Governing Magazine/April 1996

TECHNOLOGY COLUMN

REENGINEERING: A FAD?

By Jerry Mechling

Jerry Mechling is director of the Program on Strategic Computing and
Telecommunications in the Public Sector at Harvard University's
Kennedy School of Government. To reach him, call 617-495-3036 or send
e-mail to jerrym@ksgrsch.harvard.edu.

The idea of reengineering is to be revolutionary, not evolutionary. We
are told that, if we are aggressive enough, attacking all the steps of
a work process simultaneously instead of just a few, we can improve
productivity by 50 percent, 100 percent, even more. A key way to do
this is to utilize the computer's incredible productivity (doubling
every 18 months) to broaden jobs, thereby eliminating "hand-offs" as
work no longer needs to be passed from one specialist to another, and
transact the remaining hand-offs via computer networks.
 These ideas have gained a lot attention over the past several years.
Now for the inevitable follow-up: Where are the results?
 Many argue that reengineering has been a typical fad, a wave of high
interest that is now receding, with little or no enduring
consequences. These critics, having looked for "big hit" successes,
find failures instead. The promising Info/Cal kiosk project won a
prestigious Ford Foundation Innovations Award but has recently had its
plug pulled by the legislature. The early federal kiosk project,
Postal Buddy, met a similarly inglorious fate, with a successor
project way behind schedule. Virtually every Internet home page has
been labeled "reengineering," but where are the 100 percent
productivity improvements? After two years on the New York Times
bestseller list, the 1993 Hammer/Champy reengineering manifesto has
dropped from the charts (and Hammer and Champy have parted ways).
Reengineering as a hot topic has clearly (and inevitably) begun to
cool.
 But is it a fad? This will ultimately turn on whether it delivers on
the promise for fundamental and enduring productivity improvement.
Here's what we need:
 --Cross-boundary integration. These are initiatives to coordinate
services horizontally across departments, vertically across our
federal system of governments, and/or industry-wide across the
suppliers, consumers and government regulators within particular
industries, such as health care. What we need are deliverables like
the recently released U.S. Business Advisor (on the World Wide Web at
http://www.business.gov); this application creates "virtual" one-stop
service for small businesses, putting them in contact with the 45 or
so programs that either regulate them or offer assistance. This is a
promising start, as is the South Carolina Business Gateway Project
(http://scenic.ricommunity.com/bus). These early projects need to
continually update their content and their support for full
transactions. There is more work to be done.
 --Self-service and remote service over networks. Every time citizens
handle their own transactions from work or home--and especially in the
off hours--we can simultaneously improve accessibility AND cut costs.
Self-service, more than any other opportunity, delivers reengineering-
sized productivity. While a variety of pilots have been initiated,
mostly via kiosks and the Internet, we have not begun to tap the full
potential of self-service and remote service. Here also, there is work
to be done.
 --Electronic commerce. The advantages of electronic links to
businesses should be almost a no-brainer. States such as Oregon and
its Vendor Information Program have done this and generated sizable
efficiencies. But the target for electronic commerce should be more
efficient markets and the overall economy, not just a more efficient
government. In this context, Littleton, Colorado, has helped its
regional companies use computer networks to reach global customers.
Again, there is work to be done.
 --Non-traditional funding. Reengineering, often requiring multi-year,
multi-agency projects, faces tough sledding via the normal budget
process. To smooth the way, states should go to school on what their
peers are doing: Georgia with user fees, Massachusetts with technology
bonds, and a variety of states with public-private partnerships (look
for the "devolution revolution" to create a new wave of state and
local outsourcing).
 --Revolutionary design, evolutionary implementation. In the
relatively near future, government agencies will be heavily networked.
The approach to change that probably will work best in government, as
it has in the private sector, is revolutionary design coupled with
evolutionary implementation. Even this backing off from the
revolutionary rhetoric of reengineering will leave us coping with
painfully fast change.
 Whether or not we ultimately look back and call them "reengineering,"
the changes we are initiating as we use computer networks for more and
more of the work of the world will be fundamental and enduring. In
that sense, what we have begun under the banner of reengineering is
definitely not a fad, and we need to press on with it.

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

Copyright 1996, 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