=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Comparative Analysis of the Implementation of Business Process Management in Public Administration in Germany and Switzerland
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-933/pap1.pdf
|volume=Vol-933
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ifip8-1/AhrendWL12
}}
==Comparative Analysis of the Implementation of Business Process Management in Public Administration in Germany and Switzerland==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-933/pap1.pdf
Comparative Analysis of the Implementation of
Business Process Management in Public
Administration in Germany and Switzerland
Norbert Ahrend1 , Konrad Walser2 , and Henrik Leopold1
1
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany
norbert.ahrend|henrik.leopold@wiwi.hu-berlin.de
2
Bern University of Applied Sciences, Morgartenstrae 2a , Bern
konrad.walser@bfh.ch
Abstract. In the private sector business process management is a com-
mon and well-established practice. In the public administration in Europe,
this does not hold true to the same degree. However, currently we observe
some considerable challenges. Important keywords such as eGovernment,
networking, interoperability, compliance and governance and their relation
to the administration processes are getting increasing focus. As a result,
process management is gaining importance in public administration, espe-
cially where the execution of business activities or electronic integration
of the process handling is concerned. This article focuses on the different
strategies used in the analysed countries. Different approaches to busi-
ness process management are explored. The objective of the article is to
present two case studies, Germany and Switzerland, and to examine the
different ways in which these countries handle process management.
Key words: Business Process Management, Knowledge Sharing, Public Admin-
istration, Success Factors
1 Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
If administrative action is viewed as a process, the following challenges need to
be mastered. Firstly there is the aspect of networking the public administrations
and their processes. In the wider context this means that the customers also
need to be integrated into these processes to a greater extent in the future.
Thus, the goal is to obtain a larger degree of customer orientation and a reduced
workload for the administrations [1]. Last but not least the administration is
confronted with a progressive technologisation of everyday life and the diffusion
of information technology into the processes. This opens up new possibilities, but
also poses considerable challenges that are in conflict with the paradigms of the
administrative action as conducted so far [2].
From the perspective of the end customer of the public administration and
where the cooperation within the administration is concerned, process manage-
ment presents a special organisational challenge. Administration is first and
foremost networked action and has been networked for years, yet this involved
a great degree of media discontinuity (e.g. side-by-side use of paper files and
computer databases). In this context, the following questions present themselves:
Why have the initiatives for electronic integrated business process management
(BPM) so far not led to a comprehensive and integrated administration process
management? Is the focus of the course of action wrong? Does the problem lie in
the organisational form of today’s administrations? Is there a lack of willingness
to modernise? From an administration perspective, there are various restrictive
factors that counteract a seamless process integration or an integrated process
management:
◦ The territorial principle, federalism and subsidiarity and lack of mechanisms
for handling federal and organisational borders: The use of eGovernment
and portals enable a completely new way of handling of federal borders and
paradigms [3, 4, 5, 1]
◦ Functionally structured administrations: Administrations usually do not have
a process- or customer-oriented structure [1], here Weber’s bureaucratic model
is of relevance [6].
◦ Lack of thinking beyond the horizons of the areas of responsibility/functional
organisational silos of the individual employees in the administration [7]
◦ Seeing the IT as instrument that is to be subjected to legislative action
instead of positioning IT as enabling factor for shaping public administration
◦ In large part, no political negotiation process on the topic of integrated
modern administration exists; usually this is performed away from the public
eye and is initiated by the IT department or the processes are independent
of each other.
◦ Resistance to change on the side of the administration (employees/organisa-
tion); accompanied by the not-invented-here syndrome.
The current process initiatives in public administration either focus on support
processes in the administration (IT, personnel, finances, procurement) or selec-
tively on service management. Where the latter is concerned, the customers are
citizens and companies that provide or receive services in account with the consti-
tution and the legislation. However, in most cases no analysis of policy-relevant
administration processes (policy making) or strategic administration processes is
performed. Similarly, no clear delimitation of the management processes has so
far been performed. Here a differentiation can be made between the management
of the political administration, the service administration as well as the support
administration [8].
An analysis of BPM in public administration also has to have an architectural
basis. Here different aspects of BPM can be addressed by considering different
viewpoints: Information architecture view (use and distribution of data within
the process cycle), business architecture view (organisational view of the process
cycle), application architecture view (implementation of the business processes
within applications and across applications), infrastructure view (technical im-
plementation of workflows as technical representation of processes). With the
architecture views and their different characteristics, the topic of interoperability
also can and has to be addressed on the levels mentioned. In the end, the ar-
chitectures mentioned represent different system views with different relations
between the elements, be it organisational, application-specific, as well as with
regard to the relevant technology components.
1.2 Objective
In essence, the purpose of this article is to make a comparison between different
approaches towards implementation of BPM in public administration in Germany
and Switzerland. From a methodical point of view, this comparison is of interest
as the basic parameters of the endeavour are very similar in both countries (e.g.
in some regards there is a high degree of federalism), yet very different approaches
have been selected for the implementation.
For discussion purposes and in preparation of the country comparison, a
system-theoretic approach is taken at first. It is used to discuss administration
(process management) as a system, its elements and their mutual interaction
with each other. These mutual interactions occur sooner or later when different
approaches are used for introducing BPM. Due to different chronological courses
of action, different logical mutual interactions can be observed that lead to a
more or less successful BPM.
1.3 Methodical Procedure
For this article, different methodical aspects are of importance: Action research,
triangulation, case study research.
The action research approach is a socio-scientific research method, where
the researcher is directly integrated in the social process [9]. In our case this
is the development of a process exchange platform1 or the development of
eGovernment standards for BPM. Using action research as basis. only a limited
generalisability of the results can be achieved. However, practice-based hypotheses
and implications for problem-solving can be developed. In action research, the
relations between the researcher and the research subjects develop into a work
relationship aimed at mutual action and reflection. The work relationship follows
the cyclic research pattern described by Lewin [9]: Project planning turns into
specific action, which is then monitored and evaluated jointly. This in consequence
leads to a new planning phase and to the initiation of further actions. The objective
of the research process is to reflect reality as accurately as possible, as well as
transparency, relevance to the practice and interaction [9].
The triangulation approach in qualitative research is used to increase the
validity and reliability of the results obtained from action research or by the means
1
Start date set for summer of 2012.
of case studies. Thereby, various methods are employed. As a result, differentiated
views of or different approaches to the research subject become possible. In
essence, triangulation is about using the strengths of one approach to eliminate
the weaknesses of the other approach. As pointed out by Denzin, triangulation has
a certain proximity to mixed-method research [10]. Thereby, Denzin differentiates
between four types of triangulation: Data triangulation: Data from different
sources or different data from the same source; Investigator triangulation: analysis
of the data by multiple researchers; theory triangulation: different theories are
applied to the same data/the same research subject; methodological triangulation.
According to Denzin [10], the methods can be combined to increase the validity
and the reliability of the methods. In the case at hand, investigator triangulation
and data analysis by multiple researchers are implemented in the mutual looks
across the border, and a mix of written-down own experiences, studied documents,
etc. is used.
With a case study, the researcher attempts to obtain statements about the
research subject through explorative and descriptive means [11, 12]. With the
description, a holistic presentation of the research subject is achieved. Case
study research thus has close proximity to participatory observation or to action
research. Of the different case study types that can be differentiated, we used
the investigative case (stated problem method).
The following supplementary information can be provided regarding the
methodical procedures used in this paper:
◦ The characteristics for the comparison were derived based on a system-
theoretic approach [13, 14].
◦ A comparison of two countries with respect to the approach to and imple-
mentation of a comprehensive BPM in public administration follows below.
◦ The comparison will be repeated - then also including other countries - on
this basis after one or two years.
2 Derivation of Comparison Criteria
A lot of research has been conducted regarding BPM in public administration. For
example, many system models from different viewpoints have been developed on
the topic of how process management can be positioned in public administration
[15].
Wimmer and Traunmüller have described the relationship between funda-
mental terms used in administrative activities [16]. Building on this framework
the BPM expert group of the eCH association for standardisation in the field
of eGovernment in Switzerland has developed a framework that derives the
tasks and services (service catalogues and service architectures) of the public
administration using the legislation as a starting point and that then in turn
derives further processes (process maps) from this data [17]. From a systemic
point of view, the process management can be interpreted as a hinge function
acting across several dimensions.
In principle, administration (process management) can be represented as a
system - with input and output. The input usually comes from the suppliers
(private sector or other administrations) or customer requests by means of forms.
The output typically takes the form of bilateral service exchanges between the
customer and administration. The elements of the BPM system, which is de-
termined by the input and output as well as by the system limits, respectively
exist on each organisational level of the administration, such as German Federal
Government/federal states/local authorities or Swiss Confederation/cantons/mu-
nicipalities. The division of tasks between these elements and the relationships
are clearly defined in accordance with the constitution, legislation, and directives
(subsidiarity). These determine the tasks of the administration, which can in
turn be accessed through services.
From a technological point of view, this system includes methods, tools (for
the BPM as well as for the technical implementation of business processes) that
are in turn used by the administrative units. The system of process management
in turn is determined by means of external factors: Politics, market, justice
system.
From the presented system we can derive certain comparison criteria for the
case studies at hand. Adding a consideration of the remaining challenges, we will
focus on the following four criteria:
◦ Framework conditions (politics, justice system, culture and market)
◦ Methods and standards
◦ Tools (modelling, application and implementation tools for process manage-
ment)
◦ Challenges
In the following two case studies, significant criteria were examined to describe
the respective status of BPM in the countries.
3 Case Studies and their Comparison
3.1 Germany
The different initiatives in Germany that support BPM in the public adminis-
tration cannot all be examined in their entirety here. Nevertheless, an overview
based on the criteria mentioned can be provided.
Framework Conditions. In the political decision-making process, the pro-
cesses of administrative action and the idea of process management are gaining
foothold [18]. Corresponding decision-making processes take place in political
committees that get impulses from the administration. Consensus-building or
grass-roots democracy elements as part of the decision-making, as implemented
in Switzerland, do not play any role within this context.
To safeguard cooperation and thus also the interoperability, agreements are
made between the Federal Government and the federal states, as well as between
the federal states and the local authorities. The IT-Planungsrat (German IT
planning board) is an important element of this agreement process2 . The relevant
interaction with the so-called conference of ministers in the respective fields have
however not yet reached the level of maturity required for effective structuring of
cross-institutional and cross-level cooperation. On the respective levels, standards3
exist, however, these do not comprehensively and/or exclusively cover the topic
of BPM.
The existing management structures and paradigms do not fundamentally
prevent a successful implementation of BPM in public administration in Ger-
many. However, those who are immediately affected still largely exhibit lack of
understanding that BPM is a management discipline, also within the field of
public management. This becomes even more apparent if a management function,
e.g. organising in the sense of decision-making, is delegated to a special unit
within the administration and those employed there cannot or should not perform
this function. Nevertheless external factors act on the system and can cause an
acceleration of the implementation of the BPM approach. The German Federal
Government and the federal states have set themselves significant consolidation
targets by means of the Schuldenbremse 4 (debt brake); this means the adminis-
trations have to slim down considerably. This can only be achieved by means of
automation of the business processes (among other measures). The European
financial and debt crisis is likely to accelerate this process even further. Simulta-
neously, the demographic developments in Germany are creating an enormous
pressure to preserve the expertise of employees who leave the organisation. This
expertise can be preserved in process modules, with the additional benefit that
this creates a basis for redesigning the processes, if this should become necessary.
Methods and Standards. Processes and process management today play an
important role in a whole range of beacon projects. As early as the year 2000,
a BPM Virtual Community was set up and operated at the FHVR (University
of Applied Sciences for Administration and Law). This project marked the first
cross-institutional possibility for exchanging process expertise in Germany. Sub-
sequently and as supplements, cross-institutional registers (of the federal state
authorities and local authorities) were set up in the federal states of Schleswig-
Holstein and Saxony within the scope of the implementation of the EC Services
Directive (2006/123/EC) in 2009. However, owing to the content of the directive,
the primary focus of these registers is (currently still) local processes. In November
2010, the KGSt5 followed suit with their process library for communal processes,
2
In essence, this is also a committee that mediate across federal, federal state
and municipal levels, see http://www.it-planungsrat.de/ DE/ITPlanungsrat/itPla-
nungsrat node.html.
3
SAGA 5.0 on Federal Government level; standard specifications in system concepts
of federal states or by means of explicit standards of the federal states, FAMOS as
modelling standard of KGSt on the local/municipal level.
4
http://www.bundesregierung.de/static/flash/schuldenbremse/index.html
5
Kommunale Gemeinschaftsstelle für Verwaltungsmanagement (German local govern-
ment association for municipal administration); www.kgst.de.
however this is restricted to the members of the KGSt. On Federal Government
level, only the BMI (German Federal Ministry of the Interior) has within its
departments a process platform that has been designed to be cross-institutional
and that is also being used as such. Within the individual administrations or
authorities on Federal Government, federal state and local level, process analyses
have been conducted with relation to specific eGovernment projects. However,
currently sustainable process management can only be found in a few individual
cases. For example, within the Federal Employment Agency, an end-to-end BPM
has been established through implementation of a service-oriented architecture6 .
Tools. The NPB 7 (National Process Library) is the first attempt at implement-
ing a comprehensive cross-institutional and cross-level approach. A conscious
decision was made not to enforce (standardised) restrictions with regard to tools
or methods, in order to make sure that at least this aspect does not restrict the
exchange of process expertise. The initiators of this endeavour are aware of the
fact that standardization is unavoidable in the medium or long term. However,
the intention is to let this standard take shape in an open process in which
suitable methods and tools for the different aspects of the process management
can establish themselves.
In this context the xProzess interface of XÖV (project for standardisation of
XML in public administration) deserves special mention. This interface makes it
possible to integrate existing and future registers (for example, there are plans
for connecting the federal state of Saxony and its process library to the NPB).
Furthermore, all BPM tool manufacturers in the German-speaking region will im-
plement this standard and integrate it into their tools8 . Through the bidirectional
usage options for tools and manufacturers that this offers, the establishment of
the BPM approach in public administration is supported significantly.
Challenges. In the process management system, the employees of the adminis-
trative unit, both as affected parties and as participating parties, play a significant
role. They provide expertise to and are users of the respective systems. In the field
of knowledge management in general and in process management in particular,
the externalisation of process expertise can be seen as the biggest challenge.
There is still a great need for further research on how the corresponding restraints
can be overcome, in particular under the framework conditions present in public
administration.
Finally, it can be said that currently BPM is still, to too large an extent,
being initiated by the IT departments of the individual administrations and, on
the other hand, the support provided by the executive personnel is not adequate.
The initiatives mentioned in this article do not change this basic finding in any
way.
6
http://www.arbeitsagentur.de/nn 387830/Dienststellen/besondere-Dst/ITSYS/IT-
Themen-und-Projekte/SOA-ROBASO.html
7
Research and development project at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, commis-
sioned by the Federal Ministry of the Interior: http://www.prozessbibliothek.de.
8
The manufacturers have furthermore committed themselves to providing the admin-
istrations with editors free of charge (in some cases with reduced functionality).
3.2 Switzerland
Using the system model as a starting point, there are several initiatives in Switzer-
land that support BPM. In the text that follows, selected aspects are examined
using the description criteria for process management as a system in public
administration.
Framework Conditions. Switzerland is based on consensus-oriented democ-
racy and opinion formation. Agreements for safeguarding the collaboration are
made between the Confederation and cantons, as well as between cantons and
municipalities. Within the scope of the framework agreement of the Conference
of the Cantonal Government (CCG) (2007), eCH standards are declared to be
binding for the joint eGovernment project. Thus, in the end, the interoperability
is provided for in all dimensions, as eCH standards implicitly form the basis for
the interoperability. The mentioned agreements between the Confederation and
cantons, as well as between cantons and their municipalities (the latter is not yet
the case for all cantons) also ensure that the internal borders are no obstacles
any more, at least not where the cross-border cooperation is concerned.
eCH has been set up as eGovernment standardisation body (association).
eCH approves standards that have typically been developed in expert groups,
although these standards are not legally binding. eCH offers the expert groups the
opportunity to involve manufacturers, users etc. in the standardisation, by means
of public-private partnerships, and to thus further the diffusion of the standards
on a voluntary basis. Furthermore an agreement on eGovernment cooperation
between the Confederation and the cantons require that eCH standards are
binding within the cross-institutional e-government[19].
In various beacon projects regarding the handling of BPM, for example at the
Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), at the Federal Office for
Agriculture (FOAG), or at the Federal Office of Police (fedpol), it has been proven
that BPM is a suitable instrument for supporting architecture management, the
Internal Controlling System (ICS), as well as for personnel management.
Methods and Standards. By means of the eCH standardisations9 , a compre-
hensive basis for the introduction of end-to-end BPM has been created. The
eCH standards for business process management are divided into a framework,
descriptive standards, reference directories and help documents. It has to be
emphasized that eCH has specified BPMN 2.0 as descriptive language. The
tools for BPMN use have not been standardised. Starting with the eGovernment
strategy of Switzerland as a basis, the focus has been placed on customer-oriented
governance. This means that the private business sector can conduct all commu-
nication with the authorities electronically; the authorities communicate with
each other electronically; the general public can conduct important formalities
with the authorities electronically [20].
9
For information on BPM-relevant standards, see www.ech.ch for the following docu-
ments: eCH-0126, eCH-0138, eCH-0139, eCH-0073, eCH-0140, eCH-0141, eCH-0088,
eCH-0049, eCH-0070, eCH-0074, eCH-0096
Laws
Task
Maps
Task
and
Service
Descrip.on
Tasks
Service
Inventory
Services
Processes
Service
Architectures
Process
Descrip.on
and
Visualiza.on
Uniform Description
Systematic Documentation
Customer-‐oriented
Access
Structures
Service
References
for
cross-‐ins.tu.onal
Processes
Fig. 1. BPM Ecosystem, in account with eCH-0138 [17]
It is also crucial to eCH that selected federal offices and canton representa-
tives participate in the eCH expert group for business processes. These include
the Federal IT Steering Unit (FITSU: chief of the expert group, division for
corporate and eGovernment architecture), the Federal Chancellery, the SECO
(State Secretariat for Economic Affairs) the cantons of Basel (city) and Aargau,
as well as Zurich, tool providers, consulting services and software companies
involved in BPM, as well as members of academic institutions (universities and
applied science universities).
The eCH export group has structured the actual standards (see footnote
earlier) in account with Figure 1. Based on the legislation, the tasks, services,
processes, and appropriate access structures are structured using inventories and
architectures. The strategic thrust of all these initiatives has been defined in the
document Vernetzte Verwaltung [1] within the context of the modernisation of
public administration.
In the so-called prioritised eGovernment projects, the BPM standards are
also used almost exclusively[21]. With this approach, Switzerland has succeeded
in setting up a BPM ecosystem. However, this cannot be considered to be equal
to a successful implementation of the BPM approach. Instead, it provides the
prerequisites for achieving organisational changes towards process orientation
within the administrative units themselves. From the current point of view, this
seems to be a very slow process.
Tools. In addition to these standard specifications, Switzerland is now - after
an earlier attempt - setting up a process exchange platform . The platform
http://www.ech-bpm.ch/de (in addition to www.ech.ch) already makes some
content available (project guidelines for BPM implementation, BPM starter kit,
etc.). The focus lies on the distribution of the eGov BPM starter kit.
Challenges. A continuous harmonisation with the corporate architecture man-
agement, which falls in the area of responsibility of the Federal IT Steering Unit
(FITSU), is of central importance for the Swiss endeavour. The corresponding
eCH expert group SEAC closely cooperates with the BPM expert group of eCH
on the topic of harmonisation. The SEAC expert group also develops and pub-
lishes a range of standards on architecture management for eGovernment (among
others).
It should be mentioned that the coordinated initiatives in the fields of BPM
and architecture are currently mostly technology-driven and are only inadequately
being supported by the management of the administrations. This is one of the
possible reasons for the slow progress of BPM in public administration, as many
executives do not give full commitment to such initiatives and BPM thus does
not become a strategic initiative of the respective administrations. Furthermore,
the BPM and architecture initiatives are being pushed by the Federal IT Steering
Unit (FITSU), which is associated more with informatics than with management
in the public administration.
4 Comparison of the Case Studies
BPM has reached the practice in public administration. The diffusion is not very
high yet, but various initiatives are in progress on all federal levels in Germany
and Switzerland.
Framework Conditions. In general, we did not observe a significant impact of
the framework conditions. In Germany, the structure of the public administration
is frequently used as justification for the current state of affairs and thus is
one of the most significant de facto obstacles for a faster implementation of the
BPM approach. However, when it comes to the business model, Germany closely
cooperates with the providers - a sensible approach - and pro-actively negotiates
with various participants, for example regarding integration of platforms of the
federal states (for example, connection of the Free State of Saxony is in planning)
or other BPM platforms.
Although Switzerland is based on consensus-oriented democracy, the structure
of the public administration is similar to Germany. However, the size of the overall
population cannot be denied as an influencing factor. Similarly to Germany,
also Switzerland follows a partner-oriented approach by introducing the eCH
standards.
Methods and standards. The most significant differences can be found in the
form and procedures of the standardisation. In both countries, the approaches in
part also have political backing. This has to be strengthened in future, as the
political support and the support of the management of the administrative units
are central success factors for the introduction of BPM. Past initiatives lacked
this political support and thus finally withered away.
Switzerland chose to build on standardisation and on designing the process
management in the form of a BPM ecosystem. Where the standards are concerned,
the uniform specification of BPMN as modelling standard is an important aspect.
As in Germany, no restriction to a certain tool has been specified. Now, after the
first wave of standardisation, Switzerland is following a logically consistent path
by setting up and providing a process exchange platform to allow exchange of
process expertise across all institutions and levels.
Whereas Switzerland is first implementing a comprehensive standardisation
initiative (BPM ecosystem) and then building a process exchange platform on this
foundation, Germany is pursuing the path of first setting up a process exchange
platform and hoping that standardisation (with regard to notation) will slowly
but surely occur in consequence. This strategy could be successful, solely on
account of the power of accomplished facts. Facts are for example created by the
Nationale Prozessbibliothek (National Process Library), which is in an advanced
state of completion.
Tools. In both countries, initiatives for developing process exchange platforms
have been started recently. Germany is taking a more pragmatic approach and
is first setting up a process exchange platform. This process is accompanied
by standardisation efforts (in particular of interfaces), however, this does not
constitute an integrated complete model or strategic action. In Germany, skilled
negotiation with all relevant providers of BPM tools resulted in viewers and
simple modellers being available free of charge from the NPB. These issues have
not been solved in Switzerland yet. Germany is furthermore counting on the
xProzess standard interface definition, based on the xÖV family, for process
exchange.
Challenges. One aspect that is more or less dominant in both cases is the mostly
technical approach to the BPM topic. Those responsible for management have
to take charge and create a culture of process orientation and overcoming silos
(mental change). Currently the BPM implementation of both countries can be
said as being too heavily bottom-to-top, furthermore it has a too strong technical
focus.
5 Conclusion
In this paper we investigated the BPM implementation in the public adminis-
tration of Germany and Switzerland. Therefore, we conducted and compared
two case studies with a set of systematically derived comparison criteria. We
found that Switzerland is ahead of Germany where standardisation is concerned,
Germany on the other hand has a wide range of free tools available for the
process management. Currently it is not possible to predict which approach will
be potentially more successful in the long run. Germany definitely has to invest
more effort where standardisation is concerned, Switzerland has to strive to enter
into similarly self-confident negotiations with the suppliers of BPM(N) tools as
those conducted by Germany.
Based on the research subject and the small number of case studies, it is
not possible to make generalisable statements. It is planned to include Austria
and other countries in future analyses. This might yield information on which
factors contribute to a successful end-to-end BPM in public administration.
Furthermore, working from hypotheses that can be derived from this article,
further research can be initiated, and a further systematisation of the comparison
can be attempted.
References
1. Lenk, K., Schuppan, T., Schaffroth, M.: Vernetzte verwaltung. organisationskonzept
für ein föderales e-government schweiz. (2010)
2. S.Schulz, Schuppan, T.: Development of a european framework for e-government
competences. In: FTVI/FTRI. (2012) 47–58
3. Gibbins, R.: Federalism in a digital world. Canadian Journal of Political Science
33(12) (2000) 667–689
4. Schuppan, T.: Structural change through e-government: Local experiences from
germany. (2008)
5. Schuppan, T.: The territorial dimension in the e-government era: Experiences from
german public administration. (2010)
6. Weber, M., G.Roth, C.Wittich: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft:. Economy and Society:
An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. California University (1978)
7. Bannister, F.: Dismantling the silos: extracting new value from it investments in
public administration. Inf. Syst. J. 11(1) (2001)
8. Walser, K.: Architectural principles for e-government business and application ar-
chitectures based on an e-government business process reference model. proceedings
der metteg2012, belgrad, 3. - 6. juli 2012. belgrad. (2012)
9. Lewin, K.: Tatforschung und minderheitenprobleme. Weiß-Lewin, G. (Hrsg.):
Die Lösung sozialer Konflikte. Ausgewählte Abhandlungen über Gruppendynamik.
Christian-Verlag, Bad Nauheim. (1953)
10. Denzin, N.: The research act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. (1970)
11. Eisenhardt, K.M.: Building theories from case study research. Academy of Man-
agement Review 14(4) (1989) 532–550
12. Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research : Design and Methods. 3 edn. Applied Social
Research Methods Series. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)
13. Bertalanffy, L.v.: General system theoria: A new approach tot he unity of science.
Human Biology 23(12) (1951) 302–361
14. Bertalanffy, L.v.: Vorläufer und begründer der systemtheorie. Kurzrock, R. (Hrsg.):
Systemtheorie (1972) 17–82
15. Becker, J., Hofmann, S., Jurisch, M., Knackstedt, R., Krcmar, H., Räckers, M.,
Thome, I., Wolf, P.: Prozessorientierte verwaltung - status quo und forschungslücken.
In: FTVI/FTRI. (2012) 61–72
16. Traunmüller, R., Wimmer, M.: Online one-stop government. Wirtschaftsinformatik
47(5) (2005) 383–386
17. Schaffroth, C.D.M.: ech-0138 rahmenkonzept zur beschreibung und dokumenta-
tion von aufgaben, leistungen, prozessen und zugangsstrukturen der öffentlichen
verwaltung der schweiz. (2012)
18. German Government: Regierungsprogramm 2009-2013 (2012)
19. Konferenz der Kantonsregierungen KDK: öffentlich-rechtliche rahmenvereinbarung
über die e-government-zusammenarbeit in der schweiz 2007–2011 (2007)
20. Schweiz: E-Government Strategie Schweiz 2007-2011 (2007)
21. E-Government Schweiz: Katalog Priorisierter Vorhaben (2012)