69 DOI: 10.17573/cepar.2021.2.04 1.01 Original scientific article Consolidating Back Office with a Shared-Services Center: A Case Study From the Housing Facilities Sector in the Republic of North Macedonia Mimoza Bogdanoska Jovanovska St. Kliment Ohridski University in Bitola, Faculty of Information and Communication Technology – Bitola, Republic of North Macedonia mimoza.jovanovska@uklo.edu.mk https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0016-1512 Natasa Blazeska-Tabakovska St. Kliment Ohridski University in Bitola, Faculty of Information and Communication Technology – Bitola, Republic of North Macedonia natasha.tabakovska@uklo.edu.mk https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6796-7190 Dragan Grueski St. Kliment Ohridski University in Bitola, Faculty of Information and Communication Technology – Bitola, Republic of North Macedonia dragan.grueski@uklo.edu.mk https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1769-944X Received: 23. 6. 2021 Revised: 28. 9. 2021 Accepted: 27. 10. 2021 Published: 29. 11. 2021 ABSTRACT Purpose: The paper points out a novel approach to e-Government back- office reengineering based on creating a Shared-Services Center at the sectorial level. Design/Methodology/Approach: To prove the Shared-Services Center as a proper solution for e-Government back-office reengineering, the au- thors used the case study of the Housing Facilities Sector in the Repub- lic of North Macedonia. The research process follows Kettingers et al.’s framework of IT-enabled change with a holistic data-driven approach. Findings: The study indicates a complex information flow between stake- holders, an abundance of the same information and data collected from local stakeholders, and enormous citizen and institutional burden. The e-Government back-office reengineering solution for the specific case study based on creating a Shared-Services Center overcomes the prob- Bogdanoska Jovanovska, M., Blazeska-Tabakovska, N., Grueski, D. (2021). Consolidating Back Office with a Shared-Services Center: A Case Study From the Housing Facilities Sector in the Republic of North Macedonia. Central European Public Administration Review, 19(2), pp. 69–90 Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/202170 Mimoza Bogdanoska Jovanovska, Natasa Blazeska-Tabakovska, Dragan Grueski lem of data redundancy, radically simplifies the information flow, and re- duces citizen burden in line with the “Once-Only” principle. Practical Implications: The paper shows that by observing the network of all relevant stakeholders at the sectorial level, based on the informa- tion flow of core data, back-office problems can be identified, whereby the Shared-Services Center proves itself as a suitable solution. It may be a prerequisite for further studies on back-office process reengineering at the sectorial level. Originality/Value: Publications concerning back-office research at the sectorial level and, as in our case, within the House Facility Sector are almost non existing in scientific literature. Considering that there is a lack of analyses based on information flow and visualization of the informa- tion-flow network at the sectorial level (before and after the reforms), this paper will add original value to scientific literature. Keywords: e-government, back office, process reengineering, housing facilities sector, shared-service center, once-only principle JEL: Z00 1 Introduction More than a quarter of a century, governments worldwide made severe at- tempts to become better governments by introducing Information and Com- munication Technologies (ICTs) in their work. ICTs have an important role - they serve as a tool for replacing the traditional with an electronic way of working. They are also a significant driving force towards providing new struc- tural and process-oriented changes in governments’ functioning, now widely known as e-Government. All complex organisations, including governments, rely on interconnected networks (Panayiotou, et al., 2007, p. 217), and that is why they need to face significant front- and back-office reforms, which include not only transferring existing paper-based processes on an electronic platform but also reengi- neering the process that drives public administration in the process of service delivery. In the course of these reforms, ICTs are seen as “the hummer that breaks down the walls between government agencies involved in service de- livery as a result of their interconnection” (Gauld, 2006, p. 37). So, the reforms should transform the traditional government and its “institution-centric” model into a “citizen-centric” model by interconnecting public institutions, which, in turn, leads to an increased level of effectiveness and efficiency of their functioning (Cshhabra and Kumar, 2009 p.1-16). Over time, it was noticed that the reforms focused on redesigning the servic- es of a single governmental institution, and the information delivery did not give the expected results and values. Thus, it became clear that reforms need to be carried out by integrating services across the different departments and governmental agencies (Pateli and Philippidou, 2011, p.128). This confirms Wimmer’s conclusion (2002, p. 149) that in the process of e-Government im- Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/2021 71 Consolidating Back Office with a Shared-Services Center: A Case Study From the Housing Facilities Sector in the Republic of North Macedonia plementation, customer-oriented services need cross-agency collaboration with information-flow network changes, interconnecting public authori- ties, and integrating functionality, data, and resources used by different au- thorities. This data-driven cooperation and integration necessitate reaching agreements between different entities: two or more local public units (Bel and Warner, 2015, p.53), or agreements between a local government institu- tion and its partnerships with federal or state governments (Silvestre et al., 2018, p.686); cooperative relationships between public sector entities includ- ing public-public partnerships among others (Agranoff, 2014, p.505; Bel et al., 2018, p.1). These findings confirm Layne and Lee’s vision (2001, p.133) that vertical and horizontal integration of the back office is an enabler of the higher level of e-Government achievement and that in conducting reforms, it is necessary to observe public administration as a whole (Vintar et al., 2004). Public administration transformation changes the provision of public services and leads to a change in the process landscape. Thus, today we are witness- ing new models of public sector functioning that employ the new information systems, based on a business model, aimed at achieving a high level of effi- ciency and effectiveness. Thus, just like “the companies use business models in their efforts to offer superior services at lower costs” (Miskon et al. 2010, p.60), governments, too, should approach and explore business models as an innovative solution to achieve better efficiency and effectiveness as well as to increase consumer satisfaction. Business models are especially suitable for e-government since they contribute to the reengineering of the back office (Janssen et al., 2008; Modrzyéski, 2020; McIvor et al., 2011); some of them point to shared services as a suitable business model at different government’ levels (Joha and Janssen, 2011; Cradle Coast Authority, 2017; Silvestre et al., 2019). A comprehensive overview of literature by Richter and Brȕhl (2016) points to different perspectives and functions of shared services, while Fielt et al. (2014) discuss the dual relevance to shared services: as a core function ame- nable to the shared services arrangement, and as a critical enabler of shared services across other functions, including data collection. Janssen (2005) ex- plores an SSC in e-government by analyzing stakeholder issues in the research applied in a case study after SSC was implemented. In conclusion, he points out that such stakeholder analysis can be conducted before implementation. However, the literature review points to a limited number of papers that ob- serve and elaborate shared services or SSCs introduced in the domain of hous- ing. Few papers focus on urban development, housing, sanitation for small local governments (Silvestre et al., 2019), property management and build- ing supervision (Becker et al., 2009). These studies focus on local government and inter-municipal cooperation for local service delivery and agreements be- tween two or more local public units or two and more public partners at dif- ferent governmental levels (Silvestre et al., 2018). This indicates that there is a severe lack of research tackling housing facilities with a sectorial approach. Additionally, what is worth mentioning is that many years after the advent of e-government, the administrative burden on citizens is still present. One- Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/202172 Mimoza Bogdanoska Jovanovska, Natasa Blazeska-Tabakovska, Dragan Grueski Stop-Shop and the principle of “one access point” proved to assist significantly in decreasing the citizens’ burden. However, as it failed to give the expected results, the service delivery process still requires the active involvement of the citizen, and it is still very time-consuming. In order to avoid this inconven- ience, the ‘Once Only’ Principle (OOP) is “high on the political agenda of many countries including the Member States of the European Union” (Wimmer et al., 2017, p.1). Hence, undoubtedly, the successful creation of e-Government solutions requires a holistic approach combined with methods for business- process analysis focused on back-office reengineering and on analysing its im- pact in terms of the “Once-Only” Principle. This paper proposes a solution for back-office consolidation that will con- tribute to the realisation of the “Once Only” Principle at the sectoral level. It is a case study of the Housing Facilities Sector (HFS). The proposal involves creating a Shared-Service Center (SSC) for not core function – database for Housing Facilities (HF) and Housing Facility Owners (HFO) for the local institu- tions that belong to the HFS in the municipality of Bitola, Republic of North Macedonia (RNM). The outcome of this study is intended to serve as a guide for future research regarding the implementation of shared services at the sectoral level in data collection function for decreasing administrative and cit- izen burden in the service delivery process. This research article is structured as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of the literature, which deals with the core terms discussed in this paper: business models and shared services as a business model, an SSC in the public sector and the “Once Only” Princi- ple. Next, the methodology applied in the research process and the results obtained are presented in Sections 3 and 4. Finally, section 5 discusses some critical insights gained from the case study analysis, focusing on the “Only Once” Principle. In contrast, Section 6 offers conclusions and some helpful remarks for future research. 2 An overview This section discusses five main terms that are central to this research: do- main of Housing Facilities Sector (HFS), business models; shared services (SS); a Shared-Services Centres (SSCs) and “Once Only” Principle (OOP). 2.1 Housing Facilities Sector In the broadest sense, the concept of “housing” means dwellings provided for people (Merriam-Webster Dictionary), whether it is a house or some other kind of accommodation. This issue is related to specific legislation within each coun- try, and each law provides an appropriate definition. As an example, the Housing Law of the Republic of Slovenia, Article 4 (Stanovanjski Zakon Republike Sloveni- je, 2003) defines housing as “a set of rooms intended for permanent residence which is a functional unit with one entrance, for housing or other purposes“. There is a pool of literature related to housing facilities: some papers pre- sent the results of research projects on housing operation and administration Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/2021 73 Consolidating Back Office with a Shared-Services Center: A Case Study From the Housing Facilities Sector in the Republic of North Macedonia (Nielsen et al., 2012), others identify aspects of facility management services (Lai, 2011); but there are also analyses of the institutional framework of the housing sector of Serbia and Montenegro (UN, 2006, Country Profiles on the Housing Sector - Serbia and Montenegro). 2.2 Business Models Business models present an interesting topic not only for practitioners but for theorists as well. As a result, there are many definitions offered and differ- ent business model taxonomies proposed (Joha and Janssen 2011, p. 27). For example, Timmers, in his book “Business models for electronic markets”, in an attempt to create a business model typology, defines business models as “an architecture of the information, product, and financial flows that includes a description of the various business actors and their roles, and description of the potential benefits for the various business actors” (Timmers, 1998, p.2). More recently, business models are defined as “a platform which connects re- sources, processes and the supply of a service” (Nielsen and Lund, 2014, p.5). Business models are used in the public sector too. Business models are ap- pealing and valuable in the public sector (Janssen et al., 2008, p.202) and contribute to the creation of public values; and “contribute to balancing be- tween improving citizen-centric service delivery and adapting and reengineer- ing organisational practices” (Keen and Qureshi, 2006 in Joha and Janssen, 2011, p.27). In the public sector context, business models are defined as “a collection of organisational roles, a system of functionalities, detailed de- scription of a mechanism, and relationships among parties” (Janssen et al., 2008, p.204-205). A business model “contains information about the strategy of the public sector organisation, the production factors, and the functions of the actors involved ... thus, the business model approach can be considered as a public management instrument that supports the systematic creation of better, superior service offerings and provides public services for society with a higher value for the public, supporting the public sector’s service remit.” (Wirtz and Daiser, 2015, p.88). 2.3 Shared Services Shared services (SS) are one aspect of business models. According to Schul- man et al. shared services present a “tactical technique” (Schulman et al., 1999, p. xv) used by large organisation in the direction of “the concentration of company resources performing like activities, typically spread across the organisation, in order to service multiple internal partners at lower cost and with higher service levels, with the common goal of delighting external cus- tomers and enhancing corporate value” (Schulman et al., 1999, p.9). Singh and Craike (2008, p.228) describe SS as “concentration and centralisation of all transaction-based services and appropriate knowledge-based functions with the intention of delivering these services in an economical and high-quality manner to both internal and external customers...” and as “models that are focused on transaction-based non-core administrative and back-room servic- Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/202174 Mimoza Bogdanoska Jovanovska, Natasa Blazeska-Tabakovska, Dragan Grueski es”. Bangemann (2005, p.13) notes that SS are considered an element of the company’s strategy that understands “organisational restructuring; a best- practice route; a process reengineering exercise; a technology optimisation project with organization and process alignment”. SS is not new in the public sector as a business model, are mostly connected with back-office functions (The Gershon Review, 2003-2004, ‘Shared Service and Management – A Guide for councils’). The main points all researchers bring forward about SS is that they contribute to increased savings as well as greater effectiveness and efficiency: “the government believes SS will save the Public Sector 20% or more of their back-office costs” (Change As- sociates, p.2). Other authors define SS as a collection of intra-organizational and inter-organisational business models (Janssen and Joha, 2006, Joha and Janssen, 2011, Fielt et al., 2014); most appropriate for supporting functions widely adopted in Human Resource Management, Finance, and Accounting; and, more recently, in the creation of the Information Systems and their op- erations, which is seen as an important enabler and driver of shared services in all functional areas (Miskon et al. 2010, p.373). In the context of the public sector and the rapid evolution of ICTs, Dawes and Pre’fontaine note that new and important opportunities have been created for governments to redesign their services through collaboration – a voluntary agreement between two or more public sector agencies for government service delivery (Dawes and Pre’fontaine, 2003, p.40). The report “The future of Shared Services in the Public Sector” (Change Associates, p.2) points to that the objective of shared service introduction is often “to drive efficiency across the organisation by reducing the downtime in departments where work is replicated, and by in- creasing efficiency by simplifying, standardising and centralising processes using a range of IT solutions” (Change Associates, p.2). 2.4 Shared-Services Center One organisational form of shared services is forming a business unit – a Shared-Services Center (SSC), which is directed at better using the internal resources by eliminating their duplication in decentralised units. Bergeron (2003, p.4) define SSCs as “a shared semi-autonomous business unit within a wide range of possible architectures in that the reporting structure necessar- ily breaks from the traditional corporate hierarchy”; Grant et al. (2007) notice that SSCs have been seen as a suitable solution for public sector’s organisa- tional performance and fast and cheap solution for e-Government implemen- tation; while according to Cradle Coast Authority of Australia (2017), SSCs often means for reshaping existing procedures related to service delivery by using ICTs (Final Report of Share Service Project, 2017). Wang and Wang (2007) analyse two aspects of SSCs: (1) the configuration of SSCs as shared service collaborative network and (2) the configuration of SSCs as a centre that represents the centralised organisational format (certain functions are concentrated into one single place and provided to several other administra- tive units). Joha and Janssen (2011, p.26), based on the analysis of many defi- nitions of SSCs in literature, claim that Shared-Service Centers (SSCs) can be Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/2021 75 Consolidating Back Office with a Shared-Services Center: A Case Study From the Housing Facilities Sector in the Republic of North Macedonia viewed as “a particular type of sourcing arrangement, where resources and services are retained in-house”. SSCs help improves productivity by affording organisations more time and workforce, but they can also catalyse overall changes in the business processes. Moving services to a central location can help remove old, outdated, bureaucratic processes and introduce the new technology into the public sector offices and, thus, avoid duplication and in- efficiency in the existing public administration procedures related to service delivery. Schulz and Brenner (2010, p.210) rightfully note that “there is no unique perception of the term SSC in literature, and in practice. Thus, for this paper, SSC stands for “a partly autonomous business unit that operates con- solidated support activities and provides services to internal clients” (Berger- on, 2003; Schulz amd Brenner, 2010); a semi-unit as intra-organizational part for local-level institutions whose function is data collection, storage, manipu- lating and sharing data with stakeholders. 2.5 The “Once Only” Principle One of the seven initiatives noted to be launched as part of EU e-Government Action Plan 2016-2020 - Accelerating the digital transformation of govern- ment (EU Commission, 2016) is the “Once Only” Principle. The “Once Only” Principle (OOP) is “closely related to interoperability, enter- prise architectures, organisational reform and privacy and data protection amongst many more” (Wimmer et al., 2017). The OOP suggests that citizens and businesses should have the right to supply information only once to a pub- lic administration. Public administration offices should be permitted to re-use this data internally, duly respecting all data protection rules. This principle im- plies that information needs to be provided to a public administration once, and public administrations have to receive and validate it (EU Commission, 2016). From the public administration’s point of view, the need for the OOP imple- mentation stems from the assumption that “collecting information is more expensive and burdensome than sharing already collected information” (Wimmer et al., 2017). However, from the citizens’ perspective, introducing this principle reduces the burden on them as far as submitting identical data in different administrative procedures is concerned. 3 Methodology The methodology used in this paper can be described as qualitative, in-depth, and explorative with descriptive nature. The undertaken research represents a case study (Yin, 2003) – a predominant method to explore and describe phenomena of SSCs (Richter and Brühl, 2016, p.7) and the most common qualitative method used in information systems (IS) (Orlikowski and Barou- di, 1991) since the object of the discipline is the study of IS in organisations given organisational issues. The qualitative approach was chosen because of the complex nature of SS arrangements in the public sector (Janssen et al., 2007, p.274). The research process is based on Kettingers et al.’s (1997) Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/202176 Mimoza Bogdanoska Jovanovska, Natasa Blazeska-Tabakovska, Dragan Grueski framework of IT-enabled change. For this research, two instruments for data collection were employed: on desk document-content analysis and interview (semi-structured and structured). The different phases of the research pro- cess lasted from 2018 to 2020. In the beginning, on-desk content analysis with a focus on documentation was carried out. The scope of this analysis encompassed the legislative (the laws and administrative procedures) related to the HFS. The next phase of the research process was ethnography. Ethnography as a method was used for collecting information related to the work of the Housing Inspector that was located as a central stakeholder in the HFS. The ethnographic statements addressed in detail the problems present in the HFS from a practical point of view. In the ninety-minute process of procuring the ethnographic statements, a semi-structured interview was used as a guideline. At the next phase of the research process, the interviews were conducted in all organisations (institu- tions in the public sector and companies in the business sector) identified as possible stakeholders in the HFS. The total number of the interviewed inform- ants was 24. However, only 20 were included in the analysis as it was realised that 4 of the interviewed organisations did not match the profile of stake- holders suitable for this study. The interviewed informants were executive officers (10) and directors (14) of the selected institutions. The thirty-minute, structured interviews incorporated questions touching on issues related to the interviewees’ perceptions of their organisation‘s performance, the types of HF-related data they process, their interaction with the other stakehold- ers and citizens, and the necessity of changes in the HFS business process by introducing ICTs. The synthesis method was employed at the end. Based on the results obtained from the interviews and the ethnographic statement and analysis of the results, a visual presentation of the information flow between the stakeholders was created. The visual presentation of the whole sector was very complex, so we needed to create a narrow version that resulted in following the few attributes. In this way, we select a group of few stake- holders that later on, based on the SSC characteristics, we used it as possible shareholders of proposed SSC in HFS. Given the existing pool of methodological approaches, technics and tools, viewed from a diverse perspective such as: – opportunities, modelling tools, system and information engineering, con- straints, and new process design, reviewed by Müler et al. (2012); – publication perspective, research perspective, conceptual perspective, analyzing units and modes of organisational change (vom Brocke et al., 2021); as well as – contextual conditions, mechanisms, and outcomes (Hanelt et al., 2021); we recognized that there is an abundance of positions and approaches to this kind of this research. We followed the established principles of Kettinger et al.’s framework to outline our research steps at fit for our approach and domain. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/2021 77 Consolidating Back Office with a Shared-Services Center: A Case Study From the Housing Facilities Sector in the Republic of North Macedonia Kettinger et al.’s framework of IT-enabled change (Kettinger et al., 1997) was the general research method employed in all research processes, but only the first four phases (Envision, Initiate, Diagnose and Redesign); there was no possibility for the realisation of the last two phases (Reconstruction and Evaluation). So, we adapted its research steps (Kettinger et al., 1997, p.59), as presented in Table 1. Table 1: Outline of Research Steps Source: The Authors (adapted according to Kettinger et al., 1997) Besides the Kettinger et al.’s framework (1997) related to IT-enabled change, following the phases in our research with the adaptation of the same steps point out the opportunity to be used in other kinds of research. 4 Research results This section discusses the research results, obtained in the different research phases, as follows: The first phase of the research was doing an on-desk content analysis of the laws and the administrative procedures related to the HFS. The outcome of this analysis was an overview of the sector: the scope, the definition of the term HF, data and information flow management. The findings from this phase were as follows: – The HFS in the RNM mainly is regulated by the Law of Housing of RNM (2009) and several rulebooks. The law regulates issues such as the diffe- Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/202178 Mimoza Bogdanoska Jovanovska, Natasa Blazeska-Tabakovska, Dragan Grueski rent types of residential buildings, the management of residential buildin- gs, the relations between the owners of separate parts and third parties, the community of owners, the records of apartments, the rental relations in housing, buildings management and maintenance; municipalities’ rights and obligations towards the state in the housing sector; inspection and ad- ministrative supervision and other issues in the housing sector. HFO has the obligations: to take care of the HF; to take care of the common parts of the building (by forming an Association of Owners or appointing a Manager from the owners), as well as to pay taxes and to pay for the services related to the HF delivered by the state institution or other companies; – The scope of the HFS is quite comprehensive and covers: public institutions at all government levels as well as companies that are directly or indirectly connect with HF (e.g. delivering services for HF or applying for information of HF); – The central level institution in the HFS is involved in creating policy or ma- king some evidence for HF, while the local level institutions in the HFS are involved primarily in delivering services for HF, law enforcement, or some kind of evidence for HF; – No document presents the organisational chart of HFS with those previou- sly mentioned institutions; – The evidence for HF, according to the same law, is entrusted to the munici- palities, i.e. the local government; – The law stipulates paperwork, without compulsory electronic interconnec- tion among the public institutions; – Back-office reengineering of the process is not present - there exists no integrated back office at sectoral level; the separate back offices at each institution work traditionally with their databases; – All public institutions have websites that are updated regularly. During the research process, due to a thorough of the documents and its deep analysis, we located a stakeholder that, given its function and informa- tion flow, can be a central person in the HFS research regarding its function and information flow – the Housing Inspector. The second phase of the research was ethnography, i.e. taking ethnology statements from the Housing Inspector as a starting point for researching the HFS and the information flow related to HF and HFO. The second phase of the research yielded the following results: – Mapping of all possible data and information related to HF that circulate in the HFS (see Table 2); – Mapping of all possible stakeholders (public, private, public-private-par- tnership) in the HFS (see Table 3); – Mapping the information and data flow from stakeholders’ perspective (see the last columns of Table 3). Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/2021 79 Consolidating Back Office with a Shared-Services Center: A Case Study From the Housing Facilities Sector in the Republic of North Macedonia Table 2. Data and Information on the HF in the HFS Source: The Authors The analysis of the collected data and information that circulate in the HFS resulted in: – Locating a total of 22 different types of data and information that stake- holders use for different purposes; – Categorisation of the 22 relevant HFS-related data in the following three main categories (presented in Table 2): within column I, there are three categories – marked as 1, 2, and 3; within Column II these three categories are named (e.g., Data on the HF itself (1)). Each category consists of two subcategories (within Column III, they are marked with numbers, and wi- thin Column IV, they are given a title): 1.1 Primary data that relate to data on the HF itself, and 1.2 Additional data as subcategories for Data on the HF itself as category 1. The full description of the data and information on HF is given in Column V of Table 1. Please note that in the research process, personal data, such as name, surname, address, and ID number related to the owner/proxy/tenant of the house facilities, were treated as a single set of data or information in order to simplify their visual representation; – Quantification of the different categories of data is marked with numbers in brackets given next to each category and subcategory (e.g. Primary data (7) + Additional data (5) = Data on the HF itself (12)). Thus, the sum of the three categories (Data on the HF itself (12) + Data on the HF owner (6) + Data on the HF management (4)) gives the total number of data and infor- mation that circulate in the entire HFS, which is 22. Table 3 depicts the results obtained from the mapping of all possible stake- holders in the HFS. This table presents two essential points. First, it gives the structure of the stakeholders involved in the HFS (Column I) according to the sector they belong to the public, public-private-partnership (PPP) business, and it also gives the hierarchy levels of these stakeholders in the public sector: central, regional or local level (Column II); and the full name of the stakehold- er (Column III). Second, it gives information about the data- and information Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/202180 Mimoza Bogdanoska Jovanovska, Natasa Blazeska-Tabakovska, Dragan Grueski flow from the stakeholders’ perspective (Column IV to IX) as presented in the legend of Table 3, according to the single subcategory of data and informa- tion in the HFS that was given in Table 2, using its numeral presentation of the subcategories (e.g., 1.1 for Primary data of the category 1 – Data on the HF itself, etc.) Table 3: Housing Facilities Sectors’ Stakeholders Legend: A – Collection and storage data and information for its service delivery; B – Dealing with demands for creating reports needed for decision/policy making or statistical analysis; C – Dealing with demands for different processes related to stakeholders’ work; and D – Supplying data and information. Source: The Authors In Table 3, by matching each stakeholder horizontally with some of the Col- umns from IV to IX, one obtains information about the status of data- and information flow from the stakeholders’ point of view: it collects and stores data and information for its service delivery (e.g., Public Institution for Water Utility collects and stores data and information about the HF owners and the HF itself in order to generate water bills); it demands data and information for creating reports needed for decision/policy making or statistical analysis (e.g., Ministry of Transport and Communication of RNM needs data and infor- mation about HFs for creating reports about the status of energy efficiency). Its purpose is to reach decisions that are then forwarded to the government, which is expected to endorse subsidies for the reconstruction costs of certain housing facilities by installing materials to increase energy efficiency - instal- lation of insulation). Another example of the usage of these reports would be the demand for data and information for different processes related to stakeholders’ work (e.g., Law offices need information about the HF for litiga- Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/2021 81 Consolidating Back Office with a Shared-Services Center: A Case Study From the Housing Facilities Sector in the Republic of North Macedonia tion); or D - Supplying data and information (e.g., The Central Register of RNM supplies information about the registration of legal entities that operate in the area of the HF management). Additionally, the analysis yielded some further findings related to the match- ing of the stakeholders with the data and information in the HFS, which are not presented in Table 3: – Local government institutions function as separate islands without mutual information flow; the HFO supplies institutions with documents for HF, the administrative procedures are lengthy, time-consuming, and sometimes endless; there still exists a traditional, institution-based manner of functio- ning without electronic integration of data and information; – Central government institutions and the business sector companies only demand information about the HF from the institutions at the local gover- nment for their purposes, sometimes, in the form of row data and infor- mation, and, at other times, in the form of reports, valid for the process of decision- or policy-making; and – HFO must supply local institutions with different kinds of data and infor- mation; – The empirical research points to the fact that 92% of the stakeholders in the HFS need the data under 1.1 and 2.1 in Table 2. This group of stakehol- ders includes the Register of Housing Facilities, Public Institution for Sewa- ge System, Public Institution for Waste Utility, Public Institution for Water Utility, Electrical power ASM of RNM (in Table 3, they are marked with ‘A’ in the column from IV to IX). 5 Discussion We support the discussion of the research findings with a visual presenta- tion given in two figures (Figure 2 – current situation – a narrow version with selected stakeholders; and Figure 3 – the proposed solution with SSC imple- mentation) related to the HFS. In analysing the research findings, we follow Field et al.’s (2014) analytical framework of exploring the concept of SS to prove that the SS and especially SSC are relevant for the consolidation of the HFS’s back office. The current situation at HFS presented in Figure 1 is the narrow version of the HFS; the whole picture of HFS was very complex. To solve the problem with visual presentation of the stakeholders and its information flow related to data and information for HF and HFO, we decided to make a selection accord- ing to few attributes based on the analysis of the information given in Table 1 and the separate interviews with each stakeholder. So, as attributes that we took as a filter for stakeholder’s selection are: (1) the stakeholder deal with collecting and storage of information and data for HF and HFO; (2) the stake- holder belongs to the sector because delivery services to the owners of HF; and (3) the institution belongs at the same governmental level. Follow those Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/202182 Mimoza Bogdanoska Jovanovska, Natasa Blazeska-Tabakovska, Dragan Grueski attributes and the analysis of Table 3 (matching the stakeholders with data and information according to the given legend - marked with ‘A’). We extract five stakeholders: four local level institutions (Public Institution for Sewage System, Public Institution for Waste Utility, Public Institution for Water Utility and Register of Housing Facilities) and one public-private-partnership institu- tion (Electrical power ASM of RNM). All those stakeholders collect, store and operate with almost the same data and information related to HF, HFO, and HF management, for service delivery and belong to the same government level – the local one. The visual presentation of those stakeholders is present in Figure 1; it depicts the present situation in the HFS at the local government level, the narrow one. Figure 1. The current situation in the HFS at the local level with some specific stakeholders Source: The authors In Figure 1, the oval form of the figure is used for the stakeholders: the dark ones represent the local public institutions, and the brighter one represents the public-private-partnership institutions. The square form is used for the categories of data and information related to the HF and the HFO and the HF management; each of those squares (inside) consists of two subcatego- ries presented previously in Table 2, marked as 1.1, 1.2, etc. The lines give information about the kind of data and information each stakeholder needs, collects, stores, and operates on. The visual presentation in Figure 1 triggered us to start with planning the pos- sible solution for the given current situation. Having in mind that all selected Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/2021 83 Consolidating Back Office with a Shared-Services Center: A Case Study From the Housing Facilities Sector in the Republic of North Macedonia stakeholders deal with the same (or almost the same) data and information for HF and HFO (duplicate); and each of them does it separately, in their data- base (costly), to charge for the service delivery (it is not the core activity of the stakeholder), we come up with the idea for creating SSC at the local level, as all of the separated stakeholders belong to the local level government. The results from the analysis of Figure 1 match with Field et al.’s (2014) ana- lytical framework and are presented in Table 4. Table 4: Results according to Field et al.’s (2014) analytical framework Source: The Authors These findings confirm our idea for back-office consolidation of the HFS by introducing shared services. Furthermore, considering that there still exists a vast citizen and administrative burden, we propose this reengineering pro- cess to connect with one access point at the front office. Hence, this insti- gated us to go deeper to find a solution and propose a Share Service Center as a semi-unit with its access point that will be a solid foundation for achieving the “Once Only” Principle. Based on these findings and conclusions, we tried to anticipate a visual presentation of our proposed solution, given in Figure 2. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/202184 Mimoza Bogdanoska Jovanovska, Natasa Blazeska-Tabakovska, Dragan Grueski Figure 2. Back-office reengineering solution for the HFS by establishing an SSC Source: The Authors Figure 2 gives the possible future outlook of the back-office consolidation at the HFS after implementing the SSC. As presented in Figure 2, the SSC pre- sents a new entity whose scope of operation is marked by dashed lines. It en- compasses the SSC’s website as front office and its shareholders: four local lev- el public institutions and one public-private-partnership institution. From the visual presentation, it is evident that the role of the SSC will be to collect data and information about HF and HFO from the owners and store them. Upon demand, the SSC will generate different kinds of reports and analyses. The in- formation flow from the SSC to the stakeholders or shareholders is presented using different lines in Figure 2 above. The thin lines present unprocessed in- formation and data about the HF that the SSC will obtain from the owners and immediately disperse them the involved stakeholders as row data; In contrast, the bold lines present the information flow that the SSC will de- liver to those stakeholders that have requested specific analyses or reports. In Figure 3, all stakeholders encompassed by the HFS are grouped according to the sector they belong to (public, private, or public-private partnership) and their level in the public sector (central, regional or local). The set of five Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/2021 85 Consolidating Back Office with a Shared-Services Center: A Case Study From the Housing Facilities Sector in the Republic of North Macedonia stakeholders (presented in Figure 2) that will be shareholders in the SSC are grouped in one square, together, on the right-hand side of the SSC, as part of the figure marked with dashed lines. The list of expectations that are very likely to be achieved by this back-office reengineering based on literature (Wang and Wang, 2007) are given in Table 5. Table 5. The achievements expected from introducing the SSC in the HFS p g Source: The Authors Kettinger et al.’s framework of IT-enabled change (1997), i.e. its research steps was the general research method employed in all research processes, but only its first four phases: (1) the Envision phase – visualisation of the SS, SSC and HFS was achieved; (2) the Initiate phase – the stakeholders and data used in the HFS were mapped; (3) the Diagnose phase - the ratio of institu- tions, the information flow, and the actual problem of duplication of data- related processes were detected; and (4) the Redesign phase – a Shared Ser- vices Center was offered as a possible solution for back-office reengineering at the local level. 6 Conclusion This paper discusses the idea of adaptation of an SSC in a specific segment of the Macedonian public administration – the HFS, to consolidate the back- office at the local level and open possibilities for achieving the “Once Only” Principle. Based on the literature review (Wang and Wang, 2007, Richtel and Brühl, 2016) and the findings regarding SSC’s characteristics given by Schulz and Brenner (2010) and Becker et al. (2009), we find out that the SSC can be one of the most appropriate solutions for consolidating back office of the HFS in Macedonia. However, the importance of this paper comes from the idea to implement many of the pointing that some authors note in their papers: our research is ex-ante (before implementation) the fact the Janssen (2005) men- Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/202186 Mimoza Bogdanoska Jovanovska, Natasa Blazeska-Tabakovska, Dragan Grueski tion as further research is related to shared services as ICT solution for data col- lection that is the function that needs to be shared (Fielt et al., 2014), it is the back-office solution at one government level but with implication at all govern- ment levels (Joha and Janssen, 2011) and it point out (without validation) that this business model application at public sector contributes for back-office reengineering (Janssen et al., 2008; Modrzyéski, 2020; McIvor et al., 2011). The study has a few limitations: it focuses on one particular sector (Housing Facilities Sector), and it focuses on the information flow of row data and in- formation related only to HF and HFO, i.e. the information flow between the stakeholders in the form of reports and analyses is not part of this research, so the generalisation of the results in our research is limited. Also, this research used only the first four (out of six phases) proposed in Kettinger et al.’s frame- work due to the lack of resources and time. Also, this research made use of Kettinger et al.’s established framework instead of some recent ones. Thus, for further research, we recommend an empirical validation of the SSC in the HFS. This paper aims to offer a proposal for a new approach that can be used in the process of structural and process-oriented change of public administration by creating ICT solutions for achieving citizen-oriented e-government in the field of the HFS, as well as it will be a step forward in promoting SS and SSC for e- government back-office development at a sectoral level in general. Also, we expect that the findings presented in this paper will instigate further debates regarding the existing law regulations in the Republic of North Macedonia and help decision-makers in the process of finding more suitable solutions for this sector. Acknowledgements: We would like to thank prof. Ljupčo Todorovski, PhD from the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, for his numerous valuable comments and suggestions that helped us prepare this research article, and asst. prof. Renata Petrevska Nechkoska, PhD from University St. Kliment Ohridski North Macedonia and PostDoc at Gent University Belgium, for suggestions at the final phase of preparation of this article. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/2021 87 Consolidating Back Office with a Shared-Services Center: A Case Study From the Housing Facilities Sector in the Republic of North Macedonia References Agranoff, R. (2014). Local Governments in Multilevel Systems: Emergent Public Administration Challenges. The American Review for Public Administration, 44(4), pp. 47S–67S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013497629 Bangemann, T.O. (2005). Shared Services in Finance and Accounting. Aldershot. England: Gower Publishing. Becker, J., Niehaves, B. and Krause, A. (2009). Shared Service Center vs. Shared Service Network: A Multiple Case Study Analysis of Factors Impacting on Shared Service Configurations. In A. Wimmer et al., eds., EGOV 2009, LNCS 5693, pp. 115–126. Bel, G., Hebdon, R. and Warner, M. (2018). Beyond privatisation and cost savings: alternatives for local government reform. Local Government Studies, pp. 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2018.1428190 Bel, G. and Warner, M. E. (2015). Inter-municipal cooperation and costs: Expectations and evidence. Public Administration, 93, pp. 52–67. https://doi. org/10.1111/padm.12104 Bergeron, B. (2003). Essentials of Shared Services. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Change Associates. The Future of Shared Services in the Public Sector. Research Report. At , accessed 13 April 2021. Chhabra, S. and Kumar, M. (2009). Integrating E-business Models for Government Solutions: Citizen-Centric Service Oriented Methodologies and Processes. New York: Hershey. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-240-4 Cradle Coast Authority. (2017). Share Service Project. Final Report. Australia. At , accessed 10 March 2021 Dawes, S. and Pre’fontaine, L. (2003). Understanding new models of collaboration for delivering government services. Communications of the ACM, 46(1), pp. 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/602421.602444 EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020. At , accessed 25 April 2020. Fielt, E. et al. (2014). Exploring shared services from an is perspective: A literature review and research agenda. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34(1), pp.1001–1040. https://doi. org/10.17705/1CAIS.03454 Gauld, R. (2006). E-government: What Is It and Will It Transform Government? Policy Quarterly, 2(2), pp. 37–43. https://doi.org/10.26686/PQ.v2i2.4193 Gershon, Sir Peter CBE. (2004). Releasing Resources to the Front Line: Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency. In House of Commons Treasury Committee, Evaluation the Efficiency Review, Thirteenth Report of Session 2008–09, July 21 2008. Grant, G. et al. (2007). Designing Governance for shared service organisations in the public service. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), pp. 522–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.09.005 Janssen, M. (2005). Managing the Development of Shared Service Centers: Stakeholder Considerations. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Electronic commerce ICEC’05, 15–17 August 2005, Xi’an, China, p. 564. https://doi.org. 10.1145/1089551.1089653 Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/202188 Mimoza Bogdanoska Jovanovska, Natasa Blazeska-Tabakovska, Dragan Grueski Janssen, M., and Joha, A. (2006). Motives for establishing shared service centres in public administrations. International Journal of Information Management, 26(2), pp. 102−115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2005.11.006 Janssen, M., Joha, A., and Weerakkody, V. (2007). Exploring relationships of shared service arrangements in local government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(3), pp. 271–284. https://doi. org/10.1108/17506160710778103 John, A. and Janssen, M. (2011). Types of shared services business models in public administration. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, DG.O 2011, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011. https://doi.org/10.1145/2037556.2037562 Janssen, M., Kuk, G. and Wagenaar, W. R. (2008). A survey of Web-based business models for e-government in the Netherlands. Government Information Quarterly, 25(2), pp. 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2007.06.005 Hanelt, A. et al. (2021). A Systematic Review of the Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications for Strategy and Organizational Change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), https://doi.org/10.1111/ joms.12639 Kettinger, W. J., Teng, J.T.C., and Guha, S. (1997). Business Process Changes: A Study of Methodologies, Technics, and Tools. MIS Quarterly, 21(1), pp. 55–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/249742 Lai, H.K.J. (2011). Comparative evaluation of facility management services for housing estates. Habitat International, 35(2), pp. 391–397.https://doi. org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.11.009 Law on Housing/Zakon za domuvanje. (2009). Official Gazette of RNM/Služben vesnik na RNM No. 99/2009; ; 57/2010; 36/2011; 54/2011; 13/2012; 55/2013; 163/2013; 42/2014; 199/2014; 146/2015; 31/2016 and 64/2018. At , accessed 5 February 2021. Layne, K.and Lee, J. (2001). Developing Fully Functional E-Government: A Four- Stage Model. Government Information Quarterly, 18, pp.122–136. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1 McIvor, R., McCracken, M. and McHugh, M. (2011). Creating outsourced shared services arrangements: Lessons from the public sector. European Management Journal, 29, pp. 448–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2011. 06.001 Merriam-Webster Dictionary. At , accessed 20 September 2021. Miskon, S. et al. (2010). Understanding Shared Services: An Exploration of the IS Literature. International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications, 2(4), pp. 60–78. https://doi.org/10.4018/jesma.2010100105 Modrzyéski, P. (2020). Development of the market of shared services in the local government sector in Poland. Local Government Shared Services Centers: Management and Organizations. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83982-258-220201003 Müller, S., Møller, E., and Nygaard, T. (2012). IT-enabled Process Innovation: A Literature Review. In AMCIS 2012 Proceedings. Paper 4. At , accessed 20 March 2021. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/2021 89 Consolidating Back Office with a Shared-Services Center: A Case Study From the Housing Facilities Sector in the Republic of North Macedonia Nielsen, S. B., Jensen, P. A., & Jensen, J. O. (2012). The strategic facilities management organisation in housing: Implications for sustainable facilities management. International Journal of Facility Management, 3(1), pp. 1–15. Nielsen, C. and Lund, M. (2014). An introduction to business models. In Nielsen, C. and Lund M., eds., The Basics of Business Models, 1(1). Copenhagen: BookBoon.com/Ventus Publishing Apps Orlikowski, W.J. and Baroudi, J.J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organisations: Research Approaches and Assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), pp. 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.1.1 Panayiotou, A.N., Ponis, T. S. and Gayialis P. S. (2007). Transforming the Government Value Chain: Emerging Business Models and Enabling Technologies. In H. Jung, B. Jeong and C. F. Frank, eds., Trends in Supply Chain Design and Management: Technologies and Methodologies. Springer: London, pp. 213-239. Pateli, A. and Philippidou, S. (2011). Applying Business Process Change (BPC) to Implement Multi-agency Collaboration: The Case of the Greek Public Administration. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 6(1), pp.127-142. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718- 18762011000100009 Richter, P. C., and Brühl, R. (2016). Shared service center research: A review of the past, present, and future. European Management Journal, pp. 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.08.004 Schulman, D. S. et al. (1999). Shared Services: Adding Value to the Business Units. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. Schulz, V. and Brenner, W. (2010). Characteristics of shared service centers Transforming Government: People. Process and Policy, 4(3), pp. 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506161011065190 Silvestre, H. C., Marques, R. C., & Gomes, R. C. (2018). Joined-up government of utilities: A meta-review on a public-public partnership and inter-municipal cooperation in the water and wastewater industries. Public Management Review, 20, pp. 607–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1363906 Silvestre, H.C. et al. (2019). Shared services in Brazilian local government: Urban development in small counties. Public Administration, 97, pp. 686–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12593 Singh, P.J. and Craike, A. (2008). Shared services: towards a more holistic conceptual definition. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 3(3), pp. 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIS.2008.017282 Stanovanjski Zakon (S2-1). Uradni List RS, št. 69/2003 z dne 16. 7. 2003. At , accessed 17 January 2021. Timmers, P. (1998). Business Models for Electronic Markets. Electronic Markets, 8(2), pp. 3–8. https://doi.org.10.1080/10196789800000016 United Nations. (2006). Country Profiles on the Housing Sector - Serbia and Montenegro. Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva. UN Publication. Printed at United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland. At , accessed 20 September 2021. Vintar, M., Kunstelj, M. and Leben, A. (2004). Benchmarking the Quality of Slovenian Life-Event Portals, In E. Loffler and M. Vintar, eds., Improving the Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2/202190 Mimoza Bogdanoska Jovanovska, Natasa Blazeska-Tabakovska, Dragan Grueski Quality of East and West European Public Services. Ashgate, Hampshire, pp. 208–221. Vom Brocke, J. et al., (2021). IT-enabled organizational transformation: a structured literature review. Business Process Management Journal, 27(1), pp. 204–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2019-0423 Wang, S. and Wang, H. (2007). Shared services beyond sourcing the back offices: Organisational design. Human Systems Management, 26, pp. 281–290. https://doi.org.10.3233/HSM-2007-26405 Wimmer, A. M. (2002). Integrated Service Modelling for Online One- stop Government. Electronic Markets,12(3), pp. 149–156. https://doi. org/10.1080/101967802320245910 Wimmer, A.M. et al. (2017). Once Only Principle: Benefits, Barriers and Next Steps. In Proceedings of dg. o ‘17, Staten Island, NY, USA, 7–9 June 2017. https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3085228.3085296 Wirtz, W. B. and Daiser, P. (2015). E-government: Strategy process instruments. Textbook for the Digital Society. 1st edition, September 2015. At , accessed 5 May 2021. Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.