165
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
1 
Received: 6th July 2023; Accepted: 20th February 2024
An Analysis of Methods and 
Techniques Used for Business Process 
Improvement
Eva KRHAČ ANDRAŠEC, Benjamin URH, Matjaž ROBLEK, Tomaž KERN
University of Maribor, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Kranj, Slovenia, eva.krhac1@um.si, benjamin.urh@um.si,  
matjaz.roblek@domel.si, tomaz.kern@um.si
Background: More than 50 process-based approaches, methods, and techniques have been developed in recent 
decades to achieve more efficient operation of organizational systems. Due to increasingly rapid changes in the 
business environment, the question of which method or technique will have the most significant impact on increasing 
the organizational system’s competitive advantage is becoming increasingly important.
Purpose: In the presented research, we focused on identifying methods and techniques often cited in the literature 
and most often used in practice as efficient for improving business processes.
Methods: We prepared a 4-phase structured review of the available literature and supported the findings with sur-
vey research.
Results and Conclusion: Based on the results, we designed a set of appropriate, most frequently used, and effi-
cient methods and techniques for improving business processes. The completed research can serve as a starting 
point for answering the question about the appropriate methods and techniques for the chosen approach. In continu-
ing the research, it would be reasonable to check other properties and the use of methods and techniques.
Keywords: Business Process Management, Business process improvement, Approaches, Methods, Techniques
DOI: 10.2478/orga-2024-0012
1 Introduction
In business processes, added value and simultaneously 
a significant share of costs are created. As a result, they 
became the core of the demanded changes in the organi-
zational system. Business Process Management is a dis-
cipline with which we focus on improving business pro-
cess efficiency (Harmon, 2007, in Lahajnar and Rožanec, 
2015). Its purpose is to support the modeling, managing, 
and analyzing the business processes (Weske, 2007). It 
is a complex discipline that includes a set of principles, 
approaches, methods, techniques, and tools and combines 
the knowledge of management, industrial engineering, and 
information-communication technologies sciences (Weske 
et al., 2004; van der Aalst, 2013; van der Aalst et al., 2016) 
and psychology (Lahajnar and Rožanec, 2015).
The life cycle of Business Process Management con-
tains six phases, i.e. (Dumas et al., 2013):
• business process identification,
• business process discovery,
• business process analysis,
• business process improvement,
• business process implementation,
• business process monitoring and control.
In the last decades, over 50 approaches, methods, 
and techniques to improve business processes have been 
developed (Vila, 2006; Mežnar, 2021; Krhač Andrašec, 
2022). They have more or less unified goals: reducing 

166
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
the processes’ business cycle, increasing the added value 
in the processes, and gradually increasing the quality of 
products and organizational system’s services, reducing 
the processes execution’s costs while maintaining suitable 
quality and needed time ratio, increasing reliability and 
consistency of the process implementation and the quality 
of products and services. Simultaneously, they differ in the 
terms of business process execution improvement:
• the improvement’s ambitions aspect (major or mi-
nor gradual improvements),
• the nature or characteristics of the improvement 
aspect (an analytical or creative approach to im-
provement),
• the process view aspect (an internal or external 
view of the improvement).
The Business Process Management phases use a varie-
ty of approaches, methods, and techniques. However, they 
are not consistently named in the literature. For example, 
Lean is commonly used in literature as a method (Kim 
et al., 2006), an approach (Massingham and Al Holaibi, 
2017), or in combination with techniques (Warner et al., 
2013). Often, it is also mentioned as Lean Six Sigma, rep-
resenting a combination of two approaches (Crema and 
Verbano, 2013). Non-unified naming causes confusion and 
unsuitable use by the users. In our study, we use individual 
terms in the sense as they are explained in the Oxford Eng-
lish Dictionary (2021):
• an approach is a way of dealing with a situation or 
a problem; for example, we need an entirely new 
approach to work;
• a method is a special systematic procedure for 
achieving or getting closer to something; for ex-
ample, labor-intensive production methods;
• a technique is a way of performing a particular 
task, especially in executing an artwork or a sci-
entific process; for example, it is a skillful or effi -
cient way of working.
Based on the basic terms’ meaning and their uses over-
view in the available literature, we perceive that approach-
es are slightly wider than methods and techniques. These 
are selected in the concept phase because their purpose is 
to realize the chosen approach. In literature, we can come 
across different methods and techniques for improving 
business processes; however, their use and combination 
are left to the managers’ ideas in individual organizational 
systems (Debevc et al., 2018; Galof and Balantič, 2021; 
Maletič et al., 2023).
The research aimed to identify the most commonly 
used and relevant approaches, methods, and techniques of 
business process improvement. Additionally, we investi-
gated the potential differences in the usage of individual 
methods or techniques of business process improvement 
between the organizational systems based on different cri-
teria for their classification
1 
(e.g., predominant purpose, 
size, etc.).
2 Methodology
The research is divided into two parts, i.e., a 4-phase 
structured literature overview was designed and conduct-
ed, a questionnaire was developed, and the answers were 
analyzed.
Due to the large set of terms used in improving busi-
ness processes and their various naming, we initially 
carried out an in-depth overview of the multidisciplinary 
collections. To identify relevant approaches, methods, and 
techniques mainly used and reflected in the wanted results, 
a 4-phase structured overview of the available literature 
was carried out.
A Basic Overview of the Multidisciplinary Collections
In the first phase, we focused on Web of Science, Pro-
Quest Dissertations & Theses, Science Direct, and Emer-
ald, where the following combinations of phrases are used:
• basis: Business Process Improvement/Reengi-
neering/Redesign/Optimization,
• complement: principle/concept/approach/method/
technique.
We searched for the relevant terms in titles, abstracts, 
keywords, and the entire history of the multidisciplinary 
collections. Due to numerous hits, we have sometimes set 
limits and reduced the number of hits to a manageable lev-
el. Usually, we limit the year of the source’s publication, 
the availability of the source, and the number of citations. 
We examined the reduced hits and extracted the more often 
identified terms. In this phase, 947 hits (sources) were ex-
amined, and 65 terms were extracted. When reexamining 
the sources, in which we discovered new terms or terms 
that repeat once, we excluded 18 terms from the research 
because of irrelevance.
Defining the Narrower Set of Terms
Based on the calculations of the 10% of the maximum 
hits in the second phase, the remaining terms were catego-
rized into two groups. A closer examination was carried out 
for terms with fewer hits than 10% of the maximum hits in 
the first phase. The exclusion criteria are the year and the 
publication type (journal with or without the impact factor, 
book, conference). The term Simulation was changed to 
1 
1
 The criteria for classifying organizational systems are predominant purpose (energy production, material production, and non-material produc-
tion), business area (21 areas), size (micro, small, medium and large), technical and economic structure (mainly for business areas with production 
work processes - e.g., number of repetitions of execution, integration of processes...), a legal-formal form of organization (systems with prof-
it-making work - entrepreneur, company with limited liability, systems with non-profit work) and location - wider, narrower and internal location 
(Kern, 2017).

167
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
Process Simulation to adapt the term to the field. The terms 
were reexamined based on the number of hits according 
to Web of Science. Here, the terms are reviewed accord-
ing to independent hits from the first phase and the hits in 
combinations with “Process Improvement” and “Business 
Process Improvement,” where 10% of the maximum hits 
for the other two reviews is also calculated. Based on the 
selected criterion, we considered those terms relevant that 
have at least in two reviews the number of hits higher than 
10% from the maximum number of hits. Additional exam-
ination of the suitability of the relevant terms set followed, 
where years and types of publication and the number of 
citations were reexamined. Lastly, the term suitability in 
terms of content based on their definitions was checked. To 
avoid premature elimination of the relevant terms, the car-
ried-out calculation process was checked additionally with 
a minimum of 5% hits. The second phase of the theoretical 
overview is thus finished with a set of 18 relevant terms to 
improve business processes.
An In-depth Review of the Narrower Set of Approaches
In the third phase, the selected relevant approaches 
underwent an additional in-depth review to emphasize the 
relevant methods and techniques. At each approach, sev-
eral sources were reviewed, focusing on the impact factor, 
reviewed articles, and books. Following Pettersen (2009), 
we removed the terms with a few occurrences in the litera-
ture from relevant business process improvement methods 
and techniques.
An In-depth Review of the Remaining Terms and De-
signing a Set of Relevant Methods and Techniques
In the final phase, an in-depth review of the remaining 
terms was carried out. It encompassed:
• a re-review of the frequency of the occurrence of 
the terms in the multidisciplinary collections (in 
combination with “business process improve-
ment”) – the Scopus collection was also included 
in the review,
• a review, in which phases of the business process 
improvement approaches is possible to use an in-
dividual term,
• overview of the definitions of the terms.
Based on the first review, significant differences in the 
frequency of the occurrence of the different terms were 
discovered. This is why, following the second phase’s ex-
ample, terms with less than 5% occurrence in their group 
as the most frequently used term are excluded from fur-
ther investigation. To keep more possible terms, terms that 
scored more than 5% of occurrences in at least four hits 
groups were left in the set. For the remaining terms, the re-
maining two reviews are carried out. In the second review, 
we focused mainly on the following phases of the business 
process improvement approaches: Processes mapping, 
Processes analysis, and Key processes improvement. At 
the end of the phase, the terms are also partially examined 
regarding the quality of the execution description and the 
possibility of application in different situations.
The whole 4-phase structured literature overview was 
conducted from June 2019 to December 2020. Since the 
multidisciplinary collections have been upgraded with 
new sources, there is a possibility of discrepancies in cer-
tain numbers. However, the same terms were consistently 
identified throughout all of the phases. We also confirmed 
the suitability of the relevant approaches, methods, and 
techniques of the business process improvement with the 
questionnaire results.
A Questionnaire Survey
A questionnaire survey was chosen to conduct the 
research due to the research’s size. A questionnaire was 
prepared in the Slovenian language and translated into 
German, English, and Croatian. It was prepared in an 
anonymous form (it did not encompass the respondents’ 
personal information) and with the help of the 1ka tool . 
Nine employees from various organizational systems vali-
dated the questionnaire before the research.
Each selected organizational system from Slovenia, 
Croatia, Germany, and Sweden received an invitation by 
e-mail to participate in international research and, in case 
of non-response, two reminders. We obtained a set of suit-
able organizational systems, in accordance with purpose 
and size, with the help of the respective countries’ statis-
tical offices. For every returned e-mail (for example, be-
cause of technical issues or a non-existing e-mail address), 
we forwarded the invitation, and in case of non-response, 
two remainders to a new contact. The complete research 
was carried out between April 1, 2021, and July 15, 2021, 
and the country-specific questionnaire was available for 90 
days.
After the data collection, at least partially completed 
questionnaires were included in the analysis. A response 
rate analysis is prepared based on the responses, show-
ing the highest response rate in Slovenia (14.7%) and the 
lowest in Sweden (0.8%). The overall response rate of the 
questionnaires is 7.6%. The response rate analysis results 
are suitable, as a more recent evaluation of research with 
a response rate above 5% confirmed that research with 
a lower response rate is negligibly less accurate than re-
search with a higher response rate (Morton et al., 2012). 
A calculation of the adequacy of the achieved sample size 
based on the freely available calculator is also prepared 
(Raosoft, 2004). The size of the selected population, the 
risk level of sampling error, the normal distribution of re-
sponses, and the 95% confidence level are entered into the 
calculator. A sample of 196 organizational systems is rec-
ommended based on the entered conditions. We exceeded 
the recommended sample, and with the 95% trust rate, we 
can claim that the achieved sample of 213 organizational 
systems is representative of the selected population survey.

168
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
3 Results
3.1 Theoretical Review Results 
A Basic Overview of the Multidisciplinary Collections
947 hits in the four multidisciplinary collections are re-
viewed in the first phase. Table 1 shows the review results 
in which the identified terms of business process improve-
ment are included.
Defining the Narrower Set of Terms
As mentioned above, in the second phase, the terms are 
classified into two groups based on the calculation of the 
10% in three combinations of the number of hits’ searches. 
Simultaneously, individual terms are reviewed by the year 
and the publication type. Table 2 shows the results of the 
described review, where the number of hits within 90% of 
the maximum number of hits is shown in grey. Based on 
that, a narrower set of relevant terms is designed; however, 
a further review of the appropriateness of the set followed, 
in which the year and type of publication, number of cita-
tions, and the suitability of the terms to the content of the 
definitions were reexamined. On this basis, Risk Manage-
ment and Data Mining are removed from the set, while 
Digital Transformation, Just in Time, and Process Simula-
tion are added. Based on the content suitability, Business 
Process Reengineering and Business Process Redesign are 
joined into one term, and Business Process Modeling and 
Process Mapping are merged into another. Consequently, 
the suggested set encompasses 17 terms.
The calculation procedure is repeated with 5% of hits 
to avoid the early elimination of the relevant terms. The 
two calculations differed in only eight terms:
• two of the terms based on content suitability have 
already been added: Just in Time and Process 
Simulation,
• two terms are a part of the approaches, reviewed 
in the third phase in more detail, and they will be 
added in the next phase: Kanban and UML.
The remaining terms were additionally reviewed in 
terms of content; namely, all hits in combination with 
“Process Improvement” were reviewed. Thus, only the 
PDCA term is added to the set, and the second phase of the 
theoretical review is concluded with a set of 18 relevant 
terms for business process improvement.
An In-depth Review of the Narrower Set of Approaches
Ten relevant business process improvement approach-
es with the most hits in the previous phase go under a 
detailed examination in the third phase. Table 3 below 
presents the more often identified terms resulting from an 
in-depth review of the narrower set of approaches (excerpt 
shown in Table 4).
The Petri Nets, BPMN, and EPC (Amjad et al., 2018), 
already partially selected in the previous phase, should be 
added to the identified terms. It is also reasonable to add 
to the set terms appearing in several approaches: FMEA 
(in three approaches), 5 Why (in six approaches), SMED 
(in two approaches), and Process Simulation (in four ap-
proaches).
Table 1: Identified terms of business process improvement
Global citation database Identified terms
Web of Science
Business Process Reengineering, Simulation, Lean Manufacturing, Business Process Improve-
ment, Business Process Redesign, Petri Net, Business Process Modeling, BPMN, Six Sigma, 
Lean Six Sigma, Change Management, Event logs, Just in Time, DMAIC, Value Stream Mapping, 
UML, Business Process Model, QFD, Process Mapping, AHP , Integrated Enterprise Modeling, 
Automatization, Pareto principle, Kanban, Digitalization, Agile, Risk Management, ABC Analy-
sis, IDEF, IDEF 3, Continuous Quality Improvement, Continuous Process Improvement, Ishikawa 
Diagram, EPC, Benchmarking, PDCA, FMEA, IDEF 0, Data Mining, Value Chain Analysis, Delphi, 
Product - Based Design, Big Data Analytics.
Emerald
Lean Management, Six Sigma, Total Quality Management, Process Mining, AHP , Simulation, 
Delphi, Business Process Reengineering, Agile method, and Kaizen.
Science Direct
Business Process Reengineering, Lean Management, Six Sigma, Value Stream Mapping, DMA-
IC, and Business Intelligence.

169
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
Identified term
The first 
phase 
hits
Year of  
publication
The term  
independently
The term and
“Business Process 
Improvement”
The term and 
“Process  
Improvement”
ABC Analysis 2 2000, 2015 458 0 4
Agile methods 3 1998, 2018, 2019 1 173 0 75
AHP 3 2009, 2009, 2017 25 950 3 34
Automatization
(Automatisation)
2 2016, 2018
4 572
(705)
0 4
Benchmarking 1 2000 44 498 19 178
Big Data Analytics 1 2017 4 142 1 8
BPMN 9 1 722 10 25
Business Intelligence 1 2016 5 975 7 24
Business Process Improvement 19 389
Business Process Model 3 1 544 15 27
Business Process Modeling 9 833 10 19
Business Process Redesign 14 298 9 23
Business Process Reengineering 88 1 454 28 72
Change Management 5
2011, 2017, 2017, 
2018, 2018
7 499 11 131
Continuous Process Improve-
ment
1 2010 303 4 303
Continuous Quality Improve-
ment
1 2010 3 974 1 86
Data Mining 1 2009 111 500 19 139
Delphi 2 2015, 2019 24 501 0 25
Digitalization
(Digitalisation)
2 2018, 2018
7 070
(1 179)
1 7
DMAIC 5 724 7 110
EPC 1 1999 14 576 0 8
Event logs 4 2015, 2016, 2017 1 378 8 19
FMEA 1 1997 3 111 0 35
IDEF 2 2010, 2014 350 1 6
IDEF 0 1 2018 28 1 11
IDEF 3 2 2015, 2018 3 0 1
Integrated Enterprise Modeling 2 1996, 1997, 2018 14 0 0
Ishikawa Diagram 1 2014 198 1 12
JIT 4
2005, 2014, 2015, 
2016
8 312 4 37
Kaizen 1 2015 816 3 61
Kanban 2 2015, 2017 1 556 2 25
Lean Management 32 942 2 52
Pareto principle 2 2017, 2018 459 0 1
PDCA 1 2017, 2017 1 197 3 38
Table 2: Overview of terms by hits and years of publication

170
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
Table 2: Overview of terms by hits and years of publication (continues)
Identified term
The first 
phase 
hits
Year of  
publication
The term  
independently
The term and
“Business Process 
Improvement”
The term and 
“Process  
Improvement”
Petri Net 10 11 858 3 22
Process Mapping 2 2016, 2018 945 8 47
Process Mining 16 1 900 13 58
Product-Based Diagram 1 2010 10 0 0
QFD 3 1997, 2007, 2016 2 720 2 25
Risk Management 2 2013, 2017 87 644 4 201
Simulation
(Process Simulation)
23
2 610 359
(12 072)
31
(2)
686
(110)
Six Sigma 16 4 265 24 454
TQM 7
1998, 2011, 2015, 
2018, 2018, 2019, 
2019
4 672 6 138
UML 3 2012, 2016, 2017 13 632 8 44
Value Chain Analysis 1 2010 561 1 1
Value Stream Mapping 5 756 6 49
Table 3: Identified terms by approaches
Approach Identified terms
Business Process Reengineering IDEF0, Benchmarking, Process Modeling/Mapping
Change management Flowchart
Continuous Process Improvement
Flowchart, Pareto Diagram, Check sheet, Control Chart, Histogram, Scatter Plot, 
Cause and Effect Diagram, 5S
Just in Time Kanban, Level schedule (Heijunka)
Kaizen 5S, PDCA
Lean Management Kanban, Poka Yoke, Heijunka, Visual Control, 5S, VSM, Autonomation (Jidoka)
Process Mining
Heuristic miner (approach, mining), Conformance checking, Genetic mining 
(algorithms), Dependency graph, Alpha algorithm, Inductive miner, Split miner, 
Transition systems, Region-based mining (state-based regions, language-based 
regions)
Six Sigma
DMAIC, Cause and Effect Diagram, Statistical Process Control, Process Mapping, 
Design of Experiments
Total Quality Management
Control Chart, Cause and Effect Diagram, Pareto Diagram, Histogram, Statistical 
Process Control (SPC), QFD, Benchmarking, Quality circles, Brainstorming, Check 
Sheet, Scatter Diagram, Run Chart, Flowchart

171
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
Table 4: Identified properties by approaches and references
Approach Reference Identified properties
Business Process 
Reengineering
Chiarini
(2011)
Mapping, Benchmarking, Brainstorming, Cause and Effect Diagram
Habib and Shah 
(2013)
IDEF 0, task elimination, task composition, integral technology, empower, or-
der-assignment, specialist–generalist, integration, parallelism, numerical involve-
ment, Benchmarking, Business Process Modeling
Xiang et al.
(2014) – redesign
Eliminating unnecessary tasks, combining or dividing tasks, re-sequencing tasks 
in processes, paralleling tasks, integrating business processes, empowering work-
ers with more decision-making authority, assigning workers to perform as many 
steps as possible for single orders, making human resources more specialized or 
more generalized, minimizing the number of departments, groups, and persons
Change  
Management
Inês Dallavalle de 
Pádua et al.
(2014)
Process Modeling, BPMN, Flowchart, Lanes, EPC, Value Chain, Root Cause Analy-
sis, Current Reality Tree (CRT)
Al-Haddad and 
Kotnour
(2015)
Lewin’s method, Judson’s method, Kanter, Jick, and Stein’s method, Leading 
change, Luecke’s method, the Insurrection model
Noori and Latifi
(2018)
Mistake Proofing, Six Sigma - DMAIC, Design of Experiments, Control Chart, 
Cause and Effect Analysis, Flowchart, Brainstorming, Pareto Analysis, Process 
Capability Analysis
Lean Management
Pettersen
(2009)
Kaizen/continuous improvement, Setup time reduction, Just in Time reduction, 
Kanban/pull system, Poka Yoke, Production leveling (Heijunka), Standardized 
work, Visual Control, 5S, Andon, Small lot production, Time/work studies, Waste 
elimination, Inventory reduction, Supplier involvement, Takted production, 
TPM, Autonomation (Jidoka), Statistical Quality Control, Teamwork, Workforce 
reduction, 100% inspection, Layout adjustments, Policy deployment, Improve-
ment circles, Root Cause Analysis (5 Why), VSM, Flowcharting, Educational/cross 
training, Employee involvement, Lead time reduction, Multi-manning, Process 
synchronization, Cellular Manufacturing
Al-Tahat and 
Jalham (2015)
Variability reduction, Visual Control, Poka Yoke, Quality at the source, Kaizen, 5S, 
Root Cause Analysis, TQM, Kanban, Small lot sizes, Pacing by tact time, Heijunka, 
VSM, Point-of-use materials
Stevenson
(2015)
Cellular layouts, Kanban, Heijunka, Kaizen, Autonomation (Jidoka), SMED, 
Balanced system, Poka Yoke, Andon, Activity-based costing, Level loading, Visual 
system, Preventive maintenance, 5S, VSM
Total Quality  
Management
Hellsten and 
Klefsjö
(2000)
QFD, Design of Experiments, Control Chart, Process maps, Tree Diagram, Ishika-
wa Diagram, Pareto Diagram, Histogram, ISO 9000, Benchmarking, Quality circles
Jafari and Setak 
(2010)
Cause and Effect Diagram, Pareto Analysis, SPC, Quality costing, Departmental 
Purpose Analysis, Flowcharting, FMEA, QFD, Check Sheet, Histogram, Scatter 
Plot, Graphs, Mistake Proofing (Poka Yoke), Task lists, Brainstorming, PDCA, Con-
trol Chart, Run charts, Why-why Diagram

172
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
Table 5: Frequency of occurrence of related terms by global citation databases
Web of Science
(topic)
ProQuest Disser-
tations & Theses
(anywhere)
 Science Direct
(all fields)
Scopus
(title, abstract, 
or keywords)
Emerald
(all content)
The term in 
combination with 
“business process 
improvement”
All the 
y ear s                      
Since 
2010
Since 
2010
1
All the 
y ear s                    
Since 
2011
All the 
y ear s                      
The 
last 10 
y ear s                            
All the 
y ear s                         
The 
last 10 
y ear s                           
All the 
year s                   
The last 
10 y ear s                             
Autonomation
(Jidoka)
1 1 31 191 102 53 50 139 92 157 112
Benchmarking 557 180 34 473 27 852 15 089 15 591 11 613 41 441 26 481
> 20 
000
> 11000
Brainstorming 29 23 2 730 37 295 14 849 758 536 5 437 2 918 > 3 000 > 1 000
Conformance 
checking
2 2 432 5 3 13 12 1 1 3 3
Design of Experi-
ments
39 19 19 733 4 850 2 039 1 610 1 244 2 836 1 841 656 352
DMAIC 106 78 673 861 592 1 414 1 202 557 389 697 531
Genetic
(mining, algo-
rithms)
2 (0,2) 1 (0,1)
(19,        
59 879)
88 
(0,24)
42 
(0,12)
31 
(1,20)
22 
(1,15)
2 (0,2) 2 (0,2)
30 
(0,15)
21 (0,12)
Heijunka 1 1 39 160 92 68 62 122 95 109 87
Heuristic
(approach, miner, 
mining)
2 
(0,0,0)
1 
(0,0,0)
(3 732, 
33, 13)
130 
(6,1,0)
67 
(2,1,0)
38 
(3,5,2)
24 
(2,4,1)
6 
(0,1,0)
5 
(0,1,0)
36 
(3,1,0)
23 
(1,1,0)
Kanban 24 16 893 1 735 611 1 319 1 058 1 413 751 > 1 000 607
PDCA 45 35 1 018 1 500 718 576 507 1 062 715 702 430
Poka Yoke 4 3 132 371 165 267 197 306 191 357 241
Process Mapping 68 50 855 1 615 758 777 529 865 510 > 1 000 764
Process Modeling 287 186 6 163 4 235 1 986 6 313 4 270 10 424 6 018 > 5 000 > 3 000
Process Simula-
tion
94 50 8 256 1 935 784 1 302 916 1 622 1 025 245 143
QFD 62 33 1 889 1 830 642 2 779 1 838 1 533 768 > 1 000 692
SMED 5 5 1 018 672 280 442 342 423 260 363 250
Statistical Process 
Control
113 38 4 651 3 460 896 2 113 1 291 2 033 725 > 1 000 595
Visual Control 1 1 2 395 1 002 392 102 76 286 161 250 176
VSM 48 46 821 784 532 2 168 1 945 757 633 924 804
5S 24 19 23 257 39 160 7 051 923 823 1 583 680 > 1 000 674
Max. number in 
the column
557 186 59 879 39 160 15 089 15 591 11 613 41 441 26 481 20 000 11 000
5 % of the max. 
number
27.85 9.3
2 
993.95
1 958 754.45 779.55 580.65
2 
072.05
1 
324.05
1 000 550
1
 The number of hits by the searched independent term.

173
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
An In-depth Review of the Remaining Terms and De-
signing a Set of Relevant Methods and Techniques
In the last phase, the final in-depth review of the re-
maining terms is executed:
• a review of the frequency of occurrence of the 
terms (in combination with “business process im-
provement”) – Table 5,
Table 6: Usability of terms in individual phases of Business Process Improvement approaches
Preparation for 
improvement
Processes
mapping
Processes
analysis
Key processes 
improvement
Solution  
implementation/
System adapta-
tion
Processes  
monitoring
 and control
Benchmarking
M
2 
in DMAIC 
(Zare Mehr-
jerdi, 2011; 
Antony, 2006)
A
3
 in BPR 
(Habib and 
Shah, 2013)
D
5
 in DMADV 
(Soković et al., 
2009)
Brainstorming
D
1
 in DMAIC 
(Antony, 2006) 
and in DMADV 
(Soković et al., 
2009)
Determination 
of change 
requirements 
(Nickerson, 
2014)
A
3
 in DMAIC 
(Soni et al., 
2013; Antony, 
2006)
I
4
 in DMAIC 
(Zare Mehrjer-
di, 2011; Soni 
et al., 2013; 
Antony, 2006)
Process Mapping
D
1
 in DMAIC 
(Antony, 2006)
M
2
 in DMAIC 
(Soni et al., 
2013)
A
3
 in DMAIC 
(Soković et al., 
2009), process 
evaluation 
(Shin and Je-
mella, 2002)
Process Modeling
Process dis-
covery (Dumas 
et al., 2018), 
business envi-
ronment mod-
eling (Valiris in 
Glykas, 1999)
Business 
Environment 
Analysis (Valiris 
in Glykas, 
1999), analysis 
of business 
processes 
(Habib and 
Shah, 2013)
Streamlining 
(Valiris and 
Glykas, 1999)
Process Simulation
Analysis 
(Dumas et al., 
2018), process 
evaluation 
(Shin and Je-
mella, 2002)
I
4
 in DMAIC 
(Zare Mehrjer-
di, 2011)
VSM
D
1
 in DMADV 
(Soković et 
al., 2009), 
identification 
of the target 
product/ser-
vice (Boutros 
and Cardella, 
2016)
Identification 
of activities 
and other 
parts of 
the process 
(Boutros and 
Cardella, 2016)
Process Anal-
ysis - waste 
identification 
(Boutros and 
Cardella, 2016)
I
4
 in DMAIC 
(Soković et al., 
2009), devel-
oping a list of 
opportunities 
(Boutros in Car-
della, 2016)
Lean Implemen-
tation phase 
(Bhamu and 
Singh Sangwan, 
2014)
5S
I
4
 in DMAIC and 
D
5
 in DMADV 
(Soković et al., 
2009)
1
 D – Define; 
2
 M – Measure; 
3
 A – Analyze; 
4
 I – Improve; 
5
 D – Design; 
6
 C – Control; 
7
 V - Verify

174
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
• a review of the terms’ use in the phases of busi-
ness process improvement approaches (with em-
phasis on Processes mapping, Processes analysis, 
and Key processes improvement) – Table 6,
• an overview of the definitions of the terms.
Based on the review of the occurrence of terms’ fre-
quency in the multidisciplinary collections and the calcu-
lation of the 5% maximum number of hits, the following 
terms were excluded from the set: PDCA, SMED, Hei-
junka, Visual Control, Poka Yoke, Autonomation (Jido-
ka), Heuristic (approach, miner, mining), Conformance 
checking, Genetic (mining, algorithms), 5 Whys, Pareto 
Diagram, Check Sheet, Run Chart, Dependency graph, 
Alpha algorithm, Inductive miner, Split miner, Transition 
systems, Region-based mining (or state-based regions, 
language-based regions).
The following two reviews are carried out for the re-
maining terms, and the partial results are shown in Table 6.
Based on the last two reviews, the following are ex-
cluded from the set of relevant terms:
• DMAIC and Statistical Process Control, as they 
are broader terms regarding content and are clas-
sified as an approach, type of approach, or meth-
odology,
• QFD, Control Chart, Histogram, and Scatter Di-
agram, as they are more suitable for use in other 
phases of improvement approaches and support 
business process improvement methods and tech-
niques,
• Kanban, as it is a consequence of the way of the 
improvement realization,
• Design of Experiments because it is a statistical 
methodology enabling the practitioner the statis-
tical correlation examination between the input 
variables and outputs from the system or process 
(Astakhov, 2012).
Based on the executed full 4-phase structured review 
of the available professional and scientific literature, the 
relevant and most often used methods and techniques of 
business process improvement are identified:
• methods – Benchmarking, Brainstorming, Pro-
cess Mapping/Process Modeling, Process Simula-
tion, Value Stream Mapping, and 5S,
• techniques – BPMN, Cause and Effect Diagram, 
EPC, Flowchart, FMEA, and Petri Nets.
3.2 Questionnaire Results
Basic Characteristics of the Sample
The overall analysis is based on descriptive statistics, 
where different possibilities of analyzing and visualizing 
the data based on the question type and the response op-
tions were used.
213 respondents completed the questionnaire. The 
respondents were classified according to three criteria of 
organizational systems classification: size, predominant 
Table 7: Enterprises by size, purpose, and country
Frequency Percentages
Size Micro-sized enterprise
(0-9 employees)
0 0.0%
Small-sized enterprise
 (10-49 employees)
5 2.3%
Medium-sized enterprise
(50-249 employees)
119 55.9%
Large-sized enterprise
(250 or more employees)
89 41.8%
Predominant purpose Energy production 6 2.8%
Material (physical) production 129 60.6%
Non-material production (services) 78 36.6%
Country Slovenia 129 60.6%
Croatia 61 28.6%
Germany 18 8.5%
Sweden 5 2.3%

175
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
purpose, and the country of business. Table 7 shows that 
the main respondents to the survey were:
• medium-sized organizational systems (55.9%) 
and large organizational systems (41.8%),
• material production (60.6%) and non-material 
production (36.6%) organizational systems,
• organizational systems from Slovenia (60.6%) 
and Croatia (28.6%).
The respondents also provided information on the 
business area of the organizational systems, the results of 
which are shown in Table 8. Most of the participants com-
pleted the questionnaire for the following business areas: 
Manufacturing (41%); Wholesale and Retail Trade, Repair 
of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles (13%); Construction 
(12%), and Transportation and Storage (11%). The rest of 
the business areas are covered to a lesser extent. 
Information on the Improvement Method or Technique 
Used
The central part of the questionnaire asked about the 
method or technique used in business process improve-
ment. Firstly, we were interested in the approaches used 
to improve the business process (Figure 1). Continuous 
Process Improvement (62%) was chosen the most, fol-
lowed by Change Management (44%), Business Process 
Reengineering/Redesign (37%), and Digital Transforma-
tion (32%). Lean Management (25%), Total Quality Man-
agement (16%), and Just in Time (11%) are slightly less 
often selected. The remaining approaches are used in less 
than 10% of the cases. The respondents added a few oth-
er terms: a combination of various practical knowledge; 
ZKP; MIFA; Ishikawa, 5 Why, and Quick Response Man-
ufacturing.
Table 8: Enterprises by business areas
Responses
Percentages of 
cases
N
1
Percentages
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 9 2.9% 4.2%
Mining and Quarrying 3 1.0% 1.4%
Manufacturing 87 27.8% 40.8%
Department of the manufacturing activity 75 24.0% 35.2%
Electricity, Gas, Steam, and Air Conditioning Supply 6 1.9% 2.8%
Water Supply, Sewerage, Waste Management, and 
Remediation Activities
1 0.3% 0.5%
Construction 26 8.3% 12.2%
Wholesale and Retail Trade, Repair of Motor Vehi-
cles and Motorcycles
27 8.6% 12.7%
Transportation and Storage 23 7.3% 10.8%
Accommodation and Food Service Activities 2 0.6% 0.9%
Information and Communication 11 3.5% 5.2%
Real Estate Activities 1 0.3% 0.5%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Activities 15 4.8% 7.0%
Administrative and Support Service Activities 4 1.3% 1.9%
Human Health and Social Work Activities 2 0.6% 0.9%
Other Service Activities 21 6.7% 9.9%
Total 313 100.0% 146.9%

176
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
Figure 1: Used Business Process Improvement approaches
Figure 2: Used Business Process Improvement methods
Questions about the method used (Figure 2) or the 
technique used (Figure 3) in business process improve-
ment followed. The respondents most frequently used 
Brainstorming (67%), Benchmarking (54%), and Process 
Mapping/Process Modeling (43%); the least frequently 
used was VSM (10%). A few respondents also selected 
the answer “other” (3%), where they added the Six Sig-
ma methods, basic quality methods; SWOT, materiality 
matrix, PESTLE, Porter’s Forces, VRIO, Boston Matrix; 
PDCA; SWOT and Poka-Yoke, PDCA. An overview of 
the techniques used (Figure 3) followed. The most used 
ones are Flowchart (56%), FMEA (29%), BPMN (29%), 
and Cause and Effect Diagram (28%). The Petri Nets tech-
nique (2%) is the least frequently used. The answer “other” 
is chosen several times (6%), and the following are added: 
creative team thinking; MIFA; Focus Groups – interviews; 
taking account of industry developments and global DSV 
policies. 

177
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
Next, we looked at which used methods and tech-
niques, according to the respondents, contributed the most 
to business process improvement efficiency. Brainstorm-
ing (30.1 %) and Benchmarking (19.4 %) (Figure 4) are 
the most frequently chosen, and the least chosen is Petri 
Nets (0.5 %). Once the option »other« (0.5 %), where 
PDCA is added, is also chosen. 
In this part of the questionnaire, we wanted to gain 
more information on the method or technique selected:
• the purpose of implementing the selected methods 
and techniques,
• the consistency of the execution of the selected 
method or technique,
• the use of the selected method or technique by 
business process improvement phases.
Figure 3: Used Business Process Improvement techniques
Figure 4: The most effective term for business process improvement

178
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
Figure 5: The purpose of implementing the selected term
Figure 6: Consistency in the execution of the selected term
Figure 5 shows that the methods and techniques were 
most frequently implemented to improve process quality 
(80%). The remaining purposes were relatively evenly 
chosen. An answer was added a few times, such as Lean 
Manufacturing and Six Sigma, include all of the above; 
strategic marketing, communication improvement be-
tween business processes; transparency; customer service 
improvement; ensuring process transparency; reducing the 
risk, and achieving a high level of involvement.

179
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
The question about the consistency of the execution of 
the selected method or technique offers four answers to the 
respondents (Figure 6). The third statement (68.1%) about 
the method or technique execution adapted to the user’s 
needs was the most frequently chosen one. The remaining 
statements were chosen significantly less frequently. The 
least frequently selected statement was about not knowing 
a method or technique (5.9%). 
The respondents used the chosen method or technique 
the most (60%) in the phase of the Key processes improve-
ment (Figure 7) and the least frequently in the phase of 
Processes monitoring and control (22%). Other business 
process improvement phases were chosen fairly evenly. 
The Suitability of the Selected Method or Technique to 
Improve Business Processes and Organizational System
The last part of the questionnaire asks the respond-
ents about their opinion on the suitability of the selected 
method or technique to improve business processes and, 
consequently, the organizational system. We wanted to 
know whether the chosen method or technique was useful 
for achieving the purpose the respondents had set at the 
beginning of the business process improvement. Most of 
the respondents answered affirmatively (55.7%), and the 
least of the respondents answered negatively (0.7%). The 
rest of the respondents chose the answer that the selected 
method or technique was partially useful in achieving their 
purpose.
The end of the questionnaire assessed the difficulty 
level of the method or technique for the respondents’ or-
ganizational system. Each difficulty could be rated from 
1 to 5, where 1 meant the method or technique was very 
non-difficult, and 5 meant it was very difficult. On average, 
the technical difficulty of the method or technique used is 
rated 3.29, the time difficulty 3.62, and the cost difficul -
ty 3.03. Therefore, the respondents rated their methods 
and techniques as the most time-consuming and the least 
cost-consuming.
An Analysis of Differences in the Methods and Tech-
niques Use 
We also wanted to know the potential differences in the 
use of individual methods or techniques of business pro-
cess improvement between organizational systems based 
on three criteria of their classification: purpose, size, and 
country. The analysis of differences contained analyses of 
all 13 selected terms. The tests were carried out with the 
help of the χ2 test on the sample of 186 respondents.
The theoretical frequencies of the initial tests were less 
than 5. Consequently, the interpretation of the χ2 test was 
not reliable because the test requires theoretical frequen-
cies to be more than 5 in all of the table’s cells. Conse-
quently, individual categories are appropriately grouped, 
i.e., individual variables were re-coded before conducting 
all the tests again. Small and medium-sized organizational 
systems were combined in SME organizational systems, 
and the energy production was combined with material 
(physical) production. These mergers make sense consid-
ering the categorization of other existing organizational 
systems and the survey sample. For the third criterion, a 
sensible merger was impossible to perform, and the test 
was repeated in countries with theoretical frequencies of 
more than 5 in at least half of the initial tests (Slovenia, 
Croatia, and Germany).
The theoretical frequencies of the repeated tests are 
larger than 5 in all cells. Consequently, the x2 tests’ in-
Figure 7: Use of the selected term according to the phases of business process improvement

180
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
terpretation is reliable. The test results, for which we can 
confirm the statistically significant association, are shown 
in Table 9. In these cases, we thus confirm that the method 
or technique used differs concerning an individual criteri-
on for classifying the organizational system. Table 9 also 
shows a contingency coefficient, showing a low correla-
tion in all cases can be confirmed.
Table 9: Results of χ2 tests for the use of methods and techniques according to purpose, size, and country of enterprises
 
The predominant purpose of the enter-
prise
Size of the enterprise Country of the enterprise
Brainstorming
p-value 0.024
χ
 2, 1
7.438
C
 2
0.198
75 % Slovenia,
17.9 % Croatia,
3.6 % Germany,
3.6 % Sweden
,P . Mapping/
P . Modeling
p-value 0.006
χ
 2
10.324
C 0.231
44.4 % Slovenia,
33.3 % Croatia,
22.2 % Germany
VSM
p-value 0.013 0.025
3
χ
 2
6.209 7.352
C 0.198 0.197
88.9 % material production,
11.1 % non-material production
44.4 % Slovenia,
22.2 % Croatia,
33.3 % Germany
5S
p-value 0.013
χ
 2
6.192
C 0.192
71.4 % material production,
28.6 % non-material production
BPMN
p-value < 0.001
χ
 2
14.366
C 0.270
45.5 % Slovenia,
18.2 % Croatia,
36.4 % Germany
FMEA
p-value < 0.001 0.010
χ
 2
17.556 6.612
C 0.305 0.197
92.3 % material production,
7.7 % non-material production
53.8 % medium-sized,
46.2 % large-sized
1 
χ 2 – the value of the test statistic
2
 C – contingency coefficient 
3
 16.7% of cells (1 cell) have a theoretical frequency less than 5 (up to 20% is acceptable).

181
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
Based on the analysis, we can confirm that the differ -
ences in the use of individual methods and techniques of 
business process improvement between the organizational 
systems according to the different criteria of their classifi-
cation do not exist:
• The use of two methods (out of seven) differs con-
cerning the organizational system’s purpose.
• The use of methods does not differ concerning the 
organizational system’s size.
• The use of three methods (out of seven) differs 
concerning the organizational systems’ country.
• The use of one technique (out of six) differs con-
cerning the organizational systems’ purpose and 
size.
• The use of one technique (out of six) differs con-
cerning organizational systems’ country.
4 Conclusion
The research aimed to identify the relevant approach-
es, methods, and techniques of business process improve-
ment and to research the potential differences in their use 
between the organizational systems according to different 
criteria of their classification.
Below, we highlight the key findings of the conducted 
survey: 
• Based on a 4-phase structural review of the availa-
ble literature, relevant and most frequent methods 
and techniques of business process improvement 
were identified,
 o methods - Benchmarking, Brainstorming, Pro-
cess Mapping/Process Modeling, Process Simulation, Val-
ue Stream Mapping, and 5S,
 o techniques - BPMN, Cause and Effect Dia-
gram, EPC, Flowchart, FMEA, and Petri Net;
• The most frequently used in practice (Figures 1, 
2, and 3),
 o approaches - Continuous Process Improve-
ment (62 %), Change Management (44 %), Business 
Process Reengineering/Redesign (37 %), and Digital 
Transformation (32 %),
 o methods - Brainstorming (67 %), Benchmark-
ing (54 %), and Process Mapping/Process Modeling 
(43 %),
 o techniques - Flowchart (56 %), FMEA (29 %), 
BPMN (29 %), and Cause and Effect Diagram (28 %);
• The findings of the relevant terms from the litera-
ture and questionnaire are in accordance, as only a 
few respondents wrote an additional term (meth-
ods - 3 % and techniques - 6 %);
• The most efficient methods for improving busi-
ness processes, according to the respondents’ 
opinion (Figure 4), are Brainstorming (30.1 %), 
Benchmarking (19.4 %), and Process Mapping/
Process Modeling (9.7 %);
• Methods and techniques are most frequently (Fig-
ures 5, 6, and 7),
 o implemented to improve the quality of process-
es (80%), 
 o adapted to the user’s needs (68.1%),
 o used in Key processes improvement phases 
(60%) and the Processes analysis (56%),
 o useful to achieve an intended purpose (55.7%),
 o time-consuming (3.62) and least cost-consum-
ing (3.03);
• The use of individual methods and techniques of 
business process improvement does not differ between or-
ganizational systems according to their classifying ranking 
criteria (Table 9),
 o individual methods and techniques are often 
used in manufacturing organizational systems (for exam-
ple, VSM, 5S, and FMEA). Gálová et al. (2018) support 
the findings and characterize VSM and 5S as business do-
main-dependent methods,
 o individual methods and techniques are often 
used in large and medium-sized organizational systems 
(for example, FMEA); however, no limitations in their use 
concerning their size in literature are detectable,
 o the most differences in the use of methods 
and techniques are noticed concerning the organizational 
systems’ country (for example, Brainstorming, Process 
Mapping/Process Modeling, VSM, and BPMN). We can 
conclude that different aspirations of organizational sys-
tems from various countries according to the use of spe-
cific methods and techniques; however, we cannot define a 
generalized conclusion about the use of different types of 
methods and techniques from the results obtained.
The purpose of the research was achieved entirely. 
In the future, it would be useful to build on the currently 
emphasized conclusions, i.e., we recommend that the re-
search results be verified on a larger sample and by other 
criteria for classifying organizational systems.
Literature
Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the or-
ganizational change literature: A model for successful 
change. Journal of Organizational Change Manage-
ment, 28(2), 234–262. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-
11-2013-0215
Al-Tahat, M. D., & Jalham, I. S. (2015). A structural 
equation model and a statistical investigation of lean-
based quality and productivity improvement. Journal 
of Intelligent Manufacturing, 26(3), 571–583. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10845-013-0816-0
Amjad, A., Azam, F., Anwar, M. W., Butt, W. H., & 
Rashid, M. (2018). Event-driven process chain for 
modeling and verification of business requirements 
– a systematic literature review. Ieee Access, 6, 9027–

182
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
9048. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2791666
Antony, J. (2006). Six Sigma for service processes. Busi-
ness Process Management Journal, 12(2), 234–248. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150610657558
Astakhov, V . P. (2012). Design of experiment methods in 
manufacturing: Basics and practical applications. In 
J. P. Davim (Ed.), Statistical and Computational Tech-
niques in Manufacturing (1–54). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-642-25859-6_1
Bhamu, J., & Singh Sangwan, K. (2014). Lean man-
ufacturing: Literature review and research issues. 
International Journal of Operations & Production 
Management, 34(7), 876–940. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJOPM-08-2012-0315
Boutros, T., & Cardella, J. (2016). The basics of process 
improvement. CRC Press.
Chiarini, A. (2011). Japanese total quality control, TQM, 
Deming’s system of profound knowledge, BPR, Lean 
and Six Sigma: Comparison and discussion. Inter-
national Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 2(4), 332–355. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461111189425
Crema, M., & Verbano, C. (2013). Guidelines for over-
coming hospital managerial challenges: A systematic 
literature review. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk 
Management, 9, 427–441. https://doi.org/10.2147/
TCRM.S54178
Debevc, I., Svetec, P., & Krhač Andrašec, E. (2018). 
Učinkovitost in uspešnost organizacije skozi uporabo 
različnih metodologij, konceptov in pristopov [The ef-
ficiency and effectiveness of the organization through 
the use of different methodologies, concepts and 
approaches]. In O. Arsenijević, I. Podbregar, P. Špra-
jc, D. Trivan, & Y . Ziegler (Eds.), 37th International 
Conference on Organizational Science Development. 
Organization and uncertainty in the digital age 
(217–233). Univerzitetna založba Univerze v Maribo-
ru. https//doi.org/10.18690/978-961-286-146-9.18
Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A. 
(2013). Fundamentals of business process manage-
ment (1st ed.). Springer.
Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A. 
(2018). Fundamentals of business process manage-
ment (2nd ed.). Springer.
Galof, K., Balantič, Z. (2021). Making the decision to 
stay at home: developing a community-based care 
process model for aging in place. International Jour-
nal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 
18(11), 5987. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115987
Gálová, K., Rajnoha, R., & Ondra, P. (2018). The use of 
industrial lean management methods in the econom-
ics practice: An empirical study of the production 
companies in the Czech Republic. Polish Journal 
of Management Studies, 17(1), 93–104. https://doi.
org/10.17512/pjms.2018.17.1.08
Habib, M. N., & Shah, A. (2013). Business process 
reengineering: Literature review of approaches and 
applications. Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Busi-
ness Research Conference, Malaysia.
Hellsten, U., & Klefsjö, B. (2000). TQM as a manage-
ment system consisting of values, techniques and 
tools. The TQM Magazine, 12(4), 238–244. https://
doi.org/10.1108/09544780010325822
Inês Dallavalle de Pádua, S., Mascarenhas Hornos da 
Costa, J., Segatto, M., Aparecido de Souza Júnior, 
M., & José Chiappetta Jabbour, C. (2014). BPM for 
change management: two process diagnosis tech-
niques. Business Process Management Journal, 20(2), 
247–271. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-03-2013-
0039
Jafari, S. M., & Setak, M. (2010). Total quality manage-
ment tools and techniques: The quest for an imple-
mentation roadmap. Proceedings of the AGBA 7th 
World Congress, Malaysia.
Kern, T. (2017). Vrste in oblike poslovnih sistemov in 
poslovnih procesov [Types and forms of business 
systems and business processes]. Faculty of Organiza-
tional Sciences.
Kim, C. S., Spahlinger, D. A., Kin, J. M., & Billi, J. E. 
(2006). Lean health care: what can hospitals learn 
from a world‐class automaker?. Journal of Hospital 
Medicine, 1(3), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jhm.68
Krhač Andrašec, E. (2022). Vpliv uporabe metod in teh-
nik izboljševanja poslovnih procesov na učinkovitost 
organizacijskih sistemov [Business process improve-
ment methods and techniques and their impact on 
the efficiency of organizational systems]. Doctoral 
dissertation. University of Maribor.
Lahajnar, S., & Rožanec, A. (2015). Primerjava metod-
ologij za menedžment poslovnih procesov. Uporabna 
informatika, 23(4), 226–238.
Maletič, D., Grabowska, M., & Maletič, M. (2023). 
Drivers and barriers of digital transformation in asset 
management. Management and Production Engineer-
ing Review, 14(1), 118-126. https://doi.org/10.24425/
mper.2023.145370
Massingham, P., & Al Holaibi, M. (2017). Embedding 
knowledge management into business processes. 
Knowledge and Process Management, 24(1), 53–71. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1534
Mežnar, D. (2021). System design of a vehicle based 
on the matrix approach using functional analysis of 
the maintenance. Processes, 9(5), 897. https://doi.
org/10.3390/pr9050897
Morton, S. M. B., Bandara, D. K., Robinson, E. M., & 
Atatoa Carr, P. E. (2012). In the 21
st
 century, what 
is an acceptable response rate?. Australian and New 
Zealand Journal of Public Health, 36(2), 106–108. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2012.00854.x
Nickerson, W. (2014). Business process improvement 
methodologies: common factors and their respec-
tive efficacies. Doctoral dissertation. University of 
Gloucestershire.
Noori, B., & Latifi, M. (2018). Development of Six 

183
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
Sigma methodology to improve grinding process-
es: A change management approach. International 
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 9(1), 50–63. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJLSS-11-2016-0074
Oxford University Press (2021). Oxford English Dictio-
nary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/
Pettersen, J. (2009). Defining lean production: 
some conceptual and practical issues. The 
TQM Journal, 21(2), 127–142. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17542730910938137
Raosoft (2004). Sample size calculator. http://www.
raosoft.com/samplesize.html
Shin, N., & Jemella, D. F. (2002). Business process 
reengineering and performance improvement: The 
case of Chase Manhattan Bank. Business Process 
Management Journal, 8(4), 351–363. https://doi.
org/10.1108/14637150210435008
Soković, M., Jovanović, J., Krivokapić, Z., & Vujović, 
A. (2009). Basic quality tools in continuous improve-
ment process. Strojniški vestnik – Journal of Mechan-
ical Engineering, 55(5), 333–341.
Soni, S., Mohan, R., Bajpai, L., & Katare, S. K. (2013). 
Reduction of welding defects using Six Sigma 
techniques. International Journal of Mechanical 
Engineering and Robotics Research, 2(3), 404–412. 
https://doi.org./10.18178/ijmerr
Stevenson, W. J. (2015). Operations management (12th 
ed). McGraw - Hill Education.
Valiris, G., & Glykas, M. (1999). Critical review of exist-
ing BPR methodologies: The need for a holistic ap-
proach. Business Process Management Journal, 5(1), 
65–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637159910249117
van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2013) Business process man-
agement: A comprehensive survey. ISRN Soft-
ware Engineering, 2013, 507984. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2013/507984
van der Aalst, W. M. P., La Rosa, M., & Santoro, F. M. 
(2016). Business process management: Don’t forget 
to improve the process!. Business & Information Sys-
tems Engineering 58(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12599-015-0409-x
Vila, A. (2006). Sintetizirana organizacija. In V . Rajkovič 
(Ed.), 25th International Conference on Organiza-
tional Science Development. Change management 
(1–12). Moderna organizacija.
Warner, C. J., Walsh, D. B., Horvath, A. J., Walsh, T. R., 
Herrick, D. P., Prentiss, S. J., & Powell, R. J. (2013). 
Lean principles optimize on-time vascular surgery op-
erating room starts and decrease resident work hours. 
Journal of Vascular Surgery, 58(5), 1417–1422. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2013.05.007
Weske, M., van der Aalst, W. M. P., & Verbeek, H. M. W. 
(2004). Advances in business process management. 
Data & Knowledge Engineering, 50(1), 1–8. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2004.01.001
Weske, M. (2007). Business process management: Con-
cepts, languages, architectures (1st ed.). Springer. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73522-9
Xiang, J., Archer, N., & Detlor, B. (2014). Business pro-
cess redesign project success: The role of socio-tech-
nical theory. Business Process Management Journal, 
20(5),773–792. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-
2012-0112
Zare Mehrjerdi, Y . (2011). Six‐Sigma: methodology, tools 
and its future. Assembly Automation, 31(1), 79–88. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/01445151111104209
PhD Eva Krhač Andrašec is a Teaching Assistant in 
the Department of Enterprise Engineering. She received 
her master’s degree in organization and management 
of business and working systems at the University of 
Maribor, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, in 2016. 
In 2023, she successfully defended her doctoral 
dissertation on business process improvement methods 
and techniques and their impact on the efficiency of 
organizational systems. Her main research interests 
are business process management and quality 
management. She actively participates in international 
scientific conferences and research projects and is the 
co-author of several scientific and professional articles 
on business process management.
Benjamin URH is an assistant professor habilitated in 
business and operating systems engineering. He has a 
degree in mechanical engineering, a master’s degree, 
and a doctorate in organizational sciences. He has been 
employed at the Faculty of Organizational Sciences, 
University of Maribor, since 2001. He lectures on new 
product and process development and organization of 
production processes. Benjamin Urh is the author or 
co-author of over 100 scientific, professional, and other 
publications. He performs research work mainly within 
the Laboratory for Enterprise Engineering, especially 
in business systems redesign and business process 
efficiency.
Assistant Professor Matjaž Roblek, PhD. obtained 
his doctoral degree in 2003 from the University of 
Maribor in the field of simulation of supply chains. He 
initially held positions at the Faculty of Organizational 
Sciences, where he taught courses New Product 
Development, Production Planning, and Supply 
Chain Management. Throughout his career, he has 
actively exchanged knowledge with various industries, 
starting from Iskratel in 1997 to Domel, where he 
became employed in 2018. Currently, he serves as the 
Director of Information Technology and Supply Chain 
Management. He actively contributes as a researcher 
within the scientific research group at Domel, focusing 
on the development of business and production 
processes. Currently, his focus is on the challenges of 

184
Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers
artificial intelligence in production planning in a real-
world environment.
Dr. Tomaž Kern is a full professor in organization 
and informatics. He has a degree in mechanical 
engineering, a master’s degree in informatics, and a 
doctorate in organizational sciences. Since 1990, he 
has been employed at the Faculty of Organizational 
Sciences, University of Maribor. He lectures business 
process management and multi-project management. 
He runs the Business Systems Engineering Laboratory. 
He was vice-dean, head of the Institute, vice-rector, 
and university board member. He is a member of the 
University Senate. Tomaž Kern is the author or co-
author of more than 500 articles and other publications, 
an invited lecturer at international conferences, and a 
leader of research projects. He has also led projects 
in BPM and PM in many companies. He is a founding 
member of the Slovenian PMI Association.
Analiza metod in tehnik uporabljenih za izboljšanje poslovnih procesov
Ozadje: V zadnjih desetletjih je bilo razvitih več kot 50 procesnih pristopov ter metod in tehnik za doseganje učinkovi -
tejšega delovanja poslovnih sistemov. Zaradi vse hitrejših sprememb v poslovnem okolju postaja vse pomembnejše 
vprašanje, katere metode ali tehnike bodo najbolj vplivale na povečanje konkurenčne prednosti poslovnega sistema.
Namen: V predstavljeni raziskavi smo se osredotočili na identifikacijo metod in tehnik, ki so v literaturi najpogosteje 
citirane in so v praksi najpogosteje uporabljene ter se izkažejo kot učinkovite za izboljšanje poslovnih procesov.
Metode: V ta namen smo pripravili 4-fazni strukturiran pregled dostopne literature in ugotovitve podprli z anketno 
raziskavo.
Rezultati in zaključek: Na podlagi pridobljenih rezultatov smo oblikovali nabor ustreznih, najpogosteje uporabljenih 
in učinkovitih metod in tehnik za izboljšanje poslovnih procesov. Opravljena raziskava lahko služi kot izhodišče za 
odgovor na izpostavljeno vprašanje o ustreznem naboru metod in tehnik za izbran pristop. V nadaljevanju raziskave 
bi bilo smiselno preveriti še druge lastnosti in uporabe metod in tehnik.
Ključne besede: Obvladovanje poslovnih procesov, Izboljšava poslovnih procesov, Pristopi, Metode, Tehnike