Business Process Management in the Manufacturing Industry: ERP Replacement and ISO 9001 Recertification Supported by the icebricks Method

  • Jörg Becker
  • Nico CleverEmail author
  • Justus Holler
  • Maria Neumann
Part of the Management for Professionals book series (MANAGPROF)


  1. (a)

    Situation faced: A family-owned manufacturing company recently went through the transfer of management from the older to the younger family generation. A number of problems were uncovered during this process, such as prevalence of tacit knowledge, an inefficient decision-making process, outdated IT system support, and an urgent need for certification of production processes according to quality-assurance standards (ISO 9001). Each of these problems required thorough documentation of the as-is business processes in the organization to guide their improvement.

  2. (b)

    Action taken: To ensure that the created process models serve as a valid communication medium, the company’s process landscape was created during an initial workshop between the executives and external BPM consultants. Then the information on processes in the company’s various departments was gleaned from semi-structured interviews with the department employees. At the same time, process weaknesses and potential improvements were derived and discussed with the functions’ management. The succeeding depiction of the to-be process framework was achieved with the help of the icebricks modeling method and the corresponding software tool, which is a lightweight, standardized approach to ensure high quality of process models.

  3. (c)

    Results achieved: During the modeling phase of the project, external BPM consultants documented the process landscape, thereby explicating the company’s knowledge and good-practice processes. The process landscape served as basis for well-informed decisions regarding the implementation options of a new ERP system, which was introduced on time and on budget in the second phase of the project. The ISO 9001 recertification of production processes was achieved in the third project phase with the help of the process documentation that had been created.

  4. (d)

    Lessons learned: Simply deploying process models on the company’s intranet platform does not necessarily lead to their desired comprehension and use. All employees have to be trained that process models are a means of communication and are never finalized, a notion that also applies to continuous process improvement. Process owners must be defined so they take responsibility for adjustments to the process environment beyond the project’s lifecycle, but such responsibility is not solely that of a project manager. Furthermore, the project demonstrated the appropriateness of the icebricks modeling method for the manufacturing domain, although it was originally designed for the retail industry.



  1. Becker, J. (1997). Handelsinformationssysteme und Handelscontrolling – ein methodenorientierter Ansatz. In D. Ahlert & R. Olbrich (Eds.), Integrierte Warenwirtschaftssysteme und Handelscontrolling: konzeptionelle Grundlagen und Umsetzung in der Handelspraxis (pp. 173–210). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, J., & Kahn, D. (2011). The process in focus. In J. Becker, M. Kugeler, & M. Rosemann (Eds.), Process management: A guide for the design of business processes (pp. 3–13). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, J., Kugeler, M., & Rosemann, M. (2011). Process management: A guide for the design of business processes (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, J., Clever, N., Holler, J., Püster, J., et al. (2013a). Semantically standardized and transparent process model collections via process building blocks. In Proceedings of the The Fifth International Conference on Information, Process, and Knowledge Management – eKNOW 2013, Nice (pp. 172–177).Google Scholar
  5. Becker, J., Clever, N., Holler, J., & Shitkova, M. (2013b). icebricks – Business process modeling on the basis of semantic standardization. In Proceedings of the Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technologies (DESRIST) 2013, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  6. Berente, N., Vandenbosch, B., & Aubert, B. (2009). Information flows and business process integration. Business Process Management Journal, 15(1), 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, R., & Scheer, A.-W. (1994). Modellierung von Prozessketten mittels Petri-Netz-Theorie. Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
  8. Dehnert, J., & Rittgen, P. (2001). Relaxed soundness of business processes. In K. R. Dittrich, A. Geppert, & M. C. Norrie (Eds.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering. 13th International Conference, CAiSE 2001 Interlaken, Switzerland, June 4–8, 2001 Proceedings (pp. 157–170).Google Scholar
  9. Delfmann, P., Herwig, S., & Lis, L. (2009). Unified enterprise knowledge representation with conceptual models – Capturing corporate language in naming conventions. In 30th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2009). Phoenix, AZ.Google Scholar
  10. Dumas, M., et al. (2013). Fundamentals of business process management. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., & Reichert, M. (2008). Modellierung und Darstellung von Prozessvarianten in PROVOP. In Modellierung’08 Conference (pp. 41–56).Google Scholar
  12. Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., & Reichert, M. (2009). Issues in modeling process variants with provop. In BPM 2008 International Workshops (pp. 56–67).Google Scholar
  13. Holler, J. (2015). Tool support for consultants in business process modeling projects. Design and evaluation of the business process modeling tool icebricks. Google Scholar
  14. Kindler, E. (2006). On the semantics of EPCs: Resolving the vicious circle. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 56(1), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kugeler, M. (2000). Informationsmodellbasierte Organisationsgestaltung: Modellierungskonventionen und Referenzvorgehensmodell zur prozessorientierten Reorganisation. Berlin: Logos-Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Langner, P., Schneider, C., & Wehler, J. (1998). Petri net based certification of event-driven process chains. In 19th International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency (ICATPN 2001) (pp. 286–305).Google Scholar
  17. Leymann, F., & Altenhuber, W. (1994). Managing business processes as an information resource. IBM Systems Journal, 33(2), 326–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meise, V. (2001). Ordnungsrahmen zur prozessorientierten Organisationsgestaltung. Modelle für das Management komplexer Reorganisationsprojekte. Hamburg: University of Münster.Google Scholar
  19. Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., & Recker, J. (2010a). Activity labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and recommendations. Information Systems, 35(4), 467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., & van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2010b). Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Information and Software Technology, 52(2), 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nüttgens, M., & Rump, F. J. (2002). Syntax und Semantik Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK). Prozessorientierte Methoden und Werkzeuge für die Entwicklung von Informationssystemen, P-21(6), 64–77.Google Scholar
  22. Porter, M. E., & Millar, V. E. (1985). How information gives you competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 63(4), 149.Google Scholar
  23. Rosemann, M. (1996). Komplexitätsmanagement in Prozessmodellen: methodenspezifische Gestaltungsempfehlungen für die Informationsmodellierung (p. 297). Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Scheer, A.-W. (1997). Wirtschaftsinformatik – Referenzmodelle für industrielle Geschäftsprozesse (7th ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Schütte, R., & Rotthowe, T. (1998). The guidelines of modeling – An approach to enhance the quality in information models. In T. W. Ling, S. Ram, & M.-L. Lee (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (pp. 240–254). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Stachowiak, H. (1973). Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Wien: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van der Aalst, W. M. P. (1999). Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Information and Software Technology, 41(10), 639–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van der Aalst, W. M. P., & ter Hofstede, A. H. M. (2005). YAWL: Yet another workflow language. Information Systems, 30(4), 245–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wynn, M. T., et al. (2005). Achieving a general, formal and decidable approach to the OR-join in workflow using reset nets. In G. Ciardo & P. Darondeau (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency (ICATPN 2005) (pp. 423–443). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Becker
    • 1
  • Nico Clever
    • 1
    Email author
  • Justus Holler
    • 2
  • Maria Neumann
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Münster—European Research Center for Information Systems (ERCIS)MünsterGermany
  2. 2.Prof. Becker GmbHAltenbergeGermany

Personalised recommendations