Resolved
1 votes
As Sandy Kemsley writes here:
Are we finally seeing the beginning of the end of the split between process management in BPM and ICM?
What do you think?
Tuesday, May 13 2014, 09:37 AM
Share this post:
Responses (10)
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, May 13 2014, 09:48 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    6 votes
    I have to admit this embarassing fact: I was vaguely aware of the difference between the two and strongly confused as to why Case Management is NOT a Business Process. But don't mind me - I'm not an expert, just a customer :-)
    Like
    2
    • Patrick Lujan
      more than a month ago
      Touche. You just made my day. :-)
    • Lloyd Dugan
      more than a month ago
      Agreed. It was not ever really split, but I don't think that was Sandy's point. She says "beginning of the end of the split" and I would concurs that there has been a split, though it was a manufactured one and this not real.

      Vebdors and their enablers (Gartner and Forrester) have tried to reinforce a distinction between BPM and Case Management that is far more about distinction between BPM System and Case Management System. Those not invested in profiting from such mis-classifications have long known that a case management is part of business process management. Unfortately, BPM became over-identified with structured processes and got more attention than case management's unstructured processes. Why? Because BPMSs needed to claim market share. I suspect that what Sandy is getting at is that this contrived distinction is finally eroding away.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, May 13 2014, 09:51 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    6 votes
    First acknowledge who fabricated the "split," who's reconciling it and why. Us - consultants, vendors, industry insiders. Users and clients didn't, don't recognize the split, nor care. The "split" is one of hairs regarding structured and unstructured, ad hoc and knowledge work. For users and end clients though it was, is and always has been about solutions that work. For consultants, vendors, industry insiders and zealots though, it's about selling, market differentiation and bloviation. Bring it on, I can see this one will certainly will entail the usual doctoral theses and "look at my blog, I wrote about it here" links.
    • Scott Francis
      more than a month ago
      your crystal ball is already working pretty well - one link to blog post - still waiting on the doctoral theses but it is early yet and those take longer to type ;)
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, May 13 2014, 09:52 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    4 votes
    A fairly straight forward integration to add some flexibility to BPMN, but Sandy isn't saying this is "adaptive". Bruce Silver also acknowledges that what's being done here can't be interpreted as "adaptive" - http://brsilver.com/sudden-impact-ibm-merges-case-bpm-forgets-announce/ It is progress for BPMN, and if you use or promote BPMN it will be helpful. It does not represent the end of the debate re: adaptive/dynamic/smart process. If anything, it highlights how hard it is to extend BPMN and the limited results.
    Like
    2
    • Lloyd Dugan
      more than a month ago
      This is unfair to BPMN. It is - as it always will be - an ongoing attempt to be a standardized modeling language for describing business processes. For reasons good, bad, and ugly, BPMN has focused more on structured processes, but that doesn't mean that is where it will end. Case Managent Modeling Notation (CMMN) has emerged as a way to fill out what such languages can cover, recognizing that structured and unstructured processes have different operational and execution semantics, and that the latter is underserved by BPMN stands now. I agree with Denis Gagne and others that CMMN and BPMN are destined for some kind of unification.
    • Michal Rykiert
      more than a month ago
      But do we really need to use BPMN in order to handle business processes?
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, May 13 2014, 11:24 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    It is the grand hope at BPM.COM that the forthcoming conference on ACM & BPM will help to clarify the issues being called out here. I urge this community to attend so as to contribute to the discussion.
    Like
    1
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, May 13 2014, 12:48 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    3 votes
    Let me apologize in advance: this is one of those yes and no answers. First of all, we should avoid a debate on semantics of the terms. A lot of work was put earlier this year into a complete and agreeable definition of BPM with participation by many of the experts. The result rather surprised me, but concluded that BPM is essentially anything having to do with improving work while thinking of it in terms of a process. This settled the question that BPM is an umbrella term that includes ACM and something else we must call a more "automated" approach to processes. I see two distinct automated approaches which I have called "Process Driven Server Integration" and "Human Process Management". By this new definition, ACM is a part of BPM. I have been guilty in the past of using the term "BPM" to mean only the automated approaches, and I suspect Sandy is doing the same here. If I may rephrase the question: are we beginning to see the end of the split between automated process support, and case management? Four years ago at Fujitsu we released what we called "Dynamic BPM" which added the ability to create tasks on the fly at any point in a running process. It allowed automated processes to be extended with dynamic tasks thought up on the spot, and it allowed completely unscripted processes to include automated fragments, again brought in on the fly. We felt we had finally the unified environment where both ad-hoc and pre-programmed processes could exist. In watching people use this, we still found that there is a wide gulf between those environments that allow programming, that those that simply don't. Before we jump to the conclusion that the technical capability of dynamic tasks solves the job, we need to wait and see whether this approach is successful in capturing true knowledge worker work. Experience has taught me to be skeptical. Consider an analogy: there are many styles of music. At point in time, an orchestra was seen as a means of "reproducing" music faithfully. Then the recording industry automated that, and everybody has access to whatever great piece of music they want at any time for close to zero cost. But has the recording industry eliminated improvisation? If not, why not? Recorded music is like automated processing. ACM is more like jazz improvisation. Are they unified in any way? Why do these two music forms resist unification? I don't see any sign that live performances are completely eliminated by the recording industry. Would you even ask the question of when it will be that all forms of music will be unified? Why then, do we ask this question, in the field of office work?
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, May 13 2014, 02:50 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    2 votes
    Let's remember "BPM" is a discipline not as such a "software technology" Solution. The supporting BPMPlatforms have now moved on that can now deliver clever intelligent/dynamic and custom adaptive capability so inevitably "the split" as Sandy calls it is removed. Indeed I would argue that this "BPM" principle can now be applied to all people driven requirements in the Enterprise not just Case Management HRM, SCM. CRM. ECM, Asset Management etc; any place where people work? The recent debate on the move to "outside in" supports this very broad approach. It is the start of a move to cross the old "silo" mentality handling formal and informal processes supporting people that make all businesses. As a Scottish Chartered Accountant I see it will also break the complexity "IT" created on double entry book-keeping as there is going to be only one version of the truth created and stored from the source. It certainly will make "ERP" look very out of date, clumsy and very expensive. So "BPM" certainly removes "splits" and divides that have contributed to the legacy mess today.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, May 13 2014, 03:38 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    3 votes
    I think the actual question - is BPM + ACM ready to move from being vendor-centric to become customer-centric? Thanks to Keith, we had a good result with one definition, namely BPM. But, for further progress, as usual, the critical mass is necessary and, maybe BPM.COM can be a facilitator. Thanks, AS
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, May 13 2014, 07:49 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    3 votes
    I didn't realize there was a split. I've always looked at it (through my rose-colored, technology focused, vendor-supplied glasses) this way: a Case is an object. It is a piece of work that needs to be done. A process is a method. It defines a series of steps that take place to drive that Case to resolution. There are also other things beyond process that can act on the case (ad-hoc tasks, events, business rules, etc.). But once you make the Case definition the center of your BPM system, its pretty easy to move between structured and unstructured work. Which is what you want to do because... Most work doesn't fall easily into the linear v. dynamic, structured v. ad-hoc separation that comes when you think of Case Management as one thing, and Process Management as another. Most work is sometimes process-y (linear, predictable, deterministic) except when its not (ad-hoc, unpredictable, changing on the fly). Why you would have separate tools for each type never made sense to me. (No thesis. No blog, but I do have a conference to mention: pegaworld2014.com).
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Wednesday, May 14 2014, 07:06 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    2 votes
    Structured and unstructured processes are different today because of level of automation possible. And that in turn depends on the amount of knowledge that can be applied systematically to processes. The split in BPMS and ACM TECHNOLOGIES will gradually end as both types will get more common knowledge applied to them through decision management technology components, i.e. business rules, advanced analytics and optimization. Instead of trying to make BPMS and ACM 'smarter' separately, a common set of reusable smarts will be established using a combination of Business Process Model Notation (BPMN) and Decision Model Notation (DMN). The Case Management Model Notation (CMMN) will help fill in the gaps. The end of the split is therefore nigh. Details at "What about Unstructured Processes?"
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Thursday, May 15 2014, 08:02 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    I think that BPM and ACM are actually distinct concepts and should remain so, but complementary. I see BPM as a management discipline by processes, predictable, mensurable and soon improvable in their performance, while the ACM is an approach to casework or problems that happen once, so unpredictable and thus not improvable in their structure on the basis of an investment with the respective return. However, I see that the techniques and structured planning and control objectives used in BPM practices can be an excellent help to the management support, even for isolated cases. On the other hand, I also see that a posteriori analysis of the treatment of isolated cases (ACM), can help enhance the predictable processes making them more dynamic and flexible. As a final opinion, both the BPM and ACM are management techniques in the first place, and both can be fairly supported by software tools, potentiating synergies, especially if coexist in the same tool.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
Your Reply

Join the Discussion

Want to join the discussion?

Login, or create an account to participate in the forum.

Top Participants

Dr Alexander Samarin
276 Replies
26/09/2016
David Chassels
269 Replies
23/09/2016
Emiel Kelly
221 Replies
26/09/2016
Bogdan Nafornita
209 Replies
26/09/2016
E Scott Menter
182 Replies
23/09/2016