University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Bridled boldness: Reengineering the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Lessons learned

(USC Thesis Other)

Bridled boldness: Reengineering the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Lessons learned

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. U M I films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send U M I a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these w ill be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note w ill indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact U M I directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BRIDLED BOLDNESS:
REENGINEERING THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS-
LESSONS LEARNED
by
Linda Wines Smith
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING,
AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
December 2000
Copyright 2000 Linda Wines Smith
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
U M I Number 3041525
Copyright 2000 by
Smith, Linda Wines
All rights reserved.
___ _®
UMI
UMI Microform 3041525
Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089
This dissertation, written by
Linda Wines Smith
under the direction o f h.Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its
members, has been presented to and
accepted by the Faculty o f the School of
Policy, Planning, and Development, in
partial fulfillment o f requirements for the
degree of
DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRA TION
Dean
Date.
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory o f my mother, M. Genevieve Keeney
Wines, who always supported me in every good thing; and whose encouragement
caused me to always strive to improve myself. Because o f her support I was able
to go to college in the first place. And to my family, thank you fo r your
encouragement throughout this process, especially to my husband fo r his
patience.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for permitting me to conduct
this research on their reengineering process. I am grateful to the Director, Dr.
Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, for her assistance and to each of the reengineering team
members who participated in this research project.
Most importantly, I want to acknowledge Dr. Robert Carter who agreed
to serve as the Chair of my dissertation committee and Dr. Chester A. Newland
for agreeing to serve on my committee. Dr. Carter was a source of
encouragement throughout this process to persevere. He is a man of great
courage who inspires others by his love of country and his zeal for the youth of
this country who have chosen to serve it.
Dr. Newland is a man of great integrity, whose example motivates each
of us to try harder and to do better. He leads by his splendid example to
improve the field of public administration and its practitioners. Both exemplify
the finest in academia and serve as exceptional role models for all students.
Thank you for your tireless review and encouragement to me during this process.
And to Dr. Thomas R. Kane, who also agreed to serve on my committee,
thank you for you for recommending me for participation in this doctoral
program and for your support, encouragement and assistance throughout my
participation. Your guidance, insights and advice during the preparation of this
dissertation were invaluable.
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In addition, I thank the following individuals for their support-Dr. John
W. Roberts, a dear friend, for his assistance, encouragement and guidance. And
to Dr. Mahnaz Dean, who served on my peer committee, thank you. Her
positive and joyful manner were always encouraging. And to Dr. Betty Stage
who served on my peer committee, thank you.
And finally, thank you to my husband, Chuck Smith, whose support
made the completion of this undertaking possible. You are a great blessing.
Thanks to my father, Averal Wines for his constant inquiry and concern about
my progress; to my loving sister, Sue Romagnoli, for her steadfast belief in me;
and to my brother John Wines for his love.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................... iii
LIST OF T A B L E S............................................................................................... viii
A BSTRA CT............................................................................................................. ix
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .........................1
Research Q uestions............................................................................2
Problem D efinition............................................................................2
Potential Significance of the
Proposed Study ....................................................................3
Summary of Findings ...................................................................... 5
Organization of the Research............................................................8
II. LITERATURE R E V IE W .................................................................... 11
Federal Government and Reinvention-
Practitioner V ie w ......................................................... 12
Federal Government and Reinvention-
Theorists’ V ie w ............................................................... 16
What Leading Authorities Recommend to be
Studied in this Area ....................................................... 19
Change Efforts in Other Organizations.........................................22
Three Models of Change Strategies...............................................23
Theories of Organizational C h an g e ...............................................27
HI. BUREAU OF PRISONS (BOP) REENGINEERING.........................29
Introduction .....................................................................................29
History of the B O P ..........................................................................29
BOP C u ltu re.....................................................................................32
BOP Leadership............................................................................... 39
BOP Environment ..........................................................................42
The Reengineering Decision ......................................................... 44
Laying the Groundwork................................................................. 45
Structure of the Reengineering Teams .........................................48
The Hammer and Champy M o d el................................................. 49
The Collins and Porras M o d el.......................................................51
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Reengineering P ro cess......................................................... 53
Outside Consultants ...................................................... 53
BOP Strategic Goals and the
Reengineering Objective.......................................56
Charge to the T e a m s......................................................... 56
IV. RESEARCH DESIGN ..........................................................................59
Introduction .....................................................................................59
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................59
Organizational Change T heory......................................... 60
Reinvention T heory............................................................62
Justification of the Design...............................................................63
Data Collection Procedures............................................................69
Data Collection Instrum ent............................................................70
Data Analysis Procedures............................................................71
Limitations of the Research............................................................73
V. APPLICATION OF BUSINESS REENGINEERING MODELS . . 74
Introduction .....................................................................................74
Hammer and Champy M odel......................................................... 74
Collins and Porras M odel...............................................................77
Findings Related to M odels............................................................ 79
VI. MAINTAINING THE VALUES OF
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION......................................... 89
Introduction .....................................................................................89
Economy/Efficiency/Effectiveness................................................. 90
Guiding the Focus ..........................................................................93
Impetus for Change..........................................................................95
Summary of Findings .................................................................... 97
VH. LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................. 100
Introduction ............................................................................... 100
Strengths and Weaknesses/
Recommendations for Improvement........................... 100
Lessons Learned ....................................................................... 108
VIII. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS............................................ 129
Introduction ............................................................................... 129
The Research Questions Revisited............................................ 129
Summary of Findings and Conclusions.................................... 130
Opportunities for Further Research......................................... 132
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................... 134
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDICES
A. Team Member Questionnaire Transmittal Letter
and Team Member Questionnaire.............................. 146
B. Vision and Mission Statements............................................ 151
C. Cultural Anchors and Core Values .................................... 152
D. Tables 1A to 17N ................................................................. 153
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Reengineering Teams by Functional A r e a ...............................................65
Table 2: Reengineering Teams by Role on Team ..................................................65
Table 3: Type of Change Recommended..................................................................81
Table 4: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering .... 82
Table 5: Were Ground Rules Adhered T o ? .............................................................86
Table 6: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants ......................... 88
Table 7: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations........................................................................................91
Table 8: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations........................................................................................91
Table 9: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations........................................................................................92
Table 10: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories...................................93
Table 11: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations..................................... 94
Table 12: Primary Reason for Reengineering........................................................ 97
Table 13: Strengths of the Process ................................................................... 103
Table 14: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement . . 107
Table 15: Adequacy of T raining......................................................................... 118
Table 16: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering
Initiative................................................................................................ 119
Table 17: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations.......................... 123
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
Public sector agencies are undergoing changes for a number of reasons-
in large part, to be competitive with the private sector. They are becoming more
like the private sector. However, fundamental objectives of government and
business are different. The objective of business is to be profitable and the
objective of government is to be accountable. Most reforms or models for
change have come from the private sector. They embrace the private sector
economics-based model-market-driven and focused primarily on profitability.
The key is to accomplish governmental organizational change and to be
competitive with the private sector, while maintaining the values of public
administration.
This research demonstrates how one public agency, the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, was able to maintain the values of public administration in its change
efforts. To accomplish this, the Bureau’s leadership used the culture of the
agency to direct and bridle the change process. It explains the manner in which a
thriving, successful organization approached revitalizing the agency to allow it to
become more competitive with the private sector. It found that business
reengineering models can be used in public sector change efforts, provided they
are modified to take into account the inherent differences between them.
Ten sets of findings may be summarized as lessons learned: (1) private
sector reengineering models are not directly applicable to public sector agencies
because of public and private sector differences with respect to accountability;
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(2) ground rules for the change process must be designed, adopted and followed;
(3) preparation and planning time for the process is essential; (4) effective and
ongoing communication is a must; (5) team participants must not be allowed to
become overwhelmed with the process; clear time frames must be established and
maintained; (6) staff at all levels must be involved on the teams; (7) agency
leadership’s complete support of the process is essential; (8) benchmarking must
be emphasized as vital; (9) organizational change needs to be initiated within
rather than externally forced; (10) changes in organizations are ongoing and
reasonable mechanisms need to be in place to facilitate them.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.
This dissertation is completed in partial fulfillment of the Doctor of
Public Administration degree requirements of the University of Southern
California. The research examines the reengineering of one federal agency, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). It describes the BOP reengineering process,
from the factors involved in the agency’s decision to reengineer, through its
developmental and planning stages, up to the presentation and review of
reengineering recommendations by the executive staff. It focuses on the BOP’s
experiences during the process and provides lessons learned from the endeavor.
It examines instigators of the change and how the change effort was structured,
focusing on the impact of the BOP’s organizational culture and leadership in the
change effort and their relationship to maintaining the values of public
administration in the process. Data were gathered and analyzed to provide
insights and experiences that will be useful to other federal agencies undergoing
change efforts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Questions.
The principal research question is:
-What lessons can be learned from the BOP reengineering process to aid
other agencies in successful change efforts?
Supporting questions are:
-Can the principles of public administration be sustained by a federal
agency while it remains competitive with the private sector? In other words, can
economy, efficiency and effectiveness, including equity, as well as accountability,
be balanced in government reform efforts?
-Can a business model of reengineering be successfully applied in the
public sector? -What aspects are applicable to a public sector agency? -Which
are not and why?
Problem Definition.
Public sector agencies are undergoing changes for a number of reasons-
in large pan, to be competitive with the private sector. And, in doing so, they
are becoming more like the private sector-more entrepreneurial, and more
market and customer focussed (Frederickson, 1992). However, fundamental
objectives of government and business are different. The objective of business is
to be profitable and the objective of government is to be accountable. The key is
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to accomplish governmental organizational change, and to be competitive with the
private sector, while maintaining the values of public administration.
Potential Significance of the Proposed Study.
Federal agencies are expected to do more with less, to improve their
performance, and to be able to demonstrate that they are achieving results, and to
do so at less cost.
The impetus for these changes is coming from a variety of areas.
Significant changes are occurring in both public and private organizations in
response to increased global competition, information technology, reengineering
business processes, decreasing company size, shifts in mission, and changes in
job structuring. Organizations are becoming more flexible and flat and chaotic.
Change is continuous in today’s organizations. Dilulio, Kettl, and Garvey (1993)
contend that successful organizational change is usually evolutionary~a continual
process.
In addition to these issues, for the public sector, an added dimension is
that it is now in competition more than ever before with the private sector.
One of the latest government reform efforts that provides an additional
motivation for federal agencies to change was the National Performance Review
(NPR), renamed the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPRG).
It seems that organizational change often occurs for the sake of changing.
People hook on to it because it is the current fad-whether it is good or not. As
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Frederickson (2000) puts it, "it is fashionable in public administration to embrace
reform, reengineering, reinvention" (p. 8).
Light (1997) contends that the reforms are not new but one of four tides
of reform that continue to recur. Goodsell (1994) provides six categorizations of
the various reforms in government over the years.
And the majority of reforms or models for them have come from the
private sector. And, as such, they embrace the private sector economics-based
model~in other words, market-driven and focused primarily on profitability.
Therefore, it is critical that in the reinvention process, the values of public
administration do not get pushed aside. Public sector agencies must focus on and
maintain the values of public administration in their change efforts.
Lessons learned by other public sector agencies can assist in this
endeavor. These lessons learned can assist public sector agency heads in using
tested methods of reengineering government agencies and can encourage them to
use common sense approaches to making their agencies more competitive, while
maintaining the values of public administration.
As Frederickson (2000), Meier (1993), Moe (1997), and other leading
authorities caution, as government continues to move more into the realm of
using private sector methods in conducting its mandate, the concern is that the
principles of public administration will be lost.
This dissertation examines whether the BOP was able to maintain the
principles of public administration, which contain economy, efficiency, and
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
effectiveness, including equity, as well as accountability, in developing
recommendations for its reengineering effort. It looks at whether business
reengineering models are applicable to public sector agencies. Further, from
analyzing the process, it presents what lessons were learned from the process that
may be useful to other agencies undergoing change efforts.
This research, therefore, is particularly relevant in the environments of
continuous change present in organizations today.
Summary of Findings.
The research found that a public agency can undergo change, allowing it
to be more competitive with the private sector, while sustaining the values of
public administration. And that this is accomplished only through a conscious
effort on the pan of the leader and the reengineering team participants using the
culture of the agency to control and direct, or bridle, the process.
The research also found that private sector models are useful in guiding a
public agency reengineering effon, provided that the models are modified to take
into account the differences in public and private sector organizations. Namely,
the change initiative must remain within the domain of constitutional government,
i.e. they must maintain their legislative mandate; recognize the political realities
and other agency coordination issues that do not impact private sector
corporations to the great extent that they do public sector agencies, i.e. they must
be accountable to Congressional oversight and must coordinate and obtain
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
cooperation and approval for some of the changes with other agencies as well as
the Congress; and some changes will require legislative action, and others rule
changes, and as a result, may take on a different form from that envisioned by
the agency proposing the changes. They must recognize that because of these
factors the change process for a public sector agency will, of necessity, take
longer than for a private sector agency; and they must be accountable to the
taxpayer. As a result, the boldness of the change process will be more bridled.
Further, the models must be modified by the agency leadership to keep
those things that are seen as excellent in the organization. In this case, despite
the "starting over...tradition counts for nothing" (Hammer and Champy, p. 49)
mentality of the Hammer and Champy model, the BOP did not throw out its rich
culture, and this was responsible, in large part, for allowing it to maintain the
values of public administration in developing recommendations for change. The
BOP took, in pan, the approach of the Collins and Porras model by preserving
the core, as they suggest, while stimulating change. And, in doing so, the BOP
was able to answer one of Frederickson’s (1997) big questions for public
administration of how to balance efficiency, economy and equity.
The research demonstrated that a public sector agency can undergo a
major change effon, but it is a more bridled process than for a private sector
organization. A public sector agency cannot and should not reengineer in the
same bold manner envisioned by many private sector reengineering models
because of legislative, political and public accountability considerations. And,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the research found that some of the change will take longer to implement than
would be the case in a private sector agency because of laws and policy that will
need to be changed, and coordination, cooperation and approval by other
government entities and accrediting organizations, and because of notification and
review of other changes by the Congress; and because of the rule and legislative
changes required to implement some changes. And, it found that if a rule, or in
particular a legislative change is required, the planned change could potentially
take on a life of its own and be something very different than that intended
because of public and Congressional intervention in the process. It demonstrated
that the values of public administration can be sustained in a public sector agency
undergoing change if the effort is directed and controlled and bridled by the
leadership, using the culture of the agency to preserve these values.
Finally, ten sets of findings, summarized as lessons learned from the
BOP reengineering process that can be used by other agencies undergoing change
were developed. These lessons learned can be useful for other public sector
agencies undergoing change. (1) private sector reengineering models are not
directly applicable to public sector agencies because of public and private sector
differences with respect to accountability; (2) ground rules for the change process
must be designed, adopted and followed; (3) preparation and planning time for
the process is essential; (4) effective and ongoing communication is a must; (S)
team participants must not be allowed to become overwhelmed with the process;
clear time frames must be established and maintained to complete the
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
development of recommendations for change; (6) staff at all levels must be
involved on the teams; (7) agency leadership’s complete support of the process is
essential; (8) benchmarking must be emphasized as vital; (9) organizational
change needs to be initiated within rather than externally forced; (10) changes in
organizations are ongoing and reasonable mechanisms need to be in place to
facilitate them.
Organization of the Research.
This chapter has provided an overview of the research initiative, stated
the research questions, provided information on the significance of this research
effort, and provided a summary of the findings of this research project.
Chapter II provides a summary of the literature, surveying management
reform efforts and the age old debate that has rejuvenated over whether
government can and should be run like a business, from a practitioner point of
view; examines government reinvention efforts from a theorists’ point of view,
looking specifically at the values of public administration; examines what leading
authorities recommend to be studied in this area; provides an overview of change
efforts at two organizations, one public and one private; briefly examines three
models of change strategies; and looks at theories of organizational change and
reinvention, focusing primarily on those to be used as guides in this research
initiative.
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter m examines the change effon in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
To do this, it first provides an overview of the history of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons to give perspective to the reader of the agency’s rich history and the
factors in its culture and leadership that made the organization the premiere
agency that it had come to be. It then examines the factors that came together to
cause the agency to reengineer, the models followed in its reengineering effon,
and an overview of the reengineering process.
Chapter IV examines the research design and methodology and limitations
of this research. Chapter V looks at the aspects of the Hammer and Champy and
Collins and Porras models that were applicable to the BOP’s reengineering
process and those that were not applicable. Chapter VI examines the values of
public administration and how they were maintained in the BOP’s reengineering
process. It further examines the focus of change in light of the findings of
Hennessey and others concerning the importance of leadership and culture in the
reengineering process. It also looks at the impetus for change in light of Katz
and Kahn’s and Burke and Litwin’s models of how elements in the external
environment impact the organization. Chapter VII describes lessons learned from
the BOP reengineering process that may be useful to other agencies going
through change. Chapter v m summarizes the findings and conclusions from
Chapters V, VI, and VII, revisits the research questions in light of these findings
and discusses opportunities for further research. A selected bibliography and
appendices are provided. The appendices attached include the transmittal letter
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and questionnaire that were sent to all reengineering team participants, the BOP
Vision and Mission Statements, the BOP Cultural Anchors and Core Values, and
a complete set of tables developed from the questionnaire and interview process
by functional area and by role on the team.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW.
The literature was reviewed, surveying, from both an historical and a
current perspective, government management reforms and the age-old debate in
public administration that has been rejuvenated over whether government can and
should be run like a business enterprise. It examines the views of several leading
authorities on government management reforms and what they recommend to be
studied in this area. It discusses briefly one other federal agency and one private
organization that have reengineered. It examines three models of change
strategies: total quality management (TQM), business process innovation (BPI),
and business process reengineering (BPR). Finally, it examines underlying
theories of organizational change and reinvention, analyzing three factors known
to be associated with organizational change (the external environment,
organizational culture, and leadership) and examines three attributes of
reinvention theory (market-based, entrepreneurial and customer service focussed).
It examines the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP’s) reengineering effort in light
of Burke and Litwin’s (1992) theory of organizational change and the theory of
reinvention as presented by deLeon and Denhardt.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Federal Government and Reinvention— Practitioner View.
Government reinvention initiatives, brought on by the vows of politicians
to make government more efficient and responsive to the electorate, have revived
one of the oldest quandaries in public administration-the mystery over whether
government can or should be run like a business enterprise.
And now, the crusade to "reinvent" government is simply the most recent
attempt, in an enduring journey, to put governmental functioning on a par with
business theory and practice. These governmental change efforts are grounded in
the belief that only through the leadership and management practices and
expertise of business can the ailing, inefficient, and cumbersome workings of
government be improved.
Efforts to improve the Executive Branch of government, over the past
century, began with the Keep Commission (1905-09), aimed at improving
personnel management, contracting, and information management. Other
improvement efforts included the Brownlow Committee (1936-37), which was the
first comprehensive assessment of government from a management perspective;
the First Hoover Commission (1947-49), which sought to consolidate
administrative services, among other changes; and, the Grace Commission (1982-
84), which focused on business concepts and less cosdy government. These are
only several of the many predecessors to the current reinvention movement.
Dilulio, Garvey and KettI (1993, p. 8) provide an exhaustive survey of executive
management reforms since the early 1900s.
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Armed with the focus in the 1980s, during the Presidency of Ronald
Reagan, of rejecting welfare economics and spotlighting public choice and
privatization, the government was brought to the current change effort, led by
Vice President Albert Gore, titled the National Performance Review (1993-
present-renamed the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPRG)).
The National Performance Review (NPR), commissioned by President Clinton
and directed by Vice President Gore, sought to inspect each federal agency and to
identify and eliminate waste and inefficiency. The federal personnel system
would be streamlined, and the culture of government organizations would be
changed. Workers would be empowered. Its focus is on how government
should work, rather than focusing on what government should do. Federal
agencies were required to begin self-examination of their objectives to ascertain
what improvements were needed. NPR presented four key objectives: (1) cutting
red tape; (2) putting customers first; (3) empowering employees to get results;
and (4) cutting back to basics. Each of these was seeking a more methodical
means of making the federal government more like a private sector business.
Light provides four specific tides into which, he contends, all the various
reform efforts can be placed: (1) scientific management, with its focus on
efficiency; (2) war on waste, looking at economy; (3) watchful eye, considering
as its focus fairness; and (4) liberation management, focusing on performance.
He argues that:
These four patterns in the tides of reform lead to one simple
prediction about the future: as surely as high tide follows low,
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
today’s effort to build a new administrative hierarchy will be
followed by tomorrow’s campaign to thin the bureaucracy and
liberate managers to manage, and vice versa (Light, 1997, p. 5).
Goodsell’s (1994) recapitulation of the major movements is as follows.
The reorganization movement of the early 1900s redefined organizations in terms
of division of work and specialization of tasks. The reform movement came next
and still continues today, producing the various management fads of program-
planning-budgeting system, zero-based budgeting, management by objectives, and
total quality management. Following Watergate and Vietnam was the movement
to "cut-back" government. The reduce-govemment craze of the late 1970s and
1980s, under Presidents Carter and Reagan, arrived on the scene next, and then
came the Volcker Commission in 1987, with a modest rebuild public-service
movement. And finally--although as certain as the sun will rise tomorrow there
will be others-came Gore’s initiatives to reinvent government.
Rubin (1993), in looking at governmental changes and where they come
from, specifically examining the history of early budget reformers, concludes that
government "is capable of diagnosing and curing its own problems without resort
to imitate business" (p. 18). And Berman (1979), in examining the many
changes in the Office of Management and Budget (formerly the Bureau of the
Budget) and the Presidency from 1921 to 1979, concludes that "The more things
change, the more they remain the same" (p. 130).
Indeed, academicians and practitioners have long languished over and
debated the virtues and shortcomings of applying business principles to
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
governmental management. In 1887, future President Woodrow Wilson urged
government to "make its business less unbusinesslike" (Wilson, 1887, p. 199).
Frederick W. Taylor testified to Congress in 1912, concerning the value of using
scientific management in government. At the opposite end of the spectrum,
scholars including Paul Appleby and Graham T. Allison, have vigorously
objected to using business methods in the public arena, pointing out that there is
indeed a constitutional difference between the government and the private sector.
Appleby (1992) contends that the scope, public accountability and political
character of government, as well as the purpose and responsibilities of
government are immensely and unalterably distinct from those of business, and as
a result the administration of government must not and cannot be fitted into a
private sector business model. However, in 1992, new life was infused into the
goverament-as-business point of view with Osborne and Gaebler’s Reinventing
Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector.
In this publication, Osborne and Gaebler present ten principles of entrepreneurial
organizations.
In 1993, Hammer and Champy’s Reengineering the Corporation: A
Manifesto for Business Revolution presents a set of management principles for
successful reinvention of how American corporations do their work. Several
years later, in 1997, Collins and Porras in Built to Last: Successful Habits of
Visionary Companies, looked at successful businesses and presented a model of
successful business management, focusing on aspiring to bold, sometimes
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reckless experimentation to achieve what they term as "Big Hairy Audacious
Goals," or BHAG’s, contending that such bold change is required for success,
growth and survival.
Federal Government and Reinvention-Theorists’ View.
Ingraham and Romzek (1994) point out that the various reform
movements present a business entrepreneurial role for public service that is not
compatible with much of public administration’s history.
Moe (1997) contends that reform efforts are changing the face of
government, and he carefully points out that the basic distinctions between the
public and private sectors are not primarily in economic theory but are based in
the legal theory of constitutional government. He continues that "the concept of
sovereignty is the single most important characteristic that separates the public
and private sectors, particularly at the federal level" (p. 43). Meier (1993)
argues that it is critical to ensure that the values of public administration remain
despite the needed changes in public organizations.
Meier (1993) points out Rosenbloom’s concern that current public
administration theory is being replaced by an economics-based paradigm. Meier
says that this shift has occurred not because it is theoretically superior, but
because it has achieved political support.
Moe (1997) contends that the lines are being blurred between the private
and public sectors. And they are different and must remain distinct. The role of
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
governmental agencies is to implement laws. Moe points out that, when the U.S.
Constitution was set up, with popular sovereignty and limited government, the
goal was to avoid tyranny. And, the founding fathers clearly understood that this
could only be achieved at the expense of some efficiency. Inefficiencies are
built-in, in agency redundancies, but this is what provides the essential
protections. Public and private organizations are different, not just from an
economic point of view, but they are different from a legal constitutional view.
He claims that "The objective of the reinventing-govemment exercise was not to
rewrite management laws or reorganize institutions but to change the culture of
the governmental sector to more closely resemble that of a large, private
corporation" (p. 50).
Frederickson (2000), discussing what he terms "public- administration-
with-an-attitude" (meaning that public administrators need to boldly present and
defend the values of public administration), says that:
In the early history of modem public administration it was seldom
necessary to forthrightly describe, let alone defend, our
convictions or beliefs. Because the core values of our field-
representative democratic government, merit appointment and
promotion, efficiency, economy, equity, separation from politics,
and a commitment to the greater good- were broadly assumed
and accepted, we were comfortable with justifying concepts such
as bureaucratic neutrality and a passion for anonymity (p. 8).
Waldo (1948) early on, in The Administrative State, pointed out the
inappropriateness of only considering economy and efficiency, in the values of
public administration, and focussed on the importance of effectiveness as a value
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of public administration. In the 1960’s social equity was added as a subset of
effectiveness in the new public administration (Stillman, p. 30).
And finally, Frederickson (1997), also in his defense of the values of
public administration, in his eight principles, points out in numbers seven and
eight that:
Public administration’s commitment, in theory and practice, to
standards of equity and fairness is as important as its commitment
to efficiency, economy, and effectiveness. Following standards
of equity and fairness can bind the citizens together in our time
and also bind us to future generations...The spirit of public
administration is dependent on a moral base of benevolence to all
citizens (p. 234).
This dissertation focuses on the values of public administration of
economy-or the frugal use of valued, scarce resources; efficiency-doing things
in the right ways; and effectiveness-doing the right things, and one of these right
things is equity or justice. It will examine, in part, the BOP’s response to the
values of public administration as it progressed through developing
recommendations to reengineer the agency, examining on what basis
reengineering recommendations were made-economy, efficiency, or
effectiveness. In other words, was the approach taken by the BOP a balanced
one, focusing on all the values of public administration, rather than the primary
focus being on economy as seen in reinvention theory. Could the principles of
public administration be sustained, while allowing the agency to be competitive
with the private sector? Further, in examining organizational change and
leadership theory, this research examined what was the impetus for the change,
what caused the change, and what was the guiding focus throughout the change.
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This research outlines lessons learned by one federal agency in going
through an agency-wide reengineering initiative.
What Leading Authorities Recommend to be Studied in this Area.
Katz and Kahn (1978) view organizations as open systems that are subject
to influence, interaction and interdependence from their environments, rather than
the traditional view of organizations as closed systems. Their work was the
impetus for seeing the interactions between organizations and their environments
as open, dynamic systems. They found that looking at closed systems, or
bureaucratic structures was suitable for stable organizations, but in dynamic and
challenging environments, organizations must be viewed as open systems that
interact with their environments.
Neumann (1996) weighs in on this issue, contending that public
administration must be concerned with the structure and dynamics of public
organizations. The physical sciences view natural systems as chaotic, non-linear
and complex and this view of open systems is useful in examining the artificial
systems of public organizations.
Kiel (1994), using chaos theory, points out that organizations today must
be viewed as systems that are non-linear, complex and dynamic. Re-examining
Lewin’s concept of change being that of unfreezing, changing, and reffeezing,
Kiel sees organizational change as being in a state of "bounded instability" in
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
which organizations change but do not refreeze at desired levels; instead, they
continue to change.
A number of scholars, including Bowditch and Buono (1997), Allison
(1997), Kettl (1993), Moe (1997), Frederickson (2000), Meier (1993) and
Rosenbloom (1993) point out the importance of examining this topic.
Kettl (1993) notes that governmental management reform efforts since the
Hoover administration have not come from the public sector, but rather from the
private sector. He says that better theory is needed, as well as better research.
Specifically, public administration needs to use the problems public managers
face to develop better research. Because, he continues, it serves no purpose to
have theoretical purity at the cost of answers that matter to no one.
Bowditch and Buono (1997) suggest the need to examine systematically
the many and often intersecting forces in organizations; and, secondly to
"...delineate a sequence of events that need to be accomplished to deal effectively
with organizational changes and to confront organizational problems" (p. 329).
Further, Allison (1992) advises that the development of public
management should include among other things, analyzing cases to identify better
and worse practices. The other issues he points out include: developing a
significant number of cases on public management problems and practices;
promoting systematic comparative research; and, linking it to the training of
public managers.
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Meier (1993) notes that "the strength of public administration is its ability
to incorporate diverse values and perspectives" (p. 4). Values include social
equity, responsiveness, legitimacy, competence, fairness, efficiency, and
economy. He poignantly contends that the only value of economics is efficiency.
To combat this economic-based paradigm, Meier (1993) says it is
necessary to: build theory; focus on areas where public administration has the
advantage, e.g. linkage between bureaucracy and democracy, fairness, equity,
responsiveness and differences between public and private sectors; test whether
they do save money, reveal the shortcomings of the economics approach to get
things accompiished-privatization and contracting, such as corruption; and a
leader is needed to take up the cause.
In looking at the big questions that public administration needs to answer,
Frederickson (1997) believes the big questions include how to balance efficiency,
economy and equity.
As can be seen, a number of leading authorities find this an important
topic for research. A number of these issues are addressed in this research. And
what was learned from the BOP experience can be useful to other public agencies
going through reengineering efforts. It examines and focuses on the importance
of maintaining the values of public administration in the process.
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Change Efforts in Other Organizations.
One public agency and one private organization that have successfully
gone through reengineering efforts have been selected as examples for inclusion
in the literature review section of this dissertation simply to provide context for
the reader of two other reengineering initiatives and their focus. The Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) was selected because its changes, like most
reengineering efforts, resulted in a workforce reduction, unlike the BOP.
Further, the impetus for its reengineering was extemal-outside its control. The
private organization, AT&T, was selected because it is similar to the BOP in that
it was a premiere agency, doing well, but saw the need to be even more
competitive in the market place, although it is dissimilar in that the entire process
was completed in about 16 months and it resulted in a workforce reduction.
OPM’s (Gowing et al., 1998) successful reengineering, following the
initiation of the NPR, highlights the contrast between the BOP reengineering
effort and that of most other organizations that restructure. A cultural change
took place at OPM, in part because of a reduction in workforce (RIF)
precipitated by reengineering. The agency was forced to reduce its staff by 40
percent, but was able to effectively manage its workload in the process. They
planned for the downsizing and successfully reengineered the agency.
In the BOP reengineering effort, RIF’s did not occur because the agency
continues to grow as a result of the booming prison population, and because of a
conscious decision by the agency leadership. As a result, the BOP reengineering
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
was not for the purpose of reducing the number of workers, but to reduce the
cost of doing business, although it includes efforts to limit personnel growth and
unnecessary managerial levels as cost-reduction approaches. This puts a different
slant on the BOP reengineering compared to other reengineering efforts.
The other organization reviewed was AT&T. In late 1995, AT&T
(Graddick and Cairo, 1998), a private business, decided to begin a restructuring
effort to separate the company into three publicly-traded global companies in
response to the fast-growing global information technology. While a very
successful company, this was the time to restructure to be even better in the face
of changing customer needs and to allow them to better compete in a changing
world. AT&T had its new structure developed by the end of 1995 and all
separation transactions were completed by January 1997. It used lessons learned
from previous restructurings in the process as well as models of organizational
change.
Although similar in a number of ways to the BOP’s change effort, the
major differences were that AT&T’s change was much faster paced and required
RIFs.
Three Models of Change Strategies.
Models of organizational change were useful for understanding the
change process at the BOP, and to assist in foreseeing questions, concerns and
problems that could arise in the reengineering process.
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Applying private-sector models to public-sector operations can be a
complicated proposition. This is, in part, the case because of the innate
differences between the public and private sectors. This is clearly demonstrated
when considering the differences between company CEO’s and public agency
heads, investors and taxpayers, customers and citizens, and boards of directors
and legislatures. Certainly the differences may outweigh the likenesses. And
another major difference, as well as a concern in using private sector models in
changing public sector agencies, is that if indeed the primary objective of
business is to be profitable, then the primary objective of government, arguably,
is accountability under law. These are immensely different and often contrary
objectives.
The potential dangers of using business practices in public organizations is
well-demonstrated in the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) purportedly heavy-
handed quest of tax swindlers. Congressional hearings in 1997, (Borger, 1997)
focused on several isolated incidents of improper practices by the IRS.
Apparently the agency was attempting to be more like private industry-more of
an efficient, effective organization, using tactics of private collection agencies and
giving IRS agents similar types of quantitative performance quotas. Their greatly
touted initiatives to make government more like business faded away in the face
of public indignity over findings that a government agency had instituted what
were said to be good business practices, albeit at the expense of due process. In
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
this case, what seemed good in a business sense was not viewed by the electorate
or by Congress as appropriate for the public sector.
Despite this example, clearly all organizations, be they for profit, non-profit,
or governmental agencies, have a number of similar characteristics. Hammer and
Champy (1993) and Collins and Porras (1997) contend that the models they have
developed can apply quite well to any type of organization. However, as found
in this research, if they were to be applied directly to government, modifications
are necessary to take into account certain innate differences between government
and business, such as legislation which requires that a particular governmental
entity perform a certain role. Specifically, a government agency is not free to
embark upon a mission other than that given it. For example, the role of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), by statute, is to confine offenders. Its mission
and responsibilities are mandated by law. As such, the BOP exists solely to
perform these specific functions. It has no authority to look for other purposes
or roles in the manner that would be permissible in private corporations, such as
changing the type of service or product they provide. The BOP’s discretion is
further limited by its external environment, namely, the changing attitudes of
Congress, the Courts, and the public towards crime, sentencing, and prison
conditions. As a result, a government agency cannot, in the way addressed in
many of the business models, decide that it is going to do an activity other than
that which is mandated, or, in the case of the BOP, other than confining
prisoners.
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ia its reengineering plan, the BOP used modified versions of both the
Hammer and Champy and the Collins and Porras models as guides in their
change effort. The reengineering models presented by Hammer and Champy and
Collins and Porras are but two of several change strategies which fall under the
larger purview of reinvention efforts. These change efforts include Total Quality
Management (TQM), Business Process Innovation (BPI), and Business Process
Re-engineering (BPR). While they have similarities of trying to obtain excellence
through a set of principles, they differ in the type of change they produce. TQM
(Deming, 1986; Juran, 1988) takes an incremental, systemic, bottom-up
approach. BPR, promoted by Hammer and Champy, is the change effort model
followed most closely by the BOP, and it proposes radical redesign of business
processes to obtain needed improvements. The Collins and Porras model, as
well, is an example of BPR. BPI (Davenport, 1993) takes the middle ground
between TQM and BPR, incorporating both radical change and an incremental
approach, recognizing that not everything in an organization needs to be changed
in this process.
In examining organizational change, open systems models offered by
Katz and Kahn and Burke and Litwin, among others, were examined to
demonstrate how elements in the external environment impact the organization.
This is particularly relevant in the BOP’s case because a major factor leading to
the need for reengineering was the external influence of being in competition with
the private sector. Other external influences included Congress and the public
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and the media. Federal legislation had been enacted in a 1997 appropriations bill
which instructed the Bureau of Prisons to privatize two facilities in Taft,
California, under a five year demonstration project. This demonstration project
would compare the cost and quality of Taft, which is privately-run, to
comparable BOP facilities.
BOP could see the hand writing on the wall, and, in response to these
external forces and what they could mean for the organization in the future,
entered into a reengineering effort requiring major changes in components
throughout the organization.
Theories of Organizational Change.
In examining theory appropriate for this effort, the most relevant is that
relating to organizational change. Hennessey (1998), among numerous
authorities, points out the critical importance of both leadership and culture in
change efforts, noting the leader’s influence in reinvention initiatives and the
importance of culture in facilitating or hampering the process. Hennessey, in
examining reinvention efforts at nine federal agencies, found that the leader was
critical to the success of reinvention initiatives, and that organizational culture
either facilitated or hampered these efforts, and that the leaders influenced the
outcomes generally through the organization’s culture.
Burke and Litwin (1992), present one framework for gaining an
understanding of organizational change, pointing out that change in organizations
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
occurs as a response to the external environment and impacts what they refer to
as transformational factors of mission/strategy, leadership and culture. They
propose that these factors have the greatest "weight" on organizational
performance. They find that the external environment has more impact on
organizational performance than any other factor. Major organizational change is
considered transformational. They contrast this to transactional change that
affects structures, systems, management practices and climate, which is viewed as
more of a minor change effort, or refinement of these elements.
In looking at leadership theory, Nadler and Tushman (1977) focus on the
need for alignment among organizational elements. Their model assumes that
organizations are constantly changing; organizational behavior exists at several
levels--the individual, the group and organizational systems levels; organizational
behavior does not occur in a vacuum; and organizations are open systems,
impacted by the larger environment.
The BOP’s reengineering effort was examined using the Burke and
Litwin model and the deLeon and Denhardt model (discussed in Chapter IV),
focusing on what instigated the BOP’s change effort. It examines
transformational elements of the organization’s external environment, its
mission/strategy, leadership and culture and the impact of these elements on
maintaining the values of public administration throughout the change process. It
also examines the transactional factors of structure, management practices and
systems in the change effort.
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER ED
BUREAU OF PRISONS (BOP) REENGINEERING.
Introduction.
In this chapter, the history of the BOP is provided first, to give
perspective to the reader about the agency, in particular the development of its
culture and leadership. The factors that brought the agency to recent needs to
reengineer are presented. The models selected by the agency as a guide to the
reengineering effort are then discussed, namely the Hammer and Champy and
Collins and Porras models.
History of the BOP.
Before the 1890s, the federal government operated only military prisons and
small jails managed by U.S. Marshals for detainees awaiting trial. Prior to this
time, the federal government paid state prisons and county jails to house civilians
convicted of violating federal laws. Overcrowding in those state and county
facilities, as well as concern over state and county use of federal offenders in the
infamous inmate leasing system, led to congressional authorization of the first
federal penitentiaries under the Three Prisons Act of 1891.
However, these new federal prisons were inadequately funded, understaffed,
and poorly administered. By the early 1920s, they were an embarrassment.
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
They were dangerously overcrowded and filthy; the inmate population was
inactive, and this idleness was approaching unsafe levels; staff had very little or
no training; and the high level officials, for the most pan, were there because of
political patronage.
On May 14, 1930, the Federal Bureau of Prisons was established within the
U.S. Department of Justice to ensure consistent, centralized administration, to
professionalize the prison service, and to provide more progressive and humane
care for federal inmates. The new BOP assumed control of all existing federal
prisons, and it immediately began an expansion program that was critically
needed. As a result, the federal prison system went through a striking
restructuring in a short period of time. And by the 1930s, the severely
overcrowded, filthy, undeveloped, and poorly run organization of the 1920s,
moved into the forefront of the corrections field by the 1930s and became one of
the most influential and well-respected prison systems and public organizations in
the world.
The agency has been able to maintain this reputation (Dilulio, 1994) and
remain a leading force in the corrections field ever since. This was accomplished
through formulating and perpetuating a strong culture that highlighted its work
and resulted in unifying its staff. Within the strict confines of its legislative
mandate, the BOP was able to achieve its goals, while presenting innovative
philosophies of corrections and developing new methods of operation. And it
benefrtted from the leadership of founders of the agency and career BOP
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
professionals who had moved up through the ranks of the agency. This career
agency leadership has been critical to the success of the agency.
The BOP’s first Director was Sanford Bates (1930-1937). Before
becoming Director, he had served for nearly a year as Superintendent of Prisons,
overseeing the federal prisons that existed prior to the creation of the BOP.
James V. Bennett was the BOP’s second Director (1937-64). Bennett had
actually assisted in the creation of the agency, and he subsequently served as an
Assistant Director for seven years before becoming Director. Myrl A. Alexander
succeeded Bennett as Director (1964-70). He was a former BOP Warden and
had been Bennett’s most trusted Assistant Director for 14 years. Following
Alexander’s retirement, Norman A. Carlson was named Director (1970-87).
Virtually his entire career was with the BOP, beginning as a parole officer at the
United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, and working his way up
through the ranks of the agency. He had served for several years as Alexander’s
Executive Assistant. J. Michael Quinlan succeeded Carlson (1987-92). He was a
former BOP Warden and Executive Assistant of Carlson. Upon Quinlan’s
retirement in 1992, another BOP career employee, Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, was
named Director. Like the other career Directors, she worked her way up and
was a former BOP Warden and Assistant Director. She continues to serve in this
capacity today.
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BOP Culture.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons protects society by confining
offenders in the controlled environments of prison and
community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient,
and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-
improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-
abiding citizens (DOJ, 1999, p. 5).
This mission statement is at the heart of the BOP and is central to its
culture. It is the equivalent of the mission or strategy as described in the Burke
and Litwin model of what management "believes and declared is the
organization’s mission and strategy and what employees believe is the central
purpose of the organization" (p. 531). While the actual wording of the mission
statement has changed from time to time, its ideas are based in the very ideas and
justification for the BOP in 1930.
The foundation of the BOP is based on two key principles: the human
relations model in dealing with inmates and the Bureau as a family concept.
The Human Relations model says staff are to interact with and communicate
with inmates. They talk to them, listen to them, and respond to the concerns and
complaints raised by inmates. Staff in the BOP serve as role models for inmates,
treat them with dignity, and assess inmates’ needs and meet those needs as
appropriate within the requirements of its mission. Staff respond to inmates in a
professional manner.
These techniques for controlling inmates are born out in the history of
corrections in the United States, as much more effective than staff, who are
greatly outnumbered by an inmate population, attempting to use force in
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
managing and controlling the population (Toch, 1992; Siagfoos, 1992; Henderson
and Phillips, 1989; Keve, 1991).
The second dimension of the BOP’s strong foundation is that of the Bureau
Family concept. This points to the close-knit relations among BOP staff. The
BOP is a para-military organization, and as such, in any military or para-military
organization, there is a special relationship, or bond among staff members since
they know that their very lives may depend upon one another. Because staff are
frequently transferred for career advancement opportunities, they form stronger
ties with fellow institution staff rather than members of the community.
Institutions have strong employee clubs that provide a great deal of extra
curricular activities for staff and their families, including picnics, sporting events,
and community fund raisers. In the past, most staff lived on the grounds of the
institution, although this is not so common now, and this caused an even greater
bond to form (Dilulio, 1989).
One example of this Bureau family concept is employee crisis funds that
are established when a Bureau staff member encounters significant hardship, and
staff from all over the country give of their cash and goods to help the "family
member" in need (Samples, 1994).
To carry out the BOP’s mission, the BOP culture is comprised of a number
of core values. These core values include: strict security measures and
enforcement; high standards of institution sanitation; correctional worker first
concept; policy driven; communication with inmates- through unit management,
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
management by walking around and standing main line; inmate programs; staff
training and development; ongoing monitoring and oversight; strong community
relations; and, staff with integrity. These comprise the culture that makes up the
BOP. As Burke and Litwin point out, it is "the relatively enduring set of values
and norms that underlie a social system" (p. 526).
The critical importance of adhering to strict security measures and
enforcing inmate accountability at all times ensures that facilities are safe for
staff, inmates, and the surrounding communities.
Ensuring high standards of institution sanitation not only serves as a
means of maintaining a healthy living environment for inmates and a healthy
working environment for staff, but it is an indicator of good prison management
and serves to ensure good morale and good behavior among the inmate
population.
The "correctional worker first" concept holds that all BOP staff members,
whatever their job classifications, whether they are accountants, secretaries,
correctional officers, counselors or wardens are correctional workers first. As
such they must be able to perform all institution correctional duties, including
responding to emergencies, searching inmates and inmate cells, and defending
themselves and their fellow staff members during an altercation with inmates.
This assists in the peaceful functioning of BOP operations, helping to maintain
safe and secure institutions, and it helps to ensure that staff work together as a
team and form a bond (Hambrick, 1992).
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The BOP is a policy driven organization in which individual staff do not
make decisions without specific policy guidance. Operations are limited by statute
and internal government regulations, and the policy documents that relate to these
broad rules regulate the Bureau’s internal operations. The centralized policy
structure gives all employees a common frame of reference, and as a result, the
programs and services in its 98 facilities throughout the nation should be
uniform.
This strong reliance on clear-cut policy direction began as soon as the BOP
went into operation in 1930. In its early years, the BOP issued individual
directives that were codified in 1942 in a Manual o f Policies and Procedures. It
has now been replaced by the current policy system, but many of the current
policies are traced back to these original ones.
Positively communicating with the inmate population is another firmly
entrenched pan of the BOP’s culture. This is accomplished in a number of ways,
perhaps most notably through "Management By Walking Around," in which top
level staff at BOP institutions, including Wardens, Associate Wardens, and
Captains, maintain high visibility throughout the institution, with both staff and
inmates. By doing so they are able to scrutinize operations and identify problems
firsthand.
Unit management, in which prisons are organized into a series of small
housing units, each having its own permanent staff and supervised by its own unit
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
manager, ensures greater communication with inmates and makes it easier for
staff to work together as a team.
"Standing Main Line" is another means for communicating with inmates,
which means staff are present in the inmate dining hall during mealtimes to
observe and speak with inmates.
The importance of and key focus on keeping inmates productively
occupied and out of trouble and to provide self improvement opportunities to
assist in their successful reintegration into the community upon release is another
pan of the BOP’s strong culture. This is accomplished through providing
vocational training, academic educational opportunities to earn a general
educational development cenificate (GED), factory jobs, prison maintenance jobs,
food service jobs, drug and alcohol treatment, and other work assignments and
programs.
The BOP ensures ongoing staff development and training and has
developed a number of mandatory training programs for all staff, including a
two-week orientation for all newly hired staff at its training academy in Glynco,
Georgia. High-performing staff are selected for the agency’s Leadership
Development Program.
The BOP culture also includes a belief in the importance of ongoing
monitoring of its programs and operations. Ongoing internal monitoring
guarantees, to the extent possible, that there is no significant deviation from
prescribed policy (Henderson and Phillips, 1989; Roberts, 1990, 1996; Toch,
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1992; FBOP, 1997). The current system came from an on-site auditing process
that was established in the 1940s (Roberts, 1994).
Another important part of the BOP’s culture is maintaining good relations
in each community in which its institutions are located. This is accomplished
through Community Relations Boards, in which members of the community,
including local officials and the media, are kept informed about what is going on
at the institution and ensuring that community member’s concerns about prison
operations and policies are answered.
Staff integrity is ensured throughout the BOP through stringent hiring
practices, recurring background investigations, a strict staff discipline policy, and
ongoing training in a variety of ethics-related issues.
To help communicate its culture to staff, over the years the BOP has
issued a number of in-house periodicals, including the Bulletin Board and the
Field Services Newsletter (1940s-1950s), the Progress Report (1950s and 1960s),
the BOP Newsletter (1960s-1970s), Monday Morning Highlights (1960s to the
present), and the Federal Prisons Journal (1980s and 1990s) (Roberts, 1994).
The BOP culture has been disseminated, as well, through training initiatives
and a mentoring program which pairs junior staff with more seasoned staff to
enable them to give advice and to assist in instilling the BOP culture in newer
staff (Hershberger, 1979; Roberts, 1990; Correctional Comments, undated).
In addition, the BOP’s strategic planning process, which was initially
implemented in the 1980s, helps to instill the BOP culture by helping the BOP to
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
look to the future and set goals, and to determine how those goals can be met. It
allows the agency the opportunity to look at itself and focus on what it is, where
it wants to be as an agency, and how to clarify its understanding of itself as an
organization (FBOP, 1996).
As can be seen, the various elements that make up the culture of the BOP
have a deep historical basis. The emphasis on humane and individualized
treatment of inmates, inmate work programs, centralized oversight, and sanitation
were articulated in the 1920s in two government reports that led to the BOP
being established in 1930. Relying on clear-cut policy direction began with the
inception of the BOP and the current auditing systems to ensure compliance with
that policy began in the 1940s (Roberts, 1994). And the BOP culture has been
reenforced through training and the strategic planning process implemented since
the 1980’s (DOJ, 1996).
Since it is a government organization, the BOP cannot require the acceptance
of its culture in the way a private company can, but, nevertheless, that culture is
seen expressed throughout the agency. As pointed out by Dilulio (1989), BOP
staff exhibit unusual solidarity and agency pride. This is seen in their wearing of
the BOP insignia on baseball caps, tee-shirts, and jackets, even when off-duty.
The National Academy of Public Administration "was struck by the strong
culture and pride of mission accomplishment which exists in BOP" (Dilulio,
1989).
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BOP Leadership.
Before the BOP was established, most hiring practices in federal prisons,
especially in high-ranking positions, was based on political patronage. When the
BOP was established, this practice was ended. Staff were hired for entry level
jobs based on Civil Service regulations and advanced through the system based
on merit. This was the beginning of the BOP as a career service. And from that
time on, all BOP executives would be career civil servants, not political
appointees (Keve, 1991).
Making this change, to a career service had a number of significant
consequences. First, it meant that all staff were given the same training and
were exposed to the same types of experiences, and all came to understand the
BOP’s culture. Second, it helped build the concept of the Bureau Family because
of these common experiences. And, finally, it generated consistent career
leadership and succession planning.
In 70 years duration, the BOP has had only six Directors. All served under
more than one Attorney General and under more than one President. Each
Director could be identified as either a founder or as a career employee, meaning
that no one was brought in from outside. Although threats against this tradition
have surfaced on several occasions, by rumblings that a political appointee might
be named Director, the BOP has been persuasive that its standing as a premiere
agency is, in large part, based on career leadership and that this is one of its
greatest strengths.
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bates and Bennett were founders of the agency and Alexander, Carlson,
Quinlan, and Sawyer spent virtually the bulk of their professional careers rising
through the ranks of the BOP, preparing for their appointments as Director by
working for years as Executive Assistants to their predecessors, or as Assistant
Directors. Bates’s and Carlson’s terms together represent nearly 45 years of the
agency’s history in the Directorship, clearly allowing for consistency in direction,
but allowing for change, while preserving the culture of the agency.
Bennett was involved in the establishment of the BOP. He worked at the
Bureau of Efficiency as an investigator. While there, he conducted a study of
federal corrections in 1928 and that study helped solidify the need for a
centralized agency. Bennett went on to work on a special congressional
committee that recommended that the BOP be established in a report issued in
1929, and written in large part by Bennett. That report, which focused on
treating inmates with dignity, consistent policy, the BOP as a career service, and
inmate opportunities for self improvement formed what would become the BOP’s
culture (Roberts, 1996).
Bates, who was the Massachusetts Commissioner of Corrections, was
appointed U.S. Superintendent of Prisons in 1929, and he and Bennett spent the
next year writing the legislation that established the BOP and getting it through
Congress. In 1930, Bates was named the first Director of the BOP and appointed
Bennett as Assistant Director with responsibilities for industrial programs. While
in this job, he worked for the creation of Federal Prison Industries, which today
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
is still the most important correctional program for inmates. It not only keeps
inmates productively occupied but prepares them for successful reintegration into
the community. Bates and Bennett worked hand-in-hand to establish the core
values of the agency, while making a number of innovative changes. Bates
retired in 1937, and Bennett was then named Director. He served in the
directorship for an unprecedented 27 years. During his tenure, he worked to
build the agency’s reputation on a national basis, and, while being certain to
preserve the core values of the agency, he made a number of changes in line with
that culture, to provide youthful offenders with new programs and to have more
flexible conditions for less violent offenders, including halfway houses (Keve,
1991; Roberts, 1996).
Carlson, who was appointed Director in 1970, served the second longest
term after Bennett, 17 years. His impact on the BOP was perhaps as vital as
Bennett’s. He made significant advances to the agency during his tenure, again
making certain to preserve the core culture of the agency in doing so. He took
the BOP from the Medical Model for dealing with offenders to the Balanced
Model. When the BOP began, it followed an Individualized Treatment
philosophy. By the 19S0s and 1960s, it was being replaced by the Medical
Model, which emphasized more sophisticated rehabilitation methods, using
diagnostic services and treatment programs. It came under significant criticism
by the 1970s, and Carlson shepherded the agency through this change. While
this Balanced Model provided a more realistic approach to viewing offenders,
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
rehabilitation-oriented programs were still given significant attention (Holt and
Phillips, 1991; Roberts, 1994). Carlson was also responsible for expanding and
modernizing the BOP (Roberts, 1990; Levinson, 1994).
The leadership in the BOP has not only been consistent but has allowed the
agency to continually change, while having as its firm base the BOP culture.
Those enduring values and its consistent and innovative leadership made the
agency a model of the principles of public administration.
BOP Environment.
Four critical elements brought the need for reengineering to the forefront
at the BOP: (1) per capita costs were increasing, (2) the country was in an era of
balanced budgets and reductions in domestic spending, (3) the general attitude of
the public and some congressional members was changing toward prisons and
prisoners, and (4) privatization initiatives in all sectors of government were on
the rise.
The BOP has a long-established history as an outstanding federal agency.
The BOP is world-recognized as a leader and innovator in the field of
corrections. And the BOP has enjoyed a long-established tradition of being good
stewards of the taxpayers’ dollar. However, the increased external scrutiny and
BOP’s internal culture of ongoing monitoring began to highlight the need to make
changes in the organization. Beginning around the late 1980s, per capita costs
had begun to increase. Before 1990, the BOP operated its institutions at similar
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
or at lower costs than other correctional systems throughout the country.
Specifically, in 1989, the BOP’s average daily cost of confining an inmate was
$46.54, and the national average was slightly less at $46.43 per day. But by
1996, the BOP’s average daily cost of confining an inmate was $10.00 per day
higher than the national average, with only two states with higher per capita
costs.
Further, the agency leadership was recognizing that, in an era seeking
balanced budgets and reductions in domestic spending, less of the budget dollar
would soon be allocated to operating prisons. All the while, however, beginning
in the 1980s, tougher laws, particularly related to drugs, as well as the enactment
of sentencing guidelines, resulted in greater numbers of offenders receiving
sentences of incarceration, coupled with longer terms of confinement.
Also, the general attitude of the public, as well as many congressional
members was beginning to change toward prisons and prisoners. Concerns were
being raised with what was referred to by many as amenities-in other words,
concerns that prisons provide some privileges that are seen perhaps as too
luxurious. This was the perception by some, even though the BOP works to
ensure that all inmate programs have a clear correctional or management goal,
and further, that inappropriate comforts are not provided to inmates. Living
conditions are basic and do not provide frills or luxuries. Health care is
consistent with communities’ standards. Despite this, the news media have often
"played up" programs, particularly recreational programs, that are available on a
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
limited basis, in order to foster this erroneous belief that prisoners are provided
with luxuries not available to the general public. And some lawmakers agreed
and introduced legislation by the late 1980s and 1990s that would prohibit what
they viewed as amenities.
Finally, the privatization of more governmental functions was in vogue
and private prison companies were claiming they could do the BOP’s job more
cost-efficiently and with the same quality. Privately managed correctional
facilities in the United States now number in excess of 100, confining upwards of
100,000 inmates in this billion dollar a year industry. Lawmakers and the
presidential staffs were looking seriously at these claims. And, they took the
claims seriously enough that, the BOP was told to conduct a privatization
demonstration project.
The Reengineering Decision.
The nearly 70 year old successful organization realized that in light of
these issues, it must change in order to survive in the current environment. As a
result, in September 1998 the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officially
determined that it would undertake a reengineering effort impacting the entire
agency. Specifically, the agency’s leadership decided that, despite the fact that
the agency was performing well and was considered a leader in the field of
corrections, the BOP would reengineer to ensure its continued success. The
agency would systematically review how its business was conducted, with the
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ultimate goal of discovering more efficient ways to accomplish its mission, and,
in doing so, reduce costs.
Laying the Groundwork.
Before the official decision in September 1998, by the Executive Staff to
reengineer the agency, the agency’s director began to carefully lay the
groundwork for the change that was to occur. Eighteen months before the
decision, she called in a consultant to discuss organizational change with the
Executive Staff. At the June 1998 Wardens Conference, a meeting attended by
all BOP Wardens and senior staff, the Director outlined the need for change and
the reasons for it. She pointed out that communication with all staff about this
initiative was crucial. Staff were to be thoroughly educated about the process
and kept involved in it. Staff were to submit their ideas for change, and were to
be encouraged to do so by senior managers. Staff were to be brought on board
about what reengineering is and what the vision for the BOP was with regard to
this all encompassing initiative.
At that time she related that the BOP culture would not change. She
forcefully pronounced that some areas were not open for discussion:
We will continue to be responsible to our employees, the men
and women who work with us throughout the country. Everyone
must be considered as an individual. We must continue to
respect their dignity and recognize their merit. They must have a
sense of security in their jobs. Compensation must be fair and
adequate, and working conditions must continue to be clean,
orderly and safe. We must be mindful of ways to help our
employees fulfill their family responsibilities. Employees must
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
feel free to make suggestions and complaints. There must be
equal opportunity for employment, development, and
advancement for those qualified. We must provide competent
management, and our actions must be just and ethical.
We must also never lose sight of our primary mission. That is,
and will always be, to maintain safe and secure federal prisons.
We must simply learn to do that job more cost-effectively while
empowering staff to exercise their skills and capabilities to the
fullest extent possible, and then stepping back and letting it
happen (Wardens’ Conference, June 8, 1998).
A similar rendition of the Wardens’ Conference presentation was
provided to all BOP Central Office staff on June 17. Then, in the June 29th
issue of the agency’s weekly newsletter to all staff, she presented a message
about organizational change and its importance for the future of the BOP. The
message related what she and the Executive Staff had formulated as the vision
(see Appendix B) for the BOP and the importance of ensuring that all decisions
were made in line with that vision (Monday Morning Highlights, June 29, 1998).
Following this, in January 1999, Director Hawk Sawyer made a thoughtful,
videotaped presentation that was sent to each institution, regional office, and
community corrections center in the agency, which was to be viewed by all staff,
about the reengineering initiative and providing a restatement of the need for it
and what had been accomplished to that point in time. She restated what the
reengineering process was and what it was not, pointing out those things that
were negotiable and those that were not. She noted non-negotiable items, for
accountability reasons, that must not be compromised. Namely, institution
security, public safety, and the safety of staff and inmates could not be
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
compromised. Inmates’ ability to prepare for release by participating in
programs must not be undermined; and overhead must not increase. Beyond
these areas, essential for accountability to the public as a government agency,
everything else was open for reconsideration. Special attention was to be given
to what reengineering was not. It was not temporary or short-term changes; it
was not simply leaving positions vacant; it was not simply taking from one area
and giving to another, or shifting the burden of responsibility to another area.
Because of the growth projected in federal corrections, the BOP Director
carefully pointed out to staff that career opportunities would not be jeopardized as
a result of reengineering. In other words, staff did not have to be concerned
about losing employment with the agency.
In planning for the reengineering of the agency, BOP drew upon a
number of models of organizational change that had assisted other private and
public agencies undergoing similar change efforts. Ultimately, it focused on two
models. Reengineering The Corporation, by Michael Hammer and James
Champy presents a set of management principles for successful reinvention of
how American corporations do their work. While their focus is on private
businesses, Hammer and Champy point out that these principles can also be used
in governmental and other public sector organizations. It also focussed on James
Collins and Jerry Porras’ Built to Last, which examines successful practices of
visionary companies. These models were useful to allow BOP’s leadership to
recognize those issues that have to be understood if favorable change is to take
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
place. A hybrid version of the Hammer and Champy and Collins and Porras
models, provided the framework for determining the process of change.
At the BOP’s September 1998 Executive staff meeting, the Executive
Staff identified 37 major processes that make-up the operations of the Bureau of
Prisons. They then identified seven of these processes to reengineer, and
reengineering teams were established in these critical functional areas. These
were: Financial Management, Personnel Operations, Employee Development and
Training, Inmate Movement, Inmate Designations, Medical Operations, and
Management. It was decided that these areas would receive attention first
because they are very costly and, secondly, because they impact the entire
agency. Modification of these specific processes had the potential to significantly
enhance efficiency or effectiveness while being able to maintain or improve the
quality of outcomes associated with them.
Structure of the Reengineering Teams.
Each of the teams was co-sponsored by executive staff members of a
regional director and an assistant director. Each of the reengineering teams was
chaired by an institution warden, designated as team leader, and included subject
matter experts from the discipline being addressed. The teams also included non
experts to allow for an outsider point of view on the teams. Each team included
a mapper, or process modeler, whose primary role was to outline for the group
what the team functional area currently looked like and the costs associated with
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
it, and what the proposals by the group could result in the process looking like.
Several groups also included designated facilitators, and others had members who
could act in that capacity. The teams were made up of staff from regional offices
and institutions throughout the country. Finally, the Council of Prison Locals
had a representative on all reengineering teams. The agency’s Director took the
leadership role of the reengineering project. All staff were requested and
encouraged to submit suggestions for improvement and change throughout the
process.
The key success measure in the BOP’s reengineering effort was to reduce
costs. A secondary goal of improved organizational effectiveness was established
as the process developed.
The Hammer and Champy Model.
In Reengineering The Corporation, Michael Hammer and James Champy
present a set of management principles for successful reinvention of how
American corporations do their work. They argue that the old paradigm of
management principles of hierarchical, task-oriented corporations must be put
aside and that the new approach must involve placing those tasks into business
processes. They contend that nothing but radical change will save America’s
business corporations.
While their focus is on private businesses, Hammer and Champy point
out that it also clearly applies to governmental and other public sector
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
organizations. Although, they contend, it poses special concerns for government
agencies for the following reasons: (1) it is difficult to measure performance (2)
it is difficult to break down the barriers between governmental agencies, and (3)
heads of governmental agencies tend to be policy-oriented and not adept at
operational excellence.
Hammer and Champy (p. 32) define reengineering as "the fundamental
rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic
improvements in the critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as
cost, quality, service, and speed."
The four keys words of this definition, they contend are: (1)
Fundamental-the most basic of questions about the organization and how it
w orks-"reengineering first determines what a company must do, then how to do
it," (p. 33) focusing on what the organization should be. (2) Radical-the focus
is on reinventing the organization, not just tinkering with it. It means starting
over. (3) Dramatic-minor changes are not the subject of reengineering -the
focus is on major changes. Hammer and Champy point out three types of
organizations that can use reinvention- those in great trouble; those that are not
in trouble yet, but see it coming; and, those that are in great shape, but have
expectations of something even better. (4) Processes-this is the most important
facet of their definition-it is "a collection of activities that takes one or more
kinds of input and creates an output that is of value to the customer" (p. 35).
They contend that the notion of individuals performing specialized tasks as
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
presented by Adam Smith, is not relevant for today’s organizations.
Organizations have been focused on tasked-based thinking and they must now
refocus on process-based thinking. Gone are the fragmented processes of the
past and, in their stead, are simplified processes.
Hammer and Champy meticulously point out what reengineering is not.
It is not merely restructuring, or downsizing, or enhancing existing processes.
They audaciously claim that it "is about reversing the industrial revolution" (p.
49). "Tradition counts for nothing. Reengineering is a new beginning" (p. 49).
Incremental changes are too slow and too small to be effective.
The Collins and Porras Model.
Collins and Porras (1997) in Built to Last: Successful Habits o f Visionary
Companies present a model of successful, long-term, visionary companies. The
model is based on a study of nearly 40 major private sector organizations, but the
authors point out that it can be applicable to public sector agencies as well.
Collins and Porras contend that the most important aspect of their approach in
building and managing an organization is to recognize "the critical importance of
creating tangible mechanisms aligned to preserve the core {of the organization}
and stimulate progress” {emphasis added in the original} (p. 89).
Built to Last provides a number of elements that are said to make a
company visionary and lasting. These include: methods, structure, leadership,
and philosophy.
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The CollinS'Porras model is based on three primary components: (1)
long-term adherence to a core ideology; (2) immediate or short-term flexibility-
characterized partly by pursuit of "Big Hairy Audacious Goals "-to ensure
progress; and (3) leadership that stresses succession planning and creation of a
corporate environment which indoctrinates staff to the point where they can carry
out the mission of the organization, for the most part, on their own.
According to Collins and Porras, the core ideology is a set of deeply and
sincerely held convictions which are central to the agency’s culture and unrelated
to what it does. In other words, the core ideology is independent of the
company’s product or service. Included in the core ideology is the core purpose,
or the company’s reason for being. For example, Collins and Porras provide the
example of the Disney Corporation and its core purpose being to "bring
happiness at millions," not to produce cartoons or build and run amusement
parks.
Secondly, the model emphasizes the importance of flexibility in the
organization to allow for continuous changes to improve the organization. The
vehicle for such changes is the "Big Hairy Audacious Goal "-o r "BHAG. " This
is the heart of their model. BHAG’s are dramatic, visionary challenges,
requiring the organization’s total resource and psychological commitment. And,
if successful, they move the company ahead significantly.
Leadership is the third component of the Collins and Porras model. The
leader of the successful company in their model is not necessarily the towering,
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
bigger-than-life tycoon. They do not overshadow their companies but have built
them in such ways that the organizations can do grand things and can be lasting.
The Reengineering Process.
The BOP wasted no time in beginning the reengineering process.
Reengineering team co-sponsors and a number of team members were selected
during the September 1998 meeting. Additional staff who were to participate on
the teams, including Union representatives were selected shortly thereafter.
Outside Consultants.
The BOP elected to hire an outside consulting Arm, the Hay Management
Consultants Group, to shepherd them through this process. The Hay Group was
founded in 1943, and is one of the world’s largest human resource management
consulting firms. It is nationally recognized for its work with organizations
world-wide, including health care organizations and government agencies. The
Hay Group views business process reengineering or organizational change as
work transformation. Their focus is on process redesign and other means for
transforming the way work gets accomplished.
As such, the role of the Hay Group was to review business process
reengineering with the reengineering training group, as well as work
transformation and other means of organizational change; to train them on
workflow modelling software; to go over team building exercises with them; and
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to assist them with other skill areas needed to understand and successfully go
through the reengineering process.
The first of three training sessions with the Hay Group took place from
October 7-9, 1998. All training sessions were held in the Washington, DC area.
Virtually all team members identified at that time took part in the training. The
first training session focussed specifically on the basics. The session discussed
what business process reengineering is and what it is not; the steps of a
reengineering process; mapping the process; workflow modelling software
(WorkFlow Modeler was the software used by the BOP); and performance
measures and deliverables. The definition of reengineering as presented by
Hammer and Champy was the basis for the training. The difference between
total quality management and reengineering was clearly presented.
The second session took place from November 3-5, 1998. This session
provided an overview of the previous training. It focussed on data collection
techniques; customers; subject matter experts; tracking recommendations and
evaluating recommendations; as-is and to-be models; and what measures to
collect. Team member make-up was finalized as well as what the roles of each
of the members was to be.
Specifically, the BOP Executive Staff were to authorize and motivate the
overall effort. The Steering Committee was to oversee and coordinate the
reengineering effort. Assistant Directors and Regional Directors were to be
responsible for providing leadership and guidance for a specific team
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
responsibility and the process reengineering effort on which it focused. The
actual team was a group of individuals devoted to a specific process
reengineering effort. The team members were to diagnose existing processes and
oversee their redesign. Each of the seven teams was originally composed of a
Warden as the team leader, a team facilitator, process modelers or mappers,
process or subject matter experts, and non-experts. Also, a union representative
was a member of each of the teams. In addition, additional process and subject
matter experts were interviewed by the teams to ensure that the process had been
correctly described.
The third and final training session occurred from November 17-19,
1998, and again began with an overview of the previous training session’s
activities. At this session the schedule for the teams was developed; the
techniques and questions to use; non-team member customers and subject matter
experts were identified, and how to collect information from them; collection
measures were identified; the model to use was finalized; and tasks for the
reengineering effort were assigned. At the conclusion of the third session, the
outline for the reengineering effort was finalized.
Training was subsequently provided to all other members of the teams by
the team facilitators for their respective teams, with technical assistance, as
needed, provided by the Hay Group.
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BOP Strategic Goals and the Reengineering Objective.
The BOP has six longterm strategic goals and it has established national
objectives in support of these goals. BOP Executive Staff reviews these national
objectives and modifies them as necessary. The six longterm strategic goals are
in the areas of: Population Management; Human Resource Management; Security
and Facility Management; Correctional Leadership and Effective Public
Administration; Inmate Programs and Services; and, Building Partnerships.
The reengineering objective was placed under the longterm strategic goal
of Correctional Leadership and Effective Public Administration. The objective
states:
The Bureau of Prisons will continue to focus on reducing costs by
utilizing the most efficient and cost effective methods to perform every
task. This will be accomplished by reducing costs and ensuring good
resource management for all functions and programs. We will be able to
accomplish this through continued emphasis on financial planning,
analyzing workload and staffing requirements, using consolidated and
shared services, increasing the use of technology, and refining the
processes of the Bureau of Prisons (DOJ, 1999, p. 18-19).
Charge to the Teams.
Each of the seven teams' co-sponsors were required to give a progress
update of their team beginning at the December 1998 Executive staff meeting and
at each subsequent meeting, which occur every three months. In addition, the
Administration Division of the agency was required to report the progress toward
meeting the position reduction targets at each Executive Staff meeting. The
Program Review Division (PRD) was made responsible for reporting at each
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Executive staff meeting on change indicators and performance measures that were
established for the seven teams. PRD also was responsible for reporting on any
noteworthy suggestions or changes made by staff through the process known as
"bubble up," that had been established to receive their ideas. This request for
ideas was provided to staff through their Assistant Directors, Regional Directors
and Wardens. In addition, in her January 1999, videotaped presentation that was
sent to each institution, regional office and community corrections office,
advising staff of the details of the reengineering initiative, the Director asked all
staff for input into the process. Reengineering teams were required to send to
each staff member who submitted a suggestion, a letter thanking him or her for
the suggestion and providing information on what happened as a result of the
suggestion. Some 314 suggestions were received from staff.
Also, in July, 1999, a letter was sent to each staff member in their pay
statements, (to ensure that all would receive their own copy of the letter),
containing detailed information on the agency’s position on privatization, the
reengineering initiative, and why it was important for the agency to be more
competitive with the private sector.
At each subsequent Executive Staff meeting, the team co-sponsors
submitted papers recommending changes to agency processes, which had been
developed by their teams after reviewing specific functional areas, in institutions,
regional offices and the Central office, and after meeting extensively with staff in
each of these areas. The recommendations from the teams were submitted using
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the established Executive Staff paper format, which requires that not only the
recommended change is proposed, but options to that recommendation must be
submitted for the Executive Staff to consider before rendering a decision.
The Executive Staff would either approve the recommendation proposed
by the team, or one of the alternative proposals, table the issue for the present,
or ask the team for more information before making a decision on the issue.
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH DESIGN.
Introduction.
Chapter III provided the background for the reengineering effort of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), presenting a history of the agency; information
on its culture and leadership and environment; the reengineering decision; the
models it used to guide the process; an overview of the reengineering process.
This chapter discusses the research design for this study. The first section
discusses the theoretical framework for this research and provides a link between
the literature on organizational change and reinvention theory and the research
that is the foundation for this study. It provides information on the justification
for the design, data collection instrument, data analysis procedures and limitations
of the research.
Theoretical Framework.
The theoretical framework for this research is that of organizational
change, using the Burke and Litwin Model (1992) and reinvention theory as
outlined by deLeon and Denhardt (2000). It looks at the BOP’s change effort in
relation to these theories— in light of its status as a public sector agency.
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Organizational Change Theory.
Burke and Litwin’s transformational-transactional view of approaching
organizational change comes from leadership theory of authorities including
Zaleznik (1977) and Burns (1978), in which the leader is viewed as
transformational and the manager as transactional. Transformational change
therefore falls under the auspices of leadership and transactional change under the
realm of management.
In Burke and Litwin’s model of Organizational Performance and Change,
the transformational factors, which are each interrelated are:
External environment-"any outside condition or situation that influences
the performance of the organization (e.g. marketplaces, world financial
conditions, political/governmental circumstances" (p. 531).
Mission/Strategy-what the top management defines it is and what
employees believe it is, with strategy as the way they intend to accomplish the
mission.
Leadership-the executives who provide direction and are role models for
followers.
Culmre-the guiding principles, values and rules that guide organizational
behavior. According to Schein (1986), the key to explaining culture is to know
the history of the agency, and this is the reason such a great deal of attention was
devoted to the history of the BOP in this research.
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Individual and organizational performance-the above factors and those
listed in the next category below come together to provide outcomes and results,
including profit and customer satisfaction.
The second half of Burke and Litwin’s model includes the following
transactional factors:
Structure-the manner in which people and functions are aligned to
achieve the organization’s mission.
Management practices-how human and material resources are used to
carry out the organization’s strategy.
Systems-standardized policies that facilitate work, such as employee
performance, budget, and management information systems.
Climate-collective impressions and feelings by staff about work that
impact supervisor/subordinate relations and the workplace.
Task requirements and individual skills/abilities-the knowledge, skills,
and abilities required by employees to do their assigned tasks.
Individual needs and values-these are the psychological factors that give
value to thoughts and actions by individuals.
Motivation-stimulating behavior to move toward goals.
Burke and Litwin contend that organizational change is, for the most
pan, brought on by external factors. But, they point out that, in their change
efforts, because of culture, organizations may do some things that are considered
unsound from a business point of view.
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reinvention Theory.
In examining organizational change, reinvention theory provides one
option for change and is the foundation of business reengineering models.
deLeon and Denhardt (2000) point out that "the most basic premise of the
reinvention movement is that the accumulation of narrowly defined self-interests
of many individuals can adequately approximate the public interest" (p. 89).
They point out that the three elements that constitute reinvention theory are: the
market model; customer service; and the administrator as entrepreneur. deLeon
and Denhardt point out that, in reinvention theory, market drives the process, in
other words, profitability, rather than accountability.
The market model allows the market to guide both individual choices and
the behaviors of society. This is the "government as business" perspective
(Wilson, 1887). But Frederickson (1992) contends, "governments are not
markets" (p. 13). Customer service treats citizens as customers. Government is
to be customer driven in reinvention efforts. Frederickson (1992) points out that
"citizens are not the customers...They are the owners" (p. 13). And finally, the
idea of administrator as entrepreneur may focus more on outcomes and less on
processes. As deLeon and Denhardt point out, the focus here is on the individual
leader and the leader’s self-interested innovative abilities over the slow and
incremental established institutional processes. They contend that reinvention
theory acts to circumvent citizenship by relying on deals to make transactions;
that the role solely of customer restricts the citizen in interactions with
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
government; and that entrepreneurship is undemocratic because it relies too
heavily on one individual and that person’s abilities. They contend that it causes
the government to move away from its fundamental democratic values to the
political theory of the public interest being approximated through the self interests
of some individuals.
This dissertation examines the BOP’s change effort in relation to the
Burke and Litwin model, and reinvention theory as outlined by deLeon and
Denhardt.
Looking at organizational change from the reinvention point of view, and
according to a number of authorities in the area of leadership, such as Torbet
(1989), Zaleznik (1977) and Burns (1978), organizational change is brought on
by entrepreneurial or transformational leaders. Burke and Litwin agree that,
while leaders make a difference, they are still responding only to the realities of
their environments. They contend that perceptive leaders examine their
environments and take appropriate actions. Leadership is not in isolation from
environments, as Torbet would imply, Burke and Litwin contend.
Justification of the Design.
Using the case study research approach, this dissertation demonstrates
how one public sector agency, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), applied a
modified version of the principles presented by Hammer and Champy and Collins
and Porras to develop recommendations to reengineer the agency. It examines
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
how the BOP went about arriving at recommendations to reengineer the agency,
to ensure that the principles of public administration as presented by Waldo
(1948) Frederickson (1997) and Meier (1993) were maintained in the process-
(these principles include economy, meaning the appropriate use of resources;
efficiency, meaning that functions are performed in the correct manner; and
effectiveness, meaning that the correct functions are being performed, namely
policies and programs, including concern for equity (Waldo, 1971)); focusing on
what aspects of business reengineering models were not applicable to the
reengineering of this public agency; and what lessons were learned that could be
useful to other public sector agencies going through major change initiatives.
Because of the relatively small number of reengineering team members,
all members who were still employed by the agency were sent questionnaires and
all who responded were interviewed. This represented 83 staff. The agency’s
Director was also interviewed. A total of 72 questionnaires were completed, or
86.7 percent of the total population. Interviewing only team chairs and co
leaders and a sampling of other teams members for in-person or telephone
interviews was considered, but, due do the relatively small numbers of team
members and the specialized roles of members, a more valid approach was
adopted-to interview all team members who responded to the questionnaire.
Tables 1 and 2 provide specific information on reengineering team membership
participation by functional area and by role on the team.
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1: Reengineering Teams by Functional Area
Category Total
members
Total participants in
survey
Percentage
Inmate Movement 14 11 78.6
Health Care 10 9 90.0
Training/
Employee
Development
13 12 92.3
Inmate
Designations
10 8 80.0
Management 12 11 91.7
Personnel 11 9 81.8
Fiscal Management 13 12 92.3
Total 83 72 86.7
number of respondents from each group.
Table 2: Reengineering Teams by Role on Team
Category Total
members
Total participants
in survey
Percentage
Co-Sponsor 16 15 93.8
Team Leader 7 7 100.0
Facilitator 4 4 100.0
Subject Matter
Expert
29 28 96.6
Non-Subject
Matter Expert
13 8 61.5
Union 7 4 57.1
Mapper 7 6 85.7
Total 83 72 86.7
the number of respondents by role.
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As can be seen in the above tables, participation by functional area
ranged from a low of 78.6 percent to a high of 92.3 percent. Participation by
role on teams ranged from a low of 57.1 percent to a high of 100 percent. The
union and non-subject matter experts had the lowest percentage of participation in
the survey by roles. Of union team members, 57.1 percent responded to the
questionnaire. There were only seven union members on the teams, one per
group, and four participated in the research project. The next lowest
participation by roles was the non-subject matter experts at 61.5 percent.
However, these two low participation numbers did not affect overall findings
because of the consistency of responses within the two groups, as well as the
consistency of findings in these two groups with all other groups.
Survey and interview responses among all participant groups by team
functional area and role were collapsed into one set of tables for presentation of
findings throughout this document because of the consistency of responses, with
three primary exceptions. These three differences were the co-sponsors
responses to whether or not the ground rules laid out by the Director were
maintained throughout the process; the responses to the question asking
participants to categorize the type of change as radical, incremental, or a
combination of radical and incremental; and responses concerning political and
other agency coordination issues. (These differences are discussed in detail in
Chapter V.)
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
All co-sponsors, 100 percent of those responding said that the ground
rules were maintained throughout the process. This was not true for any other
category. Regarding the categorization given to the type of change, the only
team members who rated the process as radical were four members of the fiscal
management team. (All tables considered non-essential material for purposes of
this dissertation are presented in Appendix D-tables A-N, by functional area and
by role on the team.)
In the first phase of the research, a review was conducted of the relevant
agency files to assemble information about the reengineering process. This
information provided background for the second phase of the project, which was
to develop a questionnaire, using an open-ended response and ranking system
format, to be sent to all reengineering team participants. The questions focused
on the reengineering process: was the training they received adequate; was the
length of time devoted to the process adequate; what they observed concerning
maintaining the principles of public administration in the process-was the over
riding concern economy or efficiency or effectiveness; what guided this focus-
organizational culture, leadership, external environmental factors, improving
effectiveness, improving cost-efficiency, improving the agency, or saving money;
what they believed caused the agency to reengineer-leader’s expectations,
external environment, improving what the organization does and how it does it,
or saving money; what were the strengths and weaknesses of the process; and
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
what would they recommend be maintained and what should be changed if they
had the opportunity to redo the process?
The third phase involved in-person or telephone interviews with the same
population. The interviews were used to clarify any discrepancies in the
questionnaire responses and thus served as a check on validity of information.
Further, it provided the opportunity to hear first-hand their perspectives about the
process which cannot be adequately captured in the questionnaire process. It also
allowed for discussion of other issues brought to light in the questionnaire
responses. The two major issues that came to light from reviewing the
questionnaires related to whether the team members believed that information
concerning the reengineering process had been adequately communicated to staff
not on the teams, in particular, line staff. The second issue related to whether,
and to what extent, political considerations came into play in developing
recommendations. Specifically, this question related to Congressional political
considerations, as well as issues related to other agency approval and
coordination issues considered by the teams in developing recommendations.
The original research questionnaire instrument was first field-tested with
five team members located in the agency’s Central Office in Washington, DC.
This allowed for refinement of the questions and the questionnaire format before
employing the questionnaire nationwide on team members.
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data Collection Procedures.
Documentation from BOP flies regarding the reengineering process was
reviewed; questionnaires were sent to all reengineering team participants still
employed by the agency, via the agency’s wide-area network, focusing on their
views about the reengineering effort; all members of reengineering teams who
responded to the questionnaire were interviewed either in-person or
telephonically; and the leader of the agency’s reengineering effort, its director,
was interviewed in-person. The research examined, in detail, the approach,
processes and procedures used by the reengineering teams to develop their
recommendations for organizational change.
This research examines whether private sector reengineering models are
applicable to public sector agencies.
The study also examines whether, and to what extent, a federal agency
can change to be more competitive with the private sector and to be more
responsive to other external factors-and also maintain basic values of public
administration. It examines the impact of leadership, agency culture and the
external environment in shaping the change process.
Finally, this research identifies and assesses lessons learned in the BOP
reengineering process from the factors involved in the agency’s decision to
reengineer, through its development and planning stages, up to the review of
reengineering recommendations by the executive staff, that could prove useful to
other federal agencies going through similar change efforts.
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data Collection Instrument.
This case study research focuses on one agency, the Federal Bureau of
Prisons and was a qualitative analysis supplemented by quantitative assessments.
The study looked for evidence that supports or refutes whether the BOP
was able to maintain the values of public administration in developing
recommendations to reengineer. It looked for evidence that supports or refutes
whether private sector reengineering models were applicable in a public sector
reengineering effort. And, it looked for evidence used to develop lessons learned
by the BOP in going through this process that could be useful to other public
sector agencies in reengineering efforts.
This information was obtained from analyzing information contained in
agency files and from the questionnaire and interview process to determine:
-What was the impetus for the reengineering effort? -Questions were
asked to obtain information on the importance of economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness in developing recommendations.
-Which of these was given the greatest weight?
-What guided the focus of this effort?
-Was this reengineering within the definition of business reengineering
models? Namely, was it radical and dramatic change focussing on processes?
Or was it incremental change, or was it a combination of radical and
incremental?
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-Are private sector models applicable to the public sector? Are modified
versions of these models applicable to the public sector? What aspects are
applicable and which are not and why?
-Were political considerations an issue in developing recommendations?
-Were other agency coordination considerations an issue?
-What were the strengths and weaknesses of the process and how would
you improve it?
-Did you receive adequate training and did you have sufficient time to
successfully accomplish this task?
-Was this effort well-communicated to staff?
Data Analysis Procedures.
The data were analyzed by first tabulating the questionnaire responses and
categorizing them. Follow-up in-person or telephone interviews were conducted
to clarify any discrepancies in responses and to obtain responses to issues that
came to light after reviewing questionnaire responses. The follow-up interview
process proved to be an invaluable tool for getting at the heart of the
reengineering process. The questionnaire provided the basis where major issues
were brought to light based on answers provided by respondents to a question
asking if the ground rules laid out in the beginning of the effort were maintained
throughout the process, and in examining the responses to a question asking
respondents what they saw as the weaknesses of the process. It was through
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
responses to these questions, in particular, that helped formulate questions for the
follow-up interviews. The follow-up questions focused on two primary issues.
First, whether or not they believed staff understood the process and were
communicated with adequately about it, and, secondly, to what extent
Congressional or legislative, or other agency coordination or approval issues
came into play in developing recommendations.
A grid was developed with the questions asked on one dimension and the
possible response categories on the other. A check mark or number was placed
in the appropriate box for each participant’s response to each question. They
were manually tallied due to the relatively small number of respondents-72.
On a second grid was listed all responses to the open-ended questions,
including those related to what respondents viewed as the strengths and
weaknesses of the process and how it could have been improved. Due to the
overlap between the responses on the weaknesses of the process category, and
those on how the process could have been improved, and the relatively small
number of responses in the process improvement category, 38, the responses
were folded into one category. The responses to the strengths of the process and
the weaknesses/how could the process have been improved categories were
summarized on two grids.
On a third grid was placed responses to questions posed during the
follow-up interview and additional information which came to light during the
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interview process. From this information, and the information found in agency
files on the reengineering process, lessons learned were developed.
Limitations of the Research.
This dissertation was not an attempt to make judgments about the changes
recommended by the BOP reengineering teams. It does not focus on the merits
of the recommendations. This dissertation was an effort to look at the
reengineering process employed by the BOP to determine if the values of public
administration could be sustained in the reengineering process; to determine
whether private sector business reengineering models are applicable to public
sector agencies; and to ascertain lessons learned from that process that could be
beneficial to other agencies going through similar efforts.
One limitation of the research is that the interview process can be faulty
because of changing conditions as the interviews proceed.
This research was grounded in the following assumptions:
-some, but not all, business reengineering practices from the private
sector are applicable to the public sector;
-the public sector has some attributes that make it inappropriate or even
illegal to apply some business reengineering practices; and
-some lessons learned may be transferable to other public and private
sector organizations.
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER V.
APPLICATION OF THE HAMMER AND CHAMPY AND COLLINS AND
PORRAS MODELS.
Introduction.
In the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) reengineering process, a hybrid version
of the Hammer and Champy and the Collins and Porras models, provided the
framework for determining the process of change. This chapter examines those
aspects of the models that were applicable and those that were not, and why this
was the case.
Hammer and Champy Model.
Hammer and Champy, in their definition of reengineering contend that
there are four keys words. They are: (1) Fundamental--the most basic of
questions about the organization and how it works— "reengineering first
determines what a company must do, then how to do it," (p. 33) focusing on
what the organization should be. (2) Radical-the focus is on reinventing the
organization, not just tinkering with it. It means starting over. (3) Dramatic-
minor changes are not the subject of reengineering -the focus is on major
changes. Hammer and Champy point out three types of organizations that can
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
use reinvention— those in great trouble; those that are not in trouble yet, but see
it coming; and, those that are in great shape, but have expectations of something
even better. (4) Processes- this is the most important facet of their definition-it
is "a collection of activities that takes one or more kinds of input and creates an
output that is of value to the customer" (p. 35).
The BOP examined this definition and immediately recognized that
certain aspects of the definition were clearly not appropriate for the BOP or
applicable to it.
(1) fundamental-The BOP’s ability, as a public agency, to make changes
is limited by law, as well as Congressional oversight, and therefore, certain
limitations were placed on the extent of changes permitted. It still had to confine
prisoners, but it could examine the most efficient, economical and effective way
to change the manner in which it carried out this mandate.
(2) radical— Hammer and Champy advocate, and indeed insist upon, a
new beginning. They want to throw everything out and start over. This was
clearly wrong for the BOP. While some agencies going through reengineering
have a poor culture and agency record, this was not the case with the BOP as
highlighted in Chapter m . This agency enjoys a rich culture and heritage. Its
culture is what makes it the exemplary organization it is. This is its greatest
strength. As a result, in developing recommendations, careful attention was paid
to ensure that recommended changes would not impact adversely the existing
culture.
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
To ensure this, the agency’s Director had outlined certain items and
issues not open for discussion for change because they would adversely impact
the culture of the agency.
(3) dramatic -T he BOP hoped to achieve dramatic changes. The
Director pointed out in her presentation at the 1998 Wardens Conference that
"Although we’ve made some operational changes throughout the years, those
changes are insignificant in comparison to what we’re going to be doing in the
next five years" (Wardens’ meeting presentation, June 1998).
Whether or not the changes were dramatic is not within the scope of this
dissertation. But, respondents’ perceptions of the process were examined and the
majority of respondents viewed the recommended changes as incremental (see
table 12). This finding was, in pan, because as a public sector agency the
change process is very slow due to political, legislative and coordination issues
required by some of the changes. And, because some changes were off-limits
because of the goal to preserve the agency’s culture.
(4) processes-While the BOP was going to examine processes, the
effon’s stated purpose was outcome-based, in other words, the goal of the effort
was to reduce costs. As the process progressed a second goal was stated to
improve the agency. The BOP did examine all major functional areas of the
agency, namely inmate movement, health care, training/employee development,
inmate designations, management, personnel, and fiscal management, and made
recommendations to improve, redesign or eliminate unnecessary processes. The
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BOP was able to adhere to this aspect of the model without modification. The
questionnaire responses revealed that 35.6 percent (see table 13) of all responses
to the question regarding the strengths of the process demonstrated that the
reengineering effort permitted a detailed look at the processes of the entire
organization. It allowed the agency to look at what it really needed to do to
accomplish its legislative mandate, and through this self-examination, to get rid
of processes that did not add value to the organization. The utility or value of
those recommendations was not in the scope of this research initiative.
Collins and Porras Model.
As pointed out in Chapter III, the Collins-Porras model is based on three
primary components: (1) long-term adherence to a core ideology; (2) immediate
or short-term flexibility-characterized partly by pursuit of "Big Hairy Audacious
Goals"-to ensure progress; and (3) leadership that stresses succession planning
and creation of a corporate environment which indoctrinates staff to the point
where they can carry out the mission of the organization, for the most pan, on
their own.
(1) Long-term adherence to a core ideology. According to Collins and
Porras, the core ideology is a set of deeply and sincerely held convictions which
are central to the agency’s culture and unrelated to what it does. In other words,
the core ideology is independent of the company’s product or service. In the
case of the BOP, however, the culture is directly related to the product— it is
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
indeed the essence of what the BOP does. James Q. Wilson defines
organizational culture as:
...a persistent, patterned way of thinking about the central tasks
of and human relationships within an organization. Culture is to
an organization what personality is to an individual. Like human
culture generally, it is passed on from one generation to the next.
It changes slowly, if at all (p. 91).
Schein, one of the key authorities in the area of organizational culture
defines culture as:
...a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as
it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal
integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid
and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way
to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 12).
The BOP has been able to preserve its core by developing and
distributing throughout the agency a set of lasting mission-critical values. This
has allowed it to perpetuate its core ideology, which, because of agency
leadership, did not change during the developing of reengineering
recommendations.
(2) Immediate or short-term flexibility to ensure progress. The BOP
initiated progress that could be considered audacious within the constraints of its
legislative mandate. The fact that it would undertake this change effort, which
would look at every major functional area of the agency, and the significant staff
and financial resources committed to its success, clearly demonstrates that the
BOP was ready to be flexible to ensure longterm success.
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
And, (3) leadership that stresses succession planning and creation of a
corporate environment which indoctrinates staff to the point where they can carry
out the mission of the organization, for the most part, on their own. The BOP
has developed its leaders from within and has developed letters who are "clock-
builders," in the terms of Collins and Porras-meaning that they are secondary to
the company itself. In the Collins and Porras model, the leader of the successful
company is not necessarily the towering, bigger-than-life tycoon. They do not
overshadow their companies but have built them in such ways that the
organizations can do grand things and can be lasting. This is contrary to the
entrepreneurial leader in the reinvention model, and
characterizes the BOP leadership of "home grown" and "hand picked" leadership
as presented in Chapter HI.
The BOP Director used the reengineering process as a means of devising
processes for doing business, and through communicating those processes to
everyone in the agency, could ensure that her successors would be skilled at
carrying out those processes to allow the agency to continue to function without
her involvement.
Findings Related to Models.
The research findings are consistent with both Burke and Litwin’s and
Torbet’s conclusions. Specifically, as Burke and Litwin point out, organizations
often do things not considered sound from a business point of view because of
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
their culture. In this case, the BOP did not accept one key aspect of the Hammer
and Champy model to throw everything out and start over. To outsiders this
may have seemed to be a somewhat unsound decision. The BOP was
undertaking what was to be a major initiative to totally reengineer the agency, yet
the agency’s director said clearly from the onset that the culture was not to be
impacted by the changes recommended. To those within the agency who know
the rich culture of the agency, this was a sound decision, because of the
significance of the culture of the agency to what it is and what has made it the
premier agency it is.
The survey findings are consistent with the Hammer and Champy model
focussing on process change, and taking into account the principles of Collins as
Porras, most significantly to preserve the core of the agency while going through
this change initiative. When asked the question "How would you categorize the
recommendations developed by the teams in the reengineering process: a) radical
or drastic redesign of processes to effect change; b) incremental change, or; c)
both radical and incremental changes, the majority of survey respondents, SI.4
percent answered that the changes were incremental in nature.
The respondents, for the most part, did not see the changes recommended
as purely radical. Rather they viewed them as building on existing processes, or
changing processes to be more efficient, or by inserting technology or changing
technology to become more efficient. Respondents felt they took a fresh look at
things but did not, for the most part, radically alter the organization. The
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
exception to this was on fiscal management team in which four respondents, or
S.6 percent of respondents reported that the changes recommended were radical
in nature. And 43 percent reported that they were a combination of radical and
incremental.
Table 3: Type of Changes Recommended
n=72
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical 4* 5.6
Incremental 37 51.4
Radical and
Incremental
31 43.0
believed their groups developed.
* These respondents were all from the fiscal management team.
Comments from respondents reflect that radical changes were not made in
some cases because of limitations imposed on public agencies by statute, political
considerations and coordination issues with other agencies.
As seen in table 4, 56 percent of respondents said they believed political
concerns were considered by the team in developing recommendations, and, in
some cases they reported it impacted the recommendations they made. While, in
most cases, they simply reported that they knew this was the reality of the
situation. Political concerns was defined as: any legislation that would have to be
changed, or introduced and passed if the recommendation was to be
implemented; concerns that certain recommendations were not seen as appropriate
during an election year because of the political ramifications, or that it would be
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
unlikely to pass; that if an issue went to the Congress, it may take on a life of its
own and be something entirely different than that which was intended by the
agency, and thus the control of the issue would be at the Congressional level,
rather than at the agency level; and, concerns that a particular congressional
member may or may not be amenable to a certain recommendation and as a
result it should not be approached. For example, moving one office in one part
of the country to another location with another office was not acceptable to a
congressional member and therefore could not be accomplished.
Table 4: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
(respondents could have answered Yes to both categories.)
n=72
Category Respondents Percentage
Political concerns 40 56.0
Coordination with
other agencies
41 56.9
reengineering a public agency as opposed to a private one.
Although there were differences among teams concerning whether
political concerns were more important to the group, or coordination issues with
other agencies, all expressed that one or the other, or both, were given
consideration in making recommendations. The Personnel and Inmate Movement
teams reported coordination issues with other agencies were of much greater
concern to them than political considerations, which had little relevance for those
groups because of the nature of the function.
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Fiscal Management team reported, on the other hand, that political
considerations were of primary importance and that other agency coordination
issues were of little concern. (See tables 4A and 4F, Appendix D, for specific
information.)
Concerning legislative or rule changes needed to implement certain
recommendations, several team members reported that they stayed away from
recommending anything that required a law change because it would take far too
long to ever get accomplished, or because it would mean that the Congress would
end up controlling the BOP’s reengineering effort. As one respondent put it "We
decided not to do anything that required legislation because once it gets there {in
the Congress} you don’t know where it {the proposed legislation} will end up or
what it {the proposed legislation} will really end up looking like." Another
reported that "We wanted to control our reengineering, not the Congress."
Concerning approval and coordination with other agencies, S6.9 percent
(see table 4) of respondents reported that this was an issue given consideration in
developing recommendations. Respondents noted coordination issues as a factor
with many recommendations involving a host of agencies including, the
Department of Justice, Office of Personnel Management, Office of Management
and Budget, General Services Administration, United States Marshals Service,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts, and District of Columbia officials. As one respondent put it "We have to
take one small step at a time to get changes done."
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
One respondent noted that the team started working with one agency head
on an issue and then the agency head left in the middle of the process and the
new agency head had an entirely different point of view concerning the issue--so
they were back to square one. Respondents pointed out that on some issues it
was necessary to deal with multiple agencies.
Other approval and coordination issues related to outside organizations,
such as accrediting agencies and the standards imposed by these groups,
including the American Correctional Association and the Joint Accreditation
Commission on Healthcare Organizations.
Other responses related to the laborious and time consuming process of
getting a policy change. Policy changes require union review and approval or, at
the least, a lengthy process of arbitration begins and it can take months for even
a minor change to take place in policy. Because, once any change is
recommended, regardless of how minuscule, the entire policy is open for review.
So, for any change to become a reality, it can take months and can end up being
something entirely different from the original proposal.
Respondents noted that other changes require rule changes and as such
must be published in the Federal Register and time allowed for public comment
and revision.
Still other legislative matters were thrust upon the BOP that could not be
changed. For example, the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997 required that the BOP take custody of all District of
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Columbia (D.C.) sentenced felons by December 2001. While business
reengineering models say that everything is open for change, for a public agency,
this is simply not true. The BOP could not have said that it would not take over
the D.C. sentenced felon population-the Congress had given this responsibility to
the BOP. It was not discretionary. Just as the BOP’s legislative mandate to
confine prisoners was not open for discussion in the reengineering process,
neither was the decision to house D.C. felons.
Private companies can decide to go into a new product line, but this is
not the case with public agencies. The BOP may not, nor may any public sector
agency, decide to change its "product" as could a private sector company.
Comments from respondents demonstrate that because of points of view
of executive staff members on the teams and the agency’s culture, and those areas
not to be considered by the teams for change as laid out by the Director at the
beginning of the effort which could negatively impact the culture, radical changes
could not be made. Namely, these included: security, public safety, staff and
inmate safety would not be undermined; staff would not lose employment with
the agency; there were to be no "sacred cows"; all policy was open for change;
and, preparation of inmates for release would not be undermined. This is
demonstrated in respondents’ answers to the question as to whether the ground
rules stated in the beginning of the effort were maintained.
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n=72
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 52 72.2
No 20 27.8
the beginning of the
reengineering effort were maintained throughout the process. It is, in part, a
measure of whether the principles of public administration were maintained in the
process and in part a measure of whether the agency was able to maintain the
ground rules given the culture of the agency.
Nearly 28 percent of respondents reported that there were "sacred cows”
and that some policy was in fact not open for change. The only respondent
category reponing that all ground rules were maintained was the co-sponsor
group with 100 percent reporting that the ground rules were maintained
throughout the effort (see table SH, Appendix D).
All team members responding "No" to this question did so either because
they reported that "sacred cows" were maintained or that all policy was not in
fact open for change. Five of the respondents said that their "No" response was
based on the agency’s culture and that it controlled the process, in large pan.
The remainder based their responses, for the most pan, on co-sponsor control of
the reengineering recommendations.
The sentiments related to co-sponsor control were the same, and
characterized by the following comment of one team member "It is difficult to
think outside the box with the Executive staff sitting on it."
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In examining closely what was occurring, based on follow-up interviews,
was what Hennessey (1998) pointed out in his research. The team co-sponsors
were, in pan, using the agency culture to control the process. And as Collins
and Porras exhort, the co-sponsors were attempting to stimulate change, all the
while trying to preserve the core of the agency. They recognized that some
things should not be changed. And, for the most part, those "sacred cows" that
could not be changed were those things that come together to form the successful
and enduring culture of the BOP that make the organization what it is— a model of
the values of public administration. Also, co-sponsors recognized that because of
legislative mandates and political considerations, some things just were just not
open for change. Although, according to follow-up interviews, several co
sponsors simply were not amenable to significant change.
As demonstrated by the foregoing findings, public and private agencies
are different and while public agencies can use private sector reengineering
models as a guide they are not directly applicable to the public sector. As
respondents reported when asked if an outline would be helpful to guide
participants throughout the process, 7S.0 percent reported that an outline is useful
primarily to let team members know what reengineering is about, but a number
pointed out that each change effort is different, in particular, public and private
sector reengineering efforts are different.
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n=72
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 54 75.0
No 18 25.0
This table represents respondents answers concerning whether or not a guide was
useful in going through the reengineering process.
Public sector agencies can make changes, but not of the bold, audacious
type envisioned by Collins and Porras.
When examining the BOP reengineering effort in light of the components
of the Hammer and Champy and Collins and Porras models, the research found
that, as a government agency, the BOP could not follow these models, or for that
matter any business reengineering models, with the same zeal that private sector
corporations can because of legal requirements, political considerations and issues
of public stewardship that take priority over any of the elements of the model.
However, the BOP was able to adhere to a somewhat less extreme
version of the models and to reengineer with what can be termed as "bridled
boldness," or making changes within the constraints placed on any public agency.
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER VI.
MAINTAINING THE VALUES OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION.
Introduction.
This dissertation examined, in pan, the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP)
response to the values of public administration as it progressed through
developing recommendations to reengineer the agency, examining on what
foundation the reengineering process was laid and upon what basis reengineering
recommendations were made-economy, efficiency, or effectiveness. In other
words, was the approach taken by the BOP a balanced one, focusing on all the
values of public administration, rather than the primary focus being on
profitability as seen in reinvention theory. Could the principles of public
administration be sustained, while allowing the agency to be competitive with the
private sector?
This issue was examined in evaluating responses to questions developed
to obtain this information, asking questions about the importance given to specific
areas in making recommendations; and what guided their focus in making
recommendations to reengineer. Namely, it focussed on whether the values of
public administration were sustained in the process: namely economy-or the
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
frugal use of valued, scarce resources; efficiency-doing things in the right ways;
and effectiveness-doing the right things.
The BOP response to this fundamental area demonstrated that the values
of public administration were of paramount importance in guiding their focus in
the process, as well as in making recommendations to reengineer. The responses
were consistent among members regardless of team membership or role on the
team. The BOP effort demonstrated a balanced approach, focusing on economy,
efficiency and effectiveness.
Economy/Efficiency/Effectiveness.
The questionnaire attempted to ascertain the reengineering team members’
focus and motivation in developing their recommendations to reengineer the
agency by asking: "In making recommendations to reengineer, for your
reengineering team, please rank the relative importance of the following areas
(with 5 being very important and 1 being of no importance): save money/cut
costs; improve the agency; concern for staff welfare; concern for inmate welfare;
concern for community welfare; spend money more wisely; better use of staff
and agency resources; or something else."
Those factors relating to economy were to save money/cut costs and
spend money more wisely.
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n=72 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category:
Economy
5 4 3 2 1
Save money/ cut
costs
47 14 10 1
Spend money
more wisely
55 13 4
This table examines one of he three values of public adi
or valued use of scarce resources, looking at the relative importance of economy
in developing recommendations to reengineer the agency.
Those relating to effectiveness were to improve the agency and better use
of staff and agency resources.
Table 8: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n=72 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category:
Efficiency
5 4 3 2 1
Improve the
agency
56 14 2
Better use of
staff and agency
resources
59 12 1
or doing things right, looking at the relative importance of efficiency in
developing recommendations to reengineer the agency.
And those relating to effectiveness were concern for staff welfare,
concern for inmate welfare, and concern for community welfare.
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n=72 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category:
Effectiveness
5 4 3 2 1
Concern for staff
welfare
46 16 9 1
Concern for inmate
welfare
25 23 10 8 6
Concern for
community welfare
24 25 13 6 4
effectiveness, or doing the right things, looking at the relative importance of
effectiveness in developing recommendations to reengineer the agency.
The majority of respondents rated the importance of these factors as
four’s and five’s, indicating that they are of great importance in developing their
recommendations to reengineer. As indicated in table 10, 20.2 percent of all
responses rated economy as the most important factor in developing
recommendations; 22.8 percent rated efficiency as most important; and 18.8
percent rated effectiveness as the most important factor. Responses clearly
indicate a balanced approach by team members in developing recommendations to
reengineer.
If team members had adhered to the reinvention model, the strongest
response category would have been that the focus was to "save money or cut
costs." But this was not the case.
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 10: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n=504 (The combined number of responses from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 102 20.2 27 5.4 14 2.8 1 0.2
Efficiency 115 22.8 26 5.2 3 0.6
Effectiveness 95 18.8 64 12.7 32 6.3 14 2.7 1 1 2.2
This table totals responses to tables7, 8, and 9, showing percentages of total
responses in each value category.
Guiding the Focus.
Another question aimed at learning the consideration given to the values
of public administration was: "What guided your focus in this entire process?"
Respondents were asked to rank the relative importance of: BOP’s cultural
anchors and core values; leadership (e.g., the Director’s expectations); the
external environment (congress, taxpayers, private prison competition, etc.);
improving organizational effectiveness; improving cost-efficiency; saving
money/cutting costs; improving the agency; or something else (with five being
very important and one being of no importance).
In answering this question, as seen in table 11, responses indicated that
key factors that guided the focus of the participants in making recommendations
were improving cost-efficiency, improving the agency and improving
organizational effectiveness.
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 11: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=484 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
22 4.5 21 4.3 22 4.5 7 1.4
Leadership 35 7.2 28 5.8 8 1.6 1 0.2
External
environment
21 4.3 22 4.5 22 4.5 7 1.4
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
55 11.4 13 2.7 4 0.8
Improving
Cost
efficiency
56 11.6 13 2.7 2 0.4 1 0.2
Saving
money/
cutting costs
42 8.7 21 4.3 6 1.2 3 0.6
Improving
the agency
58 11.9 13 2.7 1 0.2
This table examines the relative un jortance of various factors in guiding the
focus of reengineering participants in making the recommendations to reengineer
the agency. It examines the culture of the agency, as well as leadership and
environmental factors, and public administration values in guiding the focus of
change.
In examining the focus of change in the process, the survey findings were
consistent with the findings of Hennessey and others concerning the importance
of leadership and culture in guiding and shaping the reengineering process.
And despite the fact that the agency director had stated at the beginning
of the process that the key measure of success was to cut-costs, the survey
findings are not consistent with that statement. Team members did not rate
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
saving money/cutting costs as either their primary concern in developing
recommendations to reengineer (table 10) or as their guiding focus.
These responses, however, are seen as consistent with the overall concern
she expressed that the culture of the agency should not change and that the
reengineering effort would make an already outstanding organization even better.
And the responses are consistent with the indoctrination of the culture of the BOP
by its staff. They know the agency’s core values and cultural anchors and
responses demonstrating that they adhered to those values in going through the
reengineering process were consistent with that cultural indoctrination. Those
enduring values and the agency’s consistent and innovative leadership have made
the agency a model of the principles of public administration.
Impetus for Change.
When examining the impetus for change of the BOP’s reengineering, as
presented in Chapter Q, Burke and Litwin (1992) contend that organizational
change is, for the most part, brought on by external factors. On the other hand,
looking at this from the reinvention point of view, and according to a number of
authorities in the area of leadership, such as Torbet (1989), Zaleznik (1977) and
Burns (1978), organizational change is brought on by entrepreneurial or
transformational leaders. Burke and Litwin agree that, while leaders make a
difference, they are still only responding to the realities of their environments.
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
They contend that perceptive leaders examine their environments and take
appropriate actions. Leadership is not in isolation from environment.
The survey responses concerning impetus for change were consistent with
Katz and Kahn’s and Burke and Litwin’s models of how elements in the external
environment impact the organization. When asked the question of "In your
opinion, what was the primary reason the BOP decided to go through this
reengineering effort?" Leadership (e.g., the Director’s expectations); the external
environment (e.g., being in competition with the private sector, Congress,
taxpayers, public perception, etc.); improving organizational effectiveness; saving
money/cutting costs— 7.4 percent of all survey responses answered that the
external environment was the primary reason the agency reengineered, compared
to 5.6 percent of all responses reporting that the leadership or the Director’s
expectations was the primary reason.
The change effort was brought about primarily by external factors. This
was stated by the BOP Director in her original presentation about deciding to
reengineer and the stated goal was originally to save money and reduce the cost
of doing business. But, once again, when respondents were asked what they saw
as the impetus for change, only 4.2 percent of all respondents rated saving money
as the impetus for the effort.
A later stated goal by the Director of the reengineering process was to
improve the organization. And, almost twice the percent of those who rated the
impetus for change for the purpose of saving money, or 8.1 percent of
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
respondents reported that improving the organization was the primary impetus for
the reengineering.
Table 12: Primary Reason for Reengineering
n=284 (Only 71 respondents are represented in this table because one respondent
selected "not applicable" for this question).
(1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
16 5.6 11 3.9 23 8.1 21 7.4
External
Environment
21 7.4 15 5.3 16 5.6 19 6.7
Improving
organization
23 8.1 16 5.6 13 4.6 19 6.7
Saving
money/
cutting costs
12 4.2 29 10.2 19 6.7 11 3.9
reasons the agency underwent this reengineering initiative.
Summary of Findings.
The BOP was able to maintain the values of public administration because
of the control exerted by the agency leadership using the culture of the agency as
a bridle in developing reengineering recommendations. Because of a conscious
effort on the pan of the leader and reengineering team leaders to use the agency’s
culture to influence the outcome of this process, the BOP was able to maintain
the values of public administration in developing their recommendations for
change. And, the BOP staff has been indoctrinated well into the culture of the
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
agency from the beginning of their employment at the two week mandatory
training session held in Glynco, Georgia, through reenforcement via the agency’s
weekly newsletter, the Monday Morning Highlights, and through regular "recalls"
at all institutions, regional offices and the central office when the values of the
agency are continually reenforced. The agency’s culture was reenforced to team
members at the beginning of and during many team meetings. As one respondent
noted "We began every meeting with what the BOP was all about and what we
were to do."
And the findings of those things valued in the process are consistent with
what Waldo, Meier, Frederickson and others represent that they should be for a
public sector agency. The agency director adamantly and loudly proclaimed that
the agency’s culture was not to change in the process. The culture of the agency
is firmly grounded on the principles of public administration of bureau family,
sound correctional management, all staff are correctional workers first,
promoting integrity of staff, recognizing the dignity of all, being a career service
agency, fostering good community relations, and high standards. As a result, the
BOP was able to answer the question posed by Frederickson of how to balance
economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The BOP was able to balance and sustain
the values of public administration in its change effort. To accomplish this the
leadership used the strong culture of the agency as a bridle for the change
process.
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The research findings are consistent with Burke and Litwin’s findings that
the impetus for the change came about because of external environmental factors.
The BOP was doing well, but the agency leadership was responding to external
factors in making recommendations to change. The agency leadership made the
decision to change in response to the external environment, but, once the decision
to reengineer was made, its success was dependant upon the support and direction
of the agency leader and the senior management of the agency. These findings
are consistent with Hammer and Champy and Hennessey and others that without
the support of agency leadership the effort is doomed for failure.
The findings are clearly consistent with those of Hennessey (1998),
among numerous authorities, who points out the critical importance of both
leadership and culture in change efforts, noting the leader’s influence in
reinvention initiatives and the importance of culture in facilitating or hampering
the process. This is consistent with the BOP experience that the leader
influenced the outcome through the organization’s culture.
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER VII.
LESSONS LEARNED.
Introduction.
This chapter will examine the lessons learned from the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) reengineering process that may be useful to other public agencies
preparing for organizational change. Although the BOP has just started
examining the recommendations by the teams and taking action on them, and in
the future will undergo significant changes, a number of observations were
obtained from the process that can be useful to other public agencies going
through change efforts. Many are very straightforward and intuitive, while
others are not.
Strengths and Weaknesses/Recommendations for Improvement.
A number of valuable lessons were obtained from examining the BOP
process. Prior to examining the specific lessons developed as a result of
examining the BOP reengineering effort, an overall assessment of the view of the
participants of the strengths and weaknesses of the process will be reviewed.
Tables 13 and 14 outline the strengths and weaknesses/recommendations for
improvement as presented by the team members.
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The 72 team members responding to the questionnaire presented 208
responses concerning what they saw as the strengths of the process. These
responses were categorized under eight major headings as follows: overall
review of processes, diversity of teams, empowerment/creativity, support of
leadership, cost savings, staff development, benchmarking, and other. The
categories are defined as follows:
Overall Review of Processes-This category includes responses related to
the value of the reengineering effort to take a detailed look at the processes of the
whole organization; looking at what the agency really needed to do to accomplish
its mission and what it did not need to do; it captured information about the
importance of this initiative to get rid of processes that do not add value; allowed
the agency to evaluate how they do business; forced an examination of "as is"
mentality; permitted top to bottom review of processes; and was a good self-
examination.
Diversity of teams--This category reflected responses concerning the
value of a team approach, including both experts and non-experts, noting the
value of many different types of staff on the teams; the importance of many
levels of staff which allowed many voices to be heard and to take part in the
future of the agency; the value of management and line staff working
collectively; and, its importance for developing good relationships.
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Empowerment/Creativity-This category of responses represented the
creative ideas that came out of the process, allowing teams to look at original
ideas to change agency processes; they had freedom to think outside the box and
to brainstorm; and, the process encouraged innovative thinking.
Support of leadership-This category captured responses related to the
positive support and leadership received from the Director and the Executive
Staff for the process as evidenced by the financial and staff resources devoted to
it, and the visibility of Executive Staff on the teams.
Cost savings-This category represented responses relating to the
opportunity to generate ideas for cost-savings; which will allow the agency to
save money in the long run.
Staff Development— This category encompassed responses that related to
the value of the process as a learning experience for participants, to help groom
them for promotion in the future; and its importance as training for participants.
Benchmarking-This category represented responses concerning the ability
to examine technology; and to see how other agencies have implemented,
successfully or unsuccessfully, possible recommendations by the teams, so as not
to reinvent the wheel or waste time.
Other-This category represents other responses that were fewer than five
in number, concerning a specific area not represented in one of the categories
listed above.
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 13: Strengths of the Process
n = 72
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of processes 74 35.5
Diversity of teams 44 21.1
Empowerment/Creativity 42 20.2
Support of leadership 13 6.3
Cost savings 13 6.3
Staff Development 13 6.3
Benchmarking 7 3.4
Other 2 0.9
Total 208 100.0
categorizes the responses into the major headings above.
The 72 team members responding to the questionnaire presented a total of
233 weaknesses of the process or recommendations for improvement. The
weaknesses of the process and recommendations for how respondents would
improve the process if they were ever to go through it again were combined
because of the similarity of responses. Of the 233 responses, 38 were those
included from the recommendations for improvement response. The weaknesses
of the process/recommendations for improvement responses were placed into nine
major categories as follows: time/travel/scheduling, resistance to change, lack of
communication with field staff, bureaucracy/political/ coordination with other
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
agencies, make-up of teams, cost of process, cultural constraints, logistics, and
other. The categories are defined as follows:
Time/Travel/Scheduling-This category represents responses having to do
with regular duties hindering output; that the process could have been
accomplished quicker and better if people had been devoted full-time to the
endeavor; that it was very time consuming; there were concerns with scheduling
conflicts among group members; a lot of time was spent traveling; a core team
should have been devoted full-time to the process; and that too much time was
spent away from job and family.
Resistance to Change-This category represents responses that there was a
resistance to any real change and that the process was merely "tweaking," not
major change; that individual opinions and personal investments made it difficult
for some team members to embrace change; that executive staff membership
controlled the process and stifled creativity; that there was a lack of courage to
make major changes; numerous "scared cows"; that legislative change often was
not considered; that there was an inability to think "outside the box"; that
executive staff would not go along with recommendations; that if the
recommended change was too radical the groups were afraid to be this bold; and
that some co-sponsors had difficulty in taking risks for bold suggestions.
Lack of Communication with Field Staff-This category represents
responses indicating that field staff who were not interviewed by teams really did
not know what was going on; that the process was seen by many in the field as a
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
fad that will soon pass; that it was just a "review of function" again; that
communication started out well but dwindled off; that the process was poorly
marketed to line staff; that the "bubble-up" process did not work well to obtain
ideas from staff; and, that many staff did not believe it was a serious
undertaking.
Bureaucracy/Political/Coordination with Other
Agencies-This category represents respondents answers relating to the political
influences hindering approval of changes recommended; concerns about
developing recommendations and the political ramifications of them; that it is
difficult to move a bureaucracy forward; that controversial issues did not get
moved forward; that it was an election year so it was necessary to be more
cautious and guarded in making recommendations; that some things were not in
the agency’s span of control; that the agency had little authority to make changes
needed; that many ideas require coordination with other agencies; and that
changes will be slow in coming in many instances because of the coordination
needed and external review and approval required.
Make-up of the Teams-This category represented concerns over the
make-up of the teams; that they were too small; that it took too much time to
explain to those not familiar with the area; that they needed more union
membership; that too much control was exerted by executive staff members; that
more subject maner experts were needed on the teams; and that more line staff
should have been on teams.
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Cost of Process-This category represented concerns over the cost of staff
time and travel; and that a lot of money was spent for relatively minor changes.
Cultural Constraints--This category represented responses noting that the
culture controlled what could be recommended; that the culture muted the
process; and that there was concern about making changes that would impact the
culture of agency and ultimately change the organization in an undesirable way.
Logistics-This category represented concerns with the processing of team
recommendations having to go through the established executive staff review
process and that recommendations should have gone directly to the executive
staff.
Other-This category represents other responses which were fewer than
five in number, concerning a specific area not represented in one of the
categories listed above.
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement*
Category Responses Percentage
Time/travel/scheduling 64 27.5
Resistance to change 52 22.3
Lack of communication
with field staff
31 13.3
Bureaucracy/political/
coordination with other
agencies
24 10.3
Make-up of teams 16 6.9
Cost of process 1 1 4.7
Cultural constraints 5 2.1
Logistics 5 2.1
Other** 25 10.7
Total 233 99.9
improvements to the process and categorizes the responses into the major
headings above.
* Recommendations for Improvement category accounted for 38 of the 233
responses.
** If responses represented less than 5 of a particular response they were placed
in the "other" category.
Communication concerns was asked in a separate question, as well, and
those responses are discussed later in more detail under the lessons learned
section (see table 16).
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lessons Learned.
Ten sets of findings may be summarized as lessons learned:
(1) Private sector reengineering models are not directly applicable to
public sector agencies because of public and private sector differences with
respect to accountability.
The inherent differences between public and private sector organizations
must be taken into account in organizational change efforts. There are going to
be things that should not be changed and others that cannot be changed because
of legal and political considerations, and other agency cooperation required.
Recognize that the process of change for a public sector entity will take longer
because of the bureaucracy and its built-in inefficiencies.
The values of public and private organizations are different in going
through change efforts. Public sector agencies must remain within the confines
of their legislative mandate. Public organizations must be accountable to the
taxpayer and to the Congress. As a result, in making recommendations to
change the agency the values of public administration must be balanced. Public
organizations must not only be concerned with cutting costs and saving money,
but must be concerned with balancing economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
And, as such, guiding principles must be laid out in the beginning of the effort to
ensure that the agency remains on track with being good public stewards and
being accountable to the American public. These guiding principles will serve as
a control and a means of bridling the process. The leaders can accomplish this
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
by using the culture of the organization as the control mechanism. If, as in the
case of the BOP, the culture is a positive one based on the values of public
administration.
The research demonstrated a number of significant differences between
public and private sector organizations that can have an impact on reengineering
initiatives. The change initiative must remain within the domain of constitutional
government, recognizing that the role of a governmental body is mandated by
statute. A public sector agency’s discretion is further limited by its external
environment. Namely, for the BOP, this means the changing attitudes of
Congress, the Courts, and the public towards crime, sentencing, and prison
conditions. It must take into account these political realities that do not impact
private sector corporations to the great extent that they do public sector agencies.
And there are issues of other agency coordination, notification and approval that
must be considered. And, as a result of these issues, the process will take longer
and will be more incremental in nature. Finally, there are some things that
should not change.
As found in this research, if private sector models were to be applied
directly to government, modifications are necessary to take into account certain
innate differences between government and business, such as legislation which
requires that a particular governmental entity perform a certain role.
Specifically, a government agency is not free to embark upon a mission other
than that given it. The role of the BOP, by statute, is to confine offenders. Its
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mission and responsibilities are mandated by law. As such, the BOP exists solely
to perform these specific functions. It has no authority to look for other purposes
or roles in the manner that would be permissible in private corporations, such as
changing the type of service or product they provide. As a result, a government
agency cannot, in the way addressed in many of the business models, decide that
it is going to do an activity other than that which is mandated, or, in the case of
the BOP, other than confining prisoners.
Public sector agencies must recognize the political realities that do not
impact private sector corporations to the great extent that they do public sector
agencies, i.e. they must be accountable to Congressional oversight and must
coordinate and obtain cooperation and approval for some of the changes with
other agencies as well as the Congress. They must recognize that because of
these factors the change process for a public sector agency will, of necessity, take
longer than for a private sector agency. It is a more incremental process to effect
many of the changes, rather than a dramatic, fast-paced agency change.
And public sector agencies must realize that if Congressional notification
or approval of a recommendation is required, it could meet with resistance and
could result in something entirely different than that which was proposed,
especially if it requires a legislative change.
Coordination with other agencies of an initiative can have a similar
result, although with the potential of certainly something less dramatic than that
which could happen if it is sent to the Congress. But other agency coordination
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of issues is a significant challenge as well and can lengthen the process
significantly. One respondent noted that they were not even free to change a job
title without Office of Personnel Management approval. This is but one small
illustration that the admonition by Hammer and Champy that in reengineering
"old job titles and old organizational arrangements...cease to matter" (Hammer
and Champy, p. 2) is not the case for public sector agencies.
Another consideration for public sector agencies that may impact
reengineering initiatives it that the effort could be occurring during an election
year. This may have an impact on recommendations. Several respondents
reported that they discussed the fact that during an election year is not a good
time to present a certain legislative change to Congress because it was highly
unlikely it would be acted upon prior to the conclusion of this session of
Congress, and that the players may change when the next Congress convenes.
On the other hand, it may be a good time for certain initiatives because a
member may be willing to push a piece of legislation quickly because he or she
wants to leave this as his or her legacy.
Another difference for the BOP was that which should not be changed.
The BOP did not want to change its culture. Although Hammer and Champy
contend that "Tradition counts for nothing. Reengineering is a new beginning"
(p. 49), and that incremental changes are too slow and too small to be effective,
the culture of the BOP is what has made it the successful organization that it is
today. The culture in the case of the BOP focuses on accountability.
I l l
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Therefore, despite Hammer and Champy’s admonitions to throw
everything out and start over, agencies must realize that while everything should
be examined, some things must not be jeopardized. By keeping its culture intact,
or by preserving the core as maintained by Collins and Porras, and using it as a
control mechanism, the BOP was able to sustain and balance the values of public
administration of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. All team
recommendations had to be based on the core values and cultural anchors of the
agency of bureau family, sound correctional management, correctional workers
first, promoting integrity, recognizing the dignity of all, career service
orientation, the importance of good community relations and high standards.
This was first emphasized by the agency director in stating up-front that staff
employment with the agency would not be jeopardized, that inmate programs and
preparing inmates for successful reintegration into society would not be impaired
by any reengineering recommendations.
Hammer and Champy contend that business models of reengineering are
applicable to government agencies, although they pose special concerns for
government agencies because: (1) it is difficult to measure performance (2) it is
difficult to break down the barriers between governmental agencies, and (3)
heads of governmental agencies tend to be policy-oriented and not adept at
operational excellence. In examining these concerns in light of the BOP
experience, the following was found: (1) Regarding the concern of difficulty in
measuring performance, the BOP culture includes a belief in the importance of
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ongoing monitoring of its programs and operations. Ongoing internal monitoring
guarantees, to the extent possible, that there is no significant deviation from
prescribed policy. The current system came from an on-site auditing process that
was established in the 1940s (Roberts, 1994). And, the BOP also measures
performance through its strategic planning process which was implemented in the
1980s.
(2) Regarding the concern that it is difficult to break down the barriers
between governmental agencies, throughout the years the BOP has developed
partnerships with other sister agencies with whom it interacts on a regular basis,
and holds regularly scheduled meetings with other agency personnel including the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. Sentencing
Commission, the U.S. Probation Service, and the U.S. Parole Commission, to
name a few. The BOP has worked to develop good relationships with
Congressional entities, as well.
Governmental barriers is a legitimate concern for public agencies, and
team members report that during the reengineering process, they found that a
number of ideas and decisions recommended will involve other agency
cooperation, coordination and approval, and this could delay implementation of
several recommended options. And survey responses reported this as a weakness
of the reengineering process. Several members pointed out that key decision
makers and agency points of view can change on a particular issue while going
through the process. For the BOP, this was not viewed as a major consideration
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for most of the issues based on past good relationships with sister agencies, and
because many recommendations made could be accomplished within BOP and
without other agency involvement and cooperation.
Federal agencies also must be concerned with coordination, notification,
and in some instances, approval of new initiatives by the Congress or by specific
congressional members. Also, some initiatives proposed and agreed upon in
public agency reengineering require changes in laws before they can be
implemented. And, if legislative changes are required to effect changes,
initiatives can take on a new life of their own, and congressional membership can
take control of portions of the agencies’ reengineering initiative.
(3) As to the concern with operational excellence, the history of BOP
presented in Chapter III demonstrates that each of its leaders has been proficient
at operational excellence. Within the strict confines of its legislative mandate,
the BOP has been able to achieve its stated goals throughout the years while
presenting innovative philosophies of corrections and developing new methods of
operation.
In summary, public sector agencies must be accountable to the taxpayer
and as such must balance economy, efficiency and efficiency, including equity in
the change process. To do this, a framework must be provided to bridle the
effort. A public sector change effort will take longer, in large part, because it
will require coordination, notification and approval of the Congress and other
agencies and organizations for some of the changes. And because of these
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
coordination, notification and approval issues, the change can take an entirely
different direction than the one intended.
(2) Ground rules for the change process must be designed, adopted,
and followed. Let team members and staff know clearly what is and is not
open for change.
Before the effort begins, determine what the ground rules or parameters
are going to be for the changes to be recommended. Tell team members what is
open for change and what is not. State it clearly not only to team members, but
to all staff. These ground rules will direct the recommendations to be developed.
This will ensure that team members are not confused when going through the
process. And, this will help to alleviate team member concerns that they feel
they are not making "real" or "significant" changes and help to alleviate concerns
that they feel constrained by team leaders. They will understand those things that
truly are not open for change.
The BOP Director reported that good communication to staff on the
teams about what is intended by the process is one of two key factors for
agencies reengineering. And survey responses demonstrate that the overall intent
of this process was conveyed clearly to team participants, that the point was to
make the organization even better. It was not to be about just saving money.
And, as such, the responses demonstrated that economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness were balanced in the change process.
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Although resistance to change was reflected in 22.3 percent of the
responses as an area of weakness of the process (see table 14), this focus of
concern related, in part, to the fact that team members did not hilly understood
the parameters of the change effort, i.e. that all things were not open for change
if they were those things that could negatively impact the culture, and that some
things could not be changed for political reasons.
Once the ground rules are laid out and clearly articulated to team
members, abide by them. Otherwise, confusion exists on the part of staff who
are trying to make "significant" reengineering recommendations, only to believe
that their recommendations are falling upon deaf ears.
(3) Preparation and planning time for the process is essential.
Significant planning before the process begins is necessary for its success.
The BOP did its homework up front and worked with consultants to look
at what would take place over the months to come. Nearly 18 months before
reengineering was ever discussed, the BOP Director brought in an outside
consultant to discuss with the executive staff about change and innovation in
organizations.
Later, business models were examined to allow the agency’s leaders to
recognize those issues that have to be understood if change is to take place.
Prior to putting the reengineering process in place, the agency’s director
advised Wardens of what was to occur in the process and for them to tell staff
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
about what was going to happen over the coming months. Likewise, she
prepared a videotaped presentation to be seen by all staff, shortly after the
process began, advising them of what was to occur.
Extensive training was conducted with team members by a consulting
group. A means for presenting recommendations was determined. The
Executive Staff decided that the process for presenting recommendations to them
would be through the normal executive staff review process which involved not
only presenting the recommendation developed by the team, but options to the
recommendation, thereby allowing the executive staff to select what they
determined to be the best option.
As seen in table IS, the BOP responses showed that 88.9 percent of
participants believed they received adequate training. Several reported how
positive they felt about the process because the agency devoted adequate
resources to it, including the training given participants and the consultants
involved in the process (see table 13). The respondents who reported not
receiving enough training were primarily from those entering the teams mid-way
through the process.
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 15: Adequacy of Training
n=72
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough 8 11.1
Sufficient 64 88.9
Too much
and preparation that went into the
reengineenng.
(4) Effective and ongoing conun unication is a must.
Use various means to communicate with the staff about the process, do it
often and be repetitive. Survey all staff to get their input about the process.
This is a perception issue. It gives shared ownership to the process. Also, it
helps to ensure input from all staff, and is a way to keep a finger on the pulse of
the agency during the change process. And staff are going to be implementing
the recommendations developed by the teams so they need to be communicated to
effectively about the process.
As seen in table 16, the BOP team member responses to a question as to
whether or not they believed the reengineering process was well-communicated to
staff at all levels found that 62.5 percent of respondents believed the
reengineering effort was not well-communicated to staff at all levels, and another
6.9 percent were not sure. A number of respondents who reported that it was
not well-communicated stated that their teams did make a serious attempt to
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
communicate it to staff through newsletters and other means, but they still did not
believe this was very effective.
Table 16: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering Initiative
n=72
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 22 30.6
No 45 62.5
Not certain 5 6.9
reengineering effort was well-communicated to staff who were not part of the
teams.
Agency leaders must ensure that staff at all levels are communicated with
about the initiative and updated on its progress. And they must follow-up to
ensure that communication in this regard is filtering down to staff at all levels.
This ensures that all staff have confidence in the process and enables input and
feedback from employees about the process.
While significant efforts were made by the BOP Director to communicate
to staff about the organizational change process that was underway, the message,
in large part, was not getting to line staff, according to team member responses.
Senior staff were getting the information, but apparently often not passing it on to
staff in any uniform fashion. The video-taped presentation made by the Director
in January 1999, was not viewed by many staff and they were not aware of its
existence, according to many team member responses.
With e-mail and other electronic communications available today, staff
can be notified instantaneously of updates about the process and encouraged to
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
respond and submit ideas in this manner. Other various means of communication
can be used, including newsletters and agency memoranda. One of the teams
sent out information to subject matter staff in their newsletter about changes that
would be forthcoming as a result of reengineering initiatives.
Lack of communication may have been the reason that few
recommendations were received through the bubble-up process. In an agency of
nearly 31,000 employees, only 314 recommendations were received, or only
about one percent of staff. In addition, it appears that a perceived lack of
appropriate feedback to those few who submitted suggestions was a problem too.
Some respondents reported that they believed the response process was not well-
coordinated, and others noted that if the suggestion involved a legislative change
the person was told that it would not be considered for that reason, despite the
fact that they had been told that everything was open for change. Specifically, of
the 314 recommendations received from staff, only 127 were referred to
reengineering teams for consideration. Of the 127 referred to the teams, 33 were
adopted. The remaining 187 not referred to the reengineering teams were
referred to the appropriate divisions for consideration separate from the
reengineering process.
To help ensure input from staff and participation by them, incentives for
participation could be considered.
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Staff are going to have to be involved in implementation of
recommendations so they need to be involved in the process, or, at a minimum,
should be aware of it to maintain good morale.
Agency leadership needs to determine up-front what level of awareness to
field staff about the change effort is desired. In public sector agencies too much
publicity about the process can be a negative, because others then begin to have
expectations that may or may not be realized. If Congressional members get
wind of it, it could be an avenue to reduce an agency’s budget in expectation of
great cost-savings before they are realized. Therefore, it is understandable that
agency leaders must tread lightly in this area.
Business reengineering perspectives point out the critical importance of
good communication to the success of the effort. Not only communication about
it to staff, but to external audiences. This external communication may not be
wise for public sector agencies until the cost savings and improvements to the
agency are realized.
From the Director’s remarks about the process at the 1998 Wardens’
meeting and at the October 1998 Facilitators training, all indications were that
staff were to be made aware of the importance of this initiative and of the goals
and operational aspects of the reengineering project. And her January 1999
videotaped presentation was to be viewed by all staff. From a number of
comments of respondents, they, as well as some staff, were confused as to
whether this was simply the "review of function" exercise that the agency had
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
previously undertaken. Several respondents pointed out that communication was
good at first but them it dwindled away to virtually nothing.
Agency leadership needs to first communicate what the change effort is
about and to define it. A multi-phase strategy needs to be adopted to get the
message out. While the BOP Director completed the reengineering video
discussing in detail the project, follow-up should have occurred with all Regional
Director’s, Assistant Directors and Wardens to ensure that all staff had viewed it.
The agency newsletter is another means of communicating the topic. It has been
used for years to indoctrinate staff in the culture of the agency. It is the one
document that it is well-known, and, that virtually all staff read.
Information can be sent over the agency’s e-mail system to staff about the
process as well and to provide them updates about it. Most agencies, as well,
have a voice mail system over which messages can be sent updating staff about
the process. Individual team members can go back to their respective regional
offices and the central office and institutions and provide information about the
process. Team members can determine that information which would be
appropriate to share.
And, a method of communication should be developed to disseminate
information to the field once team recommendations have been submitted to the
agency leadership and have been approved. Providing this kind of feedback to
staff demonstrates the agency’s commitment to open communications.
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(5) Team participants must not be allowed to become overwhelmed
with the process; clear time frames must be established and maintained to
complete the development of recommendations for change.
Be aggressive in getting the recommendation development process
accomplished. As seen in table 17, 88.9 percent of team members believed they
had adequate time to develop recommendations, but by far, the primary concern
raised by team participants was the amount of time this process took, all the
while they had to maintain their regular duties and responsibilities, as shown in
table 14.
Table 17: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n=72
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short 2 2.8
Sufficient 64 88.9
Too long 6 8.3
allowed for participants to develop
recommendations.
Ideally, participants should be allowed to be involved full-time in this
process-ffeed-up from their normal duties. This would also ensure that the
process would be completed more quickly to enable staff to see a light at the end
of the tunnel. As one team member put it, "We were all geared up and excited
about the process, but as the months and meetings went on and on, we just got
tired of it and wanted to see it over."
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
If assigning members full-time to this responsibility is considered out of
the question, at a minimum, a core group, who have primary responsibility for
doing research for the teams, the subject matter experts, should be assigned to
the project full-time. In addition, one senior staff should be assigned full-time to
oversee the process throughout. Initially, all team members could meet on a
monthly basis. This would allow for forming of good relationships among the
team members and allow good communication to develop. Then, the subject
mater experts could be assigned full-time to the process for an agreed upon
period of time, which could be extended if needed as determined by interim
meetings occurring throughout the process during which all members would be
present.
Aggressive time frames must be set and maintained throughout the
process.
(6) Staff at all levels must be involved on the teams.
To ensure a well-rounded, inclusive group, staff at all levels should be
involved. While this will significantly increase the size of the teams, it will
allow line staff to feel more ownership of the process. The BOP teams were
made up of a diverse group of staff, including senior management, subject matter
experts, non-subject matter personnel and union officials. Most team members
were those who had significant experience with the BOP. This was important not
only for their knowledge base about the subject, but it was important because
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
they had been well-indoctrinated in the BOP culture.
As shown in table 13, 21.1 percent of responses concerning strengths of
the process reported the diversity of team participants was very beneficial.
Questionnaire responses showed that non-subject matter experts on the teams
were able to provide objective insights into the issue being considered. Some
respondents reported that more line staff on the teams could enhance
recommendations.
Also, and importantly, more line staff involvement on the teams would
help to get away from the notion that only the Union is the advocate for staff.
As a result, it may help to improve management and line staff relationships.
However, on the negative side, it will probably further slow down the process
due to the learning curve required for non-subject matter experts and will
increase costs significantly.
Greater staff involvement and knowledge about the process could also be
ensured through a detailed survey sent to all staff about the reengineering
initiative and could request their input about the process. This is important not
only for staff development, but for staff empowerment. As seen in table 13,
responses showed the importance of staff participation in the process for staff
development, 6.3 percent, and more importantly, for its significance for
empowerment and creativity of staff, 20.2 percent.
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(7) The agency head and senior management complete support of the
process is essential to its success.
Any major change effort is doomed for failure without clear support from
the top. The BOP Director and senior staff were clearly behind this process and
that is well-represented in questionnaire responses and credited, in large part,
with the success of the effort thus far. This supports the findings of Hennessey
(1998) and Hammer and Champy (1993) that the leader is critical to the success
of reinvention initiatives.
As shown in table 13, 6.3 percent of responses reflected the recognition
of a strength of the process being the support of the Director and agency
leadership. A number of respondents pointed out that leadership support was
clearly evidenced by the resources, both staff and financial, including the
extensive training, devoted to the process.
(8) Benchmarking must be emphasized as vital.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel. It is important to go and see
what other agencies have accomplished in areas being considered for change.
BOP team members spent time with other agencies that had gone through
reengineering initiatives or who had attempted to or had implemented changes
they were considering, to learn from them. The teams learned not only from
other federal governmental agencies, but state agencies and private sector
corporations. In some instances, they saw the initiatives in place in those
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
organizations that they wished to change and were able to see if it really worked,
in practice, and to determine if it would be feasible for the BOP. And they were
able to learn first hand about some ideas that did not work and why, so they did
not waste time on those potential recommendations.
Benchmarking represented 3.4 percent of the items listed by respondents
as a strength of the process (see table 13).
(9) Organizational change needs to be initiated within before it is
externally forced.
Make the changes to the organization before it is critical and before it is
externally forced. Hammer and Champy point out three types of organizations
that can use reinvention-those in great trouble; those that are not in trouble yet,
but see it coming; and, those that are in great shape, but have expectations of
something even better
The BOP director pointed out that one of the two key things she would
recommend that agencies do in this time of continuous change in organizations is
to make the change before the agency is required to do so. This allows agency
leadership to make the changes ahead of time and get the organization in good
shape for the future.
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(10) Changes in organizations are ongoing and reasonable
mechanisms need to be in place to facilitate them.
Recognize that change in organizations is ongoing and that mechanisms
need to be in place to allow the organization to evolve. Organizations must be
flexible, to allow for continuous changes that will improve the organization. A
number of the changes recommended will take time to be put in place. This is an
incremental process even though some changes can be made immediately, many
will take a good while to implement. The built-in inefficiencies in bureaucracy
must be recognized. As a result, the initial change effort will be spread over a
longer time frame. Laying the groundwork for the ongoing change early-on,
through developing good relationships and good communication with sister
agencies and Congressional members and their staffs, as the BOP has historically
done, is critical to the success of the changes that impact them or require their
notification or approval.
Organizations must be flexible to allow them to evolve and to adapt to the
constantly changing environments of today’s workplace. The reengineering
process at the BOP is just the beginning of their most recent major change effort
and mechanisms will need to be put in place to allow the agency to continue to
evolve.
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER V m .
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
Introduction.
This chapter will examine the research questions again; will provide a
summary of the findings and conclusions; and examine opportunities for further
research.
The Research Questions Revisited.
The principal question this research attempted to answer was:
-What lessons can be learned from the BOP reengineering process to aid
other agencies in successful change efforts?
Supporting questions were:
-Can the principles of public administration be sustained by a federal
agency while it remains competitive with the private sector? In other words, can
economy, efficiency and effectiveness, including equity, be balanced in
government reform efforts?
-Can a business model of reengineering be successfully applied in the
public sector? -What aspects are applicable to a public sector agency? -Which
are not?
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Examining agency files and a questionnaire sent to all reengineering team
members and follow-up in-person or telephone interviews, and an interview with
the agency’s director provided the evidence to answer the research questions.
The information obtained from these sources was analyzed to determine whether
the values of public administration were maintained in the process; and, whether
business reengineering models are appropriate for and applicable to the public
sector. Finally, the data were analyzed to develop lessons learned in
reengineering a federal agency that may be applicable to other federal and
governmental agencies going through change.
Summary of Findings and Conclusions.
The research demonstrated that the values of public administration can be
sustained by a federal agency, while at the same time allowing it to become more
competitive with the private sector. This was accomplished through the agency
leadership using the culture of the agency to control and direct and bridle the
process. They were able to influence the outcome of the reengineering
recommendations using the deeply held beliefs of the agency which had been
ingrained in staff over the years, as the framework for the process. By sustaining
the culture, or the core principles of the organization, the agency leadership was
able to stimulate positive change.
The research also demonstrated that a business model of reengineering
can be used as a guide for federal agencies going through change efforts, but
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
federal agencies cannot reengineer in the bold manner that is permissible for
private sector agencies, or in the dramatic manner envisioned by many of the
models, because of the innate differences between public and private sector
bodies. The models must be modified to take into account these differences.
Namely, the change initiative must remain within the domain of constitutional
government, i.e. they must maintain their legislative mandate; recognize the
political realities that do not impact private sector corporations to the great extent
that they do public sector agencies, i.e. they must be accountable to
Congressional oversight and must coordinate and obtain cooperation and approval
for some of the changes with the Congress, including rule and legislative changes
to effect the needed changes; recognize that some changes require partnerships
with other agencies to accomplish; recognize that because of ail these factors the
change process for a public sector agency will, of necessity, take longer than for
a private sector agency; and, they must be accountable to the taxpayer.
As Moe (1997) pointed out, the founding fathers set up the system the
way they did to avoid tyranny and that inefficiencies are built-in to provide the
necessary protections. And the entrepreneurial, market-driven, customer focused
principles of the reinvention movement do not squarely fit with the goals of
government.
Finally, ten set of findings are summarized as lessons learned, several of
which are intuitive, and apply to both public and private organizations alike, and
others which are specific to federal and other public sector bodies.
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Specifically, the research identified ten lessons learned that can be useful, in
particular, for other public sector agencies undergoing change. These lessons
are: (1) private sector reengineering models are not directly applicable to public
sector agencies because of public and private sector differences with respect to
accountability; (2) ground rules for the change process must be designed, adopted
and followed; (3) preparation and planning time for the process is essential; (4)
effective and ongoing communication is a must; (3) team participants must not be
allowed to become overwhelmed with the process; clear time frames must be
established and maintained to complete the development of recommendations for
change; (6) staff at all levels must be involved on the teams; (7) agency
leadership's complete support of the process is essential; (8) benchmarking must
be emphasized as vital; (9) organizational change needs to be initiated within
rather than externally forced; (10) changes in organizations are ongoing and
reasonable mechanisms need to be in place to facilitate them.
Opportunities for Further Research.
Opportunities for future research include a review of the implementation
of the reengineering recommendations and if they do indeed reduce costs and
improve the agency, or is this effort simply a reshuffling of the cards. Secondly,
research could be conducted to learn if a change in agency directorship occurs,
will the recommendations be sustained.
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
It seems the answer to the second question will in large part be dependant
upon whether a career leader is appointed who has been hand-picked by the
current director, and home-grown in the agency’s culture, or whether a political
appointee takes over the helm of the agency.
Further research could be done, expanding on this effort to develop a
better model of change for government agencies, recognizing the unique
differences between public and private organizations.
And finally, and importantly, research could be done using decision
making theory to examine the recommendations not made by the teams and those
recommendations not approved by the Executive staff and why this was this case.
This could be examined, in particular, in relation to those that could impact
congressional members and those that would require legislative changes.
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allison, Graham T. "Public and Private Management: Are They Fundamentally
Alike in All Unimportant Respects?" (1979) in Shafritz and Hyde (eds.).
Classics o f Public Administration, 3rd edition, Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co, 1992, pp. 457-474.
Appleby, Paul. "Government Is Different" in Shafritz and Hyde (eds.). Classics
o f Public Administration, 3rd edition, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Co, 1992, pp. 144-149.
Bates, Sanford. Prisons and Beyond. Reprint of 1937 ed. Freeport, NY: Books
for Libraries Press, 1971, pp. 131-175.
Behn, Robert D. "The Big Questions of Public Management." Public
Administration Review, Vol. 55, pp. 313-324.
Bennett, James V. I Chose Prison. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970,
pp. 84-85.
Berman, Larry. The Office o f Management and Budget and the Presidency, 1921-
1979. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979.
Borger, Gloria. "Phony Tax Populism." U.S. News and World Report, November
3, 1997. p. 28.
Bowditch, James L., and Anthony Buono. A Primer on Organizational Behavior.
4th. ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997.
Boyne, George A. "Bureaucratic Theory Meets Reality: Public Choice and
Service Contracting in U.S. Local Government." Public Administration
Review, November/December 1998, Vol. 58, No. 6, pp. 474-484.
Burke, W. Warner. Organizational Development: A Process o f Learning and
Changing, (2nd ed.) USA: Addison-Wesley Publication Co., 1994.
Burke, W. Warner, and George H. and Litwin. "A Causal Model of
Organizational Performance and Change." Journal o f Management,
September, 1992, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 523-545.
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Burns, James MacGregor. "Transactional and Transforming Leadership,"
excerpts from the author. Leadership. HarperCollins Publishers, 1978,
pp. 19-20 and reprinted in Wren (ed.). The Leader’ s Companion: Insights
on Leadership Through the Ages. New York: The Free Press, 1995, pp
100- 101.
Collins, James C., and Jerry I. Porras. Built to Last: Successful Habits o f
Visionary Companies. New York: Harper Business, 1997.
Correctional Comments: Some Historical Notes on the Staff Training System,
(undated typescript), STA Glynco file, BOP Archives, Washington, DC.
Davenport, Thomas H. Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through
Information Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press,
1993.
DeHoog, Ruth Hoogland. "Legal Issues in Contracting for Public Services: When
Business Does Government," in Cooper, Phillip J. and Chester A.
Newland (eds.). Handbook o f Public Law and Administration. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1997, pp. 528-545.
deLeon, Linda, and Robert B. Denhardt. "The Political Theory of Reinvention. "
Public Administration Review, March/April, 2000, Vol. 60. No. 2, pp.
89-97.
Deming, Edward W. Out o f the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, 1986.
Dilulio, Jr., John J. "5270.7 Tells the Tale: Administering Discipline in the
Federal Bureau of Prisons," Federal Prisons Journal, Vol. 3, Winter
1994, pp. 61-63.
Dilulio, Jr., John J. No Escape: The Future o f American Corrections. Basic
Books, 1991, pp. 45-46.
Dilulio, Jr., John J. "Principled Agents: The Cultural Bases of Behavior in a
Federal Government Bureaucracy." J-PART, Vol 4, July 1994,
pp. 277-318.
Dilulio, Jr., John J. Prisons That Work: An Overview o f Management in the
Federal Bureau o f Prisons, Report to the National Institute of
Corrections, June 1989, p. 16.
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dilulio, Jr., John J. "What’s Wrong With Private Prisons?" Public Interest 92,
1988, pp. 66-83.
Dilulio, Jr., John J. Private Prisons. U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, 1988.
Dilulio, John J. Jr., "The Evolution of Executive Management in the Federal
Bureau of Prisons," in John W. Roberts, ed., Escaping Prison Myths:
Selected Topics in the History o f Federal Corrections. Washington:
American University Press, 1994, pp. 159-160.
Dilulio, John J. Jr., Gerald Garvey, and Donald F. Kettl, Improving Government
Performance: An Owner’ s Manual. Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution, 1993.
Drucker, Peter F. Managing For The Future: The 1990s and Beyond. New York:
Truman Talley Books/Plume, 1992.
Duck, Jeanie Daniel. "Managing Change: The Act of Balancing," Harvard
Business Review. November-December 1993, pp. 109-118.
Frederickson, H. George. "Painting Bull’s-Eyes Around Bullet Holes,"
Governing, October 1992, p. 13.
Frederickson, H. George. "Public-Administration-With-An-Attitude," Public
Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. I, January 2000, p. 8.
Frederickson, H. George. The Spirit o f Public Administration. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc, 1997.
Gibson, J. T., and M. Haritos-Fatouros, "The Education of a Torturer."
Psychology Today, 20, November, 1986, pp. 50-58.
Gooden, Vincent. "Contracting and Negotiation: Effective Practices of Successful
Human Service Contract Managers." Public Administration Review,
November/December 1998, Vol. 58, No. 6, pp. 499-509.
Goodsell, Charles. The Case fo r Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic.
Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1994, pp. 170-175.
Gore, Al. Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less: The Report
o f the National Performance Review. New York: Penguin Books, 1993.
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Go wing, Marilyn K., John D. Kraft, and James Campbell Quick (eds.). The
New Organizational Reality-Downsizing, Restructuring, and
Revitalization. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
1998.
Gowing, Marilyn K., John D. Kraft, and James Campbell Quick. "A Conceptual
Framework for Coping with the New Organizational Reality," in The
New Organizational Reality-Downsizing, Restructuring, and
Revitalization, Gowing, Marilyn K., John D. Kraft and James Campbell
Quick (eds.). American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
1998, pp. 259-268.
Graddick, Miriam M., and Peter C. Cairo. "Helping People and Organizations
Deal with the Impact of Competitive Change: An AT&T Case Study," in
The New Organizational Reality-Downsizing, Restructuring, and
Revitalization, Gowing, Marilyn K., John D. Kraft and James Campbell
Quick (eds.). American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
1998, pp. 77-98.
Hacken, Judith C. et al. "Contracting for the Operations of Prisons and Jails. "
National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Research in
Brief. June 1987.
Hambrick, Margaret. "The Correctional Worker Concept: Being Connected in
the ’90s," Federal Prisons Journal 2 Winter 1992, pp. 11-14.
Hammer, Michael, and James Champy. Reengineering the Corporation: A
Manifesto fo r Business Revolution. New York: HarperCollins Publishers,
Inc, 1993.
Handy, Charles. The Age o f Unreason. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press, 1989.
Hardy, Clarence, and Eduardo S. Rodela. "Reorganizing a Government Human
Resources Office: Lessons in Planning," in The New Organizational
Reality-Downsizing, Restructuring, and Revitalization, Gowing, Marilyn
K., John D. Kraft and James Campbell Quick (eds.). American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 1998, pp. 165-179.
Harding, Richard W. Private Prisons and Public Accountability. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1997.
Hargrove, Thomas. "Reinventing Government Plan Rethought After Criticism."
The Washington Times, 11/30/98.
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Henderson, James D., and Richard Phillips, "Ensuring a Safe, Humane
Institution Through the Basics of Corrections," Federal Prisons Journal
1, Summer 1989, pp. 15-19.
Hennessey, Jr., J. Thomas. "Reinventing Government: Does Leadership Make a
Difference," Public Administration Review, November/December 1998,
Vol. 58, No. 6., pp. 522-532.
Henry, Nicholas. Public Administration and Public Affairs. 5th Edition,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1992, pp. 318-363.
Hershberger, Gregory L. The Development o f the Federal Prison System,
Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1979, p. 17.
Holt, Raymond, and Richard Phillips, "Marion: Separating Fact from Fiction,"
Federal Prisons Journal, 2, Spring 1991, pp. 29-36.
Ingraham, Patricia Wallace, and Sally Coleman Selden and Donald P. Moynihan,
"People and Performance: Challenges for the Future Public Service-the
Report from the Wye River Conference." Public Administration Review,
Jan/Feb 2000, pp. 54-60.
Ingraham, Patricia Wallace, and Barbara S. Romzek & Associates. New
Paradigms For Government - Issues fo r the Changing Public Service. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc., 1994.
Juran, Joseph M. Juran on Planning fo r Quality. New York: The Free Press,
1988.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. "The Architecture of Culture and Strategy Change."
Classic Readings in Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed. (edited by J.
Steven Ott). New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1996, pp. 487-505.
Katz, Daniel and Robert L. Kahn. The Social Psychology o f Organizations, 2nd
edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.
Kettl, Donald F. "Are We the Captains of Our Ship?" Theoretical Foundations
o f Public Administration, Winter 1993, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 2-4.
Kettl, Donald F. Government by Proxy: (Mis?) Managing Federal Programs.
Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1998.
Kettl, Donald F. Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1993.
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Keve, Paul W. Prisons and the American Conscience: A History o f U.S. Federal
Corrections. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991.
Keve, Paul W. "The Sources of Excellence," Federal Prisons Journal, 3, Winter
1994, pp. 11-14.
Kiel, L. Douglas. Managing Chaos and Complexity in Government: A New
Paradigm fo r Managing Change, Innovation and Organizational Renewal.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc., 1994.
Kirlin, John J. "The Big Questions of Public Administration in a Democracy."
Public Administration Review, September/October, 1996, Vol. 56, No. 5.
Kotter, John P. Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press,
1996.
Levinson, Robert B. "The Development of Classification and Programming," in
John W. Roberts, ed., Escaping Prison Myths: Selected Topics in the
History o f Federal Corrections Washington: American University Press,
1994, pp. 95-97.
Light, Paul C. The Tides o f Reform: Making Government Work, 1945-1995. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997.
Logan, Charles H. Private Prisons: Cons and Pros. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1990.
Logan, Charles H. Prison Privatization: Objections and Refutations.
http://www.ucc.ucconn.edu/ ~ wwwsoci/fraser.html., 1998.
Logan, Charles H. "Well Kept: Comparing Quality of Confinement in Private
and Public Prison. " The Journal o f Criminal Law and Criminology,
83:577-613, 1992.
Matthews, Roger (ed.), Privatizing Criminal Justice. London: Sage Publications,
1989.
McDonald, Douglas (ed.), Private Prisons and the Public M erest. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1990.
McDonald, Douglas, et al. Private Prisons in the United States: An Assessment o f
Current Practice, Abt Associates, Inc. Cambridge, MA, July 16, 1998.
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Meier, Kenneth J. "Public Administration Theory And Applied Economics: Some
Intemperate Remarks." Theoretical Foundations o f Public
Administration, Winter 1993, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 4-6.
Miller, Hugh T., and James R. Simmons. "The Irony of Privatization."
Administration & Society, Vol. 30, No. 5, November 1998, pp. 513-532.
Miller, Karin. "Troubles at CCA Prisons Don’t Make a Dent in Demand,
Income." Associated Press, 10/23/98 00:26.
Miller, Daniel Quinn, and Bruce Friesen. "The Learning Organization."
European Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1992, pp. 146-156.
Moe, Ronald C. "The Importance of Public Law: New and Old Paradigms of
Governmental Management," in Cooper, Phillip J. and Chester A.
Newland (eds.). Handbook o f Public Law and Administration. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1997, pp. 41-57.
Moe, Ronald C. "Exploring the Limits of Privatization," Public Administration
Review, 1987, 47, pp. 453-460.
Morgan, Adrian T. Private Prisons: Quality Corrections at Lower Cost. Reason
Policy Institute, Los Angeles, CA, 1998.
Mosher, Frederick, (ed.), Basic Documents o f American Public Administration:
1776-1950. New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc. 1981.
Mosher, Frederick, (ed.), Basic Literature o f American Public Administration:
1787-1950. New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc. 1981.
Mosher, Frederick, (ed.), Democracy and the Public Service. 2nd ed. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1982. ISBN 0195030184 PT.
Mullen, Joan, et al. The Privatization o f Corrections. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of
Development, Testing and Dissemination, 1985.
Nadler, David A., and Michael L. Tushman. "A Diagnostic Model for
Organizational Behavior." in Hackman, Lawler III and Lyman W. Porter
(eds.). Perspectives on Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1977, pp. 85-98.
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Neumann, Jr., Francis X. "What Makes Public Administration a Science? Or,
Are Its ‘Big Questions’ Really Big?" Public Administration Review,
September/October 1996, Vol. 56, No. 5, pp. 409-415.
Newland, Chester A. "Realism and Public Administration." Public
Administration Review, March/April, 1997, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. ii-iii.
Office of Research and Evaluation, Proposal to Evaluate the Performance o f a
Privately Operated Bureau o f Prisons ’ Facility. Federal Bureau of
Prisons, Washington, DC, 1998.
Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. Reinventing Government: How the
Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. 1992.
Peters, B. Guy, and Donald J. Savoie. "Managing Incoherence: The
Coordination and Empowerment Conundrum, " Public Administration
Review, May/June 1996, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 281-289.
Peters, Thomas J., and Robert H. Waterman. In Search o f Excellence: Lessons
From America’ s Best-Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row, 1982.
PRNewswire. "Wackenhut Corrections’ Income Up 40 Percent in 3rd Quarter."
10/22/98, 12:26 PM.
Private and Public Prisons: Studies Comparing Operational Costs and/or Quality
o f Service. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO/GGD-96-158),
August 1996, pp. 4-5.
Private Prisons: Cost Savings and BO P’ s Statutory Authority need to be Resolved:
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Regulation, Business
Opportunities and Energy, Committee on Small Business, House o f
Representatives, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC,
1991.
Private Prisons: Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Regulation, Business
Opportunities and Energy, Committee on Small Business, United States
House of Representatives. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington,
DC, 1991.
Privatization: Lessons Learned by State and Local Governments. U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO/GGD-97-48), March 1997.
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Privatization o f Corrections: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil
Liberties and the Administration o f Justice o f the Committee on the
Judiciary, House o f Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, First and
Second Sessions, November 13, 1985 and March 18, 1986. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Privatization o f Prison Construction in New York: Hearing before the Joint
Economic Committee, Congress o f the United States, Ninety-eight
Congress, Second Sessions, December 5, 1984. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Robbins, Ira P. The Legal Dimensions o f Private Incarceration. Washington, DC:
American Bar Association, 1988.
Roberts, John W. (ed.), Escaping Prison Myths: Selected Topics in the History o f
Federal Corrections. Washington: American University Press, 1994.
Roberts, John W. "Grand Designs, Small Details: The Management Style of
James V. Bennett," Federal Prisons Journal, 3, Winter 1994. pp. 32-33.
Roberts, John W. "’My Dear Warden’: A Brief Documentary History of the
Administration of James V. Bennett, 1937-1964," Federal Prisons
Journal, I, Summer 1990, pp. 47-55.
Roberts, John W. Reform and Retribution: An Illustrated History o f American
Prisons Lanham, Md.: American Correctional Association, 1997, pp.
119-39.
Roberts, John W. "The Origins of USP Lewisburg: 'Newer Ideas For Which We
Are All Striving," Federal Prisons Journal, 1, Spring 1990, p. 53.
Roberts, John W. "View From the Top: The Bureau of Prisons’ Five Directors
Discuss Problems and Ethics in Corrections," Federal Prisons Journal, 1,
Summer 1990, pp. 38-41.
Roberts, John W. "Work, Education, and Public Safety: A Brief History of
Federal Prison Industries," in Factories with Fences, Sandstone, MN:
Federal Prison Industries, Inc., 1996, pp. 10, 16, 34-35.
Roberts, John W. "James V. Bennett," in Marilyn D. McShane and Frank P.
Williams III, Encyclopedia o f American Prisons. New York: Garland
Publishing, 1996, pp. 55-58.
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Rosenbloom, David H. "Have An Administrative RX? Don’t Forget the Politics!"
Theoretical Foundations o f Public Administration, Winter 1993, Vol. 3,
No. 1, pp. 7-11.
Rubin, Irene S. "Democracy, Efficiency, and Reform: The History of the Early
Budget Reformers. " Theoretical Foundations o f Public Administration,
Winter 1993, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 16-18.
Samples, F. P. Sam. "Responding to Disaster: Hurricane Andrew," Federal
Prisons Journal 3, Winter 1994, p. 43.
Savas, E. S. Privatization: The Key to Better Government. Chatham, NJ:
Chatham House, 1987.
Schein, Edgar H. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers, Inc., 1992.
Senge, Peter M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice o f the Learning
Organization. New York: Doubleday, 1990.
Shichor, David. Punishment fo r Profit: Private Prisons/Public Concerns.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995.
Sigafoos, Chester E. "Conflict Resolution: A Primer for Correctional Workers,"
Federal Prisons Journal, 3, Fall 1992, pp. 17-21.
Stillman, Richard J. III. "The Changing Patterns of Public Administration Theory
in America." In Uveges, Jr. (ed.). Public Administration: History and
Theory in Contemporary Perspective. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.,
1982.
Thompson, Cheryl W. "Ohio Sours on Prison Managed by Private Firm." The
Washington Post, October 19, 1998, p. B01.
Toch, Hans. "Functional Unit Management: An Unsung Achievement," Federal
Prisons Journal 2, Winter 1992, pp. 15-16.
Torbet, W. R. "Leading Organizational Transformation." In Woodman and
Pasmore (eds.). Research in Organizational Change and Development.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1989, pp. 83-116.
U.S. Bureau of Prisons, The Federal Penal and Correctional Problem,
(typescript), March 1928, BOP Archives, Washington, DC (also in
Record Group 51, National Archives, Washington, DC).
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Monday Morning
Highlights. Washington, D.C, June 29, 1998, p. 1.
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, State o f the Bureau:
Goals and Accomplishments, 1996. Lompoc, CA: Federal Prison
Industries, 1997, p. 5.
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, State o f the Bureau:
Accomplishments and Goals, 1999. Lompoc, CA: Federal Prison
Industries, Inc., 1999.
U.S. House of Representatives, Report on Federal Penal and Reformatory
Institutions, 70th Congress, January 31, 1929.
Urwick, Lyndall F. "How the Organization Affects the Man," Management
Review, July, 1957, pp. 54-61.
Utt, Ronald D. "Transferring Functions to the Private Sector. " in Mandate fo r
Leadership IV, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, 1998.
Waldo, Dwight. "The Administrative State: Conclusion," (1948): Jay M. Shafritz
and Albert C. Hyde, Classics o f Public Administration. Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1992, pp. 166-170.
Waldo, Dwight. "Some Thoughts on Alternatives, Dilemmas, and Paradoxes in a
Time of Turbulence," in Dwight Waldo (ed.). Public Administration in a
Time o f Turbulence. Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing Company,
1971, pp. 257-285.
West, Phil. "Correctional Officers Rally at Capitol, CCA Headquarters."
Morning Journal, October 18, 1998.
Wilson, James Q. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They
Do It. New York: Basic Book Inc., Publishers, 1989.
Wilson, Woodrow. "The Study of Administration," Political Science Quarterly 2
(June 1887): 197-222; Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde, Classics o f
Public Administration. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College
Publishers, 1992, pp. 29-32.
Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc., 1989.
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Youngblood, Mark D. "Leadership at the Edge of Chaos: From Control to
Creativity." Strategy & Leadership. September/October, 1997, pp. 8-14.
Zaleznik, Abraham. "Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?" Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 55, No. 3, 1977, pp. 67-78.
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A
Team Member Questionnaire Transmittal Letter
sent: July 25, 2000
Dear Reengineering Team Participant:
I am currently a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Public
Administration from the University of Southern California. I am completing my
dissertation, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for this degree, on
"Reengineering the Federal Bureau of Prisons: Lessons Learned."
The dissertation will describe the BOP reengineering process, from the
factors involved in the agency’s decision to reengineer, through its developmental
and planning stages, up to the presentation and review of reengineering
recommendations by the executive staff.
This dissertation is not an attempt to make judgments about the changes
recommended by the BOP reengineering teams. It will not focus on the merit of
the recommendations. This dissertation is an effort to examine the reengineering
processes employed by the BOP and to ascertain lessons learned from those
processes that could be beneficial to other agencies.
This research project has been approved by the BOP. And, per the
Master Agreement, the Union was given the opportunity to review the survey and
had no concerns. Your participation, of course, is voluntary. It is requested that
you complete the attached questionnaire and return to me via WAN, or if you
prefer, please print out the questionnaire and return to me via mail by August 8,
2000. After your responses are received, I will call you to conduct a follow-up
telephone or in-person interview, primarily to clarify your responses to ensure
that I accurately represent them in the research project. I will not identify any
person in the survey by name or location in the dissertation, or in any reports
produced as a result of the research.
Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Please call me if you have
any questions (202-307-3198).
Thank you.
Linda W. Smith
Chief, Office of Public Affairs
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Room 624, HOLC Building
320 First Street, NW
Washington, DC 20534
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Team Member Questionnaire
1. Of what reengineering team(s) were you a member?_____________(inmate
movement, health care, training/employee development, inmate designations,
management, personnel, fiscal management)
2. What was your role on the team?____________ (co-sponsor, team leader,
subject matter expert, non-subject matter expert, union representative, mapper,
facilitator, etc.)
3. How much training did you receive before the beginning of the reengineering
process?
Not enough.
(Please explain:
Sufficient.
Too much.
(Please explain:
4. Was the length of time devoted to the developing reengineering
recommendations sufficient?
Too short.
Why do think this was the case?
Sufficient.
Too long.
Why do think this was the case?
S. In your opinion, what was the primary reason the BOP decided to go through
this reengineering effort? Please rank the following 4 items in order of
importance (with 1 being the primary reason the reengineering effort occurred
and number 4 being what you see the least significant reason for what caused the
agency to reengineer.
Leadership (e.g., the Director’s expectations)
The external environment (e.g., being in competition with the private
sector. Congress, taxpayers, public perception, etc.)
Improving what the organization does and how it does it
Saving money-cutting costs
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6. Were the ground rules laid out in the beginning of the effort maintained
throughout the process? (e.g., security, public safety, staff and inmate safety
must not be undermined; staff will not be RIF'd; there are no "sacred cows"; all
policy is open for change; preparation of inmates for release must not be
undermined; etc.)
Yes
No
(If no, why not?
7. What do you see as the 4 main strengths of the reengineering process?
1)
2)
3)
4)
8. What do you see as the 4 main weaknesses of the reengineering process?
1)
2)
3)
4)
9. In making recommendations to reengineer, for your reengineering team,
please rank the relative importance of the following areas (with S being very
important and 1 being of no importance):
Very Important....Some importance Of no importance
5_______4________ 3_________ 2_________ 1__________
Save money/cut costs
5___4___3___ 2___1_ _
Improve the agency
5___4___3___ 2___I_ _
Concern for staff welfare 5 4 3 2 1
Concern for inmate welfare 5 4 3 2 1
Concern for community welfare
5___4___3___2___1___
Spend money more wisely
5___4___3___2___1 ___
Better use of staff and agency resources 5 4 3 2 1
Something else (______________________ )
5 4 3 2 1
148
R ^ d u c e d ^ fth permission of the copyright owner Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10. What guided your focus in this entire process? Please rank the relative
importance of the following areas (with 5 being very important and 1 being of no
importance):
Very Important....Some importance Of no importance
5 4________ 3_________ 2_________ 1__________
BOP’s cultural anchors and core values
5 4 3_ _ 2___1___
Leadership (e.g., the Director’s expectations)
5 4 3 2 1___
The external environment (congress, taxpayers, private prison competition, etc.)
5_ _ 4___ 3_ _ 2___1___
Improving organizational effectiveness
5 4 3_ _ 2___1___
Improving cost-efficiency
5 4 3_ _ 2___1___
Saving money-cutting costs
5 4 3_ _ 2___1___
Improving the agency
5_ _ 4___ 3_ _ 2___1___
Something else (___________ )
5 4 3_ _ 2___1___
11. In your opinion, would it be useful for agencies undergoing a reengineering
effort to have an outline to use in guiding them through this process?
Yes
Why do you think this is true?
No”
Why do you think this is true?
12. How could the process have been improved? In other words, what would
you do differently if BOP were ever to go through such a process again?
13. How would you categorize the recommendations developed by the teams in
the reengineering process:
a) radical or drastic redesign of processes to effect change
b) incremental change, or change in a number of steps, or
c) both radical and incremental changes.
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14. Please provide any comments you wish regarding the reengineering process.
Your office telephone number : __
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B
Vision Statement
The Federal Bureau of Prisons, judged by any standard, is widely and
consistently regarded as a model of outstanding public administration, and as the
best value provider of efficient, safe and humane correctional services and
programs in America. This vision will be realized when...
The Bureau provides for public safety by assuring that no escapes and no
disturbances occur in its facilities. The Bureau ensures the physical safety of all
inmates through a controlled environment which meets each inmate’s need for
security through the elimination of violence, predatory behavior, gang activity,
drug use, and inmate weapons. Through the provision of health care, mental,
spiritual, educational, vocational and work programs, inmates are well prepared
for a productive and crime free return to society. The Bureau is a model of cost-
efficient correctional operations and programs.
Our talented, professional, well trained, and diverse staff reflect the Bureau’s
culture and treat each other fairly. Staff work in an environment free from
discrimination. A positive working relationship exists where employees maintain
respect for one another. The workplace is safe, and staff perform their duties
without fear of injury or assault. Staff maintain high ethical standards in their
day-to-day activities. Staff are satisfied with their jobs, career opportunities,
recognition, and quality of leadership.
Mission Statement
It is the mission of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to protect society by confining
offenders in the controlled environments of prison and community-based facilities
that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide
work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming
law-abiding citizens.
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C
Cultural Anchors/Core Values
Bureau Family The Bureau of Prisons recognizes that staff are the most valuable
resource in accomplishing its mission, and (it) is committed to the personal
welfare and professional development of each employee. A concept of “family”
is encouraged through healthy, supportive relationships among staff and
organization responsiveness to staff needs. The active participation of staff at all
levels is essential to the development and accomplishment of organizational
objectives.
Sound Correctional Management The Bureau of Prisons maintains effective
security and control of its institutions utilizing the least restrictive means
necessary, thus providing the essential foundation for sound correctional
management programs.
Correctional Workers First All Bureau of Prisons staff share a common role as
correctional worker, which requires a mutual responsibility for maintaining safe
and secure institutions and for modeling society’s mainstream values and norms.
Promotes Integrity The Bureau of Prisons firmly adheres to a set of values that
promotes honesty and integrity in the professional efforts of its staff to ensure
public confidence in the Bureau’s prudent use of its allocated resources.
Recognizes the Dignity o f A ll Recognizing the inherent dignity of all human
beings and their potential for change, the Bureau of Prisons treats inmates fairly
and responsively and affords them opportunities for self-improvement to facilitate
their successful re-entry into the community. The Bureau further recognizes that
offenders are incarcerated as punishment, not for punishment.
Career Service Orientation The Bureau of Prisons is a career-oriented service,
which has enjoyed a consistent management philosophy and a continuity of
leadership, enabling it to evolve as a stable, professional leader in the field of
corrections.
Community Relations The Bureau of Prisons recognizes and facilitates the
integral role of the community in effectuating the Bureau’s mission, and works
cooperatively with other law enforcement agencies, the courts, and other
components of government.
High Standards
The Bureau of Prisons requires high standards of safety, security,
sanitation, and discipline, which promote a physically and emotionally sound
environment for both staff and inmates.
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D
Team: Inmate Movement-A
Tables
Table 3A: Type of Changes Recommended
n= 11
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical
Incremental 6 54.5
Radical and
Incremental
5 45.5
believed their groups developed.
the reengineering team members
Table 4A: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
n= 11
Category Respondents Percentage
Political concerns 1 9.1
Coordination with
other agencies
9 81.8
reengineering a public agency as opposed to a private one.
Table 5A: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n = ll
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 9 81.8
No 2 18.2
reengineering effort were maintained throughout the process. It is in part a
measure of whether the principles of public administration were maintained in the
process and in pan a measure of whether the agency was able to maintain the
ground rules given the culture of the agency.
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6A: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n = ll
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 9 81.8
No 2 18.2
useful in going through the reengineering process.
Table 7A: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n=22 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Economy
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Save
money/
cut costs
7 31.8 4 18.2
Spend
money
more
wisely
8 36.4 3 13.6
This table examines one of the three values ol'pub ic administration of e
or valued use of scarce resources, looking at the relative importance of economy
in developing recommendations to reengineer the agency.
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8A: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n -2 2 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Efficiency
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Improve
the agency
7 31.8 2 9.1 2 9.1
Better use
of staff and
agency
resources
9 40.9 I 4.5 1 4.5
This table examines one of he three values ol public administration of efl
or doing things right, looking at the relative importance of efficiency in
developing recommendations to reengineer the agency.
Table 9A: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n=33 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; I of No Importance)
Category
Effectiveness
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % I %
Concern for
staff welfare
7 21.2 3 9.1 1 3.0
Concern for
inmate
welfare
6 18.2 3 9.1 2 6.1
Concern for
community
welfare
8 24.2 3 9.1
This table examines one of the three values of }ublic administration of
effectiveness, or doing the right things, looking at the relative importance of
effectiveness in developing recommendations to reengineer the agency.
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 10A: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n=77 (The combined number of responses from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 15 19.5 6 7.8 1 1.3
Efficiency 16 20.8 4 5.2 2 2.6
Effectiveness 21 27.3 9 11.7 3 3.9
This table totals responses to Tables 7, 8, and 9, showing percentages of total
responses in each value category.
Table 11 A: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=77 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
3 3.9 5 6.5 2 2.6 1 1.3
Leadership 5 6.5 5 6.5 1 1.3
External
environment
5 6.5 3 3.9 2 2.6 1 1.3
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
10 13.0 1 1.3
Improving
Cost
efficiency
10 13.0 1 1.3
Saving
money/
cutting costs
6 7.8 3 3.9 1 1.3 1 1.3
Improving
the agency
10 13.0 1 1.3
This table examines the relative im| Ktrtance of various factors in guiding the
focus of reengineering participants in making the recommendations to reengineer
the agency. It examines the culture of the agency, as well as leadership and
environmental factors, and public administration values in guiding the focus of
change.
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 12A: Primary Reason for Reengineering
n=44 (1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
2 4.5 5 11.4 4 9.1
External
Environment
1 2.3 3 6.8 2 4.5 5 11.4
Improving
organization
7 15.9 2 4.5 2 4.5
Saving
money/
cutting costs
I 2.3 6 13.
6
2 4.5 2 4.5
reasons the agency underwent this reengineering initiative.
Table 13A: Strengths of the Process
n=29
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of processes 8 27.6
Diversity of teams 12 41.4
Empowerment/ Creativity 4 13.8
Support of leadership 3 10.3
Cost savings 1 3.4
Staff Development 1 3.4
Benchmarking
Other
Total 29 99.9
categorizes the responses into the major headings above.
the process and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14A: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement
n=38
Category Respondents Percentage
Time/travel/ scheduling 17 44.7
Resistance to change 6 15.8
Lack of communication
with field staff
5 13.2
Bureaucracy/ political/
coordination with other
agencies
1 2.6
Make-up of teams 4 10.5
Cost of process 1 2.6
Cultural constraints I 2.6
Logistics
Other* 3 7.9
Total 38 99.9
improvements to the process and categorizes the responses into the major
headings above.
* If responses represented less that 5 of a particular subject they were placed in
the other category for the combined table.
Table ISA: Adequacy of Training
n = ll
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough 1 9.1
Sufficient 10 90.9
Too much
This table examines in part, the planning and preparation that
reengineering.
1S8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 16A: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering
Initiative
n= 11
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes
No 9 81.8
Not certain 2 18.2
reengineering effort was well-communicated to staff who were not part of the
teams.
Table 17A: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n = ll
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short
Sufficient 9 81.8
Too long 2 18.2
recommendations.
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Team: Health Care-B
Table 3B: Type of Changes Recommended
n= 9
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical
Incremental 5 55.6
Radical and
Incremental
4 44.4
Table 4: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
n= 9
Category Respondents Percentage
Political concerns 5 59.0
Coordination with
other agencies
5 59.0
Table SB: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n= 9
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 8 88.9
No 1 11.1
Table 6B: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n= 9
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 5 55.6
No 4 44.4
160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7B: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n= 18 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Economy
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Save
money/
cut costs
9 50.0
Spend
money
more
wisely
8 44.4 I 5.6
Table 8B: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n= 18 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Efficiency
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Improve the
agency
8 44.4 1 5.6
Better use of
staff and
agency
resources
8 44.4 1 5.6
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9B: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n=27 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Effectiveness
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Concern for
staff welfare
5 18.5 4 14.8
Concern for
inmate
welfare
3 11.1 6 22.2
Concern for
community
welfare
2 7.4 4 14.8 3 11.1
Table 10B: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n=63 (The combined number of responses from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 17 27.0 1 1.6
Efficiency 16 25.4 2 3.2
Effectiveness 10 15.9 14 22.2 3 4.8
162
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table I IB: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=63 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
2 3.2 2 3.2 4 6.3 1 1.6
Leadership 5 7.9 4 6.3
External
environment
4 6.3 3 4.8 2 3.2
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
7 11.1 2 3.2
Improving
Cost
efficiency
9 14.3
Saving
money/
cutting costs
7 11.1 2 3.2
Improving
the agency
7 11.1 2 3.2
Table 12B: Primary Reason for Reengineering
n=36 (1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
1 2.8 2 5.6 2 5.6 4 11.1
External
Environment
3 8.3 I 2.8 3 8.3 2 5.6
Improving
organization
3 8.3 1 2.8 3 8.3 2 5.6
Saving
money/
cutting costs
2 5.6 5 13.9 1 2.8 1 2.8
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 13B: Strengths of the Process
n=31
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of processes 11 35.5
Diversity of teams 6 19.4
Empowerment/Creativity 5 16.1
Support of leadership 4 12.9
Cost savings 1 3.2
Staff Development I 3.2
Benchmarking 2 6.5
Other 1 3.2
Total 31 100.0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14B: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement
n=22
Category Respondents Percentage
Time/travel/ scheduling 7 31.8
Resistance to change 3 13.6
Lack of communication
with field staff
Bureaucracy/political/
coordination with other
agencies
6 27.2
Make-up of teams 1 4.5
Cost of process 1 4.5
Cultural constraints
Logistics
Other* 4 18.2
Total 22 99.9
the other category for the combined table.
Table 1SB: Adequacy of Training
n= 9
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough 1 11.1
Sufficient 8 88.9
Too much -
reengineering.
165
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 16B: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering
Initiative
n= 9
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 5 55.6
No 3 33.1
Not certain 1 11.1
Table 17B: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n= 9
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short
Sufficient 9 100.0
Too long
Team: Training/Employee Development-C
Table 3C: Type of Changes Recommended
n=12
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical
Incremental 6 50.0
Radical and
Incremental
6 50.0
Table 4C: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
n=12
Category Respondents Percentage
Political concerns 11 91.7
Coordination with
other agencies
8 66.7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5C: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n=12
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 6 50.0
No 6 50.0
Table 6C: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n - 12
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 9 75.0
No 3 25.0
Table 7C: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n=24 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Economy
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % I %
Save money/
cut costs
7 29.2 1 4.2 4 16.7
Spend
money more
wisely
11 45.8 1 4.2
Table 8C: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n -2 4 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Efficiency
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Improve the
agency
12 50.0
Better use of
staff and
agency
resources
12 50.0
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9C: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n=36 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Effectiveness
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Concern for
staff welfare
9 25.0 3 8.3
Concern for
inmate
welfare
3 8.3 4 11.1 2 5.6 3 8.3
Concern for
community
welfare
3 8.3 4 11.1 2 5.6 2 5.6 1 2.8
Table IOC: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n=84 (The combined number of responses from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 18 21.4 2 2.4 4 4.8
Efficiency 24 28.6
Effectiveness 15 17.9 11 13.1 4 4.8 5 6.0 1 1.2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 11C: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=84 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; I of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
7 8.3 3 3.6 1 1.2 1 1.2
Leadership 7 8.3 5 6.0
External
environment
3 3.6 2 2.4 3 3.6 4 4.8
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
10 11.9 1 1.2 1 1.2
Improving
Cost
efficiency
9 10.7
2
2.4 1 1.2
Saving
money/
cutting costs
6 7.1 4 4.8 1 1.2 1 1.2
Improving
the agency
10 11.9 2 2.4
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 12C: Primary Reason for Reengineering
n=48 (1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
2 4.2 4 8.3 4 8.3 2 4.2
External
Environment
6 12.
5
2 4.2 4 8.3
Improving
organization
2 4.2 2 4.2 3 6.3 5 10.4
Saving
money/
cutting costs
2 4.2 4 8.3 5 10.4 1 2.1
reasons the agency underwent this reengineering initiative.
Table 13C: Strengths of the Process
n= 36
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of processes 13 36.1
Diversity of teams 8 22.2
Empowerment/ Creativity 9 25.0
Support of leadership 1 2.8
Cost savings 4 11.1
Staff Development
Benchmarking
Other 1 2.8
Total 36 100.0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14C: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement
n=37
Category Respondents Percentage
Time/travel/scheduling 6 16.2
Resistance to change 13 35.1
Lack of communication
with field staff
4 10.8
Bureaucracy/political/
coordination with other
agencies
2 5.4
Make-up of teams 4 10.8
Cost of process 2 5.4
Cultural constraints 1 2.7
Logistics 3 8.1
Other* 2 5.4
Total 37 99.9
If responses represented ess that 5 of a particular subject they
the other category for the combined table.
Table ISC: Adequacy of Training
n - 12
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough 3 25.0
Sufficient 9 75.0
Too much
171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 16C: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering
Initiative
n= 12
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 4 3.3
No 8 6.7
Not certain
Table 17C: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n=12
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short I 8.3
Sufficient 10 83.3
Too long I 8.3
172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Team: Inmate Designations-D
Table 3D: Type of Changes Recommended
n=8
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical
Incremental 5 62.5
Radical and
Incremental
3 37.5
Table 4D: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
n=8
Category Respondents Percentage
Political concerns 5 62.5
Coordination with
other agencies
5 62.5
Table 5D: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n=8
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 6 75.0
No 2 25.0
Table 6D: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n=8
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 6 75.0
No 2 25.0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7D: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n=16 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Economy
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % I %
Save money/
cut costs
6 37.5 2 12.5
Spend
money more
wisely
6 37.5 1 6.3 1 6.3
Table 8D: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n=16 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Efficiency
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Improve the
agency
7 43.8 1 6.3
Better use of
staff and
agency
resources
6 37.5 2 12.5
Table 9D: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n=24 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Effectiveness
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % I %
Concern for
staff welfare
5 20.8 3 12.5
Concern for
inmate
welfare
2
8.3 '5 20.8 1 4.2
Concern for
community
welfare
3 12.5 4 16.7 1 4.2
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 10D: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n=56 (The combined number of responses from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 13 23.2 3 5.4
Efficiency 13 23.2 3 5.4
Effectiveness 10 17.9 12 21.4 2 3.6
Table 11D: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=56 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
2 3.6 6 10.7
Leadership 3 5.4 2 3.6 2 3.6 1 1.8
External
environment
2 3.6 1 1.8 5 8.9
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
5 8.9 2 3.6 1 1.8
Improving
Cost
efficiency
5 8.9 3 5.4
Saving
money/
cutting costs
5 8.9 3 5.4
Improving
the agency
6 10.
7
2 3.6
175
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 12D: Primary Reason for Reengineering
n=32
(1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
3 9.4 2 6.3 1 3.1 2 6.3
External
Environment
2 6.3 2 6.3 2 6.3 2 6.3
Improving
organization
2 6.3 2 6.3 2 6.3 2 6.3
Saving
money/
cutting costs
1 3.1 2 6.3 3 9.4 2 6.3
Table 13D: Strengths of the Process
n=20
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of
processes
7 35.0
Diversity of teams 2 10.0
Empowerment/Creativity 4 20.0
Support of leadership 1 5.0
Cost savings 2 10.0
Staff Development 4 20.0
Benchmarking
Other
Total 20 100.0
176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14D: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement
n=34
Category Respondents Percentage
Time/travel/ scheduling 11 32.4
Resistance to change 4 11.8
Lack of communication
with field staff
5 14.7
Bureaucracy/political/
coordination with other
agencies
7 20.6
Make-up of teams 1 2.9
Cost of process 3 8.8
Cultural constraints 1 2.9
Logistics
Other* 2 5.9
Total 34 100.0
the other category for the combined table.
Table 1SD: Adequacy of Training
n= 8
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough
Sufficient 8 100.0
Too much
177
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 16D: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering
Initiative
n=8
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 2 25.0
No 5 62.5
Not certain 1 12.5
Table 17D: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n=8
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short I 12.5
Sufficient 6 75.0
Too long 1 12.5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Team: Management-E
Table 3E: Type of Changes Recommended
n=ll
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical
Incremental 5 45.5
Radical and
Incremental
6 54.5
Table 4E: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
n=ll
Category Respondents Percentage
Political concerns 4 36.4
Coordination with
other agencies
6 54.5
Table 5E: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n= 11
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 10 90.9
No I 9.1
Table 6E: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n=ll
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 7 63.6
No 4 36.4
179
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7E: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n=22 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Economy
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Save
money/ cut
costs
8 36.4 1 4.5 2 9.1
Spend
money
more
wisely
8 36.4 3 13.6
Table 8E: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n=22 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Efficiency
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Improve the
agency
7 31.8 4 18.2
Better use of
staff and
agency
resources
8 36.4 3 13.6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9E: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n=33 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Effectiveness
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Concern for
staff welfare
6 18.2 4 12.1 1 3.0
Concern for
inmate
welfare
5 15.2 3 9.1 1 3.0 2 6.1
Concern for
community
welfare
2 6.1 6 18.2 1 3.0 2 6.1
Table 10E: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n=77 (The combined number of responses from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 16 20.8 4 5.2 2 2.6
Efficiency 15 19.5 7 9.1
Effectiveness 13 16.9 13 16.9 3 3.9 4 5.2
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 11E: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=77 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
5 6.5 3 3.9 2 2.6 1 1.3
Leadership 9 11.7 2 2.6
External
environment
2 2.6 6 7.8 2 2.6 I 1.3
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
6 7.8 4 5.2 1 1.3
Improving
Cost
efficiency
7 9.1 4 5.2
Saving
money/
cutting costs
8 10.4 2 2.6 1 1.3
Improving
the agency
9 11.7 2 2.6
Table 12E: Primary Reason for Reengineering
n=44 (1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
5 11.4 2 4.5 3 6.8 1 2.3
External
Environment
3 6.8 3 6.8 3 6.8 2 4.5
Improving
organization
2 4.5 3 6.8 1 2.3 5 11.4
Saving
money/
cutting costs
1 2.3 3 6.8 4 9.1 3 6.8
182
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 13E: Strengths of the Process
n=37
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of
processes
16 43.2
Diversity of teams 5 13.5
Empowerment/Creativity 10 27.0
Support of leadership 3 8.1
Cost savings 1 2.7
Staff Development 1 2.7
Benchmarking 1 2.7
Other
Total 37 99.9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14E: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement
n=32
Category Respondents Percentage
Time/travel/
scheduling
11 34.4
Resistance to change 5 15.6
Lack of
communication with
field staff
4 12.5
Bureaucracy/
political/coordination
with other agencies
4 12.5
Make-up of teams 1 3.1
Cost of process 2 6.2
Cultural constraints
Logistics
Other* 5 15.6
Total 32 99.9
the other category for the combined table.
Table 1SE: Adequacy of Training
n=ll
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough 1 9.1
Sufficient 10 90.9
Too much
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 16E: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering
Initiative
n = ll
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 5 45.5
No 5 45.5
Not certain 1 9.1
Table 17E: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n= 11
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short
Sufficient 11 100.0
Too long
recommendations.
the adequacy of the time allowed for participants to develop
185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Team: Personnel-F
Table 3F: Type of Changes Recommended
n=9
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical
Incremental 5 55.6
Radical and
Incremental
4 44.4
Table 4F: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
n=9
Category Respondents Percentage
Political concerns
2
22.2
Coordination with
other agencies
7 77.8
Table 5F: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n= 9
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 3 33.3
No 6 66.7
Table 6F: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n=9
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 8 88.9
No 1 11.1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7F: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n= 18 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Economy
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Save
money/
cut costs
5 27.8 1 5.6 3 16.7
Spend
money
more
wisely
7 38.9 1 5.6 1 5.6
Table 8F: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n= 18 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Efficiency
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Improve
the agency
6 33.3 3 16.7
Better use
of staff and
agency
resources
9 50.0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9F: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n=27 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Effectiveness
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Concern for
staff welfare
6 22.2 1 3.7 2 1A
Concern for
inmate
welfare
3 11.1 1 3.7 1 3.7 4 14.8
Concern for
community
welfare
1 3.7 3 11.1 2 7.4 1 3.7 2 7.4
Table 10F: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n=63 (The combined number of responses from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 12 19.0 2 3.2 4 6.3
Efficiency 15 23.8 3 4.8
Effectiveness 10 15.9 4 6.3 5 7.9 2 3.2 6 9.5
188
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1 IF: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=63 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
2 3.2 1 1.6 3 4.8 3 4.8
Leadership 3 4.8 4 6.3 2 3.2 1 1.6
External
environment
3 4.8 1 1.6 4 6.3
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
7 11.1 2 3.2
Improving
Cost
efficiency
8 12.7 1 1.6
Saving
money/
cutting costs
4 6.3 3 4.8 2 3.2
Improving
the agency
7 11.2 2 3.2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 12F: Primary Reason for Reengineering
n=36 (1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
2 5.6 3 8.3 3 8.3
External
Environment
3 8.3 3 8.3 1 2.8 1 2.8
Improving
organization
1 2.8 3 8.3 2 5.6 2 5.6
Saving
money/
cutting costs
2 5.6 2 5.6 2 5.6 2 5.6
Table 13F: Strengths of the Process
n=28
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of
processes
11 39.3
Diversity of teams 5 17.9
Empowerment/Creativity 5 17.9
Support of leadership 1 3.6
Cost savings 1 3.6
Staff Development 2 7.1
Benchmarking 3 10.7
Other
Total 28 100.1
190
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14F: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement
n=29
Category Respondents Percentage
Time/travel/
scheduling
4 13.8
Resistance to change 15 51.7
Lack of
communication with
field staff
2 6.9
Bureaucracy/
political/coordination
with other agencies
3 10.3
Make-up of teams I 3.4
Cost of process
Cultural constraints 1 3.4
Logistics 2 6.9
Other* 1 3.4
Total 29 99.8
If responses represented less that 5 of a particular subject they were
the other category for the combined table.
Table 1SF: Adequacy of Training
n - 9
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough 1 11.1
Sufficient 8 88.9
Too much
191
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 16F: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering
Initiative
n= 9
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 3 33.3
No 6 66.7
Not certain
Table 17F: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n= 9
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short
Sufficient 8 88.9
Too long 1 11.1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Team: Fiscal Management-G
Table 3G: Type of Changes Recommended
n= 12
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical 4 33.3
Incremental 5 41.7
Radical and
Incremental
3 25.0
Table 4G: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
n= 12
Category Respondents Percentage
Political concerns 12 100.0
Coordination with
other agencies
1 8.3
Table 5G: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n=12
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 10 83.3
No 2 16.7
Table 6G: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n= 12
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 10 83.3
No 2 16.7
193
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7G: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n=24 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; I of No Importance)
Category
Economy
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Save
money/ cut
costs
5 20.8 5 20.8 I 4.2 1 4.2
Spend
money
more
wisely
7 29.2 3 12.5 2 8.3
Table 8G: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n=24 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Efficiency
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Improve
the agency
9 37.5 3 12.5
Better use
of staff and
agency
resources
7 29.2 5 20.8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9G: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n=36 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; I of No Importance)
Category
Effectiveness
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Concern for
staff welfare
8 22.2 1 2.8 2 5.6 1 2.8
Concern for
inmate
welfare
3 8.3 2 5.6 3 8.3 2 5.6 2 5.6
Concern for
community
welfare
5 13.9 1 2.8 4 11.1 I 2.8 1 2.8
Table 10G: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n=84 (The combined number of responses from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 12 14.3 8 9.5 3 3.6 1 1.2 - -
Efficiency 16 19.0 8 9.5 - - - -
Effectiveness 16 19.0 4 4.8 9 10.7 2 2.4 5 6.0
195
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 11G: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=84 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
3 3.6 5 6.0 4 4.8
Leadership 3 3.6 6 7.1 3 3.6
External
environment
2 2.4 6 7.1 4 4.8
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
10 11.9 2 2.4
Improving
Cost
efficiency
8 9.5 4 4.8
Saving
money/
cutting costs
6 7.1 4 4.8 1 1.2 1 1.
2
Improving
the agency
9 10.7 3 3.6
Table 12G: Primary Reason for Reengineering
n=48 (1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
1 2.1 1 2.1 5 10.4 5 10.4
External
Environment
3 6.3 1 2.1 5 10.4 3 6.3
Improving
organization
5 10.
4
3 6.3 1 2.1 3 6.3
Saving
money/
cutting costs
3 6.3 7 14.6 1 2.1 1 2.1
196
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 13G: Strengths of the Process
n=27
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of
processes
8 29.6
Diversity of teams 6 22.2
Empowerment/Creativity 5 18.5
Support of leadership
Cost savings 3 11.1
Staff Development 4 14.8
Benchmarking 1 3.7
Other
Total 27 99.9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14G: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement
n= 4 I
Category Respondents Percentage
Time/travel/ scheduling 8 19.5
Resistance to change 6 14.6
Lack of communication
with held staff
11 26.8
Bureaucracy/political/
coordination with other
agencies
1 2.4
Make-up of teams 4 9.8
Cost of process 2 4.9
Cultural constraints 1 2.4
Logistics
Other* 8 19.5
Total 41 99.9
* If responses represented ess that 5 of a particular subject they were placed in
the other category for the combined table.
Table 1SG: Adequacy of Training
n= 12
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough 1 8.3
Sufficient 11 91.7
Too much
198
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 16G: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering
Initiative
n = I2
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 3 25.0
No 9 75.0
Not certain
Table 17G: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n = l2
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short
Sufficient 11 91.7
Too long 1 8.3
199
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Role: Co-Sponsor-H
Table 3H: Type of Changes Recommended
n=15
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical
Incremental 6 40.0
Radical and
Incremental
9 60.0
Table 4H: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
n=15
Category Respondents Percentage
Political concerns 8 53.3
Coordination with
other agencies
8 53.3
Table 5H: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n= 15
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 15 100.0
No
Table 6H: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n=15
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 10 66.7
No 5 33.3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7H: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n=30 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Economy
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Save
money/ cut
costs
13 43.3 2 6.7
Spend
money
more
wisely
14 46.7 1 3.3
Table 8H: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n=30 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Efficiency
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Improve
the agency
12 40.0 3 10.0
Better use
' of staff and
agency
resources
14 46.7 1 3.3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9H: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n=30 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; I of No Importance)
Category
Effectiveness
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Concern for
staff welfare
11 24.4 4 8.9
Concern for
inmate
welfare
9 20.0 5 11.
1
I 2.2
Concern for
community
welfare
7 15.6 5 11.
1
2 4.
4
1 2.2
Table 10H: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n=105 (The combined number of responses firom tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 27 25.7 3 2.9
Efficiency 26 24.8 4 3.8
Effectiveness 27 25.7 15 14.3 2 1.9 1 1.0
202
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 11H: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=105 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
8 7.6 3 2.9 4 3.8
Leadership 11 10.5 3 2.9 1 1.0
External
environment
2 1.9 4 3.8 6 5.7 3 2.9
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
9 8.6 6 5.7
Improving
Cost
efficiency
12 11.4 3 2.9
Saving
money/
cutting costs
8 7.6 7 6.7
Improving
the agency
13 12.4 2 1.9
203
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 12H: Primary Reason for Reengineering
n=20 (1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
5 8.3 2 3.3 7 11.7 1 1.7
External
Environment
4 6.7 3 5.0 1 1.7 7 11.7
Improving
organization
5 8.3 7 11.7 1 1.7 2 3.3
Saving
money/
cutting costs
1 1.7 3 5.0 6 10.0 5 8.3
Table 13H: Strengths of the Process
n -6 3
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of
processes
26 41.3
Diversity of teams 11 17.5
Empowerment/Creativity 14 22.2
Support of leadership 3 4.8
Cost savings 3 4.8
Staff Development 3 4.8
Benchmarking 3 4.8
Other
Total 63 100.2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Table 14H: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement
n=59
Category Respondents Percentage
Time/travel/scheduling 17 28.8
Resistance to change 13 22.0
Lack of communication
with field staff
3 5.1
Bureaucracy/political/
coordination with other
agencies
8 13.6
Make-up of teams 6 10.2
Cost of process 5 8.5
Cultural constraints
Logistics
Other* 7 11.9
Total 59 100.1
If responses represented ess that 5 of a particular subject they were p
the other category for the combined table.
Table 1SH: Adequacy of Training
n=15
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough
2
13.3
Sufficient 13 86.7
Too much
205
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 16H: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering
Initiative
n=15
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 8 53.3
No 6 40.0
Not certain 1 6.7
Table 17H: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n= 15
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short 1 6.7
Sufficient 14 93.3
Too long
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Role: Team Leader-I
Table 31: Type of Changes Recommended
n=7
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical 1 14.3
Incremental 3 42.9
Radical and
Incremental
3 42.9
Table 41: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
n=7
Category Respondents Percentage
Political concerns 4 57.1
Coordination with
other agencies
5 71.4
Table SI: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n=7
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 5 71.4
No 2 28.6
Table 61: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n=7
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 4 57.1
No 3 42.9
207
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 71: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n= 14 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Economy
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Save
money/ cut
costs
3 21.4 3 21.4 1 7.1
Spend
money
more
wisely
4 28.6 2 14.3 1 7.1
Table 81: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n= 14 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Efficiency
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Improve
the agency
4 28.6 3 21.4
Bener use
of staff and
agency
resources
4 28.6 3 21.4
208
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 91: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n=21 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Effectiveness
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Concern for
staff welfare
4 19.0 2 9.5 I 4.8
Concern for
inmate
welfare
2 9.5 2 9.5 1 4.8 1 4.8 1 4.8
Concern for
community
welfare
4 19.0 1 4.8 1 4.8 1 4.8
Table 101: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n=49 (The combined number of responses from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 7 14.3 5 10.2 2 4.1
Efficiency 8 16.3 6 12.2
Effectiveness 6 12.2 8 16.3 3 6.1 3 6.1 1 2.0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 111: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=49 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
2 4.1 1 2.0 3 6.1 1 2.0
Leadership 4 8.2 3 6.1
External
environment
1 2.0 2 4.1 3 6.1 1 2.0
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
6 12.2 1 2.0
Improving
Cost
efficiency
6 12.2 1 2.0
Saving
money/
cutting costs
4 8.2 3 6.1
Improving
the agency
7 14.3
Table 121: Primary Reason for Reengineering
a =28 (1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
1 3.6 1 3.6 3 10.7 2 7.1
External
Environment
2 7.1 2 7.1 2 7.1 1 3.6
Improving
organization
4 14.3 1 3.6 2 7.1
Saving
money/
cutting costs
4 14.3 1 3.6 2 7.1
210
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 131: Strengths of the Process
n=17
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of
processes
7 41.2
Diversity of teams 2 11.8
Empowerment/Creativity 5 29.4
Support of leadership
Cost savings
Staff Development 1 5.9
Benchmarking 1 5.9
Other 1 5.9
Total 17 100.1
211
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 141: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement
n=25
Category Respondents Percentage
Time/travel/ scheduling 6 24.0
Resistance to change 10 40.0
Lack of communication
with field staff
Bureaucracy/political/
coordination with other
agencies
2 8.0
Make-up of teams 1 4.0
Cost of process 1 4.0
Cultural constraints 2 8.0
Logistics 2 8.0
Other* 1 4.0
Total 25 100.0
If responses represented ess that 5 of a particular subject they were
the other category for the combined table.
Table 151: Adequacy of Training
n=7
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough 1 14.3
Sufficient 6 85.7
Too much
212
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 161: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering Initiative
n=7
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 2 28.6
No 5 71.4
Not certain
Table 171: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n=7
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short
Sufficient 5 71.4
Too long 2 28.6
213
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Role: Facilitator-J
Table 3J: Type of Changes Recommended
n=4
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical
Incremental
Radical and
Incremental
4 100.0
Table 4J: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
n=4
| Category Respondents Percentage
| Political concerns 2 50.0
Coordination with
| other agencies
3 75.0
Table 5J: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n= 4
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 1 25.0
No 3 75.0
Table 6J: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n=4
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 2 50.0
No 2 50.0
214
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7J: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n= 8 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Economy
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Save
money/ cut
costs
3 37.5 1 12.5
Spend
money
more
wisely
3 37.5 1 12.5
Table 8J: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n= 8 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; I of No Importance)
Category
Efficiency
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Improve
the agency
3 37.5 1 12.5
Better use
of staff and
agency
resources
2 25.0 1 12.5 1 12.5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9J: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n= 12 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Effectiveness
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Concern for
staff welfare
2 16.7 2 16.7
Concern for
inmate
welfare
3 25.0 1 8.3
Concern for
community
welfare
1 8.3 I 8.3 1 8.3 1 8.3
Table 10J: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n=28 (The combined number of responses from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 6 21.4 1 3.6 1 3.6
Efficiency 5 17.9 1 3.6 2 7.1
Effectiveness 2 7.1 6 21.4 1 3.6 I 3.6 1 3.6
216
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 11J: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=28 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
1 3.6 1 3.6 2 7.1
Leadership 2 7.1 2 7.1
External
environment
1 3.6 2 7.1 1 3.6
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
3 10.7 1 3.6
Improving
Cost
efficiency
4 14.3
Saving
money/
cutting costs
3 10.7 1 3.6
Improving
the agency
2 7.1 1 3.6 1 3.6
Table 12J: Primary Reason for Reengineering
n= 16 (1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
1 6.3 1 6.3 2 12.5
External
Environment
1 6.3 1 6.3 2 12.5
Improving
organization
1 6.3 1 6.3 2 12.5
Saving
money/
cutting costs
2 12.
5
1 6.3 1 6.3
217
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 13J: Strengths of the Process
n=12
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of
processes
3 25.0
Diversity of teams 2 16.7
Empowerment/Creativity 4 33.3
Support of leadership 1 8.3
Cost savings 2 16.7
Staff Development
Benchmarking
Other
Total 12 100.0
218
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14J: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement
n = I5
Category Respondents Percentage
Time/travel/scheduling 4 26.7
Resistance to change 4 26.7
Lack of communication
with field staff
1 6.7
Bureaucracy/political/
coordination with other
agencies
Make-up of teams 3 20.0
Cost of process
Cultural constraints
Logistics 2 13.3
Other* 1 6.7
Total 15 100.1
If responses represented ess that 5 of a particular subject they were
the other category for the combined table.
Table 15J: Adequacy of Training
n = 4
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough I 25.0
Sufficient 3 75.0
Too much
219
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 16J: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering
Initiative
n=4
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 2 50.0
No 2 50.0
Not certain
Table 17J: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n=4
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short
Sufficient 4 100.0
Too long
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Role: Subject Matter Expert-K
Table 3K: Type of Changes Recommended
n=28
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical 3 10.7
Incremental 15 53.6
Radical and
Incremental
10 35.7
Table 4K: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
n=28
Category Respondents Percentage
Political concerns 15 53.6
Coordination with
other agencies
15 53.6
Table 5K: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n=28
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 19 67.9
No 9 32.1
Table 6K: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n=28
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 23 82.1
No 5 17.9
221
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7K: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n=56 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Economy
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Save
money/ cut
costs
14 25.0 8 14.3 6 10.7
Spend
money
more
wisely
20 35.7 6 10.7 2 3.6
Table 8K: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n=56 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Efficiency
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Improve
the agency
22 39.3 6 10.7
Better use
of staff and
agency
resources
23 41.1 5 8.9
222
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9K: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n=84 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Effectiveness
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Concern for
staff welfare
19 22.6 4 4.8 5 6.0
Concern for
inmate
welfare
10 11.9 7 8.3 6 7.1 3 3.6 2 2.4
Concern for
community
welfare
10 11.9 11 13.1 4 4.8 2 2.4 1 1.2
Table 10K: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n= 196 (The combined number of responses from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 34 17.3 14 7.1 8 4.1
Efficiency 45 23.0 11 5.6
Effectiveness 39 19.9 22 11.2 15 7.7 5 2.6 3 1.5
223
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1 IK: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=196 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
6 3.1 12 6.1 7 3.6 3 1.5
Leadership 13 6.6 10 5.1 4 2.0 1 0.5
External
environment
9 4.6 7 3.6 10 5.1 2 1.0
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
22 11.2 4 2.0 2 1.0
Improving
Cost
efficiency
19 9.7 7 3.6 1 0.5 1 0.5
Saving
money/
cuning costs
14 7.1 10 5.1 3 1.5 1 0.5
Improving
the agency
22 11.2 6 3.1
Table 12K: Primary Reason for Reengineering
n= 112 (1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
7 6.3 4 3.6 8 7.1 9 8.0
External
Environment
7 6.3 4 3.6 7 6.3 10 8.9
Improving
organization
11 9.8 5 4.5 6 5.4 6 5.4
Saving
money/
cutting costs
11 9.8 7 6.3 6 5.4 4 3.6
224
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 13K: Strengths of the Process
n=66
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of
processes
25 37.9
Diversity of teams 16 24.2
Empowerment/Creativity 10 15.2
Support of leadership 5 7.6
Cost savings 3 4.5
Staff Development 5 7.6
Benchmarking 2 3.0
Other
Total 66 100.0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14K: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement
n=76
Category Respondents Percentage
Time/travel/scheduling 22 28.9
Resistance to change 18 23.7
Lack of communication
with field staff
11 14.5
Bureaucracy/political/
coordination with other
agencies
8 10.5
Make-up of teams 3 3.9
Cost of process
Cultural constraints 2 2.6
Logistics 1 1.3
Other* 11 14.5
Total 76 99.9
If responses represented ess that 5 of a particular subject they were placed in
the other category for the combined table.
Table 1SK: Adequacy of Training
n=28
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough 3 10.7
Sufficient 25 89.3
Too much
226
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 16K: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering
Initiative
n=28
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 6 21.4
No 18 64.3
Not certain 4 14.3
Table 17K: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n=28
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short 1 3.6
Sufficient 24 85.7
Too long 3 10.7
227
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Role: Non-Subject Matter Expert-L
Table 3L: Type of Changes Recommended
n=8
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical
Incremental 5 62.5
Radical and
Incremental
3 37.5
Table 4L: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
n=8
Category Respondents Percentage
Political concerns 6 75.0
Coordination with
other agencies
4 50.0
Table 5L: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n=8
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 6 75.0
No 2 25.0
Table 6L: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n=8
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 8 100.0
No
228
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7L: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n= 16 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Economy
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Save
money/ cut
costs
6 37.5 1 6.3 1 6.3
Spend
money
more
wisely
5 31.3 3 18.8
Table 8L: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n= 16 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Efficiency
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Improve
the agency
6 37.5 1 6.3 1 6.3
Better use
of staff and
agency
resources
7 43.8 1 6.3
229
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9L: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n=24 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Effectiveness
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Concern for
staff welfare
4 16.7 2 8.3 2 8.3
Concern for
inmate welfare
3 12.5 1 4.2 1 4.2 2 8.3 1 4.2
Concern for
community
welfare
2 8.3 1 4.2 3 12.5 2 8.3
Table 10L: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n=56 (The combined number of responses from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 11 19.6 3 5.4 1 1.8 1 1.8
Efficiency 13 23.2 2 3.6 1 1.8
Effectiveness 9 16.1 4 7.1 6 10.7 4 7.1 1 1.8
responses in each value category.
230
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 11L: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=56 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
2 3.6 2 3.6 4 7.1
Leadership 2 3.6 5 8.9 1 1.8
External
environment
2 3.6 3 5.4 2 3.6 1 1.8
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
7 12.5 1 1.8
Improving
Cost
efficiency
7 12.5 1 1.8
Saving
money/
cutting costs
5 8.9 2 3.6 1 1.8
Improving
the agency
6 10.7 2 3.6
Table 12L: Primary Reason for Reengineering
n=32 (1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
1 3.1 2 6.3 5 15.6
External
Environment
4 12.5 1 3.1 3 9.4
Improving
organization
1 3.1 2 6.3 3 9.4 2 6.3
Saving
money/
cutting costs
3 9.4 3 9.4 1 3.1 1 3.1
231
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 13L: Strengths of the Process
n=22
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of
processes
6 27.3
Diversity of teams 5 22.7
Empowerment/Creativity 4 18.2
Support of leadership 1 4.5
Cost savings 1 4.5
Staff Development 3 13.6
Benchmarking I 4.5
Other 1 4.5
Total 22 99.8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14L: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement
n=26
Category Respondents Percentage
Time/travel/scheduling 9 34.6
Resistance to change 2 7.7
Lack of communication
with field staff
7 26.9
Bureaucracy/political/
coordination with other
agencies
3 11.5
Make-up of teams
Cost of process 2 7.7
Cultural constraints 1 3.8
Logistics
Other* 2 7.7
Total 26 99.9
the other category for the combined table.
Table 1SL: Adequacy of Training
n=8
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough 1 12.5
Sufficient 7 87.5
Too much
233
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 16L: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering
Initiative
n=8
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 1 12.5
No 7 87.5
Not certain
Table 17L: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n=8
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short
Sufficient 8 100.0
Too long
234
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Role: Union-M
Table 3M: Type of Changes Recommended
n=4
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical
Incremental 3 75.0
Radical and
Incremental
1 25.0
Table 4M: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
n=4
Category Respondents Percentage
Political concerns 2 50.0
Coordination with
other agencies
2 50.0
Table 5M: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n=4
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 2 50.0
No 2 50.0
Table 6M: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n=4
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 2 50.0
No 2 50.0
235
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7M: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n= 8 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Economy
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Save money/
cut costs
3 37.5 1 12.5
Spend money
more wisely
4 50.0
Table 8M: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n= 8 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Efficiency
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Improve the
agency
3 37.5 1 12.5
Better use of
staff and
agency
resources
4 50.0
Table 9M: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n=12 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Effectiveness
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Concern for
staff welfare
1 8.3 2 16.7 1 8.3
Concern for
inmate
welfare
3 25.0 1 8.3
Concern for
community
welfare
2 16.7 1 8.3 1 8.3
236
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 10M: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n=28 (The combined number of responses from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 7 25.0 1 3.6
Efficiency 7 25.0 1 3.6
Effectiveness 3 10.7 6 21.4 2 7.1 1 3.6
Table 11M: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=28 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
1 3.6 2 7.1 1 3.6
Leadership 2 7.1 2 7.1
External
environment
2 7.1 2 7.1
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
3 10.7 1 3.6
Improving
Cost
efficiency
3 10.7 1 3.6
Saving
money/
cutting costs
2 7.1 1 3.6 1 3.6
Improving
the agency
3 10.7 1 3.6
237
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 12M: Primary Reason for Reengineering
n= 12 (1 of the 4 respondents in this category elected not to respond to this
question)
(1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
1 8.3 2 16.7
External
Environment
1 8.3 2 16.7
Improving
organization
1 8.3 1 8.3 1 8.3
Saving
money/
cutting costs
2 16.7 1 8.3
Table 13M: Strengths of the Process
n= 13
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of
processes
2 15.4
Diversity of teams 2 15.4
Empowerment/Creativity 4 30.8
Support of leadership 3 23.1
Cost savings 1 7.7
Staff Development 1 7.7
Benchmarking
Other
Total 13 100.1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Table 14M: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement
n = I3
Category Respondents Percentage
Time/travel/scheduling 2 15.4
Resistance to change 3 23.1
Lack of communication
with field staff
3 23.1
Bureaucracy/political/
coordination with other
agencies
1 7.7
Make-up of teams 1 7.7
Cost of process 2 15.4
Cultural constraints
Logistics
Other* I 7.7
Total 13 100.1
If responses represented ess that 5 of a particular subject they were p
the other category for the combined table.
Table ISM: Adequacy of Training
n= 4
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough
Sufficient 4 100.0
Too much
239
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 16M: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering
Initiative
n= 4
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes
No 4 100.0
Not certain
Table 17M: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n= 4
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short
Sufficient 4 100.0
Too long
240
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Role: Mapper-N
Table 3N: Type of Changes Recommended
n= 6
Category Respondents Percentage
Radical
Incremental 5 83.3
Radical and
Incremental
1 16.7
Table 4N: Differences Between Public and Private Sector Reengineering
n= 6
Category Respondents Percentage
Political concerns 3 50.0
Coordination with
other agencies
4 66.7
Table 5N: Were Ground Rules Adhered To?
n=6
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 4 66.7
No 2 33.3
Table 6N: Helpfulness of a Guide for Reengineering Participants
n= 6
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 5 83.3
No 1 16.7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7N: Relative Importance of Value of Economy in Developing
Recommendations
n=12 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Economy
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Save
money/ cut
costs
5 41.7 1 8.3
Spend
money
more
wisely
5 41.7 1 8.3
Table 8N: Relative Importance of Value of Efficiency in Developing
Recommendations
n=12 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; I of No Importance)
Category
Efficiency
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Improve
the agency
6 50.0
Better use
of staff and
agency
resources
5 47.1 1 8.3
242
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9N: Relative Importance of Value of Effectiveness in Developing
Recommendations
n = I8 (Ranking: S Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category
Effectiveness
5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % I %
Concern for
staff welfare
5 27.8 1 5.6
Concern for
inmate
welfare
1 5.6 2 11.1 2 11.1 1 5.6
Concern for
community
welfare
3 16.7 2 11.1 I 5.6
Table ION: Percentage of Respondents to Value Categories
n=42 (The combined number of responses from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
Economy 10 23.8 1 2.4 1 2.4
Efficiency 11 26.2 1 2.4
Effectiveness 9 21.4 4 9.5 3 7.1 1 2.4 I 2.4
243
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 11N: Guide of Focus in Making Recommendations
n=42 (Ranking: 5 Very Important; 1 of No Importance)
Category 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 %
BOP’s
cultural
anchors/
core values
2 4.8 3 7.1 1 2.4
Leadership 3 7.1 3 7.1
External
environment
4 9.5 2 4.8
Improving
Organization
effectiveness
5 11.9 1 2.4
Improving
Cost
efficiency
5 11.9 1 2.4
Saving
money/
cutting costs
5 11.9 I 2.4
Improving
the agency
5 11.9 1 2.4
Table 12N: Primary Reason for Reengineering
n=24 (1 being the primary reason and 4 being the least significant)
Category 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %
Leadership/
Director’s
Expectations
2 8.3 2 8.3 2 8.3
External
Environment
2 8.3 1 4.2 2 8.3 1 4.2
Improving
organization
1 4.2 5 20.8
Saving
money/
cutting costs
1 4.2 3 12.
5
2 8.3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 13N: Strengths of the Process
n=15
Category Responses Percentage
Overall review of
processes
5 33.3
Diversity of teams 6 40.0
Empowerment/Creativity 1 6.7
Support of leadership
Cost savings 3 20.0
Staff Development
Benchmarking
Other
Total 15 100.0
245
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14N: Weaknesses of the Process/Recommendations for Improvement
n=19
Category Respondents Percentage
Time/travel/scheduling 4 21.1
Resistance to change 2 10.5
Lack of communication
with field staff
6 31.6
Bureaucracy/political/
coordination with other
agencies
2 10.5
Make-up of teams 2 10.5
Cost of process 1 5.3
Cultural constraints
Logistics
Other* 2 10.5
Total 19 100.0
If responses represented ess that 5 of a particular subject they were p
the other category for the combined table.
Table 1SN: Adequacy of Training
n= 6
Category Respondents Percentage
Not enough
Sufficient 6 100.0
Too much
246
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 16N: Adequacy of Communication with Staff About Reengineering
Initiative
n= 6
Category Respondents Percentage
Yes 3 50.0
No 3 50.0
Not certain
Table 17N: Adequacy of Time to Develop Recommendations
n= 6
Category Respondents Percentage
Too short
Sufficient 5 83.3
Too long 1 16.7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Assignments of female correctional officers to United States penitentiaries: Implementation in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

PDF

Adapting and applying a mission-focused strategic framework for emergency management

PDF

Executive spending power: Flexibility in obligation and outlay timing as a measure of federal budgetary and policy control

PDF

Conversion of health care organizations from non -profit to for -profit status

PDF

Do uses of human resource information technology (HRInT) tools in federal organizations improve their human resource management productivity?

PDF

Assessing United States information assurance *policy response to computer -based threats to national security

PDF

A configuration study of multiagency partnerships as practiced in Taipei City government

PDF

Internal venturing in public agencies

PDF

Historical perspectives and future horizons of local government managers and the International City /County Management Association

PDF

Determining risk propensity of government program managers for high risk /high payoff projects

PDF

Charter schools' influence on public school administrators' innovative behaviors

PDF

Detecting the effects social and business pressures on small California trucking firm tax compliance

PDF

Development of a family risk-factor measure that predicts imminent risk of placement and appropriateness for family-based, wrap -around services

PDF

Determining acceptable seismic risk: A community participation-based approach

PDF

"Focused free thinking" in military intelligence analysis: Lessons from best practices

PDF

Evaluation of professional services consultants in rural government

PDF

Drug treatment providers' organizational responses to implementation of California's Proposition 36

PDF

Interoperability among complex defense computer -based systems: The Navy case

PDF

Educational reform for private state -approved schools in California

PDF

A financial audit model for entrepreneurial governments

Asset Metadata

Creator Smith, Linda Wines (author)

Core Title Bridled boldness: Reengineering the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Lessons learned

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Public Administration

Degree Program Public Administration

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Political Science, public administration,sociology, criminology and penology

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Carter, Robert M. (committee chair), Kane, Thomas R. (committee member), Newland, Chester (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-136049

Unique identifier UC11329550

Identifier 3041525.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-136049 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3041525-0.pdf

Dmrecord 136049

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Smith, Linda Wines

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA