Gamification to Support the Run Time Planning Process in Adaptive Case Management

  • Danny Oldenhave
  • Stijn Hoppenbrouwers
  • Theo van der Weide
  • Remco Lagarde
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 147)


Adaptive Case Management is used to manage unpredictable processes. These processes are mostly knowledge oriented and different roles need to collaborate to carefully plan the next steps during the execution of a case. These next steps cannot always be planned ahead, but depend on events and changes and differ for each instance. During the execution period the actual model of the run time planning, of a particular instance of a case, is made. For different roles to easily plan the correct next steps, it is important that such a case can be conceptualized and communicated. In this paper we suggest the idea of using game elements, or Gamification, to enhance the planning process during the execution of a case. With the use of Gamification we hope to make this process more recognizable for people and create better involvement by engaging the familiarity of games. The use of role-playing games is already being used for workshops and requirements elicitation. By building on existing work in Adaptive Case Management and Gamification we show that most games and the planning process of a case are in some respects similar. More in particular, we will discuss how we can learn from games to improve the team play during the planning process of a case. Finally this idea will be explained through an example of a planning process for an unpredictable case.


Adaptive Case Management Gamification Modeling in Run Time Communication Games 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Veldhuijzen van Zanten, G., et al.: System Development as a Rational Communicative Process. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics 2(4), 47–51 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ssebuggwawo, D., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, E.: Interactions, Goals and Rules in a Collaborative Modelling Session. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 54–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S., et al.: Method Engineering as Game Design: an Emerging HCI Perspective on Methods and CASE Tools (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A(E.), van der Weide, T.P.: A Fundamental View on the Process of Conceptual Modeling. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 128–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deterding, S., et al.: Gamification. using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In: CHI EA 2011 CHI 2011 Extended Abstracts on Human (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hevner, A.R., et al.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–106 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Aalst, W., van Hee, K.: Workflow Management: Modellen, Methoden en Systemen, 2nd edn. Academic Service (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Swenson, K., et al.: Mastering the Unpredictable: How Adaptive Case Management Will Revolutionize the Way That Knowledge Workers Get Things Done. MKPress (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Swenson, K., et al.: Taming the Unpredictable Real World Adaptive Case Management: Case Studies and Practical Guidance. Future Strategies Inc. (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moore, C., Le Clair, C.: Dynamic Case Management: An Old Idea Catches New Fire. Forrester Research (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weeks, D.E.: Adaptive Case Management: Taming Unstructured Process Work for Today’s Knowledge Worker. OpenText Global 360 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chevron: Future of BPM survey, Chevron (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Silver, B.: Case Management Solutions, Case Management Demystified. Webinar Global 360, BPMS Watch (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mecella, M.: Adaptive Process Management. Issues and (Some) Solutions. In: Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, WETICE 2008, pp. 227–228 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kemsley, S.: Enterprise 2.0 Meets Business Process Management. In: Handbook on Business Process Management 1 International Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 565–574 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Antic, D., et al.: On a New Approach To The Business Processes Modeling. Automatic Control and Robotics 10(2), 199–204 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller, D., Shepherd, T.: Winning in the New Normal: Adaptive Case Management Strategies to Deal with Business as it Happens. Whitepaper Global 360 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moore, C.: Delivering exceptional customer service. Webinar global 360, Forrester Research (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McGonigal, J.: Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. Producer, Massachusetts (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Williams, J.P., Kirschner, D.: Coordinated Action in the Massively Multiplayer Online Game World of Warcraft. Symbolic Interaction 35(3), 340–367 (2012) ISSN: 0195-6086 print/1533-8665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Bree, J., de Lat, S.: Complex Systems and Emergent Behavior: Engaging with Computer Games to Enrich Organization Studies. Nyenrode Research Paper no. 11-05 (2011) ISSN 1872-3934Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Salen, K., Zimmerman, E.: Rules of play: game design fundamentals. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Mastrigt, J.: The big bang. Dutch Gamedays, Utrecht (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., Roelefs, J.: Concepts and Strategies for Quality of Modeling. In: Halpin, T.A., Krogstie, J., Proper, H.A. (eds.) Innovations in Information Systems Modeling, ch. 9. IGI Publishing, Hershey (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Vreede, G.J., Briggs, R.O.: Collaboration Engineering: Designing Repeatable Processes for High-Value Collaborative Task. In: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, p. 17c. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Eemeren, F.H., et al.: Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.: Formal Modelling as a Grounded Conversation. In: Goldkuhl, M., Lind, G., Haraldson, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on the Language Action Perspective on Communication Modelling, LAP 2005, Kiruna, Sweden, pp. 139–155. Linkpings Universitet and Hogskolan I Boras, Linkping (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rittgen, P.: Negotiating Models. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 561–573. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danny Oldenhave
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stijn Hoppenbrouwers
    • 2
    • 3
  • Theo van der Weide
    • 2
  • Remco Lagarde
    • 1
  1. 1.AtosThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Radboud University NijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.HAN University of Applied SciencesThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations