Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Business Process Reengineering in The Public Sector PDF
Business Process Reengineering in The Public Sector PDF
245
246
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 benchmarks 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
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 organizations are not homogeneous. There are critical environmental and organizational differences 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 prescriptions, 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 characteristics of BPR in public organizations. Finally, we conclude with lessons for BPR
implementation in public organizations.
248
Table 1. Salient Characteristics of Public Organizations and their Implications for BPR
Topic
Environmental Factors
1.1 Degree of market exposure
(reliance on appropriations)
Proposition
249
250
Topic
Proposition
OrganizationEnvironment Transactions
2.1 Coerciveness (coercive,
2.1.a. More likely that participation in consumption and
monopolistic, unavoidable
financing of services will be unavoidable or mandatory.
nature of many government
(Government has unique sanctions and
activities)
coercive powers.)
2.2 Breadth of impact
2.2.a. Broader impact, greater symbolic significance of
actions of public administrators. (Wider scope of
concern, such as public interest.)
2.3 Public scrutiny
2.3.a. Greater public scrutiny of public officials and their
actions.
2.4 Unique public expectations
2.4.a. Greater public expectations that public officials will
act with more fairness, responsiveness,
accountability, and honesty.
Internal Structures and Processes
3.1 Complexity of objectives,
3.1.a. Greater multiplicity and diversity of objectives
evaluation and decision criteria
and criteria.
3.1.b. Greater vagueness and intangibility of objectives
and criteria.
3.1.c. Greater tendency of goals to be conflicting
(more tradeoffs).
Table 1. Salient Characteristics of Public Organizations and their Implications for BPR (Continued)
251
252
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 officials are often characterized as being less innovative and exercising greater cautiousness 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 hierarchy) 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.
Implementing BPR
Public organizations operate under legal and formal constraints, resulting in less autonomy 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 delegate, 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 managements time and effort to the BPR project. More
frequent turnover of top managers due to elections and political appointments will result 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,
253
the rigid incentive structure in public organizations will present difficulties in redesigning 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 complexity 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 interviewees 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 questions 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 documents in the case study database. Inconsistencies were clarified with the relevant
officers. The data collection also involved establishing a case study database consisting of archival records, including reengineering project documentation, internal
memos, annual reports, press releases, in-house bulletins, internal surveys, and newspaper articles. This multimethod data collection strategy allowed for triangulation of
findings, which increased the reliability and validity of the results [70]. As recommended by Duchessi and OKeefe [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
affordable housing of a high quality and to help build communities. Back then, only
9 percent of Singapores population lived in public housing, and many people lived in
overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. In response to the limited land and increasing 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
Singapores three million people lived in HDB flats. The HDB now focuses on improving 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 residential 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) maintenance 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.
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 Finance Department, while the Car Parks, Hawkers, and Maintenance Sections reported
to the Estate Management Department. Within the constraints of the various line responsibilities 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-
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 specialized counters, viz., finance, car parks, renovation, maintenance, and lease and tenancy. Residents were served by specialized counters on different floors and had to
shuttle from counter to counter to obtain the relevant services. For example, residents 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 minutes. 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 establish 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 financewere placed under the purview 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 government service grade. A reorganization of the various sections within the branch office
was also carried out. Maintenance work was divided according to the same geographical 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 Housing Services counters. Seven new information systems were developed, and existing 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
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 implementation. 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) process redesign, (4) implementation, and (5) performance monitoring.
257
Before
BPR
After
BPR
Improvement
Customer Service
Average waiting time
Finance Counter
Estates Counter
Percentage of unanswered calls
40 minutes
17.2 minutes
26%
1.1 minutes
3.6 minutes
4%
97%
79%
85%
8.4 months
8.8 months
3.4 months
6.3 months
3.7 months
2.5 months
4665
3.7 months
3.9 months
1.9 months
2.9 months
1.1 months
1.4 months
693
56%
56%
44%
54%
70%
44%
85%
0.8 months
5 days
1.4 months
81%
64%
42%
105/month
66/month
30/month
80%
92%
41%
13/month
22/month
85%
44%
1.4 months
8.0 months
0.5 month
4.0 months
57%
50%
2.3 months
0.5 month
78%
10 minutes
923 files
369
5.4 minutes
603 files
291
46%
35%
21%
Financial Services
Average processing time
Loan redemption
4.2 months
Loan extension
14 days
Lump sum payment
2.4 months
Accounts requiring manual adjustments
GIRO accounts
518/month
Sales accounts
787/month
Rental accounts
51/month
Vouchers prepared
Journal vouchers
85/month
Payment vouchers
39/month
Maintenance/Renovation Services
Average processing time
Renovation permit
Electrical upgrading (mains)
Average time to attend to
maintenance requests
General Administration
File retrieval time
Daily volume of file movement
Number of forms/standard letters
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 distinct nature of the service quality problem made it easy to define the business vision.
258
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 Administration Department (HAD). The reengineering team consisted of Management Services (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 department, all departments gave the BPR top priority due to top management commitment 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 HDBs 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 management 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 system. 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 organizations. 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 duration 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.
259
260
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 indicators. 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 organizations 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 indicators, public organizations need to adapt performance indicators from the private sector 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 individuals and departments presented problems. There was a need for some mechanisms
to reduce resistance to change and gain the approval of the individuals and departments 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.
261
262
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 processes is critical to the public organizations 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 fullscale 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
changestwo 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 operation 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 process owner, took over the training needs of the remaining branch offices. Members of
the reengineering team were most familiar with the redesigned processes and procedures. Hence they were best suited to conduct the training. However, they must provide 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 resources to retrain the staff in branch offices was crucial in ensuring successful operations 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
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 offices 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 inhouse 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 communication program, possibly including news articles and site visits.
Process Monitoring
After the rollout, the HDB continued to monitor the performance of the branch offices. The Heads of Branch Offices were required to submit monthly measurements
of the 34 performance indicators. The implementation of the new processes and procedures 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 HDBs key strategies for achieving its quality, service, and productivity goals. Review of policies, systems, and procedures, together with computerization, 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. Consistent 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 learnedwhether
264
HDB CORPORATE
MISSION & OBJECTIVES
PRODUCTIVITY GOALS
Quality
Housing
Customer
Services
Construction
Productivity
Staff
Productivity
To enhance the
quality of public
housing and
increase the level
of customer
satisfaction
To improve
customer
services and
enhance the
service level
To achieve
construction
excellence and
increase the level
of construction
productivity by
another 10%
over the next five
years
To develop a
highly skilled
and motivated
workforce and
exceed the
annual national
productivity
growth of 4%
KEY STRATEGIES
Product
Improvement
Construction
Technology
Policies,
Systems and
Procedure
Computerization
& Automation
Human
Resources
Management
Monitoring &
Feedback
- Upgrading of
- Prefabrication
- Site
mechanization
- Construction
management
- Research and
development
- Policy reviews
- Systems and
procedural
reviews
- Computerization
- Office
automation
- Cashless and
paperless
transactions
- Automated
systems
- Skills upgrading
- Staff
participation
programs
- Recognition and
rewards
- Performance
monitoring
- Customer
surveys
- Socio-economic
studies
- Public feedback
and analysis
old estates
- Flexi-plan
scheme
- Design & build
scheme
- Quality
assurance
scheme
265
L4:
L5:
L6:
L7:
L8:
L9:
L10:
L11:
L12:
L13:
L14:
L15:
L16:
L17:
L18:
L19:
Public organizations are highly resistant to change. Social and political changes are
the main pressures on them to reengineer their processes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Public organizations should note that it is critical to validate the documented work
process with operational staff to ensure its accuracy.
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.
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.
The steering committee is an essential mechanism in gaining approval of redesigned procedures in public organizations.
The primary criterion in selecting a new IT architecture in public organizations is the
ability to support the redesigned processes without undue risks.
Public organizations that apply the casework concept should review staff training
needs for the reengineered jobs.
Performance measures in public organizations should be simple and highly focused
on the end result.
A revised incentive structure to support the redesigned processes is critical to the
public organizations success in reengineering.
A pilot implementation will help to refine the redesigned processes.
Results from a successful pilot implementation will help to obtain approval for the
main funding.
Public organizations undertaking BPR should commit sufficient time and resources
to retraining of staff.
Public organizations need to plan the rollout of redesigned processes throughout
the organization carefully.
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.
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 organizations to emphasize the importance of the BPR project to their staff. Public organization 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
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 neutral officers, as there exists a virtual reengineering team consisting of officers
from other departments who can contribute to the BPR. Fourth, public organizations 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.
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 processes, 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 upgrades 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 processes. There is also a need to educate and prepare all staff for the impending changes
through an intensive communication program. News articles publicizing the successful 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 organizational processes with the support of IT.
268
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), 3132, 36.
2. Barua, A.; Lee, C.H.S.; and Whinston, A.B. The calculus of reengineering. Information
Systems Research, 7, 4 (1996), 409428.
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), 369386.
5. Bonoma, T.V. Case research in marketing: opportunities, problems, and a process. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 2 (1985), 199208.
6. Bozeman, B. Exploring the limits of public and private sectors: Sector boundaries as
Maginot line. Public Administration Review, 48, 2 (1988), 672674.
7. Bozeman, B., and Bretschneider, S. Public management information systems: theory
and prescription. Public Administration Review, 46 (November 1986), 475487.
8. Bretschneider, S. Management information systems in public and private organizations:
an empirical test. Public Administration Review, 50, 5 (1990), 536545.
9. Bretschneider, S., and Wittmer, D. Organizational adoption of microcomputer technology: the role of sector. Information Systems Research, 4, 1 (1993), 88108.
10. Broadbent, M.; Weill, P.; and St. Clair, D. The implications of information technology
infrastructure for business process redesign. MIS Quarterly, 23, 2 (1999), 159182.
11. Buzacott, J.A. Commonalities in reengineered business processes: models and issues.
Management Science, 42, 5 (1996), 768782.
12. Cafasso, R. Rethinking re-engineering. Computerworld (March 15, 1993), 102105.
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),
99107.
14. Caron, J.R.; Jarvenpaa, S.L.; and Stoddard, D.B. Business reengineering at CIGNA corporation: experiences and lessons learned from the first five years. MIS Quarterly, 18, 3 (1994),
233250.
15. Cats-Baril, W.L., and Thompson, R. Managing information technology projects in the
public sector. Public Administration Review, 55, 6 (1995), 559566.
16. Caudle, S.L. Managing information resources in state government. Public Administration Review, 50, 5 (1990), 515524.
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), 171188.
18. Chatfield, A.T., and Bjrn-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), 1340.
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), 928.
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 Management Information Systems, 12, 2 (Fall 1995), 936.
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), 525535.
22. Datta, A. Automating the discovery of AS-IS business process models: probabilistic and
algorithmic approaches. Information Systems Research, 9, 3 (1998), 275301.
23. Davenport, T.H. Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School, 1993.
269
24. Davenport, T.H., and Beers, M.C. Managing information about processes. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 12, 1 (Summer 1995), 5780.
25. Davenport, T.H., and Nohria, N. Case management and the integration of labor. Sloan
Management Review, 35, 2 (1994), 1123.
26. Davenport, T.H., and Short, J.E. The new industrial engineering: information technology
and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review, 31, 4 (1990), 1127.
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), 2126.
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 199394), 117138.
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), 115142.
30. Duchessi, P., and OKeefe, R.M. Understanding expert systems success and failure. Expert Systems with Applications, 9, 2 (1995), 123133.
31. Dyer, W.G., and Wilkins, A.L. Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better
theory. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 3 (1991), 613619.
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),
3156.
33. Ein-Dor, P.; Myers, M.D.; and Raman, K.S. Information technology in three small developed countries. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 4 (Spring 1997), 6189.
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), 457483.
35. Gold, K.A. Managing for success: a comparison of the private and public sectors. Public
Administration Review, 42, 6 (1982), 568575.
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),
109144.
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 Information Systems, 14, 1 (Summer 1997), 119154.
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), 155185.
39. Hammer, M. Reengineering work: dont automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review,
68, 4 (1990), 104112.
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), 108118.
42. Hoff, J. Evaluation of information technology in private and public sector contexts.
Informatization and the Public Sector, 2, 4 (1992), 307328.
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 199596), 2141.
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), 93118.
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 methodologies, techniques, and tools. MIS Quarterly, 21, 1 (1997), 5580.
47. Kraemer, K.L.; Danziger, J.N.; Dunkle, D.E.; and King, J.L. The usefulness of computer-based information to public managers. MIS Quarterly, 17, 2 (1993), 129148.
48. Kraemer, K.L., and King, J.L. Computing and public organizations. Public Administration
Review, 46 (November 1986), 488496.
270
49. Lachman, R. Public and private sector differences: CEOs perceptions of their role environments. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 3 (1985), 671679.
50. Lee, H.G., and Clark, T.H. Market process reengineering through electronic market systems: opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 3 (Winter
199697), 113136.
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), 8696.
52. Margetts, H., and Willcocks, L. Informatization in public sector organizations: distinctive or common risks? Informatization and the Public Sector, 3, 1 (1994), 119.
53. Mason, R.O.; McKenney, J.L.; and Copeland, D.G. Developing an historical tradition in
MIS research. MIS Quarterly, 21, 3 (1997), 257278.
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), 321353.
55. Newman, J., and Kozar, K.A. A multimedia solution to productivity gridlock: a re-engineered jewelry appraisal system at Zale Corporation. MIS Quarterly, 18, 1 (1994), 2130.
56. Nissen, M.E. Redesigning reengineering through measurement-driven inference. MIS
Quarterly, 22, 4 (1998), 509534.
57. Northrop, A.; Kraemer, K.L.; Dunkle, D.; and King, J.L. Payoffs from computerization:
lessons over time. Public Administration Review, 50, 5 (1990), 505514.
58. Orman, L. A model management approach to business process reengineering. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 15, 1 (Summer 1998), 187212.
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 organizational performance: a time series analysis of the effects of merit pay. Academy of Management
Journal, 28, 2 (1985), 261278.
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), 132143.
62. Rainey, H.G. Public agencies and private firms. Administration and Society, 15, 2 (1983),
207242.
63. Rainey, H.G.; Backoff, R.W.; and Levine, C.H. Comparing public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 36, 2 (1976), 233244.
64. Riggins, F.J., and Mukhopadhyay, T. Interdependent benefits from interorganizational
systems: opportunities for business partner reengineering. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11, 2 (Fall 1994), 3757.
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), 547558.
66. Seidmann, A., and Sundararajan,A. Competing in information-intensiveservices: analyzing the impact of task consolidation and employee empowerment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 2 (Fall 1997), 3356.
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), 107128.
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), 81107.
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.