Content uploaded by Mikhail Monashev
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mikhail Monashev on Sep 06, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
An Overlap of Knowledge Management and Business
Process Management: a Systematic Literature Review
Mikhail Monashev *
Department of Corporate Economy
Masaryk University
Lipová 507/41a, 602 00 Brno (Czech Republic)
Michal Krčál
Department of Corporate Economy
Masaryk University
Lipová 507/41a, 602 00 Brno (Czech Republic)
* Corresponding author
Abstract
Although many authors (e.g., Seethamraju & Marjanovic, 2009; Antonucci, 2015;
Kokkonen & Bandara, 2015; Antunes & Tate, 2019) recognize a vital role of knowledge
in BPM, only a few articles study KM and BPM together. Due to the lack of attention to
the topic in the existing literature, defining the scope of possible intersections between
BPM and KM could bring an evolution in the research in both areas. To provide detailed
grounds of the situation, we reviewed studies simultaneously focusing on KM and BPM.
We used the systematic literature review method that consisted of three subsequent
stages: literature search, analysis, and interpretation. The literature search goal was to
form a sample of articles relevant to BPM and KM overlap. Articles simultaneously
focusing on KM and BPM published in the BPM Journal and the Journal of KM were
selected based on relevance to the research problem. A content analysis of selected papers
was conducted to identify possible intersections between BPM and KM based on
suggestions for further research and research gaps identified during the analysis. We
identified themes that describe the research focusing on the overlap and connected them
with concepts of BPM and KM. The analysis led to developing the framework of BPM
and KM overlap and formulation of problems for further research. We found that the
overlap is investigated through two main perspectives: knowledge-intensive business
processes (kiBPs) and IS/ICT. The kiBPs perspective contains themes such as process-
perspective knowledge mapping, KM processes and organizational learning influencing
business process improvement, or process modeling influencing KM strategic alignment.
The IS/ICT perspective contains themes such as Process KM systems or social BPM
systems. The framework of BPM and KM overlap might be beneficial for business
professionals as a guideline for selecting best practices that, once tailored to the
organizational context, might increase BPM implementation efficiency and elevate BPM
from the “information” level to the “knowledge” level, which will lead to the overall
growth of business performance.
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
Keywords – Knowledge Management, Business Process Management, overlap, review,
knowledge-intensive business processes
Paper type – Academic Research Paper
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
1 Introduction
In the face of new challenges such as the Covid-19 pandemic and global switch to
remote working, the role of knowledge management (KM) drastically raises in ensuring
the continuation of business processes. However, KM strongly relies on collaboration,
which is restricted when employees have to work from home. In this situation, KM and
business process management (BPM) become as mutually dependent as never before.
Thus, the problem of KM and BPM overlap comes to the front line of the research in both
fields since business professionals strive to find how to leverage both disciplines’
efficiency.
Some authors (e.g., Bueren et al., 2005) consider KM to be a toolset that can only be
applied to business processes. Simultaneously, other authors (e.g., Seethamraju &
Marjanovic, 2009) recognize a vital role of knowledge in BPM. Although researchers
attempt to develop models that integrate BPM and KM concepts, as summarized by
Ranjbarfard et al. (2013), the area of research in this field remains emerging (Dalmaris et
al., 2007; Stary, 2014).
Due to the lack of attention to the topic in the existing literature, defining the scope of
possible intersections between BPM and KM could bring an evolution in the research in
both areas. The systematic literature review is seen as the most appropriate method to
answer the following research questions:
RQ1. What are the overlapping themes of BPM and KM?
RQ2. What are the relations between these themes?
To answer these research questions, we intend to achieve the following objectives:
1) Review existing research on overlaps between BPM and KM.
2) Develop a framework of BPM and KM overlap.
3) Identify potential research directions in the field of BPM and KM overlap.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a brief overview of concepts of
BPM and KM and introduces several research gaps in the field of BPM and KM overlap
found in literature reviews of both disciplines. Section 3 describes the methodology and
algorithm of the systematic literature review. Section 4 characterizes the sample of
relevant articles quantitatively and qualitatively. Moreover, it introduces the framework
of BPM and KM overlap we developed based on the content analysis of relevant papers
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
and maps directions for future BPM and KM overlap research. Section 5 concludes the
paper by introducing the impact and limitations of the research.
2 Theoretical Background
In the theoretical background, we conceptualize business process management (BPM)
and knowledge management (KM) with particular attention to their intersections and
emphasize the research gaps related to the overlap of BPM and KM specified in the recent
literature.
2.1 Business process management
BPM is an integrated management methodology that includes practices aimed at
changing business processes to improve organizational performance. The most frequent
understanding of the BPM concept in academic literature is twofold. First, BPM could be
described through a set of associated activities forming the BPM lifecycle. Several
authors (e.g., Kirchmer, 2017; Dumas et al., 2018; Weske, 2019) agree that the BPM
lifecycle includes business process discovery, analysis, and redesign (i.e., improvement).
Second, BPM could be perceived as an organizational capability (e.g., Skrinjar &
Trkman, 2013; Rosemann & vom Brocke, 2015). Rosemann & vom Brocke (2015) break
down the BPM capability into six core elements: Strategic Alignment, Governance,
Methods, Information Technology, People, and Culture.
Knowledge of process stakeholders, also referred to as “process knowledge” (e.g.,
Antunes & Tate, 2019), is considered the main component of the People element of BPM
capability (Kokkonen & Bandara, 2015). Dumas et al. (2019) claim that explicit process
knowledge resides in organizations’ process models and process descriptions –
knowledge objects that play an essential role in BPM lifecycle activities (e.g., process
discovery).
Several research gaps are identified in recent literature regarding the overlap of BPM
and KM. Badakhshan et al. (2019) suggest assessing the impact of agile BPM on
continuous utilization of skills and knowledge of people aimed at continuous value
creation. Thenakoon et al. (2018) point out several gaps in BPM training. In particular,
what BPM knowledge is required in the training content and which results will BPM
training produce. Zemguliene & Valukonis (2018) highlight the importance of future
research in integrating external and internal information flows, including knowledge of
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
stakeholders’ needs, with BPM systems to support business process improvement
initiatives. Roeser & Kern (2015) stress that the People factor of BPM maturity, which
includes knowledge as its main component, should be researched more thoroughly in the
future.
2.2 Knowledge management
Several authors (e.g., Gold et al., 2001; Chang & Chuang, 2011) perceive knowledge
management (KM) as a set of infrastructure and process capabilities that lead to
competitive advantage. Infrastructure capabilities include IT, organizational structure, and
culture, while various KM processes present process capabilities. Authors consider
knowledge acquisition (e.g., He et al., 2013), codification (e.g., Razzag et al., 2019),
sharing (e.g., Wang & Wang, 2012), application/utilization (e.g., Lin & Lee, 2005), and
protection (e.g., North & Kumta, 2018) as KM processes. Liyanage et al. (2009) unite
most KM processes in the knowledge transfer (KT) model and stress that KT allows
companies to improve business processes. However, Liyanage et al. (2009) leave the
relation between KT and process performance without any examination.
Several research gaps are identified in recent literature regarding the overlap of KM
and BPM. Pérez-Salazar et al. (2017) emphasize that the influence of some KM processes
(i.e., knowledge creation, storage, and application) on the objectives of supply chain
management (i.e., a well-known example of a business process) is under-researched.
Martelo-Landroguez & Cepeda-Carrión (2019) highlight the potential of researching the
influence of knowledge acquisition and protection on organizational value creation and
capture, which are considered the main aims of business process execution (e.g., Dumas
et al., 2019). Escrivão & da Silva (2019) suggest considering a process dimension in KM
maturity models. Ramy et al. (2015) reveal the research gap in KM application in
knowledge-intensive industries, which can also be analyzed via the BPM perspective.
Lönnqvist & Laihonen (2016) also stress the importance of further research in managing
knowledge-intensive organizations. The performance of such organizations, by definition,
is strongly influenced by KM and BPM.
To sum up, there is a high demand for future research in BPM and KM overlap
documented in literature reviews in both disciplines. Researchers agree on the need to
integrate BPM and KM maturity models’ concepts and see the potential in further
research of mutual influence of KM processes and business processes improvement.
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
Moreover, knowledge-intensive organizations are referred to as one of the most
perspective objects for research in BPM and KM overlap since both managerial
disciplines strongly influence their performance.
3 Methodology
By conducting a structured literature review (SLR), we aim to identify concepts in
which BPM overlaps with KM and relations between these concepts. This section
describes an SLR algorithm to ensure transparency regarding the decisions made during
the review process, including literature search, extracting relevant research, and content
analysis.
We decided to review scholarly articles from the Business Process Management
Journal (BPMJ; ISSN 1463-7154) and the Journal of Knowledge Management (JKM;
ISSN 1367-3270). As journals directly targeting BPM and KM communities, they ensure
the relevance of the published materials. To cover articles that focus on overlaps between
BPM and KM concepts, we have applied several search queries in Scopus and Web of
Science (WoS) databases, moving from narrow to broad search definition, as presented in
Table 1.
Table 1: Approach to the identification of potentially relevant papers
№
Query
Short
description
Database
Results
1
TS=(“business process management” OR BPM OR BPMS)
AND AK=(“knowledge” or “knowledge management” or
KM or KMS) AND SO=(business process management
journal OR journal of knowledge management)
BPM and KM
and knowledge
in BPMJ and
JKM
WoS
7
2
( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “business process
management” OR bpm OR bpms ) AND TITLE-ABS-
KEY ( “knowledge
management” OR kim OR kms ) AND ISSN ( 1463-
7154 ) OR ISSN ( 1367-3270 ) )
BPM and KM
in BPMJ and
JKM
Scopus
12
3
TOPIC: (“knowledge management” or KM or KMS) AND
TOPIC: (“business process management” or BPM or BPMS)
AND PUBLICATION NAME: (“business process
management journal” OR “journal of knowledge
management”)
WoS
13
4
( TITLE-ABS-KEY (“knowledge management” OR km
OR kms ) AND ISSN ( 1463-7154 ) )
KM in BPMJ
Scopus
67
5
( TITLE-ABS-KEY (“business process management” OR
bpm OR bpms ) AND ISSN ( 1367-3270 ) )
WoS
34
6
TOPIC: (“knowledge management” or KM or KMS) AND
PUBLICATION NAME: (“business process management
journal”)
BPM in KMJ
Scopus
6
7
TOPIC: (“business process management” or BPM or BPMS)
AND PUBLICATION NAME: (journal of knowledge
management)
WoS
2
Figure 1 presents the SLR protocol we used in our research.
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
Figure 1: Systematic literature review protocol
Source: Elaborated by the authors based on Page et al. (2021)
At first, we identified 141 records from Scopus and WoS by applying queries
presented in Table 1. After duplicates and editorials were removed, there were 88 papers
left to construct an initial sample. Each of these papers was scanned for keywords related
to KM (i.e., “knowledge management”) and BPM (i.e., “business process” and “process
management”). 36 papers were excluded from the sample because they do not contain
these keywords in the main text. 52 papers left after scanning were read more carefully,
and 21 were classified as irrelevant to the topic after reading. Thus, we concluded the
literature search by including in the final sample 31 papers that we considered relevant.
4 Findings
This section characterizes the sample of relevant papers quantitatively by source, year,
and method (see sub-section 4.1) and qualitatively by introducing and describing the most
common themes referred to in relevant papers (see sub-section 4.2). Then, the framework
of BPM and KM overlap is presented in sub-section 4.3, leading to the identification of
directions for further research presented in sub-section 4.4.
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
4.1 Quantitative results of research
The final sample of 31 relevant papers includes 25 papers from the Business Process
Management Journal (BPMJ) and 6 papers from the Journal of Knowledge Management
(JKM). As shown in Figure 2, the interest in BPM and KM overlap first appeared in 2003.
Around 2 papers per year were dedicated to the topic from 2003 to 2009. After a decrease
in the interest to the topic from 2010 to 2014, the recent research stage in BPM and KM
overlap started in 2015. The maximum interest in the topic was registered in 2019 when 5
relevant papers on the topic were published.
Figure 2: Relevant papers by year
Figure 3 shows the distribution of relevant papers by a method. Theoretical papers
(i.e., Marjanovic, 2005; Szelagowski & Berniak-Wozny, 2019) critically analyze existing
concepts, while conceptual papers (e.g., Capuano et al., 2008; Sarnikar & Deokar, 2017)
introduce new ones (without validating them). Case studies (e.g., Stary, 2014; Rengiha et
al., 2016) test introduced concepts qualitatively, while surveys (e.g., Aureli et al., 2019;
Nguyen & Harrison, 2019) utilize quantitative analysis of data collected via
questionnaires.
Figure 3: Relevant papers by a method
3
23
2
2
2
1
1
13
12
25
1
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
24
11 8
42
Theoretical Conceptual Case study Survey
BPMJ JKM
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
As seen from Figure 3, papers from the JKM primarily focus on developing new
concepts and sometimes include qualitative validation (i.e., Papavassiliou & Mentzas,
2003; Stary, 2014). Simultaneously, papers from the BPMJ mainly focus on qualitative
and quantitative validation of developed concepts.
4.2 Qualitative results of research analysis
The content analysis allowed us to reveal 9 main themes in the relevant papers:
learning, natural integration, business process improvement (BPI), KM processes, KM
strategic alignment, process modeling, process-perspective knowledge mapping, IS/ICT,
and knowledge-intensive business processes (kiBPs). As seen in Table 2, these themes
were appearing in relevant papers with different densities.
Table 2: Themes in sample
Rank
Source
(N = 31)
Number of
themes
(Total = 9)
kiBPs
(+/-)
IS/ICT
(+/-)
1
Sarnikar & Deokar, 2017
6
+
+
2
Bueren et al., 2005
3
+
-
3
Chión et al., 2019
3
+
-
4
Kalpič & Bernus, 2006
3
+
-
5
Ranjbarfard et al., 2013
3
+
-
6
Seethamraju & Marjanovic, 2009
3
+
-
7
Silva & Rosemann, 2012
3
-
+
8
Al-Sa’di et al., 2017
2
+
-
9
Apostolou & Menstaz, 2003
2
+
-
10
Aureli et al., 2019
2
+
-
11
Chatzoudes et al., 2015
2
+
-
12
Dalmaris et al., 2007
2
+
-
13
Liao & Bernes, 2015
2
+
-
14
Mahoomadzadeh et al., 2019
2
+
-
15
Marjanovic, 2005
2
+
-
16
Papavassilou & Mentzas, 2003
2
+
-
17
Rehman & Iqbal, 2020
2
+
-
18
Szelagowski & Berniak-Wozny, 2019
l2
+
-
19
Zhang, 2018
2
+
-
20
Kang et al., 2003
2
+
-
21
Stary, 2014
2
-
+
22
Adamides & Karacapilidis, 2006
2
-
+
23
Lavikka et al., 2015
2
-
-
24
Nguyen & Harrison, 2019
2
-
-
25
Rangiha et al., 2016
1
-
+
26
Andriani et al., 2019
1
-
-
27
Capuano et al., 2008
1
-
-
28
Dezi et al., 2018
1
-
-
29
Lee et al., 2007
1
-
-
30
Macris et al., 2008
1
-
-
31
Ungan, 2006
1
-
-
Source: Elaborated by the authors
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
In Table 2, the kiBPs theme is distinguished to the separate column since it can be
perceived as a perspective through which most of the other themes can be examined. The
IS/ICT theme cannot be perceived through the kiBPs perspective and thus distinguished
in a separate column.
The term kiBPs is also referred to as dynamic (Szelagowski & Berniak-Wozny,
2019), emergent (e.g., Marjanovic, 2005), semi-structured, ill-structured, and unstructured
(e.g., Kalpič & Bernus, 2006) processes. These processes are characterized by high
complexity and knowledge intensity (e.g., Aureli et al., 2019). The examples of kiBPs are
innovation process (e.g., Al-Sa’di et al., 2017), coordination process (e.g., Marjanovic,
2005), creative problem-solving process (e.g., Aureli et al., 2019), customer relationship
management (CRM) process (e.g., Bueren et al., 2005), and knowledge management
(e.g., Apostolou & Mentzas, 2003; Rehman & Iqbal, 2020).
Relevant papers that include the IS/ICT theme refer to Process-oriented KM systems
(PKMS) and social BPMS (sBPMS). In recent years, several studies (e.g., Kang et al.,
2003; Marjanovic, 2005; Mahmoodzadezh et al., 2009; Stary, 2014) focused on the
integration of KM systems (KMS) and BPM systems (BPMS). Sarnikar & Deokar (2017)
summarized previous findings regarding the integration of BPMS and KMS under the
concept of PKMS. Rangiha et al. (2016) define social BPM as “the engagement of
relevant stakeholders throughout the BPM lifecycle by utilizing social software features.”
Once involved in BPM, process stakeholders share process knowledge and collaborate on
different BPM lifecycle stages such as process improvement and execution (e.g., Rangiha
et al., 2016) and business process modeling (e.g., Adamindes & Karacapidilis, 2006;
Silva & Rosemann, 2012). Such involvement is typically conducted via specially set
BPMS, which we call social BPMS (sBPMS).
4.3 Framework of BPM and KM overlap
Based on the content analysis of the relevant papers, we suggest a framework that can
be used to structure current and future research in overlapping themes of BPM and KM.
As presented in Figure 4, the framework is constructed using themes revealed during the
content analysis. The framework includes two perspectives (i.e., kiBPs, and IS/ICT) and
encounters three types of relationships between BPM and KM: BPM influences KM,
BPM is influenced by KM, and BPM and KM mutually influence each other.
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
Figure 4: Framework of BPM and KM overlap
Source: Elaborated by the authors
From the perspective of kiBPs, there are three types of relationships between BPM
and KM: BPM influences KM, BPM is influenced by KM, and BPM and KM mutually
influence each other.
Lavikka et al. (2015) and Zhang (2018) highlight the positive impact of process
modeling on knowledge sharing (i.e., KM process) and thus allow us to conclude that
BPM positively influences KM processes. This statement is proved by Dezi et al. (2018)
and Lavikka et al. (2015), who discovered an increasing interest in the link between BPM
and ambidextrous KM processes, which include exploitation of existing internal
knowledge (Lavikka et al., 2015) and exploration of new external knowledge (e.g., Liao
& Bernes, 2015; Nguyen & Harrison, 2019). Moreover, some authors (e.g., Kalpič &
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
Bernus, 2006) highlight the facilitating role of BPM concerning externalization and
internalization of knowledge – components of the SECI model developed by Nonaka &
Takeuchi (1995). BPM also positively influences KM strategic alignment. Andriani et al.
(2019) claim that business processes align KM strategy with the enterprise’s business
strategy.
Chión et al. (2019) stress that KM processes (i.e., knowledge acquisition, knowledge
creation, knowledge sharing, and knowledge application) have a positive influence on the
effectiveness of the business process improvement (BPI) activities. Several authors (e.g.,
Dalmaris, 2007; Seethmaraju & Marjanovic, 2009; Ranjbarfard, 2013; Nguyen &
Harrison, 2019) provide evidence for the reliability of this relationship. However, the
prevailing research trend in this field is to focus explicitly on knowledge sharing, ignoring
other KM processes. For instance, the findings of Chión et al. (2019) and Aureli et al.
(2019) confirm the significant effect of knowledge sharing on process improvement.
Moreover, Mahmoodzadezh et al. (2009) claim that KM is a significant critical success
factor for business process outsourcing. In other words, KM processes positively
influence process execution.
In recent research, special attention is given to KM support of knowledge-intensive
business processes (kiBPs) provided via KM processes such as knowledge sharing,
knowledge collection, and knowledge reuse (Marjanovic, 2005; Sarnikar & Deokar,
2017). Another direction of KM support is learning (e.g., Sarninkar & Deokar, 2017;
Lavikka et al., 2015), and several models were developed in this regard (e.g., Stary, 2014;
Capuano et al., 2008). Several authors (e.g., Sarnikar & Deokar, 2017; Aureli et al., 2019)
agree that the amount of KM support should grow with the growth of knowledge-
intensiveness of the business processes. In other words, the strength of KM processes on
process improvement and execution rises along with the knowledge intensity of the
business processes. This statement is confirmed by Seethmaraju & Marjanovic (2009) and
Chión et al. (2019), who define business process improvement as a kiBP.
Process-perspective knowledge maps (Kang et al., 2003) integrate knowledge
mapping and process modeling. Reflecting on the fact that knowledge is deeply
embedded in business processes (e.g., Macris et al., 2008; Ranjbarfad et al., 2013;
Szelagowski & Berniak-Wozny, 2019), produced and consumed during the business
process execution (Sarnikar & Deokar, 2017), process-perspective knowledge maps deal
with with the knowledge specific to the particular task of the business process.
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
Process-perspective knowledge maps raise awareness of KM resources within
knowledge workers who execute these processes, which is an essential factor in better
utilization of KM resources (Sarnikar & Deokar, 2017). On the one hand, this fact can be
interpreted because process-perspective knowledge maps support knowledge
application/utilization (i.e., KM process). On the other hand, they increase the efficiency
of process execution.
From the IS/ICT perspective, we identified two types of relationships between BPM
and KM: BPM influences KM, and BPM and KM mutually influence each other.
Chatzoudes et al. (2015) claim that collaboration enabled by sBPMS positively
influences KM. Silva & Rosemann (2012) and Rangiha et al. (2016) especially highlight
the role of sBPMS in leveraging knowledge sharing (i.e., KM process).
PKMS simultaneously affect KM and BPM. According to a summary by Sarnikar &
Deokar (2017), PKMS support KM processes, including knowledge acquisition,
creation/codification, sharing, application/utilization. Moreover, Stary (2014) highlights
the role of knowledge repositories, which “allow reconfiguring previously produced
[knowledge] and tie [it] to running codification schemes and business processes” and thus
stresses the fact that PKMS support another KM process – knowledge protection.
Moreover, Sarnikar & Deokar (2017) stress that PKMS allows for incorporating KM
processes’ performance measures, ensuring their alignment with objectives of business
processes. In other words, PKMS support KM strategic alignment.
As for the influence of PKMS on BPM, Sarnikar & Deokar (2017) claim that PKMS
personalize the delivery of knowledge to process and ensure accessibility of knowledge
sources, which positively influences process execution.
4.4 Analysis of research gaps
We clustered suggestions found in the sample to identify existing research gaps and
critically evaluated the framework of BPM and KM overlap described in the previous
section. Since research on BPM and KM overlaps is fragmented, many authors highlight
the need to prove existing overlaps in various settings: (a) for different industries (Al-
Sa’di et al., 2017; Dezi et al., 2018; Chión et al., 2019; Nguyen & Harrison, 2019; Aureli
et al., 2019; Andriani et al., 2019), (b) for different organizational settings (Zhang, 2018),
(c) for different processes (Capuano et al., 2008; Ranjbarfard et al., 2013), and (d) for
different control variables (Al-Sa’di et al., 2017; Chión et al., 2019).
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
Moreover, we identified several directions for future research that we consider the
most perspective in their ability to accelerate the research of BPM and KM overlap in
topics such as kiBPs, KM processes, and formalization of KM and BPM overlap.
Talking about future directions in kiBPs, Ranjbarfard et al. (2013) see the need to
classify kiBPs. Moreover, Bueren et al. (2005) and Dalmaris et al. (2007) draw attention
to the development of kiBPs performance measures. At last, Marjanovic (2005) suggests
further investigate different aspects of KM support of kiBPs.
As for KM processes, Seethmaraju & Marjanovic (2009) stress the importance of
researching transferring KM processes from one BPI project to another. Lavikka et al.
(2015) suggest identifying barriers for exploitative and explorative KM processes and
continuing researchings KM processes from the organizational ambidexterity perspective.
At last, Szelagowski & Berniak-Wozny (2019) stress that current BPM maturity
models should be adopted to capture aspects of kiBPs management. In other words, the
authors suggest formalizing the overlap of BPM and KM in the form of maturity models
and encountering structured and knowledge-intensive business processes when estimating
organizational maturity in BPM.
Two additional directions for further research were also identified after critical
examination of the framework of BPM and KM overlap. First, most of the relevant
sources from the researched sample focus on knowledge sharing omitting other KM
processes. This fact is also noticed by Lee et al. (2007), Liao & Barnes (2015), and Al-
Sa’di et al. (2017). Therefore, studying the influence of knowledge acquisition,
knowledge creation, knowledge application, and knowledge protection on the process
improvement and linking KM processes with stages of BPM lifecycle (i.e., process
discovery, process analysis, and process enactment) are seen as perspective directions for
further research. This research direction is also suggested.
Second, most analyzed sources (e.g., Lavikka et al., 2015; Zhang, 2018) primarily
focus on factors that influence knowledge sharing and do not pay any attention to critical
success factors of other KM processes. Therefore, studying the influence of various
critical success factors, including BPM activities (e.g., process discovery, process
modelling) and social BPMS on knowledge acquisition, knowledge creation, knowledge
application, and knowledge protection, is considered a direction for further research.
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
5 Conclusion
By conducting a systematic literature review on the overlap of BPM and KM, we
developed the framework for BPM and KM overlap and mapped directions for future
research. Although the framework is grounded in theory, we consider explicit focus on
scholarly articles from the Business Process Management Journal and the Journal of
Knowledge Management the main limitation of our systematic literature review.
Although this allowed us to ensure targeted identification of relevant papers, the explicit
focus on two journals led to a narrow sample of 31 papers. This data insufficiency led to
the high level of abstraction in the framework of BPM and KM overlap. To overcome the
limitations mentioned above, in future research, we plan to expand the sample by
including other scientific journals, using backward and forward searches, and updating
our search queries with keywords revealed in this systematic literature review. This will
allow us to extend the framework of BPM and KM overlap and investigate overlapping
themes for both disciplines on lower levels of abstraction.
Nevertheless, our paper contributes to BPM and KM fields in two ways. First, the
framework might serve as a starting point for researchers interested in investigating the
relationship and overlaps of BPM and KM. Second, we identified problems for future
research in BPM and KM that could be followed to extend the current body of knowledge
in the field. The framework of BPM and KM overlap might also be beneficial for
business professionals as a guideline for selecting best practices that, once tailored to the
organizational context, might increase BPM implementation efficiency and elevate BPM
from the “information” level to the “knowledge” level, which will lead to the overall
growth of business performance.
References
Adamides, E. D., and Karacapilidis, N., (2006) “A knowledge centred framework for collaborative
business process modelling”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 557–
575. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150610690993
Al-Sa’di, A. F., Abdallah, A. B., and Dahiyat, S. E., (2017) “The mediating role of product and
process innovations on the relationship between knowledge management and operational
performance in manufacturing companies in Jordan”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 349–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-03-2016-0047
Andriani, M., Samadhi, T. M. A. A., Siswanto, J., and Suryadi, K., (2019) “Knowledge
management strategy: An organisational development approach”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 25, No. 7, pp. 1474–1490. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-07-2018-
0191
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
Antonucci, Y., (2015). Business Process Management Curriculum, in Handbook on Business
Process Management, ed. J. vom Brocke & M. Rosemann, Springer, Berlin.
Antunes, P., Tate, M., (2019). Eliciting Process Knowledge Through Process Stories, Information
System Frontiers, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 2-40.
Apostolou, D., and Mentzas, G., (2003) “Experiences from knowledge management
implementations in companies of the software sector”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 354–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150310477939
Aureli, S., Giampaoli, D., Ciambotti, M., and Bontis, N., (2019) “Key factors that improve
knowledge-intensive business processes which lead to competitive advantage”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-
2017-0168
Badakhshan, P., Conboy, K., Grisold, T., and vom Brocke, J., (2019) “Agile business process
management: A systematic literature review and an integrated framework”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 1505–1523. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-12-2018-
0347
Bueren, A., Schierholz, R., Kolbe, L. M., and Brenner, W., (2005) “Improving performance of
customer‐processes with knowledge management”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 573–588. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150510619894
Capuano, N., Gaeta, M., Ritrovato, P., and Salerno, S., (2008) “How to integrate
technology‐enhanced learning with business process management”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270810913621
Chang, T.-C., and Chuang, S.-H., (2011) “Performance implications of knowledge management
processes: Examining the roles of infrastructure capability and business strategy”, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 6170–6178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.053
Chatzoudes, D., Chatzoglou, P., and Vraimaki, E., (2015) “The central role of knowledge
management in business operations: Developing a new conceptual framework”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 1117–1139. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-
10-2014-0099
Chión, S. J., Charles, V., and Morales, J., (2019) “The impact of organisational culture,
organisational structure and technological infrastructure on process improvement through
knowledge sharing”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 1443–1472.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2018-0279
Dalmaris, P., Tsui, E., Hall, B., and Smith, B., (2007) “A framework for the improvement of
knowledge‐intensive business processes”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13, No.
2, pp. 279–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150710740509
Dezi, L., Santoro, G., Gabteni, H., and Pellicelli, A. C., (2018) “The role of big data in shaping
ambidextrous business process management: Case studies from the service industry”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 1163–1175. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-
07-2017-0215
Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., and Reijers, H. A., (2018) Fundamentals of Business
Process Management (2nd ed.). Springer, Berlin.
Escrivão, G., and da Silva, S. L., (2019) “Knowledge management maturity models: Identification
of gaps and improvement proposal”, Gestão and Produção, Vol. 26., No. 1, pp. 1 – 16.
https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X3890-19
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., and Segars, A. H., (2001) “Knowledge Management: An Organizational
Capabilities Perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.
185–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
He, Q., Ghobadian, A., and Gallear, D., (2013) “Knowledge acquisition in supply chain
partnerships: The role of power”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 141,
No. 2, pp. 605–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.09.019
Kalpič, B., and Bernus, P., (2006) “Business process modeling through the knowledge management
perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 40–56.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270610670849
Kang, I., Park, Y., and Kim, Y., (2003) “A framework for designing a workflow‐based knowledge
map”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 281–294.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150310477894
Kirchmer, M., (2017) High Performance Through Business Process Management: Strategy
Execution in a Digital World (3rd ed.). Springer, Berlin.
Kokkonen, A., Bandara, W., (2015). Expertise in Business Process Management, in Handbook on
Business Process Management, ed. J. vom Brocke & M. Rosemann, Springer, Berlin.
Kokkonen, A., Bandara, W., (2015). Expertise in Business Process Management, in Handbook on
Business Process Management, ed. J. vom Brocke & M. Rosemann, Springer, Berlin.
Lavikka, R., Smeds, R., and Jaatinen, M., (2015) “A process for building inter-organizational
contextual ambidexterity”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 1140–
1161. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-12-2013-0153
Lee, C., Lee, G., and Lin, H., (2007) “The role of organizational capabilities in successful
e‐business implementation”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 677–
693. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150710823156
Liao, Y., and Barnes, J., (2015) “Knowledge acquisition and product innovation flexibility in
SMEs”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 1257–1278.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2014-0039
Lin, H., and Lee, G., (2005) “Impact of organizational learning and knowledge management factors
on e‐business adoption”, Management Decision, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 171–188.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740510581902
Liyanage, C., Elhag, T., Ballal, T., and Li, Q., (2009) “Knowledge communication and translation –
a knowledge transfer model”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 118–
131. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910962914
Liyanage, C., Elhag, T., Ballal, T., and Li, Q., (2009) “Knowledge communication and translation –
a knowledge transfer model”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 118 –
131. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910962914
Lönnqvist, A., and Laihonen, H., (2017) “Management of knowledge-intensive organisations: What
do we know after 20 years of research?”, International Journal of Knowledge-Based
Development, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 154 – 167. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2017.085149
Macris, A., Papadimitriou, E., and Vassilacopoulos, G., (2008) “An ontology‐based competency
model for workflow activity assignment policies”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.
12, No. 6, pp. 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270810913630
Mahmoodzadeh, E., Jalalinia, Sh., and Nekui Yazdi, F., (2009) “A business process outsourcing
framework based on business process management and knowledge management”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 845–864.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150911003748
Marjanovic, O., (2005) “Towards IS supported coordination in emergent business processes”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 476–487.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150510619830
Martelo-Landroguez, S., and Cepeda-Carrión, G., (2016) “How knowledge management processes
can create and capture value for firms?”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol.
14, No. 4, pp. 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2015.26
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
Nguyen, H., and Harrison, N., (2019) “Leveraging customer knowledge to enhance process
innovation: Moderating effects from market dynamics”, Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-03-2017-0076
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford University Press, New York
North, K., and Kumta, G., (2018) Knowledge Management: Value Creation Through
Organizational Learning. Springer International Publishing, Cham.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al.,
(2021) “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews”,
BMJ, vol. 372, No. 71, pp. 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Papavassiliou, G., and Mentzas, G., (2003) “Knowledge modelling in weakly‐structured business
processes”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 18–33.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270310477261
Pérez-Salazar, M. del R., Lasserre, A. A. A., Cedillo-Campos, M. G., and González, J. C. H.,
(2017) “The role of knowledge management in supply chain management: A literature
review”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 711–788.
https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2144
Ramy, A., Floody, J., Ragab, M. A. F., and Arisha, A., (2018) “A scientometric analysis of
Knowledge Management Research and Practice literature: 2003–2015”, Knowledge
Management Research and Practice, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 66–77.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2017.1405776
Rangiha, M. E., Comuzzi, M., and Karakostas, B., (2016) “A framework to capture and reuse
process knowledge in business process design and execution using social tagging”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 835–859. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-
2015-0080
Ranjbarfard, M., Aghdasi, M., Albadvi, A., and Hassanzadeh, M., (2013) “Identifying knowledge
management problems using a process‐based method (a case study of process 137)”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 263–291.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151311308312
Razzaq, S., Shujahat, M., Hussain, S., Nawaz, F., Wang, M., Ali, M., and Tehseen, S., (2018)
“Knowledge management, organizational commitment and knowledge-worker performance:
The neglected role of knowledge management in the public sector”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 923–947. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-03-2018-
0079
Rehman, U. U., and Iqbal, A., (2020) “Nexus of knowledge-oriented leadership, knowledge
management, innovation and organizational performance in higher education”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 1731–1758. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-
07-2019-0274
Roeser, T., and Kern, E.-M., (2015) “Surveys in business process management – a literature
review”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 692–718.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-07-2014-0065
Rosemann, M., vom Brocke, J., (2015) The Six Core Elements of Business Process Management, in
Handbook on Business Process Management, ed. J. vom Brocke & M. Rosemann, Springer,
Berlin.
Sarnikar, S., and Deokar, A. V., (2017) “A design approach for process-based knowledge
management systems”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 693–717.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-09-2016-0376
Seethamraju, R., and Marjanovic, O., (2009) “Role of process knowledge in business process
improvement methodology: A case study”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15,
No. 6, pp. 920–936. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150911003784
IFKAD 2021: Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times
Rome, Italy 1-3 September 2021
ISBN 978-88-96687-14-7 || ISSN 2280-787X
Shahzad, K., Bajwa, S. U., Siddiqi, A. F. I., Ahmid, F., and Raza Sultani, A., (2016) “Integrating
knowledge management (KM) strategies and processes to enhance organizational creativity
and performance: An empirical investigation”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 11,
No. 1, pp. 154–179. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-07-2014-0061
Silva, A., and Rosemann, M., (2012) “Processpedia: An ecological environment for BPM
stakeholders’ collaboration”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 20–
42. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151211214993
Skrinjar, R., Trkman, P., (2013) “Increasing process orientation with business process management:
Critical practices”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 48 -
60.
Stary, C., (2014) “Non-disruptive knowledge and business processing in knowledge life cycles—
Aligning value network analysis to process management”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 651–686. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2013-0377
Szelagowski, M., and Berniak-Wozny, J., (2019) “The adaptation of business process management
maturity models to the context of the knowledge economy”, Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 26., No. 1, pp. 212–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-11-2018-0328
Thennakoon, D., Bandara, W., French, E., and Mathiesen, P., (2018) “What do we know about
business process management training? Current status of related research and a way forward”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 478–500.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-09-2016-0180
Ungan, M. C., (2006) “Standardization through process documentation”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 135–148.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150610657495
Wang, Z., and Wang, N., (2012) “Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance”, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 39, No. 10, pp. 8899–8908.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.017
Weske, M., (2019) Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures (3rd ed.).
Springer, Berlin.
Zemguliene, J., and Valukonis, M., (2018) “Structured literature review on business process
performance analysis and evaluation”, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, Vol. 6, No.
1, pp. 226–252. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.6.1(15)
Zhang, Z., (2018) “Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: Design of incentives and
business processes”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 384–399.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-08-2015-0119
