I think that there is a lot of truth to the distinction between BPM optimizing the aggregate of many process instances, while case management is focused on optimizing the outcome of an individual run of a process. On the other hand, I don't think that is the crux of the issue between the two “camps”. I think that is the crux of the issue is:
1. Is it possible for a process to have every instance be different – or is a case a fundamentally different type of paradigm than the “standard” process paradigm requiring a different approach and different tools.
2. Should an organization strive to always to make process instances the same.

I think that most case folks believe that for certain processes instances are handled indiviuallly because of certain intrinsic properties of the process, not because of poor planning or execution. That means these types of processes don't lend themselves to management in the same way as “standard” processes, and require fundamentally different tools.
BPMS folks (i.e. the product guys) tend to see the world differently, they don't see a process made up of one-off individual cases as a process at all, but as a set of exceptions that should be fixed. For them, BPMS just needs to be enhannced (or maybe not even that) and this pesky ad-hoc, unpredictable, unstructured process (case) issue will go away.

On a lighter note – I think it will be hard to find an agreed upon definition comparing the two – since there is no agreed upon definition defining BPM(S) itself…

Jacob Ukelson – CTO ActionBase

The problem with your (and David's) definition of Case Management is that it restricts its usage to cases, and case managers. That is why WfMC chose Adaptive Case Management (ACM) as the term – as an attempt to widen the net to include many more types of knowledge work, beyond just the current definition of case management.

Adaptive Case Management (as I see it) is an attempt to make knowledge work more productive, not just case work (though in many instances there is a lot in commmon between the two).

ACM is not just about optimization – it is about providing enough structure to an ad-hoc, unpredictable process to make it manageable; but not so much as to strangle it.

I am not sure for any single case ACM provides a better outcome (since the outcome is dependent on the participant experts much more than the tool) – but it does make it easier for the experts to manage the process more efficently and effectively – wich should lead to better outcomes.

Jacob Ukelson – CTO ActionBase

Yokelson starts with the axiom that “case management leverages BPM capabilities” and everything else follows.

Scott, on many occasions I have suggested that when you speak of BPM, you use BPM in a way that suggests that BPM is “all automated work”. All work is composed of activities, and all collections of activities are processes, and therefor all work is supported by BPM. Given this world view, ACM would be a part of BPM.

In order to clarify whether you really mean this or not, I have asked you to give an example of automated work that is NOT BPM in your world view. Forgive me if I missed it, but don't remember seeing any such examples from you.

There is a certain blindness that we are afflicted with once we adopt a mindset for viewing the world. It is inevitable that we adopt mindsets, but be should at the same time explore the limitations of particularly mindsets. As I have said before, if you have a hammer, you tend to view all problems as nails. More importantly, if a problem does not look like a nail, it ceases to be a problem, and becomes a non-problem. There is, of course, a large gray area of things that look sort-of like a nail. I would like you to identify some problems that do NOT look like nails, and then we can talk about those cases.

However, if when you say “hammer” you really mean “tool” , then your term is all inclusive term over all possible tools, and when I argue that a screwdriver it not a hammer, we end up in a useless argument because I mean a specific tool for a specific purpose, and you mean an all inclusive tool.

I use BPM to mean a specific technique where you define a process, analyze it, measure it's “quality” across a large number of typical cases, with the purpose of making a process that will be run many times in the future. That is what I understand BPM to be, NOT simply a term that means all possible work automation. It is a specific kind of work automation.

There is no point in arguing, if instead you believe (as many do) that BPM is simply a term that means all kinds of work automation.

Keith, in the rarefied air of bpm-acm discussion, I stand by my characterization, because it turned into a criticism of the way *people* who use BPM or BPMS can think, rather than of ideas, and it turned negative on BPM alone, rather than keeping to the tone of Yockelson or myself (balanced). I don't believe there was a single critical word about ACM in the original post. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I even borrowed your favorite medical analogy.

Keith, music is great. I, too, have heard Wynton Marsalis in concert. His brother as well. He's fantastic, and the experience of hearing him was amazing. I've heard many other musical acts, I even have some musical skill myself. It just has no bearing on BPM or ACM software. ACM wouldn't help Marsalis any more than BPM. Its an analogy without teeth because it doesn't inform how we actually work.

And yes, all music can be written after the fact. But not all music can be written ahead of time (improvisation).

So, you agree that improvisation is different from composition?

of course. that's like asking me if the sky is blue. But i don't agree that it has relevance to the bpm/acm discussion.