Over on Linkedin, there is a spirited debate over several aspects of the Adaptive Case Management (ACM) movement going on. ?The whole thread makes is worthwhile a read if you are trying to understand what exactly ACM is trying accomplish, how the community is organized and who some of big players are.
I commented on his blog but thought I'd repost here:
I saw this thread-? too bad it descended into something - how shall we say it-? not very professional.? I like the definition of DCM - it makes that particular definition much more apparent.? And I agree with you - almost every BPMS out there is also DCM.? I'm sure there are/were a few exceptions, but the surviving BPMS' all have good rule systems to leverage (or can leverage external rules).
Now we're just left with the muddy ACM definition.? I found it particularly amusing to see that people who have previously argued that BPM can't succeed because we can't agree on the definition, then turn around and argue that no definition of ACM is needed!
And I also find myself agreeing that I don't see the technology issues with case management.? The differences that are communicated are at a really high level, unsubstantiated by an actual software artifact or code snippet or API (to give a few examples).? Philosophically the difference between basketball and "soccer" is quite large, but to a kid with a ball, it turns out he could play either one.? Actually, a kid could probably play either of these sports with any decent ball if he/she was motivated...
I'd recommend reading David's summary more than the original thread, or at least stop reading the thread when it leaves off the constructive and starts to get a bit heated.