1. business and industrial
2. business operations
3. management
4. business process

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
REORGANIZING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS – HOW TO MANAGE PROCESS
ORIENTED EGOVERNMENT PROJECTS
Prof. Dr. Jörg Becker
European Research Center for Information Systems
University of Münster
Leonardo Campus 3
48149 Münster, Germany
Fon: +49 251 8338100
Fax: +49 251 8338109
becker@wi.uni-muenster.de
Lars Algermissen
European Research Center for Information Systems
University of Münster
Leonardo Campus 3
48149 Münster, Germany
Fon: +49 251 8338080
Fax: +49 251 8328080
islaal@wi.uni-muenster.de
Patrick Delfmann
European Research Center for Information Systems
University of Münster
Leonardo Campus 3
48149 Münster, Germany
Fon: +49 251 8338083
Fax: +49 251 8328083
ispade@wi.uni-muenster.de
Thorsten Falk
European Research Center for Information Systems
University of Münster
Leonardo Campus 3
48149 Münster, Germany
Fon: +49 251 8338084
Fax: +49 251 8328084
isthfa@wi.uni-muenster.de
Björn Niehaves
European Research Center for Information Systems
University of Münster
Leonardo Campus 3
48149 Münster, Germany
Fon: +49 251 8338087
Fax: +49 251 8328087
bjni@wi.uni-muenster.de
1
2
3
REORGANIZING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS – HOW TO MANAGE PROCESS
ORIENTED EGOVERNMENT PROJECTS
4
Prof. Dr. Jörg Becker
5
Professor Dr. Joerg Becker is full Professor for Information Systems and Information Management and head of
6
the Department of Information Systems at the University of Muenster. Professor Dr. Becker holds a Master and a
7
Ph.D. degree of Business Administration from University of Saarland, Germany. He obtained his Ph.D. in 1987
8
under the supervision of Prof. Dr. A.-W. Scheer. He also studied Business Administration and Economics at the
9
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
10
Professor Dr. Becker’s research areas contain information management, management information systems,
11
information modeling, e-business, e-business management, e-government, data management, logistics and
12
industry information systems, workflow management and retail information systems.
13
14
MScIS Lars Algermissen
15
Lars Algermissen (born 1978) received a Bachelor of Science in Information Systems from the University of
16
Muenster. After studying at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane/Australia he received the
17
Master of Science in Information Systems from the University of Muenster. He is now working as a research
18
assistant at the Department of Information Systems. His main research interests include process management,
19
management information systems and information warehousing, information systems for public administrations
20
and the retail sector. He also conducts lectures in the field of Electronic Government.
21
22
MScIS Patrick Delfmann
23
Patrick Delfmann studied Information Systems at the University of Münster, Department of Information
24
Systems. He received his master’s degree in Information Systems (Dipl.-Wirt. Inform.) in May 2001 and works
25
as a research assistant at the chair of Prof. Dr. Jörg Becker since July 2001. Patrick’s research areas are method
26
development, information modelling, and reference modelling. Related to the project, he is teaching the courses
27
“Information Modeling and Application Systems” and “Business Process Modelling and Workflow
28
Management”.
29
1
MScIS Thorsten Falk
2
Thorsten Falk (born 1977) received a Bachelor of Science in Information Systems from the University of
3
Muenster. After studying Information Systems with main focus on software engineering and conceptual
4
modeling he received the Master of Science in Information Systems from the University of Muenster. He is now
5
working as a research assistant at the Department of Information Systems. His main research interests include
6
process management, process oriented software development and reference modeling. His lecture activities
7
include teaching ERP systems (e. g. SAP R/3) and the course “Information Modeling and Application Systems”.
8
9
Dipl.-Kfm. Björn Niehaves
10
Bjoern Niehaves (born 1978) received a Master of Business Administration (Dipl.-Kfm.) from the University of
11
Muenster. During his studies of Business Administration and Political Science, he was working as a consultant
12
in the field of Electronic Government. He is now working as a research assistant at the Department of
13
Information Systems of the University of Muenster and is enrolled in the doctoral course since 2002. His main
14
research interests include information management, information modeling, process modeling, reference
15
modeling, Electronic Government and Electronic Democracy. He also conducts lectures in the field of Electronic
16
Government.reorganizing public administrations – how to manage process oriented eGovernment projects.
1
2
3
REORGANIZING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS – HOW TO MANAGE PROCESS
ORIENTED EGOVERNMENT PROJECTS
4
ABSTRACT
5
The application of procedure models in project planning has evolved into a well-established
6
tool not only in the field of software development but also regarding organizational design.
7
Depending on the domain where such procedure models are applied, they have to be specified
8
in detail and adapted to the business context. A common task in eGovernment projects for
9
example is the selection of business processes for reorganization. A special characteristic in
10
this domain is the existence of more than 1000 core processes. Hence it makes sense to use a
11
structured procedure model for the pre-selection of processes for reorganization. Therefore
12
this article provides such a procedure model and its application in a local government
13
reorganization project located in the northern German region “Muensterland”. An empirical
14
study was conducted in all 70 local governments in Muensterland. The results show the need
15
for reorganization from an internal perspective and the potential for reorganization of about
16
50 citizen services from an external perspective. These services with reorganization potential
17
were then analyzed with the help of the presented procedure model. The goal of our article is
18
to present the theoretical background of the procedure model and how to apply it in concrete
19
practical projects.
20
KEYWORDS
21
eGovernment, Process Management, Re-engineering, Empirical Study
1
1
THE POTENTIAL FOR REORGANISATION THROUGH ELECTRONIC
2
GOVERNMENT
3
Public administration has been confronted by a series of new demands on the one hand and
4
has been forced to cost and staff cuttings on the other hand. There is a conspicuous trend
5
towards growing individualization, whereby there are increasing demands by individuals on
6
the state, to provide solutions to a variety of problems. Simultaneously, in the context of
7
national and international competition, efficient and effective state activity and support for
8
entrepreneurial activities in a region or country are becoming an increasingly decisive factor
9
in location decisions. For some years, the term ‘eGovernment’ has been universally proposed
10
as a way of closing the public administrations’ modernization and performance gap (Budäus
11
and Schwiering, 1999).
12
Hence many public administrations started with eGovernment initiatives. Most of them deal
13
with an improvement of their websites to so called “Virtual Town Halls”. However, most of
14
the administrations just focus on an enhanced information quality and do not take into account
15
the reorganization potential of communication and transaction processes. Our approach is a
16
process oriented one and hence we define the core of eGovernment as the execution of
17
administrative processes (Langkabel, 2000): eGovernment entails the simplification and
18
implementation of information, communication and transaction processes, in order to achieve,
19
by means of information and communication technology, an administrative service, within
20
and between authorities and, likewise, between authorities and private individuals or
21
companies (Becker, Algermissen and Niehaves, 2003).
22
To find out whether eGovernment already had a broad impact in restructuring public
23
administrations we conducted an empirical study. The study takes into account two different
24
perspectives to measure and benchmark the degree of utilization of eGovernment activities.
1
To ensure a representative sample in terms of demographic and sociological structure all
2
investigated public administrations are settled in the same region – the “Muensterland”.1
3
On the one hand an external perspective was examined which deals with the citizen and
4
industry perception of eGovernment activities. With a catalogue of criteria the internet portals
5
of all 66 municipality and four county administrations were analyzed. The focus of this
6
evaluation was the “Virtual Town Hall” which is the area of the portal where the regarded
7
public services are offered. Beside the scope of these offered services the overall impression
8
(e.g. graphical design and structured layout) of the website, the amount and quality of offered
9
information and the navigation concepts to and within the public services were evaluated
10
(Becker et al., 2004). The results show that the degree of interaction of most services does not
11
reach the level of transaction. The majority of the municipalities only describes the services
12
(information) or provides contact information (communication). However significant benefits
13
can only be realized when a public service offers the chance for transactions and hence
14
becomes an eService. Before classic public services can be offered as eServices it is advisable
15
to reorganize the underlying processes and organizational structure in the back office. To
16
evaluate the current state of reorganization activities the study includes the second
17
perspective.
18
The internal perspective deals with the self-assessment of the local public administrations.
19
The data collection was made by the use of a questionnaire which was structured into five
20
categories concerning the following thematic scopes:
21
• Status-quo of eGovernment activities
22
• Scope of the internet portal
1
The “Muensterland” is a North-Rhine Westphalian region in Germany which comprises 1.5
million inhabitants spread out over 4 counties, one county-independent city, and 65
municipalities.
1
• Used domain specific software applications
2
• Perspective of future eGovernment activities
3
• Organizational and technical environment concerning eGovernment activities
4
The questionnaire was sent to all municipality and county administrations and after two
5
weeks of process time 56 of 70 questionnaires had been answered which results in a
6
representative 80 % rate of return. The evaluation indicated that the questionnaires were
7
answered by the organizational units which are responsible for eGovernment activities in the
8
regarded administration and therefore own the essential knowledge regarding the
9
questionnaire. This concludes adequate data-quality of the self-assessment in this empirical
10
study.
11
The most important question in the described context we asked was: What impact had
12
eGovernment initiatives on your organizational structure and your processes to date?
13
14
Fig. 1: Impact of eGovernment initiatives on organizational structure (n=56)
15
The results validate our thesis as in 84 % of the public administrations eGovernment has lead
16
to none or only marginal changes in the processes and the organizational structure.
1
To enforce a structured approach towards process oriented reorganization and hence to
2
improve the diffusion of transaction enabled eServices in virtual town halls we propose a
3
procedure model for process-oriented reorganization projects.
4
2
PROCEDURE MODEL FOR PROCESS-ORIENTED REORGANIZATION
5
Business process orientation is a paradigm of organizational design that has been established
6
as a dictum in the praxis of organizational design since the early 90s (Davenport, 1993;
7
Davenport, 1990; Hammer, 1990; Hammer, 1993). Business process management (process
8
management) provides methods for the realization of business process orientation. The
9
following procedure model partitions the life cycle of a process management project and
10
enunciate target recommendations concerning stages for the project implementation (Becker,
11
Berning and Kahn, 2003). It consists of seven consecutive phases as well as the task of project
12
management that covers the entire project (cp. fig. 2).
13
Phase I: Project management is the foundation for the successful realization of any
14
project. Subtasks as well as the use of personnel and resources have to be organized,
15
planned, managed and controlled in a target-oriented manner (Becker, Berning and Kahn,
16
2003). Project goals must be defined regarding to content as well as formally (with respect
17
to cost, time and quality). Their attainment has to be backed up by an appropriate project
18
controlling.
19
Phase II: Preparation of process modeling is necessary due to the high complexity of
20
process management projects within which usually numerous process models have to be
21
produced. Thus, the modeling purpose (“why” shall we model), the model receiver (“for
22
whom” shall we model) and modeling methods and tools (“how” shall we model) must be
23
determined beforehand (cp. for the following Rosemann, Schwegmann and Delfmann,
24
2003).
1
Phase III: The development of a strategy and an organizational framework helps to
2
reduce the complexity which results from the fact that models are located on several
3
hierarchy levels and linked among each other in different ways. This framework contains
4
the company’s essential tasks on the highest level and serves as a super ordinate model. It
5
puts existing sub models into over-all coherence and allows for navigation through the
6
different processes.
7
Phase IV: In the course of actual modeling and analysis, the current state of the processes
8
is recorded, analyzed and evaluated with regard to the accomplishment of the business
9
objectives (Schwegmann and Laske, 2003). This helps to create transparency within the
10
company that facilitates the comprehension of technical interrelations and problems and to
11
identify existing weak points.
12
Phase V: Process optimization aims at developing new processes. The weak spots pointed
13
out by actual modeling have to be analyzed and eliminated if possible.
14
Phase VI: The development of process-oriented organizational structure is the
15
consequential and necessary continuation of the business process redesign (Kugeler, 2000;
16
Kugeler and Vieting, 2003). Thereby, the process-oriented organizational structure aims at
17
enabling the adequate implementation of the optimized processes.
18
Phase VII: The introduction of the new organization deals with the implementation of the
19
compiled process improvements (Hansmann, Laske and Luxem, 2003). There is not just
20
one possible way of implementation. In fact, appropriate measures have to be chosen and
21
combined wisely considering factual, political and cultural factors as well as the existing
22
organization and the extent of the reorganization project.
23
24
For different reasons (e. g. new products, new staff, and changes in law) some processes turn
25
out to be inefficient or ineffective after having been introduced. This requires a continuous
1
adjustment of the processes of a company. Therefore, in addition to the monitoring of process
2
implementation, the major task of a continuous process management is the constant,
3
incremental improvement of the process organization. This process can be broken down into
4
the four phases accomplishment, analysis, objective-redefinition and modeling (Neumann,
5
Probst and Wernsmann, 2003). These phases compose a cycle that helps to ensure a
6
continuous alignment of the processes to changing business objectives and environmental
7
conditions.
8
3
PRIORITIZATION OF PROCESSES WITH A POTENTIAL FOR
9
REORGANIZATION
10
The application of the presented procedure model in eGovernment projects requires its
11
concretion, especially in the phase of actual modeling (Phase IV). Common product
12
catalogues of municipal administrations prove that the range of services offered by public
13
administrations presently comprises more than 1000 individual services, which are all
14
represented by unique business processes. The number of processes implies that their
15
reorganization will not bring about a significant rationalization for every single one of them.
16
Therefore, it is advisable to pass through a stage of selection before beginning with the
17
detailed cost and time extensive modeling of the present situation to select only those
18
processes where the expected results of streamlining measures will exceed the modeling costs
19
by far (Schwegmann and Laske, 2003; Meffert and Bruhn, 2000). An efficient way to select
20
the processes with the highest potential for reorganization is by dividing the process of
21
prioritization into different steps, which reduce the number of candidates for reorganization
22
measures amongst the total number of processes (Schwegmann and Laske, 2003). This
23
method allows for the usage of straightforward assessment criteria to accelerate the selection
24
in the early steps, whereas a more detailed analysis of the processes will further diminish the
1
number of processes in the later steps. Only after applying this method the necessary
2
modeling activities for the purpose of reorganization should be started.
3
4
Fig. 2: Process-Prioritization-Phases in the context of the procedure model for process-oriented
5
Reorganization
6
We introduced a reference procedure model for process-oriented reorganization (cp. section 2). The phase of
7
selecting high-potential processes for rationalization can be substantiated as shown in fig. 2. The phase of actual
8
modeling can be divided into three steps; the first and second being responsible for the selection of the processes
9
that ought to be modeled in the third step.
10
Step A: Portfolio Method. After the identification of services provided by administrations,
11
the expected number of related processes is comparatively high. Therefore, there is an
12
obvious need for a tool that can provide a basic overview of the most important qualitative
13
features of a service at minimal cost whilst conveying its potential for a modelling project.
14
We have chosen a portfolio method, based on two pairs of criteria (cp. fig. 3; Gisler, 2001;
15
Isselhorst, 2001; Boller and Beuchat, 2001).
16
The pair of criteria technical development determines the processes’ penetration by
17
information technology. It is specified by the technically feasible degree of interaction with
18
the customer/citizen, and by the integration of information technology. For example, a mainly
1
paper-based internal processing of information combined with missing online transaction
2
facilities for the citizen is a strong indicator for a need for reorganizing measures. The
3
criterion interaction intensity can have the values:
4
• Information: The value Information describes the mere unilateral technical provision of
5
information like opening hours of the city hall on a website.
6
• Communication: The exchange of information between citizen and administration can be
7
performed in a bidirectional manner. Besides, there is a possibility of interactive
8
information retrieval (e. g. communication via email)
9
10
• Transaction: The citizen is given the possibility to handle entire administrative transactions,
e. g. tax declaration, vehicle registration etc. via the internet.
11
12
Fig. 3: Portfolio method for prioritization of processes with a potential for reorganization
13
The criterion integration intensity can adopt the following values:
14
• Media break: The execution of a service can be supported by means of modern information
15
technology, but its fulfilment includes at least one discontinuity in the use of media (e. g.
16
the manual submission of an order form).
17
• Without media breaks: The performance of the service is almost entirely supported by
18
information technology, i. e. the fulfilment is realized without media discontinuities. Still,
19
individual decisions, which impede the automated workflows, mark the action of the
20
institution.
1
• Automated: Services are supplied by an information system without any need for further
2
human action. This automation is particularly suitable for procedures, which do not require
3
any scope of discretion or individual consideration.
4
After having clustered the processes by the pair of criteria technical development, a first
5
impression of the processes’ need for reorganization can be obtained and a first prioritization
6
can be established. Additionally, services that do not require reorganization can be identified
7
and implemented immediately. This applies especially in those cases, where services are
8
comprehensively supported by information technology, but the online access for the citizen is
9
still missing.
10
The second pair of criteria (intensity of execution) sheds light on the cost intensity of the
11
inspected processes (Hagen, 2000). As a result, the potential for rationalization measures
12
becomes obvious. This portfolio focuses on the following two criteria:
13
• Number of cases: The number of cases of a process indicates the number of instances of
14
one process within a certain period of time, i. e. how many times a process is executed in
15
that period.
16
• Share of power users: Customers, who trigger the instances of service processes with an
17
above-average frequency, are called power users. For example car dealers usually register a
18
certain number of vehicles on behalf of their customers.
19
Having clustered the processes by the criteria number of cases and share of power users,
20
further decisions on the prioritization can be made. A process with just a small number of
21
executions for instance does not cause an immense effort and should therefore be put on hold.
22
23
Step B: Profile Method. The portfolio of the processes has been reduced by the preceding
24
analysis. In a second step it is now possible to assess the remaining processes on a more
25
detailed level. To enable the evaluation of the processes’ potential for reorganization, we
1
propose to determine their organizational as well as technical complexity. Additionally, the
2
degree of citizen integration into the provision of a service and the existence of formalities
3
have to be taken into consideration (Eifert, 2000). Especially the latter aspect determines the
4
feasibility of a mere electronically processing of public administration services. The
5
application for identification documents for instance requires the physical presence of the
6
applicant, which makes the process unsuitable for online handling.
7
Organizational and technical complexity, degree of citizen integration and formalities add up
8
to a profile which allows to further reduce the amount of candidates for reorganization. The
9
processes have to be analyzed according to the defined criteria and their possible values.
10
Those values should be defined explicitly in advance to permit the comparison of the results.
11
Table 1 shows some of the criteria and their possible values. Based on the obtained results,
12
the final choice of processes, which will be modeled in the next stage, can be achieved by
13
using selection methods such as the Value Benefit Analysis (Zangemeister, 1970). At the end
14
of this phase the number of candidates should have reduced to a level where a detailed
15
modeling of the current situation seems economical.
16
Table 1: Criteria and values of the profile
y
Criterion
Organizational Complexity
Number of involved
employees
Person in charge to approve
the results of a service
Number of involved entities
Cooperation with other
institutions of public
administration
Number of changes of
responsibility
Average processing time
Degree of complexity
17
5 Both
Values
5 One
5 Two
5 More than two: ______ (Number)
5 Nobody
5 Officials
5 Head of department
5 Mayor / District chief executive
5 One
5 Two
5 More than two: ______ (Number)
5 None
5 One
5 Several: ______ (Number)
5 None
5 One
5 Several: ______ (Number)
5 Hours
5 Days
5 Weeks
5 Months
5 Mainly routine processes
5 Mainly individual cases
5 Both
Technical complexity
Number and type of used
applications
Number of proprietary
developments involved
Further usage of service data
Hosting of procedures
Formalities
Existence of rules for the
execution of processes
Form of usage
Scope of discretion in the
supply of a service
5 None
5 One: ______ (Producer)
5 Several: ______ (Number, producer)
5 None
5 One
5 More than one
5 Data is treated confidentially
5 Data is used internally
5 Data is forwarded to external institutions
5 Desktop PC
5 Internal server
5 External server
5 Internal and external servers
5 No
5 Instruction
5 Law
5 Informal
5 Written form is required
5 Physical presence of applicant is required
5 No scope of discretion
5 Small scope of discretion
5 Ample scope of discretion
18
Step C: Modelling of current situation and analysis of weaknesses. The application of the
19
portfolio and profile method has resulted in the identification of the processes with the highest
1
potential for reorganization. Those processes will be modeled in detail in this step in order to
2
discover weak spots, which in return will form the basis for the creation of nominal processes.
3
The decision concerning the modeling technique for this phase has already been made in the
4
preparation of the activities. By means of interviews not only with officials, but also with
5
managerial staff members, the “state of play” can be captured and transferred into process
6
models.
7
The presented prioritization procedure does not only select processes with high reorganization
8
potential but does also rank all other processes with respect to their potential. The results can
9
be used for future projects to select the next processes to be reorganized and offered as
10
transactional eServices within the “Virtual Town Hall”. Further the fine granular separation of
11
selection phases will result in a well and easy to understand documentation of the selection
12
process to justify the selections made with respect to the project goals set by the project
13
management.
14
4
SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK
15
The term ‘eGovernment’ has been proposed as a way of closing the public administrations’
16
modernization and performance gap. To measure the status-quo of eGovernment activities
17
and their impact in restructuring public administrations an empirical study containing two
18
perspectives was conducted. The external perspective examined the status-quo of
19
eGovernment activities by analyzing the offered public services within the “Virtual Town
20
Hall” of the administrations’ internet portals. The results show that most of the
21
administrations just focus on an enhanced information quality and that most of them don’t
22
offer fully transactional eServices. The second perspective which represents the internal
23
perception of public administrations examined the made efforts to reorganize internal
24
processes and organizational structures to enable classic public services to become fully
25
transactional eServices. The results validate our thesis as in 84 % of the public
1
administrations eGovernment has lead to none or only marginal changes in the processes and
2
the organizational structure. To structure the process of reorganization activities and to
3
prioritize adequate processes to be reorganized an established procedure model has been
4
presented and has been extended by a prioritization schema.
5
The presented procedure models have proven their usability in a real world projects however
6
three fields of activity can be identified.
7
• Advancement of the 3-step-model for selecting business processes with a potential for
8
reorganization: e.g., the selection criteria could be adopted with regards to the national
9
specifics of the context of application.
10
• Application of the phase model in other administrations and further domains: especially the
11
3-step-model for prioritizing business processes was developed for the domain of public
12
administration. Thus, it should be evaluated, for example, in other service oriented
13
domains, e.g. insurance.
14
• The gained knowledge from modeled classic public service processes and reorganized
15
processes sould be used for formulation of reference models for administrational processes.
16
These reference process models should be usable by a broad range of other adminstrations
17
to fasten and enhance their reorganization projects within eGovernment activites.
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
References
1. Becker, J., Algermissen, L., Delfmann, P., Falk, T., and Niehaves, B. „Virtuelles Rathaus
Münsterland 2004. Status quo und Entwicklungsperspektiven.” Münster (2004).
2. Becker, J., Algermissen, L., and Niehaves, B. “E-Government – State of the art and
development perspectives” in Working Report No. 94 of the Department of Information
Systems, University of Muenster Muenster (2003).
3. Becker, J., Berning, W., and Kahn, D. „Projektmanagement“ in: J. Becker, M. Kugeler,
M. Rosemann (Hrsg.): Prozessmanagement. Ein Leitfaden zur prozessorientierten
Organisationsgestaltung. 4. Auflage, Berlin et al. 2003, S. 17-45.
4. Boller, R., and Beuchat, A. „Vertrauen und Sicherheit im Netz“ in: M. Gisler, D. Spahni
(Hrsg.): eGovernment. 2. Auflage, Bern et al. 2001, S. 53-74.
5. Budäus, D., and Schwiering, K. „Die Rolle der Informations- und
Kommunikationstechnologien im Modernisierungsprozeß öffentlicher Verwaltungen“ in:
Scheer, A.-W. (ed.): Electronic Business und Knowledge Management, Heidelberg (1999)
143-165 [in German].
6. Davenport, T. H. „Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information
Technology” Boston 1993.
7. Davenport, T. H., and Short, J. E. „The New Industrial Engineering: Information
Technology and Business Process Redesign” in Sloan Management Review, 31 (1990) 4,
S. 11-27.
8. Eifert, M. „Online-Verwaltung und Schriftform im Verwaltungsrecht“ in Kommunikation
und Recht. O. Jg. (2000) 10, S. 11-20.
9. Gisler, M. „Einführung in die Begriffswelt des eGovernment“ in: M. Gisler, D. Spahni
(Hrsg.): eGovernment. 2. Auflage, Bern et al. 2001, S. 13-32.
10. Hammer, M., and Champy, J. „Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
Revolution” New York 1993.
11. Hagen, M. „Die Auswahl online-geeigneter Dienstleistungen“ in: H. Reinermann (Hrsg.):
Regieren und Verwalten im Informationszeitalter. Heidelberg 2000, S. 414-427.
12. Hansmann, H., Laske, M., and Luxem, R. „Einführung der Prozesse – Prozess-Roll-out“
in: J. Becker, M. Kugeler, M. Rosemann (Hrsg.): Prozessmanagement. Ein Leitfaden zur
prozessorientierten Organisationsgestaltung. 4. Auflage, Berlin et al. 2003, S. 277-307.
13. Hammer, M. „Re-Engineering Work: Don't Automate – Obliterate” Harvard Business
Review, 68 (1990) 4, S. 104-112.
14. Isselhorst, H. „Klassifikationsschema für E-Government-Verfahren“ in: BSI (Hrsg.): EGovernment-Handbuch. Bonn 2001.
M.
„Informationsmodellbasierte
Organisationsgestaltung.
Modellie15. Kugeler,
rungskonventionen
und
Referenzvorgehensmodell
zur
prozessorientierten
Reorganisation” Berlin 2000.
16. Kugeler, M., and Vieting, M. „Gestaltung einer prozessorientiert(er)en Aufbauorganisation“ in: J. Becker, M. Kugeler, M. Rosemann (Hrsg.): Prozessmanagement. Ein
Leitfaden zur prozessorientierten Organisationsgestaltung. 4. Auflage, Berlin et al. 2003,
S. 227-276.
17. Langkabel, T. „e-Government – Der Weg ist das Ziel“ in: V.O.P., Sonderheft 2 (2000) 68.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
18. Meffert, H., Bruhn, M. „Dienstleistungsmarketing. Grundlagen – Konzepte – Methoden”
3. Auflage, Wiesbaden, 2000.
19. Neumann, S., Probst, C., and Wernsmann, C. „Kontinuierliches Prozessma-nagement“ in:
J. Becker, M. Kugeler, M. Rosemann (Hrsg.): Prozessmanagement. Ein Leitfaden zur
prozessorientierten Organisationsgestaltung. 4. Auflage, Berlin et al. 2003, S. 309-335.
20. Rosemann, M., Schwegmann, A., and Delfmann, P. „Vorbereitung der Prozessmodellierung“ in: J. Becker, M. Kugeler, M. Rosemann (Hrsg.): Prozessmanagement. Ein
Leitfaden zur prozessorientierten Organisationsgestaltung. 4. Auflage, Berlin et al. 2003,
S. 47-105.
21. Schwegmann, A., and Laske, M. „Istmodellierung und Istanalyse“ in: J. Becker, M.
Kugeler, M. Rosemann (Hrsg.): Prozessmanagement. Ein Leitfaden zur
prozessorientierten Organisationsgestaltung. 4. Auflage, Berlin et al. 2003, S. 159-190.
22. Zangemeister, C. „Nutzwertanalyse in der Systemtechnik. Eine Methodik zur
multidimensionalen Bewertung und Auswahl von Projektalternativen” München 1970.