Governing Magazine/February 1994

GOVERNING GUIDE: REENGINEERING

REENGINEERING: PART OF YOUR GAME PLAN? A GUIDE FOR PUBLIC MANAGERS

By Jerry Mechling

The author is Director of Strategic Computing and Telecommunications
in the Public Sector, a research program of the Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University. The work reported here was assisted by
Tom Fletcher, Megan McLean, and Irene Yarmak.

So, you've been told to "reengineer" government. Not to settle for 10
percent improvement when you can get 100 percent or more. To improve
with great leaps rather than gradual steps. To "go for the bomb," in
football parlance, instead of merely trying for "three yards and a
cloud of dust." To do what the leading private companies are doing to
improve the way they do business.
 But what, exactly, IS reengineering? Who's doing it? Will it work for
government? Should it be a part of YOUR game plan?

WHAT IS REENGINEERING?
Reengineering is radical change. It is the fundamental redesign of
work processes, often enabled by the aggressive use of information
technologies, and intended to bring about rapid improvement. It rarely
happens. These days all sorts of projects are called "reengineering."
Most of them aren't. True reengineering means:
 --Fundamental change.
 --Rapid progress toward radical goals.
 --Selective use of appropriate information technology.
 Reengineering involves the fundamental redesign of work processes. A
work process is a regular sequence of steps taken to produce a product
or service for a customer. It begins with the intake of information
and resources from outside the organization, continues as work is
handed off from person to person, and ends when the completed product
or service is delivered. A process can be any size--large (developing
a new automobile) or small (handling routine customer complaints).
Typically, a work process cuts across organizational boundaries and
reporting relationships. New product development, for example, cuts
across the engineering and sales departments.
 In a fundamental redesign, all steps in the process are subject to
redesign; it is not reengineering if only a few steps are changed. The
sweeping nature of the change distinguishes reengineering from other
organizational change. If your change focuses on a single task or
function, but not the full sequence of tasks from inputs to customer,
it's not reengineering. If you're focusing on how information is
passed vertically up the chain of command, but not horizontally worker
to worker, it's not reengineering.
 Redesigning the organizational chart or implementing a management
information system may be valuable, but they are not, by themselves,
reengineering, even though reengineering often redraws the
organizational chart and develops new management information systems.
To be true reengineering, a project must change the horizontal flow of
work through the organization.
 True reengineering has radical goals that it intends to reach
rapidly. It seeks dramatic improvement (10-fold, not 10 percent). It
is typically pushed forward by leadership rather than pulled forward
by consensus. Incremental "fixes" are not reengineering. Reengineering
is revolution, not evolution, both in ends and means.
 Reengineered work flows are now made possible by advances in
computing and telecommunications. Networked workstations enable
employees to keep track of many more rules to guide their efforts, and
to handle broader responsibilities with fewer hand-offs. Networks
permit individuals to coordinate their efforts despite their
separation by time or distance. In general, modern information
technologies enable tasks to be carried out faster by fewer people.

WHY DOES REENGINEERING MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
So, why can reengineering produce such astoundingly large
improvements? Partly it's because there is a lot of room for
improvement in most of today's work processes. Inherited from an era
when workers were considered able to handle only the narrowest of
tasks, most work processes involve highly specialized tasks, several
hand-offs, and many layers of coordination and supervision. In
addition, most hand-offs proceed sequentially and on paper. The result
of all this is tall, high-overhead hierarchies and slow, inefficient
work processes.
 Private-sector success stories prove the potential of reengineering.
An insurance company realized that each application was processed by
15 employees over 22 days, although the application was actually
worked on for less than 45 minutes. By creating a computer-based
expert system to manage the many rules involved in reviewing an
application, the company made it possible for a single person to
process a typical application, start to finish. More complicated
applications were handed off from worker to worker via electronic
files and images through the computer network. The redesigned process
cut the manpower requirements for each application in half and the
time to process it by 90 percent. Customers who previously had to wait
22 days could get answers within two days, or sometimes within hours.
 As this example shows, successful reengineering can produce dramatic
results. It eliminates many steps and hand-offs to create flatter
organizations with lower overhead. Reengineered organizations are
faster and friendlier in meeting the needs of their customers.

PUBLIC-SECTOR REENGINEERING: WHO'S DOING IT?
To date, reengineering has been more rhetoric than reality,
particularly in the public sector. But while most of the literature
about reengineering speaks to the private sector, public leaders are
also beginning to talk about reengineering, chief among them Vice
President Al Gore. In a recent address to federal managers, the vice
president talked about reengineering:
 "Information technology has a critical role to play in better service
to the government's customers. In Minnesota, a woman told me how a
plastic electronic benefits card lets her get through the grocery line
without embarrassment. In California and Iowa, kiosks are providing
access to government services in more convenient locations, even
during hours when government offices are closed."
 The vice president's examples show how information technology can add
to our ability to serve our customers. That technology, if well
thought out and well executed, will do more than just let us do the
same job 10 percent better--it will let us reengineer and reinvent how
we do the job, so we can do it 10 times or 100 times better.
 Few public-sector reengineering projects have been around long enough
to have much of a track record. Reengineering in the private sector,
in contrast, has had a significant impact, particularly in the auto,
high technology, and financial services industries. In government, a
recent survey showed that only one in four managers interested in
reengineering had completed even their first project and that more
than nine out of 10 potential reengineering targets in government are
yet to be tackled.
 Keeping in mind that government reengineering is in its infancy, take
a look at four examples of what reengineering can accomplish.
 --Collecting Child Support. Massachusetts has turned its system of
collecting child support on its head, and the money is falling out of
the pockets of scofflaws and back to the families who need it.
 Under the old system, a parent who failed to provide required child
support went scotfree until the care-giving spouse appealed for help.
The ensuing enforcement process was custom-tailored and expensive. "In
light of the state's budgeting crisis, we could see that we were
headed for disaster if we stayed on the same path," says Robert Melia,
director of strategic planning in the state's revenue department.
 The system was reengineered so that cases with similar
characteristics are now grouped together. The rules that determine
what enforcement action to take for particular cases are loaded into
the computer which then searches various databases and enforces cases
without human intervention. "We essentially took the case worker out
of the enforcement process," said Melia. "We now use the case worker
for post-enforcement complaints rather than pre-enforcement
complaints."
 After two years, 85 percent of collections occur without caseworker
involvement. The number of paying cases has increased by 30 percent,
and the payment compliance rate, which had been stagnant for two
years, has jumped from 59 to 76 percent. Because most enforcement is
handled by the computer, staff time can be devoted to obtaining child
support orders for families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent
Children. The number of orders is up 90 percent so far this year, a
satisfying, if unexpected, fringe benefit of reengineering.
 --Interacting with Info/Cal. This California initiative uses
interactive kiosks for government in the same way that banks use
Automatic Teller Machines. Based on an idea from Hawaii, the project
was initiated in partnership with IBM under a California program to
encourage experimentation in government. The kiosks are available 24
hours per day; they are networked so that information can be kept up
to date. "The new kiosks broaden the hours of access to government
services," says Jim Henderson, the manager in charge of customer
development at the California Health and Welfare Data Center. "They
also bring the government to me in a way that is convenient. This is
the direct benefit of my tax contributions."
 More than half of all Info/Cal transactions take place during evening
or weekend hours; one in five are conducted in Spanish. Citizens put
in information and ask questions at the kiosks via a touch screen;
responses and answers are provided via text, graphics, voice, full-
motion video, and print. Fees and fines may be paid at the kiosk with
credit and debit cards.
 The kiosks can connect residents not only with California state
government services but also with those of local governments, nearby
states, and the federal government. The most popular service? Job
listings by category and geographic area, updated daily. From the
customer's viewpoint, Info/Cal makes doing business with the
government more convenient, more efficient and more worthwhile.
 --Determining Welfare Eligibility. Merced County, California, has
reengineered the way it processes applications for welfare.
 Applicants who used to wait four weeks to get to the interview stage
after their initial application can now expect an interview in one to
three days. Three people do the work that four used to do. Expert
system software which assists in applying thousands of changing
eligibility rules enables one caseworker to handle all programs for an
applicant family, cutting processing time in half.
 In the reengineered process, 70 percent of the work that was formerly
done on mainframes is handled by cheaper and more responsive PC-based
workstations. The new process has also cut costs by reducing staff
turnover and reducing the time it takes to train workers, by
eliminating 400 of 750 preprinted forms, and by increasing the
accuracy and consistency of the eligibility determination process. As
a result of the reengineered system, productivity increased 148
percent in 10 months.
 --Reengineering the Big Apple. New York City was the first government
to initiate a jurisdiction-wide reengineering program, starting a year
in advance of the National Performance Review.
 "The city was responding to a fiscal environment that absolutely
required us to consider streamlining city services," says Marian
Krauskopf of the New York City personnel department. The Executive
Development Program, led by the mayor, focused on the ways in which
reengineering could create a more cost-efficient government.
Reengineering was an explicit and government-wide initiative in which
individual managers were encouraged to reengineer their own
departments. It was risky to go public with such a sweeping goal, but
so far the risk seems to be paying off.
 One example: the Department of Probation is reengineering its system
for supervising 80,000 probationers, a function that costs $24 million
a year. It is replacing voluminous paper files with automated case
folders, using local- and wide-area networks to track probationers,
capitalizing on automatic interconnections with other databases, and
using interactive kiosks for self-reporting by 20,000 low-risk
probationers.
 Such changes have made it possible for the agency to keep up with the
probation workload while absorbing a 33 percent reduction in probation
officers and saving $3.3 million a year. Moreover, the time saved by
reengineering can be used by probation officers to focus on high-risk,
violent offenders.
 The public sector is just getting started with reengineering projects
like these, but even the early projects are instructive. Here's a look
at what have we learned to date about reengineering in the public
sector.

WHAT SHOULD BE REENGINEERED?
If you are going to reengineer, where are the greatest returns?
Research suggests three prime targets: customer service, program
integration and overhead.
 CUSTOMER SERVICE. Start with the question: From the customer's
perspective, how can service be more convenient, effective and
efficient?
 Private corporations have been responding to this question with
computer networks that allow 24-hour service delivery to and from
virtually any location. For example, there has been explosive growth
in the use of ATM machines in banks and supermarkets and telephone
hotlines for credit card companies and catalog sales. Customers are
beginning to expect immediate and better service, and it's essential
for government to respond.
 Virtually all today's reengineering has a strong customer service
focus. The electronic benefits card which allows the Minnesota welfare
recipient to maintain her dignity in the grocery store, Massachusetts'
effort to guarantee child support payments, the Info/Cal kiosks, the
streamlined welfare eligibility process in Merced County, and the
self-service convenience of probation reporting in New York City each
enhances government's service to its customers. While government must
be concerned with compliance and equity as well as service per se,
customer service opportunities are a prime target for reengineering.
 PROGRAM INTEGRATION. Government services often suffer "death by hand-
off." Too often something or someone falls through the cracks when a
case or a task is passed from one individual or program to another.
When eligibility information about applicants for human services
programs is not shared among workers, poor service, misinformation and
even fraud can occur. Police investigating a crime in one city, for
example, often lack access to clues collected in another city.
Reengineering can improve coordination and cooperation when work is
handed off from program to program, agency to agency, or jurisdiction
to jurisdiction.
 Information technology can bridge the gaps that make these hand-offs
risky. Computer networks allow pharmacists to check whether a
prescription from doctor X will interact dangerously with an earlier
prescription from doctor Y. A California citizen who needs a Montana
fishing license will be able to get it from a local Info/Cal kiosk;
furthermore, if she has moved, her new address can be put in the
system once and automatically shared with other department databases.
 Cross-program initiatives are often difficult to implement. Issuance
of an electronic benefits card that will work for food stamps, cash,
and medical services and benefits requires cooperation by the U.S.
Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services with state
and local agencies. But despite the complexities, the benefits of
bridging these gaps make them a priority target for reengineering.
 LOWERING OVERHEAD. Information networks permit government to flatten
itself, reducing the number of "hand-offs," by eliminating links and
whole levels in the chain of command. When Massachusetts reengineered
its child support collection, the amount of supervision required was
significantly reduced. It takes fewer managers to oversee the Info/Cal
kiosks than to supervise all the people who answered those questions
in the different departments and agencies involved.
 But more than technology is required to negotiate this reengineering
change. There must also be a change in philosophy and management
culture. Middle managers must become "coaches," not supervisors.
Reengineering demands a totally new structure that eliminates old
domains, familiar power bases and usual work products. Structured,
routine transactions must be separated out; they can operate with
significantly less supervision than complex, less structured
transactions. As the U.S. Internal Revenue Service adopts its new $8
billion information technology system, it will not simply automate its
present 15-layer hierarchy; it must instead reengineer to streamline
its work processes, reduce its overhead and empower the front-line
worker.

IMPLEMENTATION: HOW AND WHEN?
So, are you ready to go? Or are you nervous? If so, you have a lot of
company. Most managers are rightfully cautious. Even in the private
sector, as many as 70 percent of reengineering projects reportedly
fail. In the public sector, there's less motivation to change, and
many more structural impediments.
 What does that mean for you and the government you manage? In some
cases it may mean that you move slowly with reengineering. "In
government, initiatives are normally approved only for a fiscal year,
dictating that processes evolve rather than change abruptly," says
Rita Kidd, a consultant for the Merced County project. "The object is
that same 10-fold increase, but it may have to come over two or three
years. That certainly was the case in Merced County."
 In government the safest and even the fastest progress may often be
made through small steps, rather than through reengineering. The
revolutionary ENDS of reengineering are almost always valuable, but in
government the risks of revolutionary MEANS may be too high.
 The guidelines are simple: do it, try it, fix it. Each step should
offer feedback and produce results to motivate supporters to take
another step. Taken together, small steps can result in large changes.
 For example, the Massachusetts child support system achieved its
radical goal step-by-step. First, it set up a program to screen all
applicants for unemployment compensation to see if they owed child
support. "I picked an area where I thought I could have an easy win,"
says Robert Melia. "It was our first major hit. The amount of money
collected immediately tripled, going from $5 million to $15 million
dollars. With that success behind us, we had a nucleus of people who
supported the program."
 Next the state increased its commitment to change. It stopped buying
computers to support the old system; workers had to switch to the new
system. To encourage participation, front-line workers and managers
were enlisted to design the new procedures. "People were more
enthusiastic when we gave them challenging projects," says Melia.
 There's no question but that great leaps of change are very risky for
public sector managers, but at times that risk is worth taking. A
situation may reach a state of crisis before the need for change can
be translated into action. Once crisis opens the door, radical and
rapid change can proceed. In much of government today, financial
pressures are reaching crisis levels.
 Reengineering is quite different from the traditional way that
government responds to budget cuts. "In the past, reducing costs in
government meant reducing quality," says Kidd. "But customer service
expectations say that reengineering should focus on how to reduce
administrative costs while improving service to the public." As
governments continue to face falling real revenues and rising public
expectations for service, reengineering may not only become realistic
but perhaps even the preferred method of change.
 To reengineer, you have to mobilize support for the sweeping changes
required. This "concept curve" illustrates the judgment calls
involved. This curve shows opposition rising with the size of the
change: the greater the change, the greater the opposition.
 Opposition comes primarily from people who pay close attention to the
operations of the reform target: employees, clients, or other
"insiders" whose lives will be affected.
 In contrast, supporters for proposed change tend to come from two
distinct groups. The first to support a proposed change are again
insiders who, like the insider opponents, are paying close attention
to agency operations. The second and larger group, however, is
composed of people who don't normally pay close attention. These
"outside" supporters get involved only if they think there is an
important issue to be resolved. They may not even notice small
changes.
 Putting the opposition and support curves together identifies two
relatively "safe" zones for change. At one end the proposed changes
are small enough that inside supporters can build a sizable consensus
over inside opponents. This represents the Total Quality Management
arena of small consensus-oriented changes.
 At the other end, there is a workable, but not nearly as safe, zone
created when outside supporters mobilize to support the program and
are able to overpower the inside opposition. Here successful
reengineering can occur.
 But don't get caught in the middle. Beware the proposal that is
radical enough to upset the insiders but not exciting enough to bring
outside supporters into the fray on a sustained basis. An example of
that unhappy situation is the police department that hopes to reassign
police officers now working in two-person patrol teams into single-
person patrols. Such a proposal certainly will be noticed, and
probably opposed, by the police union. It may not, however, mobilize
public support sufficient to outweigh the union's opposition. The
judgment call is to know when it's possible to implement such a
significant change. Such a call must be made by senior management and
political leaders. It cannot be made by information specialists on
their own.
 Once you decide to implement a radical change, speed is essential.
The classic approach is described as "slow trigger, fast bullet."
 Take your time to assess the situation and build readiness for a
major shift, but, once you start to implement, move fast. The
advantage in radical change goes to the attacker. Consensus will
typically be impossible; success comes to those who mobilize support
and keep the opposition off balance.
 A second, less disruptive, avenue to great change relies on
entrepreneurial start-ups. It's often possible to avoid unnecessary
fights with an entrenched bureaucracy by creating a new, smaller
organization of enthusiasts. The Info/Cal project is a good example.
As service demand grows at the kiosks, demand will presumably subside
at the original service outlets, encouraging further reengineering.
 Jim Henderson believes that Info/Cal also encourages the exchange of
ideas between participating agencies. "This project may lead to
reengineering through cooperation among different levels of
government," says Henderson. "The existence of the kiosks will
encourage them to share information and integrate the way they do
things, eliminating redundancies that were previously necessary."
 True reengineering projects are like jumping a chasm: success does
not come an inch at a time. Projects, once begun, must be implemented
quickly and completely. The Massachusetts child support project can
again serve as an example.
 Once an early success made the reform effort credible, and once the
decision was made to collect the money up front and automatically,
Revenue Commissioner Mitchell Adams pulled the best workers off the
old system and assigned them to design the new system. It became
obvious to everyone in the department that the old system was, in
effect, being burned.
 The department burned its bridges to preclude any alternative; by
making the burning visible they enlisted all parties in making the new
system effective. Its leaders feel that much of their success was
generated by their willingness to take risks, even to appear
"irrational" in order to implement the new system quickly.

HOW DO I GET READY FOR REENGINEERING?
Reengineering may be risky, but it also may be unavoidable. Meanwhile,
there is much to be done to prepare the ground and reduce the long-
term risks. Preparation includes:
 --Shaping a vision and infrastructure.
 --Educating managers.
 --Finding creative sources of funding.
 --Benchmarking performance.

DEVELOP A VISION AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT IT. Reengineering
requires a leap from the well-understood status quo. Proposals to
reengineer will not gain adequate support unless people can share a
motivating vision of success.
 As a nation, we need to develop a clearer sense of what is possible
for our reengineered economy and also for a reengineered system of
public services. We need to brainstorm: What might a one-stop/non-stop
government look like? How might education be organized if we
reengineered existing processes and institutions?
 We need to develop radical visions of new possibilities, along with
plans for the data and network infrastructures on which reengineered
work processes can be built.
 Developing a vision and strategic direction is a low-cost, low-risk
and absolutely necessary precondition for reengineering. Even when the
time is not yet right for reengineering, a strategic vision and plan
are needed to coordinate incremental investments. Nothing adds value
if it is not aligned with an appropriate long-term strategy.

EDUCATE MANAGERS ON THE OPPORTUNITIES AND PROCESS OF REENGINEERING.
Reengineering requires cooperation between information technology
managers, program managers and senior leadership. There are often
serious gaps between these groups. Technology people, in general, need
to understand much more than they presently do about policy issues and
agency operations. Operational managers need to have enough technical
and political insight to participate effectively in rapid change
projects. Senior leaders need to understand more about reengineering
and the enabling role played by information technologies. Educating
these managers and building cooperative relationships among them is an
essential part of building the infrastructure for successful
reengineering.

FIND CREATIVE SOURCES OF FUNDING. Several decades ago governments had
discretionary money, which is long gone today. Funding projects in
reengineering can be a large issue. But there are solutions to this
problem. Consider:
 --Sharing productivity savings with those that produce them, thus
creating incentives for innovation. New York City's probation
department is sharing $1.1 million in annual reengineering savings
with the probation officers' union.
 --Assessing user fees to create a funding source for services that
customers value. Info/Cal kiosks which today charge the agencies that
supply the data and the services, may soon charge the residents that
use the kiosks a "convenience fee" for making certain services
available on a 24-hour basis.
 --Using capital budgets or set-asides in mandated spending, such as
toxic waste funds, for the information systems required for
reengineering.
 --Developing public/private shared ownership agreements, especially
for pilot projects or systems that create a downstream market value.
Info/Cal's initial kiosks were funded through such a creative
procurement process, with IBM paying half the development costs.

BENCHMARK PERFORMANCE AND MAKE THE MEASURES VISIBLE. In government, we
do little to measure service performance, especially its downstream
impact on customer needs and satisfaction. Governments rarely
benchmark themselves against world-class performers. We need to. The
costs would be modest and the potential for leverage high. A recent
Executive Order by President Clinton requires all federal agencies to
measure customer satisfaction and to benchmark these measures against
best private-sector practice. State and local governments should
consider doing likewise.

REENGINEERING'S ROLE
Reengineering is both a destination and an approach. Given that we can
use information technology to organize work more efficiently, we
should. Reengineering as a destination is right for the times. Those
organizations and societies that reengineer will be more successful
than those that do not.
 There are many paths, however, to the fundamental redesign of work.
In some settings, great speed and large steps are the right way to go.
In other settings, especially in government, a more incremental
approach may work better. Actually, a strategic reengineering plan can
permit many processes to be in the mill at once, some of which will be
effective immediately, while others will be more gradual.
 In this season of the Super Bowl, it may be useful to make the
analogy between football and government. In both we seek progress. In
both we normally like steps that bring moderate progress at low risk.
In government such steps are the typical range of productivity
improvement efforts. In football such steps are short yardage plays,
typically running plays.
 Occasionally, however, in government we invest in higher risk
opportunities such as reengineering, just as, in football, we
occasionally try the long pass or "the bomb," a play which seeks lots
of yardage all at once.
 The long pass is a risky play, especially for the team not
experienced and well-disciplined in its execution. Successful teams
don't call for a long pass on every play. They reserve it for
desperate circumstances or times when the returns are worth it and the
risks can be managed: second down, short yardage, close game.
 Success with the long passing game in football requires an effective
infrastructure of skills: linemen with specialized blocking skills,
receivers with the ability to run disciplined patterns and catch the
ball, and a quarterback able to read the developing play under
pressure and pass the ball to the right place at the right time. When
executed well, the long pass can be extremely effective. A team with
the ability to pass as well as to run is typically a strong and
successful team.
 As the long pass is to football, so reengineering is to government.
Reengineering requires an infrastructure of skills to be nurtured and
developed. Reengineering may not be the approach for every problem.
Nevertheless, global competition will eventually require the
reengineering of nearly all institutions of American society--both
public and private. As a government manager, you need to get ready for
that. Reengineering should be part of YOUR game plan.


THE REENGINEERS
 Frank Domurad, Deputy Commissioner, New York City Department of
Probation, 115 Leonard St., Room 2C, New York, NY 10013. Phone: 212-
374-5681. Fax: 212-374-3263.
 Jim Henderson, Customer Development, Health and Welfare Agency Data
Center, 1651 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816-7092. Phone: 916-
739-7732. Fax: 916-739-7820.
 Rita C. Kidd, Consultant to Merced County, 2380 Old Highway, Cathey's
Valley, CA 95306. Phone: 209-966-3212.
 Marian Krauskopf, Deputy Director for Personnel Development,
Department of Personnel, 2 Washington St., 21st Floor, New York, NY
10004. Phone: 212-487-5600. Fax: 212-487-5720.
 Robert Melia, Director of Strategic Planning, Massachusetts
Department of Revenue, 100 Cambridge St., Room 800, Boston, MA 02204.
Phone: 617-727-4201. Fax: 617-727-0379.


A REENGINEERING CRIB SHEET

WHAT IS REENGINEERING?
--Fundamental redesign of work processes
--Radical and rapid performance improvement
--Enabled by information technology

WHAT SHOULD BE REENGINEERED?
--Customer service (one-stop government)
--Cross-program integration (sharing information across	turf
boundaries)
--Overhead and administration (flatter organizations, empowered
workers)

WHEN AND HOW TO REENGINEER?
--When outside support can be mobilized
--Slow trigger, fast bullet
--Entrepreneurial start-up

HOW DO I GET READY?
--Develop a vision, a plan and an infrastructure
--Educate managers
--Find creative funding
--Measure performance and make results visible


READING ABOUT REENGINEERING

Here are some of the most significant and informative books and
articles that have been written about reengineering in the last few
years:

"Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Total
Quality, Productivity, and Competitiveness." H. James Harrington,
1991.

"Creating a Government that Works Better & Costs Less: Report of the
National Performance Review." U.S. Government Printing Office,
September 1993.

"The Leadership Challenge of  Reengineering," James Champy and Donald
Arnoudse, Insights Quarterly, Fall 1992.

"The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business
Process Redesign," Sloan Management Review, Summer 1990.

"Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information
Technology." Thomas H. Davenport, 1993.

"Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution."
Michael Hammer and James Champy, 1993.

"Reengineering Government," John Martin, GOVERNING, March 1993.

"Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate," Michael Hammer,
Harvard Business Review, July-August 1990.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 1994, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form
without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited.
Governing, City & State and Governing.com are registered trademarks of
Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
http://governing.com