GoITSystems by Dr. M. Gottlieb

Process-Oriented Thinking vs. Department-Oriented Thinking: Why the Administration Needs to Fundamentally Change Its Mindset

Department-Oriented Thinking vs. Process-Oriented-Thinking

Digitalization in German public administration does not primarily fail because of missing technology, but to a considerable extent because processes are poorly coordinated, only partially standardized, and rarely thought through end-to-end. Looking at organizational charts and departmental responsibilities is therefore not sufficient; what is needed is a process-oriented perspective that understands administrative services as end-to-end value chains. This line of argument can be anchored theoretically in business process management (BPM), business process reengineering (BPR), and a socio-technical view of administrative organizations (; ; ).

The Core Problem: Responsibility Instead of Flow

Public administrations have historically been organized primarily along functional lines of responsibility. This structure secures formal accountability, but at the same time it reinforces media breaks, redundant checks, sequential handovers, and a lack of transparency regarding the actual processing status of a case. For applicants, it is often unclear where a procedure currently resides, which office is working on it, and at which interface delays arise.

From a process perspective, this fragmentation is the central organizational problem. While responsibility thinking focuses on formal accountability, compliance with rules, and handing the case to the “next competent unit,” process thinking focuses on the entire case flow – on sequence, dependencies, information needs, waiting times, and output quality. Process management does not replace responsibilities; it complements them with a coordinating end-to-end perspective (; ).

Theoretical Framing

In the BPM literature, a business process is defined as a structured sequence of interrelated activities that transforms inputs into outputs and thereby creates value for internal or external recipients. Applied to public administration, this means: a process does not start at the internal desk of a caseworker, nor does it end with forwarding the case to another unit. It begins with the initial input and only ends when the service has been fully delivered to citizens or businesses ().

Three theoretical lenses are particularly relevant. First, BPM provides the conceptual framework for identifying, modeling, analyzing, executing, and continually improving processes. Second, BPR emphasizes that digitalization delivers substantial benefits only when processes are not merely reproduced electronically but fundamentally simplified and redesigned. Third, a socio-technical perspective highlights that sustainable administrative digitalization cannot be understood as an IT project alone, but rather as an interplay of organization, rules, roles, technologies, and institutional incentives (; ; ).

Responsibility Thinking vs. Process Thinking

  • Responsibility thinking asks: Who is formally in charge, which office processes the case next, and are internal rules and instructions being followed?
  • Process thinking asks: What must happen next to achieve the procedural goal, which information is needed, and where do delays, redundancies, or error sources occur?
  • Organizational implication: Responsibility orientation optimizes partial tasks within silos; process orientation optimizes the overall flow across organizational boundaries.
  • Digitalization implication: If only responsibilities are digitized, existing inefficiencies are reproduced in digital form. Only process-oriented design creates the precondition for effective digitalization (; ).

Why Digitalization Fails at This Point

Empirical evidence on administrative digitalization in Germany supports this diagnosis. The Behörden-Digimeter 2026 shows that, as of early 2026, only 823 of 7,509 relevant individual services were implemented nationwide; at the same time, no federal state had more than 291 of 577 Onlinezugangsgesetz (OZG) service bundles fully available. The study explicitly emphasizes that this implementation status does not yet reflect a deep digitalization of the underlying administrative processes ().

The Fraunhofer FOKUS study EfA im Fokus points to structural barriers that are not primarily technical either. The study shows that municipalities still face financial uncertainty, high support needs, complex procurement requirements, and heterogeneous organizational structures when reusing “Einer-für-Alle” digital services. It particularly highlights the need for stronger coordination, knowledge transfer, reliable rollout structures, and transparent process management ().

These findings make it clear: the deficit is not just a lack of online services, but poorly coordinated and institutionally weak process chains. Digitalization without prior process analysis therefore tends to reproduce existing inefficiencies in digital form instead of removing them (; ).

What an Administrative Process Actually Includes

In public administration, a process typically consists of a defined input, a sequence of rule-based and professional activities, and a clearly identifiable output. Inputs might be applications, notifications, or events such as birth, relocation, or business formation. Activities range from examination, decision-making, and documentation to clarification requests, involvement of other units, and delivery of decisions. Outputs are permits, notices, registry entries, or other administrative acts.

Crucially, all internal handovers, idle times, and feedback loops are part of the process. These invisible in-between spaces are often the true sources of delay, opacity, and friction. From a BPM perspective, the primary analytical object is therefore not the individual processing step but the complete end-to-end process (; ).

Three Dimensions of the Required Shift

From Function to Flow

Administrative modernization must model cases as coherent flows rather than as a chain of responsibilities. At the federal level, BPMN 2.0 has been established as a key modeling standard; the Federal Office of Administration emphasizes that uniform process management standards enable processes to be steered and documented consistently using BPMN 2.0 (; ).

From Exception to Rule

Process thinking looks for recurring patterns and standardizable case constellations. In public administration, a substantial share of cases can be structured by explicit decision rules, while complex exceptions are treated separately. The Federal Office of Administration describes DMN expressly as a standard for modeling business rules and decision processes; this facilitates transparent documentation of standard decisions and, where legally and organizationally feasible, their technical support (; ).

From Silos to Process Chains

The greatest sources of friction typically arise at interfaces between organizational units, federal levels, and IT service providers. The Fraunhofer FOKUS study underlines the need for stronger coordination, intermediary actors, standardized handover structures, and audience-appropriate communication in the EfA rollout. Process thinking is therefore always also interface management: it makes handovers visible, reduces unnecessary loops, and strengthens coordination across departmental and jurisdictional boundaries ().

Organizational Preconditions

A process-oriented administration requires, first, visibility through documented and modeled processes. Second, it needs accountability through process owners or similar roles holding a cross-unit mandate. Third, it requires measurability – metrics like on throughput times, idle times, clarification requests, error rates, and variant frequencies. These three preconditions are primarily organizational and governance-related, not technical (; ). It is important to note that these key figures are both purpose-driven and economically measurable.

This leads to an often underestimated insight: technology cannot compensate for a lack of process clarity. If roles, rules, handovers, and escalation mechanisms remain vague, digital technology at best accelerates existing dysfunctions. From a BPM perspective, process analysis is therefore not a downstream optimization step, but the precondition for any meaningful digitalization (; ).

Implications for Leadership and Governance

Process thinking is not neutral, because it reduces organizational opacity. Once throughput times, idle times, and handovers become visible, responsibility diffusion, duplicate work, and avoidable delays are exposed. This helps explain why process-oriented reforms regularly encounter not only professional but also political and micro-political resistance ().

For leadership, this means that process management must be understood as a governance task. It is not sufficient to provide modeling standards or online services; leadership must also ensure prioritization, mandate, standardization, and enforcement across organizational boundaries. Particularly in federal systems, coordination quality matters more for digital transformation success than the mere availability of individual technologies (; ).

Conclusion

Process thinking is not software, but an organizational lens on administrative service delivery. Approaching digitalization mainly as the deployment of digital front ends misses the core modernization challenge. Only when administrations model, standardize, measure, and steer their services as end-to-end processes do the conditions emerge for effective, scalable, and user-centered digitalization (; ).

Related Articles

References

Publications

Social Networks

Newsletter - Anmeldung