain the relevant services. For example, resi-
dents applied for renovation permits at the renovation counter, then queued at the
finance counters to pay related fees, and finally returned to the renovation counter
to collect the permits. Average waiting time at the finance counters reached 40 min-
utes. Some services, such as the transfer of flat ownership, took almost nine months
to process, with huge backlogs at some branch offices. Having to work overtime
constantly, staff morale was at an all-time low. A quarter of incoming telephone
calls went unanswered, and callers were passed from officer to officer. The local
press reported that there were as many as 200 people in each queue, with some
residents queuing for as long as four to five hours. At the same time, political change
was in the air, with the formation of town councils for all constituencies to be headed
by members of parliament. The town councils were given responsibility for their
own estate maintenance.

After BPR
In order to achieve clear ownership for the performance of branch offices and estab-
lish clear lines of command and control, the CEO approved the reorganization of the
HDB branch offices and HQ departments. All aspects of branch office operations—
including car parks, maintenance, hawkers, and finance—were placed under the pur-
view of the Head of Branch Office. To reflect the increased responsibility, the post of
Head of Branch Office was upgraded to superscale grade, which is the elite govern-
ment service grade. A reorganization of the various sections within the branch office
was also carried out. Maintenance work was divided according to the same geographi-
cal areas as lease and tenancy work. Hence, estate officers took charge of every aspect
of estate management work for a specific neighborhood. Clerks and HMIs became
generalists or caseworkers [25] and were assigned to specific estates. Various sections
that were concerned with fund collection, such as car park charges and mortgage
loans, were placed under the charge of the Finance Section.
After reengineering, a one-stop service was provided, with the merging of the five
types of specialized counters to form the Housing Finance counters and the Hous-
ing Services counters. Seven new information systems were developed, and exist-
ing information systems were enhanced to support the new work processes. Drastic
improvements in performance were observed after reengineering. The waiting time
at the Housing Finance counters was reduced by 97 percent, while the number of
256 THONG, YAP, AND SEAH

unanswered calls dropped by 85 percent. On-line information enabled the officers

to answer telephone calls without passing the call from one officer to another. The
transfer of flat ownership transaction took about four months, as compared to nine
months previously. Table 2 details the various performance improvements achieved
in the reengineered Model Branch Office.
In a customer satisfaction survey conducted after the new processes were imple-
mented, 89 percent of the respondents responded that services were better and 84
percent said that services were prompt. Both the HDB and its customers benefited
greatly from the reengineered work processes and supporting information systems.
The backlog of cases dropped by 85 percent, and the average time taken to attend to
maintenance requests improved by 78 percent to two weeks. The HDB estimated
savings of over S$1 million annually from the elimination of unnecessary work pro-
cesses. According to the Head of the Model Branch Office, staff morale has also
improved. A clerical staff member in the Model Branch Office concurred. “Everyone
is a lot more cheerful.”

Case Analysis
IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND HOW BPR IS DIFFERENT in a specific public organization,
we need to examine the changes during the different phases of the BPR implementa-
tion. Hence the case analysis is organized chronologically around the five phases of
the BPR. This is commonly used in the historical tradition of case studies [31, 53, 54].
The five phases are (1) business vision development, (2) process diagnosis, (3) pro-
cess redesign, (4) implementation, and (5) performance monitoring.

Business Vision Development

The HDB had to make radical changes due to changes in the social and political
environments. A more affluent and educated population that placed new demand for
higher service quality was the main social change that influenced the HDB. The HDB
recognized the need for change. Its chairman pointed out that “the HDB is prepared
for an orderly and gradual scaling down of the building and resettlement activities”
and “to promote better service delivery, courtesy, and public relations.” However,
public organizations face lesser market exposure than private organizations. At the
same time, the public often face mandatory consumption of public services and prod-
ucts. These differences enable public organizations to adopt a program of gradual
change. However, political changes that led to the formation of town councils pushed
the ability of the HDB systems and processes to their limits, and the level of service
quality became unacceptable to the public. The existing systems and processes could
not deliver acceptable services and hence increased the impetus to reengineer the
HDB. The HDB experience suggests that most public organizations are highly resis-
tant to change. Social and political changes are the main pressures on them to
reengineer their processes.
 BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 257

Table 2. Performance of Reengineered Model Branch Office

Before After
Activities BPR BPR Improvement

Customer Service
Average waiting time
Finance Counter 40 minutes 1.1 minutes 97%
Estates Counter 17.2 minutes 3.6 minutes 79%
Percentage of unanswered calls 26% 4% 85%

Lease & Tenancy Services

Average processing time
Surrender of flats 8.4 months 3.7 months 56%
Transfer of ownership 8.8 months 3.9 months 56%
Sale of recess area 3.4 months 1.9 months 44%
Shops submissions 6.3 months 2.9 months 54%
Renewal of fixed-term tenancy 3.7 months 1.1 months 70%
Termination of tenancy 2.5 months 1.4 months 44%
Number of cases awaiting attention 4665 693 85%

Financial Services
Average processing time
Loan redemption 4.2 months 0.8 months 81%
Loan extension 14 days 5 days 64%
Lump sum payment 2.4 months 1.4 months 42%
Accounts requiring manual adjustments
GIRO accounts 518/month 105/month 80%
Sales accounts 787/month 66/month 92%
Rental accounts 51/month 30/month 41%
Vouchers prepared
Journal vouchers 85/month 13/month 85%
Payment vouchers 39/month 22/month 44%

Maintenance/Renovation Services
Average processing time
Renovation permit 1.4 months 0.5 month 57%
Electrical upgrading (mains) 8.0 months 4.0 months 50%
Average time to attend to
maintenance requests 2.3 months 0.5 month 78%

General Administration
File retrieval time 10 minutes 5.4 minutes 46%
Daily volume of file movement 923 files 603 files 35%
Number of forms/standard letters 369 291 21%

Once the decision to undertake a BPR was made, the broad scope and boundary for
the reengineering study needed to be defined [26]. In the absence of a crisis, formal
assessment and prioritization of needs are essential steps for reengineering. However,
in the case of the HDB, there were clearly urgent problems to be resolved. The dis-
tinct nature of the service quality problem made it easy to define the business vision.
258 THONG, YAP, AND SEAH

The development of a clear business vision was also aided by the appointment of a
new CEO of the HDB by the Minister of National Development. The service-oriented
CEO set a clear performance goal to “provide faster and friendlier service” at the
branch offices. The BPR project was overseen by a steering committee consisting of
the CEO and the heads of the various departments. The CEO was the leader of the
reengineering effort, while the process owner was the Head of Housing and Adminis-
tration Department (HAD). The reengineering team consisted of Management Ser-
vices (MS) officers, with the IS Department (ISD) in charge of providing IT support.
During the course of the project, due to the need to communicate with the various HQ
departments, an officer from HAD was assigned permanently to the team to help
liaison with the various HQ departments. According to the leader of the MS depart-
ment, “all departments gave the BPR top priority due to top management commit-
ment to improve the services.”
The HDB staff were informed of the business vision and the need for BPR through
various channels of communication. An announcement was made in the in-house
HDB newsletter. A briefing was conducted by the leader of the reengineering team
for all staff in the Model Branch Office. The briefing emphasized the importance of
the BPR and participation by branch office staff. The Head of the Model Branch
Office also instructed staff to give full cooperation to the reengineering team. These
were key actions that helped to gain initial support for the BPR, which was then
nurtured by the reengineering team through a close working relationship with the
Model Branch Office staff. But most importantly, at an early stage of the study the
CEO made a press announcement on the HDB’s objective to deliver fast, friendly,
and efficient services and its plans to revamp its branch offices. This delivered a clear
and powerful message to all the HDB staff of the strong resolution of top manage-
ment to change the existing system. According to an estate officer in the Model Branch
Office, “Morale is good knowing that someone is serious about improving the sys-
tem.” The Head of IS Department further explained that there was “unity in purpose.”
Press announcements by public organizations are not publicity stunts. They typically
demonstrate strong and firm commitment to some plan and action by the public orga-
nizations. Publicity in the press is a powerful way for public organizations to draw
the full attention of staff to the BPR effort and to convince them of the importance of
the project.

Process Diagnosis
All the officers in the MS Department were assigned on a full-time basis to the
reengineering team. This emphasized the commitment of top management, right
from the start of the project, to the provision of adequate resources for the BPR. The
reengineering team was relocated to the Model Branch Office for the one-year dura-
tion of the study. By stationing the reengineering team as close as possible to the
processes that were to be reengineered, it increased the opportunities for them to
observe and understand the work processes. It also allowed the reengineering team
to build up rapport with the staff whose work processes were to be reengineered.
 BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 259

According to an MS officer, “by the middle of the project, MS officers and Branch
Office staff were very friendly and on [a] first name basis.” According to an estate
officer, “there was informal feedback during day-to-day work.” This proved very
useful and was critical in overcoming user resistance during the implementation of
the redesigned processes. Initially, the Model Branch Office staff had reservations
about participating actively in the reengineering project, as they always had a back-
log of cases which frequently required them to work overtime. To overcome their
reservations, the MS officers explained to each of them individually how the BPR
could help them to resolve the backlog of cases. Further, according to the leader of
the reengineering team, “the MS officers set good examples by working closely
with them on the existing processes and in designing new processes.” According to
an estate officer, “openness and sympathetic ears overcame any staff resistance.”
Public organizations locating the reengineering team at the pilot site for the dura-
tion of the project can develop close working relationships to overcome user resis-
tance to change.
There were three reasons why the MS officers were chosen to constitute the
reengineering team. First, MS officers had prior education and training in manage-
ment science and operations research. Second, as the provider of in-house manage-
ment services, the MS officers had conducted workflow and procedure reviews of
the various departments. Hence they were very familiar with work procedure review
methods and the functions of other departments. Third, the MS officers were famil-
iar with IT, as they had spearheaded the HDB office automation projects and the
setting up of the HDB document archiving system. Public organizations should bear
in mind that staff who are familiar with the functions of various departments and are
trained in management science and operations research are very useful resources
for BPR.
While the reengineering team was comprised mainly of MS officers, in reality there
was a “virtual reengineering team” which included the staff from the Model Branch
Office and officers from the various HQ departments. Staff from the Model Branch
Office worked with the MS officers every day. Feedback from the HQ departments
was sought frequently and proposed redesigns were put up for their review and com-
ments. In addition, an estate officer from HQ was attached permanently to the MS
team to liaise with the various HQ departments. The use of MS officers to form the
core of the reengineering team and drive the bulk of the work was useful in situations
where top functional expertise could not be fully devoted to the project and where
there were political conflicts among the different groups and departments in the orga-
nization. The group of MS officers was perceived to be neutral. According to an
estate officer, “it is good to have a third party as they can see things objectively.”
Hence the use of a group of neutral staff officers to form the core reengineering team
that draws on the expertise of other departments is an attractive arrangement for
structuring a reengineering team in public organizations.
The reengineering team made use of observation, hands-on experience, interviews,
and document analysis to understand the work processes. The work processes were
documented using flowcharts with timing information. The reengineering team then
260 THONG, YAP, AND SEAH

validated the documented work processes through walkthroughs with section heads
or work coordinators who were in charge of the relevant workflow. According to an
MS officer, “we must understand the existing processes before we can improve on
them.” Public organizations should note that it is critical to validate the documented
work process with operational staff to ensure its accuracy.
The reengineering team examined and documented the work processes at the Model
Branch Office. The use of a particular branch office site has the potential problem of
being unrepresentative of other sites. A “superset” criteria was adopted in selecting
the Model Branch Office to study and pilot the reengineered processes. The selected
Model Branch Office was the largest branch office and was experiencing the most
operational problems. This ensured that the majority of problems were present at the
pilot site and hence were addressed in the reengineering. The reengineering team also
took into consideration the remaining problems affecting the current processes at the
other branch offices in designing the new processes. Public organizations that adopt
a one-site pilot study method must exercise sufficient care in site selection to ensure
that the site is representative of other sites.
Public organizations provide unique services and hence have less market indica-
tors. International benchmarking that compares similar public organizations across
different countries can assist public organizations in setting benchmarks, but this is
usually not available. An alternative strategy is to benchmark against private organi-
zations with similar processes. The reengineering team decided to study the branches
of some of the more successful banks. They observed the work processes in the banks’
branches, including authority structure, office workspace, service counter setup, and
service quality benchmarks. The HDB business vision of improving customer service
was translated into “reduce queuing time, service time, and turnaround to as low as
possible” and final quantifiable performance objectives were set for the redesigned
work processes. Based on the redesigned workflow, the optimized turnaround time
was selected as a performance measure. In the absence of traditional market indica-
tors, public organizations need to adapt performance indicators from the private sec-
tor to set benchmarks for improving the current processes.

Process Redesign
In a public organization there are many levels of authority and multiple departments
involved in each of the processes. Because process reengineering affected all the
levels of authority and various departments, resistance to change by the affected indi-
viduals and departments presented problems. There was a need for some mechanisms
to reduce resistance to change and gain the approval of the individuals and depart-
ments for the revised procedures. One mechanism found to be indispensable in the
case of the HDB was the use of a steering committee consisting of all the Heads of
Departments and chaired by the CEO. All redesigned processes were documented
and submitted to the steering committee for review and approval. A mechanism such
as the steering committee is essential in gaining approval of redesigned procedures in
public organizations.
 BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 261

In order to support the redesigned processes, parallel changes in the IT architecture

were required. A strategy of making only limited and essential changes in software
tools to support the new systems development, coupled with major hardware up-
grades to support the new workflow was adopted. This is a judicious strategy, as the
IS staff require time and effort to learn and familiarize themselves with new develop-
ment tools and environment. Unfamiliarity with new tools can bring with it develop-
ment risks leading to error-prone software and slippage in schedule. Public
organizations undertaking BPR can ill afford to contend with the added risk of a
completely new IT architecture and applications failures. Hence the primary crite-
rion in selecting a new IT architecture in public organizations is the ability to support
the redesigned processes without undue risks.
The widely advocated concept of casework was implemented in the new HDB. The
branch office was transformed from a functional setup into a structure where estate
officers supported all aspects of estate management and administration of a neighbor-
hood. Estate officers became caseworkers, handling all aspects of a neighborhood
instead of specializing in certain transactions. Clerical staff manning the redesigned
counters also became caseworkers, having to handle all types of transactions. Ac-
cording to an estate officer, “While there were new procedures to learn, we are more
satisfied than before with the greater job variety.” These changes in work responsi-
bilities required extensive retraining of staff, as they must understand the revised
procedures for numerous transactions. Public organizations that apply the casework
concept should review staff training needs for the reengineered jobs.
The list of performance standards was simplified. Previously, the list was a com-
plex set of 431 performance indicators covering all functions. This led to much con-
fusion and even conflicts between some of the criteria. A new list of 34
customer-oriented indicators—based largely on waiting time at the counters, turn-
around time for various transactions, and percentage of arrears—was devised to re-
place the existing list. For example, average counter waiting time must be within 5
minutes and average processing time for the surrender of flats must be within 2.5
months. Further, these indicators were built into the various information systems ap-
plications for ease of monitoring. For example, the electronic queuing systems and an
automated telephone monitoring system provided statistics on counter waiting time
and telephone answering rates. Performance measures in public organizations should
be simple and highly focused on the end result.
Consequences of reengineering often include redefined job responsibilities, merger
of responsibilities, creation of new positions, and even removal of old positions.
These consequences required appropriate changes to the existing human resource
and incentive structure. However, due to the rigid structure in public organizations,
amendments to the human resource and incentive structure typically involved nu-
merous rounds of negotiations and refinement with the relevant government authori-
ties. In the case of the HDB, having a supportive CEO facilitated changes to the
various human resource and incentive structures. As a consequence, the Head of
Branch Office position, with its added responsibilities, was upgraded to the elite civil
service scale. Similarly, salary allowances were introduced for frontline counters
262 THONG, YAP, AND SEAH

and telephone service officers. In response to the added responsibility of the new
procedures, the estate officers were “happy with the additional hourly allowance for
counter officers.” Hence a revised incentive structure to support the redesigned pro-
cesses is critical to the public organization’s success in reengineering.
The reengineering team piloted the redesigned systems and processes at the Model
Branch Office. The new IS applications were developed and implemented in phases.
After implementing the new processes, the reengineering team surveyed the queuing
time and turnaround time at the Model Branch Office. A customer satisfaction survey
was also conducted. The performance measurements allowed the reengineering team
to determine how well the redesigned processes functioned in a realistic operational
environment and their ability to meet the performance objectives. The redesigned
processes were then fine-tuned till they met the performance standards before full-
scale implementation in the remaining branch offices. The pilot implementation helped
to refine the redesigned processes.
Differences between public and private organizations suggested that the HDB would
face greater difficulties in justifying IT infrastructure changes and human resource
changes—two critical steps in this phase. Private organizations can translate improved
service and reduced waiting time into an estimated increase in sales and revenue.
However, such quantifiable benefits were much more difficult to achieve in public
organizations due to the compulsory and subsidized nature of their services. In this
case, the HDB adopted a simple two-step strategy that eased the justification for new
funding. Pilot site funding was secured first. After demonstrating the effectiveness of
the redesigned Model Branch Office, they applied for additional funds to reengineer
the remaining branch offices. Results from a successful pilot implementation helped
to obtain approval for the main funding.

Implementation
The training given to staff at the Model Branch Office was formalized into a set of
basic core courses. Prior to the implementation of the redesigned processes at the
remaining branch offices, staff were sent for training on the new procedures and op-
eration of the new information systems. The first phase of training for six branch
offices was conducted by members of the reengineering team before HAD, the pro-
cess owner, took over the training needs of the remaining branch offices. Members of
the reengineering team were most familiar with the redesigned processes and proce-
dures. Hence they were best suited to conduct the training. However, they must pro-
vide for a smooth transition for future training to be undertaken by the appropriate
department, as exemplified by the HDB experience. The investment in time and re-
sources to retrain the staff in branch offices was crucial in ensuring successful opera-
tions in the reengineered branch offices. Public organizations undertaking BPR should
commit sufficient time and resources to retraining of staff.
Typically, public sector mistakes loom large. Failure in reengineering the branch
offices could have resulted in bad publicity and inconveniences to all residents. In
light of the impact of the BPR exercise, the public accountability for the expenses
 BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 263

incurred, and the visibility of public programs, a one-year schedule and master plan
to replicate the redesigned processes in the Model Branch Office at the remaining
branch offices was drawn up. Sufficient time must be permitted for the rollout to
avoid a sudden surge in resource usage that could lead to poor support at each newly
reengineered branch office and possibly implementation failure. Conversely, a long
drawn out schedule can result in an outdated process being implemented due to
environmental changes or new business developments. According to an MS officer,
“At each branch office’s rollout, checklists were used extensively to ensure that the
reengineered processes were implemented correctly.” Public organizations need to
plan the rollout of redesigned processes throughout the organization carefully.
During rollout to the branch offices, top management commitment to the BPR was
constantly reinforced through regular articles in the in-house HDB newsletters. The
pilot implementation and the rollout program were also widely publicized in the in-
house HDB newsletters and the local press. Visits to the pilot site were conducted for
staff from the other branch offices. Public organizations undertaking BPR need to
educate and prepare all staff for the forthcoming changes through an intensive com-
munication program, possibly including news articles and site visits.

Process Monitoring
After the rollout, the HDB continued to monitor the performance of the branch of-
fices. The Heads of Branch Offices were required to submit monthly measurements
of the 34 performance indicators. The implementation of the new processes and pro-
cedures was not viewed as the end of reengineering. The HDB envisioned the need
for continuous monitoring of the performance of the reengineered processes. They
adopted an integrated strategy to improve the existing processes. The leader of the
reengineering team and the Head of the IS Department were appointed members of
the Productivity Steering Committee and Quality Improvement Committee in the HDB.
Figure 1 presents the HDB’s key strategies for achieving its quality, service, and pro-
ductivity goals. Review of policies, systems, and procedures, together with comput-
erization, were two of the key strategies identified that would help the HDB to achieve
its goal of being an effective organization in providing a high standard of affordable
housing and quality services. Public organizations should view reengineering and IT
as an integrated strategy.

Conclusion
THIS STUDY HAS EXAMINED THE BPR EXPERIENCE of a large public organization.
The case analysis supports the general proposition that the special characteristics of
public organizations necessitate some unique responses in implementing BPR. Con-
sistent with previous research [17, 49], while there were some similarities between
the public and private sectors’ BPR experiences, there were also notable differences.
In any case, public organizations should be aware of all the lessons learned—whether
264 THONG, YAP, AND SEAH

HDB CORPORATE
MISSION & OBJECTIVES

HDB’s Quality & Productivity Focus

- High standard of affordable housing
- Quality services
- An effective organization

PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

Quality Customer Construction Staff

Housing Services Productivity Productivity

To enhance the To improve To achieve To develop a

quality of public customer construction highly skilled
housing and services and excellence and and motivated
increase the level enhance the increase the level workforce and
of customer service level of construction exceed the
satisfaction productivity by annual national
another 10% productivity
over the next five growth of 4%
years

KEY STRATEGIES

Product Construction Policies, Computerization Human Monitoring &

Improvement Technology Systems and & Automation Resources Feedback
Procedure Management

- Upgrading of - Prefabrication - Policy reviews - Computerization - Skills upgrading - Performance

old estates - Site - Systems and - Office - Staff monitoring
- Flexi-plan mechanization procedural automation participation - Customer
scheme - Construction reviews - Cashless and programs surveys
- Design & build management paperless - Recognition and - Socio-economic
scheme - Research and transactions rewards studies
- Quality development - Automated - Public feedback
assurance systems and analysis
scheme

Figure 1. HDB Mission, Goals, and Strategies

unique to them or similar to those for private organizations—in order to effect a

successful BPR. A summary of the lessons learned from this case is presented in
Table 3.

Lessons Unique to Public Organizations

There are six unique lessons for public sector management. First, most public organi-
zations are highly resistant to change, and social and political changes are the main
pressures to reengineer their processes. As in the HDB case, the public organization
was pushed into BPR due to the legislative decision to introduce town councils, which
worsened considerably the already poor quality of service at its branches. Without
 BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 265

Table 3. Summary of BPR Lessons from the HDB Case

L1: Public organizations are highly resistant to change. Social and political changes are
the main pressures on them to reengineer their processes.
L2: Publicity in the press is a powerful way for public organizations to draw the full
attention of staff to the BPR effort and to convince them of its importance.
L3: Public organizations locating the reengineering team at the pilot site for the duration
of the project can develop close working relationships to overcome user resistance
to change.
L4: Public organizations should bear in mind that staff who are familiar with the
functions of various departments and are trained in management science and
operations research are very useful resources for BPR.
L5: The use of a group of neutral staff officers to form the core reengineering team that
draws on the expertise of other departments is an attractive arrangement for
structuring a reengineering team in public organizations.
L6: Public organizations should note that it is critical to validate the documented work
process with operational staff to ensure its accuracy.
L7: Public organizations that adopt a one-site pilot study method must exercise
sufficient care in site selection to ensure that the site is representative of other
sites.
L8: In the absence of traditional market indicators, public organizations need to adapt
performance indicators from the private sector to set benchmarks for improving the
current processes.
L9: The steering committee is an essential mechanism in gaining approval of rede-
signed procedures in public organizations.
L10: The primary criterion in selecting a new IT architecture in public organizations is the
ability to support the redesigned processes without undue risks.
L11: Public organizations that apply the casework concept should review staff training
needs for the reengineered jobs.
L12: Performance measures in public organizations should be simple and highly focused
on the end result.
L13: A revised incentive structure to support the redesigned processes is critical to the
public organization’s success in reengineering.
L14: A pilot implementation will help to refine the redesigned processes.
L15: Results from a successful pilot implementation will help to obtain approval for the
main funding.
L16: Public organizations undertaking BPR should commit sufficient time and resources
to retraining of staff.
L17: Public organizations need to plan the rollout of redesigned processes throughout
the organization carefully.
L18: Public organizations undertaking BPR need to educate and prepare all staff for the
forthcoming changes through an intensive communication program, possibly
including news articles and site visits.
L19: Public organizations should view reengineering and IT as an integrated strategy.

social and political changes, public organizations would have implemented BPR
much later than sooner. Second, publicity in the press, besides informing the public
of action taken in response to public pressure, is a useful avenue for public organiza-
tions to emphasize the importance of the BPR project to their staff. Public organiza-
tion staff are made aware of the commitment of top management to improving their
quality of services. It also increased the morale of the public organization staff know-
266 THONG, YAP, AND SEAH

ing that top management was interested in improving the system, resulting in unity
in purpose by all staff.
Third, staffing the reengineering team with neutral staff officers that draw upon
the expertise of other departments is an attractive arrangement. The composition of
such a team can be helpful in overcoming resistance from those affected by the
reengineering. Neutral officers are able to provide an unbiased view in reengineering
the processes. At the same time, the reengineering team is not confined to the neu-
tral officers, as there exists a “virtual reengineering team” consisting of officers
from other departments who can contribute to the BPR. Fourth, public organiza-
tions lack available performance benchmarks. Instead, they have to adapt service
quality indicators from the private sector for their purposes. By benchmarking
against the best private organizations, it will raise the performance of the public
organizations.
Fifth, approval of redesigned procedures is essential for public organizations. In
more bureaucratic organizations, having a supportive CEO and steering committee is
even more important to facilitate the approval process. Top management support was
identified by the interviewees as the main success factor of the BPR in the HDB. A
supportive top management can facilitate changes to the organization, human resource,
and incentive structures. Finally, it is difficult to quantify improvement in the public
service. A pilot site implementation can be useful in demonstrating the improved
services to the public and the Minister to justify subsequent funding for the main
implementation.

Lessons Common to Both Public and Private Organizations

There are also numerous useful lessons that are applicable to both public and private
organizations. We will discuss them under three general categories: pilot site imple-
mentation, organizational changes, and rollout implementation. The case demonstrated
the effectiveness of the pilot site method for BPR. It also identified the importance of
locating the reengineering team at the pilot site for the duration of the project. Through
this arrangement, the reengineering team can develop close working relationships
with end users to overcome user resistance to change. However, public organizations
that adopt the pilot site method must exercise sufficient care in site selection to ensure
that the site is representative of other sites. Otherwise, some of the existing problems
may not be taken into account in the reengineering. Further, the staff assigned to the
reengineering team should be familiar with the functions of various departments and
skilled in management science and operations research techniques. Finally, the pilot
site method allows fine tuning of the redesigned processes before full-scale imple-
mentation at other sites.
There are many organizational changes during a BPR. For example, it is critical to
validate the documented work processes with operational staff to ensure their accu-
racy. The reengineering team must understand the existing processes before they can
improve on them. Next, there should be a limited number of performance measures.
These should be simple to measure and highly focused on the end results. The list of
 BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 267

performance measures can then be built into the application systems to allow ease of
monitoring. This case also provides further support for the casework method, with its
increased job variety and improved staff morale. However, it is important to ensure
that staff are adequately trained for the reengineered jobs, as they will have additional
responsibilities under the casework method. In order to support the redesigned pro-
cesses, the incentive structure will also need to be revised. Finally, changes to the IT
infrastructure are required to support the redesigned processes. The primary criterion
here should be the ability of IT to support the redesigned processes without undue
risks. A strategy of utilizing familiar software development tools with hardware up-
grades to support the new processes is adequate.
After making the necessary organizational changes, the reengineering team must
manage the rollout implementation carefully. They need to prepare a master plan for
rolling out the redesigned processes to the various branches. Sufficient time must be
allowed for the rollout to avoid a sudden surge in resource usage. A checklist of all the
required changes can be used to facilitate the rollout. In preparation for the rollout,
there is a need to develop comprehensive programs for staff training. Training is
crucial in ensuring that staff can perform their new duties under the redesigned pro-
cesses. There is also a need to educate and prepare all staff for the impending changes
through an intensive communication program. News articles publicizing the success-
ful BPR at the pilot site and organizing visits to the pilot site are some ways to prepare
the staff. Finally, organizations should view reengineering and IT as an integrated
strategy. The implementation of the reengineered processes is not an end in itself.
Instead, there needs to be continuous monitoring of the performance of the reengineered
processes and one should be constantly on the lookout for ways to improve organiza-
tional processes with the support of IT.

Limitations and Future Research

Finally, we discuss the limitations of this research, and future research extension.
First, the inherent limitation of a single case should be noted. Given the single case
study, the external generalizability of the findings is limited. Future research can ad-
dress this limitation by examining additional public organizations. Second, the public
organization examined in this case study operates in the context of Singapore. The
Singapore context is exemplified by a proactive government policy to promote the
use of IT in both the public and private sectors [27, 33, 38]. As a result of this policy,
the government started the Civil Service Computerization Program to computerize its
public sector to make government more effective and responsive to the needs of citi-
zens and businesses. To support this policy, public organizations were given a greater
level of autonomy as compared to equivalent organizations in other countries. Never-
theless, lessons learned from this case are still useful to all public organizations. Fu-
ture research could examine the BPR experiences of public organizations in other
countries to determine whether government policies have an impact on the adoption
and implementation of BPR. This would contribute to the developing theory of infor-
mation systems management in public organizations.
268 THONG, YAP, AND SEAH

NOTES
1. The Model Branch Office was the first branch office that was reengineered. It was also the
biggest branch office and experiencing the most operational problems.

REFERENCES
1. Bartholomew, D. Process is back. Industry Week (November 1, 1999), 31–32, 36.
2. Barua, A.; Lee, C.H.S.; and Whinston, A.B. The calculus of reengineering. Information
Systems Research, 7, 4 (1996), 409–428.
3. Barzelay, M. Breaking Through Bureaucracy: A New Vision for Managing in Government.
Berkeley: University of California, 1992.
4. Benbasat, I.; Goldstein, D.K.; and Mead, M. The case research strategy in studies of
information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 3 (1987), 369–386.
5. Bonoma, T.V. Case research in marketing: opportunities, problems, and a process. Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 22, 2 (1985), 199–208.
6. Bozeman, B. Exploring the limits of public and private sectors: Sector boundaries as
Maginot line. Public Administration Review, 48, 2 (1988), 672–674.
7. Bozeman, B., and Bretschneider, S. Public management information systems: theory
and prescription. Public Administration Review, 46 (November 1986), 475–487.
8. Bretschneider, S. Management information systems in public and private organizations:
an empirical test. Public Administration Review, 50, 5 (1990), 536–545.
9. Bretschneider, S., and Wittmer, D. Organizational adoption of microcomputer technol-
ogy: the role of sector. Information Systems Research, 4, 1 (1993), 88–108.
10. Broadbent, M.; Weill, P.; and St. Clair, D. The implications of information technology
infrastructure for business process redesign. MIS Quarterly, 23, 2 (1999), 159–182.
11. Buzacott, J.A. Commonalities in reengineered business processes: models and issues.
Management Science, 42, 5 (1996), 768–782.
12. Cafasso, R. Rethinking re-engineering. Computerworld (March 15, 1993), 102–105.
13. Candler, J.W.; Palvia, P.C.; Thompson, J.D.; and Zeltmann, S.M. The ORION project:
staged business process reengineering at FEDEX. Communications of the ACM, 39, 2 (1996),
99–107.
14. Caron, J.R.; Jarvenpaa, S.L.; and Stoddard, D.B. Business reengineering at CIGNA cor-
poration: experiences and lessons learned from the first five years. MIS Quarterly, 18, 3 (1994),
233–250.
15. Cats-Baril, W.L., and Thompson, R. Managing information technology projects in the
public sector. Public Administration Review, 55, 6 (1995), 559–566.
16. Caudle, S.L. Managing information resources in state government. Public Administra-
tion Review, 50, 5 (1990), 515–524.
17. Caudle, S.L.; Gorr, W.L.; and Newcomer, K.E. Key information systems management
issues for the public sector. MIS Quarterly, 15, 2 (1991), 171–188.
18. Chatfield, A.T., and Bjørn-Andersen, N. The impact of IOS-enabled business process
change on business outcomes: transformation of the value chain of Japan Airlines. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 14, 1 (Summer 1997), 13–40.
19. Clark, T.H., and Stoddard, D.B. Interorganizational business process redesign: merging
technological and process innovation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 2 (Fall
1996), 9–28.
20. Clemons, E.K.; Thatcher, M.E.; and Row, M.C. Identifying sources of reengineering
failures: a study of the behavioral factors contributing to reengineering risks. Journal of Man-
agement Information Systems, 12, 2 (Fall 1995), 9–36.
21. Coursey, D., and Bozeman, B. Decision making in public and private organizations:a test of
alternative concepts of “publicness.” Public Administration Review, 50, 5 (1990), 525–535.
22. Datta, A. Automating the discovery of AS-IS business process models: probabilistic and
algorithmic approaches. Information Systems Research, 9, 3 (1998), 275–301.
23. Davenport, T.H. Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Tech-
nology. Boston: Harvard Business School, 1993.
 BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 269

24. Davenport, T.H., and Beers, M.C. Managing information about processes. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 12, 1 (Summer 1995), 57–80.
25. Davenport, T.H., and Nohria, N. Case management and the integration of labor. Sloan
Management Review, 35, 2 (1994), 11–23.
26. Davenport, T.H., and Short, J.E. The new industrial engineering: information technology
and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review, 31, 4 (1990), 11–27.
27. Dedrick, J.L.; Goodman, S.E.; and Kraemer, K.L. Little engines that could: computing
in small energetic countries. Communications of the ACM, 38, 5 (1995), 21–26.
28. Dennis, A.R.; Daniels, R.M., Jr.; Hayes, G.; and Nunamaker, J. Methodology-driven use
of automated support in business process re-engineering. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 10, 3 (Winter 1993–94), 117–138.
29. Dennis, A.R.; Hayes, G.; and Daniels, R.M. Jr. Business process modeling with group
support systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15, 4 (Spring 1999), 115–142.
30. Duchessi, P., and O’Keefe, R.M. Understanding expert systems success and failure. Ex-
pert Systems with Applications, 9, 2 (1995), 123–133.
31. Dyer, W.G., and Wilkins, A.L. Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better
theory. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 3 (1991), 613–619.
32. Earl, M.J.; Sampler, J.L.; and Short, J.E. Strategies for business process reengineering:
evidence from field studies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12, 1 (Summer 1995),
31–56.
33. Ein-Dor, P.; Myers, M.D.; and Raman, K.S. Information technology in three small devel-
oped countries. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 4 (Spring 1997), 61–89.
34. El Sawy, O.A., and Bowles, G. Redesigning the customer support process for the electronic
economy: insights from Storage Dimensions. MIS Quarterly, 21, 4 (1997), 457–483.
35. Gold, K.A. Managing for success: a comparison of the private and public sectors. Public
Administration Review, 42, 6 (1982), 568–575.
36. Grover, V.; Jeong, S.R.; Kettinger, W.J.; and Teng, J.T.C. The implementation of business
process reengineering. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12, 1 (Summer 1995),
109–144.
37. Guha, S.; Grover, V.; Kettinger, W.J.; and Teng, J.T.C. Business process change and
organizational performance: exploring an antecedent model. Journal of Management Informa-
tion Systems, 14, 1 (Summer 1997), 119–154.
38. Gurbaxani, V.; Kraemer, K.L.; King, J.L.; Jarman, S.; Dedrick, J.L.; Raman, K.S.; and
Yap, C.S. Government as the driving force toward the information society: national computer
policy in Singapore. Information Society, 7, 2 (1990), 155–185.
39. Hammer, M. Reengineering work: don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review,
68, 4 (1990), 104–112.
40. Hammer, M., and Champy, J. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
Revolution. New York: HarperCollins, 1993.
41. Hammer, M., and Stanton, S. How process enterprises really work. Harvard Business
Review, 77, 6 (1999), 108–118.
42. Hoff, J. Evaluation of information technology in private and public sector contexts.
Informatization and the Public Sector, 2, 4 (1992), 307–328.
43. Holden, T., and Wilhelmij, P. Improved decision making through better integration of
human resources and business process factors in a hospital situation. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 12, 3 (Winter 1995–96), 21–41.
44. Huizing, A.; Koster, E.; and Bouman, W. Balance in business reengineering: an empirical
study of fit and performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 1 (Summer
1997), 93–118.
45. Johnston, K. Beyond Bureaucracy: A Blueprint and Vision for Government That Works.
Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1993.
46. Kettinger, W.J.; Teng, J.T.C.; and Guha, S. Business process change: a study of method-
ologies, techniques, and tools. MIS Quarterly, 21, 1 (1997), 55–80.
47. Kraemer, K.L.; Danziger, J.N.; Dunkle, D.E.; and King, J.L. The usefulness of com-
puter-based information to public managers. MIS Quarterly, 17, 2 (1993), 129–148.
48. Kraemer, K.L., and King, J.L. Computing and public organizations. Public Administration
Review, 46 (November 1986), 488–496.
270 THONG, YAP, AND SEAH

49. Lachman, R. Public and private sector differences: CEOs’ perceptions of their role environ-
ments. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 3 (1985), 671–679.
50. Lee, H.G., and Clark, T.H. Market process reengineering through electronic market sys-
tems: opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 3 (Winter
1996–97), 113–136.
51. Lucas, H.C. Jr.; Berndt, D.J.; and Truman, G. A reengineering framework for evaluating a
financial imaging system. Communications of the ACM, 39, 5 (1996), 86–96.
52. Margetts, H., and Willcocks, L. Informatization in public sector organizations: distinc-
tive or common risks? Informatization and the Public Sector, 3, 1 (1994), 1–19.
53. Mason, R.O.; McKenney, J.L.; and Copeland, D.G. Developing an historical tradition in
MIS research. MIS Quarterly, 21, 3 (1997), 257–278.
54. McKenney, J.L.; Mason, R.O.; and Copeland, D.G. Bank of America: The crest and
trough of technological leadership. MIS Quarterly, 21, 3 (1997), 321–353.
55. Newman, J., and Kozar, K.A. A multimedia solution to productivity gridlock: a re-engi-
neered jewelry appraisal system at Zale Corporation. MIS Quarterly, 18, 1 (1994), 21–30.
56. Nissen, M.E. Redesigning reengineering through measurement-driven inference. MIS
Quarterly, 22, 4 (1998), 509–534.
57. Northrop, A.; Kraemer, K.L.; Dunkle, D.; and King, J.L. Payoffs from computerization:
lessons over time. Public Administration Review, 50, 5 (1990), 505–514.
58. Orman, L. A model management approach to business process reengineering. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 15, 1 (Summer 1998), 187–212.
59. Osborne, D., and Gaebler, T. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is
Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992.
60. Pearce, J.; Stevenson, W.; and Perry, J. Managerial compensation based on organiza-
tional performance: a time series analysis of the effects of merit pay. Academy of Management
Journal, 28, 2 (1985), 261–278.
61. Posner, B.G., and Rothstein, L.R. Reinventing the business of government: an interview
with change catalyst David Osborne. Harvard Business Review, 72, 3 (1994), 132–143.
62. Rainey, H.G. Public agencies and private firms. Administration and Society, 15, 2 (1983),
207–242.
63. Rainey, H.G.; Backoff, R.W.; and Levine, C.H. Comparing public and private organiza-
tions. Public Administration Review, 36, 2 (1976), 233–244.
64. Riggins, F.J., and Mukhopadhyay, T. Interdependent benefits from interorganizational
systems: opportunities for business partner reengineering. Journal of Management Informa-
tion Systems, 11, 2 (Fall 1994), 37–57.
65. Robertson, P.J., and Seneviratne, S.J. Outcomes of planned organizational change in the
public sector: a meta-analytic comparison to the private sector. Public Administration Review,
55, 6 (1995), 547–558.
66. Seidmann, A., and Sundararajan,A. Competing in information-intensiveservices: analyz-
ing the impact of task consolidation and employee empowerment. Journal of Management Infor-
mation Systems, 14, 2 (Fall 1997), 33–56.
67. Stevens, J.M.; Cahill, A.G.; and Laplante, J.M. The utilization of information systems
technology in state financial management: an empirical assessment. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 8, 1 (Summer 1991), 107–128.
68. Stoddard, D.B., and Jarvenpaa, S.L. Business process redesign: Tactics for managing
radical change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12, 1 (Summer 1995), 81–107.
69. The White House. Reengineering through Information Technology. Office of the U.S.
Vice President, Washington, DC: G.P.O., September 1993.
70. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2d ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, 1989.