This multiple-case study examines the adoption of a case management system (CMS) across two community organisations in Australia using organizational routines as a theoretical lens. Both the adopters and the vendor were interviewed to explore how the CMS was instituted in the adopting organisations. Many of the concerns or problems associated with a CMS as reported in the literature were not supported in this study. Although the two cases differed significantly in terms of size and resources, the findings show that the adoption of CMS led to new ostensive and performative routines around data collection and service delivery in both organisations. This had implications for accountability and organisational learning. In particular, better access to data improved visibility and reporting on the provision of services and subsequently supported fundraising. This study also highlights some of the situational factors that facilitate or impede the transition to a CMS such as the critical role of the CMS administrator and the way the change is managed in adopting organisations. Overall, this study contributes to the discourse on CMS by providing some evidence to support a more nuanced view of CMS including as ‘systems of accountability’ or even a ‘necessity’ of the digital age rather than merely as ‘instruments of neoliberal policy’ and enablers of bureaucratisation of social work.

中文翻译：

---

社区组织中的案例管理系统和新例程

这项多案例研究使用组织惯例作为理论视角，检验了澳大利亚两个社区组织对案例管理系统 (CMS) 的采用情况。采纳者和供应商都接受了采访，以探讨 CMS 是如何在采纳组织中建立的。本研究不支持文献中报告的与 CMS 相关的许多担忧或问题。尽管这两个案例在规模和资源方面存在显着差异，但调查结果表明，采用 CMS 导致两个组织围绕数据收集和服务交付产生了新的实证和执行例程。这对问责制和组织学习产生了影响。特别是，更好地访问数据提高了服务提供的知名度和报告，并随后支持了筹款活动。本研究还强调了一些促进或阻碍向 CMS 过渡的情境因素，例如 CMS 管理员的关键角色以及采用组织管理变革的方式。总的来说，这项研究通过提供一些证据来支持对 CMS 更细微的看法，包括作为“问责制”甚至是数字时代的“必需品”，而不仅仅是作为“新自由主义政策的工具”和社会工作官僚化的推动因素。本研究还强调了一些促进或阻碍向 CMS 过渡的情境因素，例如 CMS 管理员的关键角色以及采用组织管理变革的方式。总的来说，这项研究通过提供一些证据来支持对 CMS 更细微的看法，包括作为“问责制”甚至是数字时代的“必需品”，而不仅仅是作为“新自由主义政策的工具”和社会工作官僚化的推动因素。本研究还强调了一些促进或阻碍向 CMS 过渡的情境因素，例如 CMS 管理员的关键角色以及采用组织管理变革的方式。总的来说，这项研究通过提供一些证据来支持对 CMS 更细微的看法，包括作为“问责制”甚至是数字时代的“必需品”，而不仅仅是作为“新自由主义政策的工具”和社会工作官僚化的推动因素。