case study bpr

BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 245

Journal of Management Information Systems Summer 2000 Vol 17 No 1 pp 245ndash270

copy 2000 ME Sharpe Inc

0742ndash1222 2000 $950 + 000

Business Process Reengineering in thePublic Sector The Case of the HousingDevelopment Board in Singapore

JAMES YL THONG CHEE-SING YAP AND KIN-LEE SEAH

JAMES YL THONG is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Information andSystems Management School of Business and Management Hong Kong Universityof Science and Technology He received his PhD and MSc in Information Systemsand BSc (Hons) in Computer Science from the National University of SingaporeHis research interests include information technology adoption and implementationsmall business computerization computer ethics and IS personnel management Hehas published in European Journal of Information Systems Information amp Manage-ment Information Processing amp Management Information Systems Research Jour-nal of Information Technology Journal of Management Information Systems Journalof Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce and Omega

CHEE-SING YAP is an Associate Professor in the Department of Information SystemsSchool of Computing National University of Singapore He holds a PhD in Infor-mation Systems from Cambridge University and a BSc (Eng) from Imperial Col-lege London His research interests include the use of IT in small business governmentpolicy and IT in Asia-Pacific countries He is on the Editorial Boards of Informationamp Management and Telecommunications Policy His publications have appeared inmany international journals including Information Systems Research Journal ofManagement Information Systems European Journal of Information Systems OmegaInformation Society Journal of the Operational Research Society and Journal ofOrganizational Computing and Electronic Commerce

KIN-LEE SEAH is a technical consultant with Reuters Asia Risk Systems He has tenyears of IT experience in various organizations and positions He received his MScin Information Systems and BSc (Hons) in Computer Science from the NationalUniversity of Singapore His research interest is in organizational change with aspecific focus on the impact and enabling factor of IT

ABSTRACT Our existing knowledge of business process reengineering (BPR) is mainlyderived from the experiences of private sector organizations which have fundamen-tally different characteristics from public organizations This paper represents a firststep in understanding how BPR may be different in public organizations Drawing onthe public administration literature it examines the differences between public andprivate organizations and their implications for BPR Following that it examines the

246 THONG YAP AND SEAH

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

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES business process reengineering case study informationtechnology public sector

COMPANIES NOWADAYS FACE A RAPIDLY CHANGING BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT withincreased competition and higher customer expectations Work processes organizedalong the principle of division of labor can no longer deliver the required perfor-mance In response to the changing business environment companies are turning tobusiness 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] SuccessfulBPR projects have been widely reported in the IS literature (eg [13 14 34 51 55])and in the popular press Polls have shown that more than 70 percent of large UScompanies have been reengineering their business processes [12] With the advent ofthe new millennium the popularity of BPR remains undiminished [1 41]

In view of the changing business environment the public sector also faces similarchallenges 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 aslower-paced society in a time of mass markets and when only those at the top of thepyramid had enough information to make informed decisions [59] While public orga-nizations have adopted IT to improve their operational efficiency [16 17 47 48 5767] the changing environment calls for more radical changes to improve the quality ofpublic service The need to reengineer the government to meet these new demands hasled to the call for the ldquoreinvention of the governmentrdquo [3 45 59 61] As part of thisreinvention it is foreseeable that BPR will be beneficial to public organizations Forexample in a report entitled ldquoReengineering Through Information Technologyrdquo theUS government identified a three-pronged strategy with major initiatives to reengineergovernment 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 fourmain groups The first group provides lessons learned from BPR experiences in indi-vidual companies (eg [10 13 14 20 24 32 34 37 51 55 68]) The second groupexamines interorganizational BPR (eg [18 19 50 64]) The third group introduces


BPR methodologies tools and techniques (eg [22 28 29 43 46 56]) Finally thefourth group examines the impact of BPR using mathematical modeling (eg [2 1158 66]) While the BPR literature is substantial they have mainly documented theBPR experiences of private sector organizations In the few studies that did includepublic organizations in their sample [36 44] no details were provided on the specificBPR experiences of the public organizations In summary we know very little aboutthe 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] Uniquecharacteristics include the absence of market incentives the existence of multipleconflicting goals and a political context with a broader range of constituent groupshigher levels of accountability and more rules regulations and constraints [65] Assuch the lessons learned from applying BPR methodologies tools and techniques inthe private sector may not be transferable without adaptation to the public sector Atthe very least these differences should require modification of many managerial pre-scriptions typically based on results from the private sector [9 60] Hence researchis needed to determine whether public organizations face similar or unique issues insuccessful BPR implementation

This paper examines the BPR experience of a large public organization through anintensive case study This study represents a first step in understanding how BPR maybe different in public organizations In the next section we examine the literature ondifferences between public and private organizations and their implications for BPRFollowing that we describe the methodological approach adopted for this study Thecase 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 BPRimplementation 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] Theseminal paper on this topic was by Rainey et al [63] who summarized the differencesbetween public and private organizations around three categories environmental fac-tors (ie factors outside the organization) organizationndashenvironment transactions (ietransactions of organizations with their environments) and internal structure and pro-cesses (ie factors within the organization) Stated in terms of the public sectorrsquoscharacteristics relative to those of the private sector these differences include

1 Environmental Factors Less market exposure (and therefore more reliance onappropriations) resulting in less incentive for productivity and effectivenesslower allocational efficiency and lower availability of market informationmore legal and formal constraints and higher political influences includingimpacts of interest groups and the need for support of constituencies


2 OrganizationndashEnvironment Transactions More mandatory actions due to theunique sanctions and coercive powers of government wider scope of concernand significance of actions in the public interest higher level of scrutiny ofpublic officials and greater expectation that public officials act fairly respon-sively accountably and honestly

3 Internal Structure and Processes More complex criteria (eg multiple con-flicting and intangible) managers with less decision-making autonomy lessauthority over subordinates greater reluctance to delegate and a more politicalrole for top managers more frequent turnover of top managers due to electionsand 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 theirrespective management of IT In a review of various IT evaluation models Hoff [42]concluded that the economic goal attainment evaluation methodsmdashsuch as the tradi-tional cost-benefit analysismdashthat are popular in the private sector are not suited topublic organizations with their diverse and intangible goals Robertson and Seneviratne[65] found that it is more difficult to implement changes in public organization worksettings The political environment in which public sector organizations operate ex-acerbate the risk involved in IT development [52] Further frameworks developed inthe private sector for managing IT projects fail in the public sector because they donot take into account the inherent differences between managing in public and privateorganizations [15] Finally Bretschneider [8] identified five implications First pub-lic management information systems (PMIS) managers must contend with greaterlevels of interdependence across organizational boundaries than private MIS manag-ers Second PMIS managers must contend with higher levels of red tape than privateMIS managers Third criteria for the evaluation of hardware and software whichultimately lead to purchasing decisions are different for PMIS and private MIS FourthPMIS planning is more concerned with extraorganizational linkages while privateMIS is more concerned with internal coordination Finally PMIS tend to place thedirector lower in the organizational structure than private MIS Hence PMIS operatein a more constrained environment and the management of PMIS must adapt to themore constrained environment

Similarly we expect the differences between private and public organizations tohave 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) settingobjectives of BPR and (3) implementing BPR The potential implications on BPRare 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

BU

SIN

ESS P

RO

CE

SS R

EE

NG

INE

ER

ING

IN T

HE

PU

BL

IC S

EC

TO

R 249

Table 1 Salient Characteristics of Public Organizations and their Implications for BPRdagger

Topic Proposition Implications for BPR

Environmental Factors11 Degree of market exposure 11a Less market exposure results in less incentive Increased reluctance to adopt massive

(reliance on appropriations) for cost reduction operating efficiency changes required for BPReffective performance

11b Less market exposure results in lower allocational Slower adoption of BPRefficiency (reflection of consumer preferencesproportioning supply to demand etc)

11c Less market exposure means lower availability Increased difficulties in setting BPR objectivesof market indicators and information (prices and benchmarkingprofits etc)

12 Legal formal constraints 12a More constraints on procedures spheres of Increased difficulties in redesigning procedures(courts legislature hierarchy) operations (less autonomy of managers in to support redesigned processes

making such choices)12b Greater tendency toward proliferation of formal Longer time required for specification and

specifications and controls approval of redesigned procedures12c More external sources of formal influence and Increased difficulties in obtaining approval for

greater fragmentation of those sources reengineering project and redesigned processes13 Political influences 13a Greater diversity and intensity of external informal Increased difficulties in BPR prioritization and

influences on decisions (bargaining public opinion setting objectives of BPRinterest group reactions)

13b Greater need for support of ldquoconstituenciesrdquomdashclient Increased difficulties in obtaining approval forgroups sympathetic formal authorities etc reengineering project and redesigned processes

250 TH

ON

G Y

AP A

ND

SEA

H

Table 1 Salient Characteristics of Public Organizations and their Implications for BPRdagger (Continued)


OrganizationndashEnvironment Transactions21 Coerciveness (ldquocoerciverdquo 21a More likely that participation in consumption and Lower incentives to reengineer services

ldquomonopolisticrdquo unavoidable financing of services will be unavoidable or mandatorynature of many government (Government has unique sanctions andactivities) coercive powers)

22 Breadth of impact 22a Broader impact greater symbolic significance of Increased difficulties in evaluating impact andactions of public administrators (Wider scope of benefits of BPRconcern such as ldquopublic interestrdquo)

23 Public scrutiny 23a Greater public scrutiny of public officials and their Increased hesitance in adopting BPRactions

24 Unique public expectations 24a Greater public expectations that public officials will Increased difficulties in setting BPR objectivesact with more fairness responsiveness designing process alternatives and selection ofaccountability and honesty redesign alternatives

Internal Structures and Processes31 Complexity of objectives 31a Greater multiplicity and diversity of objectives Increased difficulties in setting BPR objectives

evaluation and decision criteria and criteria designing process alternatives and selection ofredesigned processes

31b Greater vagueness and intangibility of objectivesand criteria

31c Greater tendency of goals to be conflicting(more tradeoffs)

BU

SIN

ESS P

RO

CE

SS R

EE

NG

INE

ER

ING

IN T

HE

PU

BL

IC S

EC

TO

R 251

32 Authority relations and the 32a Less decision-making autonomy and flexibility on the Reduced autonomy to drive a BPR project whichrole of the administrator part of public administrators could lead to lower success or failure

32b Weaker more fragmented authority over subordinates Increased difficulties in redesigning the humanand lower levels (1 Subordinates can bypass appeal resource system to support the redesignedto alternative authorities 2 Merit system constraints) processes

32c Greater reluctance to delegate more levels of review Insufficient level of empowerment given to staff toand greater use of formal regulations (Due to difficulties support the redesigned processesin supervision and delegation resulting from 31b) Insufficient devotion of top management time and

32d More political expository role for top managers effort to BPR project33 Organizational performance 33a Greater cautiousness rigidity Less innovativeness Greater barrier to achieving breakthrough in

thinking required for BPR33b More frequent turnover of top leaders due to elections Increased difficulties in sustaining a BPR effort

and political appointments results in greater disruptionof implementation of plans

34 Incentives and incentive 34a Greater difficulty in devising incentives for effective Increased difficulties in redesigning the humanstructures and efficient performance resource system to support the redesigned

processes34b Lower valuation of pecuniary incentives by employees

35 Personal characteristics of 35a Variations in personality traits and needs such asemployees higher dominance and flexibility higher need for

achievement on part of government managers35b Lower work satisfaction and lower organizational

commitmentdagger Columns 1 and 2 are from Rainey et al [63]


results in increased reluctance to adopt the massive changes that come naturally withBPR Public organizations also have a monopoly in providing mandatory serviceswhich 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 inthinking required for BPR Because public organizations are subject to multiple anddiverse formal checks by authorized institutions (eg courts legislature and hierar-chy) and there is a greater need for political influences it is likely there will be moredifficulties in obtaining approval for reengineering projects and redesigned processesIn addition due to the breadth of impact in public organizations there are difficultiesin evaluating impact and benefits of BPR In summary adoption of BPR is likely tobe 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 (eg prices andprofits) This results in increased difficulties in setting BPR objectives andbenchmarking Due to the greater diversity and intensity of external influences (eginterest group demands and lobbying interventions by congressman) on decisionsthere will be difficulties in setting and prioritizing objectives of BPR Further thereare greater public expectations that public officials will act with more fairness re-sponsiveness accountability and honesty There also tends to be greater multiplicitydiversity vagueness and conflicting objectives in public organizations In summarythese factors will lead to difficulties in setting BPR objectives designing alternativeprocesses 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 tosupport the redesigned processes Due to the greater tendency toward proliferation offormal specifications and controls a longer time frame is required for specification andapproval of redesigned procedures Public administrators have less decision-makingautonomy and flexibility resulting in reduced autonomy to lead a BPR project whichcould result in an unsuccessful BPR Public administrators also have weaker and morefragmented 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 regulationsHence an insufficient level of empowerment is given to staff to support the redesignedprocess Because public managers have a more political and expository role there maybe insufficient devotion of top managementrsquos time and effort to the BPR project Morefrequent 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 bedifficulties in sustaining a BPR effort if there is a change in the top manager Further


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 DevelopmentBoard (HDB) the public housing authority of Singapore was conducted to exploreand identify the unique characteristics of BPR in public organizations The HDBpresents a unique case as it is a key public organization that affects the lives ofalmost all Singaporeans While the single case study has limited generalizability it isuseful at the initial or exploration stage of research [5 70] The case study methodwas used in this study as it allows examination of the BPR phenomenon in a naturalsetting generation of theories from practice and understanding the nature and com-plexity of the phenomenon and because it is appropriate when few previous studieshave been carried out [4]

The data collection involved site visits and multiple interviews with the partiesinvolved in the reengineering The reengineering of the HDB was led by the in-houseManagement Services (MS) Department with the Information Services Department(ISD) delivering the computer solutions Officers from these two departments andstaff from the Model Branch Office were interviewed for this study1 The intervieweeshad a high degree of involvement with the reengineering project Each interviewusing a list of open-ended questions lasted for one to three hours The interviewquestions were designed based on the intervieweersquos department (which reflects thetype of involvement) the level of responsibility (managerial versus operational) andinputs from document reviews and previous interviews Two main groups of ques-tions were developed The first group of questions solicited factual information Thesecond group of questions asked the respondents for their insights or opinions onvarious aspects of the reengineering project Interview notes were transcribed within24 hours The interview notes were then reviewed for consistency with other docu-ments in the case study database Inconsistencies were clarified with the relevantofficers The data collection also involved establishing a case study database consist-ing of archival records including reengineering project documentation internalmemos annual reports press releases in-house bulletins internal surveys and news-paper articles This multimethod data collection strategy allowed for triangulation offindings which increased the reliability and validity of the results [70] As recom-mended by Duchessi and OrsquoKeefe [30] a final case write-up documenting thereengineering 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 Singaporeunder the charge of the Ministry of National Development Its mission is to provide


affordable housing of a high quality and to help build communities Back then only9 percent of Singaporersquos population lived in public housing and many people lived inovercrowded and unsanitary conditions In response to the limited land and increas-ing population in Singapore the HDB concentrated on a massive building programinvolving high-rise flats to overcome the housing shortage By 1998 86 percent ofSingaporersquos three million people lived in HDB flats The HDB now focuses on im-proving the quality of public housing through better planning and design efficientestate management and the upgrading of older HDB estates

The HDB builds 30000 flats a year and manages more than 730000 units of resi-dential properties about 50000 commercial and industrial properties and over 500000parking lots Services provided to the residents of HDB flats include (1) financialservices such as administration of mortgage loans and collection of rent monthlyparking charges and conservancy charges (2) lease and tenancy services such astransfer of ownership surrender of flats and renewal of tenancy and (3) mainte-nance services such as rectification of defects and approval of renovation worksService points in the form of 21 branch offices are strategically located around theisland-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 aone-year intensive hands-on study Every step and procedure in the existing processeswas scrutinized Redundant steps and procedures were removed and others werecollapsed or streamlined from the customerrsquos perspective The MS team met withstaff from the Model Branch Office relevant headquarters departments and Informa-tion Services Department regularly to examine the proposed new business processesand identify new information systems requirements A new organizational structurewas also proposed to support the new job responsibilities and facilitate the newworkflow The Model Branch Office concept was successfully piloted before an 18-month rollout plan was drawn up to implement the new systems and proceduresthroughout the remaining 20 branch offices One year later the revamp of all branchoffice operations was successfully completed six months ahead of schedule

Before BPR

Before reengineering the branch offices had a matrix organization structure withmultiple layers of authority Sections within a branch office had to report to theirrespective headquarters (HQ) departments The Head of the Branch Office reportedto the Housing Administration Department The Finance Section reported to the Fi-nance Department while the Car Parks Hawkers and Maintenance Sections reportedto 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 ofautonomy in the running of the branch office In each branch office the HousingMaintenance Inspectors (HMIs) reported to the estate officers for housing adminis-


tration work assignment and the Senior Housing Maintenance Inspector (SHMI) formaintenance work assignment Hence a housing block could be under one HMI forhousing administration and another HMI for maintenance work Further clerks weregrouped by functions and reported to multiple estate officers For example someclerks specialized in transfer of flat ownership while others specialized in arrearsmanagement

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 toshuttle from counter to counter to obtain the relevant services For example resi-dents applied for renovation permits at the renovation counter then queued at thefinance counters to pay related fees and finally returned to the renovation counterto 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 monthsto process with huge backlogs at some branch offices Having to work overtimeconstantly staff morale was at an all-time low A quarter of incoming telephonecalls went unanswered and callers were passed from officer to officer The localpress reported that there were as many as 200 people in each queue with someresidents queuing for as long as four to five hours At the same time political changewas in the air with the formation of town councils for all constituencies to be headedby members of parliament The town councils were given responsibility for theirown 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 theHDB branch offices and HQ departments All aspects of branch office operationsmdashincluding car parks maintenance hawkers and financemdashwere placed under the pur-view of the Head of Branch Office To reflect the increased responsibility the post ofHead 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 officewas 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 aspectof estate management work for a specific neighborhood Clerks and HMIs becamegeneralists or caseworkers [25] and were assigned to specific estates Various sectionsthat were concerned with fund collection such as car park charges and mortgageloans were placed under the charge of the Finance Section

After reengineering a one-stop service was provided with the merging of the fivetypes 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 Drasticimprovements in performance were observed after reengineering The waiting timeat the Housing Finance counters was reduced by 97 percent while the number of


unanswered calls dropped by 85 percent On-line information enabled the officersto answer telephone calls without passing the call from one officer to another Thetransfer of flat ownership transaction took about four months as compared to ninemonths previously Table 2 details the various performance improvements achievedin 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 84percent said that services were prompt Both the HDB and its customers benefitedgreatly from the reengineered work processes and supporting information systemsThe backlog of cases dropped by 85 percent and the average time taken to attend tomaintenance requests improved by 78 percent to two weeks The HDB estimatedsavings 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 alsoimproved A clerical staff member in the Model Branch Office concurred ldquoEveryoneis a lot more cheerfulrdquo

Case Analysis

IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND HOW BPR IS DIFFERENT in a specific public organizationwe 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 ofthe 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 politicalenvironments A more affluent and educated population that placed new demand forhigher service quality was the main social change that influenced the HDB The HDBrecognized the need for change Its chairman pointed out that ldquothe HDB is preparedfor an orderly and gradual scaling down of the building and resettlement activitiesrdquoand ldquoto promote better service delivery courtesy and public relationsrdquo Howeverpublic organizations face lesser market exposure than private organizations At thesame time the public often face mandatory consumption of public services and prod-ucts These differences enable public organizations to adopt a program of gradualchange However political changes that led to the formation of town councils pushedthe ability of the HDB systems and processes to their limits and the level of servicequality became unacceptable to the public The existing systems and processes couldnot deliver acceptable services and hence increased the impetus to reengineer theHDB The HDB experience suggests that most public organizations are highly resis-tant to change Social and political changes are the main pressures on them toreengineer their processes


Once the decision to undertake a BPR was made the broad scope and boundary forthe reengineering study needed to be defined [26] In the absence of a crisis formalassessment and prioritization of needs are essential steps for reengineering Howeverin 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

Table 2 Performance of Reengineered Model Branch Office

Before AfterActivities BPR BPR Improvement

Customer ServiceAverage waiting time

Finance Counter 40 minutes 11 minutes 97Estates Counter 172 minutes 36 minutes 79

Percentage of unanswered calls 26 4 85

Lease amp Tenancy ServicesAverage processing time

Surrender of flats 84 months 37 months 56Transfer of ownership 88 months 39 months 56Sale of recess area 34 months 19 months 44Shops submissions 63 months 29 months 54Renewal of fixed-term tenancy 37 months 11 months 70Termination of tenancy 25 months 14 months 44

Number of cases awaiting attention 4665 693 85

Financial ServicesAverage processing time

Loan redemption 42 months 08 months 81Loan extension 14 days 5 days 64Lump sum payment 24 months 14 months 42

Accounts requiring manual adjustmentsGIRO accounts 518month 105month 80Sales accounts 787month 66month 92Rental accounts 51month 30month 41

Vouchers preparedJournal vouchers 85month 13month 85Payment vouchers 39month 22month 44

MaintenanceRenovation ServicesAverage processing time

Renovation permit 14 months 05 month 57Electrical upgrading (mains) 80 months 40 months 50

Average time to attend tomaintenance requests 23 months 05 month 78

General AdministrationFile retrieval time 10 minutes 54 minutes 46Daily volume of file movement 923 files 603 files 35Number of formsstandard letters 369 291 21


The development of a clear business vision was also aided by the appointment of anew CEO of the HDB by the Minister of National Development The service-orientedCEO set a clear performance goal to ldquoprovide faster and friendlier servicerdquo at thebranch offices The BPR project was overseen by a steering committee consisting ofthe CEO and the heads of the various departments The CEO was the leader of thereengineering 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 supportDuring the course of the project due to the need to communicate with the various HQdepartments an officer from HAD was assigned permanently to the team to helpliaison with the various HQ departments According to the leader of the MS depart-ment ldquoall departments gave the BPR top priority due to top management commit-ment to improve the servicesrdquo

The HDB staff were informed of the business vision and the need for BPR throughvarious channels of communication An announcement was made in the in-houseHDB newsletter A briefing was conducted by the leader of the reengineering teamfor all staff in the Model Branch Office The briefing emphasized the importance ofthe BPR and participation by branch office staff The Head of the Model BranchOffice also instructed staff to give full cooperation to the reengineering team Thesewere key actions that helped to gain initial support for the BPR which was thennurtured by the reengineering team through a close working relationship with theModel Branch Office staff But most importantly at an early stage of the study theCEO made a press announcement on the HDBrsquos objective to deliver fast friendlyand efficient services and its plans to revamp its branch offices This delivered a clearand 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 BranchOffice ldquoMorale is good knowing that someone is serious about improving the sys-temrdquo The Head of IS Department further explained that there was ldquounity in purposerdquoPress announcements by public organizations are not publicity stunts They typicallydemonstrate 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 drawthe full attention of staff to the BPR effort and to convince them of the importance ofthe project

Process Diagnosis

All the officers in the MS Department were assigned on a full-time basis to thereengineering team This emphasized the commitment of top management rightfrom the start of the project to the provision of adequate resources for the BPR Thereengineering 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 theprocesses that were to be reengineered it increased the opportunities for them toobserve and understand the work processes It also allowed the reengineering teamto build up rapport with the staff whose work processes were to be reengineered


According to an MS officer ldquoby the middle of the project MS officers and BranchOffice staff were very friendly and on [a] first name basisrdquo According to an estateofficer ldquothere was informal feedback during day-to-day workrdquo This proved veryuseful and was critical in overcoming user resistance during the implementation ofthe redesigned processes Initially the Model Branch Office staff had reservationsabout participating actively in the reengineering project as they always had a back-log of cases which frequently required them to work overtime To overcome theirreservations the MS officers explained to each of them individually how the BPRcould help them to resolve the backlog of cases Further according to the leader ofthe reengineering team ldquothe MS officers set good examples by working closelywith them on the existing processes and in designing new processesrdquo According toan estate officer ldquoopenness and sympathetic ears overcame any staff resistancerdquoPublic 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 thereengineering 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 ofthe various departments Hence they were very familiar with work procedure reviewmethods 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 thesetting up of the HDB document archiving system Public organizations should bearin mind that staff who are familiar with the functions of various departments and aretrained in management science and operations research are very useful resourcesfor BPR

While the reengineering team was comprised mainly of MS officers in reality therewas a ldquovirtual reengineering teamrdquo which included the staff from the Model BranchOffice and officers from the various HQ departments Staff from the Model BranchOffice worked with the MS officers every day Feedback from the HQ departmentswas 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 MSteam to liaise with the various HQ departments The use of MS officers to form thecore of the reengineering team and drive the bulk of the work was useful in situationswhere top functional expertise could not be fully devoted to the project and wherethere 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 anestate officer ldquoit is good to have a third party as they can see things objectivelyrdquoHence the use of a group of neutral staff officers to form the core reengineering teamthat draws on the expertise of other departments is an attractive arrangement forstructuring a reengineering team in public organizations

The reengineering team made use of observation hands-on experience interviewsand document analysis to understand the work processes The work processes weredocumented using flowcharts with timing information The reengineering team then


validated the documented work processes through walkthroughs with section headsor work coordinators who were in charge of the relevant workflow According to anMS officer ldquowe must understand the existing processes before we can improve onthemrdquo Public organizations should note that it is critical to validate the documentedwork process with operational staff to ensure its accuracy

The reengineering team examined and documented the work processes at the ModelBranch Office The use of a particular branch office site has the potential problem ofbeing unrepresentative of other sites A ldquosupersetrdquo criteria was adopted in selectingthe Model Branch Office to study and pilot the reengineered processes The selectedModel Branch Office was the largest branch office and was experiencing the mostoperational problems This ensured that the majority of problems were present at thepilot site and hence were addressed in the reengineering The reengineering team alsotook into consideration the remaining problems affecting the current processes at theother branch offices in designing the new processes Public organizations that adopta one-site pilot study method must exercise sufficient care in site selection to ensurethat 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 acrossdifferent countries can assist public organizations in setting benchmarks but this isusually not available An alternative strategy is to benchmark against private organi-zations with similar processes The reengineering team decided to study the branchesof some of the more successful banks They observed the work processes in the banksrsquobranches including authority structure office workspace service counter setup andservice quality benchmarks The HDB business vision of improving customer servicewas translated into ldquoreduce queuing time service time and turnaround to as low aspossiblerdquo and final quantifiable performance objectives were set for the redesignedwork processes Based on the redesigned workflow the optimized turnaround timewas 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 departmentsinvolved in each of the processes Because process reengineering affected all thelevels of authority and various departments resistance to change by the affected indi-viduals and departments presented problems There was a need for some mechanismsto 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 thecase of the HDB was the use of a steering committee consisting of all the Heads ofDepartments and chaired by the CEO All redesigned processes were documentedand submitted to the steering committee for review and approval A mechanism suchas the steering committee is essential in gaining approval of redesigned procedures inpublic organizations


In order to support the redesigned processes parallel changes in the IT architecturewere required A strategy of making only limited and essential changes in softwaretools 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 theIS 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 Publicorganizations undertaking BPR can ill afford to contend with the added risk of acompletely new IT architecture and applications failures Hence the primary crite-rion in selecting a new IT architecture in public organizations is the ability to supportthe redesigned processes without undue risks

The widely advocated concept of casework was implemented in the new HDB Thebranch office was transformed from a functional setup into a structure where estateofficers supported all aspects of estate management and administration of a neighbor-hood Estate officers became caseworkers handling all aspects of a neighborhoodinstead of specializing in certain transactions Clerical staff manning the redesignedcounters also became caseworkers having to handle all types of transactions Ac-cording to an estate officer ldquoWhile there were new procedures to learn we are moresatisfied than before with the greater job varietyrdquo These changes in work responsi-bilities required extensive retraining of staff as they must understand the revisedprocedures for numerous transactions Public organizations that apply the caseworkconcept 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 34customer-oriented indicatorsmdashbased largely on waiting time at the counters turn-around time for various transactions and percentage of arrearsmdashwas devised to re-place the existing list For example average counter waiting time must be within 5minutes and average processing time for the surrender of flats must be within 25months Further these indicators were built into the various information systems ap-plications for ease of monitoring For example the electronic queuing systems and anautomated telephone monitoring system provided statistics on counter waiting timeand telephone answering rates Performance measures in public organizations shouldbe simple and highly focused on the end result

Consequences of reengineering often include redefined job responsibilities mergerof responsibilities creation of new positions and even removal of old positionsThese consequences required appropriate changes to the existing human resourceand incentive structure However due to the rigid structure in public organizationsamendments 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 thevarious human resource and incentive structures As a consequence the Head ofBranch Office position with its added responsibilities was upgraded to the elite civilservice scale Similarly salary allowances were introduced for frontline counters


and telephone service officers In response to the added responsibility of the newprocedures the estate officers were ldquohappy with the additional hourly allowance forcounter officersrdquo Hence a revised incentive structure to support the redesigned pro-cesses is critical to the public organizationrsquos success in reengineering

The reengineering team piloted the redesigned systems and processes at the ModelBranch Office The new IS applications were developed and implemented in phasesAfter implementing the new processes the reengineering team surveyed the queuingtime and turnaround time at the Model Branch Office A customer satisfaction surveywas also conducted The performance measurements allowed the reengineering teamto determine how well the redesigned processes functioned in a realistic operationalenvironment and their ability to meet the performance objectives The redesignedprocesses were then fine-tuned till they met the performance standards before full-scale implementation in the remaining branch offices The pilot implementation helpedto refine the redesigned processes

Differences between public and private organizations suggested that the HDB wouldface greater difficulties in justifying IT infrastructure changes and human resourcechangesmdashtwo critical steps in this phase Private organizations can translate improvedservice and reduced waiting time into an estimated increase in sales and revenueHowever such quantifiable benefits were much more difficult to achieve in publicorganizations due to the compulsory and subsidized nature of their services In thiscase the HDB adopted a simple two-step strategy that eased the justification for newfunding Pilot site funding was secured first After demonstrating the effectiveness ofthe redesigned Model Branch Office they applied for additional funds to reengineerthe remaining branch offices Results from a successful pilot implementation helpedto obtain approval for the main funding

Implementation

The training given to staff at the Model Branch Office was formalized into a set ofbasic core courses Prior to the implementation of the redesigned processes at theremaining 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 branchoffices 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 ofthe 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 appropriatedepartment 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 shouldcommit sufficient time and resources to retraining of staff

Typically public sector mistakes loom large Failure in reengineering the branchoffices could have resulted in bad publicity and inconveniences to all residents Inlight of the impact of the BPR exercise the public accountability for the expenses


incurred and the visibility of public programs a one-year schedule and master planto replicate the redesigned processes in the Model Branch Office at the remainingbranch offices was drawn up Sufficient time must be permitted for the rollout toavoid a sudden surge in resource usage that could lead to poor support at each newlyreengineered branch office and possibly implementation failure Conversely a longdrawn out schedule can result in an outdated process being implemented due toenvironmental changes or new business developments According to an MS officerldquoAt each branch officersquos rollout checklists were used extensively to ensure that thereengineered processes were implemented correctlyrdquo Public organizations need toplan the rollout of redesigned processes throughout the organization carefully

During rollout to the branch offices top management commitment to the BPR wasconstantly reinforced through regular articles in the in-house HDB newsletters Thepilot 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 forstaff from the other branch offices Public organizations undertaking BPR need toeducate 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 measurementsof 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 needfor continuous monitoring of the performance of the reengineered processes Theyadopted an integrated strategy to improve the existing processes The leader of thereengineering team and the Head of the IS Department were appointed members ofthe Productivity Steering Committee and Quality Improvement Committee in the HDBFigure 1 presents the HDBrsquos 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 achieveits goal of being an effective organization in providing a high standard of affordablehousing and quality services Public organizations should view reengineering and ITas an integrated strategy

Conclusion

THIS STUDY HAS EXAMINED THE BPR EXPERIENCE of a large public organizationThe case analysis supports the general proposition that the special characteristics ofpublic organizations necessitate some unique responses in implementing BPR Con-sistent with previous research [17 49] while there were some similarities betweenthe public and private sectorsrsquo BPR experiences there were also notable differencesIn any case public organizations should be aware of all the lessons learnedmdashwhether


unique to them or similar to those for private organizationsmdashin order to effect asuccessful BPR A summary of the lessons learned from this case is presented inTable 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 mainpressures to reengineer their processes As in the HDB case the public organizationwas pushed into BPR due to the legislative decision to introduce town councils whichworsened considerably the already poor quality of service at its branches Without

HDB CORPORATEMISSION amp OBJECTIVES

HDBrsquos Quality amp Productivity Focus- High standard of affordable housing- Quality services- An effective organization

PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing

To enhance thequality of publichousing andincrease the levelof customersatisfaction

CustomerServices

To improvecustomerservices andenhance theservice level

ConstructionProductivity

To achieveconstructionexcellence andincrease the levelof constructionproductivity byanother 10over the next fiveyears

StaffProductivity

To develop ahighly skilledand motivatedworkforce andexceed theannual nationalproductivitygrowth of 4

KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement

- Upgrading ofold estates

- Flexi-planscheme

- Design amp buildscheme

- Qualityassurancescheme

ConstructionTechnology

- Prefabrication- Site

mechanization- Construction

management- Research and

development

PoliciesSystems andProcedure

- Policy reviews- Systems and

proceduralreviews

Computerizationamp Automation

- Computerization- Officeautomation

- Cashless andpaperlesstransactions

- Automatedsystems

HumanResourcesManagement

- Skills upgrading- Staffparticipationprograms

- Recognition andrewards

Monitoring ampFeedback

- Performancemonitoring

- Customersurveys

- Socio-economicstudies

- Public feedbackand analysis

Figure 1 HDB Mission Goals and Strategies


social and political changes public organizations would have implemented BPRmuch later than sooner Second publicity in the press besides informing the publicof 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 theirquality of services It also increased the morale of the public organization staff know-

Table 3 Summary of BPR Lessons from the HDB Case

L1 Public organizations are highly resistant to change Social and political changes arethe main pressures on them to reengineer their processes

L2 Publicity in the press is a powerful way for public organizations to draw the fullattention 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 durationof the project can develop close working relationships to overcome user resistanceto change

L4 Public organizations should bear in mind that staff who are familiar with thefunctions of various departments and are trained in management science andoperations research are very useful resources for BPR

L5 The use of a group of neutral staff officers to form the core reengineering team thatdraws on the expertise of other departments is an attractive arrangement forstructuring a reengineering team in public organizations

L6 Public organizations should note that it is critical to validate the documented workprocess with operational staff to ensure its accuracy

L7 Public organizations that adopt a one-site pilot study method must exercisesufficient care in site selection to ensure that the site is representative of othersites

L8 In the absence of traditional market indicators public organizations need to adaptperformance indicators from the private sector to set benchmarks for improving thecurrent 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 theability to support the redesigned processes without undue risks

L11 Public organizations that apply the casework concept should review staff trainingneeds for the reengineered jobs

L12 Performance measures in public organizations should be simple and highly focusedon the end result

L13 A revised incentive structure to support the redesigned processes is critical to thepublic organizationrsquos success in reengineering

L14 A pilot implementation will help to refine the redesigned processesL15 Results from a successful pilot implementation will help to obtain approval for the

main fundingL16 Public organizations undertaking BPR should commit sufficient time and resources

to retraining of staffL17 Public organizations need to plan the rollout of redesigned processes throughout

the organization carefullyL18 Public organizations undertaking BPR need to educate and prepare all staff for the

forthcoming changes through an intensive communication program possiblyincluding news articles and site visits

L19 Public organizations should view reengineering and IT as an integrated strategy


ing that top management was interested in improving the system resulting in unityin purpose by all staff

Third staffing the reengineering team with neutral staff officers that draw uponthe expertise of other departments is an attractive arrangement The composition ofsuch a team can be helpful in overcoming resistance from those affected by thereengineering Neutral officers are able to provide an unbiased view in reengineeringthe processes At the same time the reengineering team is not confined to the neu-tral officers as there exists a ldquovirtual reengineering teamrdquo consisting of officersfrom other departments who can contribute to the BPR Fourth public organiza-tions lack available performance benchmarks Instead they have to adapt servicequality indicators from the private sector for their purposes By benchmarkingagainst the best private organizations it will raise the performance of the publicorganizations

Fifth approval of redesigned procedures is essential for public organizations Inmore bureaucratic organizations having a supportive CEO and steering committee iseven more important to facilitate the approval process Top management support wasidentified by the interviewees as the main success factor of the BPR in the HDB Asupportive top management can facilitate changes to the organization human resourceand incentive structures Finally it is difficult to quantify improvement in the publicservice A pilot site implementation can be useful in demonstrating the improvedservices to the public and the Minister to justify subsequent funding for the mainimplementation

Lessons Common to Both Public and Private Organizations

There are also numerous useful lessons that are applicable to both public and privateorganizations We will discuss them under three general categories pilot site imple-mentation organizational changes and rollout implementation The case demonstratedthe effectiveness of the pilot site method for BPR It also identified the importance oflocating the reengineering team at the pilot site for the duration of the project Throughthis arrangement the reengineering team can develop close working relationshipswith end users to overcome user resistance to change However public organizationsthat adopt the pilot site method must exercise sufficient care in site selection to ensurethat the site is representative of other sites Otherwise some of the existing problemsmay not be taken into account in the reengineering Further the staff assigned to thereengineering team should be familiar with the functions of various departments andskilled in management science and operations research techniques Finally the pilotsite 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 tovalidate the documented work processes with operational staff to ensure their accu-racy The reengineering team must understand the existing processes before they canimprove on them Next there should be a limited number of performance measuresThese should be simple to measure and highly focused on the end results The list of


performance measures can then be built into the application systems to allow ease ofmonitoring This case also provides further support for the casework method with itsincreased job variety and improved staff morale However it is important to ensurethat staff are adequately trained for the reengineered jobs as they will have additionalresponsibilities 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 ITinfrastructure are required to support the redesigned processes The primary criterionhere should be the ability of IT to support the redesigned processes without unduerisks 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 mustmanage the rollout implementation carefully They need to prepare a master plan forrolling out the redesigned processes to the various branches Sufficient time must beallowed for the rollout to avoid a sudden surge in resource usage A checklist of all therequired changes can be used to facilitate the rollout In preparation for the rolloutthere is a need to develop comprehensive programs for staff training Training iscrucial 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 changesthrough 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 preparethe staff Finally organizations should view reengineering and IT as an integratedstrategy The implementation of the reengineered processes is not an end in itselfInstead there needs to be continuous monitoring of the performance of the reengineeredprocesses 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 extensionFirst the inherent limitation of a single case should be noted Given the single casestudy the external generalizability of the findings is limited Future research can ad-dress this limitation by examining additional public organizations Second the publicorganization examined in this case study operates in the context of Singapore TheSingapore context is exemplified by a proactive government policy to promote theuse of IT in both the public and private sectors [27 33 38] As a result of this policythe government started the Civil Service Computerization Program to computerize itspublic 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 greaterlevel 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 othercountries to determine whether government policies have an impact on the adoptionand implementation of BPR This would contribute to the developing theory of infor-mation systems management in public organizations


NOTES

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

REFERENCES

1 Bartholomew D Process is back Industry Week (November 1 1999) 31ndash32 362 Barua A Lee CHS and Whinston AB The calculus of reengineering Information

Systems Research 7 4 (1996) 409ndash4283 Barzelay M Breaking Through Bureaucracy A New Vision for Managing in Government

Berkeley University of California 19924 Benbasat I Goldstein DK and Mead M The case research strategy in studies of

information systems MIS Quarterly 11 3 (1987) 369ndash3865 Bonoma TV Case research in marketing opportunities problems and a process Jour-

nal of Marketing Research 22 2 (1985) 199ndash2086 Bozeman B Exploring the limits of public and private sectors Sector boundaries as

Maginot line Public Administration Review 48 2 (1988) 672ndash6747 Bozeman B and Bretschneider S Public management information systems theory

and prescription Public Administration Review 46 (November 1986) 475ndash4878 Bretschneider S Management information systems in public and private organizations

an empirical test Public Administration Review 50 5 (1990) 536ndash5459 Bretschneider S and Wittmer D Organizational adoption of microcomputer technol-

ogy the role of sector Information Systems Research 4 1 (1993) 88ndash10810 Broadbent M Weill P and St Clair D The implications of information technology

infrastructure for business process redesign MIS Quarterly 23 2 (1999) 159ndash18211 Buzacott JA Commonalities in reengineered business processes models and issues

Management Science 42 5 (1996) 768ndash78212 Cafasso R Rethinking re-engineering Computerworld (March 15 1993) 102ndash10513 Candler JW Palvia PC Thompson JD and Zeltmann SM The ORION project

staged business process reengineering at FEDEX Communications of the ACM 39 2 (1996)99ndash107

14 Caron JR Jarvenpaa SL and Stoddard DB Business reengineering at CIGNA cor-poration experiences and lessons learned from the first five years MIS Quarterly 18 3 (1994)233ndash250

15 Cats-Baril WL and Thompson R Managing information technology projects in thepublic sector Public Administration Review 55 6 (1995) 559ndash566

16 Caudle SL Managing information resources in state government Public Administra-tion Review 50 5 (1990) 515ndash524

17 Caudle SL Gorr WL and Newcomer KE Key information systems managementissues for the public sector MIS Quarterly 15 2 (1991) 171ndash188

18 Chatfield AT and Bjoslashrn-Andersen N The impact of IOS-enabled business processchange on business outcomes transformation of the value chain of Japan Airlines Journal ofManagement Information Systems 14 1 (Summer 1997) 13ndash40

19 Clark TH and Stoddard DB Interorganizational business process redesign mergingtechnological and process innovation Journal of Management Information Systems 13 2 (Fall1996) 9ndash28

20 Clemons EK Thatcher ME and Row MC Identifying sources of reengineeringfailures a study of the behavioral factors contributing to reengineering risks Journal of Man-agement Information Systems 12 2 (Fall 1995) 9ndash36

21 Coursey D and Bozeman B Decision making in public and private organizations a test ofalternative concepts of ldquopublicnessrdquo Public Administration Review 50 5 (1990) 525ndash535

22 Datta A Automating the discovery of AS-IS business process models probabilistic andalgorithmic approaches Information Systems Research 9 3 (1998) 275ndash301

23 Davenport TH Process Innovation Reengineering Work Through Information Tech-nology Boston Harvard Business School 1993


24 Davenport TH and Beers MC Managing information about processes Journal ofManagement Information Systems 12 1 (Summer 1995) 57ndash80

25 Davenport TH and Nohria N Case management and the integration of labor SloanManagement Review 35 2 (1994) 11ndash23

26 Davenport TH and Short JE The new industrial engineering information technologyand business process redesign Sloan Management Review 31 4 (1990) 11ndash27

27 Dedrick JL Goodman SE and Kraemer KL Little engines that could computingin small energetic countries Communications of the ACM 38 5 (1995) 21ndash26

28 Dennis AR Daniels RM Jr Hayes G and Nunamaker J Methodology-driven useof automated support in business process re-engineering Journal of Management InformationSystems 10 3 (Winter 1993ndash94) 117ndash138

29 Dennis AR Hayes G and Daniels RM Jr Business process modeling with groupsupport systems Journal of Management Information Systems 15 4 (Spring 1999) 115ndash142

30 Duchessi P and OrsquoKeefe RM Understanding expert systems success and failure Ex-pert Systems with Applications 9 2 (1995) 123ndash133

31 Dyer WG and Wilkins AL Better stories not better constructs to generate bettertheory Academy of Management Journal 16 3 (1991) 613ndash619

32 Earl MJ Sampler JL and Short JE Strategies for business process reengineeringevidence from field studies Journal of Management Information Systems 12 1 (Summer 1995)31ndash56

33 Ein-Dor P Myers MD and Raman KS Information technology in three small devel-oped countries Journal of Management Information Systems 13 4 (Spring 1997) 61ndash89

34 El Sawy OA and Bowles G Redesigning the customer support process for the electroniceconomy insights from Storage Dimensions MIS Quarterly 21 4 (1997) 457ndash483

35 Gold KA Managing for success a comparison of the private and public sectors PublicAdministration Review 42 6 (1982) 568ndash575

36 Grover V Jeong SR Kettinger WJ and Teng JTC The implementation of businessprocess reengineering Journal of Management Information Systems 12 1 (Summer 1995)109ndash144

37 Guha S Grover V Kettinger WJ and Teng JTC Business process change andorganizational performance exploring an antecedent model Journal of Management Informa-tion Systems 14 1 (Summer 1997) 119ndash154

38 Gurbaxani V Kraemer KL King JL Jarman S Dedrick JL Raman KS andYap CS Government as the driving force toward the information society national computerpolicy in Singapore Information Society 7 2 (1990) 155ndash185

39 Hammer M Reengineering work donrsquot automate obliterate Harvard Business Review68 4 (1990) 104ndash112

40 Hammer M and Champy J Reengineering the Corporation A Manifesto for BusinessRevolution New York HarperCollins 1993

41 Hammer M and Stanton S How process enterprises really work Harvard BusinessReview 77 6 (1999) 108ndash118

42 Hoff J Evaluation of information technology in private and public sector contextsInformatization and the Public Sector 2 4 (1992) 307ndash328

43 Holden T and Wilhelmij P Improved decision making through better integration ofhuman resources and business process factors in a hospital situation Journal of ManagementInformation Systems 12 3 (Winter 1995ndash96) 21ndash41

44 Huizing A Koster E and Bouman W Balance in business reengineering an empiricalstudy of fit and performance Journal of Management Information Systems 14 1 (Summer1997) 93ndash118

45 Johnston K Beyond Bureaucracy A Blueprint and Vision for Government That WorksHomewood IL Irwin 1993

46 Kettinger WJ Teng JTC and Guha S Business process change a study of method-ologies techniques and tools MIS Quarterly 21 1 (1997) 55ndash80

47 Kraemer KL Danziger JN Dunkle DE and King JL The usefulness of com-puter-based information to public managers MIS Quarterly 17 2 (1993) 129ndash148

48 Kraemer KL and King JL Computing and public organizations Public AdministrationReview 46 (November 1986) 488ndash496


49 Lachman R Public and private sector differences CEOsrsquo perceptions of their role environ-ments Academy of Management Journal 28 3 (1985) 671ndash679

50 Lee HG and Clark TH Market process reengineering through electronic market sys-tems opportunities and challenges Journal of Management Information Systems 13 3 (Winter1996ndash97) 113ndash136

51 Lucas HC Jr Berndt DJ and Truman G A reengineering framework for evaluating afinancial imaging system Communications of the ACM 39 5 (1996) 86ndash96

52 Margetts H and Willcocks L Informatization in public sector organizations distinc-tive or common risks Informatization and the Public Sector 3 1 (1994) 1ndash19

53 Mason RO McKenney JL and Copeland DG Developing an historical tradition inMIS research MIS Quarterly 21 3 (1997) 257ndash278

54 McKenney JL Mason RO and Copeland DG Bank of America The crest andtrough of technological leadership MIS Quarterly 21 3 (1997) 321ndash353

55 Newman J and Kozar KA A multimedia solution to productivity gridlock a re-engi-neered jewelry appraisal system at Zale Corporation MIS Quarterly 18 1 (1994) 21ndash30

56 Nissen ME Redesigning reengineering through measurement-driven inference MISQuarterly 22 4 (1998) 509ndash534

57 Northrop A Kraemer KL Dunkle D and King JL Payoffs from computerizationlessons over time Public Administration Review 50 5 (1990) 505ndash514

58 Orman L A model management approach to business process reengineering Journal ofManagement Information Systems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 187ndash212

59 Osborne D and Gaebler T Reinventing Government How the Entrepreneurial Spirit IsTransforming 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 ManagementJournal 28 2 (1985) 261ndash278

61 Posner BG and Rothstein LR Reinventing the business of government an interviewwith change catalyst David Osborne Harvard Business Review 72 3 (1994) 132ndash143

62 Rainey HG Public agencies and private firms Administration and Society 15 2 (1983)207ndash242

63 Rainey HG Backoff RW and Levine CH Comparing public and private organiza-tions Public Administration Review 36 2 (1976) 233ndash244

64 Riggins FJ and Mukhopadhyay T Interdependent benefits from interorganizationalsystems opportunities for business partner reengineering Journal of Management Informa-tion Systems 11 2 (Fall 1994) 37ndash57

65 Robertson PJ and Seneviratne SJ Outcomes of planned organizational change in thepublic sector a meta-analytic comparison to the private sector Public Administration Review55 6 (1995) 547ndash558

66 Seidmann A and Sundararajan A Competing in information-intensive services analyz-ing the impact of task consolidation and employee empowerment Journal of Management Infor-mation Systems 14 2 (Fall 1997) 33ndash56

67 Stevens JM Cahill AG and Laplante JM The utilization of information systemstechnology in state financial management an empirical assessment Journal of ManagementInformation Systems 8 1 (Summer 1991) 107ndash128

68 Stoddard DB and Jarvenpaa SL Business process redesign Tactics for managingradical change Journal of Management Information Systems 12 1 (Summer 1995) 81ndash107

69 The White House Reengineering through Information Technology Office of the USVice President Washington DC GPO September 1993

70 Yin RK Case Study Research Design and Methods 2d ed Beverly Hills CA SagePublications 1989


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

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES business process reengineering case study informationtechnology public sector

COMPANIES NOWADAYS FACE A RAPIDLY CHANGING BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT withincreased competition and higher customer expectations Work processes organizedalong the principle of division of labor can no longer deliver the required perfor-mance In response to the changing business environment companies are turning tobusiness 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] SuccessfulBPR projects have been widely reported in the IS literature (eg [13 14 34 51 55])and in the popular press Polls have shown that more than 70 percent of large UScompanies have been reengineering their business processes [12] With the advent ofthe new millennium the popularity of BPR remains undiminished [1 41]

In view of the changing business environment the public sector also faces similarchallenges 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 aslower-paced society in a time of mass markets and when only those at the top of thepyramid had enough information to make informed decisions [59] While public orga-nizations have adopted IT to improve their operational efficiency [16 17 47 48 5767] the changing environment calls for more radical changes to improve the quality ofpublic service The need to reengineer the government to meet these new demands hasled to the call for the ldquoreinvention of the governmentrdquo [3 45 59 61] As part of thisreinvention it is foreseeable that BPR will be beneficial to public organizations Forexample in a report entitled ldquoReengineering Through Information Technologyrdquo theUS government identified a three-pronged strategy with major initiatives to reengineergovernment 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 fourmain groups The first group provides lessons learned from BPR experiences in indi-vidual companies (eg [10 13 14 20 24 32 34 37 51 55 68]) The second groupexamines interorganizational BPR (eg [18 19 50 64]) The third group introduces















BU

SIN

ESS P

RO

CE

SS R

EE

NG

INE

ER

ING

IN T

HE

PU

BL

IC S

EC

TO

R 249













250 TH

ON

G Y

AP A

ND

SEA

H












BU

SIN

ESS P

RO

CE

SS R

EE

NG

INE

ER

ING

IN T

HE

PU

BL

IC S

EC

TO

R 251
















Implementing BPR




Methodology



Case Description








Before BPR





After BPR






Case Analysis

























Process Diagnosis











Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES






















































































BU

SIN

ESS P

RO

CE

SS R

EE

NG

INE

ER

ING

IN T

HE

PU

BL

IC S

EC

TO

R 249













250 TH

ON

G Y

AP A

ND

SEA

H












BU

SIN

ESS P

RO

CE

SS R

EE

NG

INE

ER

ING

IN T

HE

PU

BL

IC S

EC

TO

R 251
















Implementing BPR




Methodology



Case Description








Before BPR





After BPR






Case Analysis

























Process Diagnosis











Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES















































































BU

SIN

ESS P

RO

CE

SS R

EE

NG

INE

ER

ING

IN T

HE

PU

BL

IC S

EC

TO

R 249













250 TH

ON

G Y

AP A

ND

SEA

H












BU

SIN

ESS P

RO

CE

SS R

EE

NG

INE

ER

ING

IN T

HE

PU

BL

IC S

EC

TO

R 251
















Implementing BPR




Methodology



Case Description








Before BPR





After BPR






Case Analysis

























Process Diagnosis











Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES








































































BU

SIN

ESS P

RO

CE

SS R

EE

NG

INE

ER

ING

IN T

HE

PU

BL

IC S

EC

TO

R 249













250 TH

ON

G Y

AP A

ND

SEA

H












BU

SIN

ESS P

RO

CE

SS R

EE

NG

INE

ER

ING

IN T

HE

PU

BL

IC S

EC

TO

R 251
















Implementing BPR




Methodology



Case Description








Before BPR





After BPR






Case Analysis

























Process Diagnosis











Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES








































































250 TH

ON

G Y

AP A

ND

SEA

H












BU

SIN

ESS P

RO

CE

SS R

EE

NG

INE

ER

ING

IN T

HE

PU

BL

IC S

EC

TO

R 251
















Implementing BPR




Methodology



Case Description








Before BPR





After BPR






Case Analysis

























Process Diagnosis











Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES








































































BU

SIN

ESS P

RO

CE

SS R

EE

NG

INE

ER

ING

IN T

HE

PU

BL

IC S

EC

TO

R 251
















Implementing BPR




Methodology



Case Description








Before BPR





After BPR






Case Analysis

























Process Diagnosis











Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES












































































Implementing BPR




Methodology



Case Description








Before BPR





After BPR






Case Analysis

























Process Diagnosis











Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES










































































Methodology



Case Description








Before BPR





After BPR






Case Analysis

























Process Diagnosis











Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES













































































Before BPR





After BPR






Case Analysis

























Process Diagnosis











Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES











































































After BPR






Case Analysis

























Process Diagnosis











Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES











































































Case Analysis

























Process Diagnosis











Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES





























































































Process Diagnosis











Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES











































































Process Diagnosis











Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES

















































































Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES












































































Process Redesign











Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES

















































































Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES












































































Implementation






Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES











































































Process Monitoring


Conclusion








PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES














































































PRODUCTIVITY GOALS

QualityHousing


CustomerServices




StaffProductivity


KEY STRATEGIES

ProductImprovement


- Flexi-planscheme







development



proceduralreviews




- Automatedsystems






- Customersurveys







































NOTES


REFERENCES











































































































NOTES


REFERENCES





















































































NOTES


REFERENCES














































































NOTES


REFERENCES









































































NOTES


REFERENCES
















































































































































Documents

case study bpr