Over the past several years U.S. EPA’s Office of Reinvention has been involved in a number of “regulatory responsiveness” initiatives. These include the Common Sense Initiative, Project XL, and Pollution Prevention in Permitting Program (P4). In working with a variety of businesses in the context of these initiatives, certain project participants noted that corporate manufacturing strategies and initiatives often produced substantial resource productivity enhancements.
At the same time, the responsiveness and continuous improvement aspects of these strategies were driving on-going modifications to operating equipment and operating parameters that could be subject to new environmental permitting and/or modifications to existing permits. This meant that desired changes could be subject to regulatory bottlenecks (in terms of time, uncertainty, and administrative costs) that could constrain responsiveness, continuous improvement, and, ultimately resource productivity gains. Click here to read more…
Case Study about Measuring the Impact of Changing Regulatory Requirements
The study explores to which extent different modifications in regulatory requirements could change the administrative workload and costs associated with the management of ERDF and CF at the level of Member States, programmes and beneficiaries. It is intended to measure the effect of key adjustments to the legislative framework. Cohesion Policy is a vast policy area, and to enable effective impact assessment, it was necessary to isolate the elements of change with the most notable potential effect on administrative costs and burden in the design of scenarios to be assessed and in the design of the methodology applied.
The development of the scenarios and the ensuing analysis were also informed by the baseline data. It was identified by SWECO (2010) that the most substantial administrative costs at national and regional level in 2007-2013 are linked to project selection and to management verifications (both repetitive tasks, carried out throughout the programming period). Therefore any modification in rules which touch upon these areas can have a substantial effect on total costs of administration. Other functions, which might be carried out once a year, or once in a programming period, are linked to lower administrative costs and thus any change in these functions is also less likely to have a substantial effect on overall costs. Keep reading…
Case Study about the Use of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in EC’s Evaluations
CEA is more frequent in prospective evaluations. This may be explained by the fact that it is easier to produce an estimate of future effects than to quantify actual effects. In the ex ante evaluation guidelines, there is also a strong request for a comparative analysis of the efficiency of alternative options. The terminology used by the Commission and its external evaluators is all but stabilised. Surprising terms have been encountered like “cost-opportunity” or “ cost-efficiency”.
The terms of reference tend to express efficiency related demands that are not fully specified and that cover only a part of the necessary items (efficiency of what? efficiency in achieving what? efficiency in comparison to what? efficiency question asked for which purpose?). The costing approach tends to focus on the budgetary allocations. Administrative costs and overheads are seldom considered. Another issue is whether EC evaluations should systematically consider EU efficiency in the case of joint financing with Member Sta tes, something which has not been encountered in the study.
In the last decade, the distribution sector has perfected the efficient movement of goods and exceeded the expectations of customers. However, to improve profitability further, distributors are now turning their attention to their back office setup to achieve further savings. This case study documents exactly how Aventi Holdings, a leading distributor of DVD film and consumer electronics, reduced administrative costs by automating, amongst other things, the creation and distribution of POP or SOP reports by using the leading Business Process Management (BPM) Suite, TaskCentre. Read more..
Challenge : As a large, successful law firm, Mallesons relies on a multitude of processes to manage its business. It is mandatory to manage these processes effectively and efficiently to service external and internal client requirements in the best possible way.
As part of a process improvement effort, the firm sought to reduce administrative costs – particularly after an internal study revealed that over 200 processes were associated with this area of its business. The firm realized that by automating administrative processes, it would be able to take better control of many business functions, focus more of its energy on clients and contain costs. Keep reading