-
Jacob Ukelson points out that putting process design into the hands of the users isn't just a cultural change, but that the software usability issues are not trivial: it's difficult to present a user experience that allows full-features processes to be designed, but can be managed with little or no training by the average business user.
-
Jacob Ukelson looks at the link between ACM and project management. We're undoubtedly going to see some crossover/confusion in the marketplace between project management and ACM.
-
Keith Swenson comments on Malcom Ross' series on case management. A few disagreements, but in general, a balanced review of the series. Nice when one vendor can comment on another vendor's blog posts with an appropriate degree of common courtesy.
-
Fifth in a series of posts by Malcolm Ross on case management: be sure to read back through all of them, linked from this post. Sounds like the series will continue for a few more posts, all of them covering case management definitions and the technical product features that are required.
-
Just as IBM is positioning FileNet as a primary ACM entrant from their product suite, EMC is positioning Documentum Content Server as ACM. If nothing else, ACM will definitely breathe new life (which you may or may not construe as emergency resuscitation) into some of the ECM suites.
-
This is a bit meta, but a link to Keith Swenson's excellent links and comments. I linked to some of these as well, but enjoy his commentary.
-
As this chart from Gartner reminds us, there is nothing new under the case management sun.
-
Ashish Bhagwat on the culture of case management and BPM, and how many tools could do both equally well. I think that he has some points: some companies want to put more control in the hands of the knowledge workers and tend to create case management scenarios; others want (or need) to lock down the specific processes, so tend to use pre-defined processes.
-
Keith Swenson live-blogging my BPM and CM webinar – the highest compliment
-
The webcast recording of my BPM/CM webinar with Pegasystems.
-
My presentation (from a webinar sponsored by Pegasystems) on BPM and case management.
-
Follow-on Q&A about ACM, specifically the relationship to BPM.
-
Since the topic of case management has been bubbling around for the past weeks, some basic definitions and background are helpful.
-
Examples of situations that are too complex, too unique or too simple to actually bother modeling the process in advance.
-
Defining processes by their outcomes, not by rigid execution. Although Max Pucher's blog posts tend to be self serving (each of them expounds on how his product does everything that is needed for whatever he is writing about), he does have some good points on goal-directed versus pre-defined processes. Not sure that I like the Gantt chart approach to visualizing the dynamic process map.
-
A collection of ACM posts today, collected over the past few weeks. Keith Swenson posits that case management is not just BPM done on the fly, but something quite different: "The concept of a process is essential to BPM. Case management, on the other hand, might have a process, but it might not. Many cases have no process at all." Although you might use some of the components of a BPMS for ACM (analytics, connectors), that doesn't necessarily make it quack like a duck. Great discussion in the comments with a wide variety of opinions, including the one by Max Pucher that "solutions are being created by vendors, but markets are created by analysts". This is as much about whether a new market is being defined as whether new products are emerging.
{ 3 } Comments
Sandra, thanks for referencing my blog (more than once)! Highly appreciated. Thanks for the open communication and the impartial opinion. You add an important insight in a complex scenario.
I never hide the fact that I am the Chief Architect and owner of a software business. There is no sense for me to spend such a huge amount of time blogging and communicating if it does not in the end help my business. I also put my money where my mouth is and spend the last 14 years developing a solution that is now being finally accepted as a need. When I told Gartner in 2001 that we link inbound and outbound content into a common case/process their eyes glazed over. I propose since 2006 the consolidtion of ECM, CRM, and BPM. They saw absolutely no benefit in that either. Go figure.
So I am excited that my pushing and shoving is paying off after all these years. I have to deal with the fact that EMC, Oracle, IBM and a few others go out and buy a few vendors and then spend a few billion to market ‘their innovation’. The analysts are obviously following the money and hey suddenly there is new market. Good. I am not willing to apologize for telling readers that Papyrus does those things since a number of years. I try to keep product related info and solution concepts independent in my various blogs but I do need to link them up to gain some traction and understanding what it all means.
Let me tell you that there is a huge difference between talking about various potential benefits of approaches and actually make them happen. I am way ahead of the functional curve of what ACM is being considered to be or become. I (and thus Papyrus) link already today business strategy and architecture together with process execution and it will take a few more years until that will sort of become acceptable.
It is interesting to hear that you don’t like the Gantt chart, but most business users simply love it. They prefer it to a flowchart anytime. it is in any case an option and the users choice. The user can adapt the process and/or the template through either the task, actor, rules or resource lists, the BPMN flowchart or the Gantt chart. That is the difference: I come from a pragmatic REAL WORLD. We do not just talk about these subjects, we actually do them and live them day by day.
Thanks again and keep up te good work! Max
I believe that you can show thought leadership — which ultimately results in benefits to your personal and/or corporate brand — without having to mention your product and company in every blog post and comment.
You may want to read more carefully: I didn’t say that I don’t like the Gantt chart.
Sandy, thanks! So, if I mention my product it stops to be thought leadership even if the thought remains the same and can be proven? Can you explain that? For someone who sells consultancy or analytic services it is ok to present thought leadership because they sell themselves? You write a lot about various products and that remains thought leadership even thought you sell your expertise in those products (I think you do)? Saying that one should help the poor is more leadership than actually doing it? I do not only show thought leadership, I actually show leadership because it is not just thought but real products. So what is wrong with explaining how we ACTUALLY solved the problems for our customers rather than just theorizing on it? There is a lot of that around and it does not help anyone. What is wrong with honestly presenting my viewpoints. I am fully disclosing my stance and interests. I wish that everyone would do the same …
I am glad that you seem to like the Gantt chart as a process visualization… sorry for my confusion.