Some thought about the discussion from the Cyber Roundtable of the Adaptive Case Management Mentor Camp.
The leading question is how to improve knowledge work productivity. And that is the right question. It is not about how BPM and ACM differ or fit together, because these are technology questions. And technology obviously is only means to an end, which in this case is knowledge work productivity.
The first speaker is Keith Harrison-Broninski.
He starts by mentioning as he calls it “mixed blessings” of using BPM – which is based on scientific management – which is basically working at a virtual assembly line. The core assumption is, that work is transforming input into output. But that does not apply to creative work. He shows the antagonism between task based processes and information based processes. Task based processes serve ease of control, but they suffer for lack of agility, which is represented for example in ERP systems.
Then he talks about “Big Processes”, and how they could be modeled with Teams, Roles, Deliverables, Stages, and a way to interact. Planning will be done during process execution.
However I do not understand why he does refer to this type of process als “Big Process”. For me he is speaking about a Case of Adaptive Case Management. Is this another term for the same thing?
There are 4 types in his view:
- Overarching process: Bring Order into chaos by putting it all on the table and interact and plan. Also he mentions Goal Oriented Design in this context.
- Underpinning Process: Processes for Customer service planning across multiple departments. Flowcharts are too technical and rules too complex.
- Connecting Process: I think he means integrating a Team that uses different technology into one common technology. This in my eyes is a prerequisite, not a process.
- Remembering Process: As an example a patient process: diagnosis and treatment. Binding together the information from all parts of the big process into a patient case improves the quality of diagnosis and treatment.
While I support the idea to identify knowledge work patterns, I think this classification is only a starting point for discussion. Probably they are not disjoint, or they are to some degree independent. But I support the effort to identify knowledge work patterns. In the end they are needed to provide ACM software. I wrote about this earlier.
Now the speakers are Keith Swenson, Jakob Ukleson and Dana Khoyi, who are also co-authors of “Mastering the Unpredictable“. Keith explains the characteristics of unpredictable processes again. The question is: How do I identify, if I have a need for ACM. Jacob sais, if there are a lot of processes that go on in a lot of documents, spreadsheets, emails, that is a strong sign that ACM fits. Dana mentions, that every kind of work, where people decide what to do next before it is done, is a fit. That is probably the most general and inclusive definition I have heard. However strictly spoken also in predictable processes people decide what to do next for example which product items go into a quote for a prospect. So probably the definition should be: “Every kind of work, where people decide what to do next before it is done, and it is not covered by a standard process”. Which by the way may change over time as some processes become standard processes over time.
Keith talks about who would bring the ACM concept into companies. It is about the “mentor”. He mentions
- Managers mentoring their people and
- Specific ACM mentors that support the organization to become more effective with ACM.
So yes – this is a good summary of what I described in Mentoring in Knowledge Work. I think and I hope the discussion about it picking up speed.
Now the question is which type of people would mentor. Those who would care about work efficiency, technology, and are knowledgeable in their profession.
Now they are coming back to the 4 process types / work patterns mentioned in the beginning.
Which is the low hanging fruit? Keith H.-B. sais type 1: Overarching Process. For these reasons:
- It is directly a benefit for the Customer.
- It has big visibility in the company.
- It is probably easier to get budget for it.
- A productivity increas has a big leverage.
Question: “Are there existing customer examples?” Some examples are mentioned. Local government. Dangered Species in Arizona. Resolving Credit Card issues.
Managing the board of directors meeting. Decisions start and kick off unpredictable processes, they need to be executed and reported back after some time. Regulatory requirements are that you show that you act and what you do. For that ACM is very good.
Keith S. mentions Dr. House, a fictional TV series … as the work progresses, the case moves forward, new decisions are made.
Keith H.-P. mentions complex processes in engineering where tests need to be passed and all parts are put together. I think he might have my chapter “Improving Knowledge Work” in mind, where I describe the case of Leona in much detail, who is working in a telephone system engineering company.
I might also add an own example here: Car Repair. This is not a ficitional example, but a real project. In the beginning there the need for an accident case. It is the central point to coordinate unpredictable parts of the process and predictable parts of the process. I argued in my chapter, that unpredictable parts of the process and predictable parts must be integrated – not everybody believed me or believes me until now. Some say, that it is too difficult. But I think the Car Repair example shows that this is true and not difficult, if it is done using the right approach to ACM.
So yes, to wrap it up – I think there is a big agreement about the direction of the future of knowledge work, unpredictable processes and the role of ACM among us. Yes, we can discuss about definitions of knowledge work or knowledge workers, but maybe the best way to find out is to successfully complete more projects in the area and to adapt the concepts accordingly. Speaking for myself I think the ACM approach helps me see much clearer in current projects and to go into the right direction from the beginning. The “case” naturally fits into many work environments (health, law, government, service, repair …). And that is so important, that the concepts feel natural and also the work feels natural. So – good discussion!