I expect that several industry analyst firms will publish or update studies on Case Management (or Dynamic Case Management) this year, which I don't think they would do unless they were getting a lot of client inquiries.
For our customers, Case Management has been the principal design center for several years now, so I'd say the Pega community passed that point a while back. Most everyone starts projects now by thinking about work to be done (rather than processes to improve), and organizes work into stages and outcomes. Processes and rules automate activities to move the work to done, mixed in with computer-aided human decision-making along the way. It enables agile improvement to end-to-end business visibility and control and avoids much of the analysis paralysis of traditional BPM. In fact, it's hard NOT to think about business improvement this way once you get used to it.
I agree that ACM is an application of BPM, and believe we should be thinking of them with clients as approaches the to same overall topic. That said, ACM is 'Newer' than BPM so will be more exciting to our culture for its new concepts. I also agree with Ken Schwarz that looking as the work to be done with outcomes and goals/tasks to get there is an easy way for clients to start thinking about work and processes. So I want ACM to grow in interest and to complement BPM.
Well, look: case management has its place. It can be an application of BPM, but it doesn't have to be, I suppose. There are a LOT of things I can implement via BPM that I might build (at greater cost, perhaps, in time, money, complexity, and risk) some other way. What we will see this year is an expansion in the way that BPM is used as a rapid development platform for all sorts of applications. Of those, certain case management apps may stand out. But so will others. It's going to be fun to watch.
A detailed response from me would be cliche and repetitive with previous comments i've made on this subject :)
I keep hearing CM will eclipse BPM, or that BPM is dead... for 5 or 6 years now?
This won't be the year either. For some folks, adding goals and objectives to "getting work done" feels like innovation because they weren't doing BPM right to begin with.. But that is my cynical side kicking in. I think 2015 will be the year that BPM companies and ACM proponents try to position as general app dev environments, which may cause all sorts of interesting headaches.
There is a line from Rickie Lee Jones about a fight between "two girls, losing the same game".
BPM and ACM are both losing the game for recognition as a core methodology to improve business effectiveness.
Yet the prize is vast. Dynamic Processes can create responsive companies which evolve faster than the markets they serve.
They can transform job satisfaction, efficiency and effectiveness for everyone, not just profitability for the C-Suite.
In the UK we are seeing Government as a Platform - clearly all about process - but where is the mention?
We need to stop fighting among ourselves and fight instead to reach critical mass...
A catchy title which resonates with people. And with endorsements from people others look to for advice.
Making it easy to adopt, with a low barrier to entry and logical ramping up.
Getting rid of the jargon and acronyms, not adding more.
We're scoring a big fat zero on all three of these.
While we fight over acronyms, the market is moving ever further away from us.
And however good our product, we'll never be allowed to deploy it.
Because it isn't easy to sell within the organisation as an instantly recognisable "thing we want to get involved with".
We need to solve that first. Then we can fragment into ways of achieving it.
Case Management is the focus on the processes surrounding the “management” of all aspects of the relationship with the recipient of a product or service. Therefore by definition the BPM discipline should drive the custom needs which of course must be “Adaptive”? Hence the natural progression to ACM.
Sure take a risk buying off the shelf CM but it is now so easy and quick to build custom Adaptive CM. But of course such needs go further into all aspects of front line business HRM, SCM, ECM, CRM etc. BPM thinking will drive all to deliver that Adaptive capability working in tandem each capability as important as the other?
We don't think it is about eclipsing, but complementing. BPMS able to balance and support knowledge based work will succeed!
Each time a participant works in a process instance, in any BPMS, is embedding his knowledge into the repository. It could be documents, plain text or just decisions. This is very valuable knowledge, it is an asset of the organization, but usually very difficult to formalize, share and capitalize.
A BPMS that achieves that, will be generating more value for the organization, and will be merging case management with process automation.
Well, in essence I share the views that come BPM and ACM as complementary. Anyway, I must confess that the market is usually more receptive to operational tools than the tools for planning, improvement and control, and the reason that is because the overwhelming majority of people are at operational level, or the side of the business as the IT side, and even the people of management level are not prepared with knowledge neither availability to stop and think. The point is that the implementation of operational tools without a global vision and proper planning, makes it impossible to calculate the real benefits for business. Many times, the operational tools creates the ilusion of benefits, but in the end, what we have is the automatization of bad processes, without efficiency. If we do not know where we are (BPM) also we'll never know where to go (ACM).
Sorry for being late to the party, failing on my promise to Peter. But here is my comment.
I am convinced that this is the year of the case - the year in which case management starts to really differentiate itself from traditional BPM, and true case management systems separate out from traditional BPMS that has merely grafted case-like features onto the ye olde BPMS engine. I believe this so much, that I've taken the position of Chief Evangelist for one such product (eCase) at one of those vendors (AINS, Inc.), meaning that I'm now just another alumnus and contributing fellow here at BPM, Inc. (bpm.com).
The analyst services are continuing to drag their heels about this differentiation, presumably because they are so beholden to the traditional BPMS tool and vendor communities that they cannot afford to alienate. Or, perhaps, they are simply performing a needed service in forcing the case management market to sort this out some more before declaring what to us at the WfMC and adaptivecasemanagement.org has been evident for some time. In any event, you only have to look at the BPM Gartner conference last year when "case" was paramount on the Platinum sponsors mouths, including Pega, AINS, and Micropact. Or to last summers highly successful BPM & ACM Conference for evidence of case (and goal-oriented BPM as in Whitestein's Living Systems) as the next wave of innovative BPM-related technologies for business process automation. Or you could see for your self at the upcoming 2015 versions of both of those conferences.
I hold, as I think many do, that ACM as a discipline is a distinguishable subset of BPM, and the ACM technologies are starting to separate out as vendors try to answer what they hear the market asking of them. As Nathaniel and I have done in the past, and still do so now (see the forthcoming book Thriving on Adaptability), the ACM technologies have or will tend to have significant architectural differences as well as feature differences from traditional BPMSs, principally because as the case is state or data driven the processing requirements are different.
I personally believe that the traditional BPMS vendors that have bolted on case management are evidence of all of this. Why else would they extend the product base this way unless it was to ensure or grow market relevance? (The only vendor of that ilk that gets a pass is Pega, who as Ken (a colleague and now competitor) correctly points out, has never boxed itself in the traditional BPMS market in that way.) Truly, I believe the choice for those seeking case management solutions is between those products built for it and those products extended for it. Which is better?
Guess we'll see. :-)
So "eclipse" is too strong a verb. Perhaps "differentiate," but then that is likely not sufficiently hyperbolic. ;-)