Norbert Ahrend, Konrad Walser and Henrik Leopold
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 gives an overview of our research methodology and explains the data collection procedure. Section 3 presents the actual comparative analysis of the three case studies. Section 4 discusses the implications of our work before Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. Methodology
This section introduces the methodology of our research. In Section 2.1 we explain the general design and data collection. In Section 2.2 we systematically derive the criteria for the comparative analysis.
2.1 General design and data collection
The research method of our work is a comparative analysis based on a multiple case study design. In general, case studies allow the researcher to investigate a phenomenon within its real‐life context( Yin, 2009). The advantage of multiple case studies is possibility to additionally gain insights from the comparative analysis of the cases.
For the data collection we conducted interviews with different employees of public authorities in the respective countries. In total we conducted 13 interviews: six in Germany, five in Switzerland and two in Austria. In each country we included employees from different positions to avoid biases resulting from a particular viewpoint. In the six interviews from Germany, we interviewed three clerks from municipalities and federal authorities, two lower authority managers, and one top manager. In Switzerland we interviewed two clerks from municipalities and federal authorities, two lower authority managers, and one top manager. In Austria we interviewed two top managers.
Table 1: Overview of conducted interviews
|
Germany |
Switzerland |
Austria |
No. of interviews with clerks |
3 |
2 |
‐ |
No. of interviews with lower managers |
2 |
2 |
‐ |
No. of interviews with top managers |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Total No. of interviews |
6 |
5 |
2 |
For the analysis of the interviews we used the qualitative content analysis as described by Mayring( Mayring 2007).
2.2 Derivation of comparison criteria
For the derivation of suitable comparison criteria, we investigated literature on BPM in public administration. In this context the so‐called system models are of particular interest as they deal with the question how BPM can be positioned in public administration( Becker et al. 2012).
Building on the insights from( Traunmüller and Wimmer 2005) and( Schaffroth 2012) the administration( process management) can be represented as a system ‐ with input and output( see Figure 1). The input usually comes from the suppliers( private sector or other administrations) or customer requests by means of forms. The output typically takes the form of bilateral service exchanges between the customer and administration. The elements of the BPM system, which is determined by the input and output as well as by the system limits, respectively exist on each organizational level of the administration, such as German Federal Government / federal states / local authorities. The division of tasks between these elements and the relationships are clearly defined in accordance with the constitution, legislation, and directives( subsidiarity). These determine the tasks of the administration, which can in turn be accessed through services. From a technological point of view, this system includes methods, tools( for the BPM as well as for the technical implementation of business processes) that are in turn used by the administrative units. The system of process management in turn is determined by means of external factors: Politics, market, justice system.
12