See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320173842

Exploring the relationship between business process improvement and

employees’ behavior

Article  in  Journal of Organizational Change Management · October 2017

DOI: 10.1108/JOCM-06-2016-0116

CITATIONS READS

6 573

2 authors:

Danica Bakotić Ante Krnić

University of Split 1 PUBLICATION   6 CITATIONS   
8 PUBLICATIONS   233 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

InCounselling 50+ View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Danica Bakotić on 14 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Organizational Change Management
Exploring the relationship between business process improvement and employees’
behavior
Danica Bakotic, Ante Krnic,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Danica Bakotic, Ante Krnic, (2017) "Exploring the relationship between business process
improvement and employees’ behavior", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 30
Issue: 7, pp.1044-1062, https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-06-2016-0116
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-06-2016-0116
Downloaded on: 14 May 2019, At: 06:14 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 57 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1339 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Managing people and learning in organisational change projects", Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 30 Iss 6 pp. 923-935 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
JOCM-11-2016-0253">https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2016-0253</a>
(2017),"The relationship between universal network perceptions and dyadic network perceptions
and their effect on employees’ behavioral reactions to organizational change", Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 30 Iss 7 pp. 1030-1043 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
JOCM-05-2016-0106">https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2016-0106</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:510715 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

JOCM
30,7 Exploring the relationship
between business
process improvement and
1044 employees’ behavior
Danica Bakotic
Department of Management, Sveucilista u Splitu Ekonomski Fakultet,
Split, Croatia, and
Ante Krnic
Sveucilista u Splitu Ekonomski Fakultet, Split, Croatia
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to empirically investigate and clarify the relationship between
business process improvement and employees’ behavior. More precisely, the purpose is to test whether a
business process improvement initiative has a positive impact on performance and employees’ behavior,
namely, motivation, communication and knowledge sharing.
Design/methodology/approach – The empirical research of this paper was conducted in the year 2013 in
an ICT company on 52 employees who worked in the company’s R&D Centre. Business process improvement
is analyzed in the change of work method for software development. Two projects of software development
were observed. The data about the projects were collected by using the company’s documentation. The data
about employees’ behavior were collected by a specially designed questionnaire.
Findings – Business process improvement led to better results and overall performance. Furthermore, it was
found that business process improvement enhanced three important elements of employees’ behavior. These
are motivation, communication and knowledge sharing.
Research limitations/implications – The main limitations of this study are small research sample,
focusing on just the way of business process improvement and on only one company. Therefore, the results
cannot be generalized and considered as being generally accepted.
Practical implications – The findings of this study could be useful for ICT companies because it shows the
benefits of the Kanban method.
Originality/value – The major contribution of this study is to prove the positive impact of business process
improvement initiatives on overall performance and on the special elements of employees’ behavior.
This cognition enhances the existing knowledge on business process improvements.
Keywords Motivation, Employees’ behaviour, Knowledge sharing, Communication,
Business process improvement
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Business process improvement has become a serious issue of contemporary companies.
Recent changes in the economic environment such as demanding customers, globalization
processes, economic crisis, regulatory issues, etc. are creating pressure on companies and
their performances. So business process improvement projects have become a necessity for
companies to be and stay competitive in the market. In short, business process improvement
initiatives are the means to develop the organization’s processes to more effectively meet the
organization’s business goals (Lepmets and Ras, 2011).
Much research works have shown that business process improvement significantly
Journal of Organizational Change
Management increases productivity and saving costs (Crowe et al., 2002; Terziovski et al., 2003; Bandara et al.,
Vol. 30 No. 7, 2017
pp. 1044-1062
2005; Weske, 2007; Vergidis et al., 2008; Siha and Saad, 2008; Ariyachandra and Frolick, 2008;
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0953-4814
Trkman, 2010; Houy et al., 2010; van der Aalst, 2013). But not all process improvement efforts
DOI 10.1108/JOCM-06-2016-0116 lead to an increase in the profitability (Hall et al., 1993; Siha and Saad, 2008). In the literature, it
 can be found that 50-70 percent of business process improvement initiatives fail to achieve their Business
objectives (Hammer and Champy, 1993; Macintosh and Maclean, 1999; Karim et al., 2007; process
Abdolvand et al., 2008). The reasons for those failures include focus on the tactical issues improvement
not on the issues that affect the entire business, and the lack of knowledge transferability
(Lapre and Van Wassenhose, 2002; Siha and Saad, 2008). Many of the barriers to business
process improvement are the reverse of the success factors, e.g. lack of leadership, poor
communication strategy, no sense of urgency, lack of methodology, little monitoring and 1045
evaluation of outcome, little consultation with stakeholders, poor engagement with employees
and under resourced implementation teams (Radnor and Bucci, 2008). Over 70 percent of the
process improvement projects fail because of the poor understanding of the competencies, roles
and responsibilities in process improvement activities (Morten Korsaa et al., 2012).
Although a lot has been said about business process improvement (Reijers and Mansar,
2005; Mansar and Reijers, 2005; Forster, 2006; Radnor and Bucci, 2008; Shtub and Karni,
2010; Lepmets and Ras, 2011), there is still a lack of support for the act of improving
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

the process. Most approaches concentrate on what needs to be done before and after the
improvement act, but the act of improving itself still seems to be a black box (Zellner, 2011).
Additionally, there is a lack of analysis that deals with the prerequisites of successful
implementation of business process improvement (Manfreda et al., 2014).
Human resources, as a key resource of any company, represent its dynamic and creative
factors and as such they represent a crucial factor for business process improvement. Namely,
in order to achieve business processes improvement or to successfully implement business
processes improvement projects, it is necessary not only to ensure adequate human resources,
but also to achieve their optimal engagement and commitment. Human resources are the ones
who need to observe and absorb the objectives and importance of such projects, and to adopt
and implement new approaches in organization and management.
Employees who are involved in business process improvement projects should have
adequate knowledge, abilities, skills and experience. But that is not enough. They should
additionally, and constantly, develop their competences. The abilities to acquire, develop and
transfer new knowledge, to improve creative thinking, and to adopt business behavior
are critical factors for the improvement of the business processes. Therefore, the quality and
characteristics of the human resources have to be analyzed and evaluated not only in the
context of the organization requirements, but also in the context of the inevitable necessity of
redesigning, changing and developing business processes. Namely, business process
improvement is certainly a substantial part of human resource development. Therefore, the
success of business processes improvement projects can be also assessed in terms of the
extent to which they help to improve and develop human resources.
In research works, as key success factors of business process improvement outcomes,
many elements regarding employees are pointed out (Lapre and Van Wassenhose, 2002;
Siha and Saad, 2008; Radnor and Bucci, 2008; Morten Korsaa et al., 2012). The authors of this
paper have chosen to empirically investigate and clarify the relationship between business
process improvement and three elements of employees’ behavior and those are motivation,
communication and knowledge sharing. Regarding all the above-mentioned topic, business
process improvement is still insufficiently explored and clarified. So by this authors of
this paper try to give their own contribution to the clarification and explanation of business
process improvement.

Literature review
Many authors have dealt with the term business process in many different contexts and
they have provided their definitions of this term. Basically, all definitions could be
summarized in the following. Business process is a comprehensive, dynamically coordinated
set of activities or logically linked tasks that must be completed to deliver value to
 JOCM customers or to fulfill other strategic goals (Hammer and Champy, 1993; Guha and
30,7 Kettinger, 1993; Aquilar-Saven, 2004; Strnadl, 2006; Weske, 2007; Bosilj-Vukšić et al., 2008;
Trkman, 2010). In their definition of business process, Shtub and Karni (2010, p. 218)
additionally point out that business process comprises three main components: actions,
decisions and controls.
Business processes are essential to every company’s performance and capability to
1046 successfully implement the business strategy and to achieve company growth and development.
Moreover, processes are the crucial instrument by which companies provide value to the
marketplace. The increasing interest in improving organizational business processes is caused
by the changing economic environment (Ranganathan and Dhaliwal, 2001). Business processes
improvement should be the most important projects of all those companies that want to be
competitive in the market given that the current customers’ requirements are very sophisticated
and specific. The way of satisfying their needs should be systematic and creative. In order to
achieve this, business processes require continual improvements. Understanding how processes
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

work, the relationships among them and how they add value to producing products or
delivering services is essential for achieving efficient business process improvement.
Business process improvement is a structured approach to performance improvement
that centers on the disciplined design and careful execution of a company’s end-to-end
business process (Hammer, 2002). It could also be defined as a complex, knowledge-
intensive, collaborative process that consists of a set of coordinated, contextualized
knowledge management processes (Seethamraju and Marjanović, 2009), or as an
incremental bottom-up enhancement of existing processes within the functional borders
(Davenport, 1993).
The purposes of business process improvement are as follows: enhanced functionality,
which means that outputs are delivered and goals are achieved, increased quality; increased
flexibility; reduced operation (cycle) time and reduced costs such as operation, failure,
preventive or appraisal costs (Shtub and Karni, 2010, p. 218); increased employee motivation
and satisfaction; and increased customer satisfaction (Radnor and Bucci, 2008). Although
process improvement can typically create value in all parts of the business, it is necessary to
focus on areas that provide the biggest performance impact (e.g. cost, quality, service).
Business process improvement was the focus of most research works (Reijers and
Mansar, 2005; Forster, 2006; Shtub and Karni, 2010). There are numerous case studies on the
success and the key success factors of business process improvement (Lepmets and Ras,
2011). According to Radnor and Bucci (2008), those factors are strong leadership and visible
support from management, an effective communication strategy, appropriate training and
development, resource and time for the improvements to take place and external expertise
and support. Siha and Saad (2008) also defined similar key success factors of business
process improvement outcome. Those factors are the involvement and total commitment of
top management, the importance of knowledge sharing and communication, the effective
use of information technology, the emphasis on knowledge transferability, and the smart
choice of the process to be improved.
Measuring performance is the foundation of business processes improvement.
To determine the economic sense of improving a process, it is necessary to determine the
effect that will be produced. This is not possible without performance assessment.
Key performance measures are: efficiency and effectiveness. While the criteria of efficiency
are oriented on the process that treats relationship between invested resources and gained
results, the effectiveness is focused on treating the process output capability to deliver the
product or service according to specifications, and to meet consumers’ needs. Business
processes improvement could be achieved by innovation of business processes or by the
improvement of existing business process (Ntaliani et al., 2010). The choice between these
two options depends on the company’s business strategy. Although, for these activities,
 there are many names, it can be said that the first case represents the reengineering of Business
business processes (business process reengineering) and the second case is about improving process
the existing business processes (business process improvement). improvement
If the business process is relatively stable, and incremental (enhanced) changes want to
be introduced, priority is given to term business process improvement. For the huge
business process that needs to be redesigned in an understandable way, the term
reengineering of business processes is more suitable. The key difference between these two 1047
concepts is that the improvement actually relies on solving problems, and re-engineering
changes the functioning of the business process. The first concept is tactical, the other is
strategic (Bosilj-Vukšić et al., 2008, pp. 92-93). Improving business process includes
performing existing business processes with increasing efficiency. The philosophy of
improvement is more popular because it is characterized by greater flexibility, given that
the improvement can be carried out at an individual, group, business, and/or organizational
level. Improving business processes is not a one-time activity, but a continuous process
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

(Bosilj-Vukšić et al., 2008, pp. 93-94).

Human resources are one of the key organizational variables that determinate company’s
success and without a doubt it is the key success factor of the implementation of specific
business improvement programs (Amoroso, 1998; Wang and Yang, 2009). A business process
performer is a human agent who carries out the actions needed to produce a result from the
process (Shtub and Karni, 2010, p. 218). Many authors have dealt with the relationship between
business process improvement and different aspects of human resources management.
Huang et al. (2015) discovered a positive relationship between business process improvement
and employee performance. Namely, in their paper they analyzed business process
improvement through business process reengineering and pointed out that business process
reengineering improves employee performance, creates a new working environment, and
support the need for building new and better employee work habits (Huang et al., 2015, p. 1141).
Al-Mashari and Zairi (1999) have analyzed business process reengineering related to personnel
cost and discovered that business process reengineering increases personnel costs by around
30-50 percent. Lohmann and Zur Muehlen (2015) considered that the implementation of
business process improvements demands dedicated personnel responsible for carrying out
those activities, organized in a special function such as a Center of Excellence, which should
ensure a focal point for the accumulation of business process management knowledge. In their
paper, Laumer et al. (2015) dealt with the impact of business process improvement and
recruiting process, and found out that business process improvement reduces recruiting
process costs. Zarei et al. (2014) demonstrated that better management of business processes in
organizations can lead to the enhancement of social capital through the reinforcement of
cooperation, customer orientation and organizational communication.
From the presented results, it can be concluded that the design and adaptation of human
resources to business process improvement is an important project of each company.
In doing so, the company must use conceptual and analytical skills necessary for
understanding of the organizational behavior, and emphasis the areas of human resource
management and knowledge management. Knowledge is a part of business process, and
business process management and knowledge management are linked by the common
objective of achieving increased effectiveness and efficiency for the company (Schmid and
Kern, 2014). For this reason, the combination of adequate organization and human resources
management system, as well as the proper implementation of new technologies, will result in
improving the business processes of modern companies.
The employees need to know how business process improvement is going to affect their
future jobs and “what is in it for them.” Moreover, to assure the use of the right people in the
right project, the new process may require new training, new technology, and new data
availability. The change in the business and job environments, and the availability of
 JOCM supportive infrastructure should be considered. The performance measures of business
30,7 process improvement should be established and used both before and after. The metrics
should be objective, comprehensive, and reflecting important criteria in the process.
And finally, it is important to ensure continuous improvement or sustainability. In order to
achieve business process improvement, or in order to successfully implement business
process improvement projects, it is necessary to ensure adequate human resources, and also
1048 to achieve their optimal engagement and commitment. Human resources are the ones who
need to understand the importance and to absorb the objectives of such projects, as well as
adopt and implement new management and organization approaches. In this context, there
are three key elements of human resource management related to business process
improvement projects, they are: motivation, communication and knowledge sharing.
Motivation is a state in which we are internally aroused by some motives, aspirations or
desires. It is oriented toward and focused on some goals that from the outside act as an
incentive to behave in a certain way in order to achieve that goal. In the context of business
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

processes improvement, it is essential that employees are motivated to work and the change
of work methods is perceived as a challenge that will lead to their better performance.
If employees are highly motivated, then it is possible to successfully implement the program
of business processes improvement. Understanding the employees’ behavior, forecasting,
routing, modifying and even controlling that behavior generally are essential prerequisites
of effective leadership toward the achievement of organizational goals and the fulfillment of
the vision and mission of the company.
During the process of business process improvement, the objective is to have good
employee motivation. In the first place, employees should not be motivated by changes that
are introduced by business process improvements. However, potentially reduced motivation
is realistic to expect because employees may feel fear and discomfort due to the changes.
They used to work in a certain way, function smoothly, have gained a certain routine, and
now they are in a situation where all of these need to be changed and re-adapted to the new
mode. Sometimes business processes improvement does not deliver great (incremental)
changes in employees’ work activities, but often any change they perceive as a threat has a
passive resistance toward it. However, regarding the changes in the employees’ work
activities, it is essential to achieve a certain degree of motivation of the employees as soon as
possible, and strive that their motivation over time gradually increases. One way to increase
motivation within the business processes improvement projects is to aware the employees
that business process improvement is something good and that it should follow the logic
that the company, by improving business process, takes care of the future of the business
and its employees. This thought supports Leyer et al.’s (2017) study on the most important
advantages and disadvantages of process orientation from an employee’s perspective.
Namely, they found out that employees’ motivation represents advantages of process
orientation from an employee’s perspective.
The next important element of human resource management in the business process
improvement projects is communication. In companies, communication is no longer only
sending and receiving information, but it is a social, meaning-building process that gives
sense and importance to social reality and organizational roles, activities and processes
(Ashcraft et al., 2009; Putnam and Nicotera, 2009). Communication aims to create mutual
understanding and trust (Elving, 2005). Such interactions are just as vital as information for
attaining organization’s goals (van Vuuren and Elving, 2008). Communication is an integral
part of social interactions or contacts between people, because without communication,
there is no joint action (Buble, 2006). Much research has shown that communication is a key
factor vital to the effective implementation of organizational change (DiFonzo and Bordia,
1998). If the organizational change is about how to change the individual tasks of individual
employees, then communication about the change and information to these employees is
 vital (Elving, 2005). Communication transforms the cynics into change agents (Hammond Business
et al., 2011). process
In the context of business process improvements, communication in teams places an improvement
important role. The basic condition of team operation is the communication among team
members. By communicating, the team analyses problems, makes decisions and coordinates
the work of individuals in order to achieve a common goal. In addition, communication also
provides that the team perceives and resolves its internal problems or difficulties. Finally, it 1049
allows the team to come into contact with other teams and by that to exchange ideas.
In order to accomplish a common goal, open and spontaneous communication is needed that
is not obstructed by individuals belonging to different hierarchical levels or by the borders
of individual organizational units (Milanović, 2010). Changes occurring by improving
business processes strongly affect the communication among employees that are affected
by introduced changes. Changes of business processes and work methods really affect the
communication among team members, as well as the communication between team and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

management and vice versa. It is important to communicate as much as possible in order to

promote faster solutions of potential problems.
Finally, knowledge sharing is the next important element of human resource management
within the projects of business process improvement. Knowledge has been conventionally
defined as beliefs that are true and are justified (Hunt, 2003, p. 102). It consists of intuition, sets
of ideas, experiences, skills and learning and has the potential to create new values. Knowledge
and its application are crucial to the companies’ competitive advantage (El Harbi et al., 2011).
In this context, Laycock (2005) pointed out the growing strategic importance of knowledge and
knowledge sharing in organizations. Patrick and Dotsika (2007) assumed and confirmed that
collaboration and knowledge sharing lie at the core of providing added-value to either services
or products. It is very important that when employees acquire certain knowledge, it should be
properly used and developed. Motivation to share knowledge through organization is the
desire to help the organization reach its goals and help colleagues and it is more motivating
than financial rewards and advancing one’s career (Vuori and Okkonen, 2012).
The success of business processes improvement project depends on knowledge and
knowledge sharing. In business processes improvements, employees are faced with many
new elements that should be adopted and that should be adapted. Employees should be
made familiar with the new work methods by providing all the necessary literature and by
many training courses, workshops and pilot programs. The best way that leads to more
efficient work is when employees mutually share their newly acquired knowledge.
Managers should encourage employees to seek information and knowledge from other
colleagues and organizations should provide support for their interactions. Additionally,
managers should make some efforts to develop a climate of trust among employees
(Zhang and Jiang, 2015) as a prerequisite to knowledge sharing. Business processes
improvement will encourage employees to share more knowledge with each other because in
this way they will easily become familiar with the new way of working and will easily gain
needed experience.

Research methodology
The empirical research of this paper was conducted in the year 2013 in an ICT company
on 52 employees who worked in the company’s R&D Centre.
Business process improvement is analyzed by the change of work method for software
development. Two projects of software development were observed. One project used the
old method for software development (Waterfall model) and the other used the new
method for software development (Kanban method). The same employees were engaged in
both projects at different times. The data about them were collected by using the
company’s documentation.
 JOCM The employees’ effectiveness was analyzed through the comparison of the results of the
30,7 above-mentioned development projects, and through the three elements in the domain of
human resource management, which define the employees’ behavior and they are:
motivation, communication and knowledge sharing.
The results of software development projects were analyzed through the number of
working hours required for software development, the number of recorded errors, the ratio
1050 of the number of working hours and errors, the average time to resolve errors within the
core phase of software development projects, and the average time to resolve errors in
the maintenance phase of the software development. These data were also collected by the
company’s documentation.
The data about employees’ behavior were collected by a specially designed questionnaire.
The questionnaire consisted of four groups of questions: the questions related to employees’
motivation, the questions related to the communication among employees, the questions
related to the knowledge sharing, and general questions about employees’ demographic
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

characteristics. For the answers to those questions, a five-item Likert scale was used where
1 ¼ very poor, 2 ¼ poor, 3 ¼ average, 4 ¼ strongly and 5 ¼ extremely strong. Employees
engaged in the above-mentioned projects completed the questionnaire.
All collected data were statistically analyzed by Microsoft Excel and SPSS.

Research results
Research results examined the effects of business process improvement that were realized
by the application of the new work method in the projects of software development.
More specifically, research results showed the effects of business process improvement on
final project results as well as the effects on employees’ behavior that is analyzed through
three elements: motivation, communication and knowledge sharing.
As it was mentioned in the methodological part of this paper, two projects of software
development were observed. One project used the old method for software development
(Waterfall model) and the second project used the new method for software development (Kanban
method). The same employees were engaged in both projects at different times.
The results of software development projects were analyzed through the number of
working hours required for software development, the number of recorded errors, the ratio
of the number of working hours and errors, the average time to resolve errors within the
core phase of software development projects and the average time to resolve errors in
the maintenance phase of software development. Table I represents these projects’ results.

Project 1 Project 2
(Waterfall model) (Kanban method)

The number of working hours required for software development 8,716 5,951
Improvement in % 31.7
The number of recorded errors in the process of software development 131 46
Improvement in % 64.9
The ratio of the number of working hours and errors 66.5 129.4
Improvement in % 94.6
The average time to resolve errors within the core phase of software
development projects (in working days) 6.4 5.6
Improvement in % 13.2
Table I. The average time to resolve errors in the maintenance phase of the
Software development software development (in working days) 26.1 17.2
projects’ results Improvement in % 34.0
 Table I shows that using the old method (Waterfall model), software was developed Business
in 8,716 hours, while using the new method (Kanban method), software was developed in process
5,951 hours. So the improvement rate was 31.7 percent. The number of errors in Project 1, improvement
which used the Waterfall model was 131. In Project 2, which was made using the Kanban
method, the number of errors was 46, which is an improvement of 64.9 percent. Furthermore,
the ratio of the number of working hours and the number of errors in Project 1 was 66.5, while
the same ratio for Project 2 was 129.4. So, in Project 1 on average one error occurred after 1051
every 66.5 hours, while in Project 2, one error occurred after every 129.4 hours. From these
data, it can be seen that the employees who have worked in Project 2 following the Kanban
method achieved an improvement. So, in Project 2, error occurred after 94.6 percent more
working hours in relation to Project 1. Using the Waterfall model, the average time required to
resolve certain errors during the software development was 6.4 working days, while the same
time using the Kanban method was 5.6 working days. Thus, the number of working days
needed to resolve errors using the Kanban method was 13.2 percent less compared to the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

number of working days needed to resolve errors using the Waterfall model. Furthermore,
when using the Waterfall model the average time required to resolve errors in the
maintenance phase was 26.1 working days, while when using the Kanban method
the average time required to resolve certain errors was 17.2 working days. Thus, the
average number of days required for the resolution of errors using the Kanban method
decreased by 34.0 percent compared to the application of the Waterfall model.
The above-presented results showed that business process improvement accomplished
better results in all observed aspects which meant better performance and better overall effects.
All these suggested that business process improvement enhanced employees’ effectiveness
because the observed projects’ results were in fact the results of employees’ work.
To more clearly clarify the effects of business process improvement, this paper explored
three elements in the domain of human resources management, which define the employees’
behavior. These elements are motivation, communication and knowledge sharing.
These three elements have been analyzed by a number of factors. Cronbach’s α
coefficient presented in Table II shows consistency of the factors which define these three
elements, separately for the Waterfall model and the Kanban method.
Given that the value of Cronbach’s α coefficients in all cases is higher than 0.7, it can be
concluded that the factors within each group are consistent, which provides conditions for
further analysis.
Table III shows the average values of the factors that determine the level of employee
motivation.
The average values of all factors of motivation are significantly higher when using the
Kanban method, except for one factor, which has about the same value in the case
of application of both methods. The values of mode and median are also higher in the case of

Waterfall model Kanban method

Cronbach’s Cronbach’s α based on No. of Cronbach’s Cronbach’s α based on No. of
α standardized items items α standardized items items

Motivation
0.884 0.883 15 0.862 0.867 15
Communication
0.869 0.869 8 0.756 0.769 8
Table II.
Knowledge sharing Cronbach’s α
0.868 0.868 6 0.818 0.824 6 coefficient
 Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

30,7

1052
JOCM

Table III.

data analysis about

Descriptive statistics

employees’ motivation
Waterfall model Kanban method
Factors of motivation Valid Mean Median Mode SD Valid Mean Median Mode SD

Freedom to choose work tasks 52 2.4615 2.0000 2.00 0.85087 52 3.6154 4.0000 4.00 0.74502
Teamwork 52 3.2115 3.0000 3.00 0.72319 52 4.0769 4.0000 4.00 0.65218
Degree of autonomy in the work 52 3.3462 3.0000 3.00 0.62260 52 3.6923 4.0000 4.00 0.72864
Interpersonal relationships in a team 52 3.3462 3.0000 3.00 0.76401 52 4.0577 4.0000 4.00 0.63904
Recognition of individual work contribution by team members 52 2.9615 3.0000 3.00 0.55876 52 3.9423 4.0000 4.00 0.66902
Recognition of individual work contribution by supervisors 52 3.0192 3.0000 3.00 0.75382 52 3.3462 4.0000 4.00 1.0268
Active involvement in planning 52 2.4615 2.5000 3.00 0.87361 52 3.8846 4.0000 4.00 0.89997
Communication with team members 52 3.0769 3.0000 3.00 0.96703 52 4.3462 4.0000 4.00 0.62260
Opportunity to learn 52 3.0769 3.0000 3.00 0.58899 52 3.8654 4.0000 4.00 0.76770
Working conditions (desk, light, work space) 52 3.3462 3.0000 3.00 0.76401 52 3.3269 3.0000 3.00 0.83363
Spatial organization: the whole team is in the same area 52 2.4231 2.0000 2.00 0.93612 52 4.1923 4.0000 4.00 0.76795
Feeling of belonging to a team 52 2.9615 3.0000 3.00 0.76598 52 4.1923 4.0000 4.00 0.52537
Presence of positive spirit 52 3.0192 3.0000 3.00 0.75382 52 3.7308 4.0000 4.00 0.71717
Self-organization of team 52 2.7500 3.0000 3.00 0.86035 52 4.0192 4.0000 4.00 0.64140
Focusing on solving problems instead of looking for culprits 52 2.9615 3.0000 3.00 0.81557 52 3.8846 4.0000 4.00 0.64637
 the Kanban method. The Mann-Whitney test is used to check whether there is a statistically Business
significant difference in the average values of the factors that determine the work motivation process
in the context of the old and new work method. This test is presented in Table IV. improvement
Since α ¼ 0.000 which means less than 0.05 or less than 5 percent, it could be concluded
that there is a statistically significant difference in the average values of the factors of
motivation between the Waterfall model and the Kanban method which means that all
factors of motivation are enhanced in the case of the Kanban method. 1053
Furthermore, Table V shows the descriptive statistics data analysis on overall
employees’ motivation. The overall employees’ motivation was calculated as the average
value of all analyzed factors of motivation.
Table V shows that when using the Waterfall model, the average value of employees’
motivation is 2.7781, while when using the Kanban method, the average value of
employees’ motivation is 3.8782. Thus, the average employees’ motivation is higher in the
case of the Kanban method. Therefore, it can be concluded that employees are more
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

motivated when using the Kanban method. Median and mode values are also higher in
the case of the Kanban method.
Table VI shows the results of the Independent Samples Test that tests whether the
difference in employees’ motivation when applying different methods is statistically significant.

Test statistics Motivation

Mann-Whitney U 102.500
Wilcoxon W 1,480.500 Table IV.
Z −8.128 Results of Mann-
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 Whitney test

Waterfall model Kanban method

Valid 52 52
Missing 0 0
Mean 2.7781 3.8782
Median 2.7317 3.9000 Table V.
Mode 2.60 4.00 Overall employees’
SD 0.44386 0.42997 motivation

Levene’s t-test for equality of means

test for
equality 95% confidence
of interval of the
Independent variances Sig. Mean SE difference
samples test F Sig. t df (2-tailed) difference difference Lower Upper Table VI.
Independent samples
Motivation test of differences in
Equal variances 0.008 0.929 −12.837 102 0.000 −1.10013 0.08570 −1.27011 −0.93015 employees’ motivation
assumed in the context
Equal variances −12.837 101.897 0.000 −1.10013 0.08570 −1.27011 −0.93015 of different
not assumed work methods
 JOCM The Independent Samples Test in Table VI shows that there is a statistically significant
30,7 difference in the employees’ motivation in the context of different work methods because the
value of significance is 0.000 which is less than 5 percent (αo0.05).
The above-presented analysis suggests the conclusion that in the case of
business process improvement (using the new work method), employees’ motivation is
greater. The analysis of overall employees’ motivation as well as the motivation
1054 by individual factors showed that business processes improvement leads to better
employees’ motivation.
The next element of human resources management that is analyzed in this paper is
communication among employees. Table VII shows the descriptive statistics data analysis
of the average values of the factors that determine the level of communication among
employees who worked on software development using the old (Waterfall model) and the
new work method (Kanban method).
Table VII shows that the average values of all presented factors of communication are
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

higher when using the Kanban method. The values of median and mode are also higher in
the case of the Kanban method. The Mann-Whitney test presented in Table VIII showed
that there is a statistically significant difference in the average values of the factors of
communication when using different work methods (Waterfall model as the old one and
Kanban method as the new one), since α ⩽ 0.05 and suggests that all factors of
communication are enhanced in the case of the Kanban method.
As in the case of employees’ motivation, the overall communication among employees is
calculated as the average value of all analyzed factors of communications. Descriptive
statistics data analysis about communication is presented in Table IX.
Table IX shows that the average value of employee communications is 2.8990 when
using the Waterfall model, while when using the Kanban method, it is 3.9952. So, it can be
concluded that employees communicate more frequently and in a better way when they use
the Kanban method. Furthermore, the values of median and mode are also greater in the
case of the Kanban method. The discovered differences are statistically significant which is
proven by The Independent Samples Test presented in Table X.
So based on the above-presented results about the communication among employees in
the case of transition to a new work method, it can be concluded that business process
improvement enhances employees’ communication.
The last element that has been analyzed as an indicator of employees’ behavior in the
context of business process improvement is knowledge sharing. Table XI shows
the descriptive statistics data analysis on the average values of the factors that determine
the level of knowledge sharing among employees who worked on software development
projects using the old and the new work method.
From Table XI, it can be seen that the average values for all factors that determine
knowledge sharing are higher in the case of the Kanban method. The values of median and
mode are also higher in the case of the Kanban method.
The Mann-Whitney test in Table XII suggests that there is a statistically significant
difference in the average values of the factors that determine knowledge sharing among
employees in the context of the two observed methods which means that all factors of
knowledge sharing are improved in the case of the Kanban method.
Table XIII presents descriptive statistics data analysis on knowledge sharing among
employees. The level of knowledge sharing was calculated as the average value of the
factors that were analyzed as determinates of knowledge sharing.
From Table XIII, it can be seen that the average value of knowledge sharing is
significantly higher when using the Kanban method. The same is with values of median and
mode. The Independent Samples Test presented in Table XIV shows that this difference is
statistically significant, since α ⩽ 0.05.
 Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

Waterfall model Kanban method

Factors of communication Valid Mean Median Mode SD Valid Mean Median Mode SD

Communication with supervisors 52 2.9808 3.0000 3.00 0.75382 52 4.1346 4.0000 4.00 0.62713
Exchange of useful information on the team meetings 52 2.7308 3.0000 2.00 0.74401 52 3.7500 4.0000 4.00 0.90478
Discussion with team members about the problems in teamwork 52 3.0000 3.0000 3.00 0.81650 52 4.0000 4.0000 4.00 0.65679
Oral communication 52 3.1731 3.0000 3.00 0.78519 52 4.1731 4.0000 4.00 0.61743
Possibility of giving comments and suggestions on how to improve work 52 2.9615 3.0000 3.00 0.83927 52 3.9808 4.0000 4.00 0.69987
Communication between different organizational units 52 2.5577 2.5000 2.50 0.89472 52 3.8077 4.0000 4.00 0.65794
Information flow 52 2.8462 3.0000 3.00 0.69690 52 4.0192 4.0000 4.00 0.69687
Participation of direct oral communication in relation to communication via e-mail,
mobile/phone 52 2.9423 3.0000 3.00 0.84976 52 4.0962 4.0000 4.00 0.56913
improvement
Business
process

1055

employees
Table VII.

data analysis about

Descriptive statistics

communication among
 JOCM From the presented data, it can be concluded that the application of new work method
30,7 improves knowledge sharing among employees.
Based on the above-presented research results about projects’ results, motivation,
communication among employees, and knowledge sharing, it can be concluded that

Test statistics Communication

1056
Mann-Whitney U 174.000
Wilcoxon W 1,552.000
Table VIII. Z −7.673
Mann-Whitney test Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

Waterfall model Kanban method

Valid 52 52
Missing 0 0
Table IX. Mean 2.8990 3.9952
Descriptive statistics Median 2.7500 4.0000
data analysis about Mode 2.75 4.00
communication SD 0.57790 0.41639

Levene’s t-test for equality of means

test for 95% confidence
equality of interval of the
Independent variances Sig. Mean SE difference
samples test F Sig. t df (2-tailed) difference difference Lower Upper

Communication among employees

Equal variances
Table X. assumed 4.580 0.035 −11.097 102 0.000 −1.09615 0.09878 −1.29208 −0.90023
Independent Equal variances
samples test not assumed −11.097 92.712 0.000 −1.09615 0.09878 −1.29231 −0.90000

Waterfall model Kanban method

Factors of knowledge sharing Valid Mean Median Mode SD Valid Mean Median Mode SD

Acquiring knowledge directly

from team members
(Face2Face) 52 3.0000 3.0000 3.00 0.71401 52 3.8654 4.0000 4.00 0.62713
Acquisition and exchange of
knowledge in informal meetings 52 2.6923 3.0000 3.00 0.80534 52 3.6154 4.0000 4.00 0.71822
Acquiring knowledge about the
processes and work methods 52 2.9038 3.0000 3.00 0.69338 52 3.6923 4.0000 4.00 0.72864
Getting needed information
required in the work from team
Table XI. members 52 3.0000 3.0000 3.00 0.81650 52 4.0577 4.0000 4.00 0.63904
Descriptive statistics Exchange of knowledge with
data analysis about supervisors 52 2.9615 3.0000 3.00 0.88476 52 3.9038 4.0000 4.00 0.63430
knowledge sharing Gaining wide knowledge 52 2.6538 3.0000 3.00 0.90499 52 3.8269 4.0000 4.00 0.85683
 business processes improvement changes employees’ behavior. The application of the new Business
work method led to better project results, more specifically reduced the number of working process
hours required for software development, reduced the number of errors in software improvement
development, achieved a better ratio between the number of working hours and errors,
reduced the average time to resolve errors in the software development process, and reduced
the average time to resolve errors in the maintenance phase of the software development
process. All this indicates that business processes improvement, by applying the new work 1057
method, leads to a better overall output and employees’ effectiveness. Furthermore, business
processes improvement leads to the improvement of three important dimensions of human
resource management: motivation, communication and knowledge sharing. Improving these
dimensions means that employees are additionally more effective in their work. So, this is
also one positive consequence of business process improvement that is discovered by the
empirical research of this paper.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

Implications
The results of this paper represent the contribution to enhancing the knowledge on business
process improvement. The existence of the positive impact of business process improvement
on overall performance and on the special elements of employees’ behavior is the major output
of this paper. This paper has dealt with the pure act of improving, and that is the novelty
comparing to other research works that have dealt with prerequisites and consequences of

Test statistics Knowledge sharing

Mann-Whitney U 293.500
Wilcoxon W 1,671.500
Z −6.900 Table XII.
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 Mann-Whitney test

Waterfall model Kanban method

Valid 52 52
Missing 0 0
Mean 2.8686 3.8269 Table XIII.
Median 2.8333 3.8333 Descriptive statistics
Mode 2.50 4.00 data analysis about
SD 0.62652 0.51020 knowledge sharing

Levene’s t-test for equality of means

test for 95% confidence
equality of interval of the
Independent variances Sig. Mean SE difference
samples test F Sig. t df (2-tailed) difference difference Lower Upper

Knowledge sharing
Equal variances
assumed 0.814 0.369 −8.553 102 0.000 −0.95833 0.11205 −1.18058 −0.73609 Table XIV.
Equal variances Independent
not assumed −8.553 97.981 0.000 −0.95833 0.11205 −1.18069 −0.73598 samples test
 JOCM business process improvement. For practical purposes, the findings of this paper could be
30,7 useful for ICT companies and encourage them in conducting business process improvement
through new work methods. However, besides ICT companies, the other organizations could
use the findings of this paper in the context of employees’ behavior that is also explored in this
study. This paper could be the base for further research works in this field. So, the companies
in different industries could be the polygon of the research. Also, some other elements of
1058 employees’ behavior could be included in the investigation. By this, the additional
enhancement in the literature of this topic could be achieved.

Conclusion
Growing challenges relating to the globalization, economic pressures, and the changing
nature of work have forced organizations to search for new ways to advance their
competitive advantage. To deal with these challenges, business process improvement has
become an essential element of long-term business success. It helps companies to enhance
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

functionality, increase quality, increase flexibility, reduce operation (cycle) time, reduce
costs, increase employee motivation and job satisfaction, and increase customer satisfaction
(Crowe et al., 2002; Terziovski et al., 2003; Bandara et al., 2005; Weske, 2007; Radnor and
Bucci, 2008; Vergidis et al., 2008; Siha and Saad, 2008; Ariyachandra and Frolick, 2008;
Trkman, 2010; Houy et al., 2010; Shtub and Karni, 2010; van der Aalst, 2013).
But, in the literature, it can be found that 50-70 percent of business process improvement
initiatives fail to achieve their objectives (Hammer and Champy, 1993; Macintosh and
Maclean, 1999; Lapre and Van Wassenhose, 2002; Karim et al., 2007; Abdolvand et al., 2008;
Siha and Saad, 2008; Morten Korsaa et al., 2012). There are different reasons for those
failures, and majority of them are related to employees’ behavior. Those reasons are lack of
knowledge transferability, lack of leadership, poor communication strategy, little
monitoring and evaluation of outcome, poor engagement with employees, lack of
implementation of teams, etc. Additionally, interesting notice is that the most research
works concentrate on what needs to be done before and after the improvement act, but the
act of improving itself still seems to be a black box (Zellner, 2011).
Those shortly presented results of the literature review were the inspiration for the
empirical research of this paper. Namely, the authors wanted to investigate the process of
business process improvement by itself and the results of that process; or more clearly, to
find out does business process improvement lead to a better overall output and employees’
effectiveness. The concentration of this research was on business process improvement
project’s outcome as well as on employees’ behavior that is related to that outcome.
More precisely, the employees’ behavior was the prerequisite for achievement of that
outcome or result. So, in the context of employees’ behavior, three elements were observed:
motivation, communication and knowledge sharing. Those elements are chosen because
research works (Radnor and Bucci, 2008; Siha and Saad, 2008; Lepmets and Ras, 2011)
unavoidably point out to them as the critical success factors for the business process
improvement’s success.
Thus, research results of this paper showed that business process improvement
accomplished better results which mean better performance and better overall effects.
Regarding employees behavior, research results suggested that, in the case of business
process improvement, employees’ motivation is greater. Although in the first place,
employees will not be motivated by changes that are introduced by business process
improvements because any change is often perceived as a threat and people have a passive
resistance toward it. However, in time, employees will become aware that business process
improvement will facilitate their work and they will extend their effort. The result of that
will be improved work motivation. Additionally, research results suggested that business
process improvement enhances communication among employees. Business process
 improvement significantly influences employee communication because they simply need to Business
communicate in order to introduce business process improvements and consequently process
everything continues to run smoothly. It is important that employees communicate as much improvement
as possible in order to promote faster solutions for potential problems. And finally, research
results showed that business process improvement enhances knowledge sharing among
employees. The success of the business process improvement project depends on knowledge
and knowledge sharing. In the business process improvements, employees are faced with 1059
many new elements that should be adopted and that should be adapted. The business
process improvement will encourage employees to share more knowledge with each other
because, in this way, they will easily become familiar with the new way of working and will
easily gain needed experience.
To conclude, this paper shows that business process improvement could have absolutely
positive results and outcome, in the context of enhanced performance as well as in the
context of improved employees’ behavior. By this the positive impact of business process
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

improvement initiatives on overall performance and on the special elements of employees’

behavior is proved. This cognition enhances the existing knowledge on business process
improvements. Additionally, this paper shows that business process improvement could be
achieved by the holistic approach to those issues. The business process improvement
should be carefully planned with the endeavor to apostrophize its critical success factors
and try to eliminate or reduce the known reasons for business process improvement failures.
Human component should be pointed out. Employees represent the most important critical
success factor for business process improvement and when this component is well
organized and monitored, the business process improvement project success is unavoidable.

References
Abdolvand, N., Albadvi, A. and Ferdowsi, Z. (2008), “Assessing readiness for business process
reengineering”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 497-511.
Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (1999), “BPR implementation process: an analysis of key success and
failure factors”, Journal of Business Process Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 87-112.
Amoroso, D.L. (1998), “Developing a model to understand reengineering project success”, Proceedings
of the 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kohala Coast, HI,
pp. 500-509.
Aquilar-Saven, R.S. (2004), “Business process modelling: review and framework”, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 129-149.
Ariyachandra, T.R. and Frolick, M.N. (2008), “Critical success factors in business performance
management – striving for success”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 113-120.
Ashcraft, K.L., Khun, T.R. and Cooren, F. (2009), “Constitutional amendements: ‘materializing’
organizational communication”, The Academy of Management Annuals, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-64.
Bandara, W., Gable, G. and Rosemann, M. (2005), “Factors and measures of business process modelling:
model building through a multiple case study”, European Journal of Information Systems,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 347-360.
Bosilj-Vukšić, V., Skrinjar, R. and Indihar Stemberger, M. (2008), “The impact of business process
orientation on financial and non-financial performance”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 738-754.
Buble, M. (2006), Menadžment, Ekonomski fakultet u Splitu, Split.
Crowe, T.J., Fong, P.M., Bauman, T.A. and Zayas-Castro, J.L. (2002), “Quantitative risk level estimation
of business process reengineering efforts”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 5,
pp. 490-511.
 JOCM Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology,
30,7 Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
DiFonzo, N. and Bordia, P. (1998), “A tale of two corporations: managing uncertainty during
organizational change”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 Nos 3/4, pp. 295-303.
El Harbi, S., Anderson, A.R. and Amamou, M. (2011), “Knowledge sharing processes in Tunisian small
ICT firms”, Library Review, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 24-36.
1060 Elving, W.J.L. (2005), “The role of Communication in organizational change, Corporate
Communication”, An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 129-138.
Forster, F. (2006), “The idea behind business process improvement: towards a business process
improvement pattern framework”, BP Trends, Newton, April, pp. 1-14.
Guha, S. and Kettinger, W.J. (1993), “Business process reengineering: building a comprehensive
methodology”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 13-22.
Hall, G., Rosenthal, J. and Wade, J. (1993), “How to make reengineering really work”, Harvard Business
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

Review, November-December, pp. 119-131.

Hammer, M. (2002), “Process management and the future of six sigma”, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 26-32.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
Revolution, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Hammond, G.D., Gresch, E.B. and Vitale, D.C. (2011), “Homegrown process improvement employing
a change message model”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 487-510.
Houy, C., Fettke, P. and Loos, P. (2010), “Empirical research in business process management – analysis
of an emerging field of research”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 619-661.
Huang, Y.S., Lee, C.-H. and Chiu, A.-A. (2015), “How business process reengineering affects information
technology investment and employee performance under different performance measurement”,
Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 1133-1144.
Hunt, D.P. (2003), “The concept of knowledge and how to measure it”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 100-113.
Karim, J., Somers, T.M. and Bhattacherjee, A. (2007), “The impact of ERP implementation on business
process outcomes: a factor-based study”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 101-134.
Lapre, M.A. and Van Wassenhose, L.N. (2002), “Learning across lines: the secret to more efficient-
factories”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 10, pp. 107-112.
Laumer, S., Maier, C. and Eckhardt, A. (2015), “The impact of business process management and
applicant tracking systems on recruiting process performance: an empirical study”, Journal of
Business Economics, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 421-453.
Laycock, M. (2005), “Collaborating to compete: achieving effective knowledge sharing in
organizations”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 523-538.
Lepmets, M. and Ras, E. (2011), Motivation and Empowerment in Process Improvement in Systems,
Software and Service Process Improvement, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg.
Leyer, M., Stumpf-Wollersheim, J. and Kronsbein, D. (2017), “Stains on the bright side of process-
oriented organizational design: an empirical investigation of advantages and disadvantages”,
Schmalenbach Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 29-47.
Lohmann, P. and Zur Muehlen, M. (2015), “Business process management skills and roles: an
investigation of the demand and supply side of BPM professionals”, Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference on Business Process Management, Vol. 9253, August 31-September 3,
pp. 317-332.
Macintosh, R. and Maclean, D. (1999), “Conditioned emergence: a dissipative structures approach to
transformation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 297-316.
 Manfreda, A., Kovačič, A., Indihar Štemberger, M. and Trkman, P. (2014), “Absorptive capacity as a Business
precondition for business process improvement”, The Journal of Computer Information Systems, process
Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 35-43.
improvement
Mansar, S.L. and Reijers, H.A. (2005), “Best practice in business process redesign: validation of redesign
framework”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 457-471.
Milanović, Lj. (2010), Korištenje informacijske tehnologije za upravljanje znanjem u hrvatskim
poduzećima, Zbornik Ekonomskog fakulteta u Zagrebu, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 195-211. 1061
Morten Korsaa, M.B., Messnarz, R., Johansen, J., Vohwinkel, D., Nevalainen, R. and Schweigert, T.
(2012), “The SPI manifesto and the ECQA SPI manager certification scheme”, Journal of
Software: Evolution and Process Special Issue: Software, Systems and Services Process
Improvement, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 525-540.
Ntaliani, M., Costopoulou, C., Karetsos, S., Tambouris, E. and Tarabanis, K. (2010), “Agricultural
e-government services: an implementation framework and case study”, Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 337-347.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

Patrick, K. and Dotsika, F. (2007), “Knowledge sharing: developing from within”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 395-406.
Putnam, L.L. and Nicotera, A.M. (Eds) (2009), Building Theories of Organization, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Radnor, Z. and Bucci, G. (2008), Literature Review of Business Process Improvement Methodologies:
Executive Summary, The National Audit Office, Warwick.
Ranganathan, C. and Dhaliwal, J.S. (2001), “A survey of business process reengineering practices in
Singapore”, Information & Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 125-134.
Reijers, H.A. and Mansar, S.L. (2005), “Best practice in business process redesign: an overview and
qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics”, Omega, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 283-306.
Schmid, W. and Kern, E.-M. (2014), “Integration of business process management: state of the art,
current research and future prospects”, Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 191-231.
Seethamraju, R. and Marjanović, 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.
Shtub, A. and Karni, R. (2010), ERP: The Dynamics of Supply Chain and Process Management,
2nd ed., Springer, London.
Siha, S.M. and Saad, G.H. (2008), “Business process improvement: empirical assessment and
extensions”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 778-802.
Strnadl, F.C. (2006), “Aligning business and IT: the process driven architecture model”, Information
System Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 67-77.
Terziovski, M., Fitzpatrick, P. and O’Neill, P. (2003), “Successful predictors of business process
reengineering (BPR) in financial services”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
Trkman, P. (2010), “The critical success factors of business process management”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 125-134.
van der Aalst, W.M.P. (2013), “Business process management: a comprehensive survey”,
in Barros, F., He, X., Holgado-Terriza, J.A. and Rolland, C. (Eds), ISRN Software Engineering,
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vol. 2013, Technische Universitet
Eindhoven, Eindhoven, p. 37.
van Vuuren, M. and Elving, W.J.L. (2008), “Communication, sensemaking and change as a chord of
three strands: practical implications and a research agenda for communicating organizational
change”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 349-359.
Vergidis, K., Tiwari, A. and Majeed, B. (2008), “Business process analysis and optimization: beyond
reengineering”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and
Reviews), Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 69-82.
 JOCM Vuori, V. and Okkonen, J. (2012), “Knowledge sharing motivational factors of using an
30,7 intra-organizational social media platform”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 592-603.
Wang, M. and Yang, S.J.H. (2009), “Editorial knowledge management and e-learning”, Knowledge
Management & E-learning: An International Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Weske, M. (2007), Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin and Heidelberg.
1062
Zarei, B.Z., Chaghouee, Y. and Ghapanchi, A.H. (2014), “Investigating the relationship between
business process orientation and social capital”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 67-77.
Zellner, G. (2011), “A structured evaluation of business process improvement approaches”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 203-237.
Zhang, X. and Jiang, J.Y. (2015), “With whom shall I share my knowledge? A recipient perspective of
knowledge sharing”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 277-295.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

Corresponding author
Danica Bakotic can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
 This article has been cited by:

1. Ionica Oncioiu, Diana Andreea Mândricel. Reflections on the Effect of Organizational

Restructuring 77-93. [Crossref]
2. Gutama Kusse Getele, Arrive Tsitaire Jean. 2018. Impact of Business Process Re-Engineering
(BPR) Implementation on Customer Satisfaction in E-Commerce Companies. Journal of Electronic
Commerce in Organizations 16:4, 41-52. [Crossref]
3. 2018. Better systems, better people?. Human Resource Management International Digest 26:3, 26-28.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT At 06:14 14 May 2019 (PT)

View publication stats