Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Available ScienceDirect
online
Procedia
Available atonline
CIRPwww.sciencedirect.com
00 (2019) 000–000
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia CIRP 00 (2017)

Procedia 000–000
CIRP 81 (2019) 759–764
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
Key performance indicators in the production of the future
Key performance indicators
28th CIRP Design
a*
in the
Conference, May production of the future
2018, Nantes, France
b
Robert Joppen , Sebastian von Enzberg , Jan Gundlach,
Arno a* Kühnc, Roman Dumitrescu d
A new methodology
Robert to Joppenanalyze the
, Sebastian
c
functional
von Enzbergand b
, Janphysical
d
Gundlach, architecture
of
Arno Kühn , Roman Dumitrescu
existing products
Chair Advancedfor anEngineering,
assembly oriented product 1, 33102family identification
Fraunhofer Institute for Mechatronic Systems Design, Zukunftsmeile 1, 33102 Paderborn, Germany
a,b,c

Systems
d
University of Paderborn, Zukunftsmeile Paderborn, Germany
a,b,c
Fraunhofer Institute for Mechatronic Systems Design, Zukunftsmeile 1, 33102 Paderborn, Germany
* Corresponding author. Tel.:
d +49-5251-5465-101;
Chair Advanced Systems fax:
Engineering, University ofE-mail
+49-5251-5465-102. address:
Paderborn, Robert.Joppen@iem.fraunhofer.de
Zukunftsmeile 1, 33102 Paderborn, Germany
Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-5251-5465-101; fax: +49-5251-5465-102. E-mail address: Robert.Joppen@iem.fraunhofer.de
École Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 4 Rue Augustin Fresnel, Metz 57078, France
Abstract
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 87 37 54 30; E-mail address: paul.stief@ensam.eu
Abstract
Industry 4.0 promises numerous potentials in production, ranging from data-driven machine optimization to improving the entire production
planning. The lack of transparency about the effects and benefits of Industry 4.0 is one of the key obstacles to its introduction.
Industry 4.0 promises numerous potentials in production, ranging from data-driven machine optimization to improving the entire production
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are a way to capture changes in production. This paper analyses typical KPIs and represents their mathematical
planning. The lack of transparency about the effects and benefits of Industry 4.0 is one of the key obstacles to its introduction.
Abstract
interconnection in a graph representation. In addition, a structuring framework is presented, in which KPIs are linked to Industry 4.0-related
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are a way to capture changes in production. This paper analyses typical KPIs and represents their mathematical
changes in production. We conclude how current typical KPIs capture these changes and demonstrate the benefit of additional, IT related KPIs.
Ininterconnection
today’s business in aenvironment,
graph representation. In addition,
the trend towards morea product
structuring framework
variety is presented,is in
and customization which KPIs
unbroken. Due are linked
to this to Industrythe
development, 4.0-related
need of
changes
agile and in production. We
reconfigurable concludesystems
production how current typical
emerged to KPIs
cope capture
with these products
various changes and
and demonstrate
product the benefit
families. To of additional,
design and IT related
optimize KPIs.
production
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
systems
© 2019 as
Thewell as to
Authors. choose
Publishedthe optimal
by product
Elsevier
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) Ltd. matches, product analysis methods are needed. Indeed, most of the known methods aim to
© 2019
This
analyze The
is aan Authors.
open
product access Published
article
orresponsibility
one product by Elsevier
under the on
family CCtheLtd. This islevel.
BY-NC-ND
physical an open
license accessproduct
article under the however,
CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
Different families, may differ largely in terms of the number and
Peer-review under of the scientific committee of the 52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
Peer-review
nature under responsibility
of components. of the scientific
This fact impedes committee
an efficient of the 52nd
comparison CIRP Conference
and choice of appropriateon Manufacturing
product familySystems.
combinations for the production
Peer-review
system. A new
Keywords:
under responsibility
Key methodology
of the
is proposed
Performance Indicatory,
scientific
to analyze
production,
committee of the
existing products
digitalization,
52ndin view of their functional and physical Systems.
Industry 4.0
CIRP Conference on Manufacturing architecture. The aim is to cluster
these products in new assembly oriented product families for the optimization of existing assembly lines and the creation of future reconfigurable
Keywords: Key Performance Indicatory, production, digitalization, Industry 4.0
assembly systems. Based on Datum Flow Chain, the physical structure of the products is analyzed. Functional subassemblies are identified, and
a functional analysis is performed. Moreover, a hybrid functional and physical architecture graph (HyFPAG) is the output which depicts the
1. Motivation
similarity between product families by providing design support to both,known as Key
production Performance
system Indicators
planners and (KPIs) [27],
product designers. An [35], [36].
illustrative
example of a nail-clipper is used to explain the proposed methodology. AnKPIs industrial
are case studywhich
numbers on tworeflect
productthefamilies
processof in
steering
the columns of
company in
1. Motivation known as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) [27], [35], [36].
thyssenkrupp
Industry Presta
4.0 isFrance is then
regarded ascarried
the nextout to give a first industrial
development step in evaluation
aKPIs of the proposed
compact form approach.
and, as a management tool, provide the
©production
2017 The Authors. are numbers which reflect the process in the company in
and is Published
associated by Elsevier
with a B.V.
lot of potentials. This opportunity for rapid analysis
Industry
Peer-review 4.0
under is regarded as the next development step in a compact form and, as a [12], [34], [37].
management Theprovide
tool, best-known the
evolutionary stepresponsibility of the scientific
is largely based committee of the
on the digitalization 28th CIRP
of the Design Conference
indicators include, 2018.
for example, Overall Equipment
production and is associated with a lot of potentials. This opportunity for rapid analysis [12], [34], [37]. The best-known
production. Development scenarios ranging from self- Effectiveness (OEE), throughput time, scrap rate Equipment
and space
evolutionary
Keywords: step Design
Assembly; is largely based
method; onidentification
Family the digitalization of the indicators include, for example, Overall
organizing intralogistics to fully connected
production. Development scenarios ranging from self- production are utilization.
Effectiveness (OEE), throughput time, scrap rate anddospace
However, these conventional KPIs not
conceivable [1]. To this day, a wide variety of use cases with sufficiently capture changes in production due to digitalization.
organizing intralogistics to fully connected production are utilization. However, these conventional KPIs do not
change possibilities have been identified, described and Current KPIcapture
systems, for example, are often
conceivable [1]. To this day, a wide variety of use cases with sufficiently changes in production due only focused on
to digitalization.
1.structured
Introduction with concrete application examples [2]. The basis for
change possibilities have been identified, described and product
of the quality,
product throughput
range and times or
characteristics overall
Current KPI systems, for example, are often only focused effectiveness.
manufactured On
and/or
on
all changes is the increased use of production data. the other
assembled hand,
in thisdata management
system. In this processes
context, the or
maininformation
challenge on
in
structured with concrete application examples [2]. The basis for product quality, throughput times or overall effectiveness. On
In this
Due to context,
the fast numerous
development potentialin benefits
the domain of the of the degree
modelling of
and transparency
analysis is and
now digital
not networking
only to cope in production
with single
all changes is the increased use of production data. the other hand, data management processes or information on
application scenarios
communication and an andongoing
examplestrend are described.
of benefits Examples
digitization cannot beaof recorded. However, these factors areproduction
of great
In this context, numerous potential of andthe products,
the degree limited product
transparency range
and or
digital existing
networking product
in families,
for such potentials
digitalization, are a better
manufacturing control are
enterprises of complexity
facing and a
important relevance
but also to in
be the
ablecontext
to of
analyze Industry
and to 4.0. While
compare changes
products tocaused
define
application scenarios and examples are described. Examples cannot be recorded. However, these factors are of great
shortening of in production and development times. aStudies imply by digitalization have Itthus been described in classical
various
challenges
for such potentials today’s are market
a better environments:
control of complexity continuing
and a new product
relevance in families.
the context can be observed
of Industry that
4.0. While changesanalyses
existing
caused
considerable
tendency towards cost reductions
reduction of of up
product to 20% and
development
shortening of production and development times. Studies imply productivity
times and to date,
product the
families instruments
are regroupedfor recording
in function them
of
by digitalization have thus been described in various analyses with
clients the
or aid of
features.
increases
shortened of up
product to 50% [3].
lifecycles. In addition,
considerable cost reductions of up to 20% and productivity there is an increasing production
However, management
assembly oriented indicators
product have
families
to date, the instruments for recording them with the aid are hardly to been
find.
of
However,
demand of making
customization,
increases of up to 50% [3]. changes
beingand at potentials
the same tangible
time in ain detail
global considered
On the to date.
product family level, products
production management indicators have hardly been differ mainly in two
is very
competition
However,difficult
with today.
making In production
competitors
changes all
andover controlling,
the
potentials world.
tangible there
This is a
in trend,
detail main The aimtoofdate.
characteristics:
considered this (i)paper is to present
the number a concept
of components andfor(ii)Key
the
multitude
which is of different
inducing key
the figures
development and key
from figure
is very difficult today. In production controlling, there is a macro systems,
to also
micro Performance
type of components Indicators
(e.g. in the
mechanical,production of
electrical,
The aim of this paper is to present a concept for Key the future.
electronical).The
markets,
multituderesults in diminished
of different key figureslotand sizes
key due
figuretosystems,
augmenting also Classical methodologies
Performance Indicators in considering
the production mainly single
of the products
future. The
product varieties (high-volume to low-volume production) [1]. or solitary, already existing product families analyze the
2212-8271 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
To cope with this augmenting variety as well as to be able to
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) product structure on a physical level (components level) which
identify
Peer-reviewpossible
2212-8271 ©under The optimization
2019responsibility
Authors. of
Published potentials
by Elsevier
the scientific in This
Ltd.
committee ofthe existing
theis52nd
an open
CIRPaccess causes on difficulties
article under
Conference the CC BY-NC-ND
Manufacturing regarding
Systems. license an efficient definition and
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
production system, it is important to have a precise knowledge comparison of different product families. Addressing this
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.
2212-8271 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an©open
2212-8271 2017access article Published
The Authors. under theby CC BY-NC-ND
Elsevier B.V. license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of scientific
of the the scientific committee
committee of the of theCIRP
28th 52ndDesign
CIRPConference
Conference2018.
on Manufacturing Systems.
10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.190
760 Robert Joppen et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 759–764
2 Robert Joppen et. al / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
concept considers existing, current and newly developed Key
Performance Indicators. Furthermore, changes are collected
and structured within the framework of a digitalized
production. It is shown which changes influence which KPIs
and to what extent they can already be recorded today. In
addition, new KPIs are proposed in order to record changes
within the context of digitalization.
The paper is structured as follows. In the following
section 2, the problem is analysed. Afterwards existing key
figure systems and concepts are presented in section 3.
Section 4 describes the concept for structuring changes and
KPIs in production. The paper concludes with a summary and
outlook in section 5.
2. Analysis of the problem
Challenges in production are continuously increasing. This
also includes the challenge of recording changes and making
them assessable. In the following section 2.1, the increasing
challenges in production will be discussed. Afterwards,
section 2.2 describes Industry 4.0 as a vehicle to respond to the
increasing challenges within production. Finally, section 2.3
deals with key figures in production.
2.1. Increasing challenges within production
Manufacturing companies are confronted with more
complex and individual technical systems and at the same time
shorter development and planning cycles, increasing quality
demands as well as necessary flexibility for specific customer
requirements. In addition, there is a general increase in cost
pressure [4], [5]. The increased requirements for the production
can be illustrated by the course of product volume and variants
depicted in figure 1.
mass production
customized
3
mass production
1955
4 Increasing
Product volume per variant
1980
5
2000
1913
2 processed in the form of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
manual production
Product variety
Fig. 1. Development of production volume and variety of variants [6].
In 1850 the variety of products was very high, while the
production volume was very low. Products were produced
manually. The product volume increased over time and the
variety of products fell sharply. In 1955, the term mass
production was present. Afterwards, the product variety
increased again a lot while the product volume declined
significantly lower. The term customer-specific mass
production was the result. This development continues until
today [6].
2.2. Industry 4.0 as a vehicle to respond to the increasing
challenges within production
In order to meet increasing challenges within production,
Industry 4.0 or rather digitalization is considered a solution and
at the same time the next development step in manufacturing
[5], [7]. The focus is on connecting all systems and
technologies involved in the value creating process and use the
captured data to increase productivity [7], [8].
As a structuring framework, changes in production can be
divided into different stages of development through
digitalization. [9]. The development stages are shown in
figure 2.
Prelim. stages Industry 4.0
„Self-optimizing“
Benefit
„Foresighting“
„Understanding“
„Seeing“
Compu- Connec- Trans- Forecast- Adapt-
terization tivity Visibility parency ing ability ability
Fig. 2. Development stages of Industry 4.0 [9].
Computerization and connectivity are regarded as the
preliminary stages or the foundations of Industry 4.0. The
development stages of Industry 4.0 are divided into the phases
visibility, transparency, forecasting ability and adaptability. A
foresight and self-optimization is thus based on an
understanding of the processes and an analysis of these. Key
Performance Indicators are of central importance and an
important controlling instrument [10].
complexity 2.3. Recording of operating conditions and changes in
production
globalization
regionalization
personalization The status and performance of production are recorded and
Key Performance Indicators are thus a means of ensuring that
information is prepared correctly, up-to-date, as
1850 comprehensively as possible, but in a way that is easy to
1 understand. The danger of information loss, misinterpretations
or even the low significance of individual KPIs can be
countered by combining related key figures to form a key figure
system [11]. Production controlling plays a central role in
production planning and control. The task of controlling is the
comparison and interpretation of the determined data.
The goals in production are decisive for production planning
and control. Goals are particularly important for management
and are an important factor in the selection of KPIs. Through
their evaluation, coordination and control functions, they can
be used as a management tool [11]. Maximizing profitability is
the overarching goal of a production system. In addition, the
target system of production is completed by a minimization of
lead time, schedule deviation and inventory as well as a
 Robert Joppen et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 759–764
Robert Joppen et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
maximization of capacity utilization [4]. It can be stated that
such a target system cannot be consistent [11], [5]. By the use
of different KPIs the achievement of different goals can be
seized and evaluated.
A concept for Key Performance Indicators in the production
of the future must take into account changes in the production
environment and thus in particular the digitalization of
processes.
3. Current methods and approaches
Numerous KPI systems and structuring frameworks for
KPIs in production can be found in literature. A distinction can
be made between general systems and specific KPI systems for
production [5]. Due to the function of KPIs as an instrument
for management, general KPI systems usually have a financial
or strategic focus. Among the best-known financial KPI
systems are the DuPont System of Financial Control and the
ZVEI KPI system or the Profitability-Liquidity KPI system
[12]. The Balanced Scorecard provides a framework for
structuring key figures with regard to a company's vision and
strategy.
The ISO standard 22400, on the other hand, provides an
explicit framework for structuring KPIs only for production.
The aim of the standard is to provide an overview of relevant
KPIs and their classification in the plant management level of
the automation pyramid [13], [14]. In both parts of the standard
published so far, the basic principles of KPIs are first explained,
different KPIs are precisely defined and possible forms of
structuring (e.g. top-down) are also explained. The
relationships and dependencies are to be explained in more
detail in a further part of the standard planned but not yet
published [13]. Thus, the standard does not yet provide a
complete system of key figures. However, there is a large
number of other, less common KPI systems or collections of
KPIs for production. These can be adapted to individual
company requirements.
The focus of previous approaches has thus been on classic
production structures. Due to their different orientations, these
structures are able to grasp different interrelationships.
However, the existing key figure systems and structuring
frameworks do not take into account changes in production in
the context of digitalization. There are also no suitable KPIs for
recording these changes. The changes include the processing
and use of production data and information as well as
increasing flexibility and individualization, increased
networking and transparency or even novel assistance systems.
These changes are the focus of Industry 4.0 and are intended to
increase the competitiveness of companies [15]. Only the final
results that are supposed to arise from digitalization can be
recorded. These include increases in efficiency and
performance, shortened development and production times,
new revenues and falling costs [16]. The connection to the
causes, e.g. increased transparency, cannot be established.
*
Literature sources: ISO/FDIS [14], BRUNDAGE ET AL. [19], BAUER ET
AL. [20],
BESTMANN [21], AICHELE [22], ARBEITSGEMEINSCHAFTEN FÜR
VITALE UNTERNEHMENSENTWICKLUNGEN [23], DOMBROWSKI ET AL. [24],
761
3
The existing key figure systems thus cannot
comprehensively record changes in production. This shows the
need for research in the area of key figures in the production of
the future.
4. KPIs in the production of the future
The concept for KPIs in the production of the future
combines existing, current and newly developed KPIs with
changes in a digitalized production. It shows how changes can
be recorded with the help of existing and new KPIs. In section
4.1, the relationships between the existing common indicators
are first analyzed. Then, Section 4.2 shows a systematization
of changes in digitalized production. Section 4.3 then describes
the development of new KPIs, while section 4.4 brings the
results together in the overall concept. Finally, section 4.5
shows the application of the concept.
4.1. Relationships between existing, common KPIs
Through the analysis of 18 different collections of KPIs
from a variety of literature sources * , the 38 most frequent
production KPIs could be determined, for instance the
performance level, the throughput time or the degree of
automation. In order to structure them, they were divided into
five different subject groups (logistics, degree of utilization,
production process, quality and order processing). In this way,
a key figure system of the existing KPIs is created. The OEE
serves as the system's top KPI [5], [38].
In addition to the systematization of the production KPIs in
the functional groups, an objective view of the relationship
between the KPIs can be established on the basis of the input
variables of the key figures. For this purpose, the calculation
formulas and all input values are examined. Thus, two KPIs
have a connection if at least one identical input variable exists.
With this evaluation, clusters of KPIs can be identified. These
include order-related, employee-related, quality-related and
machine-related key figure groups. Some of these clusters are
very similar to the functional groups of the created key figure
system. The relationships between the key figures are shown in
figure 3 (see following page).
4.2. Systematisation of changes in digitalised production
The basis for the concept for KPIs in the production of the
future is a collection of changes in different areas of
production. The focus of the collection of changes is on the use
of information and data, the flexibilization of the production
system and the individualization of products and services as
well as new assistance systems. As explained above, these
changes have already been described and various scenarios
have been created. However, this paper also presents a proposal
for systematizing changes in production.
GÖTZE ET AL. [25], INTRIERI [26], KRAUSE ET AL. [27], MEYER [28],
PREIßLER [29], POSLUSCHNY [30], SERVICENOW [31], VOLLMUTH,
ZWETTLER [32], WACHENDORF PROZESSTECHNIK GMBH [33]
762 Robert Joppen et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 759–764
4 Robert Joppen et. al / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

In order to describe and categorize changes and potentials

The 38 most frequent due to digitalization, the activities within Porter value chain
production figures in have to be concretized. This can be done on an abstract level
literature
independent of the company. The activities of operations and
intralogistics are merged since they are highly interconnected.
A typical process chain was created. This process chain starts
by work preparation and monitoring and continues with storage
and intralogistics, followed by material planning and so forth.
In this way, changes and potentials due to the concrete
OEE (%) digitalization processes can be structured. For the process step
work preparation and monitoring changes shorter response
Rejection
Rate (%) time to changes in the production system and an increased
flexibility with regard to product variants were identified for
example.
Quality Rework
Rate (%) All in all, it is recognized that the limits of the production
Rate (%)
system are dissolving and are merging with parts of the
company. A clear delimitation of the production system is
Manufacturing difficult and also not target-oriented. The principle of
Defect Rate (%) Cluster „Quality“
integration along the value chain within the framework of
Industry 4.0 describes, among other things, the dissolution of
divisional boundaries [8].
Fig. 3. Graph representation of common KPIs.

4.3. Development of new KPIs

A widely recognized model, which represents the activities
and processes of a company, is the value chain according to
New KPIs can be developed on the basis of the existing,
Porter [17]. The model considers individual activities of a
common production key figures and the changes considered in
company on an abstract level. A distinction is made between
a digitalized production. This is aimed at recording every
primary and supporting activities. The former provide a direct
change and every potential in the best possible way.
value-adding contribution. The supporting activities, on the
In addition, it is attempted that the new KPIs are derived
other hand, provide the necessary prerequisites, such as
as far as possible from existing KPIs in the literature.
personnel planning, and thus support only indirectly. The
Numerous KPIs also exist in the areas of IT and data
slightly adapted value chain according to Porter is shown in
management as well as in product management and product
figure 4.
development [18].
Com pany infrastructure For example, a large part of the literature on the new KPI
concepts is taken from and transferred to the production area.
activities
Support

Hum an resource m anagement

In addition, new KPIs are proposed, such as the degree of self-
Technology development organization and self-optimization, digital coverage or virtual
Procurement controllable resources. These KPIs are characterized by the
Operations Intra- Inter- Market- Service
recording of novel changes in digitalized production.
logistics com pany ing and In addition to the existing categories of KPIs, three new
activities
Prim ary

logistics sales subject groups are proposed. These include data management,
transparency and networking as well as product management.
They serve to structure new KPI concepts. The data
management indicators refer to changes in the infrastructure or
Work preparation Storage and to the use of data. KPIs such as data quality or IT availability
and m onitoring intralogistics belong to this category.
▪ Shorter response time to cha- ▪ Tracebilty of products The subject group of transparency and networking requires
process step
Changes per

nge in the production program
▪ Transformability of the system
▪ Increase in flexibility w ith
regard to product variants
▪ …
Fig. 4. Porters value chain with generic process steps in the area of operations
and intralogistics and classified changes [17].
▪ Tracebility of orders
▪ Self-organizing intra-
logistics
▪ Assistance systems
▪ …
functioning data management and contains key figures that can
record data-based changes. These include, for example, the
degree of visualization and the proportion of virtually
controllable resources. The KPIs thus refer in particular to the
machines and systems in production. Finally, the key figures
for the company's products and services are grouped under the
Product Management group. These include the key figures
number of products or new product rate. The subject groups of
the KPIs are shown in figure 5.
 Robert Joppen et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 759–764 763
Robert Joppen et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 5

Degree of Production Order this is thus the goal development of the characteristic numbers
KPIs classes

Logistics Quality
Conventional

utilization process processing and the degree of the capture of a change by a characteristic
 number.
Figure 6 shows a section of the visualization of the concept.





The overall visualization follows the same principle as this

representation and can therefore be anticipated on the basis of
Data Transparency Product
KPIs classes

management & connectivity management the extract. In the figure, only a part of changes and potentials
caused by the digitalization of production are shown. Likewise
New

((( ))) only some of the existing and newly developed KPIs are listed.
The presented concept represents the pure denomination of
the key figures and changes. Each key figure and change due
to the digitalization are further described in fact sheets.
▪ IT efficiency ▪ Degree of interc. ▪ Reject rate
An extension of the concept is planned for the other areas of
▪ Availability of IT ▪ Digital coverage ▪ Rework rate
the value chain according to Porter. KPIs and changes can be
▪ Correct. of data ▪ Virtually control- ▪ Waste ratio
able resources added or removed. The presented concept already contains
▪ Complet. of data ▪ Quality level
▪ ... ▪… ▪ ...
some key figures, which only record a single change. Other key
figures, on the other hand, have connections to several changes.
Fig. 5. Subject groups of the Key Performance Indicator system for the Nevertheless, all changes considered are recorded by the KPIs
production of the future with examples. and made measurable.

All existing and new subject groups thus contain relevant

KPIs in the production of the future. It is therefore possible to Production Order
planning preparation
create a key figure system on the basis of these groups. Changes
Operations

documentation
data analysis:
4.4. Concept for structuring changes and key figures based

transparency
optimization
adaptability

production
flexibility,

individu-
alization
on the processes in Porter's value chain

digital
Target

high
KPIs
The overall concept is developed on the basis of the existing, Capacity utilization
+
rate (%)
current and newly developed key production figures and the
Maschine flexibility
systematization of changes and potentials using Porter's value rate (%)
+

chain. The first step is to check which key figure can record OEE (%) +
which changes. At the same time, at least one key figure Data quality (%) +
ensures that every change under consideration can be recorded. […]
For the developed concept, 48 different KPIs are required for Minimum lot size
-
(pcs.)
30 changes. Completeness of a
+
The overall concept can be visualized on the basis of the data set (%)
relationships and the systematization of changes and potentials
Legend

Completely mostly partly barely + positiv e

using Porter's value chain. The basis for this is the captured captured captured captured - negativ e
systematization of changes. For the considered activities of the
value chain a matrix of correlations between the key figures
and changes is set up. In this way, it can be visualized which Fig. 6. Concept for structuring changes and key figures based on the processes
in Porter's value chain.
key figure records which change.
Based on the pure determination of correlations, the degree
4.5. Application of the concept
of recording is also evaluated. For this a four-stage scale is
developed, which reaches from barely captured with several
The developed theoretical concept can be applied to
auxiliary key figures up to completely captured with only one
different applications. The first step is to record the respective
key figure. This is visualized by a circle representation known
production process of a company. Based on this process,
as Harvey Balls. The degree to which it can be recorded
optimization potentials can then be identified. By comparing
provides information about the relevance of individual key
changes and potentials of the presented concept, suitable KPIs
figures for changes.
can be assigned to the identified potentials. This is based on the
A target development is also determined for each individual
relationships between the key figures and changes and
key figure. This describes an increase or decrease in the size of
potentials presented in this paper. The visualization of the
the key figure value due to one or more changes in production.
concept using Porter's value chain provides the necessary
The target development results from the statement and
information. A subsequent evaluation can take place if the
calculation formula of the key figure itself. Nevertheless, the
selected KPIs have been implemented in the controlling
target development in combination with the connection to a
instruments. The success of using the optimization potentials
change makes it clear whether this leads to a measurable
can be evaluated by monitoring the KPIs.
influence. This can be used to check the success and
profitability of a change over time. Basis for the evaluation of
764 Robert Joppen et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 759–764
6 Robert Joppen et. al / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
5. Conclusion and Outlook
Industry 4.0 promises numerous potentials in production.
These potentials mainly originate from using data. Capturing
these potentials is a main challenge today. Key Performance
Indicators are one way to do so.
In this paper we presented a concept of Key Performance
Indicators in the production of the future. Based on literature
research and project work we analysed typical KPIs and
represented their mathematical interconnection in a graph
representation. In addition, a structuring framework is
presented, in which KPIs are linked to Industry 4.0-related
changes in production. We concluded how current typical KPIs
capture these changes and demonstrate the benefit of
additional, IT related KPIs.
Future research concerns the extension of the generic
process steps within the value chain of Porter like it is presented
for operations and intralogistics. Moreover, an empirical
evaluation on the interaction between key figures can be done
with the help of the graph representation of the key figures.
This refers also to an extended validation, since the presented
work is based on literature review and a retrospective
evaluation of projects.
References
[1] Siepmann, D.: Industrie 4.0 – Technologische Komponenten. In: Roth, A.
(Eds.): Einführung und Umsetzung von Industrie 4.0. Grundlagen,
Vorgehensmodell und Use Cases aus der Praxis, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Heidelberg, 2016.
[2] Fay, A.; Gausemeier, J.; ten Hompel, M. (Eds.): Busert, T.; Lewin, M.;
Joppen, R.; Mittag, T.; Pott, C.; Wernecke, M.: Einordnung der Beispiele
der Industrie 4.0 Landkarte in die Anwendungsszenarien. acatech –
Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften, München, 2018.
[3] Fraunhofer-Institut für Produktionstechnik und Automatisierung IPA:
Definition und Nutzen von Industrie 4.0. under:
https://www.ipa.fraunhofer.de/de/ueber_uns/Leitthemen/industrie-4-
0/definition.html, 1. September 2018.
[4] VDI-Richtlinie 3633, Blatt 1: Simulation von Logistik-, Materialfluss- und
Produktionssystemen Grundlagen. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure,
Düsseldorf, 2010.
[5] Gottmann, J.: Produktionscontrolling – Wertströme und Kosten optimieren.
Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden, 2016.
[6] Koren Y. The Global Manufacturing Revolution: Product-Process-Business
Integration and Reconfigurable Systems. John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
[7] Reinhart, G.: Handbuch Industrie 4.0 – Geschäftsmodelle, Prozesse,
Technik. Carl Hanser Verlag, München, 2017.
[8] Gausemeier, J.; Dumitrescu, R.; Kühn, A.: Auf dem Weg zu Industrie 4.0:
Erfolgsfaktor Referenzarchitektur. it’s OWL Clustermanagement GmbH,
Paderborn, 2015.
[9] Kagermann, H.: Chancen von Industrie 4.0 nutzen. In: Bauernhansl, T.; ten
Hompel, M.; Vogel-Heuser, B. (Eds.): Industrie 4.0 in Produktion,
Automatisierung und Logistik. Anwendung, Technologien, Migration.
Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden, 2014.
[10] Schnell, H.: Produktionscontrolling: Bedeutung, Selbstverständnis,
Aufgaben, Instrumente. In: Klein, A.; Schnell, H.: Controlling in der
Produktion – Grundlagen, Instrumente und Kennzahlen. Haufe-Lexware,
München, 2012.
[11] Bullinger, H.-J.; Spath, D.; Warnecke, H.-J.; Westkämper, E.: Handbuch
Unternehmensorganisation – Strategien, Planung, Umsetzung. 3. Auflage,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009.
[12] Schuh, G.: Kampker, A.; Ziskoven, H.: Rechtsformen, Rechnungswesen
und Controlling. In: Schuh, G.; Kampker, A. (Eds.): Strategie und
Management produzierender Unternehmen – Handbuch Produktion und
Management 1. 2. Auflage, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.
[13] ISO/FDIS 22400-1: Automation systems and integration – Key
performance indicators (KPIs) for manufacturing operations management
– Part 1: Overview, concepts and terminology. ISO copyright office, Genf,
2014.
[14] ISO/FDIS 22400-2: Automation systems and integration – Key
performance indicators (KPIs) for manufacturing operations management
– Part 2: Definitions and descriptions. ISO copyright office, Genf, 2014
[15] Bischhoff, J. (ed.): Erschließen der Potentiale der Anwendung von
Industrie 4.0 im Mittelstand. agiplan GmbH, Köln, 2015.
[17] Porter, M.: Wettbewerbsvorteile (Competitive Advantage).
Spitzenleistungen erreichen und behaupten. 8. Auflage, Campus Verlag,
Frankfurt / New York, 2014.
[18] Kütz, M.: Kennzahlen in der IT – Werkzeuge für Controlling und
Management. 4. Auflage, dpunkt Verlag, Heidelberg, 2011.
[19] Brundage, M.; Bernstein, W.; Morris, K.; Horst, J.: Using graph-based
visualizations to explore key performance indicator relationships for
manufacturing production systems. The 24th CIRP Conference on Life
Cycle Engineering, Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, 2017
[20] Bauer, J.; Hayessen, E.: 100 Produktionskennzahlen. Cometis Publishing.
Wiesbaden, 2009
[21] Bestmann, U.: Betriebswirtschaftliche Formelsammlung – Kommentierte
Kennzahlen. Oldenbourg Verlag, München, 2011
[22] Aichele, C.: Kennzahlenbasierte Geschäftsprozessanalyse. Gabler-Verlag,
Wiesbaden, 1997
[23] Arbeitsgemeinschaften für Vitale Unternehmensentwicklung E.V.:
Praktischer Einsatz von Kennzahlen und Kennzahlensystemen in der
Produktion. 2. Auflage, AWF-Arbeitsgemeinschaften für Vitale
Unternehmensentwicklungen e.V., Groß-Gerau, 2015
[24] Dombrowski, W.; Hennersdorf, S. Schmidt, S.: Kennzahlen im
ganzheitlichen Produktionssystem. Ein Beispiel zur Auswahl, Abstimmung
und Verwendung von Kennzahlen im Rahmen eines ganzheitlichen
Produktionssystems. GITO-Verlag, Berlin, 2005
[25] Götze, U.; Krönert, S.; Mikus, B.: Kennzahlensysteme als Instrumente des
Produktionscontrollings. Der Betriebswirt, Deutscher Betriebswirte-Verlag
GmbH, Gernsbach, 2010
[26] Intrieri, C.: Do you know all the KPIs for manufacturing operations
manager? Under: https://flevy.com/blog/do-you-know-all-the-kpis-for-a-
manufacturing-1, 23. July 2018
[27] Krause, H.-U.; Arora, D.: Controlling Kennzahlen – Key Performance
Indicators – Zweisprachiges Handbuch Deutsch/Englisch. 2. Auflage,
Oldenbourg Verlag, München, 2010
[28] Meyer, C.: Betriebswirtschaftliche Kennzahlen und Kennzahlen-Systeme.
4. Auflage, Verlag Wissenschaft & Praxis, Sternenfels, 2007
[29] Preißler, P.: Betriebswirtschaftliche Kennzahlen. Formeln, Aussagekraft,
Sollwerte, Ermittlungsintervalle. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, Berlin,
2008
[30] Posluschny, P.: Die wichtigsten Kennzahlen. Redline GmbH, Heidelberg,
2007
[31] ServiceNow: KPILibrary. Discover the right KPIs. Under:
http://kpilibrary.com/, September 2018
[32] Vollmuth, H. Zwettler, R.: Kennzahlen. Haufe-Lexware, München, 2008
[33] WACHENDORF PROZESSTECHNIK GmbH & Co.KG: Sieben
Standard-KPIs für die Überwachung der Produktion. Visuelles
Management zur Produktivitätssteigerung. Red Lion, York, 2016
[34] Lindberg, C.-F.; Tan, S.; Yan, J.; Frederik, S.: Key performance indicators
improve industrial performance. Energy Procedia 75, Elsevier B.V.,
Amsterdam, 2015
[35] Schmidt, M.; Schäfers, P.: Hannoveraner Lieferkettenmodell. Under:
http://www.halimo.education/ 1st June 2018
[36] Schuh, G.; Brosze, T.; Brandenburg, U.: Grundlagen der
Produktionsplanung und –steuerung. In: Schuh, G.; Stich, V.:
Produktionsplanung und –steuerung 1 – Grundlagen der PPS. 4. Auflage,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012
[37] Horváth, P.: Controlling. 12. Auflage, Verlag Franz Vahlen, München,
2011
[38] Stricker, N.; Micali, M.; Dornfeld, D.; Lanza, G.: Considering
Interdependencies of KPIs – Possible Resource Efficiency and
Effectiveness Improvements