4 . Discussion
Norbert Ahrend , Konrad Walser and Henrik Leopold
Summarizing the findings from the comparative analysis , we can make the following statements . The public administrations of all three countries have recognized the necessity of introducing BPM . The deviating strategies towards the implementation of BPM result from differences in culture , differences in complexity due to the overall size of the country , and the preexistence of different technical solutions . As far as it can be assessed from the current analysis , there are no indicators that one of the strategies will be more successful in the future . Rather , it can be expected that all three strategies will eventually result in the implementation of BPM in public authorities . However , some maturity levels can be only reached , if according measures are taken . For instance , it is rather unlikely that the full potential is used if there is no opportunity for public authorities to exchange knowledge and experiences with regard to process management and optimization . Another aspect is given by the overall pace of the BPM implementation . From the analysis , we derived the following suggestions for accelerating the BPM implementation :
• Germany : Standardization might accelerate and improve the orientation of the current BPM initiatives in Germany . Since there are currently hardly any standards available , the process of voluntary agreement among the public authorities may unnecessarily slow down the success of the overall BPM initiative .
• Switzerland : Strengthening the business side could accelerate the BPM implementation in Switzerland . In particular , stronger impulses from the business side are needed . Consequently , the business must be accordingly integrated in the decision processes .
• Austria : Making the acquired knowledge available via process exchange platforms , could increase the success of Austria with respect to the interlocking of business and IT . As a result , the acquired knowledge will be readily available to a big audience .
Finally , we can use the analysis to derive some general success factors for the implementation of BPM in public administration . Note , that these findings are not representative , but rather represent first insights . Following the structure of the employed comparison criteria , the subsequent list summarizes the main hypotheses we derived from the conducted analysis :
• Framework conditions : The analysis suggests that the framework conditions do not have a big impact on the overall BPM success . Although , the three countries have similar conditions , they followed totally different strategies . A critical point in this context is the political backing . Without management commitment a holistic approach as BPM cannot be successfully implemented .
• Input variables : For the efficient execution of processes it is important to avoid media disruptions . Accordingly , it is significant that the process data is available in a digital format . Here Austria impressively demonstrated its success . However , the Austrian success must be discussed against the background of the small size of Austria . In Germany , the enforcement of a consequent digitalization would be much more challenging .
• Methods and standards : Especially for administrations it can be a promising strategy to first focus on support processes . By harmonizing processes , which are shared by all administration authorities , BPM success can be effectively realized . Concerning standards , it is essential that partnerships among the different authorities can be easily and effectively established . The example of Switzerland has shown that standards can be actually the result of a bottom‐up process . However , therefore it is of prior importance that the authorities are well connected .
• Tools : The most important characteristic of a tool is the support of the previously mentioned partnerships . Tools should not be a self‐purpose , but consequently support authorities in exchanging ideas and insights .
• Challenges : The consequent interlocking of business and IT must be considered as an important factor for the BPM implementation .
Finally , the findings of this paper have to be discussed from the perspective of some limitations . As discussed in Section 2 , the methodology of this paper falls in the category of qualitative research methods . Hence , our findings are not representative . The limited number of cases and interviews do not allow us to draw generalizable conclusions . However , the goal of qualitative research is of a different nature . As the insights in the research field of BPM in public administration are currently very limited , the findings of our paper represent an important first step . As a result , the insights from this paper have implications for both , theory and practice . In further research our findings can guide future qualitative research initiatives or they could form the basis of a
17