The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia | 99
accepted.
f. Effect of Commitment Confidence Connectedness
The sixth hypothesis proposed in this research is the belief significant positive effect on the Relationship
Commitment. In Table 3 shows the magnitude of the path
coefficients standardized estimate and the estimate with a value of CR = 6848 which is greater than ±
2.0 or level of significance P test the hypothesis that less than 5. Therefore the proposed
hypothesis is accepted.
5.2 Discussion Based on the test results of the overall model is said to
good models because a degree of freedom df, chi square X ² statistics, the Goodness of Fit Index GFI,
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index AGFI, Tucker Lewis Index TLI , and the Root Mean Error of
Approximation Squqare RMSEA is in conformity with the requirements specified. Results and figures
shown in table 2. Furthermore, the test results from 6 hipotesi stated that
hypothesis, only one hypothesis can not be accepted, that influence the effectiveness of communication of
trust, we interpret these results that the effectiveness of the communication does not have a significant
influence in the formation of trust. In this study, the trust can be enhanced by improving the quality of
service, as shown by the evidence to the hypothesis that the five, namely quality service and significant
positive effect on trust. From the hypothesis testing results in Table 3, it can be
concluded that the public that the commitment to establish connectivity dlaam this study is influenced by
the effectiveness of the communication and the quality of service and trust.
That need to be observed in this study is an increase in confidence, its based on the magnitude of the influence
coefficient standardized coefficient where the coefficient turned out to demonstrate the value of trust
influence the greatest influence 62 of the Relationship Commitment, compared with other
variables. Therefore, it becomes very important to increase the trust in order to increase the Relationship
Commitment. Increased confidence can be done by improving the quality of service. So as to establish
connectivity commitment, then the provision of services by the UNISBANK to students should be
improved. From the above explanation, the researchers conclude
that the commitment to establish connectivity in Semarang UNISBANK influenced by the effectiveness
of communication, quality of service and especially by the trust, because the magnitude of the effect of
variable coefficient confidence connectedness is the largest commitment be compared coefficient of the
influence of other variables in the this research.
6. CONCLUSION
This study aimed to examine the effect of communication effectiveness, quality service to the
Relationship Commitment. Tested the effectiveness of communication is the ability of colleges to provide
information on everything that is needed by students with simple and clear language.
Quality of service is presenting services related to what can be provided by the college, for example, providing
a reliable service system, providing appropriate care service standards, providing a system that is responsive
and reliable service, providing services sympathetic, and so on.
Belief or conviction represents a willingness to exchange partners to establish long-term relationships
to generate positive performance. Relationship Commitment present value development
interorganizational relationships is central to the success and long-term relationships and explicitly or
implicitly a function of the exchange agreements with customers.
The results of initial testing of the model proposed in this study, based on the index of general fitness model
turned out to generate a margin value. This can be caused by a model built rudimentary. Therefore do
change the model. Changes in the model is done by changing the variables of trust and Relationship
Commitment become an observed variable, while the variable communication effectiveness and quality of
service is still shaped unobeserved. After a change of the model, the model showed a good
fit. Based on suitability index models, ie the value of Chi square, GFI, TLI, RMSEA and AGFI showed
values above the critical value, so in general the model is fit.
Hypothesis testing results show that the proposed six hypotheses are first hypothesis can not diterima.Dari
not proven this hypothesis, we take the conclusion that for the case study on UNISBANK, there is a gap with
previous studies, in which to build trust was not significantly affected by communication effectiveness.
Variables that have the greatest influence on the Relationship Commitment in this study is trust.
Therefore, to establish connectivity commitment, should be focused on the creation and enhancement of
confidence in the UNISBANK.
REFERENCES
Anderson Narus, 1990, A Model of Distribution
The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia | 100
Firm and
Manufacturer Firm
Working Relationship
Partnership,
Journal of
Marketing
, :54 January,42-58. Anderson, E and Sullivan, M, 1994, Customer
Satisfaction, Market Share and Profitability: Findings from Sweden,
Journal of Marketing
, vol 58, July, pp.53-66.
Andreassen T, Wallin and Lindestad B, 1997, Customer Loyalty and Complex Services,
International Journal of Service Industry Management,
Vol 9 No 1, pp. 7-23. Assael H, 1995, Consumer Behavior and Marketing
Action, 5
th
edition, South Western College Publishing, Cincinnati.
Bachrach, Bill, 1995, How to Influence Human Behavior,
Executive Excellence,
p. 62 Boorom, ML, Goolsby, JR, Ramsey, RP, 1998,
Relational Communication Traits and Their Effect on Adaptiveness and Sales Performance,
Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science
, Vol 26, 16-30.
Bowen, J, and Shoemaker, S 1998, Loyalty: A Strategy
Commitment,
Cornell H.R.A,
Quarterly
, Vol 2. pp. 12-25. Covey, Stephen R, 1995, Competitive Advantage,
Executive Excellence
, Vol. 12. Crosby, Evans, dan Cowles, 1990. Relationship
Quality in Service Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective,
Journal of Marketing
, 54: 68-81.
David L Loudon Albert J Della Bitta, Consumer Behavior: Concepts and Applications, Second
Edition, Mc Graw Hill Book Company, 1984. Ferdinand, Augusty T, 2002, Structural Equation
Modelling Dalam Penelitian Manajemen,
BP Undip
, Semarang. Gronroos, C, 1998, Service Quality: The Six Criteria
of Good Perceived Service Quality,
Review of Business
, Vol 9, Winter, pp. 10-13. Hair Jr, Joseph F, Rolp E Anderson, Ronald L Tatham
and William C Black, 1995,
Multivariate Data Analysis
with Readings
, Fourth Edition, Prentice Hall International Editions.
Kottler, Phillip,
1996, Manajemen
Pemasaran:
Analysis, Perencanaan,
Implementasi dan
Pengendalian
, Edisi Bahasa Indonesia, Jakarta: Salemba Empat
– Prentice Hall. Mc
Croscey, JC,
1984, The
Communication Apprehension
Perspective,
Avoiding Communication:
Shyness, Retitence,
and Communication Apprehension
, Beverly Hills, 13-38.
Mittal, Viskas, Ross, William T, Jr, Balsdare, Patrick M, 1998, The Asymetric Impact of Negative and
Positive Atribute Level Performance on Overall Satisfaction an Repurchase Intentions,
Journal of Marketing
, January, Vol 62, 33-47. Morgan, RM and Hunt, S.D, 1994, “The
Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing”,
Journal of Marketing
, vol 58, 20-38.
Moorman, Christin, Gerald Zaltman and Rohit Deshpande 1992 Relationships Between
Provider and Users of Market Reseat: The Dinamics of Trust Within and Between
Organzsations,
Journal Marketing Research
, Vol XXXIX, 314-28.
Paul G Patterson, Lester W Johnson and Richard A Spreng, 1997, Modelling The Determinants of
Customer Satisfaction for Business to Business Professional Service,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
, Vol 25 No. 1. Parasuraman, Valerie A Zeithaml, and Leonard L Berry,
Refinement and Reassessment of the Serqual Scale,
Journal of Retailing
, Vol: 67, No. 4 Winter, 1991.
Parasuraman, Reassesment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service
Quality: Implications for Future Research,
Journal of Marketing
, Vol: 58 January, 1994, 111-124.
Ramsey, RP and Sohi, R.S, 1997, “ Listening to Your Customer: The Impact of Perceived Salesperson
Listening Behavior on Relationship Outcomes”,
Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science.
Ruyter, Ko de and Wetzel, Marti ng, G.M 2000, “The
Impact of Perceived Listening Behavior in Voice to Voice Service Encounter”,
Journal of Service Research
, Vol 2,406-423. Sekaran, Uma, 1992,
Research Methods For Business: A Skill Building Approach,
Second Edition John Willey and Sons Inc., Singapore.
Sharma, Paul
G. Patterson. The
impact of
communication effectiveness
and service
quality on relationship commitment in consumer, professional services
The Journal of Services Marketing
. Santa Barbara:
1999.Vol.13, Iss. 2; pg. 151
The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia
101
Gaining Competitive Advantage through Business Process Reengineering BPR
Ummi Salwa Ahmad Bustamam
1
, Syadiyah Abdul Shukor
2
, Muhammad Ridhwan Ab. Aziz
3
, Zainal Abidin Mohamed
4
1
Senior lecturer at Faculty of Economics Muamalat, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia USIM, ummisalwausim.edu.my
2
Senior lecturer at Faculty of Economics Muamalat, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia USIM, syadiyahasusim.edu.my
3
Senior lecturer at Faculty of Economics Muamalat, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia USIM ridhwan.azizusim.edu.my
4
Senior lecturer at Faculty of Economics Muamalat, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia USIM laniazusim.edu.my
ABSTRACT
Business process reengineering BPR appeared in the business nomenclature in the early 90s to face the increasing competitive environment where drastic improvements in the time taken to deliver to the customers were necessary. It
began as a private sector technique to help organizations fundamentally rethink how they do their work in order to dramatically improve customer service, cut operational costs, and become world-class competitors. A key stimulus
for reengineering has been the continuing development and deployment of sophisticated information systems and networks. This paper shares the findings of the study where BPR were done on 17 license application processes
practised by 12 government agencies in one of the states in Malaysia. The BPR were done manually where activities were merged, arranged in parallel, removed where possible. Non expansive and simple technology were installed
basically to enable empowerment, multitasking, and time-wasting activities removed possible after relevant training done on personnel involved. For the purpose of this paper, only one license application process was selected as a
case study and to illustrate the methodology
used. Overall, the 17 business licensing application processes were reengineered with an improvement ranging from 10 to 98. The wide range of improvement was because some of
the processes were already quite efficient and only small improvements were necessary. Analysis showed that the common activities causing the delays were the waiting time spent before the actual process of screening the
applications and to make the final decision commonly done at monthly intervals. Findings showed that by applying proper BPR techniques, the business application process in state government agencies can be significantly
improved, achieving dramatic improvements in critical performance measures, such as cost, quality, service, and speed.
Keywords: business process reengineering BPR, business licensing process, empowerment, State-government
agency, case study, training
INTRODUCTION
Business Process Reengineering BPR is not an uncommon concept in this modern world and is best
understood as
a never-ending
process of
improvement in performance. Most organizations, whether
public or
private, have
numerous bureaucratic
procedures which
hinder the
performance and productivity of their respective organisations. Costly and time-consuming business
processes will cause inefficiency ineffectiveness and customer dissatisfaction. Just to illustrate, the process
of getting a “certificate of fitness” for a new building before it can be
allowed to allow residence to stay” is now about 14 months. This is unacceptable for the
owners. Therefore, there is a desperate need to thoroughly analyse and reengineer the old-fashioned
and obsolete business process to cut short this 14 months drastically.
This
paper concentrates
on analysing
and reengineering the process of issuing business permits
where companies must apply and get approval to run
The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia
102 specific business to the relevant government agencies
within a particular state in Malaysia. The purpose of this paper is twofold; first, it attempts to identify the
bottlenecks in the approval of the business licensing process in several agencies within the state. Second,
it endeavours to redesign and reengineer the approval process for the business license applications. To
realize this the team had to employ certain methods such that the new processes will be efficient and
productive in terms of time taken to finish the process, shorter delivery time, maintaining expected
standards in terms of quality and thus an overall increase in efficiency and productivity.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Business process reengineering or commonly known as BPR is defined as the fundamental rethinking and
radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary
measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service and speed Hammer Champy, 1993. BPR
involves a thorough analysis of the current business processes and redesign to improve performance
Davenport Short, 1990. There is an extensive literature on BPR in the academic journals as well as
books and magazines. However, there are very little about BPR in the public organizations Thong et al.,
2000. Although several computer software are available, the agencies involved do not require them
as the processes are quite straight forward and not sophisticated as in product design or architectural
drawing. BPR in Public Organizations
Parys and Thijs 2003 argued that BPR is crucial for public sector organizations although it is difficult to
be deployed. This is due to interlinked of departments and ministries. Therefore, change in one unit requires
change in other interlinked organizations. This was explained earlier by Rainey et al. 1983 who
summarized the differences between public and private
organizations into
three categories:
environmental factors,
organization-environment transactions and internal structure and processes. In
terms of environmental factors, less market exposure for the public organizations resulting in less incentive
for productivity and effectiveness, lower allocation efficiency
and lower
availability of
market information; more legal and formal constraints; and
higher political influences, including impacts of interest
groups and
the need
for support
constituencies. For the organization-environment transactions, there
are more mandatory actions to the public organizations due to the unique sanctions and
coercive powers of government; wider scope of concern and significance of actions in the public
interest; higher level of scrutiny of public officials; and greater expectation that public officials act fairly,
responsively, accountably and honestly. Finally, for internal
structure and
processes, the
public organizations have more complex criteria; managers
with less decision-making autonomy, less authority over subordinates, greater reluctance to delegate and
more political role for top managers; more frequent turnover of top managers due to elections and
political appointments; difficulties in devising incentives for individual performance; and lower
work satisfaction and organizational commitment Rainey et al., 1983.
Process is defined as a single or combination of tasks that add value to inputs to convert them into output
using human interactions, methodologies and techniques Tenner Detoro, 1992. Sethi and King
2003 recommend that business processes consist of different activities which define the pattern of work
in an organization. The efficient processes serve to satisfy customers by converting input resources to
desired output Hammer Champy, 1993. The importance of analyzing the existing business
processes in organizations is to identify bottlenecks in systems Evans, 1993. The bottlenecks could be
investigated using Fitzgerald and Murphys 1996 four critical phases for successfully implementing
BPR strategy in an organization. First, the core business processes to be redesigned should be
selected. Second, the process team should be established to reengineer the core business processes.
Third, the current business processes may be analysed and examined to find bottlenecks in the
systems. This phase also determines the satisfaction level of stakeholders with process outcomes. The
final phase encompasses the strategy to reengineer the process to improve performance.
METHODOLOGY
This study employed the case study approach as
suggested by Yin 2009 to gain an in-depth study about the research interests. This paper will
specifically discuss on how BPR was utilized in speeding up the approval processes for companies to
get business licenses in 15 different state government agencies. The idiographic explanations inherent in
the case study approach enabled a deeper
understanding and detailed in-depth information that
The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia
103 provided credible and valuable knowledge about the
business licensing processes. Primary data were gained through in-depth interview sessions with
officers who participated in a BPR session. Interview notes were then transcribed and reviewed for
consistency. Inconsistencies were clarified with the relevant officers. The data collection method also
involved establishing a case study database consisting of records and documentation of business
licensing process flow. Finally, a final case write-up for each license application was done where steps in
recording the original processes, the process reengineering activities suggested and the lessons
learned were documented and later verified with the organization involved.
For the purpose of this paper, one licence application process in a state agency, known as PBT G was
selected as a case to provide an idiographic explanation of the BPR job. [Similar processes were
applied in all the other cases]. The researchers utilized the following 12 steps while conducting the
BPR for the various application processes in the said organisations:
1. List all the activities in the process in
sequence beginning with the customer and ends with the customer.
2. For each activity, the following times were
determined and obtained through discussion with the various personnel of the said
agency: a.
total time: time taken for the whole activity [from the time say person A
received the filled documents until it is being looked into by another
person B.]
b. value-added time: time taken that is
of value to the customer [person A acts on the document received, like
validating the information written which the customer is willing to
pay for the service],
c. waiting time; the document is idle
until somebody acts on it, d.
transfer time;
documents transferred physically to a different
location for another person to act upon]
e. non value-added time: an activity
done on the document but is not appreciated by the customer and
will not pay for it willingly. [Example checking process of the
document to see if the former staff has done it correctly].
3. Calculate the efficiency of the process: =
[value-added timetotal time] 4.
Draw the process flow chart from the start to the end.
5. Separate the drawn charts according to the
individualsdepartments involved. 6.
Draw the Pareto Chart; [based on the total time for the activities taken and arranged in
sequence from the longest to the shortest]. The top 20 of the longest activities cover
80 of the total time. It is these top 20 activities and also the longest that will be
given focus to be reengineered.
7. Start the reengineering procedures:
a. Merge or combine activities where
possible, b.
Parallel the
activities where
possible. c.
Several activities done by the same personnel or department should be
reviewed and reduced to just once or twice in that department.
8. Question the need and justification of
retaining every step. 9.
Empowerment and retraining are common, and thus personnel are multitasked but
aware of the extra responsibility that goes with them.
10. Introduce appropriate technology to remove
the unwanted inefficiency like waiting, transfer and non-value added times.
11. If the new time is not reduced by at least
60 then it is not BPR. 12.
Draw the new process map.
FINDINGS DISCUSSION Proposed engineered process
As can be seen from Table 1, the existing process to apply for a business license starts with the customer
filling the application form and submits it to Staff I.
Table 1: Existing Process to Apply for Business License Person
Responsible Activities
A B
C D E
F G
H I J K A
Customer fills out application form
A B
Staff I receives, verifies registers
application form
B
The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia
104 B
Staff I issues authorization card
C B
Staff I opens a file D
B Staff I issues letters
to applicant for payment to
technical dept.
E A
Customer makes payment
F C
Committee meet to screen
G D
Officer II approves minutes of meeting
H E
Officer III endorse minutes of meeting
I F
Officer IVapproves application
J A
Customer receives business license
through Staff 1
K
Once heshe receives the completed form, the officer is responsible to verify and register the application. Heshe
is also responsible to issue an authorization card and open a file for the application. Then, the officer issues a “request
for payment” slip for applicant and prepares a letter to the technical department for the monthly committee meeting to screen all applications.
The committee then meets and may approve the application and Officer II goes
through the minutes of the meeting followed by Officer III for endorsement. Finally, Officer IV signs the approval letter after certifying the minutes from III before passing it back to staff I and the customer receives the business
license after showing proof of payment activity F and then K. Work Process and Total Time Taken
Table 2 shows the existing time taken to apply for a business license for each activity by each person
responsible. The existing process revealed that the total time taken is 102.99 hours. Out of these hours,
the actual time of the value-added activity is 1.26 hours and the total waiting time is 101.32 hours.
Figures in Table 2 also showed that the longest waiting time is the committee meeting i.e. 101 hour.
The existing process efficiency is 1.2 only which is quite low. From the table, it can be identified that the
waiting time for the screening meeting is too long and slows down the process.
Table 2: Existing Process to Apply Business License According to Person Responsible Person
Responsible Activities
Overall Time
Taken Value-
Added Time
Waiting Time
Transfer Time
Non- Value
Added Activity
Time
A A
Customer fills out application form
B B
Staff I receives, verifies and registers application form
0.03 0.01
0.02 B
C Staff I issues authorization
card 0.02
0.02 B
D Staff I opens an official file
0.03 0.03
The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia
105
Person Responsible
Activities Overall
Time Taken
Value- Added
Time Waiting
Time Transfer
Time Non-
Value Added
Activity Time
B E
Staff I issues payment letter for customer and prepare a
letter to technical department 0.05
0.05 C
F Customer goes to payment
counter to pay and show receipt
when application
approved 0.5
C G
Committee meeting 102
1 101
D H
Officer II approves minutes of meeting
0.02 0.02
E I
Officer III approves minutes of meeting
0.17 0.02
0.15 F
J Officer
IV approves
application 0.17
0.02 0.15
A K
Customer receives business license
Total Overall Time
102.99 1.17
101.32
Process Efficiency 1.14
Time is calculated in hours
Proposed reengineered process Table 3a shows the process flow map where the
activities instead of in sequence Table 1 are arranged to run in parallel where possible H and I or
F and G and activities B,C,D and E are merged into 1 and the jobs done continuously in sequence without
any break. Table 3 b illustrates the Pareto Chart of the same process. The Pareto Chart revealed that
activity ‘G’ recorded the longest time taken which is 102 hours. This was where the approval committee
met once a month to screen and make decision to approve or otherwise, all the license applications.
BPR principles and opinions of experts including the personnel involved were incorporated into the
existing
license application
process. The
reengineered process of application of the business license is reported in Table 3c.
It is recommended that the committee meeting to screen the application either meet at a shorter interval
like weekly or even daily or even to empower and let the decision making be made by any of the
officers II, III or IV no more requirement to approve minutes of meeting as there is none. But the
screening procedures will have to be structured and
formalised into a ‘standard operating procedure’ S.O.P. template to be followed by all the said
officers to follow and refer. Thus application forms submitted by Staff I can go immediately to either
officer II, III or IV i.e. to whoever is available at that time. With the S.O.P., the screening can be done
immediately after
receiving the
application documents from staff I and the activities related to
the monthly meeting will now be unnecessary. The business license can now be produced at a more
efficient rate. Table 3c uses principle number 7c and 9 as in the
list where a personneldepartment should handle the process at a minimum number of times as possible.
Example for personnel ‘B’, all the activities if possible should be concentrated at 1 or 2 activities
only instead of B, C, D and E. Thus, instead of 0.13 hours, it can be down to 0.05 E. Activity F can also
be done in parallel after E. Activities G, H, and I done by the three officers II, III and IV and are not
relevant anymore as there is need for a meeting and all the three officers can now act screen
immediately when Staff I submit the forms to anyone of them whoever is available. Following the S.O.P.
the officers can do the job in not more than 0.5 of an hour, before returning it to staff I. Only unique cases
are to be postponed and brought to the monthly meeting for further scrutiny if required. From the
available records, the percentage for such cases number of unique cases during the last three months
were only 2 a month were only 2. Thus why is
The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia
106 there a need to delay the other 98 when only 2
are giving the problems. Thus business activities can start earlier and support the economic well-being of
those involved. Table 3a: Parallel Activities
Person Responsible
Activities A
B C
D E
F Total
A Customer fills out application
form A
B Officer I receives, verifies and
registers application form B
B Officer I issues authorization
card C
B Officer I opens a file
D B
Officer I issues payment letter and prepare a letter to technical
department E
A Customer makes payment
F C
Committee meeting G
D Officer II approves minutes of
meeting H
E Officer III approves minutes of
meeting I
F Officer IV approves application
J A
Customer receives business license
K Time taken hour
0.05 1
0.17 0.17
1.39
Table 3b: Pareto Chart Activity
Total Time Hour
G 102
F 0.50
I 0.17
J 0.17
E 0.05
B 0.03
D 0.03
C 0.02
H 0.02
K
Total 102.99
Table 3c: the proposed process after BPR Person
Responsible Activity
Total Time Taken
Hour Total
Hour After
BPR A
A A
J B
B 0.03
0.13
Pareto Chart for Process to Apply Business License
20 40
60 80
100 120
G F
I J
E B
C G
A
Activity
The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia
107 B
C 0.02
0.05 B
D 0.03
B E
0.05 A
F 0.5
0.5 0.5
C G
102 102
1 D
H 0.02
0.02 -
E I
0.17 0.17
0.17 F
J 0.17
0.17 0.17
Total Overall Time
102.99 1.39
Process Efficiency 1.14
84.6
The proposed reengineered process results are as summarized in Table 4 and shows a time reduction by
99 i.e. from 103 to 1.39 hour after using BPR techniques. As a result, the efficiency process
increases from 1.14 to 85. This study provides good grounds for furthering the BPR strategy that
will improve the process efficiency.
Table 4: Summary of Proposed Reengineered Process Result Process
Time hour
Total time taken before BPR 103 Value added time
1.17 Waiting time
101.32 Total time taken after BPR
1.39 efficiency before BPR
1.17103 = 1.14 efficiency after BPR
1.171.39 = 84 Time shorten by
103-1.39 = 101.61 99
For All the 17 Cases All the BPR related results of the
17 business licensing application processes in 12 different
agencies that were done are condensed in this paper
and presented in Tables 5 and 6 below. Overall from the 17 processes, only the ones that
took long hours to complete were given priority for BPR activities to be installed. However, there were
few whose timing are considered as acceptable and therefore were not reengineered. The longest process
took 210 days while the shortest probably only 24 minutes .46 hr. The biggest time cut was from 102
to 2 hours i.e. a reduction of 100 hours or 99 reduction, while the smallest reduction was only
when the 60 minute process was reduced to 45 minutes i.e. a reduction by 25.
The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia
108
Table 5: Summary of Licensing Activities Reengineered
1 2
3 4
5 6
AGENCI ES
PB T A
PBT B
PBT C PBT D
PBT E
PBT F PBT G
PBT H
PBT I
DE PT
J DEPT K
DEP T L
PROCES SES
Publ ic
Per mit
mi n
Low Risk
Busin ess
Licen se
hr Entertain
ment License
hr a.
Risky Busin
ess Licen
se hr
b. Busin
ess Premi
se allocat
ion hr
Bird’ s
Nest day
s Advertise
ment License
hr a.
banner display
hr b.bus
i- ness
prem ise
hr c.mob
ile busi-
ness hr
d.5- foot
way prem
ise hr
High risk
busin ess
hr One
day mar
ket hr
Fire safe
ty Cert
. hr
a. Met
er insta
ll- men
t hr
b. Develop
er’s request
hr Mini
ng permi
t hr
TOTAL TIME
pre BPR 60
41 267
138.5 9
32 27.3
72 0.46
102 60
0.6 131
days 53
160 61.5
6 167
210 days
v-added time
36 3
6 1
13.7 6
1 0.22
1.26 1.24
0.4 1.07
3.7 9.4
2.54 41.5
7.15 Waiting
time 6
33.5 131
119 12.3
6 2.5
.08 101.
32 59
118 days
47.6 5
18 59.0
2 125.75
141d ays
TOTAL TIME
Post BPR
45 18.5
87 30
5 5.3
50 1.49
1.32 15.79
9 18.5
7.66 23.5
35.7
efficiency pre BPR
60 7
2 0.7
8 22.3
2 0.001
49 1.2
2.1 68
.82 7
5.9 4.1
25 3.4
efficiency post
BPR 72
16 7
3.33 33
116 1
85 91
6.8 41
50.8 33
177 20
TIME SHORTE
NED 1
– 48
min 41
– 18.5
= 22.5
267 – 87
= 180
138 –
30 =
108.5 9
32 – 5
= 27
27.3- 5=22
.3 12-9 =
3 102-
1.5 = 100.
5 60-
1.5 =
58.5 131
– 16 =
115 53
– 9 =
44 160
to 18
= 142
61.5 –
7.5= 55
167 –
23.5 = 143
210 –
36 =174
The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia
109 REDUCT
ION 20
45 67
78 84
83 25
acceptabl e
99 98
acce pta
ble 88
85 89
89 86
83
The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia
110
Table 6: Examples of Major Activities in each agency that were Reengineered AGENCIES
Activity 1 Activity 2
Activity 3
1: PBT A Overall the longest activity was only 15 minutes, and thus the process is considered
efficient 2: PBT B
Weekly decision Other activities are already
very reasonable -
3: PBT C Committee
meets to
decide fortnightly Depend
on external
department decision Letter signing which took
30 hours.
4: PBT D: a.
b. Wait for forms in batch
processing Getting offer letter ready
and to sign Waiting for interview date
Client’s delay Client’s late payment
Issue of
license and
approval 5: PBT E
Too long waiting and non-value added activities
Waiting for hard copy of report
Send report to clients
6: PBT F Decision comm. meets
weekly Delay in mailing
Waiting for decision of comm.
7: PBT G 7a.
7b. 7c.
7d.
OVERALL TIME IS REASONABLY SHORT
Monthly meeting to decide
- -
Comm. meets every 10 days to make decision
OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE REASONABLE OVERALL TIME IS REASONABLY SHORT
8: PBT H Weekly meetings to
decide Wait for report from
external departments. Wait for evaluation
9: PBT I All activities reasonable except for head’s time to take action
10: Dept J Fixing of visit dates
Checking process Getting visit evaluation
report 11:Dept K:
a. Connecting the meters
Scheduling officers to check
Officers evaluation report b.
Check with head for appt. Head of re-evaluation
committee to convene meeting
Making the report 12: Dept L
Getting payment from clients
Check report Personnel “a” handling the
process too many times
The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia
111
RECOMMENDATION
Generally, the waiting time for ‘decision to be made’
activity was the major culprit. This was quite common because the decision making is to be made
by a committee but they do not meet regularly and between a long time span. This was probably true at
that time when the skill and knowledge required to make the decision are probably limited to a few. But
then time has changed as the level of education of officers has improved and so are the availability and
relevant training programmes scheduled for them. Thus the responsibility of the decision can be
empowered to more personnel. Some common unique examples are long waiting
time for just a signature which in reality is only 5 seconds, to wait for approval in the monthly
meeting the irony was that, at the end all applications were approved, waiting for the
responsible personnel specially appointed to make the checking when in some cases, the process is not
that technical or the knowledge required for the personnel can be easily transferred.
The common BPR principles applied were parallel the process, reducing the number of times a personnel
handle the process flow, combining various processes and for public agencies the empowerment to the other
personnel need to be made common. But of course, only after appropriate training has been given and the
responsibilities and accountability associated to it need to be clearly understood. A good example is
where the District Officer DO is not the only person who can sign a specific letter but also the other three
Assistant Dos ADO as well. Thus with the DOs absence there are three others who can perform the
job and the state chief ensure that there must be at least one ADO in the office all the time. Another
common one was to make decision by a working committee on line and by circulation rather than wait
for the monthly meeting.
CONCLUSION
In the beginning, the process looks tedious for the beginners but if it is made into a culture where the
desire to serve the public is high in the list and relevant training has been given to the right
individuals then recommendations that come from the activity personnel should be heard and considered
seriously. The technique discussed in this paper is based on several cycles of sharing the experiences
and though software programs are available nothing is like pen-pushing and chart drawing with excel
facilities as many personnel need to be aware and able to apply it. Amongst the many targets of
concern, the concepts of waiting, transferring and no value-added time need to be fairly appreciated as
these were the focus of the reengineering exercise. Of course the other critical component is the use of
technology to enhance the process; E- mailing alone has saved hours of transporting time, and having
documents to be reviewed simultaneously through e- copies and submitting reports in standard format and
checklist are features that have helped. Computer added design software programmes are another of
such inventions that support nering,
We started off with small improvements TQM and labelled it as evolution. This was followed by BPR
and labelled it as Revolution. Man are still not satisfied and look for new quicker methods and give
them varied labels such as creativity, initiative, think
out of the box, then “Big Think Approach”, Blue Ocean and more to come. Business Reengineering is
next and it is faster than BPR. What do we label it then? Evolution followed by Revolution and then
“Transcendulation”?
REFERENCES
Davenport, H. T. Short, E. J. 1990. The new industrial engineering: information Technology
and business
process redesign.
Sloan Management Review, 34
4, 11-27. Evans, K. 1993. Reengineering and Cybernetics,
American Programmer, 6
11, 10-16. Fitzgerald, B. Murphy, C. 1996. Business
process reengineering: putting theory into practice.
INFOR, 34
1, 3-13. Hammer, M. Champy, J. 1993.
Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for
business revolution
. HarperCollins publishers, Inc. New York.
Mohammed,Z.A., Joe
Ann, Wong
F.Y., 2014,
Strategic Management, chapter 12 on business
process reengineering,
Oxford University Press Kuala Lumpur.
Parys, M., Thijs, N. 2003, September 3-6.
Business process reengineering; Or how to enable bottom-up participation in top-down
reform program
. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the European Group of Public
Administration, Lisbon, Portugal. Retrieved July
4
th
, 2012,
from http:soc.kuleuven.beioegpaHRMlisbonpary
s_thijs.pdf Rainey, H.G. 1983. Public agencies and private
firms: Incentive
Structures, Goals,
and
The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia
112 Individual Roles
Administration and Society, 15
2, 207-242.
Sethi, V. King, W. R. 2003.
Organizational transformation
through business
process reengineering: applying the lessons learned
. Pearson Education, Inc., Singapore.
Tenner, A. R., Detoro, I. J. 2000.
Process redesign:
The implementation
guide for
managers.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Thong, J.Y.L, Yap, C.S. Seah, K.L. 2000.
Business process reengineering in the public sector: The case of the housing development in
Singapore.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 17
1, 245-270. Yin, R.K. 2009.
Case study research: Design and methods, applied social research methods series
4
th
Ed., Vol.5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
The 2015 International Conference of Management Sciences ICoMS 2015, April 23, UMY, Indonesia
| 113
The Influence of Management Information System E-Learning To Net Benefit In Yogyakarta Private University Using DElone and McLean
’s 2003 Model
Hajra Rasmita Ngemba
1
, Heru Kurnianto Tjahjono
2
1
Department of Management Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta hajra.rasmitagmail.com
2
Department of Management Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta heruutilitasyahoo.com
ABSTRACT
At the Private University of Yogya karta, many a re using E-Learning to improve performance in organizations. E-Learning is a learning method using electronic media as well as information technology, such as multimedia
elements a s a means of delivery of material. This resea rch wa s conducted to find out the implementation of E- Learning is used effectively in the organization of private universities in Yogyakarta to get a Net Benefit from E-
Learning information system. This research will use the Delone and McLean
’s
2003 model by testing the six variables using SEM Structural Equation Model. The respondents in this study were Lecturers and students at the
Private University of Yogyakarta that use E-Learning.
Keywords
: Private University,
E-Learning
,
Net Benefit
, Delone and McLean ’s 2003 Model, SEM
Structural Equation Model
1. INTRODUCTION