1. Rohit says:

    Feb02Antonio Alexander I was besseld to be there,an also besseld to learned a lot. Thank you for your time,care,and your book.May GOD keep you and may GOD lead you. THANKS

  2. Sandra says:

    Hello! Incredibly good posting! I have been a usual voitisr (much like addict ) of the website however I had a trouble. I am far from being confident if it is the right place to question, but you have no spam comments. I get comments almost daily. Can you assist me? I praise you!

  3. hilal says:

    Excellent beat ! I would like to apprentice at the same time as you amend your iwesbte, how can i subscribe for a weblog iwesbte? The account aided me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit familiar of this your broadcast offered brilliant clear concept.

  4. Eminemm says:

    Max, thanks for the rpesonse! I think the best way to draw a distinction between ACM and BPM is in the way that people use them. I know that all implementations include a little of both: BPM systems have some ad-hoc capability, and ACM systems have some pre-programming capability. That line is very fuzzy unless we talk about how it is used. Similarly, all knowledge workers will perform a combination: some routine (automatable) work, and some unique (unpredictable) work. When routine work becomes automated, we should call that technology that automates it BPM , even if it is part of a system that claims to support ACM. A doctor, working completely in ACM mode will order lab blood analysis which is likely to be highly automated by BPM. Thus case managers will use BPM all the time, just like they use word-processors and spreadsheets. There is still a very clear distinction between the ways that a person uses ACM and BPM. ACM is completely under the control of the case manager (in every aspect) for themselves to use. BPM is under the control of the process expert, and it provided primarily for others to use. It is the difference between these modes of use, that drive the different required feature set. If we look only at capability, then one can argue (falsely) that a single unified language makes the most sense. It is that argumentation (based on the invalid assumption that one approach is better than two) that leads us to a dead end. Once you understand that the audience for ACM is different than the audience for BPM, only then can you realize that there is no real need for a unified approach.

  5. Gfsergh says:

    Scott, As always, good pnoits. 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.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

More From CBS Baltimore

Track Weather On The Go With Our App!
CBS All Access
Download Our App

Watch & Listen LIVE