ایجاد تغییر بنیادی و مهندسی مجدد فرآیند کسب و کار (BPR) : درسهایی از بخش عمومی انگلیسی و هلندی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|498||2011||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||8670 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Government Information Quarterly, Volume 28, Issue 3, July 2011, Pages 320–328
Facilitated by electronic government, public agencies are looking for transformational change by making a radical improvement. At first glance, this development is similar to the business process re-engineering (BPR) movement in the private sector. While policy makers and practitioners in the public sector have branded their recent improvements as BPR, the academic and research community have thus far eluded from making any comparisons. This has left a vacuum in terms of understanding the complexity of the challenges facing e-Government re-engineering and resultant change in public agencies. The aim of this paper is to translate the BPR movement findings to the field of e-Government induced change in the public sector. BPR characteristics and challenges are derived using normative literature and compared with two cases of public sector transformation in the UK and Netherlands. The results of these cases show that e-Government-induced change requires a plan for a radical improvement which, in contrast to BPR, is obtained by incremental steps and has a high level of participation. The findings offer policy makers valuable insights into the complexities and possible strategies that may need to be followed in order to succeed in e-Government implementation.
Traditional public administration practiced in government agencies dates back many decades. The public services offered were highly bureaucratic and siloed where the public has no choice of a service provider. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) were overlaid onto existing organizational structures and processes without any consideration to how they can be improved. In this context, changing the behavior of government organizations and establishing co-operation between government agencies is fraught with difficulty. Usually, it is easier for governments to create (national) web portals to assert their e-Government presence, but this has merely amounted to information being reorganized without any fundamental change to existing back office processes or information systems and technology (IS/IT). Given these issues, like many other Western European nations, the UK and Dutch governments are striving towards a vision for government-wide transformation. While the early stages of e-Government focused on e-enabling customer-facing services in both these countries, the latter stages of e-Government are focused towards more transformational change in public sector agencies. This second stage of e-Government are often referred to as the transformational stage of e-Government or as the UK brands it, transformational government (t-Government) (Chief Information Officer Council, 2006). In both the UK and Netherlands public agencies are struggling to successfully achieve the levels of radical change that is required to realize fully integrated ‘one-stop’ e-Government due to various social, organizational and technological challenges at both governmental and individual citizen levels (Gascó, 2003, Irani et al., 2007, Irani et al., 2008, Klievink and Janssen, 2009 and Weerakkody and Dhillon, 2008). Moreover, both researchers and practitioners have suggested that if e-Government is to be used to successfully transform the public sector (i.e. reduce cost and eliminate waste, improve efficiency, accountability, transparency and quality of service), public agencies will need radical changes in core processes across organizational boundaries, in a manner that has not been seen before in the public sector (Kim et al., 2007, Murphy, 2005 and Weerakkody and Dhillon, 2008). The challenge ahead, therefore, is similar to what was seen in the private sector in the early 1990s with BPR where a radical redesign of business processes was needed to achieve dramatic improvements (Hammer & Champy, 1993). As we are now well aware, BPR was infectious in the 1990s with many medium and large organizations embracing the movement (O'Neill and Sohal, 1999 and Willcocks, 1995). However, the mixed results experienced in the private sector meant that many in the practitioner community became skeptics of the concept while at the same time the academic and research community became severe critics of BPR (for example O'Neill and Sohal, 1999 and Weerakkody and Dhillon, 2008). The aforesaid context has created a taboo where few e-Government researchers dare to delve into the topic of BPR or look at learning from prior studies of the BPR movement. In particular, few studies have made direct comparisons of the ICT-enabled change (or e-Government) in public agencies to BPR. It is fair to argue that this is due to some of the negative publicity BPR received during its heyday in the early 1990's. Yet, the premise of this paper is that many lessons can be learned from the BPR era in relation to e-Government implementation. Since e-Government needs structural and procedural changes in public agencies to improve service delivery, e-Government champions and project managers have started to apply BPR techniques in e-Government. When drawing likenesses to BPR in the private sector, recent work identifies a large number of challenges facing transformational type radical change in the public sector (Irani et al., 2007 and Weerakkody and Dhillon, 2008), which are multi-faceted and complex. A significant challenge is for government agencies to carefully consider and address the key change barriers and challenges before embarking on change initiatives that are introduced as part of e-Government programs. The lack of identity for e-Government led public sector change initiatives and the tarnished image of BPR have all prevented many researchers from drawing from BPR literature and experiences to study e-Government induced change. Herein lays the reasoning for this research: the authors are motivated to indentify and understand the socio-cultural, organizational, process, and technology challenges that public agencies face in designing and implementing e-Government. Most significantly, this research contributes to e-Government knowledge by capturing and mapping these barriers against e-Government and BPR literature, which would help policy-makers to improve their change strategies. Two European nations, Britain and the Netherlands, which are at the forefront of e-Government implementation, provide the empirical context for this research. This research is timely as both the British and Dutch policy-makers are looking for transformational change and are looking at the BPR movement to learn from this. In particular, experts from the private sector era have been appointed as consultants to help reengineer business processes and e-enable Information Systems (IS) in public agencies in both countries. Nevertheless, as stated before, the BPR movement has been criticized and cannot likely be translated to the public sector on a one-to-one basis; this paper aims to improve the understanding of BPR in the public sector and examine the similarities and differences in the translation of private sectors efforts to the public sector. In the UK, the e-Government influenced transformational government policy aims to place technology at the heart of the transformation agenda to improve public service delivery over a six-year period (from 2005 to 2011) (Chief Information Officer Council, 2006). Transformational government is seen in the UK as the second phase of e-Government, which focuses upon cost savings and service improvement through back-office process and IS/IT change (Murphy, 2005 and Weerakkody and Dhillon, 2008). In the Netherlands, the ambitions of transformational government are primarily focused towards reducing the administrative burden of back office processes in public agencies and only thereafter at improving service provisioning to citizens. In this context, the Dutch government utilizes a strategy of collaboration and partnerships which are aimed at sharing services and work with the focus on delivering more joined-up, citizen centric online services (Janssen, Joha, & Weerakkody, 2007). Now that online presence and online transaction services are in place in the context of e-Government, both countries are looking for more fundamental ways to achieve demand-driven government; thus the need for radical change and the concept of ‘transformational government’ is pushed forward. Since there is limited literature on the concept of ‘transformational government’ (Kim et al., 2007) and transformational government seems to resembles similar characteristics to BPR (i.e. radical change), the objective of this paper is to investigate whether the ‘implementation of change’ in the public sector can learn from the vast amount of available BPR literature. This should help policy makers and practitioners to leverage the lessons from BPR and not simply copy and paste them into an implementation of t-Government. To achieve this aim, this paper is structured as follows. The next section offers a brief review of literature on the research theme, transformational government and BPR. This is followed by an outline of the research approach adopted and the presentation of two case studies of transformational change in the UK and Netherlands. Thereafter, the literature and empirical findings are synthesized. Finally, the paper concludes by highlighting the key research findings, identifying the limitations and proposing areas for future research.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This research shows that reaching the transformational stage (or t-Government) is viewed as the next stage of e-Government. T-Government encapsulates a wider perspective of change than e-Government and focus on achieving major changes in comparison with the current situation. To capture the varying focus of e-Government from the literature and empirically, the authors propose a new definition for t-Government in this research: “t-Government is the ICT-enabled and organization-led transformation of government operations, internal and external processes and structures to enable the realization of citizen-centric services that are cost effective and efficient”. This definition captures the various elements that are given attention and focuses on service delivery. The starting point of this research was that t-Government needs more radical change and could learn from the BPR movement. The literature review shows that BPR can be characterized by radical change, taking a process perspective, outlining a new structure, customer focus, catch up or maintain best practices, top-down approach requiring top-management support, changing culture and focus on core competences. The two case studies confirmed the need for radical changes, as opposed to incremental improvement. Both organizations achieved progress by radically changing the organizational structure (i.e. concentrating back-office services and creating a customer-centric organizational structure) and by redesigning their business processes. In contrast to BPR efforts, the changes were not implemented in a top-down manner using a big-bang approach. Instead, the empirical evidence in this paper showed that change in t-Government should focus on a broader context involving diverse stakeholders and creating incremental changes within the scope of a radical change plan. Major factors in achieving the change are central support, leadership, resistance to change and culture. For policy makers this implies that t-Government begins with the introduction of radical change that is then followed by incremental improvements to service provisioning. The key lessons for policy-makers and designers that emerge from this study can be summarized as follows: • The lessons learned from the private sector BPR movement offers valuable insights (taking a process perspective, customers as focal point, outlining a new structure, process orientation and aiming at achieving radical changes) into transformational change in the public sector and should not be ignored; • The change of culture has a similar emphasis. Yet in BPR this is realized in a top-down fashion supported by top-management support. Practitioners and policy-makers must not try to copy these ideas of BPR as experienced in the private sector on a one-to-one basis for the public sector, but should include aspects such as a high-level of bottom-up participation and step-wise growth or a series of incremental change that would have a cumulative transformational effect; • The literature review shows that the practical challenges faced in t-Government are similar to BPR implementations in the private sector, yet the culture and environment is different and the stakeholders are many and varied; therefore the approach to change should be cautious and should be guided by high-levels of participation, the accomplishment of incremental steps and training activities. • In BPR, both the focus on core competencies and ‘catch up’ to maintain best practices are a key element, whilst this was not found in the case studies. From the vast majority of BPR techniques and tools used, those focused on business processes and people are dominating. Techniques like brainstorming, discussion sessions, process assessment, risk analysis, impact assessment (including cost–benefit), education, and training received a lot of attention. Other BPR tools and techniques as used in BPR might be suitable, but were hardly used in the case studies and need further consideration. Especially techniques to elicit user requirements are lacking. Therefore, more public agencies need to be exposed to the specific tools and techniques that are widely available for process modeling and re-engineering. The main limitation of this research is the lack of consensus about what constitutes definitions of transformational government and the shortage of empirical studies. This research explored only two cases and therefore any generalization of the findings will require further studies in different public agencies, initially in the two countries (UK and Netherlands) considered in the paper, and thereafter in other countries to validate the findings. In addition, public sector transformation often concerns not only organizational change, but requires the transformation of organizational networks. The inter-organizational scope should be addressed in further research. Nonetheless, this research offers academics and practitioners further opportunities to investigate the use of BPR techniques, tools and methods for t-Government that will enable more radical transformation; this aspect has been relatively overlooked since the advent of e-Government in the late 1990's. The change barriers and challenges identified in this research can be used as a starting point for developing BPR approaches for t-Government. In addition, future research can be conducted to exhaustively satisfy all key challenges affecting t-Government by incorporating more case studies and practical experiences particularly at an inter organizational level. Furthermore, the researchers believe that a greater share of quantitative research methods could be used in the future in combination with qualitative techniques to rank and measure the impact of the t-Government drivers, benefits and barriers identified in this research.