The Annual WfMC Case Management Excellence Awards

Thank you for registering your interest in the Case Management Awards

You have reached Step 2.

Upon receipt of this form below, we will supply you with our easy Q&A template and helpful guidelines and forward your abstract to the judges for review.

Please complete the form below, inserting your 250-word abstract that answers these three questions:

  1. Who (by roles within the organization) are the users of the system?
  2. What area(s) of the business does the Case Management System affect?
  3. Why should this submission be considered a successful case study?
    (Briefly summarize your achievements.)

The judges will review your abstract and send you feedback whether you indeed have an appropriate ACM case study and guidance on what steps you can take to turn in a really good entry.

NOTE: The pupose of the judges' review of your abstract is to improve the overall quality of your ultimate entry by giving feedback on what issues you might have overlooked or need to highlight more.

  • It does not affect your decision to submit the full case study which you can do at any time.
  • Entry fee payment can also be made at any time.

If you do not wish to submit an abstract - please use the quick FastTrack entry process here.

Example from Gold Winner Los Angeles County Information Systems Advisory Body (ISAB) USA, nominated by Global 360, USA (full case study featured in Taming the Unpredictable).

Who: More than 500 law enforcement personnel across 40 law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County, including the sheriff department, other municipal police departments, and jail personnel.
What: The Los Angeles County sheriff's department, police department, superior court, district attorney, public defender, administration office, probation officers, department of the coroner, public information office, and the internal services department.
Why: 1) Tripled DNA collection rate while ensuring compliance with legal requirements. Los Angeles County now enjoys visibility and control over the third largest DNA database in the world while meeting legal requirements for obtaining, submitting and utilizing DNA evidence to support conviction and exoneration of persons accused of crimes, as well as solving cold cases by increasing the population of DNA profiles in the FBIs CODIS database. Since going live in July of 2008, the DOTS system records, shares, and archives an average 7,465 DNA collections per month, tripling the previous DNA collection rate.  2) Eliminated most human errors, reduced cost and  complexity of maintaining multiple systems. The DNA collection process has been streamlined, making it  much easier and faster for users to make informed decisions and complete processes. 3) Information sharing with other state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies and databases. The DOTS system empowers LAC with web services technologies, supporting new applications and consistent user access  to information spread across multiple applications and organizations.

FORM (if form does not display please contact us) ENTRY IS FREE, QUICK and EASY!

  • Simply return your completed case study Q&A document no later than the FINAL deadline of April 8, 2016. Earlier is better (the judges will have more time to review your entry).
  • Payment of your $250 entry handling fee is required when you submit your case study. Secure online payment here.
  • If you consider that you have a highly relevant case study, and your organization has difficulty meeting this entry fee please contact us.
    No entry fee
    required for nominating US government agencies or entries nominated by US government officials.

1. To submit another abstract, simply complete this form again.
2. If you do not wish to submit an abstract - please use the FastTrack entry process here.


Special Offer

Each year we publish the winning case studies together with in-depth papers by industry thought-leaders in both print and digiital editions: Thriving On Adaptability, Empowering Knowledge Workers, Taming the Unpredictable and How Knowledge Workers Get Things Done. The inaugural book on ACM Mastering the Unpredictable was published in 2010.

Empowering Knowledge Workers Knowledge Worker Taming the Unpredictable
Order one or all of these important books shown above and get 30% discount.
Use discount code ACM16.


Judging Criteria

Submissions should indicate specific areas of focus, however the awards winners wlll be categorized by the committee judges based on the most applicable industry vertical or horizontal function. Award categories include, but are not limited to:

  • Customer Excellence/Customer Service
  • Public Sector
  • Legal and Courts
  • Healthcare and Medical
  • Human Capital
  • Customer Enrollment
  • Banking and Financial Services
  • Insurance
  • Transportation and Logistics
  • Media and Entertainment

Special recognition is made for outstanding demonstration of Knowledge Worker Innovation and Exceptional User Experience.

We will be accepting and judging submissions for both Adaptive Case Management (which is entirely under the control of the case manager) and Production Case Management (where the case manager has a lot, but not complete, scope for modification of the course of activity).

This list is provided in order to clarify what judging criteria will be used.  Higher selection preference will be given to cases that include more of these points. It is unlikely that any single use case can demonstrate all of these, don’t worry.


  • Integration of outside tools and social media ("mash ups") to facilitate communications and assist with data visualization
  • How a case manager is able to plan timelines for the case, including the identification of stages and milestones
  • How the goals of the case manager are recorded and displayed to others, and how roles and teams can be defined within the context of the case
  • Support for mobile devices and other "iWorker" environments and usage models
  • How a case manager can retain lists of experts that can be drawn into their cases on a needs must basis
  • The cohesiveness of the system as single application/environment, whether virtually or physically, imposing a single point of access


  • Availability of reusable templates for initiating new cases, including the use of completed cases as templates
  • Ability to create standard correspondence (letters, emails, etc.,) at any point in the case, capturing context of interaction and responses
  • Explicit support for goal-seeking and goal-driven processes, and whether goals can be modified in-flight
  • How knowledge captured during the performance of case work supports the identification and creation of new processes or case rules (not requiring IT/developer involvement or redeployment)
  • How knowledge is captured and held by the system, including the dynamic and static exchanges between participants
  • The degree of guidance provided by the system, based on the current context of the case, including the ability to initiate collaboration with other knowledge workers


  • Extent and quantifiable impact of productivity improvements (including financial and non-financial such as reduced re-work and improved customer and/or employee satisfaction
  • The extent of explicit training and change management required for knowledge workers, versus the ability to eliminate training through in-flight guidance
  • Better records and data management practices connected to improved case management e.g, ability to identify cases, organize content distinctly from other cases, allow cross-references and linkages between cases)
  • Demonstrated productivity improvement based on greater visibility, such as prioritizing activity across multiple cases, balancing workload, monitoring quality, timeliness and speed
  • Examples of problem resolution through easier management of roles, authority (access privileges), and improved communication

It is unlikely that any single use case can demonstrate all of these, don’t worry. These points are provided in order to clarify what judging criteria will be used. Higher selection preference will be given to cases that include more of these points.

Above all, remember, the judges are turned off by hype and advertising!

Submission Guidelines from Keith Swenson, lead judge

The case studies submitted for an award are not advertisements and should not read like one. Read a quick page of advice from Keith.

If you are pubished, bear in mind that the readers of your case study are looking for information on how to best implement Case Management in their organizations. It is a new and fledgling field, and the purpose of making such information available helps the entire market, by reducing the incident of failure. Most of the ideas on how to organize people, and how to structure the information, are applicable in many products, yours included.

These books are meant to provide guidance for a number of years. Today's product features will continue to spread and evolve such that what we talk about next year may not be the hot features of today. But the lessons learned in how a particular organization approached supporting a particular situation, how well it worked, along with why it may or may not have worked well, will be information valuable for many years.