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