Critical Review The papers chosen for comparison are “BPM for Change Management: Two Process Diagnosis Techniques” written by de Pádua, da Costa, Segatto, de Souza Júnior, and Jabbour (2014) and “A Process Model of Managing Organizational Change during Business Process Redesign” by Sikdar and Payyazhi (2014). They both consider ways to change management within companies and disclose possible ways of introducing new techniques for implementing these methods. The articles have some similarities and differences concerning the measures and techniques of change management. The article written by de Pádua et al. (2014) aims to compare the results from applying two diagnostic techniques, using the target audience for the experiment. The participants of this test were two groups that analyzed certain methods independently of each other. The paper written by Sikdar and Payyazhi (2014) includes the justification of the problem from a scientific point of view and considers a special model for change management. In the first case, the approach is experimental, and in the second, it is theoretical. Concerning change management measures, the authors of the first article use a behavioral factor, expecting to see the result of the reaction of the target audience to changes. In the second article, the authors use a combination approach as their goal is to compare two techniques for improving management. Both papers are similar in that each applies a scientific approach to the implementation of the task. They differ in the way to achieve the goal and, as well as the focus on the problem. De Pádua et al. (2014) use the stated practices based on the fact that their techniques can be considered as additional measures, since neither modeling nor CRT (“current reality tree”) is the dominant method, and neither technique can exclude the importance of using the other. Therefore, the stages of their realization do not depend on the order of implementation. Sikdar and Payyazhi (2014) introduce their management plan through successive stages of workflow reorganization. According to Jeston and Nelis (2014), BPM projects may be implemented by various means. Thus, the difference between the two articles is in the framework of change management used and the steps of its introduction. Practical Implications Both articles can have practical significance in case of their implementation. The contribution of the research conducted by Pádua et al. (2014) is quite obvious. The study helps to consider two methods that are rather favorable and reasonable. In the field of management, the results of this study can help both in diagnosing the existing management course of the company and in introducing a new technique. For me, as for a practitioner, this work could have significance, since the results of the research make it clear that employees are not limited to one course of work, and they have an opportunity to go in a direction that is convenient for them. As for the study conducted by Sikdar and Payyazhi (2014), the results of their research can simplify the process of change management and facilitate the task for both leadership and executive bodies. Muthalagu (2017) remarks the use of BPM; he notes that this proces