Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to present a structure of governance for activities and processes applicable to the architecture and
engineering sector for the execution of projects and public works. It is intended that this structure will orchestrate the various necessary
actions, ranging from the identification of the complete organization’s delivery scope, through to delivery disorders, activity structure, and
the way in which these activities are to be managed. The current literature does not include a complete structure applicable to public service
that can be widely used and with short learning time, such as the presented structure. Based on a business process management (BPM)
cycle, the stages of planning, analysis, modeling, and optimization of processes were developed. In the planning phase, the typical activities
of a sector responsible for the architecture and engineering projects and works of a public institution were identified and categorized, and
possible dysfunctions were verified. Subsequently, analysis and modeling of the prioritized processes was performed, and finally, opti-
mization and validation of the modeled processes were completed. The results obtained demonstrated that the proposal can be applied to
seek improvements in public organizational environments regarding issues related to architecture and engineering projects and works
through the management of their processes. Moreover, the lessons learned have indicated some common problems of the administrative
units responsible for this type of activity that need to be addressed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001575. © 2018 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Business process management (BPM); Process management; Process modeling; Architecture and engineering; Projects
and works; Public sector.
Reference models
Guidelines and
I. Planning BPM specifications
Benchmarking
Best practices
a. Selection of critical processes
b. Prioritization of activities IT
c. Team formation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
d. BPM governance
Monitoring
Configuration,
Business III. Implementing
Strategy
environment processes Customization
and Specification
a. Developments
b. New processes implementation
c. Technology transfer
d. Monitoring and control of
Process
process instance
Process maturity
office
Additional
Risk knowledge
Domestic and management Technological
cultural area development and creation
Fig. 1. Unified BPM cycle. (Reprinted from Baldam et al. 2014, with permission.)
measurement, implementation of organizational changes, comput- resources, how to ensure synergy with other initiatives, and how
erization, training, and empowerment of stakeholders (Trkman to provide continuity, among many other issues. In short, the great
2010). challenge is to understand how to deploy BPM such that organi-
Although radical change is possible with the implementation of zational efforts actually generate value. Usually this is done in the
BPM in the public sector, the opportunity for this type of change is foreground by identifying the primary products of the organization,
relatively low because the organizational structures of institutions be it material goods, services, energy, or customers, that constitute
are often rigid, resources for projects are generally scarce, the com- the reason for the organization’s existence. By taking these primary
mitment of middle management is difficult to achieve, and proc- products as reference, it is possible to identify the existing dysfunc-
esses are predominantly intrafunctional (Stemberger and Jaklic tions preventing satisfactorily obtaining such products. From this
2007). In the public sector, Stemberger and Jaklic (2007) found that need, a basic structure of activities for delivery of these primary
changes would mean unification of processes, automation of some products, supported by a management cycle, should be built to help
activities, and elimination of unnecessary procedures. Gulledge and managers make decisions, define action plans for BPM work (or
Sommer (2002) concluded that the main benefit of implementing other management action), and enable adapting ongoing processes
BPM with a focus on the public sector is the increase in effective- in the organization and future processes in a common management
ness and efficiency achieved by restructuring the organization and context (Baldam et al. 2014).
its processes. Based on the analysis of the BPM cycles studied and syn-
Although BPM is a well-known and widely used practice, there thesized, Baldam et al. (2014) proposed the unified BPM cycle,
is an ongoing discussion about the best method to implement it. which will be a reference for this research; this cycle is illustrated
Because of its comprehensive nature, a variety of approaches have in Fig. 1.
been used, such as continuous process improvement, business
processes reengineering (BPR), workflow management, reference
modeling, and implementation of ERP systems (Rohloff 2011). Methodology
In addition, it is natural for organizations that begin to practice
process management to be in doubt about where to start, what The guiding line of this research was an exploratory case study (Yin
activities to involve, who will be responsible, how not to waste 2017). To perform the collection and analysis of data that supported
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRATEGY
WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS Current
TO DELIVER THE
PROPOSED PRODUCTS? Reality Tree
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
PROJECTS
OPERATIONS
Process
WHAT OPERATIONS,
PROJECTS AND PROCESSES
Classification
WILL BE MANAGED? Framework
(PCF)
PROCESSES
UNIFIED BPM
MANAGEMENT CYCLE
HOW TO MANAGE
ANALYSING, MODELING
PLANNING BPM PROCESSES? AND OPTIMIZING
PROCESSES
The actions developed in this study are distributed in three permanently improving its method of working, as occurs in leading
stages: (1) organizational strategy; (2) operations; and (3) BPM organizations.
unified management cycle. The research structure is summarized The results of this study are presented according to the execu-
in Fig. 3. tion sequence of the specific objectives (Fig. 2) and the performed
steps of research (Fig. 3), following the chronology of application
of chosen methods for its fulfillment and, consequently, achieve-
Results and Discussion ment of the general objective.
Preceding the presentation of the results achieved by this research,
and in addition to the discussion that these results provokes, a brief Organizational Strategy Actions
report about the actions undertaken by IFES is appropriate for con- Trkman (2010), supported by Jeston and Nelis (2006), argued that
textualization purposes in the sense of deploying process manage- BPM should transform the strategic view of an organization, and
ment in the organization. an intimate connection is required between BPM and strategy to
The first initiatives dates back to 2009, and at the time, there achieve long-term success and better performance (Guo-Shuang
were no known educational units (federal institutes or universities) and Liang 2008). Vom Brocke et al. (2014) emphasized BPM as
dedicated to this type of work in a broad and integrated manner as a management tactic aimed at change, evidencing its ability to cre-
proposed by IFES, except for isolated actions that included analy- ate transparency in the business and organizational system while
ses of specific processes. It is a fact that projects of this nature are adding value through the use of different mechanisms chosen in
not normally present in public organizations except those that need accordance with a strategic purpose (such as gains in efficiency,
to compete in the market (IFES 2015). agility, or integration).
As mentioned previously, management of processes should The next three subsections are designed to investigate the first
be a continuous act, remaining over time, working on the audit part of the scheme shown in Fig. 3, which has a predominantly
and improvement of existing processes, creating processes for diagnostic character.
new products, and modeling other processes considered critical.
According to the guidelines set by the institution itself, the What is the Business?
intent of implementing BPM is to allow IFES to know and have Every business process is associated with the production of a result,
a single view of its processes, thereby creating a culture of i.e., a product, be it something physical or a service. To better align
It is worth emphasizing that each area of Fig. 4 represents the external environment, which allowed this group’s situation to be
part of the structural connection of the business. All of these areas understood in a simple manner. Fig. 6 represents the SWOT analy-
relate to each other to form the general context, and according to sis performed, providing both points of view (both positive and
the business typology, some of them may become more relevant negative) experienced daily.
(Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010). From the 33 surveyed characteristics of the CGPE team, neg-
ative aspects obtained a slight predominance of occurrence (18),
What are the Problems with Delivering the Proposed mainly in the weaknesses area (11). However, eight mentions were
Products? recorded for the item strengths, and seven were recorded for the
The current reality tree (CRT), a systematic method proposed by opportunities item. Colored markers were used to assist in the clas-
Goldratt’s (1994) Theory of Constraints, describes the reality ex- sification of the listed characteristics.
perienced in an organization by identifying what internal aspect
need to be changed (i.e., its problems), visualizing in detail the
Identification and Categorization of Activities
existing relationships between such dysfunctions and enabling im-
provement efforts focused on the most critical points (Librelato At this time, the second phase of the reasoning outlined as a guide-
et al. 2014). The CRT built for CGPE in 2015 is presented in Fig. 5. line for this study was triggered (Fig. 7). This phase aims to list the
In a brainstorming session held with employees of the sector, 18 operations, project, and processes to be managed. In this research,
dysfunctions relevant to the performance of CGPE were listed, and to understand the location of the procedures that allow the institu-
each of them was written in isolation on adhesive Post-it Note tion operate and how they are integrated, a classification structure
paper. Next, cause-and-effect relationships were discussed, with the of activities and processes called the Process Classification
aim of organizing them vertically from the bottom to the top of the Framework (PCF), which was established in 1992 by the American
graph, linking them with arrows upward to induce the reading Productivity and Quality Center (APQC 2015), was used as
direction. reference.
According to Button (1999) and Watson et al. (2007), this sys- The creation of such a structure specific to IFES was part of a
tematic method is very efficient when used in the identification larger initiative to implement BPM in the institution (held between
of problems in unstructured businesses, and in this sense, it was 2008 and 2009), and was one of the first and most important steps
Update of
Technical support Support Provost
government
to engineering development of Construction Renovation and Individual in-
systems of
works and services urbanistic plans works expansion works Phone person
works
Construction meetings
companies Assist in General
Projects of
Assist in directors
Receive maintenance and Design of construction and Periodical
construction of
works improvement of works renovation works, Website meetings with
the master plan
infrastructure and design of works works team
Architecture and Administrative
Technical Update of directors
Engineering Service MAIN RESOURCES assistance in CHANNELS
Providers government
engineering systems of works
Human resources Vehicles, computers works and
(architects, and equipment of Technical teams
services Website Protocol
engineers, and projects and of campuses
technicians) measurement
Maintenance Government
Cooperation
(vehicles, equipment, Infrastructure Annual Parliamentary programs Public-Private
Staff agreements
software) and fuel maintenance Budget Law Amendments (federal, state Partnership
with SETEC
and municipal)
Insufficient
Lack of participation
Lack of infrastructure
of the sector in
inspection and
works
measurement
implementation
programs
to the success of the venture. The model, called global view of proc- As a result of three meetings with general directors, administra-
esses and activities, allowed understanding of IFES’s products in tive directors, and technical teams of the campuses, the following
addition to their production processes. considerations that underlie governance were reached:
The sector surveyed in this study is part of the macroprocess • The characteristics of the bidding model imposed by the federal
080 - Manage Institutional Development, and its specific activities government are unattractive.
begin in the subprocess 080.100 - Manage Works. The classifica- • A lack of standardization of procedures leads to the emergence
tion structure uses the form of listing activities without specifying of many management modes.
whether they are performed as processes or projects, covering them • Quality control of projects is typically deficient.
horizontally rather than ordered by an organization chart. Given • There are constant changes in scope during the work.
that CGPE operations contain both processes and projects, it was • Works are contracted and conducted without compliance with
decided to perform their categorization concomitantly with their minimum standards.
presentation (Table 1). • Inefficient and ineffective inspections are performed.
• There are contract doubts in works due to problems with release
of resources.
Planning of BPM Deployment In the case of CGPE, processes were prioritized based on the
After performing the diagnosis and identification/categorization employees’ perceptions of the intensity of effort and amount of
time required to manage certain activities. The processes selected
of activities of the CGPE, the BPM planning phase, i.e., the first
for modeling can be considered as the basis of the sector’s attribu-
part of the unified management cycle proposed by Baldam et al.
tions and, at the same time, are configured as true bottlenecks for
(2014), began.
the normal workflow (Table 2).
The actions implemented included maintaining the governance
of the processes. Cornforth (2004) argued that although governance
principles and practices were first developed for companies, they Analysis and Modeling of Processes
can be adopted by nonbusiness organizations because it is known In this subsection, the study focus shifts to analysis and modeling
that the benefits of aligning interests contribute to the success of of processes, i.e., the first part of the second stage of the unified
organization as a whole (IBGC 2009). BPM cycle proposed by Baldam et al. (2014).
A key governance role is to monitor management behavior In terms of methodology, it is worth mentioning that from now
(Provan and Kenis 2008). In this sense, one of the most relevant on, action research elements are used as reported in a specific sec-
aspects to be addressed is the preparation of the institutional envi- tion because to date, discussions were based on the analysis of sec-
ronment for the promotion of change. To this end, CGPE opted to ondary data, i.e., document analysis. Still regarding methodology,
conduct meetings (three in total), with different objectives and tar- it is possible to state that the modeling of processes prioritized by
get audiences, which are described and analyzed in the following CGPE used the focus group strategy in a narrower context, with the
paragraphs. participation of the employees in the sector.
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
Poorly
Possibility
conducted
of unifying
contract
information
Exchange Lack of Failures of processes
Partnerships
with other credibility by communication
with SETEC
bodies community with customers Setting of
Creation of
unfeasible
standards
deadlines
Non- IFES standards
Trainings Ongoing Unnecessary
structured are not followed
sponsored restructuring changes in
construction by contracted
by IFES of CGPE Differentiated scope of
companies companies
Contract contracts
Regime
(DCR)
project, including both governance implementation and processes cluded in the signed minutes and made available on CGPE’s
management. website. Furthermore, intense and active cooperation was offered
Next, the business model canvas (BMC), CRT, and SWOT ma- by the participants, from which a real interest in the discussed topic
trices prepared by the team were presented. Soon after, participants was inferred. Thus, processes were individually discussed, opti-
were asked to build new CRTs and SWOT matrices for CGPE to mized, and validated.
cause them to reflect on the dysfunctions and characteristics (both At the end of the workshop, it was reported that an inquiry
positive and negative) that they identified in the sector. would be made by emailing the participants to define the next proc-
To complete this round of the workshop, the Planning Director esses and/or documents to be analyzed, modeled, optimized, and
explained that the discussions to be held there would be all decided validated.
by consensus, i.e., the final definitions approved by the group Apart from the main purpose of this focus group, which aimed
should be accepted and practiced by all, regardless of agreement to discuss the procedures to be standardized in architecture and en-
or disagreement with what was decided. In addition, the provisional gineering under IFES, and considering also the specific objectives
nature of the generated documents was emphasized, considering of this action (such as understanding the governance of this type of
that revisions and new optimizations could be performed whenever activity in the institution, discussing and creating to-be models of
necessary. the procedures and approving them, and finally, generating propos-
That said, the focus group investigated drafts of each of six proc- als for resolutions for the implementation of approved procedures),
esses prioritized and modeled by CGPE, according to the following there was the premise of the legitimacy of the processes, in addition
dynamics: to its appropriation by the internal community involved in and
1. The process diagram was presented, highlighting each activity, responsible for planning, executing, and supervising the implemen-
explaining the flow, and assigning responsibilities (functional tation of these processes.
roles). The processes, whose diagrams are given subsequently, have
2. Instructions in the procedure manual of the process were read. their respective complete models presented (IFES 2015). The goal
was often possible to observe a lack of motivation among those literature on public expenditure efficiency is deficient (Hwang and
involved in the execution of daily tasks. Akdede 2011), although public-sector institutions have the difficult
task of establishing how a budget, which is always limited, will be All construction is based on project management, and every
used. Because the public sector is multidimensional and costly to project requires the execution of many process types (PMI 2017),
measure, those involved often have difficulty obtaining and process- which are thoroughly repetitive. This paper presented some proc-
ing information about their services (Figlio and Kenny 2009). esses that generate the most problems in works executed in the
IFES. These processes also usually generate problems in other
public organizations that need civil construction. However, all pro-
Final Considerations
cesses raised in this research are of general use in the civil construc-
The main contribution of this paper both from theoretical and prac- tion sector, whether public or private.
tical points of view is presenting a structure of governance of Obtaining the necessary support to accomplish this study im-
activities and processes applicable to the architecture and engineer- plied the preparation of a detailed diagnostic picture of the situation
ing sector for the execution of projects and public works that of governance of the General Coordination of Engineering Projects
orchestrates the various necessary actions. These actions range and Works. This path of recognition made it possible to (1) clearly
from the identification of complete organization’s delivery scope outline the sector’s products, (2) identify the problems that it faces
through to delivery disorders, activity structure, and the way in in delivering them, and (3) characterize the team working for the
which these activities are managed. The current literature does operation of the sector.
not include a complete structure applicable to the public sector that The typical activities of the department were identified and cat-
can be widely used with a short learning time, unlike the structure egorized using the PCF approach. The priority processes for imple-
presented herein. menting processes management were achieved through application
of the unified BPM cycle proposed by Baldam et al. (2014). Some conducted. In a critical and synergistic manner, the dynamic sub-
basic procedures identified to be adopted included (1) constant stantially improved and collectively legitimized the draft of the
attention in maintaining the governance of processes, keeping the processes previously modeled by the CGPE team. It was confirmed
focus on cognitive maps constructed as diagnostic tools (BMC, that the participation of stakeholders in the process is an aspect
CRT, and SWOT); (2) in-depth reflection on the dysfunctions that strongly contributes to the achievement of positive results in
affecting the administrative unit; (3) prioritization of the processes BPM projects. As a rule, encouraging the development of a collab-
demanding modeling, i.e., standardization; and (4) identification of orative work caused employees to reflect on the focused processes
key elements of the prioritized processes. and become responsible for them, thereby increasing their sense of
It is emphasized that planning the deployment of BPM will not ownership and desire to do increasingly better work.
always require implementation of all phases of the management The combination of different techniques and strategies proved to
cycle for all processes because each one may be at a different stage be useful and appropriate for the intended objectives. The presented
of maturity. In other words, although presented in a linked and sub- method has demonstrated that practical application of the tools used
sequent manner, the steps act as a framework to guide the opera- herein enables increased productivity and quality in the public
tion, not a rigid and pragmatic prescription. organizational context. Furthermore, the degree of generality of
The selected processes were analyzed and modeled through the the presented method enables it to be used in other administrative
use of the graphic notation of business process model and notation units of IFES or in other institutions. This means that one can stra-
(BPMN) 2.0, the focus group methodology, and a comparison tegically use a similar base as a starting point for particular con-
with other process models (best practices and benchmarking). It figurations, i.e., resort to a generic reference as a parameter to
is known that modeling is only the beginning of the work and that construct a particular model.
successful BPM implementation is what ensures the success of a Considering that the processes were modeled in a specific cul-
BPM project. tural, economic, and technological context, some adjustments in
For accomplishing the specific objective of optimizing and these processes will be needed for each organization that wishes
validating the modeled processes, a workshop was designed and to use them.
Data Availability Statement design-build pelo setor público brasileiro.” [In Portuguese.] Revista
Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios 17 (54): 828–838. http://dx.doi
All data generated or analyzed during the study are included in the .org/10.7819/rbgn.v17i54.1757.
published paper. Information about the Journal’s data-sharing pol- Andrews, R., and G. A. Boyne. 2010. “Capacity, leadership, and organi-
icy can be found here: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/(ASCE) zational performance: Testing the black box model of public manage-
CO.1943-7862.0001263. ment.” Pub. Administration Rev. 70 (3): 443–454. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02158.x.
APQC (American Productivity & Quality Center). 2015. “Process
References classification framework—Version 6.1.1.” Accessed June 8, 2015.
http://www.apqc.org.
Abraham, S. 2013. “Will business model innovation replace strategic Baldam, R. L., R. Valle, and H. Rozenfeld. 2014. Gerenciamento de
analysis?” Strategy Leadersh. 41 (2): 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1108 Processos de Negócio - BPM: uma referência para implantação
/10878571311318222. prática. [In Portuguese.] Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Elsevier.
Albuquerque, A. E. C., M. A. M. Primo, and F. A. Pereira. 2015. Barretta, A., and C. Busco. 2011. “Technologies of government in public
“Vantagens, riscos e desvantagens na adoção do método de contratação sector’s networks: In search of cooperation through management
SWOT analytical method.” Math. Comput. Modell. 43 (1/2): 158–169. guidelines to successful implementations. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2005.08.016. Kalpic, B., and P. Bernus. 2002. “Business process modelling in industry:
Choguill, C. L. 2005. “The research design matrix: A tool for development The powerful tool in enterprise management.” Comput. Ind. 47 (3):
planning research studies.” Habitat Int. 29 (4): 615–626. https://doi.org 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(01)00151-8.
/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.06.001. Kitzinger, J. 1994. “The methodology of focus groups: The importance
Cornforth, C. 2004. “The governance of cooperatives and mutual associ- of interaction between research participants.” Sociology Health Illness
ations: A paradox perspective.” Ann. Pub. Cooperative Econ. 75 (1): 16 (1): 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023.
11–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2004.00241.x. Krueger, R., and M. A. Casey. 2014. “Participants in a focus group.”
Costa, J. M. H., H. Rozenfeld, C. S. T. Amaral, R. M. Marcacinit, and S. O. In Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, edited by
Rezende. 2013. “Systematization of recurrent new product development R. Krueger and M. A. Casey, 63–83. London: SAGE.
management problems.” Eng. Manage. J. 25 (1): 19–34. https://doi.org Kum, S., and B. Sahin. 2015. “A root cause analysis for Arctic marine ac-
/10.1080/10429247.2013.11431963. cidents from 1993 to 2011.” Saf. Sci. 74 (1): 206–220. https://doi.org/10
Davenport, T. H. 1993. Process innovation: Reengineering work through .1016/j.ssci.2014.12.010.
information technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Lee, K. L., W. C. Huang, and J. Y. Teng. 2009. “Locating the competitive
Debus, M., and P. Novelli. 1986. Handbook for excellence in focus group relation of global logistics hub using quantitative SWOT analytical
research. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development. method.” Qual. Quantity 43 (1): 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1007
Fettke, P., and P. Loss. 2003. “Classification of reference models: A meth- /s11135-007-9087-1.
odology and its application.” Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manage. 1 (1): 35–53.
Librelato, T. P., D. P. Lacerda, L. H. Rodrigues, and D. R. Veit. 2014. “A
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02683509.
process improvement approach based on the value stream mapping and
Figlio, D. N., and L. W. Kenny. 2009. “Public sector performance meas- the theory of constraints thinking process.” Bus. Process Manage. J.
urement and stakeholder support.” J. Pub. Econ. 93 (9–10): 1069–1077.
20 (6): 922–949. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-07-2013-0098.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.07.003.
Maier, K., and V. Stix. 2013. “A semi-automated approach for structuring
Freitas, H., M. Oliveira, A. Z. Saccol, and J. Moscarola. 2000. “O método
multi criteria decision problems.” Eur. J. Oper. Res. 225 (3): 487–496.
de pesquisa survey [The survey research method].” [In Portuguese.]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.10.018.
Revista de Administração 35 (3): 105–112.
Matook, S., and M. Indulska. 2009. “Improving the quality of process refer-
Goldratt, E. M. 1994. It’s not luck. Great Barrington, MA: North River
ence models: A quality function deployment-based approach.” Decis.
Press.
Support Syst. 47 (1): 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.12.006.
Gowan, M., J. Seymour, S. Ibarreche, and C. Lackey. 2001. “Service qual-
Morgan, D. L. 1997. Focus group as qualitative research. London: SAGE.
ity in a public agency: Same expectations but different perceptions
by employees, managers, and customers.” J. Qual. Manage. 6 (2): Motta, C. A. P. 2005. “Qualidade das obras públicas em função da inter-
275–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1084-8568(01)00040-2. pretação eprática dos fundamentos da Lei 8.666/93 e da legislação
correlata” [Quality of public works in function of interpretation and
Guidugli Filho, R. R., and P. R. P. Andery. 2002. “Sistema de garantia
da qualidade em obras públicas habitacionais: um modelo para gestão practice of foundations of Law 8.666/93 and related legislation].
de contratos” [Quality assurance system in public housing projects: [In Portuguese.] In Proc., X Simpósio Nacional de Auditoria de Obras
A model for contract management]. [In Portuguese.] In Proc., XXII Públicas. Recife, Brazil: SINAOP.
Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção. Curitiba, Brazil: Oliveira, V. A., and S. R. L. Amorim. 2006. Diretrizes para elaboração do
ABEPRO. Plano de Qualidade do Empreendimento [Guidelines for elaboration of
Guidugli Filho, R. R., P. R. P. Andery, and A. M. Gomes. 2001. “Sistema de enterprise quality plan]. [In Portuguese.] Niterói, Brazil: Universidade
garantia da qualidade em obras públicas de edificações” [Quality assur- Federal Fluminense.
ance system for public works of buildings]. [In Portuguese.] In Proc., OMG (Object Management Group). 2013. “Business process model and
XXII Encontro Nacional da Indústria da Construção, 81–88. Fortaleza, notation (BPMN)—Version 2.0.2 (2013).” Accessed June 27, 2015.
Brazil: Instituto Superior Técnico. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2.
Gulledge, T. R., and A. R. Sommer. 2002. “Business process management: Osterwalder, A., and Y. Pigneur. 2010. Business model generation: A hand-
Public sector implications.” Bus. Process Manage. J. 8 (4): 364–376. book for visionaries, game changers and challengers. Hoboken, NJ:
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150210435017. Wiley.
Guo-Shuang, T., and Q. Liang. 2008. “An improved framework of business Perez, C. P. 2011. “Proposta e implantação de um plano de qualidade para
process management system which integrating the strategy manage- obras públicas de pequeno porte [Proposal and implementation of a
ment.” In Proc., 15th Int. Conf. on Management Science and Engineer- quality plan for small public works].” [In Portuguese.] Master’s thesis,
ing, 256–261. New York: IEEE. Engineering School, Federal Univ. of Minas Gerais.
Harrington, H. J., E. K. C. Esseling, and H. Nimwegen. 1997. Business pro- Perry, J. L., and L. R. Wise. 1990. “The motivational bases of public
cess improvement workbook: Documentation, analysis, design, and man- service.” Pub. Administration Rev. 50 (3): 367–373. https://doi.org/10
agement of business process improvement. New York: McGraw-Hill. .2307/976618.
Hood, C. 1995. “The new public management in the 1980s: Variations on a PMI (Project Management Institute). 2017. A guide to the project manage-
theme.” Accounting Organizations Soc. 20 (2–3): 93–109. https://doi ment body of knowledge: The PMBOK. 6th ed. Newtown Square, PA:
.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0001-W. PMI.
Hwang, J., and S. H. Akdede. 2011. “The influence of governance on pub- Provan, K. G., and P. Kenis. 2008. “Models of network governance: Struc-
lic sector efficiency: A cross-country analysis.” Social Sci. J. 48 (4): ture, management, and effectiveness.” J. Pub. Administration Res.
735–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2011.04.002. Theory 18 (2): 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015.
tation based on a maturity assessment and best practice exchange.” Vom Brocke, J., T. Schmiedel, J. Recker, P. Trkman, W. Mertens, and
Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manage. 9 (3): 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1007 S. Viaene. 2014. “Ten principles of good business process manage-
/s10257-010-0137-1. ment.” Bus. Process Manage. J. 20 (4): 530–548. https://doi.org/10
Santos, L. A., and S. B. Melhado. 2003. “Diretrizes para elaboração de .1108/BPMJ-06-2013-0074.
PQE” [Guidelines for preparation of PQE]. [In Portuguese.] In Proc., Watson, K. J., J. H. Blackstone, and S. C. Gardiner. 2007. “The evolution
3th Simpósio Brasileiro de Gestão e Economia da Construção. of a management philosophy: The theory of constraints.” J. Oper.
São Carlos, Brazil: ANTAC. Manage. 25 (2): 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.004.
Sharts-Hopko, N. C. 2001. “Focus group methodology: When and why?” Yin, R. 2017. Case study research and applications. London: SAGE.
J. Assoc. Nurses Aids Care 12 (4): 89–91. https://doi.org/10.1016 Zhang, H., and M. Chen. 2013. “Research on the recycling industry devel-
/S1055-3290(06)60220-3. opment model for typical exterior plastic components of end-of-life
Smart, P. A., H. Maddern, and R. S. Maull. 2009. “Understanding business passenger vehicle based on the SWOT method.” Waste Manage.
process management: Implications for theory and practice.” Br. J. 33 (11): 2341–2353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.07.004.