JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION - naspaa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Introduction of Government Process Modeling With Rockwell Arena Software decision could be based upon the attributes of an entity that were previously set in an Assign module. The third assignment asked students to create an Arena model, based on the hypothetical explanation of how a nonprofit organization accepts applications from prospective volunteers, and how it screens them. Stated briefly, prospective volunteers enter the system on either a constant or variable schedule, and submit their applications. A clerk reviews applications for completeness, and returns incomplete applications to be completed and resubmitted. Once complete, the application is reviewed by others for different reasons, and other conditional activities are initiated. A criminal background check may be required. Skills testing may be required. An interview is required. Ultimately, a decision is made to either accept or reject the applicant as a new volunteer. The question then becomes one of how the entire process should be designed so as to reduce average total-processing time and avoid unnecessary costs. For example, if the applicant has none of the skills needed by the organization, there is no need to invest time and money in a criminal background check. Therefore, skills-assessment should precede the background check, and the background check should be contingent upon the applicant having one or more skills needed by the organization. There is a “Separate” module in Arena, which allows some activities to be performed alongside others. In some scenarios, it would make sense to explore the implications of parallel processing for activities as an alternative to simple serial processing. Parallel processing could reduce the average service time and save the organization money. Finally, the students (working individually or in pairs) were asked to write a paper about an existing process in a government agency or nonprofit, to describe the existing process, and to model a possibly improved process by using Arena. This assignment highlighted the students’ abilities to identify a process, to describe it logically, to use Arena, and to imagine new ways to perform the process. The students had little or no difficulty with the first two lab assignments, because the instructor provided step-by-step instructions. Students completed these labs quickly, and apparently understood what they were doing. There was some confusion that the direction of a flow in an Arena model was not identified with arrows. An entity always flows through a module from left to right. This is visually obvious when a model is run as a simulation. But to inexperienced persons, it is not obvious during the construction of a static model. The third lab was somewhat difficult for the students, and caused them to ask the instructor for personal assistance. This lab required use of critical-thinking skills and resulted in some quality teaching/learning experiences. It provided the 390 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Introduction of Government Process Modeling With Rockwell Arena Software instructor an opportunity to encourage students to consider tradeoffs between service quality and costs and between simple serial processing and parallel processing. Because the scope of the assignment was well-defined, the instructor quickly became able to anticipate most of the students’ questions, and to provide guidance and answers with ease. The open-ended writing and modeling assignment was very challenging for both the students and the instructor. Students had difficulty identifying a process and scoping their work. In the real world, business processes are nested within one another, and it can be difficult to define the boundaries of a particular process. Existing processes in agencies and nonprofits often are unclear, and may not be followed in practice. This assignment resulted in students asking the instructor to help them use Arena to model things that were relatively difficult to represent. DISCUSSION In terms of evaluating the learning objectives, the first two — recognition and identification — were lower-level. They were intended to help students learn the mechanics of creating Arena models. These first two objectives were met, as demonstrated by the students and as evaluated by the instructor. The third objective required each student to think critically at a higher level by creating and assessing the value of a process model within a “business” domain. The business domain was a nonprofit organization and its need to screen prospective volunteers. This objective also was met, and provided the instructor numerous opportunities to help students with their critical-thinking skills. It also made clear to the instructor some of the students’ misunderstandings regarding business process modeling. The fourth objective (which actually could be considered as multiple objectives) was to evaluate the benefits of process automation and/or business process re-engineering for a public sector organization or governance network. Requirements for the paper included describing an existing process and modeling a possible improvement of that process. This assignment was intended to help students make the transition from classroom examples to “real-world” applications. Evaluation by the instructor determined that the students did not adequately demonstrate this objective. They did not effectively connect the process-modeling activities to real processes, or to shared services and serviceoriented architecture. Perhaps the students lacked the “scaffolding” necessary to experience the kinds of discovery that the instructor hoped they would share (Vygotsky, et al., 1978) on the potential of service-oriented architectures to facilitate networks of strategic alliances. Because evaluation is one of the highest levels of critical thinking, it is likely that more time should have been devoted to achieving this fourth objective. Journal of Public Affairs Education 391
Page 1 and 2:
Summer 2009 Volume 15, No. 3 JPAE J
Page 3 and 4:
EDITOR’S NOTE REFERENCES Henry, N
Page 5 and 6:
the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh
Page 7 and 8:
Public Values As a Core Element of
Page 9 and 10:
Public Values as a Core Element of
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
How Do We Know What They Know Evalu
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Enhancing Professional Socializatio
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Staying Connected: MPA Student Perc
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Teaching Public Administration As a
Page 79 and 80:
Teaching Public Administration As a
Page 81 and 82: Teaching Public Administration As a
Page 91 and 92: Badgers & Hoosiers: An Interstate C
Page 103 and 104: Operation PSA: The Action Learning
Page 125 and 126: Introduction of Government Process
Page 131: Introduction of Government Process
show all

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION - naspaa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?