=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2443/paper07
|storemode=property
|title=Adaptive Case Management – Creating a Case Template for Social Care Organizations
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2443/paper07.pdf
|volume=Vol-2443
|authors=Paul Herzog,Birger Lantow,Johannes Wichmann
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/bir/HerzogLW19
}}
==Adaptive Case Management – Creating a Case Template for Social Care Organizations==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2443/paper07.pdf
Adaptive Case Management – Creating a Case Template
for Social Care Organizations
Paul Herzog1, Birger Lantow1 and Johannes Wichmann1,2
1
University of Rostock, Albert-Einstein-Str. 22, 18059 Rostock, Germany
2
Wismar University of Applied Sciences, Philipp-Mueller-Str. 14, 23966 Wismar, Germany
{win.office,birger.lantow}@uni-rostock.de, johannes.wichmann@hs-
wismar.de
Abstract. Adaptive Case Management (ACM) is an approach for the manage-
ment of knowledge-intensive processes. „Case Management Model and Nota-
tion“(CMMN) is an industry standard that can be used as a notation for process
models in the context of ACM. However, CMMN only specifies a notation.
Methods for process elicitation and management have not been well addressed
by scientific investigations. This work assesses the method support and the fea-
sibility of ACM on the example of a social care company. This company on one
hand represents a typical environment for ACM application and on the other
hand contains some characteristics that are common for the care industry. Thus,
future development directions and an evaluation of existing and proposed
methodology is provided in a qualitative way.
Keywords: ACM, Adaptive Case Management, Case Management, Social Sec-
tor, Social Companies, Knowledge-Intensive Processes, BPM 2.0, CMMN.
1 Introduction
In times of dynamic competitive conditions, multilayered and variable workflows and
increasing dependencies of companies on capabilities, new approaches for the man-
agement of processes are necessary to handle the complexity.
Whereas a simple process capture through Business Process Management (BPM)
seems to be outdated [1, 24, 26] to address this challenge, enterprise documentation is
becoming increasingly important to use dynamic solutions [16]. One approach to
managing current, knowledge-intensive processes is Adaptive Case Management
(ACM). Just as in the field of business process modelling in the form of business
process modelling notation, there is a standard industry notation for process recording
in adaptive case management called “Case Management Model and Notation”
(CMMN). However, CMMN defines only one possible notation for process models
and hardly considers methods for the collection and management of cases that are of
particular importance for knowledge-intensive processes. For this reason, this paper
examines the research question: Is Adaptive Case Management suitable for use in
Copyright © 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Com-
mons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
68
social settings? The work pursues the goal of proposing a method component,
which serves to create initial case templates and the definition of case objectives.
To assure that and to address the research’s aim appropriately, a company within
the social sector was selected as a case study to test the method component. There-
fore, the research follows a design-oriented information systems research approach
with the underpinning of inductive reasoning. Derived from the findings of the case
study, perceptions for the implementation of ACM in the social sector shall be gath-
ered [29]. The corresponding company was selected because it provides two ad-
vantages. One the one hand, it represents a common environment for ACM applica-
tion and on the other hand comprises some characteristics that are representative for
the care industry. Thus, future development directions and an evaluation of existing
and proposed methodologies are provided in a qualitative way.
Section 2 presents a selection of relevant literature and the principles of ACM as
well as a reference to Case Management (CM) in social care. Section 3 introduces a
possible solution for a method support for ACM in the social sector. Then, the method
support is critically evaluated and extended. The following fourth section evaluates
the extended method in a case study. The last section summarizes the findings, limita-
tions and outlook of this work.
2 Adaptive Case Management and Social Care Processes
The following section will describe the relations between ACM and processes in so-
cial care. Therefore, the central features of ACM (section 2.1) are necessary and a
distinction to traditional BPM (section 2.2) is conducted. Subsequently, section 2.3
provides the relation to social care processes, derived from the findings in section 2.1
and 2.2.
2.1 Central Principles of Adaptive Case Management
The term Adaptive Case Management (ACM) has its roots in the year 2009 and was
developed by domain experts because they realized that the traditional operative
Business Process Management (BPM) does not fit to the needs of today’s knowledge
workers anymore [1, 24]. Given that the context and management of working activi-
ties as well as environmental changes are increasingly significant, ACM addresses
those needs as it manages responsibilities and activities that are required to complete a
business case successfully [2, 24].
The innovation changed the management’s view, as now a case and not a process
is in the focus for illustrating different views on companies’ processes. A case con-
sists of a bunch of several tasks. There are planned and unplanned tasks that should
fulfill a specific purpose. Each case can be divided into different tasks and processes.
Thereby, each case is defined by its purpose and it is possible that one case contains
multiple instances [2]. This is comparable to process instances, when processes are
performed.
69
Based on the case term, the case template represents the equivalent of a process
model in traditional BPM, whereas the case instance corresponds to a process instance
[3]. Assuming that each case instance represents a different or even unique situation,
the management of a case instance always takes a specific process flow into account
[4]. In the same instance, all accumulated information and data about a task or the
case instance itself are stored [2].
Fig. 1. Central ACM Principles, adapted from [5]
ACM enables the knowledge worker to perform configuration of cases and respec-
tively of tasks on the fly without support from professional system developers (as a
developer configuration activity). It is possible to create a collection of performed and
to be performed tasks and to control case handling based on it. By avoiding double
and contradictory work, collaboration and performance of the employees are im-
proved. The work results can be optimized with regard to service quality, expense and
time [2, 24].
Kurz and Herrmann present the central principles of ACM implementation [3].
They divide these principles between the areas organization, case handling, and
adaption, as presented in figure 1.
In terms of the organization, a case always has at least one goal. The performed
tasks contribute to the achievement of the goal and are directly connected to it. There-
by, it is difficult to control a case by a control flow because a case can comprise a
high variability while the structuredness is low. Instead, the case process control is
data driven. In order to reach the case’s aim, tasks are bundled by the case and by case
data [3, 24].
By considering the case handling, the knowledge work, or the tasks of a case re-
spectively, are highly collaborative. All employees involved need to communicate
with each other, to collaborate and to control the progress [6, 25]. Therefore, collabo-
ration is a focal point of ACM. It can be reached by appropriate tools for social inter-
action [3]. These tools also need to assure the transparency that is needed for efficient
case handling. All required internal and external resources like people and infor-
mation connected to a case need to be provided in a structured manner. This means
that all people involved in a case need to have access on the existing organizational
knowledge and results of case handling [6, 25]. Transparency plays a decisive role
70
prior to, during and after handling a case instance. The employees need to know the
tasks to perform and their relations to it before the case handling starts. At the same
time, knowledge of prior case instances needs to be retrievable [6].
In the context of adaption, the focus is on knowledge work and the system should
be designed so that the knowledge worker has the possibility of adapting this system
to his needs. The consequent aim is that the knowledge worker adjusts the process
appropriately, so that efficient processing is possible. The adaption can be done in two
ways. First, during case execution, which describes the adjustments of the system to a
specific case instance. As a result, it is always possible to edit the case instance flexi-
bly. Therefore, external or internal events or case-internal findings may be the reason.
Moreover, business rules ensure structured, efficient and targeted process manage-
ment [3, 26].
The second way refers to the completed case instances and uses the knowledge
gained from them to adapt case templates and continuously improve the overall sys-
tem [6]. Important premises are, that errors are made only once and that frequently
used case elements are made available for future case instances. An adjustment can be
made for entire case templates or individual case components. This cross-case adap-
tion describes the flexibility of changes in terms of business processes by both, the
employees and by the system [3].
2.2 Distinction between Adaptive Case Management (ACM) and traditional
Business Process Management (BPM)
While comparing traditional BPM and ACM directly, the different degree of determi-
nacy becomes apparent. In BPM, the deterministic processes can be defined in ad-
vance. This requires, that the status of a process is fixed, while modeling it. The prob-
lem is that the actual process steps can be very complex and in need of flexibilization,
whereas the decisions, rules and all influences that govern the process flow, as well as
the mentioned status of the process, have to be predefined [27].
In contrast, ACM is not deterministic. The modeling aim is known, but the path to
reach it is non-restricted and it is possible that this path will vary from case to case. In
addition, a process in ACM often cannot be stopped because there is no predefined
sequence of activities, but orders vary and activities can be processed in parallel [7].
A further development of the traditional BPM, which has similarities with the
ACM, is the Business Process Management (BPM 2.0). The basic idea of BPM 2.0 is
that employees, as part of their daily work, can independently propose process im-
provement potentials and make changes. This should result in process innovations,
which are the defining goal of BPM 2.0. Often, the process innovations emerge
through collaborative work among employees and through jointly developed ideas to
improve processes. This should contribute significantly to the identified flexibility
deficits in BPM [8].
BPM 2.0 incorporates approaches based on the fundamental principles of the ACM
and becomes more flexible, especially because of innovation incentives and motiva-
tions for collaborative activities. However, regardless of the approach, BPM 2.0 suits
71
better for repetitive tasks, whereas ACM is intended for knowledge-intensive process-
es [3, 8, 28].
2.3 Social Care and Adaptive Case Management
Case Management (CM) is a standard for work organization in healthcare, family
assistance, youth welfare, and care of the elderly [9]. In contrast to ACM, where pro-
cess control and IT support are the main objectives, CM provides a holistic view of
help-organization for a social sub-system in need (generally, these are people or fami-
lies = clients ≡ case instances). Therefore, case management aims at an efficient and
effective use of available resources [10, 11]. Within the social sector (social work and
social pedagogy), CM is the common method of work triggered and induced by gov-
ernmental laws and policies e.g. in Germany, the United States, and the Scandinavian
states. In terms of treatment cases within the healthcare sector, where regular treat-
ments are not success- or helpful, CM is used to identify groups of patients in need of
specialized care [12]. As a result, it will be clarified below whether, based on the
previous findings, CM in the social sector makes an IT support by ACM appear ap-
propriate. Therefore, a designed-oriented information system research with inductive
reasoning is conducted and discussed in the following [29].
There are two distinct layers applying CM in the social sector. The first one are the
activities of the individual professionals during case work and then, on a higher layer,
the second one is the coordination of the resources provided by the different involved
professions – the CM process.
A suitable approach for describing casework in the social sector is Müller’s circu-
lar four-level model [11]. It considers anamnesis, diagnosis, intervention and evalua-
tion as essential activities of casework in the respective sector and is well suited for
the argumentative ongoing of this research due to its low granularity. According to
Müller’s model, the individual steps of action do not follow consecutively in a linear
order but should be able to penetrate each other and to start over again [13]. For this
reason, problems can arise in rigid process sequences. The four-level model shows
that steps that ideally should be processed consecutively are often erratic and concur-
rent. The knowledge of each social worker determines the further steps. Anamnesis,
for example, is inevitably linked to the diagnosis, as an outcome is often anticipated,
even without enough information. The process of accepting, conforming and defining
a diagnosis proceeds practically parallel to the collection of information, but at differ-
ent levels [11]. This statement of need for cooperative working in multi-disciplinary
teams in terms of case management in the social sector is in line with current research
approaches [30, 31].
In addition, the other resources that can be assigned to a particular case also influ-
ence the casework. Above all, the client himself, but also his environment and per-
sonal network are important and interesting for the case [14]. As a result, due to the
subjectivity and variability of the environment, the casework processes are hardly
structurable, thus hardly representable in models of activity, and consequently diffi-
cult to illustrate via ACM [32].
72
In contrast, the CM process, as a comprehensive control tool, prescribes a fixed
procedure based on legal requirements for the management and coordination of case
processing. A common procedure provides: (1) determination of case groups / screen-
ing, (2) assessment / diagnosis, (3) planning, (4) implementation, (5) monitoring, (6)
evaluation and (7) reporting [15, 17]. The step (1) case group determination / screen-
ing serves determining characteristics that justify an application of the CM for a client
and describes the similar cases (in terms of case groups). The screening then uses
these characteristics to identify clients for specific case groups. The processing of the
steps 2 to 6 is carried out according to the content of the four levels of the Müller-
model mentioned above. In contrast to the description of casework, the CM process is
not about individual work processes, but about the coordination and control of the
activities of several professions in the case. For the adaption of this coordination task,
the ACM provides the special role of a case manager [17]. For him, in order to be able
to effectively carry out his work, the clear delineation of the individual steps is neces-
sary. Nevertheless, these steps have to be run several times during the case implemen-
tation and, moreover, are subject to the variability of the environment. The final step
(7) is to provide case-by-case documentation and review of the overall impact of the
CM.
The description of CM in the social sector suggests a fundamental applicability of
the ACM [32, 33]. The characteristics of the application area correspond to those
described in section 2.1, which are identified as necessary – the area is collaborative,
knowledge-intensive and there is no clear flow of control. According to the aforemen-
tioned definitions, a concurrent application in casework, where activities cannot be
distinguished from one another, will be difficult. In contrast, there is a possible sup-
port for the CM process, which has a corresponding variability, requires collaboration
and, with the determination of the case group as well as the accountability, contains a
case-instance-overarching knowledge protection. While in the clinical sector, an IT
support in terms of case management is mainly based on document management and
providing the information necessary for coordination and planning [15], both data
management and process control are absent in the social area.
3 Method Support for Adaptive Case Management
In order to describe the method support for ACM, the method model by Goldkuhl et
al. [18] is used. Here, a method is a composition of so-called method components,
where each component addresses a sub-problem of the method application. A method
component describes procedures, concepts and a notation. In addition to these method
components, a method definition also contains a perspective (in terms of problem
definition and scoping), cooperation forms and a framework. The latter is intended for
the use-control of the method components. With regard to ACM, the perspectives and
concepts were presented according to the current state of science (section 2.1) and
CMMN was introduced as a notation that scarcely considers other method compo-
nents. To tackle this disadvantage, the process and role model by Hermann and Kurz
[3, 19] is selected as appropriate for the method support. This approach contains the
73
peculiarity that it is based on the BPM 2.0 approach and adapted accordingly for
ACM. Therefore, section 3.1 provides a brief explanation of the model and section 3.2
aims to adjust and extend the method for the social sector appropriately.
3.1 Method by Kurz and Herrmann
Fig. 2. Process and Role Model by Hermann and Kurz, adapted from [19]
The method is described based on a process and a role model (Fig. 2). The role model
defines the responsibilities in each stage of the ACM process, defining a total of 11
roles. The procedure model describes the tasks involved in the ACM and their se-
quence: First, in the execution phase, the case template is selected and an instance is
created. This is either adapted to the specific case requirements before or during case
processing. This happens either with one or more iterations and contains the following
advantages: First, a flexible approach to changing conditions and requirements is
possible. Second, improvements can be implemented more quickly by limiting the
scope of functions of individual iterations to be implemented. Third, the system is
accepted better, by the users and by the management [3].
Corresponding adjustments within a case are either directly created by the employ-
ees (roles 1, 2 and 3) or developed collaboratively. In the further ongoing, suggestions
for improvement are evaluated by the case officers (roles 6 and 7) and checked for
correctness. If the approval (role 7) has been granted, the adaption will be implement-
ed (roles 4 and 5). By considering the simplest case, this happens automatically, for
example when creating a new process task. In some cases, additional manual devel-
opment work may be required, such as the provision of complex functionalities [3]. In
the control phase, as soon as the case objectives have been completed and the case has
been closed, the achievement of objectives and the efficiency of the case are assessed.
The changes made as part of the case-specific adoption are also evaluated (roles 8 and
9). If sufficient information and approaches for improvement exist for a case report,
74
these can be generalized and made available in the case-by-case adaption for use in
future cases. Individual case components or entire case templates and components can
be adapted or stored separately as specialized variants [3]. The mediator (role 10)
interferes in conflicts, while the champion (role 11) serves as a supporter of the ACM
in the company [3].
3.2 Method Evaluation and Enhancement
To validate a possible suitability of the Kurz and Hermann method for the social sec-
tor, a behavioristic approach via qualitative expert interviews as a cross-section analy-
sis [29, 34] were carried out. As stated in the introduction, this research aims to pro-
pose a method component that creates initial case templates and defines case objec-
tives. In general, the method by Kurz and Hermann is appropriate for an application
in the social sector, but contains some weaknesses. First, a high level of complexity of
the proposed procedure for adaption before or during the case processing is deter-
mined, whereas a detailed evaluation of individual method components was not car-
ried out. Second, the implementation only required the basic suitability of the compa-
nies’ workflows for process management. Third, method components are also not
specified to the extent that processes within them can be described concretely; the
process model rather presents a framework. Fourth, with regard to the role model, the
basis is created to define forms of cooperation, but these are also not specified. Fifth,
there are no method components that describe how cases are identified (see (1) Case
Group Determination / Screening section 2.3) and how initial case templates are cre-
ated. Sixth, the modeling of the case objectives is defined unclearly, the frame model
of the case manager (section 2.3) is not depicted and the role model is too complex to
be practicable in small companies.
In order to encounter these deficiencies, expert interviews are conducted in order to
obtain appropriate information, which accordingly extends the Kurz and Hermann
method so that it is most suitable for use in the social sector. In the sense of purposive
sampling strategies according to Palinkas et al. [35], collaborative, guided interviews
were chosen as means for data collection. The method expert processed them (role 5)
with employees (role 1) and associates responsible in dispositive functions (roles 8
and 9) in order to use different, company-internal views for case processing. Concern-
ing the determined procedure of the interview guide, it is based on Prenner [20], who
deals with tools for recording business processes through interviews in his research.
In addition, the research of Trinczek [21] was used to design the process modeling
questions.
Table 1 presents the key questions for the interview. The first and second question
What is your profession? and What are your duties? are inherited from Prenner. The
third question When a client contacts you, what is happening then? descends from
Penner as well and has been formally adapted. The fourth question What activities are
being performed, by whom and where? is a combination of three central questions
from Trinczek [21]. The original questions are: What is done? (activity), Who per-
formes the activities? (role / person) and Where are the activities performed? (loca-
tion / organizational unit). With the question Which tools are needed?, the fifth ques-
75
tion is developed based on Trinczek and slightly extended. The sixth question is also
inherited from Trinczek. The questions seven through ten are case-study-specific, as
questions seven and eight delineate the approach from traditional BPM. The questions
aim at starting activities that are performed outside a defined control flow. Question
nine addresses the goal orientation, the project character of case processing and the
identification of important case objectives. The tenth and last question has a control-
ling and complementary effect on the documentation and should give the person in-
terviewed the opportunity to provide additional information, which are not triggered
by the previous nine questions.
Parallel to the interviews, sketches are made with all tasks and individual relation-
ships. These provide a better overview during the interviews so that interviewers and
respondents do not lose track. The sketches are based on a simplified notation (figure
3) that is based on CMMN. This simplified notation allows to collect tasks and mile-
stones in order to keep track of process goals and how they can be achieved by task
execution. Instead of complex constructs to control the execution of tasks, freely
named relations are used in order to collect dependencies between tasks and if possi-
ble semantics of these dependencies.
Fig. 3. Notation for the case description during the interviews
In order to exclude influences of prior interviews, each interview starts with a new
sketch. After performing the interviews, a case template in CMMN notation is created
by the method expert.
Table 1. Interview – Guiding Questions
Question Comment Goal
1. What is your profes- Determine name of pro- Starting conversation
sion? fession
2. What are your duties? Determine work areas Identify all responsibilities
of the employee
3. When a client contacts Procedure of case han- First impression of case
you, what is happening dling handling. Is there a de-
76
then? fined control flow?
4. Which activities are Reveal responsibilities, Identify all relevant activi-
performed, by whom and activities and processes, ties of a case and deter-
where? local orientation mine the location of per-
formance
5. Which tools and prelim- Determine trigger and Understanding of triggers
inary work is needed? relations and relations between
activities in order to find
sequences
6. What are triggers for Determine trigger and Understanding of triggers
the activities? relations and relations between
activities in order to find
sequences
7. Which activities can be Activities that are outside Show independent activi-
performed at an arbitrary a defined control flow ties
point in time?
8. Which activities need to Activities that are outside Identify temporal re-
be performed at or until a a defined control flow but quirements of the case and
certain point in time? bound to temporal re- further specify relations
quirements between the activities
9. Which milestones can Milestones help to control Definition of milestones
be defined for the case? progress in case handling and hence case objectives
10. Are there activities or Reassurance of the model- Correctness of the result-
relations that have yet not ling result ing model
been mentioned?
4 Case Study
The case study (in terms of case study based research design) was conducted in co-
operation with the GeBEG, the society for child upbringing, health and education
Rostock. Mainly, the company works with families, parents, children and the youth
welfare office. Together, the case assistance for child upbringing was selected for
modeling. Therefore, four GeBEG employees were interviewed with the methodology
described in section 3.2. Three of them were social workers (role 1, section 3.1) and
one of the four company’s leaders (role 8 and 9). The method expert (role 5) is exter-
nal to the company in this case. The formal role of a case manager (section 2.3) did
not exist in the GeBEG, as the cross-profession coordination is provided by the youth
welfare office. Following the third interview, it was no longer possible to identify any
tasks that were not mentioned yet. The result is presented in the description of the
case (model in figure 4).
Most of the activities have no predefined procedure or order. There are fixed ac-
tivities and processes, but these relate to specific requirements or specifications by the
authorities. Other crucial activities and processes often only emerge spontaneously,
for example by getting in contact to one or more clients. Through permanently chang-
ing circumstances, many cases differ from the general case. This makes it difficult to
77
substantiate the general tasks for a case. Strong external and internal factors can
change processes quickly and often.
Fig. 4. Case Template “Assistance for Child Upbringing” in CMMN
In general, all four interviewees described a similar procedure (case template in figure
4). They stated that the work process started with a first conversation. There are vari-
ous combinations of participation among the involved parties. Either the first conver-
sation takes place only with the professionals (youth welfare office and GeBEG) or
with the professionals and the clients (all participants) and, as a third option, the talk
takes place between the GeBEG and the client. In this first conversation, all partici-
pants should get to know each other better and the client’s family decides whether
they want to accept help from the social worker or not. In addition, if help is appreci-
ated, the content of the help program and corresponding goals for it are defined.
Therefore, two of the four interviewees created a genogram (or sociogram) to get a
better overview of the case. In the course of the help process, appointments take
place, which have to be documented and deducted. Every six months, a help plan
discussion takes place with the youth welfare office. Two weeks before this help plan
discussion, the carrier report must be submitted to the youth welfare office. During
78
this conversation, the bygone help period is evaluated and, if necessary, goals are set
for a further period. All interviewees indicated on demand that this six-month cycle
between the assistance plans is a formally order. During the interviews, it turns out
that there is no real conclusion of the case, as long as the help continues. However,
the client or the GeBEG can terminate the help program at any time.
As a result (figure 4), it became apparent that many supporting activities were
modeled (to make an appointment, to document, to account the time needed). The
issues of anamnesis, diagnosis, intervention and evaluation from the model according
to Müller [11] are indirectly reflected. For example, elements of the anamnesis and
diagnosis can be identified in the first conversation. In addition, the help plan discus-
sion with the aspects of retro perspective and reflection also contain evaluation as-
pects. The documentation then externalizes the results of the case instances and thus
contributes to the reporting goals, which is done by describing the CM process ac-
cording to section 2.3. The intervention takes places in the task dates with clients, but
is not further specified there. It also determines that the CM process, which requires
documentation, influences the casework.
The CM-process in particular involves different organizations and organizational
units. Thus, it cannot be modelled by a single organization (unit) using the existing
method support. Although there are approaches to inter-organizational ACM by Hil-
debrandt et al. [22] and Kurz [23], but these researches mainly focus on a notation for
processes and the assurance of solid process models when modelling in a distributed
manner, whereas method components for process elicitation are not considered. Fur-
thermore, with regard to an appropriate notation, organization models might be re-
quired.
The definition of case objectives is not examined adequately so far. The suggestion
by Kurz et al. [5] to introduce milestones to CMMN has been implemented in the
current CMMN version. However, the case objectives are domain specific and, re-
garding this research, the interviewees were not able to define milestones for the case
study. Furthermore, objectives may change during case handling, e.g. due to im-
portant changes within the social environment of the client. In general, the achieve-
ment of case objectives should be traceable by case data since case control is data
centric and this could lead to improvements in other cases. Hence, data models should
be included in case modelling methods.
5 Summary and Outlook
This research is concerned with the question of whether adaptive case management is
suitable for implementation in social institutions. To this end, the central principles of
ACM were first presented, a distinction from BPM was made and methodological
support with extensions was depicted. In the following, this method was tested by
means of a case study.
Regarding the overall achievement of the objectives, it can be noticed that, in rela-
tion to the basic principles of the ACM in combination with the enlargement and the
findings of the case study, there are indications that it is useful to apply ACM in the
79
social sector. In addition, the case study has shown that there are opportunities to
present social processes as case studies.
With regard to the evaluation and further development of the ACM for the social
sector, case modelling method components were designed (section 3.2) and success-
fully applied, at least with regard to the consulting case model of the study. According
to the explanation of model weaknesses in section 3.2, further research is needed to
generally:
• reduce the burden of case adjustments,
• make role models less complex, as well as
• design a method component that allows the identification of cases.
In the special context of social institutions, investigations are necessary concerning:
• adequate support of definition and control of case objectives,
• refinement of the role model for appropriate fitting to the roles of CM, as well as
• designing a method component for inter-organizational case models.
In the context of the practical application, the step 1 (case group determination /
screening, section 2.3) was deliberately omitted since validation in the context of the
case study (section 4) would not have been possible. Although the GeBEG GmbH
knows and uses CM, the participants did not consider a distinction of case groups
meaningful. It also shows that not all processes or tasks are suitable for being present-
ed as case models, although they are core tasks of the company under consideration.
This can be explained by the high dynamics of these processes and tasks. At this
point, further research would be helpful regarding how quickly changing processes
and tasks can be represented well with a corresponding notation as well as a valida-
tion of this research’s findings.
References
1. Palmer, N.: Introduction. In: Mastering Unpredictable. How Adaptive Case Management
Will Revolutionize Work That Knowledge Workers Get Things Done, pp. 1–5. Meghan-
Kiffer Press, Tampa (2010).
2. Burns, E. V.: Case Management 101: 10 Things You Must Know About Case Manage-
ment. In: Taming Unpredictable - Real World Adapt. Case Manag. Case Stud. Pract.
Guid., pp. 17–25. Future Strategies Inc., Lighthouse Point (2011).
3. Kurz, M.; Herrmann, C.: Adaptive Case Management - Anwendung des Business Process
Management 2.0-Konzepts auf wissensintensive schwach strukturierte Geschäftsprozesse.
Dienstorientierte IT- Systeme für hochflexible Geschäftsprozesse, (2011).
4. Kostadinov, N.; Yordanov, L.: Adaptive Case Management - Papiertiger oder die Antwort
auf BPM Herausforderungen, (2014).
5. Kurz, M., Schmidt, W., Fleischmann, A., Lederer, M.: Leveraging CMMN For ACM: ex-
amining the applicability of a new OMG standard for adaptive case management. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 7th International Conference on Subject-Oriented Business Process Man-
agement (p. 4), ACM, New York (2015).
80
6. McCauley, D.: Achieving Agility. In: Mastering Unpredictable. How Adapt. Case Manag.
Will Revolutionize W. That Knowl. Work. Get Things Done, pp. 257–276. Meghan-Kiffer
Press, Tampa (2010).
7. Fischer, L.: Taming the Excellence in Practice Series. Future Strategies Inc., Lighthouse
Point (2011).
8. Kurz, M.: BPM 2.0: Selbstorganisation im Geschäftsprozessmanagement. In: Dienstorien-
tierte IT-Systeme für hochflexible Geschäftsprozesse, pp. 193–216. University of Bamberg
Press, Bamberg (2011).
9. Löcherbach, P. et al.: Case Management - Fall- und Systemsteuerung in der Sozialen Ar-
beit. Ernst Reinhardt Verlag, München, Basel (2005).
10. Brinkmann, V.: Case Management. Springer Fachmedien, Heidelberg (2010).
11. Michel-Schwartze, B.: Methodenbuch Soziale Arbeit. 2nd ed., VS Verlag für Sozialwis-
senschaften, Wiesbaden (2009).
12. Kollak, I.; Schmidt, S.: Fallübungen Care und Case Management. Springer, Heidelberg
(2015).
13. Müller, B.: Sozialpädagogisches Können: ein Lehrbuch zur multiperspektivischen Fallar-
beit. Lambertus, Freiburg (1993).
14. Neuffer, M.: Case Management - Soziale Arbeit mit Einzelnen und Familien. Beltz Ju-
venta, Weinheim (2012).
15. von Reibnitz, C.: Case Management: praktisch und effizient. Springer Medizin Verlag,
Berlin (2009).
16. Razavi, M., Aliee, F. S., Badie, K.: An AHP-based approach toward enterprise architecture
analysis based on enterprise architecture quality attributes. Knowledge and information
systems, 28(2), Springer, London (2011).
17. Michel-Schwartze, B.: „Modernisierungen“ methodischen Handelns in der Sozialen Ar-
beit. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden (2010).
18. Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M., Seigerroth, U: Method integration: the need for a learning per-
spective. IEEE Proceedings-Software, 145(4), pp.113-118, IET, London (1998).
19. Herrmann, C. Kurz, M.: Adaptive case management: supporting knowledge intensive pro-
cesses with IT systems. S-BPM ONE-Learning by Doing-Doing by Learning, pp. 80-97,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2011).
20. Prenner, N.: Ein Werkzeug zur Erfassung von Geschäftsprozessen durch szenariobasierte
Interviews. Doktorarbeit, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover, 2015.
21. Trinczek, B.: Informationssysteme im Gesundheitswesen. Medizinische Fakultät Münster,
Münster (2015).
22. Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R. R., Slaats, T.: Designing a cross-organizational case man-
agement system using dynamic condition response graphs. In: Proceedings of the 15th
IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), pp.
161-170, IEEE (2011).
23. Kurz, M.: Taming diversity: A distributed acm-based approach for cross-enterprise
knowledge work. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences
on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT), Vol. 3, pp. 87-91,
IEEE (2013).
24. Sem, H. F., Pettersen, T. B., Carlsen, S., Coll, G. J.: Patterns Boosting Adaptivity in ACM.
In: OTM Confederated International Conferences “On the Move to Meaningful Internet
Systems”, On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems (OTM) Workshops, LNCS, pp.
102-111. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2013).
81
25. Sem, H. F., Carlsen, S., Coll, G. J.: On Two Approaches to ACM. In: Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Business Process Management (BPM), LNBIP, Vol. 132, pp.
12-23. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2013).
26. Hildebrandt, T. T.: EcoKnow: Effective, Co-created & Compliant Adaptive Case Man-
agement for Knowledge Workers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 22nd International Enter-
prise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW), pp. 9-11. IEEE (2018).
27. Adensamer, A., Rueckel, D.: Differences Between BPM and ACM Models for Process
Execution. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Business Modeling and
Software Design. Business Modeling and Software Design (BMSD), LNBIP, Vol. 319, pp.
270-279. Springer, Cham (2018).
28. Scheithauer, G., Hellmann, S.: Analysis and Documentation of Knowledge-Intensive Pro-
cesses. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Business Process Management
(BPM), LNBIP, Vol. 132, pp. 3-11. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2013).
29. Oesterle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U. et al.: Memorandum on design-oriented information sys-
tems research. European Journal of Information Systems 20(1), 7-10 (2011).
30. Briggs, A. M., Valentijn, P. P., Thiyagarajan, J. A., Aurajo De Carvalho, I.: Elements of
integrated care approaches for older people: A review of reviews. BMJ Open, Vol. 8, Iss.
4, British Medical Association, London (2018).
31. Stokes, J., Riste, L., Cheraghi-Sohi, S.: Targeting the ‘right’ patients for integrated care:
Stakeholder perspectives from a qualitative study. Journal of Health Services Research and
Policy, Vol. 23, Iss. 4, SAGE, London (2018).
32. Routis, I., Nikolaidou, M., Anagnostopoulos, D.: Using CMMN to model social processes.
In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Business Process Management
(BPM), LNBIP, Vol. 308, pp. 335-347. Springer, Cham (2017).
33. Motahari-Nezhad, H. R., Swenson, K. D.: Adaptive Case Management: Overview and Re-
search Challenges. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 15th Conference on Business Informatics
(CBI), pp. 264-269. IEEE (2013).
34. Wilde, T., Hess, T.: Forschungsmethoden der Wirtschaftsinformatik. Wirtschaftsinforma-
tik, Vol. 49, Iss. 4, pp. 280-287. Springer, Wiesbaden (2011).
35. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A. et al.: Purposeful sampling for qualitative fa-
ta collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and
Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health, Vol. 42, Iss. 5, pp. 533-544. Springer US,
New York (2016).
82