Report on Business Process Re‐engineering for e‐Governance Projects

Report on Business Process Re‐engineering
for e‐Governance Projects

November 2010

Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Government of India

Table of Contents

Introduction

1

Business Process Re-engineering – Definition

1

Government Process Re-engineering

2

Government Process Re-engineering – Strategy and Framework

4

Recommendations of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission

8

Conclusion

10

Introduction
e‐Governance is in essence, the application of Information and Communications Technology to
government functioning in order to create ‘Simple, Moral, Accountable, Responsive and
Transparent’ (SMART) governance. This new paradigm focuses on the use of information
technology to bring public services to the doorsteps of our citizens and businesses.‐Governance
comprises decisional processes and the use of information and communications technology for
wider participation of citizens in public affairs.
e‐Governance has to be comprehensive; mere introduction of the IT component is not an end
in itself. Comprehensive e‐Governance reforms cover the process; preparedness and the
technology; and the people. Introduction of e‐Governance needs process engineering as the
first step. Unless the processes and procedures and even structures of government are re‐
engineered, e‐Governance projects cannot succeed. Technology comes second, only after the
processes have been re‐engineered. And ultimately, in order to make the reforms sustainable
the people in the concerned departments/ agencies have to internalize the change. This is also
one of the reasons why e‐Governance projects succeed at the pilot level but ‘when up‐scaled’
they become unsustainable.
The types of services possible through e‐Governance can be broadly classified into three
categories ‐ providing information, improving processing efficiency and facilitating transactions.
Amongst these, providing information is the simplest and the degree of complexities increase
as we move from information to transactions. But it is the second and the third category of
services that provide maximum convenience to the citizens. The challenge is to cover such
services.

Business Process Re‐engineering – Definition
Business Process Re‐engineering has been defined as: “fundamental rethinking and radical
redesign of business processes to bring about dramatic improvements in performance”.
Business process re‐engineering is not ‐ downsizing, restructuring, reorganization, automation,
new technology, etc. It is the examination and change of five components of the business ‐
Strategy, Processes, Technology, Organization and Culture.
Re‐engineering became very popular in the early 1990s, however, the methodology and
approach was not fully understood or appreciated. Many times, improvement projects labeled
with the title ‘Business Process Re‐engineering’ were poorly planned and executed. Employees
and organizations cringed at the thought of another ‘Business Process Re‐engineering’
experience. The term itself is being used less, or is being altered so that these types of
initiatives are not associated with the "Business Process Re‐engineering" of the past.

1

The alternative business improvement methodology is Continuous Process Improvement, which
emphasizes small and measurable refinements to an organization’s current processes and
systems. Continuous process improvement has its origins in Total Quality Management and Six
Sigma.

Government Process Re‐engineering
There is an increased emphasis of usage of information and communications technology in the
delivery of public services. Information and communications technology is starting to redefine
the landscape of government by changing the relationships (power and responsibility) between
players — between service providers and industry, amongst the public, private and third party
sectors, and between government and citizen.
Government Process Re‐engineering is a necessary condition for the realization of the benefits
of e‐Governance. The importance of process redesign to facilitate and ensure best practices in
the realm of e‐Governance needs to be emphasized. While deployment of IT solutions increases
the efficiency of operations, it will not necessarily deliver the best results unless the processes
are reconfigured. There is always a threat that replacement of manual processes by machine‐
based processes will only lead to ‘automated’ waste. Process re‐engineering ensures that the
processes are redesigned to make them most effective and deliver the maximum value to the
government, its employees and the citizens.
It is vital that the process redesign, i.e. the critical analysis and redesign of workflows and
processes within and between governmental departments, is undertaken if we are to achieve
breakthrough improvements in performance. Hence, features of a good Government Process
Re‐engineering exercise are:
•

Innovativeness: It should come up with solutions rather than replicating the manual
system.

•

Transformation: It should bring about a drastic improvement in the quality of services
provided.

•

Rationalization of forms and data requirements: Very often the information asked for in
the application is rarely used or is already available with the Government. A good
Government Process Re‐engineering would question the need of all information sought.

•

Efficient usage of data: Very often the information sought is available in the government
domain. Hence asking for the same is a redundant activity. In a Government Process Re‐
engineering, one has to differentiate between a government rule and a procedure. Very
often it is seen that procedures can be completely revamped through the use of IT.

2

GOVERNMENT RULE

Citizen
Application

Delivery
Interface

Citizen
Interface
• Application
fee
• Affidavit
• Attested
photocopy
• Forms

Process

• Money
transfer
• Physical
paper
(ecopy?)
• ….

Citizen
Output

Technology Support

There are some elements of government that will not change and remain challenging for re‐
engineering implementers. For instance, government agencies are subject to greater political
executive management and oversight. Election cycles and administration changes also affect re‐
engineering efforts. Legislation, taxpayer accountability, competition for funding and resources,
as well as partnerships with international, state, and local governments will continue to
challenge government agencies. Perhaps the most critical challenge for government lies in the
area of risk‐taking. Historically the culture of the government has been to avoid risk. Any
successful re‐engineering effort will need to embrace change and negotiate some degree of
risk. Also, government cannot choose its customers. It is perceived by the staff entrusted with
re‐engineering that their jobs are under threat from the transformation.
Re‐engineering recognizes that a department's processes are usually fragmented into sub‐
processes and tasks that are carried out by several functional areas within the department.
Often, no one is responsible for the overall performance of the entire process. Re‐engineering
maintains that optimizing the performance of sub‐processes can result in some benefits, but
cannot yield dramatic improvements unless the effort focuses on redesigning the process as a
whole. This drive for realizing dramatic improvements, by fundamentally rethinking how the
department's work should be done, distinguishes re‐engineering from process improvement
efforts that focus on functional or incremental improvement.
Those responsible for a specific process are called process owners. The re‐engineering team
consists of designers, implementers, and people well versed in technology. The team should be
cross‐functional, and include members from all impacted functions.

3

Analyzing a process involves looking at how things are currently done, what changes are
occurring, and what new contingencies exist in the current business environment. It requires
determining where the process begins and where it ends—the boundaries of the process—and
understanding the underlying reasons why a process is performed a certain way. In executing
this analysis, agencies may realize that the dramatic change involved in a more orthodox BPR
effort might not be necessary. A slower, incremental approach might be more appropriate.  It is
not always necessary to go for a total transformation approach.
There are many possible drivers for re‐engineering the current processes adopted by the
government departments. To address some of these drivers, we can consider the following five
scenarios that address some of the typical issues which arise while designing new processes or
amending existing processes:
•

Redesign existing processes ‐ this is where existing processes are revisited to improve
performance. This may also include ceasing parts of processes

•

Fundamentally reworking the way a process is executed ‐ here the process tasks and steps
may remain largely the same but how and where the process is executed may be changed

•

Replaced completely ‐ here the focus is just on gathering existing performance measures,
considering migration issues and capturing experience to avoid problems being replicated in
the replacement process

•

Remove the process ‐ if a process is to be removed or replaced, the focus may be on the
overall process performance measures to show the impact of the removal and the
boundaries or connections to other processes which have to be changed

•

Outsource the process ‐ here the process mapping may need to be at a lower level of detail
to ensure that all nuances of the current process are captured.

Government Process Re‐engineering: Strategy and Framework
Re‐engineering starts with a high‐level assessment of the organization's mission, strategic goals,
and citizen needs. Within this framework, re‐engineering focuses on the organization's
processes ‐ the steps and procedures that govern how resources are used to meet the needs of
the citizens.
The following are the areas which must drive the Government Process Re‐engineering exercise
in government departments:
•

Service Orientation: Re‐orientation of government processes with focus on citizen’s
expectations and delivering services to his satisfaction.

4

•

Streamlining: The processes between provider (government) and customer (citizen,
businesses, employees) need to be reduced leading to faster delivery of services.

•

Standardization: Similar type of work should be done in the same way.

•

Information Management: Government Information is a strategic resource and should be
managed effectively throughout its life cycle (capture, store, process, apply, exchange and
reuse).

•

Partnerships: Government processes need to be oriented in such a manner, so as to
facilitate partnerships among all stakeholders including private sector agencies.

•

Enabling Technology: Information and communication technologies should be used for
redesigning government processes as well as for delivery of government services.

•

Continuous Improvement of Services: The design of government processes should
incorporate performance standards and evaluation mechanism to enable continuous
improvement of government services.

•

Monitoring and Evaluation: Monitoring of e‐Governance projects should be done by the
implementing organization in the manner similar to project monitoring for large
infrastructure projects. Even after the project has been implemented, constant monitoring
would be required to ensure that each component is functioning as per design. Evaluation
may be done by independent agencies on the basis of parameters fixed beforehand.

Any change may impact several agencies. Re‐engineering leads to wide ramification across the
organization, as shown in the figure below. Implementation of a re‐engineering initiative
usually has considerable impacts across organizational boundaries, as well as impact on
citizens. For this reason, it requires sensitivity both to employee attitudes as well as to the
ramifications of changes in their lives.

5

The f
following tasks as show in the fig
wn
gure below are part of any function management
nal
appro
oach to re‐engineering p
projects:

6

Six Sigma ‐ a Framework for Government Process Re‐engineering
It is often not possible to wipe the slate clean and start afresh at redesigning a process.
However, Six Sigma is a structured methodology that can be used to improve the quality of
service and performance. Once the actual performance level for any service is known, its
performance level can be improved using Six Sigma. Following diagrams gives the details on the
two commonly used techniques for improving process using Six Sigma:

DMAIC

Define

DMAIC
DFSS

Measure

Analyze

Improve

Control

Used for improvements in the existing processes
Used for new processes to build six sigma right
from the beginning.

DFSS

Design

For

Six

Sigma

Six Sigma’s Define Measure Analyze Improve Control (DMAIC) offers a framework for improving
existing processes.
Design for Six Sigma (DFSS), on the other hand, offers a framework that is specifically geared at
creating new processes.
Six Sigma brings to Government Process Re‐engineering the following elements:
•

Proven set of statistical tools and methods to eliminate variation

•

Data driven design or improvement

•

Use of scorecards, dashboards, metrics and baselines

•

Stage‐gating to ensure initial assumptions are valid while maintaining vigilance for changes

•

Elimination of waste – time, effort or resources

•

All efforts are linked back to the ‘Voice of the Citizen’, the strategy and the objectives

7

Recommendations of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission Under the
National e‐Governance Plan, Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances is
responsible for generic process re‐engineering and Change Management, which are desired to
be realised across all Government departments.
The Standing Committee on Information Technology (2005‐06, Fourteenth Lok Sabha) in its
22nd Report entitled ‘Implementation of e‐Governance Projects’ (December 2005)
recommended the following:
“The Committee observe that the age‐old statutes and regulations governing the manual
process will not be suitable for governing the electronic processes which require altogether a
different set of legal framework and guidelines to make the e‐Governance successful. The
Committee, therefore, recommend that a comprehensive review of all relevant statutes and
regulations should urgently be done to bring about suitable changes therein so as to make
them compatible with the cyber age technology enabling the citizens to obtain maximum
advantage of e‐Governance projects. They further recommend that possibility of bringing a new
legislative mechanism may also be explored to ensure that the implementation of e‐
Governance projects delivers the citizen‐centric services in an effective and successful manner.”
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) agreed with the views of the Standing
Committee. The task involving complete re‐engineering of government processes is
stupendous. Without providing the legal structure and mandate, it would be difficult to achieve
it within any realistic time‐frame. In fact, the ARC has recommended that the whole framework
of e‐Governance should be given a statutory backing. Even in the US, legislation has provided
this framework to government entities. Section 202 of Title II of the E‐Government Act of 2002
of the US prescribes ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities’.
Also, the wholehearted participation of government officials within a department cannot be
overemphasized while re‐engineering processes as, in the end, the technological solutions
would have to be put to effective use only by them. In fact, each government department
would be required to constitute a team drawing from expertise available within the department
at various levels of functioning.
Once the business processes have been re‐engineered and the technological solutions
developed, these should be tested in real life situations to assess their functioning. e‐
Governance projects should not be implemented on a large scale, in the very first instance. To
start with, a pilot project should be designed to work in the most difficult circumstances, so
that the bottlenecks and shortcomings are identified during the pilot stage itself. There should
be flexibility within the initiative to adjust to problems thrown up at the pilot stage and a two‐
way feedback process should be ensured between the BPR exercise and the pilot stage with the

8

BPR leading to the pilot stage and pilot stage leading to further changes in the BPR. The whole
exercise should focus on forms, processes, structures and regulations.
Case Study: Business Process Re‐engineering Project of Income Tax Department
One of the earliest departments to undertake a study of its business processes with the
objective of re‐designing them using information and communication technology was the
Income Tax Department. An external consultant was appointed through a global tendering
process for carrying out the business process re‐engineering project. The project commenced in
May 2007 and was completed with the finalization of 18 reports within eight months. To begin
with, awareness was created about the need for such an exercise through meetings with
employees as well as their associations/ unions. This was aimed at developing a sense of
ownership within the workforce. In the end, more than 800 departmental personnel from Chief
Commissioners to Group ‘C’ employees participated in the exercise. Further, customer views
were ascertained through specifically designed questionnaires administered to different
categories of taxpayers and consultants. The study included an ‘As‐is’ study phase aimed at
mapping of existing processes followed by a ‘gap analysis’ to identify problem areas and
bottlenecks. These, along with best global practices in the field of tax administration, were
incorporated in re‐designing the processes and suggesting ‘To‐be’ models. Such ‘To‐be’ models
and recommendations have been prepared in respect of the following:
• Bulk Operations Division including Regional Processing Centre
• Facilitation Centres and Receipt and Despatch Units
• Changes to PAN/ TAN Issuance and Management
• Assessee Tax Credit Accounting System
The Union Finance Minister announced in his Budget Speech of 2006 about business process re‐
engineering in the Income Tax Department. A Directorate of Business Process Re‐engineering
was created within the Department in May 2006 which launched this exercise with the
following objectives:
• Re‐evaluation of all current processes to remove redundant and obsolete processes and
redesign/create new processes
• Identification of stakeholders for information, convenience of filing tax returns & documents,
payment of taxes and speedier issue of refunds and the ways in which the department can
meet them
• Increase alignment between people, processes and technology
• Enhance employee involvement, skills and departmental creativity

9

The 18 reports are focused on the key strategic areas of tax administration i.e. pre‐assessment,
assessment, post‐assessment and appellate/ dispute avoidance as well as key enabling
processes such as information technology, human resources, infrastructure etc. This project
was undertaken in two phases: an ‘As‐is’ study phase and a ‘To‐be’ Model stage. It was
conducted at 15 locations which included metros (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata), mid‐size cities
(Hyderabad, Nagpur, Patna, Bhopal, Mysore, Lucknow, Guwahati, Ludhiana and Shillong) and
moffusil areas (Hajipur, Mandya, Itarsi).
The business process re‐engineering exercise came up with a major recommendation of
functionally segregating the working of the department across two broad lines – a Bulk
Operations Division (BOD), handling routine and repetitive activities, not requiring the use of
discretion and amenable to large scale automation and a Compliance Operations Division (COD)
to carry out specialized activities. Earlier, the same set of people were doing both these jobs.
CBDT accepted a majority of the recommendations.
The lessons which emerged from this project were:
i.

the workforce has to believe in the benefits of business process re‐engineering through
ICT;

ii.

There is no shortcut to step‐by‐step examination of all business processes

iii.

Each government department will have its own specific set of design outcomes which
would require close interaction between technological solution providers and the
domain experts.

Conclusion
The entire gamut of activities under Government Process Re‐engineering could be classified
into the following four heads:
Clear assessment of citizens’ needs
Analysis of the existing processes and identification of the weaknesses and
redundancies
Redesigning of processes and the required changes to be made in the statues and
regulations.
Bringing about changes – in forms, processes, structures and statutes.
Accordingly, the major recommendations for Government Process Re‐engineering are:
For every function a government department performs, there should be a step‐by‐step
analysis of each process to ensure its rationality and simplicity.
10

Such analysis should incorporate the viewpoints of all stakeholders, while maintaining
the citizen‐centricity of the exercise.
After identifying steps which are redundant or which require simplification, and which
are adaptable to e‐Governance, the provisions of the law, rules, regulations,
instructions, codes, manuals etc. which form their basis should also be identified.
Following this exercise, governmental forms, processes and structures should be re‐
designed to make them adaptable to e‐Governance, backed by procedural, institutional
and legal changes.

*‐‐‐‐*‐‐‐‐*‐‐‐‐*‐‐‐‐*

11

Report on Business Process Re‐engineering for e‐Governance Projects

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to Report on Business Process Re‐engineering for e‐Governance Projects (20)

More from Consultant (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Report on Business Process Re‐engineering for e‐Governance Projects