As a sales person it would be so nice to enjoy true "follow-the-story" case-oriented software to help keep track of everything I'm working on. I'm not optimistic though, I guess I'll just have to keep relying on listening to customers, learning about needs, making a business case -- and charm.
Clearly case-oriented business process technology is important. And less structured work is important too, as supported by the technology and demanded by business models. (In this context, it's worth underscoring Ian's comment that case can be sub-divided into work which is more structured and work which is less structured.)
But this said, allow me to add two comments:
1) MATHEMATICS OF ACM: We can all agree that case or ACM or DCM is important, but until the mathematics of solving what really are graphs is achieved, in a reasonable amount of time, we are at the mercy of programming. And sometimes today's software works really well, as in it gets you to the 80% or 90% of what you want to do. The only problem is that's the commoditized portion of your work, but a lot of your profit comes from being really good at the hard parts of your work -- the 10% of your work process that is not handled automatically by today's software.
2) ECONOMICS OF ACM: We had a bit of this discussion when Mr. Swenson organized a little while ago a good definition of BPM. The discussion was around the question of "repeatability", where a minority of participants were of the view that BPM necessarily implied repeatability. Without getting into semantics too deeply (i.e. distinguishing between BPM-as-technology and BPM-as-management practice), the argument is that from an economic point of view, organizations exist at the size they do, to optimize transaction and coordination costs. This is the Coasean economic view of organizational size. And from this view (and even from common sense as well) an organization is built around doing things repeatedly, and getting very good at that. So along comes mass customization and all kinds of disruptive business models and the claim is made that we don't have mass production any more and that everything is now unstructured. But of course one of the disruptions is business process outsourcing -- which is predicated on specialization. And doing things repeatedly, really well.
So, from the original question, business models for most economic entities will be mostly built around structured or semi-structured work, out of necessity. And insofar as there are other kinds of work, we're all in the same boat and not much can be done until the math is figured out. So the key to being successful is having a business model that makes sense, and doing your best with software that is not ideal.