Our experience is that Case Management and BPM do fit together well, and although I would disagree with the quoted passage, I think that Max's blog gets at important essentials about how people meaningfully get work done using systems.
CM sets the high-level context for process execution--whether automated or ad hoc--with work goals, work stages, and relevant data. Reaching those goals (moving through stages by working with data and other resources) will depend on a mix of automation and ad hoc action. The mix will vary from one implementation to the next, but usually we find that there are tremendous opportunities to improve productivity and quality through the automation of what can and should be automated through business rules and analytics. And, when people do ad hoc work, the system should make it as easy as possible, by automatically getting for them the data they need, giving them tools to help make good decisions, and facilitate collaboration with others in the process. In this way, people are freed from doing routine stuff and supported to do the work that requires judgement and benefits from innovation. I think that this is a big part of what Max means when he talks about "essential people management."
There's also the business design aspect as well. Historically, BPM set out to orchestrate transactions and human tasks using simple diagrams, but in practice, process models got too complicated. As my colleague, Don Schuerman, wrote in his blog "From Transactions to Process to Case
", "Once a process expands to contain the richness of the customer context and lifecycle, it becomes unwieldy and the business visibility disappears." A major benefit of CM is that it works at the level of detail that business people find meaningful, and sets the necessary context for the detailed work of BPM. It's much easier to engage business leadership and subject matter experts when you use CM to organize work around goals and stages, and then use BPM to achieve them.