However, as Andrew’s blog shows, there is a lot of confusion on what case management is. I am guilty of the confusion as well, because I know very well that Pallas’ tools are referred to as case handling tools. Because most people don’t know what you are talking about when you mention case handling, I usually use case management instead. WRONG! I should have known better and used the right terminology all along. All this time I was trying to make apples to be oranges, thereby comparing apples and oranges… Definitely time to set things straight and provide some background info, so I can also explain why case handling is a lean form of BPM…

First, let’s look where the term case handling came from. I think (I am not 100% sure, so please correct me if I’m wrong) it was first used in a paper written in 2001 titled Beyond workflow management: product-driven case handling by Van der Aalst and Berens. It describes a new concept, which was implemented by Pallas in a product called FLOWer. I don’t want to give you a full company history or toot the company’s horn, but I do have to give some background information to be able to explain my point. So please be patient…

So you are wondering what makes case handling so unique? Well, the big difference is that case handling is data-driven. Please think about that for a second. Data-driven. That means that, unlike “traditional workflow”, where work is routed from one person to the next, work depends on what information is required and what information is available (read entered into the system). The comparison between workflow and case handling looks as follows:

Again, I don’t know the true source of this table, but it is used in this paper by Van der Aalst, Weske and Grünbauer. Of course it would be even better if there were another column named case management added to the table above. I think that would clarify the case management vs. BPM discussion, although I don’t think the rows in the table above would be sufficient, as case management -in my opinion- tends to be low on process and more about case status. To be honest, I wouldn’t be able to fill that column, because the only case management solution I know is really a case handling solution…

As you can see in the table above, case handling is more than case management on process steroids. There are other discriminating factors that make case handling stand out. I think the separation of case data and process control is self-explanatory as  I have already mentioned that case handling is data-driven. The separation of authorization and distribution is a very powerful concept that provides enormous flexibility to administrators of a case handling system. On the flip-side, it tends to be a little more difficult to get your head around the set-up of such a system. Last but not least, case handling provides the execute, skip and redo roles as opposed to just the execute role. These three roles combined with the possibility to make them dependent on the roles of the users makes for a flexible authorization mechanism, that lets users do the things they need to do to get their work done (which isn’t always the happy flow…).

At this point I assume you have some basic understanding of what case handling is. I’d like to go back to my statement in the first paragraph, linking case handling to Lean. As you know, Lean is all about Flow. Where traditional workflow breaks up the flow and routes the work from user to user, case handling enables you to let the user enter as much information as is available, thereby improving flow. I italicised enables, because you have the option to let users enter more information in a process step than strictly required to fulfill that particular step. So if more information is available and the system has been set-up to allow for this, the user can just enter the additional information. Of course you can still have authorization steps that break up the flow, but if the user with the authorization role pulls the cases from the queue, the effect can be minimised. I guess what I am trying to say is, that with some smart designing, the negative effects on the flow can be minimized. I am trying to figure out what a totally Lean process would look like, but I think it would be a process not worth automating. So my guess is that case handling is as lean as you can get in BPM…

Case handling is not some newfangled thing. It has been around for years and there are literally thousands and thousands of users who use these tools every day. They tend to fall in the category of knowledge-workers, but I don’t want to start another discussion on the definition of those… Because case handling allows for flexible authorization of when what data can be entered, it helps the flow of the system. Therefore my statement: Case handling is a form of Lean BPM… Please let the discussion continue on Twitter, but hopefully within a clearer context of definitions. Don’t you just love a juicy apple?

So what is the best medicine against AP? Honestly, prevention is the best medicine in this case. Imagine being a handsomely paid process management consultant asked to model a core process for a major corporation. You have set up a workshop with the major stakeholders in the process. Everybody is present and available for the whole day! It’s smooth sailing till 2pm. You’ve modeled a fairly complete process and the end seems in sight. You are already thinking about being able to go home before traffic… But then it happens! A discussion starts in the room about what documents are involved in a hand-off point. Then someone starts saying the order of certain steps isn’t right. More discussion. Heated discussion. More disagreement. When you get the discussion under control a whole list of “issues” has surfaced. Because you don’t know the details about this process yourself, you suggest to assign these issues to small groups of people for further research. It seems like a good idea and everyone involved agrees. You are happy with yourself, because you still can beat the traffic going home…

Back to reality. Was that really a smart move? On one hand doing further analysis on issues under discussion seems fair and logical. However, when you think about it: How long do you think it takes before all required information has been located? One week? I doubt it. Probably at least two weeks. So after two weeks you could organise another meeting with the process stakeholders. When do you think you could get all those people back in one room again? Another two weeks? A month? I hope you are starting to see my point: What should have been accomplished in one day now gets dragged out over weeks, possibly months. Even worse, there is no guarantee that agreement on the process map will be reached in the next meeting. That means yet another meeting. Another couple of weeks or months… Diagnosis: analysis paralysis: Some half-finished process that will probably never see the light of day…

So what should you do to prevent AP? As mentioned above, prevention is the best medicine. When you organise the meeting to map the process, clearly state in the invitation that all doors and windows will be locked till agreement has been reached by all present. “Oh come on”, I hear you thinking, “that shouldn’t be necessary!” Ok, maybe I am exaggerating a little. You can leave the windows open. My reasoning? You need the stakeholders to be committed and to be prepared. Focus on the issues that add value and don’t strive for perfection. Perfection is a killer when it comes to process mapping. Forgot about (minor) details, like who is responsible for some document that nobody ever reads. Focus on the activities that make or break the whole process. Experience tells me about 20% of activities make up 80% of the value. The remaining 80% is little stuff. Agree on the important stuff and the consultant can decide on the issues related to the other 80%. After all, that is why they hired a consultant… And remember, if there is no agreement, nobody will be leaving the room. You’ll be amazed how quickly everyone will agree…

Unethical? Impossible? I don’t think so. Make clear beforehand what is expected of the participants and make sure they come prepared. The rest will be a breeze. You might not need a lock after all…

In my opinion “Lean BPM” is really a new name for BPI. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t have a problem with that. It is just a little confusing. Lean itself is based on flow and quality. Or as Mark Graban put’s it: Lean is about improving processes, identifying customer value and providing it more effectively — better quality and lower cost. You can read all about in his blog.

So why should we be paying attention to Lean BPM? Or even better: Why should we be doing Lean BPM? Well, I can imagine the following scenario. You are in an organisation that could really use some efficiency improvements. Staff is overworked. Resources (read money) are scarce. Customers are about to go elsewhere. So what do you do as the person in charge? Well, guess what! Take a look at Lean BPM…

Pick out the process where most of the value comes from for the organisation. Good chance that also quite a bit of value goes to waste through inefficiencies. Simplified: I think it is safe to assume to 80% of the business value comes from 20% of its processes. So focus on those 20%. Pick the process with the most waste (an important word in lean!).

Now do a good case of business process improvement on this process while focusing on the features that add value. Again, 80% of the value in the process probably comes from only 20% of the activities of the process. Focus on where it hurts. Don’t go for perfection (i.e. 100%). Be pragmatic. Use time boxing or some other methodology to keep things moving and last but not least: Get all stakeholders in the process involved. And I don’t mean from behind their desks. Put them in a room and do some modeling or prototyping to get everyone on the same wavelength.

Excuse me? You are already working this way? You prove my point: Lean BPM is just a new name for what many process owners/managers/facilitators have been doing for years. But again, that doesn’t mean you should ignore Lean BPM. On the contrary, Lean BPM is good practice when times are tough and process improvements need to be made!

Of course who would like to admit that they aren’t in control of their business? If you’d ask the CEO of a random organisation, (s)he probably wouldn’t say: “We don’t know how to get a grip on this organisation! We are like a boat without a rudder in the stormy seas of today’s business climate!”. I would imagine the employees walking around in life jackets, rubber boats in the hallways, and lifebuoys near the exits… I guess it would probably be only a matter of time before this organisation would disappear in the stormy waters of todays economic climate. Waiting around just to determine if an organisation is in control is not the way to go though…

So even if you do admit that you’re not as much in control as you’d like, you still can be. You don’t have to be on an ocean liner either to get in control. If you are on a row boat, your chances of being in control are better given the fact there is less to control…  Anyways, I would say you need the following three things:

1. Know what you are doing
2. Know how to change what you are doing so you can do it better/quicker/whatever is appropriate in your line of business
3. Know how to keep control over the two aforementioned points

Simply put, you need to put a Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle in place and keep it going for your continuous improvements to happen. Going through the cycle once is good. Going through the cycle continuously should be your aim. Does that sound like a stretch? It really doesn’t have to be. Yes, it can be a fair amount of work to accomplish, but with the right guidance and the right tools it can be accomplished. No matter how big or small your business is. Let’s review the above three points one by one.

Every organisation delivers one or more services or products to its clients. That’s what your organisation is doing to stay in business. If you want it or not, there is a process in place to deliver these services or products. If you want to improve your business, you have to know where you are now.  Think about it: If you don’t know  how things get done now, how can you know how to improve?

The next step is to determine what needs to change in order to improve. There are numerous ways to approach this step, but you probably already have some gut feeling that tells you you should be paying more attention to one or two parts in your process. It also depends on what you want to achieve with the improvements: Do you want to be able to react quicker to changes in the market? Do you want to produce quicker? Do you want to deliver your services more efficiently? These are all different desired improvements that will require different solutions.

The last step is to maintain control over the way of working and over the process of improving your way of working. As vague as it may sound to you, it is the most critical part of the whole process. Without control, your chance of succeeding become rather slim. It is like that project that spun out of control. It was probably due to lack of control over what was going on. I don’t mean to say that project management is the solution for this third step. It is a partial solution, but there is more required. A project is a temporary vehicle to reach a defined goal. This step is about implementing a change of culture of how things get done. And this step is where  the right technology can be a tremendous help.

Of course the above was mostly about the why and not about the how. Please be patient and I’ll write more about the how next time. In the meantime, if you need any help, Pallas Athena can help you change your processes in a controlled way and also support you in establishing control over these processes at the same time. That’s what our business is all about; to put you in control so you can handle the changes you need to deal with: change in control!