Big Data and Competitive Advantage

The link between big data and corporate competitive advantage

Success in business is all about building, sustaining and augmenting competitive advantage.

SuccessGiven comparable infrastructure (Capital, Access to Capital, Land, Equipment, Tools, Premises, Staff, Intellectual Property/Knowhow, Current Products/Services, Products / Services Under Development, Projects Awaiting Approval, Technology Trends, Changing Legislation, Competitors) what is it that distinguishes one corporation from another in terms of ability to augment competitive advantage?

If you subscribe to the notion that managing a business today is more complex, has more options, shorter ROI timelines, with increased risk and uncertainty, one differentiating factor is the methodologies in use for strategic and operational planning, monitoring and control.

Let’s start with the problem of making best use of scarce corporate resources.

Most organizations have no shortage of exciting initiatives that could be undertaken at any point in time but lack the resources to implement more than a few of these.

It follows that strategists need ways and means of ranking prospective initiatives in order of decreasing attractiveness.

For this, they need to be able to inventory candidate initiatives, with an indication of the resources they would need going forward. Clearly, we might as well also inventory existing initiatives with the resources they are using in order to be able to determine on an ongoing basis which resources are available for new initiatives.

Strategists don’t like to tie up any one resource completely as that might prevent new initiatives from being undertaken so each resource needs a minimum reserve level.  Similarly, they don’t want any one resource to be tied up for too long a period of time.

A practical approach is to dynamically cross-link resources to initiatives (current and prospective). Resources sit in a pool and are assigned to initiatives and returned to the pool when no longer needed.

Strategists reasonably want to see all corporate assets/resources/initiatives at one computer screen and have the ability to drag/drop resources to new initiatives as well as repatriate resources to their respective resource pools as and when initiatives no longer need these resources.

The final step is to rank new initiatives according to their attractiveness (i.e. read “according to their ability to sustain or augment competitive advantage”).

This puts senior management in a position to select the more promising initiatives and  declare these as ”ready for implementation”.

A graphic free-form search knowledge base is the environment of choice here as it can provide visual oversight for tens of thousands of dynamic data points, with hierarchical linking.

Strategy Implementation

Responsibility for implementation on new initiatives goes to operational managers who compete for resources via ROI requests and annual budget requests.  The only initiatives that should get approved are those that contribute directly or indirectly to strategic objectives.

Operations managers similarly need infrastructure for setting up Projects or Cases, engaging best practice protocols for the performance of work, and assessing progress toward meeting Case goals.

Here, the methodologies of choice are BPM (Business Process Management), R.A.L.B (auto-Resource Allocation, Leveling and Balancing), and FOMM (Figure of Merit Matrices) within a Case Management run-time environment.

Enter Big Data

Consistent with the trend toward making decisions assisted by real-time predictive analytics, organizations are seeing dramatic increases in the quantity of data being collected as part of workflow management.

Given that one cannot analyze data that one does not collect, corporations do not, today, unduly agonize over what data to collect / not collect.

Collecting data carries with it no obligation to analyze the data and, within reason, the incremental cost of collecting more data rather than less data is not significant.

Two examples of practical use of big data are as follows:

  1. Operations Level (predictive analytics)

Overlaying of cross-case data at decision branching points along best practice template instances can guide users in the selection of sub-pathways to engage along instances (e.g. similar Cases went this way, 60% of the time).

  1. Strategy Level (connect-the-dots gaming exercises)

Consolidation of operational data to corporate dashboards/KPIs at a graphic free-form search knowledge base gives managers the option of being able to challenge trended data by engaging connect-the-dots searches across the entire space. (e.g. we are projecting a 10% increase in sales, which is  120% of target, except that, on analysis, the competition is increasing at a higher percentage, so maybe 10% is not “good”).

Posted in Case Management, FOMM, Operational Planning, Risk Analysis, Strategic Planning | 2 Comments

Is it time to rename “Business Process Management” to “Business Performance Management”?

One of the commenters at a “Are Processes Key to Scalability?” discussion asked the question:

“What do we call ‘process’ so the high growth CEO will see it as important?”


Here is my response:

Agree with the need for a rename.

We know everything is a process. Processes convert inputs to outputs.

We know that a “process” can be a linked set of steps or a single step, and at a practical level any mix of these (the “processing” remains the same – inputs get converted to outputs).

We know that managing a business is all about evolving strategies, defining goals/objectives, with periodic assessment of progress toward meeting these goals/objectives.

The problem is few processes are end-to-end in b2b, so we end up having to accommodate random mixes of linked sets of steps and ad hoc steps. We need a place to manage these steps – call it Case, if no one can come with a better suggestion.

Case is nothing more than a cursor position in a post-relational database management structure. The structure is not restricted to pre-defined data storage tables/fields. A Case record can accommodate objects that require apps to view the content (images, spreadsheets, .doc/.pdf/.rtf, even audio/video recordings).

Some of these objects are stored in specific database fields, some in Binary Large Object fields, some are too large and need to be “stored” in external files with links to these objects. Bottom line, Case can accommodate anything and if you need sub-Cases (multiple orders for the same customer, multiple claims on an insurance policy, multiple episodes for a patient), no worries.

What is Case Management? – is this really not part of “Business Performance Management” – relying on what we probably could call “best practices” (i.e. process fragments consisting of linked steps, plus ad hoc interventions by resources who use experience, judgment, intuition and decision support).

Surely CEO’s would relate to Business Performance Management (BPM) as an alternative to Business Process Management? (i.e. they set strategy, resources are allocated to Cases via ROI submissions and via annual operating budgets – this ensures, to an extent, that the only work undertaken is work that is supportive of strategy).

Phase II is to monitor progress at the operational level toward meeting Case goals/objectives. Where are these goals/objectives? Surely not plan-side as the end steps in flowgraphs (i.e. we have moved from end-to-end processes to process fragments).

The answer is we find goals/objectives at Cases (run-time side) and Case Management breaks down to performing interventions at Cases that advance Case goals/objectives.

Now, few knowledge workers deal with only one Case – the reason is progress at Cases is often held up for various reasons (handoffs, wait times), so most workers will be working on 10, 20, possibly 50 Cases at a time (yes, for healthcare; yes, for insurance claims; yes, for job-shop manufacturing), so, the role of supervisors is not to manage individual Cases but rather that of allocating, leveling and balancing resources across multiple Cases.

Enter KPI’s at the strategy level – this is where we narrow the gap between operations and strategy.

Strategy -> Initiatives -> Cases -> KPIs –> Strategy

Here, all we need is the ability to consolidate Case data from multiple Cases to an environment hosting corporate KPIs and CEOs have what they need to ‘steer the ship’. I.e. Business Performance Management.

Almost, but not quite.

Missing is the ability to challenge the statistics and, to do this, CEOs need corporate knowledgebases where they can, on their own or, with a little help from staff, test KPIs trends against information in the corporate Kbase (i.e. our sales in country ABC are up 10%, sales in ABC for our three main competitors are up 20%, so reporting that “10%” is “good” needs to be investigated).

Conclusion . . .
Structured sequences of steps plus ad hoc steps can collectively be called “best practices”.

Case provides the environment for performing work.

The way goals/objectives are set up at Cases and the way Cases are managed helps ensure that work is at all times supportive of strategy.

Business Performance Management is what the organization does to build, maintain and enhance competitive advantage.

Posted in Adaptive Case Management, Business Process Management, Case Management | Tagged | 1 Comment

Theories of the Firm – Expanding RBV using 3D free-form search Kbases

RBV (Resource-Based View) is a strategy development theory whose roots go back to the 1980s/1990s with antecedents going back to 1959 “Penrose, E. T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: John Wiley”.

RBV makes the point that to be the best you can be, you have to know what your resources (and capabilities) are before trying to make most effective use of these.

The RBV message basically quits there, leaving prospective firms with the task of figuring out how, exactly, to view their resources both initially and on an ongoing basis.

The thing about resources is they are often scarce and must be shared, so the questions that arise are which resources are being used, to what extent, for which initiatives.

The problem is things can change rapidly. Accordingly, firms need a capability to dynamically allocate/re-allocate resources as they are tracking progress toward meeting strategic objectives and as they are pondering launching new initiatives.

It’s not a stretch to say that large and perhaps not-so-large firms need an inventory of the following “resource/capability” classes – capital, access to capital, land, plant, equipment, tools, intellectual property, know-how, staff, suppliers, customers, competitors, plus changing technology and changing legislation.

Best use of a firm’s resources for initiatives requires making decisions relating to low/high investment, low/high risk, and quick/slow return new initiatives and backing out of initiatives that have taken a wrong turn.

It becomes obvious that we need to know when allocating/re-allocating resources which allocations give the biggest bang for the buck. Firms reasonably do not want to tie up a resource on a low potential initiative, when the resource could be used on a high potential initiative.

Decisions of this type require knowledge which flows from information enhanced by wisdom, experience, and intuition.

Donald Rumsfeld identified three categories of knowledge – a fourth (unknown knowns) was later added by others.

“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones”.

When making decisions re initiatives and the allocation/deployment of resources/ capabilities, we need to take into account known knowns, known unknowns and unknown knowns, the latter posing a real challenge in the absence of ways and means of finding information the firm has but is unable, at the time of a needed major decision, to find.

Enter 3D free-form search Kbases that allow strategists/planners to consolidate thousands or tens of thousands of documents within one space.


The range of documents goes from text, to DOC, PDF, XLS, structured data, unstructured data, images, audio/video files.

Clearly, any environment that hosts many document types needs to be able to call apps that are capable of displaying the data.

You would not be able to do much with the above representation of the content of the “US State Dept Country Profiles”.

Click on the link below, however, and you can see the dramatic change that results from having the same data in a 3D Kbase.

The search mechanisms must be able in the background to find and highlight “hits”, otherwise users of the Kbase have to tag the documents with keywords, which we all know is tedious and unreliable (i.e. user mindsets tend to be different at the time they encode keywords relative to when they later launch searches).

See my “US State Dept Country Profiles” 3D demo Kbase (all countries, business, travel, law enforcement, narcotics, terrorism).

Posted in Decision Making, Enterprise Content Management, Knowledge Bases | 3 Comments

A framework for development of a Case Management Maturity Model

Case is a methodology that helps you to manage short and medium term business activity based on orchestration received from background BPM and governance from rule sets at the run-time environment that is hosting Case.


Case Managers/workers usually need supplementary services above and beyond BPM, examples of which are resource allocation, leveling and balancing (R.A.L.B.) across Cases; Decision Support services; Figure of Merit Matrices (FOMM) and Data Exchange.

BPM posts the next-in-line step(s) following completion of any step comprised within a BPM template instance.

R.A.L.B. allows workers to prioritize their work and allows supervisors to level and balance workload across workers.

DECISION SUPPORT services allow users to make better decisions in respect of the next intervention to perform at each individual Case.

FOMM hosts Case Objectives and allows Case Managers to carry out periodic non-subjective assessments of progress toward meeting Case Objectives.

DATA EXCHANGE accommodates bi-directional data flows to/from 3rd party local and remote applications and systems, including a corporation’s Data Warehouse.

The Nature of Work

All operational level “business activity’ can be described in terms of steps that are elements of processes.

A process can consist of a single step or a structured sequence of steps interconnected via directional arcs. This avoids unproductive discussions re the need for one methodology for dealing with end-to-end processes and ad hoc interventions at Cases (i.e.processes of one step each).

All process steps convert inputs to outputs and require some action that ranges from a simple “done” declaration by a user/system/robot to recording of data at data collection Forms by users/systems/robots.

The essence of Case Management environments is to allow Case Managers to:

a) view Case Histories and receive decision-support in respect of the “next” intervention needed at a Case and, in some situations, gain access to predictions regarding forward interventions,

b) periodically assess progress toward meeting Case Objectives,

c) decide when to close out Cases.

Given that BPM is an integral part of Case, it is worthwhile to review what BPM is and what BPM is not.

  • BPM doesn’t manage business processes, you do.
  • BPM isn’t “the” methodology of choice for managing the operational aspects of a business, there are a number of methodologies needed to manage business activity as detailed above.
  • BPM is the methodology of choice for managing repetitive structured business processes.
  • CPM (Critical Path Method) is the methodology of choice for managing once-through deterministic processes.

A question that often arises is how well is an organization managing its Cases?

Maturity models are useful for answering questions like this.

Clearly, they must be simple and easy to understand, otherwise, comparisons within and across organizations will not be valid or even possible.

Here below is a proposed five-stage maturity model for implementation of Case within an organization.

  1. Ability to map a BPM process template and casually refer to it as part of achieving run-time operational efficiency and effectiveness at and across Cases.
  2. Ability to automatically compile a template and generate instances that provide guidance to workers in respect of their performance of work at and across Cases.
  3. Ability to host supplementary methodologies/capabilities such as R.A.L.B., FOMM, ECM, CPM.
  4. Ability to consolidate run-time data across instances at Cases and across Cases\instances and carry out analytics on the data.
  5. Ability to improve the quality of decision-making using real-time predictive analytics.

o o o

2017 update

I made a small change to the following . . .

“Case Managers/workers usually need supplementary services above and beyond BPM, examples of which are Case-level resource allocation, leveling and balancing (R.A.L.B.), Decision Support services, Figure of Merit Matrices (FOMM) and Data Exchange.”

This should have read . . .

Case Managers/workers usually need supplementary services above and beyond BPM, examples of which are resource allocation, leveling and balancing (R.A.L.B.) across Cases, Decision Support services, Figure of Merit Matrices (FOMM) and Data Exchange.


Posted in Adaptive Case Management, Business Process Management, Case Management, FOMM, R.A.L.B. | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Specialty-Focused EHRs Re-Entering The Picture

Interesting article at on “Specialty-Focused EHRs Re-Entering The Picture” by Anne Zieger


My comment below . . .

“And then the specialists can opt for yet a third choice – a generalized EHR that has as it’s foundation BPM (Business Process Management) or, better still, one that supports ACM/BPM (Adaptive Case Management).

BPM is a flowgraphing methodology that comes in two flavors, one where programming is needed (skip these), the other where anyone who can “think” process can map out their process “without” programming.  The caveat “without” is important because anyone undertaking to map out their processes will need rule sets at various stages and these are likely to require programmer or super-user assistance. The rest involves little more than drawing circles and connecting these with directional arrows.

Clearly, any specialty practice has to face the fact that few of their specialists have either the time or the inclination to develop their own practices.

Independent consultants can, however, over several days, evolve a specialty EHR.

No problem at all with interoperability with some of these generalized BPM-based EHRs.

The big questions are a) how flexible are specialty EHRs and b) what is the relative cost of a specialty EHR compared to a generalized EHR that has its foundation in BPM.

BPM is used across thousands of industry applications (healthcare, insurance, law enforcement, manufacturing, b2b).  BPM is not an acronym of the week.

See one active BPM community and the topics that get discussed each week at

See 250+ plus articles on BPM/ACM, a fair number of which have a focus on healthcare, at

No commercial content at any of these sites aside from banner ads.

Specialty-Focused EHRs Re-Entering The Picture

Posted in Adaptive Case Management, Business Process Management, FIXING HEALTHCARE, Interoperability, Meaningful Use, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Funny how time slips away

It’s been six years since some of us started soapboxing about ACM vs BPM.

I don’t see much of a change –we continue to see folks trying to shoehorn BPM into all kinds of initiatives where end-to-end “solutions” are being proposed for work that does not have a convenient a start point and  where pathways do not dovetail into a single “objective” and we continue to see proposals to dismantle silos by transitioning to “flat organizational structures”.


Keep the silos!

Silos are nothing more than pools of specialty resources – silos can be centers of excellence, they are great for mentoring and their residents can easily come out of their silos, apply their knowledge/skills to run time initiatives and then go back to their silos.

If you think about it, there is not much difference in a digital world between a handoff of work within a silo (i.e. change of shift) and a handoff between silos.

All work involves the transformation of inputs to outputs and we have R.A.L.B. (auto-resource allocation, leveling and balancing) software that pretty much sees to it that things do not fall between the cracks, so it really does not matter where knowledge/skills are parked.

Of course, hierarchical, project, matrix and “flat” organizational structures all have pluses and minuses.

Consultants who transition from BPM to ACM/BPM typically do not find it distracting to work within less than optimum organizational structures.

Changing organizational structures is best left to change management consultants – it’s not easy to transition from one organizational structure to another without going through a corporate cultural change.

Posted in Adaptive Case Management, Automated Resource Allocation, Business Process Management, Case Management, MANAGEMENT, Operations Management, R.A.L.B. | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What Predictive Analytics Can Do For You!

If you are responsible for managing a business, the maturity level you want to get to is one where staff receives advanced decision support from your business management system.


Here is how you can use the “Easy” button to improve management of your business.

1. Start by evolving a set of best practices, encourage their consistent use, but allow variations (ad hoc interventions), where warranted.

You will be practicing ACM/BPM where you will be getting orchestration from background BPM and getting governance from the run-time ACM environment that is hosting your best practice workflows.

BPM logic and rule sets contribute to efficiency, ACM rule sets contribute to effectiveness (i.e. avoiding extreme, unwanted, variation away from best practices).

2. Now, track deviations away from best practices across multiple instances of your best practices.

Too many skips means that you have steps in your best practices that are not necessary, too many ad hoc interventions means steps are missing from your best practices.

3. Update your best practices as appropriate.

Take things one step further.

4. At manual branching decision boxes along your best practice flowgraphs, tally the number of times staff engage processing along different optional pathways and. soon, you will get to where you can highlight “favorites” that help staff with decision making.

5. Now, blend in predictive analytics . . .

Remember CPM (Critical Path Scheduling)?  CPM was great (and still is) for managing once-through initiatives – CPM lets you calculate forward arrival times at project objectives, and takes care of resource allocation, leveling and balancing whilst providing cost containment.

CPM is deterministic, which means if the design of the product/facility is right and you push through the pathways/sub-pathways you will get the expected performance.

Time/Cost/Performance management – it doesn’t get much better than this.

The problem is business management and it’s subset, business process management are anything but deterministic.

But look, if you get on board with ACM/BPM and focus on continuous improvement of your processes, you will, to a large extent, be getting the benefits of CPM (plan, monitor, control)  plus a predictive outcomes capability at Cases.

Posted in Adaptive Case Management, Business Process Improvement, Business Process Management, Case Management, Decision Making, Risk Analysis | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Beyond Case by Case Management

We know that Case Managers manage Cases but that is not the end of it.

Cases often need to draw on pooled resources and when the pool runs dry someone has to step in and make decisions regarding which Cases get the resources they need and which ones do not.

Analysis Word Shows Investigation Or Research

It’s hard to anticipate Case demands for resources unless we have structured sequences of steps with resource loading at each step.

Satisfying those demands is typically beyond the boundaries for most Cases, other than ones that own the resource pools they use.

It follows that we need to consolidate copies of Case instances somewhere so that given a start date for each Case instance we can position all instances along a common timeline and see resource demand peaks and valleys.

Leveling resource demand requires an understanding of the relative priority of each Case with stretchout of Case instance timelines in such a way that minimizes damage.

Clearly, leveling/stretchout algorithms are likely to be complex.

Do we throttle back resources evenly across all Case instances, leading to such eventualities as leveling one resource at the expense of others? Do we rank Cases in such a way that the ranking reflects the extent to which each Case contributes to corporate strategic objectives?  Do we try to negotiate with the owners of key resources to get them to defer, for example, planned maintenance?

No easy answers here.

The mechanics are easy.  Either you build a meta case infrastructure and put in place resource allocation, leveling and balancing (R.A.L.B.) at the top level of such infrastructure or you mirror Case instance data to, say, a Critical Path Method (CPM) or Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) run time environment that allows you to model and adjust Case instance step durations then import durations back to individual Cases in the Case Management environment.

The latter seems to be the preferred option because most CPM environments support multi-project management, have built-in R.A.L.B. and accommodate import/export.


Posted in Automated Resource Allocation, Business Process Management, Case Management, Decision Making, FOMM, Job Shop Operations, Manufacturing Operations, Operational Planning, Process Management, Project Planning, R.A.L.B., Scheduling, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Performance based reimbursement – coming soon to a place near you


Healthcare services delivery in the USA is out of control.

Costs have skyrocketed, facilities are overloaded, doctors are suffering burnout and government intervention has, under the guise of improving patient safety and outcomes, yielded only modest improvements.

MU (Meaningful Use) is largely responsible for the current alarming state of affairs.

It takes longer to process patients than before MU and it seems the focus has shifted away from treatment of individual patients to long-term outcomes data collection.

The remedy, after billions of dollars spent, is to rewind and set the focus on quality, efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare services delivery. Something that should have been the focus of MU from the start. Better late than never.

The problem is going to be with implementation.

Current EHRs were not designed to generate performance data. Replacing what is currently in use will be expensive and we can expect several rounds of false starts as vendors shift into a feeding frenzy to crank out “new” and “improved” EHRs using, the same old, in many cases, database architectures invented in the 1960s. Customers will be buying pigs with lipstick.

Strangely, the methodologies to do things the right way are readily available. We need four methodologies (BPM, R.A.L.B., ACM and FOMM) to make performance-based reimbursement a success.

And, there are two hurdles that need to be sorted.

One is “not invented here” and the other is “resistance to change”. Both of these are cultural hurdles.

NIH is particularly well entrenched in healthcare so it will be difficult to port BPM / R.A.L.B./ ACM / FOMM. The easy solution for NIH is to get over it.

As for Resistance to Change, there is an easy fix that  does not require making changes in  the way we manage work.

If you think about it, all of us, each day, come into our places of work and immediately take note of our fixed time appointments. No one has a problem with a calendar. No change, no resistance.

Following calendar inspection, we look at our to-do list and we micro-schedule to-do tasks to fit between fixed time commitments.

If you have a half hour appointment at 0900 hours and another at 1100 hours, you may reasonably pick a couple of small tasks to clear off your desk between 0930 and 1045. Or, you may prefer to make progress on one large to-do task. Up to you, and no obligation to stick with one approach or the other from one day to the next.

Resistance to change in healthcare can be minimized so long as the pitch is right.

The thing is case management has been at the core of medicine since the 1600s. Accordingly, healthcare workers have no problem going to a patient chart prior to meeting with a patient so transitioning to an e-chart that looks the same as the old manila folder is not a problem.

The other thing is the concept in healthcare of “best practices” is understood.

BPM excels at enabling building and enhancing best practices, but it has a reputation of imposing rigid protocols. BPM and ACM together replace the rigidity of structured protocols where these make sense and accommodate unstructured or ad hoc interventions where appropriate. No rigidity, no resistance.

The other positive attribute of BPM is that lets agency functional unit staff document their workflows featuring existing agency forms, so healthcare professionals see their workflows posting their forms. No change, no resistance.

All of these scheduling maneuvers are eminently handled by R.A.L.B.(i.e. 3-tier scheduling or Resource Allocation, Leveling and Balancing).

FOMM (Figure of Merit Matrices) is also not new, and easy to implement. Basically, it’s all about non-subjective assessment of progress toward meeting Case objectives. You could do it on the back of an envelope, but it’s a lot faster/easier if you append a spreadsheet template to each Case Record and follow the methodology.

None of these tried and true healthcare services delivery methods will work if the software User Interface is not right.

Here again, no change will result in no resistance.

So, let’s go forward with a UI  consisting of a split screen featuring two constructs everyone is familiar with (a calendar and a to-do list) and let’s make things such that using the UI requires less effort than not using it. No resistance here.

OK, how does this get us to performance-based?

This is where IT comes in – with end-users in the drivers’ seat, building and enhancing their own workflows, IT will have time to focus on predictive analytics. As users perform interventions, record data, the data will flow to the EHR (as it does now) but with a parallel feed to a data warehouse where all manner of analytics can take place.

The final piece of the puzzle is not to simply crank out after-the-fact statistical and tabular reports but to analyze data in real-time and improve decision-making in respect of healthcare services delivery to individual patients.

Reporting on measures is the easy part.


BPM: Business Process Management

ACM: Adaptive Case Management

R.A.L.B.: Resource Allocation, Leveling and Balancing

FOMM: Figure Of Merit Matrices


Posted in Adaptive Case Management, Business Process Management, Case Management, FOMM, Meaningful Use, Performance Based Reimbursement, R.A.L.B. | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Is Social BPM a failure? is a great place to hang out.

Peter Schooff asked the question above and I recommend you take a look at the range of comments received.


My comment was  . . .


So many diverse comments here on this one discussion topic.


In healthcare it’s “no verbal orders”

For a child, at any step along a best practice pathway, you are likely to get a call from the parent re “Why are you doing this? or “I see on the internet that beet root is a better treatment modality, why are you not using this?”

For an adult, same thing plus a desire to go to a portal and gain access to their EMR file (the law says they have the right to access information in their file).

The healthcare log needs to have a record of each of these “ad hoc” interventions – not just date/time and caller but any data that was recorded, at the time it was recorded, on the form versions in service OR an audio recording OR a video telehealth encounter recording.

No way we would allow data flows to patients/caregivers using Facebook, Twitter, e-mail because of the risk of disclosure of patient information and possibility of heavy fines.

In respect of portal accesses, you want the user to be able to log in, see a menu of services (trimmed to what this user is allowed to see/request), a message goes from the portal to a webserver engine and it is the engine alone that links to the backend db server, indexes to the right record, retrieves the data, passes it back to the engine and pushes out the info to the user at the portal. Any suspicious incoming data stream diverts to a healthcare professional/admin person who will probably call and say “if you really need this amount of information, how about you come into the clinic to pick it up?

Bottom line, no “social ” in healthcare and if you are building generic platforms for healthcare (hospitals/clinics interacting with patients), for manufacturing (organizations like Lockheed interacting with suppliers), for b2b (a job shop operation interacting with a customer), why not use the same approach?

I am with Emiel  Kelly “. . . .some type of processes rely more on social interactions than other ones”

I think we could avoid the controversies by saying ” . . . some type of processes rely more on ad hoc interactions than other ones”

Posted in Adaptive Case Management, Business Process Management, Case Management, Interconnectivity | Leave a comment