The next step was to analyse a single contact affair case by defining the length of the various steps (procedures) and the number of the procedure iterations.
We chose the most complex case, which included 133 sub-numbers and 22 procedure iterations. Figure 9 shows the length of each procedure iteration.
Figure 9. Length of the procedure iterations in a contact affair case, 9 March 2017 – 13 November 2017
21
Length of procedure iterations (days)
Number of procedure iterations
In this contact affair case, several applications and appeals against previous de-cisions were submitted by the separated parents, which started 22 relating proce-dures. It took 8 months from the submission of the first application (9th of March 2017) to the closure of the entire case (13th of November 2017). According to the timestamps, several applications were filed in parallel on certain days, and a couple of them were submitted before the previous procedure iteration(s) was/were finished, which resulted in several pending procedures.
In this subsection, we have presented the data of one specific case. However, administrators deal with several active cases at the same time, and each case has at least one running procedure.
sion and submit an appeal or a new application. Table 6 shows the start and end dates of the iterations and in Figure 10 we can see the Gantt chart of the whole process which needed 249 days to reach the final submission and to be closed by a decision.
Table 6 Start and end dates of the procedure iterations in a contact affair case,
9 March 2017 – 13 November 2017 Number of
iterations Date of submission of
the application Date of decision
1. 2017.03.09 2017.03.30
2. 2017.03.28 2017.04.21
3. 2017.03.28 2017.04.26
4. 2017.04.04 2017.04.25
5. 2017.05.02 2017.05.22
6. 2017.05.03 2017.06.08
7. 2017.05.19 2017.06.20
8. 2017.06.08 2017.06.30
9. 2017.06.08 2017.06.30
10. 2017.06.12 2017.07.07
11. 2017.06.12 2017.06.30
12. 2017.06.30 2017.07.25
13. 2017.07.27 2017.07.27
14. 2017.08.02 2017.09.01
15. 2017.08.07 2017.08.17
16. 2017.08.14 2017.10.04
17. 2017.08.16 2017.10.04
18. 2017.08.30 2017.10.16
19. 2017.08.31 2017.09.16
20. 2017.09.05 2017.10.16
21. 2017.09.05 2017.10.16
22. 2017.09.27 2017.11.13
Total lead time 249 days
Figure 10 shows that two or three iterations were ‘running’ simultaneously during the lead time (from 9th of March 2017 to the closure 13th of November 2017).
The level of complexity of the iterations continued to rise from September because several new appeals were submitted in response to the previous decisions.
Figure 10. Gantt chart of the procedure iterations in a contact affair case, 9 March 2017 – 13 November 2017
03.09 03.29 04.18 05.08 05.28 06.17 07.07 07.27 08.16 09.05 09.25 10.15 11.04
1.
This study uses the front office operations of a capital city government window and the contact affair procedures of the Guardianship Office of the Győr-Moson-Sopron County Government Office as examples to demonstrate how the time-related KPIs, commonly used in the industry, can be measured in the public service and can be statistically analysed, regardless of the type and complexity of the service.
The system of the government windows, established in 2013, has implemented the one-stop-shop system in Hungary and has been operating as a centralised, uni-form service centre network ever since. From the citizens’ perspective, the develop-ment of these service centres was the most noticeable consequence of the
transfor-process modelling, two types of service were described, mapped and visualised.
The second part of the study examined how to extract the data needed for KPI meas-urement from different datasets. The data from a government window located in the capital city of Budapest, were collected and statistically analysed. The dataset con-tains the arrival, call and case closure times of 45,234 cases recorded from the 1st of December 2016 to 31st of November 2017, and from these, waiting, processing and lead times were calculated. The 2017 contact affair procedures of a guardianship office were also examined with a detailed analysis of a complex case. This specific case highlights the complexity of the contact affair procedures: customers may sub-mit several applications and appeals against previous decisions, which can trigger the same procedure multiple times, consequently in the aforementioned example it took almost a year to close the case.
Our study contributes to the literature by using the performance measurement indicators of the private sector and industry in public service processes of various characteristics and complexity. It presents how these common KPIs can be measured in different conditions to provide valuable insights into service processes and to help legislators to increase efficiency and effectiveness of services. The differences be-tween the studied service types are obvious both in terms of customers and com-plexity. Nevertheless, the chosen KPIs could be measured in both cases, and the efforts exerted were depending on the available dataset.
References
ATKINSON,H.–BROWN,J. [2001]: Rethinking performance measures: Assessing progress in UK hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. Vol. 13. No. 3.
pp. 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110110388918
BOURNE,M.–MILLS,J.–WILCOX,M.–NEELY,A.–PLATTS,K. [2000]: Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management. Vol. 20. No. 7. pp. 754–771. https://doi.org/10.1108/
01443570010330739
BRIGNALL,T.J.–FITZGERALD,L.–JOHNSTON,R.–SILVESTRO,R. [1991]: Performance measure-ment in service businesses. Managemeasure-ment Accounting. Vol. 69. No. 10. pp. 34–36.
BROWN,J.–MCDONNELL,B. [1995]: The balanced scorecard: Short-term guest or long-term resi-dent? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. Vol. 7. Nos. 2–3.
pp. 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596119510146751
BUICS,L.–EISINGER BALASSA,B. [2020]: Analyzing public service processes from customer and employee perspectives by using service blueprinting and business process model-ling. Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (Online). Vol. 6. No. 1. pp. 195–211.
BUICS, L.–SÜLE, E. [2020]: Service process excellence in public services. Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA – ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (Online). Vol. 6. No. 1.
pp. 173–186.
IBRAHIM, J. E. [2001]: Performance indicators from all perspectives (Editorial). International Journal for Quality in Health Care. Vol. 13. No. 6. pp. 431–432.
https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/13.6.431
KAPLAN,R.S.–NORTON,D.P. [2001]: The Strategy-Focused Organization. How Balanced Score-card Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Harvard Business School Press.
Boston.
KAPLAN, R. S. – NORTON, D. P. [2004]: Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Intangible Outcomes. Harvard Business School Press. Boston.
KAZEMZADEH,Y.–MILTON,S.K.–JOHNSON,L.W. [2015a]: Service blueprinting and process-chain-network (PCN): An ontological comparison. International Journal of Qualitative Research in Services. Vol. 2. No. 1. pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJQRS.2015.069775 KAZEMZADEH,Y.–MILTON,S.K.–JOHNSON,L. [2015b]: A conceptual comparison of service
blueprinting and business process modeling notation (BPMN). Asian Social Science.
Vol. 11. No. 12. pp. 307–318. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n12p307
KAZEMZADEH,Y.–MILTON,S.K.–JOHNSON,L. [2015c]: An explication of three service business process modeling approaches. Australian Journal of Business and Economic Studies. Vol. 1.
No. 2. pp. 40–53.
KAZEMZADEH, Y. –MILTON, S.K. –JOHNSON, L. [2015d]: Process chain network (PCN) and business process modeling notation (BPMN): A comparison of concepts. Journal of Management and Strategy. Vol. 6. No. 1. pp. 88–99. https://doi.org/10.5430/jms.v6n1p88 KO,R.K.L.–LEE,S.S.G.–LEE,E.W. [2009]: Business process management (BPM) standards:
A survey. Business Process Management Journal. Vol. 15. No. 5. pp. 744–791.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150910987937
KOVÁCS, É. – HAJNAL, GY. [2013]: Analyzing the Motives of Reforming Central Government Coordination in Hungary: A Case Study of One-Stop-Government Reforms. XVII IRSPM Conference. 10–12 April. Prague.
KOVÁCS, É.–HAJNAL, GY. [2014]: Government Windows: One Stop Shops for Administrative Services in Hungary. Palgrave Macmillan. London. https://doi.org/
10.1057/9781137359636_20
KOVÁCS, É. –HAJNAL, GY. [2016]: Analyzing the motives of reforming customer services in Hungarian public administration: A case study of one-stop-government reforms.
In: DiMauro, C. – Ancarani, A. – Vastag, G. (eds.): Research in the Decision. Pearson.
London. pp. 5–32.
national Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 16–20 June. Springer.
Montpellier. pp. 465–479.
NEELY, A. – MILLS, J. – PLATTS, K. – RICHARDS, H. – GREGORY, M. – BOURNE, M. – KENNERLEY,M. [2000]: Performance measurement system design: Developing and testing a process-based approach. International Journal of Operations and Production Management.
Vol. 20. No. 10. pp. 1119–1145. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570010343708
NEELY,A. [2005]: The evolution of performance measurement research. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Vol. 5. No. 12. pp. 1264–1277.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570510633648
PARASURAMAN,A.–ZEITHAML,V.A.–BERRY,L.L. [1985]: A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 49. Fall. pp. 41–50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298504900403
RAMSEOOK-MUNHURRUN,P.–LUKEA-BHIWAJEE,S.D.–NAIDOO,P. [2010]: Service quality in the public service. International Journal of Management and Marketing Research. Vol. 3.
No. 1. pp. 37–50.
RANDALL, L. – SENIOR, M. [1994]: A model for achieving quality in hospital hotel services.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospital Management. Vol. 6. Nos. 1–2. pp. 68–74.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09596119410052161
RECKER, J. [2010]: Opportunities and constraints: The current struggle with BPMN. Business Process Management Journal. Vol. 16. No. 1. pp. 181–201. https://doi.org/
10.1108/14637151011018001
RECKER, J. [2011]: Evaluations of Process Modeling Grammars: Ontological, Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses Using the Example of BPMN. Springer Science & Business Media.
Berlin.
REICHHELD,F.F.–SASSER,W.E. [1990]: Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 68. No. 5. pp. 105–111.
RICHARD,P.–DEVINNEY,T.–YIP,G.–JOHNSON,G. [2009]: Measuring organizational perfor-mance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of Management. Vol. 35. No. 3.
pp. 718–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330560
ROBINSON,L. [2003]: Committed to quality: The use of quality schemes in UK public leisure services. Managing Service Quality. Vol. 13. No. 3. pp. 247–255.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520310476508
SAMPSON, S.E.–FROEHLE, C.M. [2006]: Foundations and implications of a proposed unified services theory. Production and Operations Management. Vol. 15. No. 2. pp. 329–343.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2006.tb00248.x
TEMESI,I.–LINDER,V. [2015]: Közigazgatási szakvizsga jegyzet. Nemzeti Közszolgálati Egyetem.
Budapest.
VAN LOOY, A. – SHAFAGATOVA, A. [2016]: Business process performance measurement:
A structured literature review of indicators, measures and metrics. SpringerPlus. Vol. 5.
No. 1797. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3498-1
VUKSIC,V.–PEJIĆ BACH,M.–MARJANOVIC,O. [2011]: Business process orientation in Croatian companies: A multi-site case study. In: Luzar-Stiffler, V. – Jarec, I. – Bekic, Z. (eds.):
Proceedings of the ITI 2011, 33rd International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Dubrovnik. pp. 51–58.
VUKSIC,V.–PEJIĆ BACH,M.–POPOVIČ, A. [2013]: Supporting performance management with business process management and business intelligence: A case analysis of integration and orchestration. International Journal of Information Management. Vol. 33. No. 4.
pp. 613–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.03.008
VUKSIC,V.–PEJIĆ BACH,M.–TOMICIC-PUPEK,K. [2017]: Utilization of discrete event simulation in business processes management projects: A literature review. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences. Vol. 41. No. 2. pp. 137–159. https://doi.org/10.31341/jios.41.2.1 ZEITHAML,V.A.–PARASURAMAN,A.–BERRY,L.L. [1990]: Delivering Quality Service. The Free
Press. New York.