PCM Requirements Linking Capability Taxonomy and Process Hierarchy at BPMCM15
Blog: Column 2 - Sandy Kemsley
I’m in Washington DC for a couple of days at the BPM and Case Management Summit; I missed this last year because I was at the IRM BPM conference in London, and in fact I was home from IRM less than 36 hours this weekend before I got back on a plane to head down to DC this morning.
I’m in a breakout session to hear John Matthias from the Court Consulting Services of the National Center for State Courts, who focuses on developing requirements for court case management systems. As might be expected, the usual method for courts to acquire their case management systems is to just pick the commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software from the leading packaged solution vendor, then customize it to suit. Except in general, the leading vendor’s software doesn’t meet the current needs of courts’ case workers and court clerks, and Matthias is trying to rework the best practices to create definitive links and traceability between requirements, processes and the business capabilities taxonomy.
As he noted, justice case management is a prime example of production case management (PCM), wherein there are well-worn paths and complicated scenarios; multiple agents are involved (court and clerks, prosecution, public defender) and the specific order of activities is not always pre-defined, so the key role of the PCM system is to track and respond to state changes in the system of record. There are, however, some points at which there are very specific rules of procedure and deadlines, including actions that need to be taken in the event of missed deadlines. The problem comes with the inflexibility of the existing COTS justice case management software available in the market: regardless of how much study and customization is done at the time of original installation (or, perhaps, in spite of it), the needs change over time and there is no way for the courts to make adjustments to how the customized COTS package behaves.
To address the issue of requirements, Matthias has developed a taxonomy of business capabilities: a tree structure that breaks each business capability down to increasing specialized capabilities that can be mapped to the capability’s constituent requirements. He’s also looked at a process hierarchy, where process stages break down to process groups, and then to elementary processes. This process hierarchy is necessary for organization of the processes, particularly when it comes to reusability across various case types. Process groups show hand-offs between workers on a case, while the elementary processes are the low-level workflows that may be able to be fully automated, or at least represent atomic tasks performed by workers. The elementary processes are definitely designed to be reusable, so that a process such as “Issue Warrant” can be related to a variety of business capabilities. Managing the relationships between requirements gets complex fast, and they’re looking at requirements management software that allows them to establish relationships between business capabilities, business rules, processes, system requirements and more, then understand traceability when there is a change to one component.
Unlike systems with completely pre-defined processes, the requirements for PCM systems need to have the right degree of granularity (not too much to overconstrain the workers, and not too little to provide insufficient guidance), have performance measurement built in, and link to systems of record to provide state awareness and enable process automation. The goal is to achieve some amount of process discipline and standardization while will allowing variations in how the case managers operate: provide guidance, but allow for flexible selection of actions. Besides that ability to provide guidance without overconstraining, developing requirements for a PCM isn’t that much different from other enterprise systems: consider the future state, build to change, and understand the limits of the system’s configurability. I would also argue that requirements for any user-facing systems shouldn’t be done using a waterfall methodology where complete detailed requirements are necessary before implementation, but rather a more Agile approach where we collect the high level requirements, then enough detailed requirements to get you to your first implementation in an iterative development cycle. At which time all of the requirements will change anyway.