Another take on ACM: Feature or Paradigm

Post by
Scott Francis

I missed this post from Keith Swenson the other day, as he responds to Anatoly's post on ACM.

Keith cuts to the chase:

Anatoly Belychook asks the question: ?is ACM a Paradigm or a Feature?? I could not resist responding because I like the post, and his logic is flawless, but it is based on false assumptions.? I think there is a lesson here on why so many BPM experts feel the way he does.

First, his summary of Adaptive Case Management (ACM) is one of the best I have seen.? There is no doubt that Anatoly understand the motivations behind ACM.

What he does next is quite surprising; he analyzes whether ACM meets certain requirements of BPM.? That is the flaw in his thinking: there is no reason to believe that ACM should meet the requirements of BPM.? Many BPM experts? start with an assumption that ACM should have BPM-like features, and then move on to conclude that ACM is really just a type of BPM.? Those wanting to understand the subject should be wary.

Hm.? I would have phrased this differently- it isn't that Anatoly's assumptions are wrong - its just that the exercise Anatoly takes on is looking at how to satisfy BPM-style problems with ACM-style claimed feature-sets.? Anatoly would state it differently: How to satisfy enterprise level problems his customers are asking him to address, with ACM-style claimed feature-sets.? And, to consider whether you can solve enterprise style case management problems without paying attention to key issues of architecture, data entities, process architecture, etc.

The comments section reveal a very interesting discussion between Keith and Anatoly - well worth reading (thankfully BPM and ACM posts do not get cluttered with 100's of comments like tech crunch articles!).

In one of his comments, Keith wraps with:

Hopefully this clarifies my point: while ACM capabilities may be a feature of a BPMS, ACM in general is not JUST a feature of a BPMS. To say the latter would be misleading.

Given that ACM describes an "approach" rather than a technology, of course this is true.? Likewise, BPM capabilities are not just a feature of a BPMS... I'd consider this a tautology.? I think what Anatoly was exploring is whether ACM software will survive as a standalone / separate market, or whether it will be collapsed with BPM software as a market. (Thus, feature vs. paradigm)

I might be projecting my own impressions onto his writing, however.

Interesting conclusions in Keith's post, first this bit:

  • BPM needs process architecture, ACM has no such need
  • In BPM the person who designs the process needs to be a data architect, but in ACM these are different roles.? The person who designes the ?process? does not need to be a data architect.
  • BPM needs strong capabilities for integration, but in ACM there is little or no need for field-level integration.? ACM can work well with documents,? reports, and links to other application user interface.

And Keith asks: isn't this enough to make it different?? Well, in technical terms, no.? But in terms of "approach", yes. You can implement (and I have implemented) processes that required no "architecture", "data architecture", nor "integration".? Typically those aren't the kinds of processes people pay consultants to help them develop however, so I haven't worked on that many of them. But it is definitely a different approach to start with the assumption that you won't do these things.

Keith wraps with:

BPM systems will gain ACM-like features, but few doctors, policemen, and lawyers will use that.

Social Business Software like Jive, SharePoint, Quad, Chatter, and Connections will gain ACM-like features as well, and will be far more successful than the BPM systems, because those are systems that the doctors, policemen, and lawyers will use.

How funny.? I end up agreeing it is a feature of something, just not a feature of BPM.? :-)

I, too, find it ironic that Keith finally agrees ACM is a feature of something else (from a technical perspective)!? I think, by extension, ACM can be considered a (potential) feature of BPM.? And Keith may be right- that doctors, policemen, and lawyers will be using one of these other products (SharePoint? I doubt it) - but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they won't see BPM in their lives given all the government investment in process that's happening.

Update: the discussion has moved to ebizQ now, thanks to Peter Schooff.

More From Blog

You Might Also Like

Driven Day 5: The Final Day of Automation Goodness: Enterprise UX and Design
Read More
Driven Day 4: Application Modernization
Read More
Driven Day 3: Process Automation Day
Read More
We Work With Companies Just Like Yours
Are You Ready?

Let’s Work Together

BP3 gets you there fast. Contact us today to see how we can bring more focus, foresight, and follow-up to your projects.