CONCLUSION Discussion Based on the test results of the overall model is said to

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