Key Differences of Private and Public Sector Business Process Change

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to e-Service Journal This content downloaded from 128.163. ABSTRACTThe public sector is subject to constant changes. In order to tackle the current financial, social, and political challenges, public sector organizations all over the world need to rethink, adapt, and change their underlying service processes. Prompted by these challenges public managers have turned to the private sector for solutions. By facilitating resource efficiency and allowing for a more straightforward way of service provision, business process change (BPC) assumes a leading role in the transformation of public administrations. Yet, in the past decades many BPC projects both in private and in public have failed to realize their objectives. However, the public sector should not only learn from its own failures, but also from the mistakes made in private sector BPC implementations. A huge amount of case studies exist on the topic of BPC which provide comprehensive reviews of past failures and successes. So far, this rich pool of knowledge has remained unexploited. This paper identifies the main differences between private and public sector BPC implementations as reported in 128 case studies. Based on this meta-case analysis, we juxtapose current consensuses as well as contentious issues.

Relational Contracting Conceptual Model for Public Sector Construction Organisations: An Indian Context

“…In fact, top management is considered as a role model (Voet, Kuipers and Groeneveld, 2015). Whenever employees see their top managers committing both time and effort to bring about the change, employees' commitment to change and moral support will also be more likely ( Jurisch et al, 2013). For effective implementation, employees must also know what is to be achieved and be clear about the direction of change to reduce employee uncertainty and obtains their support (Buick, Blackman and O'Donnell, 2015).…”

Beyond Public Sector Reform – The Persistence of Change

“…The context of public sector agencies is that they are vulnerable to changes of government, shifting political agendas and divergent leadership direction (Jurisch et al. ). This can lead to a plethora of goals, some of which may well be in conflict with each other (Kuipers et al.…”

“…At the macro-level, academic writers on change management in the public sector note the greater intensity of political influence on public sector organisations (in contrast to the private sector) and the complexity of their stakeholder arrangements. The context of public sector agencies is that they are vulnerable to changes of government, shifting political agendas and divergent leadership direction (Jurisch et al 2014). This can lead to a plethora of goals, some of which may well be in conflict with each other (Kuipers et al 2014).…”

“…In the last 3 years there have been a number of relevant meta‐analyses reviewing the extensive literature on change management within the public sector (Jurisch et al. ; Kuipers et al. ; Orazi et al.…”

“…In the last 3 years there have been a number of relevant meta-analyses reviewing the extensive literature on change management within the public sector (Jurisch et al 2014;Kuipers et al 2014;Orazi et al 2013). This literature emphasises the importance of the context of change (public or private sector environments); the direction of the change (top-down, bottomup, or mixed approaches); and the role of the individual (choosing change, or 'chosen by change' through processes such as organisational 'downsizing'; Higgs and Rowland 2005).…”