1
Governmental transformation
How to manage the critical change factors?
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization
Januari 23, 2012 INGMAR DE VRIES Studentnumber: s1917269
Oude Ebbingestraat 82A 9712 HM Groningen tel.: +31 6 30738018
email: i.de.vries.16@student.rug.nl
First Supervisor / University Dr. K. Prins
Second Supervisor / University Prof. dr. A. Boonstra Supervisor / field of study
2
Governmental transformation
How to manage the critical change factors?
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization
Januari 23, 2012 INGMAR DE VRIES Studentnumber: s1917269
Oude Ebbingestraat 82A 9712 HM Groningen tel.: +31 6 30738018
email: i.de.vries.16@student.rug.nl
First Supervisor / University Dr. K. Prins
Second Supervisor / University Prof. dr. A. Boonstra Supervisor / field of study
G.B.H. Rossèl Gemeente XYZ
3 ABSTRACT
Over the past years various public organizations attempt to reorganize their business in order to achieve higher performance standards and lower cost. As a result, transformational government was introduced as the new concept derived from Business Process Redesign that should support public organization to accomplish this strategic ambition. Yet, still limited literature and practical cases on the concept ‘transformational government’ is presented in the theory. Therefore, this study wants to enrich the theory of transformational government by analyzing the influence of the critical change factors, level of governmental change, support of organizational culture, and intensity of ICT to the success of implementing BPR for governmental transformation in the municipality of XYZ. For that reason, the perspective of the change recipients was tested in a questionnaire and showed that the critical change factors positively influenced the success. Moreover, the strategic and tactical level pointed out in the in-depth interviews that the situational leadership styles of the change agents resulted in a successful fit between the nature of the change agent and the context of the change. In support, it can be argued that the combination of a top-down approach for setting the strategic framework aligned with a bottom-up approach to empower and involve the employees in the change process contributed in high acceptance and commitment. On the contrary, the interviewees indicated that the lack of clarity in the role, intensity and effect of ICT caused disturbance in the progress. As a consequence, the support of the culture condensed by these ambiguities. Besides, the radical shift from the old role culture to the new task culture also impeded the success. For that reason, it is up to the change agents to find a balanced approach in managing the critical change factors of organizational change to succeed in governmental transformation.
4 TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRODUCTION ... 5
LITERATURE STUDY ... 8
Definition BPR ... 8
Transformational government and BPR ... 9
Success of implementing BPR for governmental transformation ... 9
Level of transformational change ... 10
Support of organizational culture ... 16
Intensity of ICT ... 18 Conceptual model ... 20 METHODS ... 21 Data collection ... 21 Interviews ... 21 Questionnaire ... 23 Data analysis ... 24 Interviews ... 24 Questionnaire ... 24 RESULTS ... 27 Quantitative analysis ... 27 Correlations. ... 27 Regression. ... 28 Qualitative analysis ... 31
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ... 42
Conclusion ... 43
Conceptual model ... 46
Theoretical and managerial implications ... 47
Suggestion for further research and limitations ... 48
REFERENCE ... 51
5 INTRODUCTION
From the beginning of the 1990s, public administration has been confronted by a series of new demands (Becker, Algermissen and Niehaves, 2006). Over the past decades, rapidly evolving information and communication technology (ICT) have permeated nearly every aspect of government, business, and daily life (Dawes, 2008). The traditional public services were highly bureaucratic and siloed, where citizens had no choice of selecting a service provider (Weerakkody, Janssen and Dwivedi, 2011). Nowadays, new technologies emphasize on faster and easier interaction between the State and Society which enables choice. Additionally, these new technologies must contribute to the ambition of governmental transformation that focuses on operating in an efficient and effective manner. Thereby, increasing the quality of public services and reducing administrative cost.
Simultaneously in the early 1990s, business process redesign (BPR) came blazing onto the business scene as the savior of underperforming organizations (Paper & Chang, 2005). BPR, an enabler of organizational transformation (Davidson, 1993 & Venkatraman, 1994), has significant social, organizational and technical challenges that need to be considered and overcome in those efforts that strive towards achieving governmental transformation (Affisco & Soliman, 2006; Horton & Wood-Harper, 2006). But, is solely BPR sufficient enough to successful transform the government’s current state of performing towards the governmental ambition?
The case of this empirical study emphasize on the change initiatives performed by the management team of the municipality XYZ (BO). The management team of BO transformed the organization over the last years in line with the ambition on operating Public Services formulated by the government in Concept Antwoord©. In short, BO wishes to enhance their public services and reduce administrative charges by reorganizing the organizational structure and business processes. Initially, these change initiatives embrace solely technical challenges. However, in order to successful execute change, social-cultural challenges are as important to take in consideration for gaining full acceptance of the employees in governmental context. So, how should a management team of the government successfully perform a BPR change initiative in order to achieve governmental transformation?
6 Presently, the change process is ended. Now, the change agents are interested in their performance during the change process concerning three critical points. Firstly, the change agents want to acquire a deeper understanding of the match between practical and theoretical foundations of BPR in governmental transformation. Secondly, the change agents want to examine the cohesion of the change approach in the organization. Thirdly, the change agents are interested in the criticism of the tactical and operational level regarding their performance in the change process. Summarized, the management team wants to evaluate the change process and examine which factors were, and becoming, leading for realizing the governmental transformation. However, before elaborating on the management question, a brief introduction of the road towards the governmental ambition is clarified.
The inducement to radically change the public service is initiated due to the question raised by the customer of the public services, the citizens. Often citizens or entrepreneurs do not know where to make a request at the government considering a specific topic. Ambiguity arises when the customer undertakes action to reach contact with the government. So, where to start? And how to get in touch with the government? By phone or physical contact, or could the customer self-manage their question online? To resolve this ambiguity, municipalities, provinces, water authority, executive organizations and the empire formulated the ambition of working together on gaining better accessibility of the government and improving visibility and openness of governmental information and services.
Concept Antwoord©1 is the foundation for realizing this ambition and is developed by ‘het National Uitvoerings Programma Dienstverlening en E-Overheid (NUP). Antwoord© provides explicit knowledge, building blocks, systems and support that helps the government improve their public services. The goal is to give quick, understandable and correct answers through different communication channels that are easy to track for the customers. Therefore, the municipality BO enhanced their public services by reorganizing the complete internal organization. Subsequently, concrete changes included redesigning front-office into the Customer Contact Centre (CCCentre) and reorganizing back-office into the in-house specialism. Additionally, the in-house specialism primary focuses on upgrading the content of the activities in order to best support the CCCentre in enhancing and accelerating responds to customer questions. As a result, the constraints in terms of the technical side of the organization are completed and processes are working conform the LEAN standards.
1
7 Consequently, the question that remains was how the change agents did managed the soft-side and hard-side of the change? Therefore, from the perspective of the consultant, this study places emphases on how to manage the BPR change initiative in the public organization of BO. So, how should the management team of BO act in this specific change process to gain support of the employees without losing their persuaded ambition on operating Public Services? From this point of view the following research question is formulated;
How do the critical change factors influence the success of implementing BPR for Governmental transformation performed by the change agents of XYZ?
In support of the research question this study examines the influence of five independent variables, so called critical change factors, on the success of governmental transformation due to using BPR. Weerakkody et al. (2011), research shows that central support, leadership, resistance to change and culture are critical in achieving governmental transformation. Concisely, these critical change factors are translated to the level of change leadership, the level of resistance, and the support of organizational culture. Moreover, we determined in consultation with the change agents that the level of governmental transformation and, the intensity of ICT cannot lack the list because of the importance of ICT and the use of BPR in governmental change.
To summarize, firstly, the level of resistance is analyzed to identify the reaction on the change performance in the organization. Secondly, the level of governmental transformation is observed to obtain theoretical and practical insights on this specific change approach. Thirdly, the level of change leadership will determine how the change agents advanced their internal personnel in the change process. Fourthly, the support of organizational culture is explored and translated to its role in the change process. Finally, the intensity of ICT is analyzed in order to determine the role of ICT in the governmental transformation.
8 LITERATURE STUDY
In the early 1990s, business process redesign (BPR) came blazing onto the business scene as the savior of underperforming organizations (Paper & Chang, 2005). According to Manganelli & Klein (1994), Carr & Jahansson (1995) & Gallier (1997) a BPR initiative is commonly seen as a twofold challenge. Firstly, a technical challenge which is due to the difficulty of developing a process design that is a radical improvement of the current design. Secondly, a socio-cultural challenge, resulting from the severe organizational effects on the involved people, which may lead to react against those changes. Early advocates of BPR (e.g. Harrington, 1991; Davenport, 1993; Hammer & Champy, 1993) touted it as the next revolution in obtaining breakthrough performance via process improvement and process change. However, according to McManus and Wood-Harper (2007) significant BPR projects fail due to ‘’technical causal factors and ‘’management causal factors’’, in other words people issues. In addition, reflecting on the findings of Bergey et. al. (1999) reasons of failure include adoption of flawed BPR strategy, inappropriate use of consultants, a workforce tied to the old technologies, failure to invest in training, a legacy system out of control, IT architecture misaligned with BPR objectives, an inflexible management team, and lack of long-term commitment. Hence, before going in depth on the implication of BPR for governmental transformation a better understanding on the definition BPR is given.
Definition BPR
9 process, organization structure, and IT change. So, all authors above formulate BPR in different means but have three things in common; they analyze past business processes, they focus on the fundamental, radical improvements and they demand to achieve breakthrough performance. However, the question that remains unanswered is, how does BPR fits within governmental transformation?
Transformational government and BPR
A more often used term of BPR for governmental transformation is e-government and transformational government (t-government or e-governance), where t-government naturally evolved from e-government (Weerakkody et al., 2011). T-government distinguish itself from e-government by its broader perspectives on organizational, and socio-technical dimensions which involve fundamentally changing the structures, operations and most importantly the culture of the government (Irani et al., 2007; O’Donnel & Timonen, 2003; Ramaswamy & Selian, 2007). E-government and t-government are similar to what is seen in the private sector in the early 1990s with BPR where radical redesign of business processes was needed to achieve dramatic improvements. However, the main difference of both concepts is that t-government should focus on a broader context involving diverse stakeholders and creating incremental changes within the scope of a radical change plan (Weerakkody et al., 2011). Nevertheless, through limited literature on the concept ‘transformational government’ (Kim et. al., 2007) policy makers and practitioners could learn from BPR literature. However, this should primarily help them to leverage the lesson from BPR for achieving governmental transformation. Therefore, this study investigates the critical change factors for successfully implementing BPR in the context of governmental transformation.
Success of implementing BPR for governmental transformation
10 BPR should achieve transformational changes by gaining organizational support without damaging core values and competencies, and principles of continuous improvement (Weerakkody et al. 2011). In support, Davenport (1994) warned that IT systems, the hard side of the organization, need to match the soft requirements of the users. A strategic overview is essential to reengineered process design and the subsequent selection and installation of the hard and soft systems (O’Neill and Sohal, 1999).
Overall, Grover et al. (1995) conclude from their survey that Change Management stands out as most severe source of difficulty in BPR and is truly critical to BPR success. Change Management occupies the center stage in BPR implementation and the daunting task in breaking the organizations’ status quo and introducing new practices, new values, and new structures is overwhelming for most reengineering team members. Moreover, Grover et al. (1995) findings suggest that technological competence is necessary but never sufficient for BPR success.
As mentioned in the introduction, critical factors in achieving the governmental transformation are according Weerakkody et al (2011) central support, leadership, resistance to change and culture. Moreover, the literature appoints that the level of transformational government and intensity of ICT are also critical for matching the soft and the hard factors in the change. The level of resistance, the level of transformational change, and the level of change leadership are determinants of the level of transformational change. For that reason, this study conserves three independent variables that will be investigated in order to identify their influence on the success of implementing BPR for governmental transformation.
Subsequently, how should the change agents construct their change strategy, concerning the level, focus, and approach of the governmental transformation, aligned with the level of change leadership and the level of resistance in order to successfully implement BPR for governmental transformation?
Level of transformational change
11 characterized by radical shifts in business strategy, reorganization of systems and structures, and changes in the distribution of power across the whole organization.
As mentioned, the level of transformational change is influenced by three independent variables. And are explained as followed: Firstly, a primary source of stress during organizational transitions is widespread uncertainty (Robinson & Griffiths, 2005). Besides, transformational change can bring about job loss, reduced status, threats to self-esteem (Nadler, 1982), as well as opportunities for some. As a consequence, the level of transformational change can therefore exacerbate or amplify the level of resistance. On the other hand, the level of resistance can also force a manager to adjust the radical approach of the transformational change into a more balanced approach where radical steps are interchanged by incremental steps. Secondly, the level of transformational change is also determined by a specific change approach, focus and level of performing in the organization related to specific characters of governmental transformation. And thirdly, the level of transformational change is influenced by a certain degree of change leadership that search for a fit with the governmental environment. So, the interesting question is; to what extend is there managerial choice in developing and executing governmental transformation?
Therefore, starting off with the first sub-variable of the level of transformational change, how can the change agents act upon or influence the level of resistance in the change process? Level of Resistance. Perception varies among people. However, it can be shaped by policy. By encouraging innovation, sharing information, and providing a change blueprint, management is communicating the change vision to its people. Perception cannot be controlled, but it can be influenced by such behavior. If people know what is expected of them and their role in the change process, resistance will be drastically reduced (Paper & Chang, 2005). But, how does resistance arise in organizational transformation and what is the solution in creating readiness for change?
12 van Dick, 2009). Resistance to change is typically regarded in the management science and organizational behavior literature as an obstacle or barrier to change (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979; Klein, 1984). Although ‘resistance to change’ is a common occurrence in context of organizational transformation, people do not always resist change. Instead, Stensaker et al. (2002) stated that people will often ‘embrace change’ and work enthusiastically in support of change. Nevertheless, there is a diverse range of phenomena through which resistance to change can be manifest.
According to Palmer (2009), some examples are people resist change because they dislike the change, people are discomfort with change, people perceive negative effect on interest, people lack the conviction that change is needed etc. Additionally, change agents can also contribute to recipient reaction by breaking agreements both before and during change and failing to restore the subsequent loss of trust (Andersson, 1996), or through communication breakdowns, such as failing to legitimize change, misrepresenting its chances of success, and failing to call people to action (Ford et al. 2008). Besides, research on procedural and interactional justice (Folger et al., 1999) indicates that if change agents fail to treat the communications of change recipients as genuine and legitimate, or as extensions and translations of the change, they may be seen as resistant by change recipients.
Thus, to overcome resistance to change and reframe it to readiness for change Weerakkody et al. (2011) suggest for getting employees within the organization involved in the change initiative by offering them training and support and justifying to the employees the rationale for making the change. Armenakis and his colleagues (1999, 1993) have argued that the change message should address the need for change, the appropriateness of change and confidence in the capacity of individuals and the organization to undertake change. Therefore, Change agents have the opportunity to engage people in creating new realities, rather than in only prying them loose from old ones (Ford et al. 2008).
13 creating a workplace that allows people freedom to act on their ideas. Therefore, management needs to foster commitment and ownership at all levels (Caron et al., 1994).
The following section provides further insights on the level of governmental transformation in the change process. So, how does the theory elaborates on managerial choices in developing a strategy for executing transformational change?
Level of governmental transformation. The broad organizational focus and deliberated nature of BPR suggest a planned change in which a successful BPR project requires preparation and deliberate action, support from management, technical competence, and mitigation of resistance to the change. Rarely, however, is there unlimited control over organizational and technological consequences (Grover et al., 1995). Through implementation, this planned ‘’organizational imperative’’ may yield to a more emergent perspective involving complex indeterminate interaction among people, technology, and the need for change (Markus and Robey, 1988). Therefore, research shows that implementation problems are in fact multidimensional, involving elements of both planned and emergent change (Grover et al., 1995).
Governmental transformation considers a wide range of change tactics. In addition, a change process that complies with current organizational values and norms, skills, structures, and incentive systems is inherently evolutionary. In contrast, change that challenges or undermines the status quo, creates a new vision, and accomplishes fundamental change in values and norms, work practices, and structures is revolutionary change (Orlikowski, 1993). Therefore, Stoddard and Jarvenpaa (1995) typify BPR implementation for governmental transformation as a radical change with revolutionary change tactics. Yet, BPR scholars (Carr & Johansson, 1995; Davenport, 1993; O’Neill & Sohal, 1999) have suggested that too many radical changes disrupt customer service and destabilizes the organization and thus need to be complemented with incremental and continues change to sustain the radical breakthrough realized through BPR type of change. Moreover, the accumulation of continuous improvement alone did not result in the changes observed in the case studies of Weerakkody et al. (2011). Rather, transformation required a fundamental and radical initial step.
14 So, the amount of revolutionary change tactics depends on the scope and depth of the change. The scope of governmental change denotes the entire organization and in terms of depth of the change, transformation is described as the deepest form of change (Stoddard and Jarvenpaa, 1995). In addition to BPR accomplishing cross-functional and transformational changes, it is also expected to change the organization fast (Hammer and Champy, 1993). Therefore, the new structure should be imposed from the top in a directive or even coercive way, depending on the balance between winner and losers (Burnes, 2009). However, considering Weerakkody et al. (2011) a mix of bottom-up and top-down approach, guided by high levels of participation from all layers in the organization is more appropriate in governmental transformation. As a consequence, the radical change must be initiated in a top-down manner, but remodeling is left to the other organizational layers. In support, by offering employees training and persuade them the rationale for making the change, will enhance commitment and minimize resistance (Weerakkody et al., 2011).
The key lesson for policy makers and designers according to Weerakkody et al. (2011) is that radical change is needed for governmental transformation, opposed to incremental improvement. In contrast to BPR efforts, the changes are not implemented in a top-down manner using a big-bang approach. Instead, the empirical evidence in his 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. Therefore, for policy makers this implies that t-government begins with the introduction of radical change that is then followed by incremental improvements to services provisioning. Final note, the literature review of Weerakkody et al. (2011) also shows that the practical challenges faced in t-government are similar to BPR implementations in the private sector. Yet, the culture and environment are different and the stakeholders are many 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.
The following section explains how to find the most sufficient change leadership, contingent upon the factors within the governmental change context?
15 Level of change leadership. In general, leadership means influence, or the ability to influence others (Sims et al., 2009). In specific, change leadership represents behaviors that support/solidify organizational change (Herold et al., 2008). The concept of change leadership was derived through contemporary perspectives of leadership during organizational transition and emphasizes a change management perspective (Kotter, 1996) while including behaviors such as visioning, creating a sense of urgency around the change, and showing support for the change. Moreover, according to Sims et al. (2009); and Suctcliffe (1999) leadership should be contingent upon the factors within the specific situation. But, how is leadership reflected in the context of governmental transformation implementing BPR?
BPR implementation requires a top-down, directive leadership style. Yet, it also requires the management of motivated, skilled, independent-thinking people doing non-programmed tasks for which a non-directive leadership style is most leaded (Davenport, 1993; Johansson et al., 1993). So, there is a potential conflict between the nature of BPR and its style of leadership. Therefore, BPR leaders are required to be directive while they must also allow people to be motivated and independent (Sutcliffe, 1999). Yet, this study elaborates on change in a governmental context. As a consequence, careful considerations of the change agents are needed to find the best fit for successful leading the governmental change. Unfortunately, few theoretical analyses offer insights to scholars, and no systematic guidelines are available to practitioners in the field of governmental transformation implementing BPR.
Nevertheless, leadership is an import aspect of governmental transformation, especially in the light of e-governance. According to Sachdeva (2006) the commitment of top leadership is important for e-governance. However, leadership commitment at the project implementation level is as important at the political and bureaucratic level. In this way, the leadership provides the role of reformers who will help e-governance initiatives sail through the organization. Therefore, Sachdeva (2006) declares that the change agents must emphasize on leadership and commitment, on building awareness and confidence, and on ’winning hearts and minds’.
16 be effective. In addition, it looks at the behavior of leaders in the task they perform, in the style they use, and the pertinent situational factors in which they operate. Moreover, this contingency approach argues that there are six styles, differentiated in three style categories; directive, interactive, and non-directive. In support, Sims et al., (2009) presented an equal view, but choose to explain non-directive by means of empowering. As a result, the directive style is most appropriate when the task is easy to specify and the ability to work independently is little. In contrast, the non-directive style is suitable when the task is difficult to specify and the capability of working independently is high.
In extension of the theory of Flamzholts, in organizations a distinction can be made between transformational leadership and transactional leadership associated with the work-related needs of employees. The former appeals to physical needs, whereas the latter appeals to socio-emotional needs (Jansen, 2011). Therefore, in times of change, it can be difficult to define clear quantitative and, therefore, transformational leadership will probably be more effective than transactional leadership. In times of stability, however, clarity of clear performance targets and performance measures, which is typical of transactional leadership, may reinforce an image of consistency and stability, leading to high levels of trust and respect for the leader. Yet, such high level of trust and respect are usually associated with transformational leadership (Vera and Crossan, 2004).
The following section explores how the managers of BO can classify the nature of their culture and how should the change agents approach this organizational culture in order to gain support?
Support of organizational culture
Schein (1987) has addressed the failure of organizational change programs by arguing that the reason so many change efforts run into resistance or outright failure is traceable to the organization’s inability to effectively unfreeze and create readiness for change before attempting a change introduction. In addition, organizations often move directly into change implementation before the individual or the group to be changed is psychologically ready (Jones et al., 2005). Moreover, several authors have argued that understanding organizational
17 culture is essential for achieving successful organizational change; and where culture is ignored, change programs are likely to fail (Johnson, 1990; Pascale et al., 1997). But, what is culture?
There are literally hundreds of different definitions of culture. Culture is defined as the particular set of values, beliefs, customs and system that are unique to that organization. Culture…is a pattern of beliefs and expectations shared by the organization’s members. These beliefs and expectations produce norms and powerfully shape the behavior of individuals and groups in the organization (Schwartz and Davis, 1981). But according to Burnes (2009), the most widely accepted definition is that offered by Eldridge and Crombie (1974) who stated that culture refers to the unique configuration of norms, values, beliefs, ways of behaving and so on, that characterize the manner in which groups and individuals combine to get things done. So, based on the fundamental underpinning of culture, how can the role of culture be described in governmental transformation and which types of culture are dominating in governmental transformation?
According to Handy (1986) a distinction in western organizations can be made between role and task cultures. The role culture is appropriate to bureaucracies, and organizations with mechanistic, rigid structures and narrow jobs. In essence, role cultures create situations in which those in the organization stick rigidly to their job description (role), and any unforeseen events are referred to the next layer up in the hierarchy. On the other hand, task cultures are appropriate to organically structured organizations where flexibility and teamwork are encouraged. Task cultures create situations in which speed of reaction, integration and creativity are more important than adherence to particular rules of procedures, and where position and authority are less important than the individual contribution to task in hand. The ambition of BO is to become a task culture, yet is this possible with the current nature of BOs’ culture?
18 realist. Authors of the optimist group see culture as something that can be managed and changed. The pessimist are uncertain about attempts to change organizational culture mainly because the ethical issues caused by attempts to change culture. And, the realists seem to take a position somewhere in between (Burnes, 2009). These writers appears to agree that culture as a whole cannot be changed, but argue that certain key elements, such as norms of behavior, can be influenced by management (Schein, 1985). Consequently, from a contingency approach culture can be changed to some degree when management feels they have a choice. Therefore, support of organizational culture could be amplified.
The following section examines how the change agents should emphasis their strategy on the developments of ICT in order to cope with the pressure exerted by new demands in the public services? And, what are the consequences, on the hard and soft factors in the organization, when utilizing ICT-strategy?
Intensity of ICT
Over the past two decades, rapidly evolving ICTs have permeated nearly every aspect of government, business, and daily life (Dawes, 2008). In support of this statement, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2005) declares that over the recent years there has been wide acknowledgement that rapid advances in technological capabilities are providing public officials with the ability to reconfigure services, information management and administrative functions to achieve greater operational efficiency and higher quality services. The level of ICT refers to the intensity of ICT used in transforming the government from e-government through e-governance.
The perspective of IT professionals towards change is critical because technology implementation is an organizational intervention (Markus &Benjamin, 1996) and integral to the successful implementation of BPR (Broadbent et al., 1999). Although there is no consensus as to what constitutes BPR, there is a general agreement that IT is a powerful enabler and can result in a radical improvement by causing people to rethink business process, which in turn can lead to organizational changes in which a new strategic vision is central, rather than technology (Hammer & Champy, 1993; O’Neill & Sohal, 1999). Technology
19 facilitated the changes (Weerakkody et al., 2011). Given that the role of technology is to facilitate business processes (Davenport, 1993) and that the end goal of BPR is to delight the customer (Davenport, 1993; Drucker, 1998; Hammer & Champy, 1993; Paper & Dickinson, 1997), it is imperative not to lose sight of the importance of developing process workers and somehow extracting the knowledge they gain by being intimately involved in the effort.
E-government and e-governance (t-Government) are e-strategies related from business management studies that are customized by the Dutch Government to introduce new ways of operating in Public Service. In addition, observers employ e-government and e-governance interchangeably, thereby, inhibiting distinguishing between them. However, they are discrete patterns with the former stressing service delivery transactions and the latter networked participatory interaction (Calista & Meltitski, 2007). Additionally, Becker et. al. (2003); Marche & Mcniven, (2003) states that e-government entails the simplification and implementation, communication and transaction processes, in order to achieve, by means of information and communication technology, an administrative service, within and between authorities and, likewise, between authorities and private individuals or companies. On the other hand, e-governance is formulated by Dawes (2008); Marche & Mcniven (2003), as it compromise the use of ICT to support public services, government administration, democratic processes, and relationship among citizens, civil society, the private sector, and the state.
As a consequence of starting with e-government, it does not seem possible that the governments can stop at only information and transaction. There will be an evolution towards more complex interactions that may be characterized as e-governance, one that goes beyond public administration and begins to engage agenda setting and policy determination (Marche & Mcniven, 2003).
The following section will summarize the cohesion between the critical change factors and their influence on the success of implementing BPR in governmental transformation in the conceptual model.
20 Conceptual model
The conceptual model (Figure 1) summarizes the relationship between the independent variables mutual and their separated effect on the dependent variable. In addition, this model is developed on the basis of the literature study. Yet, we are not sure how all independent variables will influence each other, therefore the underlying relations will be tested in the regression analysis. In addition, the model conceptualizes that success of implementing BPR for governmental change is determined by the three independent variables. However, how these variables contribute collective or individual to the success will be discussed in the discussion section. Therefore, the following sub-question is presented in de next section.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model
By presenting the conceptual model, the required theoretical framework is established. Hereafter, we advance to the next chapter where the methods are presented to test the sub-questions.
Success of the BPR implementation for
Governmental Transformation Level of Transformational Change
- Level of change leadership - Level of Governmental
Transformation - Level of resistance
Support of Organizational Culture
Intensity of ICT
21 METHODS
The goal of this section is to clarify how the formulated sub-questions in the former section have been tested. The data is collected by executing a questionnaire on hard-copy followed by a sequence of in-depth interviews. Firstly, these two methods are described in terms of content, selection and setting. Secondly, the techniques that have been used to analyze the data are presented. Finally, the outcome of the data is tested upon its reliability and validity. Data collection
This study is divided in two distinct research methods; a qualitative semi-structured in-depth interview which explores the implementation of the change initiative by the change agents, and a quantitative survey that emphasized on how the change recipients react on the change actions. Mutually, these techniques enlightened the change process from different perspectives to construct an objective analysis. As a result, the integration of both approaches helped to address limitation of each by providing both statistical objectivity and a deeper understanding of the contexts (Lee, 1991; Lee and Xia, 2010).
Interviews. The qualitative study entailed a semi-structured in-depth interview which contained of a 1-2 hours one-on-one session. The in-depth interview (Appendix A) emphasized on the theoretical framework constructed in the conceptual model. The aim of the in-depth interview is to obtain significant insight from the interviewees’ specific expertise and role in the change process that are valid, relevant and complete. The structure of the interview contained of several open start-questions of which the formulation and order were fixed. Nevertheless, the interviewee was free to give answer on what he/she thought was important to mention. The first interview served as a pilot version and contributed to the definite version for the next interviews.
22 TABLE 1
Change Actors at XYZ
Number Actor Role
Group 1 The Mayor of BO Responsible for the end result of the change initiative.
Group 2 The Directors Secure the objectives of the change initiatives and give steering to the change agents.
Group 3 The Change agents / initiators Responsible for developing and executing the change.
Group 4 The External counselors Supporting the change agents in developing and executing the change by providing them with specific advice.
Group 5 The Tactical change performers Translates the strategic plan to operational level. Group 6 The Entrepreneurial council Gives a critical look on the initiated change and
responds in the best interest for the entire organization.
The total population of the strategic, tactical and external level consists of 24 employees (Table 2). Moreover, five of the 24 employees are female and 19 employees are male (21% / 79%). Furthermore, the participation percentage per level results in 100% of all employees on strategic level, 100% of all external counselors, and 23% of all the employees on tactical level. The relation between male vs. female of the total population per level is respectively 86% vs. 14%, 67% vs. 33%, and 14% vs. 7%.
TABLE 2
Frequencies of the population Classification Amount of
employees
Male nr / % Female nr / % Total % of the
level Total of the population Population 24 19 / 79% 5 / 21% 100% 100% Strategic 7/7 6 / 86% 1 / 14% 100% 29% Tactical 3/14 2 / 14% 1 / 7% 23% 12,5% External 3/3 2 / 67% 1 / 33% 100% 12,5%
23 the tactical level (23%) and three appointed from the external level (23%). The relation between male vs. female of the sample size per level is respectively 86% vs. 14%, 67% vs. 33%, and 67% vs. 33%.
TABLE 3
Frequencies of the sample Classification Amount of
employees
Male nr / % Female nr / % Total % of the
group Total of the population Sample 13 10 / 77% 3 / 23% 100% 54% Strategic 7/7 6 / 86% 1 / 14% 100% 54% Tactical 3/3 2 / 67% 1 / 33% 100% 23% External 3/3 2 / 67% 1 / 33% 100% 23%
24 respectively 29% and 24%. The average number of service years was 17,50 years (SD of 11,8).
Data analysis
We performed a data analysis in order to disclose the value of the collected data. The data analysis differentiates in a qualitative and quantitative analysis. Further, the qualitative data is examined and interpreted by the observers’ impression. Moreover, the quantitative data is analyzed with the use of the statistical program SPSS version 18.
Interviews. The output of the thirteen interviews were analyzed per variable and substantiated by the distinct groups’ one till six (Table 1). The focus of the qualitative data analysis was that we identified ‘’what’’ is done during the change process and ‘’how’’ the change initiative has been affected by its context. Additionally, similarities and difference in perspectives per group, concerning the specific variable, are examined in line with the theoretical underpinning of the change concept. Finally, the influence of the independent variable on the dependent variable is assessed with the same protocol.
Questionnaires. The quantitative data analysis contained a sequence of analysis. First, the negative formulated questions in the survey were decoded into positive formulated items. Second, the Cronbach Alpha test (Appendix C. I) and factor analysis (Appendix C. II) were conducted to test the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. Thirdly, a frequency table (Appendix C. III) was generated to acquire insights of the scores. Fourthly, the correlation analysis (Appendix C. IV) was performed to identify the strength and direction of a link between the observed variables. Fifthly, a single regression analysis (Appendix C. V) was executed to recognize the causal relation between the independent variable and dependent variable. Sixthly, a multiple regression analysis (Appendix C. VI) was run to identify the causal relation between all independent variables mutually and the dependent variable. Moreover, both regression analyses were performed in two-tailed test, because we did not know if the relation will be positive or negative. Finally, if the correlation analysis demonstrated a significant correlation between one or more independent variables, a mediation analysis will be performed (Appendix C. VII).
25 found in the literature. Therefore, the first run cannot be compared with similar analysis. Table 4 summarizes the outcome of the Cronbach alpha test.
First, the level of resistance produced an Alpha of .85. Hence, know further analyses were performed because of the lack of enrichment.
Second, the level of Governmental transformation produced an Alpha of .65. Due to the function Scale if an item is deleted the second run eliminated question three and four. Question three: ,,Wat vond u van de tijdsduur van het veranderproces (Denk + Realisatiefase)?’’ is difficult to interpret because it provides inconsistencies of when a period is identified as short or long. Question four: ,, Wat vond u van de impact van de verandering’’ refers to the same inconsistency as question three, since it is tough to interpret per individual to what extend the impact is experienced as minor or significant. As a result, the second reliability test produced α = .76.
Third, the level of change leadership produced in the first run α = .88. Therefore, this outcome provides enough reliability if no item where deleted.
Fourth, support of organizational culture produced in the first run α = .65. Therefore, this reliability value scores under the .7 alpha. However, exclusion of one of the questions will resulted in an inconsistent view of the variable. Therefore, no elimination occurred.
26 TABLE 4
Cronbach Alpha analysis
The factor analysis (Appendix C. II) was performed in a stepwise manner. The first analysis was based on all 38 question in order to identify how consistent all questions were constructed for each variable. The rotation procedure varimax was used to maximize the variance of loading of each factor with the goal to simplify factors.
The first analysis run on the extract of eigenvalue and produced eight distinct factors. The output concentrated on the first three factors and had minor results on the last factors. Therefore, the second analysis run on fixed numbers based on the five independent variables (So, five factors) and showed no significant difference. Hence, the third analysis reduced the fixed numbers to three factors and deleted the items that not were incorporated after the reliability analysis. A consistent pattern of correlation was identified. As a consequence, the three variables level of governmental transformation, level of change leadership, level of resistance merged in the first factor. Therefore, the variable ‘’the level of transformational change’’ was conducted. This variable is explained by three independent variables and scored an alpha of .92. Likewise, the intensity of ICT and the support of organizational culture showed both a consistent pattern.
Now, we proceed to the following chapter, in which the results of the analysis of the questionnaires and the interviews will be presented. As a result, these findings must give a significant insight on the influence of the independents variables regarding the success of the change process. Besides, the analysis will reveal if possible mediated relationships exist between the independent.
Reliability Statistics
Variable N Cronbach Alpha
Level of Resistance n = 6 α = .85
Level of Governmental Transformation n = 4 α = .76
Level of Change Leadership n = 6 α = .88
Support of organizational culture n = 5 α = .65
27 RESULTS
The results of this research are divided in two coherent subjects. First, the quantitative analysis presents the outcome of the correlation, regression and mediation analyses. Second, the qualitative analysis will explore the concurrence and contrasts in perspective between the divergent groups per variable. In addition, the influence of each independent variable related to the dependent variable is discussed per group.
Quantitative analysis
The quantitative analysis begins with explaining the frequencies of the statistical output. The frequency table (Appendix III) shows that the dependent and all independent variables score above average (3.10 – 3.30) on the five-point Likert scale. Moreover, question six emphasizes on judging the total change process based on a 10-point scale and scored a mark of 6.30. The variables Culture, ICT and Result have a mode of three. Yet, the variable transformational change displayed a mode of 3.75. In addition, the outcome of the frequency table declares that on average the participants responded positive on the questionnaire.
Correlations. The output of the correlation analysis, displayed in table 5 reflects certain interesting findings. In addition, the correlation analysis is performed in a 2-tailed test, with a significant level of minimal 0.05. Since, we are not sure at for hand if the relations are positive or negative. The first finding showed a significant strong positive correlation between age and service years (.60). Conversely, a significant (marginal) weak negative correlation of age (-.36) and service years (-.30) is found with the level of transformational change.
TABLE 5
Descriptive and Correlations
Variables Mean SD 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Age 3.13 1 1 2. Service 17.64 11.8 .60** 1 3. Cluster - - -.30* -.24 1 4. Transformational change 3.3 .56 -.36** -.30* .21 1 5. Culture 3.1 .42 .08 .01 -.01 .13 1 6. ICT 3.1 .75 -.20 -.27* .04 .37** -.03 1 7. Results 3.1 .49 -.26 -.18 -.01 .65** .41** .43** 1
28 Secondly, table 5 signals a significant (semi) strong positive correlation between ICT and Transformational change (-.27). As a consequence, a (partial) mediated relationship could exist. Moreover, no other significant correlations are recognized between other independent variables. Finally, Table 5 also signaled significant evidence for positive correlations between a. Transformational change vs. Results (.65), b. Culture vs. Results (.41), and c. ICT vs. Results (.43). Therefore, the strongest positive correlation was found with transformational change, followed by ICT and Culture with lower correlations.
Regression. We now proceed with the regression analysis that provides further insight in the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. Moreover, in order to obtain significant understanding of the relationship the examination consists of a single and multiple regression analysis.
Single regression. First, the single regression analysis for the variable level of Transformational Change (Appendix V.a) showed that the relationship is significant (.000). In addition, the R square of .41 demonstrated that the relationship has a declared variance of 41%. Moreover, the direction of the relationship is positive. Second, the single regression analysis for the variable Support of Organizational Culture (Appendix V.b) demonstrated that the relationship is significant (,001) and takes a positive direction. Moreover, the R-square of ,164 shows that the variance is declared for 16%. Third, the intensity of ICT (Appendix V.c) showed a significant (,001) relationship with the dependent variable. Moreover, this single regression analysis demonstrated that the direction of the relationship is positive and expresses that the variance of this relationship is for 19% explained (R-square, 18,5).
29 13%. Yet, the relationship scored insignificant. So, the outcome of this analysis is irrelevant for the research.
Second, the multiple regression analysis of the independent variables scored on the complete model significant (.000). Moreover, the correlation coefficient of this relationship is determined by .76. In addition, the determination coefficient R-Square indicates that 58% of the variance, success of implementing BPR for Governmental transformation, is declared by the three independent variables. Moreover, the direction of relationship is positive. Furthermore, the variable ‘level of governmental transformation’ has the highest absolute Beta-value of (.51), and therefore influences the dependent variables the most. Further, the variable ‘support of organizational culture’ showed a Beta-value of (.35) followed by the variable ‘intensity of ICT’ of (.25).
TABLE 6
Multiple regression analysis - Coefficients
Model 1: R²: .13, with F 2,609, Sign. .062 Model 2: R²: .58, with F 25,752, Sign. .000**
Model 3: R²: .66, with F 15,230, Sign. .000** Beta T Sig.
1 (Constant) 14,82 ,00** Age -,32 -1,90 ,06 Service -,05 -,28 ,78 Cluster -,25 -1,85 ,07 2 (Constant) MEAN Culture MEAN ICT
MEAN Transf. change
,35 .25 ,51 -,40 3,96 2,68 5,44 ,69 ,00** ,01** ,00** 3 (Constant) 1,10 ,30 Age -,20 -1,80 ,09 Service ,10 ,89 ,38 Cluster -,23 -2,61 ,01**
MEAN Transf. change ,53 5,47 ,00**
MEAN culture ,34 3,97 ,00**
MEAN Ict ,22 2,41 ,02*
30 Third, the multiple regression analysis of the control variables merged with the independent variables and scored on the complete model significant (.000). Moreover, the correlation coefficient of this relationship produced an R of .81. In addition, the determination coefficient R-square specifies that 66% of the variance, success of implementing BPR for governmental transformation, is declared by all control variables and all independent variables. The direction of the relationship is positive, yet the control variables show neutral direction. Furthermore, the variable ‘level of governmental transformation’ has still the highest absolute Beta-value of (.53), and therefore influenced the dependent variables the most. Finally, the t-values of the independent variables remained almost equal compared to the previous test. Therefore, the influence of the control variables was minimal.
Mediated analysis. The mediation analysis examined the probability of the (partial) mediated relationship between the level of governmental transformation and intensity of ICT. According to the requirements of Baron and Kenny (1986), a mediated relationship exists when at least the mediated factor (intensity of ICT) significantly relates with the independent variable (level of transformational change). Table 7 showed an insignificant score (,054). Therefore, no further action where elaborated.
TABLE 7 Mediation analysis
**. Mediation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Mediation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
a. Dependent Variable: MEANict
Model 1: R²: .07, with F 1,681, Sig. .183
Model 2: R²: .09, with F 2,304, Sig. .071 Beta t Sig.
31 Qualitative analysis
The qualitative analysis is conducted with the output of the in-depth interviews. The outline of the data is related to the theoretical framework. Moreover, the distinctness of the data is showed by the diverse roles of the interview-groups in the change process. Therefore, the data is encrypted by the different perspectives per interview-group and per distinct variable. To conclude, the basis of the data outline is related to the sub-question per independent variable. Success of implementing BPR for Governmental Transformation. The success of the change process is different formulated by the distinct groups. The reason for this occurrence is the broad approach in describing the dependent variable. Moreover, due to generalizing the dependent variable, in the success of the change process, the definition is easier to relate to practical examples, and therefore better to understand. In addition, the essence of the dependent variable remains identical, however the theoretical underpinning is now translated to practical examples.
The following statements enumerate the different opinions per change groups. The success of the change process will, according to group 1, be perceived; ‘’when all employees of the organization getting the opportunity to manifest, develop and amplify their own professionalism in the change process’’.
Moreover, group 2 describes the success as; ‘’when the new structure of the organization is consistent and everybody in the organization is in place, feels happy, and function adequately’’.
The third group delineate the success as; ‘’ when the objectives of the reorganization are disseminated by the organization and are accepted by the employees of the workforce. Key factors for success are commitment and involvement of all internal stakeholders’’.
The Fourth group states that success will be acquired when ‘’ the change obtains a sense of urgency under the employees of the organization, otherwise nothing will change’’.
32 The sixth group, states that the success of the change process is significant related to communication. Therefore, ‘’providing and getting the right information from and for all participants at the right time, in order to determine the most appropriate strategy for the reorganization.’’
To summarize, all group relate the success of the change process to soft factors like commitment, involvement and sense of urgency. Moreover, they place hard factors like sufficient operating structures, realizing the change objectives on second place. Therefore, a balance between the soft and the hard factors exist, however it highlights the importance of the soft side of changing.
Finally, the success of implementing BPR for governmental transformation scored under the groups a 7,3 averages. Moreover, the influences per independent variable on the dependent variable will be examined on the basis of this grade. From here on, concrete and explicit examples will be given by the different groups per variable in order to analyze the relationship between the independent and dependent variable. In specific, how do these critical change factors contributed to this success of the change process?
The influence of the level of Transformational change. The level of transformational change is determined by the interrelation of the three independent variables; level of resistance, level of governmental transformation and; level of change leadership.
The analysis will start first with introducing the findings of the level of resistance. Second, the perspectives on the level of governmental transformation are presented. And third, the insights on the level of change leadership are displayed.
The influence of the level of resistance. The following sub-question subjects the relationship between the level of resistance and the success of BPR implementation for governmental transformation: How does the level of resistance influence the success of BPR implementation for governmental transformation?
33 occurrence was due to the power of initiating the change process mainly with internal forces and some specific support of external counselors. Therefore, by empowering people the organization and the employees getting the opportunity to amplify and develop new competences needed in future business. Group 4 states that the resistance was minimized due to the sympathetic, social style of changing in a process manner. This means that the change agents in specific fostered commitment of the employees by engaging and involving them in the change process. Some examples where displayed in the interviews like introducing ‘brown-paper’ sessions, and organizing ‘ronde-tafel’ conversations in mixed groups of employees from different departments. Therefore, group 4 proclaims that the change agents gained trust by focusing on the process (Human) and not on the content. In conclusion, all groups approved that this approach resulted in lower resistance.
Group 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 agreed that the presentation of a consistent picture of the desired product created readiness for change. However, group 6 disagrees to this statement because they find that the communication during the change process was one of the downsides. Moreover, another critical note was revealed by a member from group 3 that appointed that in order to successfully implement the social style of performing change, a proactive behavior is needed. Yet, the presence of the reactive nature of most employees, explained in factors like informal, reserved, and misunderstanding, questions the contribution of this style of changing, and its created win-win situation. In addition, group 4 and 5 state that the current culture is a source for resistance. In example, the nature of BO’s culture is based on retaining old habits in the new situation, and saying yes; but doing no. Therefore, the culture of BO does not completely contribute in minimizing the level of resistance, because the values and old habit are deeply rooted in the organization.
34 To concluded, the level of resistance influenced the dependent variable in both positive and negative way. Moreover, this is explained by a number of change factors and tactics performed by the change agents. According to the change groups this resulted in the existence of some mediated relationships between the independent variables.
The level of resistance is minimized by a positive mediated relationship with the level of transformational government due to the sympathetic, social style of changing, and in a process manner. Moreover, the level of resistance is also minimized due to the positive mediated relationship with the level of change leadership by focusing on the process and not solely on the content. Therefore, they foster commitment under the employees by engaging them in the change process. In addition, by presenting a consistent picture of the desired change, readiness for change was amplified. However, the level of resistance was increased by a negative mediated relationship with the support of organizational culture. In addition, the reactive nature of the culture of BO was identified as a source that amplified resistance. Moreover, the lack of clear communication during the change process functioned as a disturbing factor.
Despite this existence of resistance, all groups agree that the perceived resistance is not per definition negative. Moreover, they stating that resistance will always play a certain role in executing change. Therefore, they find it important that there is an awareness of its existence and a clarification of its nature. Likewise, it confirms that the change recipients think about the change initiatives. Therefore, all groups conclude that resistance should be used as a positive factor that enforces change and determines the strategy in the change process. So, the level of resistance was minimized and contributed positive to the success of the change process.
The influence of level of Governmental Transformation. The following sub-question subjects the relationship between the level of resistance and the success of BPR implementation for governmental transformation: How does the level of governmental transformation influence the success of BPR implementation for governmental transformation.
35 involvement and participation due to a bottom-up approach. Therefore, the change agents use an interactive approach that encourage its personnel to rethink business processes, and helps them to develop the organization to its new state of performing. In addition, this system approach resulted in utilizing BO’s own professionalism by providing a platform for exposure. Moreover, examples of activities initiated by the change agents were ‘ronde-tafel-gesprekken’ in the ‘denk-fase’ and analyzing processes in workgroups during the ‘doe-fase’. Yet, some group members of group 2, and 6 disagree on the balance between the top-down and bottom-up approach. They state that the change was mainly initiated in a top-down manner and should emphasis more on bottom-up influences. Moreover, sounds of group 4 proclaiming that the culture of BO is not appropriate for the use of a bottom-up approach.
In determining whether the change is characterized as planned or emergent, different opinions exists between the groups. Most of the groups (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) stating that the change is performed in a process manner described as ‘learning by doing’ and ‘gezond-boeren-verstand’. However, some participants of group 2 and 6 declaring that the change is very fixed, where there is no room for adjustments. Yet, a similarity is found in that both groups agree that the general concept is planned at the top. The following statement of an interviewee describes the process quit clear: ‘’our intension is to build a house with a pitched roof to live in. If it results after an amount of time that a house with a flat roof is more energy efficient, and cheaper to build and maintain, it is very legitimate to modify the first plan and change the pitched roof in a flat one, because the main purpose of building a house to live in remains maintained’’.
36 Group 6 thought that the change initiators implemented the change in a too rapid pace, short term, and radical manner.
To summarize, almost all the groups display the initiated change as radical. However, the existence of both evolutionary and revolutionary change tactics make the change approach more in balance and more human oriented. The groups have no significant perspectives on the duration of the change, so group 3, 4, and 5 see the change as long-term, group 2, 3, and 6 as short and group 1 as moderate. Moreover, a remarkable finding is that the perspectives of the change agents (group 3) and the directors (group 2) are divided in long and short-term.
Last, the majority of the group agrees that the change is initiated at the top and fine-tuned at the bottom of the organization. Therefore, commitment and involvement of the employees in the change process is generated by an interactive approach. Yet, a negative mediated relationship is found by the influence of the organizational culture on the governmental transformation. Some groups proclaim that the bottom-up approach is inappropriate for the current culture of BO. Nevertheless, most of the groups see a combination of a top-down and bottom-up approach as a helpful instrument that gains commitment to the change. Therefore, this resulted in a positive influence on the success of the change process.
The influence of the level of change Leadership. The following sub-question subjects the relationship between the level of change leadership and the success of BPR implementation for governmental transformation: How does the level of change leadership influence the success of BPR implementation for governmental transformation?
