Comments on: Conversations and Adaptive Case Management http://blog.actionbase.com/conversations-and-adaptive-case-management?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=conversations-and-adaptive-case-management Pondering Human Process Management Sat, 18 Sep 2010 23:54:50 +0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Library clips :: Have we been doing Enterprise 2.0 in reverse : Socialising processes and Adaptive Case Management :: July :: 2010 http://blog.actionbase.com/conversations-and-adaptive-case-management/comment-page-1#comment-865 Library clips :: Have we been doing Enterprise 2.0 in reverse : Socialising processes and Adaptive Case Management :: July :: 2010 Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:43:21 +0000 http://blog.actionbase.com/?p=382#comment-865 [...] on ACM or Social BPM, or whatever…lots of links here…and a comparison of [...] [...] on ACM or Social BPM, or whatever…lots of links here…and a comparison of [...]

]]> By: Scott http://blog.actionbase.com/conversations-and-adaptive-case-management/comment-page-1#comment-822 Scott Tue, 15 Jun 2010 02:58:22 +0000 http://blog.actionbase.com/?p=382#comment-822 Jacob- this is what I like about your approach. Explaining both the technical details of how you approach the problem (which some call ACM, but for the moment the label doesn't matter), and then also communicating that it isn't just the fact that the technical detail exists, but the HOW you've addressed it that makes the solutions interesting. Too many of the conversations in this area are too theoretical. For example, there is nothing particularly preventing a BPM player from making these conversations central to a solution, but they don't (unless you consider ActionBase one of the BPM players). I can very easily understand how to pitch the advantages of ActionBase because it is clear on both the details and the philosophy and why the implementation better supports the philosophy. Hope my comment helped clarify (or give you the opportunity to clarify) what I think makes your product really interesting. Much like when SOA/integration vendors would say they could do "bpm" but really meant BPEL. To them, process was a checkbox. They'd never really address it because it wasn't central to their product offering, or at least a central value proposition. BPM vendors made the process the center of the value proposition. You're making these sidebars central - which might help bring them to light :) - and doesn't eliminate the possibility of interaction between the processes and the sidebars ;) Jacob-
this is what I like about your approach. Explaining both the technical details of how you approach the problem (which some call ACM, but for the moment the label doesn’t matter), and then also communicating that it isn’t just the fact that the technical detail exists, but the HOW you’ve addressed it that makes the solutions interesting.

Too many of the conversations in this area are too theoretical. For example, there is nothing particularly preventing a BPM player from making these conversations central to a solution, but they don’t (unless you consider ActionBase one of the BPM players).

I can very easily understand how to pitch the advantages of ActionBase because it is clear on both the details and the philosophy and why the implementation better supports the philosophy. Hope my comment helped clarify (or give you the opportunity to clarify) what I think makes your product really interesting.

Much like when SOA/integration vendors would say they could do “bpm” but really meant BPEL. To them, process was a checkbox. They’d never really address it because it wasn’t central to their product offering, or at least a central value proposition. BPM vendors made the process the center of the value proposition. You’re making these sidebars central – which might help bring them to light :) – and doesn’t eliminate the possibility of interaction between the processes and the sidebars ;)

]]> By: Jacob Ukelson http://blog.actionbase.com/conversations-and-adaptive-case-management/comment-page-1#comment-789 Jacob Ukelson Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:28:14 +0000 http://blog.actionbase.com/?p=382#comment-789 Scott, As always, good points. Yes, many BPM tools have mechanisms for the sidebars - but from my experience people don't tend to use them - for various reasons - they aren't familiar with capabilities, a limited choice of who can participate, varying functionality. So yes, many vendors can put a checkbox - but they aren't really used. People revert to the standard mechanism they use for electronic interaction. So in theory you are right, in practice things work differently. But I was more on your second point - how central are the sidebars to the process - with ACM they are central - in BPM, not really. Scott,
As always, good points.
Yes, many BPM tools have mechanisms for the sidebars – but from my experience people don’t tend to use them – for various reasons – they aren’t familiar with capabilities, a limited choice of who can participate, varying functionality. So yes, many vendors can put a checkbox – but they aren’t really used. People revert to the standard mechanism they use for electronic interaction. So in theory you are right, in practice things work differently.
But I was more on your second point – how central are the sidebars to the process – with ACM they are central – in BPM, not really.

]]> By: Scott http://blog.actionbase.com/conversations-and-adaptive-case-management/comment-page-1#comment-786 Scott Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:34:26 +0000 http://blog.actionbase.com/?p=382#comment-786 Assuming these sidebars are not literally at the water cooler, but are happening electronically/digitally on laptops or desktops or phones or tablets - it turns out that this sidebar feature isn't differentiating for ACM vs. BPM - several BPM tools provide such annotation via comment threads, conversations, and documents. So - if we're talking technical capabilities, this is not differentiating. But if you're talking about philosophically - it can be quite different. In a sense, ActionBase makes the conversation potentially the center of the "process" (insert your favorite noun) instead of the sidebar :) I think that stylistic difference or difference in emphasis is significant, but if you just say "sidebar conversations" lots of vendors can check that checkbox, for better or worse. Assuming these sidebars are not literally at the water cooler, but are happening electronically/digitally on laptops or desktops or phones or tablets – it turns out that this sidebar feature isn’t differentiating for ACM vs. BPM – several BPM tools provide such annotation via comment threads, conversations, and documents.

So – if we’re talking technical capabilities, this is not differentiating. But if you’re talking about philosophically – it can be quite different. In a sense, ActionBase makes the conversation potentially the center of the “process” (insert your favorite noun) instead of the sidebar :)

I think that stylistic difference or difference in emphasis is significant, but if you just say “sidebar conversations” lots of vendors can check that checkbox, for better or worse.

]]>