In this article posted by Keith Swenson is argued that BPM is one thing, Case Management is other thing, because:
- What drives BPM is:” is defined as a way of defining a process, and maintaining it over time.”, and,
- Case management is driven by: “useful for collaborative, dynamic, and information-intensive processes which requires incremental and progressive responses from the case handler to determine actions”.
I say this may lead people to wrong concepts.
I think the issue here is not the definition: what is BPM what CM is. I consider it’s important to define things, otherwise business people, process people will misinterpret the idea and at the end hurt is done.
The issue here is that BPM continues to be and it will be the philosophy to manage business processes.
Some are structured with more or less flowcharts and documents (some structured processes don’t need documents and charts at all regarding people qualification to perform the tasks!) and some don’t.
Now for those that aren’t structured apply the appropriate definitions like you and others are trying to implement for the execution of such processes types.
You cannot separate BPM from CM, CM process type are manageable like any other process, it applies the same concepts like monitoring cycle time, task time, resource levelling, the only big difference it’s the fact that it can’t be designed like a “predictable” process clearly defined and executed most of the time by the book.
Conclusion: BPM is the philosophy Case Management is a process type!
I’m willing to deep my thoughts and reasoning latter. I will be back to this subject, regarding the heart of Case Management Architecture.