Analytics and Monitoring of Adaptive Cases
Most modelers assume that a well-structured CMMN case plan is sufficient on its own. But the reality is that adaptive cases evolve unpredictably, and their success hinges not just on design—but on measurable outcomes. I’ve seen teams deploy flawless models only to realize later that critical decisions were being made in silence, with no visibility into cycle times or bottlenecks.
CMMN analytics isn’t just about reporting—it’s about turning raw case data into actionable insight. It reveals where delays occur, which tasks are consistently delayed, and how different case types respond to environmental triggers. This chapter cuts through the noise, showing how to build a monitoring strategy that adapts to your case workflows, not the other way around.
By the end, you’ll know how to measure CMMN performance across multiple dimensions, identify improvement opportunities using real data, and apply adaptive process analysis to continuously refine your models—not just for compliance, but for real business impact.
Why CMMN Analytics Is Different from Process Monitoring
Traditional BPMN analytics focuses on predefined paths, making it ideal for structured, repeatable processes. CMMN, by contrast, is built for uncertainty. Its workflows aren’t linear, tasks aren’t always scheduled, and entry conditions depend on events that may occur at any time.
That means standard KPIs like “cycle time” or “throughput” must be reinterpreted. In an adaptive case, a task might be completed in 10 minutes or 10 days—depending on data availability, stakeholder availability, or external events. CMMN analytics must account for this variability.
As a mentor once told me: “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it. But if you measure the wrong thing, you might improve the wrong thing.” For adaptive cases, that often means tracking not just when a task was completed—but why it took that long, and what triggered the completion.
Core Metrics for CMMN Performance
Adaptive case management isn’t about ticking boxes—it’s about understanding behavior. The right metrics help you see patterns, not just numbers.
Here are the five most actionable metrics for CMMN performance:
- Case Cycle Time: From case initiation to closure. Measures overall efficiency.
- Task Duration by Type: How long specific tasks take, grouped by task type (e.g., “Review Document,” “Approve Claim”). Reveals task-level inefficiencies.
- Time-to-Trigger: How long it takes for a task to be activated after its entry condition is met. Highlights delays caused by data dependency or unavailability of actors.
- Re-Entry Frequency: How often a task is reactivated after completion. Indicates incomplete or incorrect initial outcomes.
- Event Impact Rate: How often events (e.g., “Document Received”) trigger task activation. Shows responsiveness to real-world triggers.
Each of these metrics gives you a different lens into how your model is actually performing—beyond the diagram.
Tracking Case Cycle Time: From Start to Finish
Case cycle time isn’t a single number—it’s a distribution. A case may close in 2 hours or 37 days. To measure this accurately, you need to log timestamps at two key points:
- Case creation (or first entry condition activation)
- Case closure (when the last milestone is reached and the case is marked complete)
Use a database or analytics tool to store these timestamps. Then compute the difference in minutes or hours. You can then generate a histogram to visualize the distribution.
For example, if 80% of claims close within 48 hours, but 15% take more than 7 days, you know that a small subset of cases is dragging down performance. That’s where adaptive process analysis pays off—identify what’s different about those long-running cases.
Mapping Data Flow to Measure Adaptive Process Analysis
Adaptive process analysis starts with understanding data dependencies. In a CMMN model, tasks are activated by sentry conditions—often based on data availability or external events.
So, to track performance, you need to connect the dots between:
- When data was created or received
- When the event triggered the sentry
- When the task actually started
This reveals the time-to-trigger gap. If data arrives at 9:00 AM, but the task only activates at 3:00 PM, you’ve got a 6-hour delay. That delay might be due to a lack of real-time monitoring, poor event routing, or system configuration.
Use a simple table to track this relationship:
| Case ID | Data Received Time | Event Detected | Task Activated | Time-to-Trigger (hrs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C001 | 2025-04-05 09:15 | 2025-04-05 09:17 | 2025-04-05 14:30 | 5.2 |
| C002 | 2025-04-05 10:00 | 2025-04-05 10:02 | 2025-04-05 10:05 | 0.05 |
| C003 | 2025-04-05 14:20 | 2025-04-05 14:22 | 2025-04-05 22:10 | 7.8 |
Now you can see outliers—cases where the time-to-trigger exceeds acceptable thresholds. This is where you dig deeper: Was the event not properly routed? Was the sentry condition misconfigured? Was the responsible actor unavailable?
Using Adaptive Process Analysis to Identify Improvement Opportunities
Once you’ve collected data, the next step is pattern recognition. Not every long-running case is a problem—but repeated patterns are.
Ask these questions during your adaptive process analysis:
- Are certain case types consistently taking longer than others?
- Do tasks involving external parties (e.g., lawyers, auditors) show higher delay rates?
- Are there common entry conditions that never get met?
- Are sentry conditions too strict or too vague?
For example, I once audited a healthcare intake model where 40% of cases stalled because the “Patient Consent Form” sentry was triggered only if the form was signed and scanned. But the system didn’t account for handwritten forms submitted by courier. The fix wasn’t in the model—it was in the event definition. We updated the condition to include “received via courier” and the delay dropped by 60%.
That’s the power of CMMN analytics: not just measuring, but diagnosing.
Tools and Techniques for Real-Time Monitoring
You don’t need a data science team to start. Most CMMN modeling tools—like Visual Paradigm, Camunda, or Signavio—can export case event logs with minimal setup.
Here’s how to get started:
- Enable event logging in your CMMN tool.
- Export logs to CSV or JSON.
- Import into a simple dashboard (Power BI, Excel, or even a Google Sheet).
- Build basic visualizations: bar charts for task duration, time series for case volume, heatmaps for event frequency.
- Review weekly and flag anomalies.
For advanced teams, consider integrating with a process mining engine like Celonis or UiPath Process Mining. These tools automatically reconstruct case flows from event logs, highlighting deviations, bottlenecks, and non-compliant paths.
But remember: tools only help if you’re asking the right questions. Never start with a dashboard—start with a hypothesis. “We think the delay in claim approval comes from delayed document uploads.” Then validate it with data.
Frequently Asked Questions
What’s the difference between CMMN performance and process performance?
Process performance assumes a fixed path. CMMN performance acknowledges variation. In CMMN, the path is defined by events, data, and decisions—not a flowchart. So performance metrics must reflect this adaptability. For example, a task that’s “late” might still be on track if it was triggered by an event that arrived later than expected.
How often should I analyze adaptive case data?
Start with weekly reviews. Focus on the top 5 to 10 longest-running cases each week. After 3 months, you’ll start to see patterns. Then shift to monthly deep dives and quarterly model optimization cycles. Never wait longer than a quarter to reassess your model’s behavior.
Can I use the same metrics for all case types?
No. A claim in insurance may have a 72-hour SLA, while a patient intake in healthcare may have a 24-hour window. The metrics must align with business rules. Always tie KPIs back to operational or compliance requirements. Otherwise, you’re measuring noise.
How do I handle missing event logs or incomplete data?
First, audit the source system. Is the event being logged correctly? Are sentry conditions being triggered? Then, use statistical methods to estimate missing values—like median fill for task duration, or imputing based on similar case types. But flag these cases for manual review.
What if my CMMN model is too complex to analyze?
Break it down. Focus on one case type at a time. Use a top-down approach: start with the overall cycle time, then drill into key stages (e.g., “Document Review”), then into individual tasks. You don’t need to analyze everything at once. Prioritize based on volume and business impact.
Is CMMN analytics only useful after deployment?
No. You can simulate and test your model for performance before deployment. Use historical case data to simulate task durations, event timing, and activation patterns. This lets you test how changes affect cycle time and bottlenecks—before you even deploy the model.
Remember: the goal of CMMN analytics isn’t to control the case—but to guide its evolution. A model that doesn’t adapt to data is just a static diagram. A model that listens to its own performance? That’s a living system.
