The knowledge and process continuum

• Author: Justyna Berniak‐Woźny,Marek Szelągowski
• Date: 01 October 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1611
• Published date: 01 October 2019

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The knowledge and process continuum

Marek Szelągowski

1

| Justyna Berniak-Woźny

2

1

Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy

of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

2

Faculty of Business and International

Relations, Vistula University, Warsaw, Poland

Correspondence

Marek Szelągowski, Systems Research

Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences,

Newelska 6, Warsaw 01-447, Poland.

Email: marek.szelagowski@dbpm.pl

The aim of the paper is to propose the concept of the Knowledge and Process Con-

tinuum, which corresponds to the changing role of Business Process Management

(BPM) in Knowledge Intensive Organizations in the Knowledge Economy. The paper

is conceptual in nature and is grounded in the theories of Knowledge Management

(KM) and BPM. The systematic literature review method was used in order to employ

a manual search of peer-reviewed papers available in the Springer and ProQuest

databases. Seventeen articles were chosen for in-depth analysis, which shows the

research gap with respect to the integrated application of KM and BPM. The article

is an inspiring contribution to the theoretical reflection on the current state and fur-

ther evolution of BPM in the Knowledge Economy and its inseparable connection

with KM. The proposed conceptual framework may facilitate the management of

Knowledge Intensive Organizations to effectively capitalize on the relationship

between knowledge and business processes of different nature.

1|INTRODUCTION

Organizations in the Knowledge Economy (KE) operate in an environ-

ment that is undergoing constant, rapid changes under the influence

of four mutually stimulating and strengthening factors exhibiting high

dynamism: the growing volatility and pace of operations; globalization

and changes in the principles of competition; changes in business cul-

ture and social conventions; and the development of information and

communication technologies (Maier & Schmidt, 2015; Swenson,

2010; Szelągowski, 2014). In such conditions, one of the most practi-

cal concepts of management is the concept of business process

(BP) management (BPM; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Drucker, 1999;

Dumas, Rosa, Mendling, & Reijers, 2016; Jeston & Nelis, 2013). Along

with the change of requirements imposed by the KE, BPM itself is also

constantly evolving. It cannot be limited as in traditional BPM to

repetitive structured processes (DiCiccio, Marrella, & Russo, 2015;

Kemsley, 2011). In a hypercompetitive environment, the key to suc-

cess is no longer an optimal, standard BP, which should be repeated in

as precise a manner as possible, but rather, the adaptation of the pro-

cess to the needs of the client with the use of the full dynamism

offered by knowledge workers. In consequence, success is not a mat-

ter of identifying and designing an ideal process, because KEs are no

ideal processes (Marjanovic & Freeze, 2011). Success depends on the

flexible, practical use of knowledge during process performance with

a view to creating value and at the same time knowledge management

(KM), which in accordance with the concept of “creative destruction”

has to encompass the following two complementary mechanisms

(D'Aveni, 1994; Schumpeter, 1911):

•the creation or acquisition of new knowledge; and

•the verification and rejection of outdated knowledge.

Due to the rapid pace of changes, this mechanism should allow for

the creation and verification of knowledge within the fundamental

processes of the enterprise themselves in order to eliminate the risk

of knowledge becoming fragmented (risk of suboptimization) or too

theoretical in nature due to its detachment from ongoing business

practice. The mechanism should also support the fast-paced and con-

trolled adaptation of process execution to the needs of individual cli-

ents. Such are the requirements and expectations for management

under the KE. These requirements are not different for different

approaches to management, such as process management, case man-

agement, KM, and intellectual capital management. How did it come

about, therefore, that BPM is still understood as “traditional BPM”

although it responds successfully to a mere fraction of such require-

ments (Olding & Rozwell, 2015)? The aim of the paper is to propose

the concept of the Knowledge and Process Continuum, which corre-

sponds to the changing role of BPM in Knowledge Intensive

Received: 7 August 2019 Accepted: 7 August 2019

DOI: 10.1002/kpm.1611

Knowl Process Manag. 2019;26:308–320.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/kpm© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

308