Systematicity and generalizability in business process redesign methodologies: A systematic literature review

Abstract

Context

Business Process Management (BPM) plays a central role in helping organizations improve efficiency and service delivery, particularly in environments with rising demands and limited resources. Within this field, Business Process Redesign (BPR) has emerged as a way to rethink and restructure processes in response to continuous change. However, many existing BPR methodologies fall short—they lack methodological rigor and are often too narrowly tailored to specific industries or use cases.

Objectives

This study explores whether BPR methodologies are both systematically structured and broadly applicable across domains. It addresses three key questions: whether current approaches are methodologically grounded, whether they can be applied across diverse contexts, and what core elements are necessary to support both structure and generalizability in BPR design.

Methods

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted, applying an eight-step protocol to assess sixty-four primary BPR methodologies drawn from academic databases. Each methodology was evaluated against two sets of criteria: five indicators of systematic design (e.g., defined phases, interdependencies, evaluation checkpoints), and five indicators of generalizability (e.g., cross-domain adaptability, notation flexibility, heuristic support). A concept-centric synthesis was used to analyze the findings.

Results

Of the methodologies reviewed, thirty-eight demonstrated systematic features, while only eight met broader applicability standards. Only one methodology satisfied all ten criteria, revealing a notable gap in the field and a need for more balanced, reusable frameworks.

Conclusion

The study highlights a significant gap in the current BPR methodologies and presents the BPR Application Framework —a structured yet adaptable methodology that combines phase-based design with heuristic integration and notation-aware modeling. Compared with established references like BPM CBOK and Lean Six Sigma, it offers a clearer, more actionable path for practitioners and researchers seeking both rigor and flexibility in BPR.