=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2428/paper9
|storemode=property
|title=BPM adoption at Bilfinger
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2428/paper9.pdf
|volume=Vol-2428
|authors=Seyed Amir Bolboli,Ludger Hasenauer,Cristina Cabanillas
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/bpm/BolboliHC19
}}
==BPM adoption at Bilfinger==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2428/paper9.pdf
BPM Adoption at Bilfinger
Amir Bolboli1 , Ludger Hasenauer1 , and Cristina Cabanillas2
1
Bilfinger SE, Germany {firstname.lastname}@bilfinger.com
2
Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria
cristina.cabanillas@wu.ac.at
Abstract. Big size corporate companies that opt for Business Process
Management (BPM) adoption invest a lot in BPM initiatives with the
primary focus on the identification and standardization of best practices
in the different phases of the BPM lifecycle. The business processes de-
signed are usually seen as the standard way of executing the processes
and tend not be adapted to specific customers’ need or changing condi-
tions. Furthermore, the acceptance of a paradigm shift by the end users
is an added challenge. This case introduces a success story on BPM
adoption in complex environments where different organizational units
with different needs are involved. The projects executed in different units
respond to specific customers’ requirements, which affects the set of pro-
cesses to be designed and executed within them. We developed a novel
approach inspired by the Cynefin framework and used it to define process
architectures and the respective business process models for a subset of
the units. To ensure the applicability and acceptance of the new paradigm
we followed a number of well-known methodologies and practices (e.g.
SCRUM and gamification). As a result, we managed to move from the
traditional function orientation to BPM orientation taking into consid-
eration the flexibility needs, and we received very positive feedback from
our end users.
Keywords: Business process management, BPM adoption, paradigm
shift, process orientation, process architecture, process map, process
modeling
1 Introduction
Big size corporate companies that opt for Business Process Management (BPM)
adoption invest a lot in BPM initiatives with the primary focus on the iden-
tification and standardization of best practices in the different phases of the
BPM lifecycle [1]. The target is often generating order in business processes and
enabling low- or mid-skilled employees to execute basic business functions follow-
ing well-established procedures using reliable systems (e.g. building information
systems that can routinely process transactions) rather than giving answer to
different customer requirements and ensuring that process members (end users
of the business processes) understand the reason why they need to think in end-
to-end processes. In case of successful implementations, such systems are usually
Copyright © 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
2 Bolboli et al.
simple and seen as “the unique standard way of execution” to the most people.
In addition, process modeling tools are often presented as a solution for solving
all the business problems in complex environments, disregarding their often low
level of execution quality.
However, in many business fields (e.g. project business of plant engineer-
ing), flexibility is strictly required and it is wrong to always want to simplify
and impose standardization with existing BPM frameworks and tools [2]. In
such flexible systems, the process members play an even more important role in
delivering quality and innovative ideas. They need a blueprint that can be eas-
ily adapted to different customer requirements. Such systems typically include
change management elements, such as target group oriented communication or
early involvement of affected members. However, the effect of the change man-
agement measures is often very limited in reality. Therefore, the majority of pro-
cess members do not understand the potential of process orientation and cannot
give a clear answer to “Why do we need end-to-end processes and what is the
difference between process orientation and traditional function orientation?”.
This case introduces a success story of a pragmatic approach to adopt BPM
in complex environments with a clear focus on flexibility of processes regard-
ing customer requirements and paradigm shift in the mindset of people. From a
priorly created process map, a blueprint process architecture and its respective
process models were defined and progressively adapted to more specific cases
according to the customers’ requirements of the projects executed in different
organizational units. The approach is inspired by the classifications and concepts
introduced in the Cynefin framework [5]. We followed common practices for agile
software development and used gamification [7], among other techniques, to en-
sure the applicability and acceptance of the new paradigm. The initial reluctance
shown by the process members before the initiative was put in place turned into
a great satisfaction and positive feedback when its results and advantages were
understood.
The description of the case is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the
context and the specific challenges that had to be faced. Section 3 explains
the solution developed for a smooth BPM adoption. Section 4 summarizes the
results achieved. Section 5 reflects on the lessons learned along this work. Finally,
Section 6 outlines the conclusions drawn from the work and the future steps.
2 Situation Faced
Bilfinger1 is a leading international industrial services provider that offers in-
dustrial plants maintenance services, modifications and plant units (the latter
often on a turnkey basis) in two service lines: Technologies, and Engineering &
Maintenance. The group consists of numerous mid-sized companies mostly cov-
ering the areas of Continental Europe, Northwest Europe, North America and
the Middle East, which often execute projects jointly making vast use of syn-
ergy effects. With its 36,000 employees, Bilfinger upholds the highest standards
1
https://www.bilfinger.com/en/
BPM Adoption at Bilfinger 3
of safety and quality and generated a revenue of e4.153 billion in the financial
year 2018.
Due to historical reasons, the group companies are in their majority highly
specialized and maintain discipline-oriented procedures as internal standards for
their operative processes. A Bilfinger project consists of different scope mod-
ules that can be executed by different units within Bilfinger (e.g. Engineering
Electrical is performed by Company A, the Engineering process by Company
B, and Construction by Company C). Such scope modules are often modified
by client-specific requirements. Specifically, Bilfinger prepares for projects during
the tender phase from a baseline mainly consisting of the project execution plan,
the schedule and the budget. Changes to this baseline are only allowed for good
reasons – usually because the client changes the scope or external circumstances
require changing the execution sequence. Therefore, the process model for the
project must be frozen at project start. It is a copy of the universal enterprise
process model stripped down to the relevant processes and altered and amended
in accordance to the project specific needs. Improvements to the universal en-
terprise business processes are not automatically transferred. They are manually
introduced if necessary. A change of the project baseline requires a review of the
respective project process model. During execution, Quality Assurance (QA) is
enforced using the project process model as a basis for the audits.
As a first effort towards BPM adoption, the Bilfinger Process and System
Harmonization program was launched in 2017. The first focus was put on the
commercial processes. The process map [1] depicted in Fig. 1 was defined for
collecting all the commercial processes as a step prior to the specific definition
and implementation of every process in it on the basis of business process models.
The standard Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) [4] was used for
modeling purposes. The definition and subsequent implementation of the models
proceeded along 2017 with satisfactory results.
A second phase of the program would target the operation processes, which
comprise the most value-adding functionalities for the business and must be
adapted for specific projects. As aforementioned, projects have specific require-
ments that need to be considered in project processes by modifying standard
company processes. Without such an adaptation, there would be no chance to
check how far project requirements are fulfilled by processes and hence, effective
management of quality control and assurance could not be realized.
Due to the large casuistry and the adaptation needs, the extension to the op-
eration processes in engineering, manufacturing and construction turned out to
be much more challenging. Although the advantages of process orientation (based
on process models) over the traditional function orientation (with discipline-
oriented procedures) had been recognized from the results achieved with the
commercial processes, reservations in application for engineering purposes pre-
vailed. Specifically, the engineers identified two key requirements for a proper
support of the operation processes:
Industrial E2E process overview
4 Bolboli et al.
Bilfinger SE
I2M
(Idea-to-Market)
1. M2O(Market-to-Order)
2. O2C(Order-to-Cash)
3. R2S(Request-to-Service)
7. R2P(Request-to-Project)
5. S2D(Stock-to-Disposal)
6. B2R(Book-to-Report)
4. P2P(Purchase-to-Pay)
H2R
(Hire-to-Retire)
D2O
(Demand-to-Operation)
S2P GRC BI
(Strategy-to-Plan) (Governance, risk, compliance) (Business Intelligence)
C2F I2D
(Communication-to-Feedback) (Idea-to-Divest)
Fig. 1: Process map of Bilfinger’s commercial processes
R1) The general execution model containing all processes must be tailored for
each project by stripping it down to the project scope and modifying or
adding steps to accommodate client’s requirements.
R2) It must be possible to change the process model if major changes occur
during project execution.
In short, flexibility was necessary in order to satisfy the customer needs for
different projects. The actions taken to consider these requirements for the def-
inition and implementation of the operative processes are described next.
BPM Adoption at Bilfinger 5
Bilfinger Process House
Industrial E2E process overview
Bilfinger SE
PSH Process Map Bilfinger Process House
I2M
(Idea-to-Market) Management
Business Strategy &
Quality Management OHSE Management Ideas & Innovation
Operational Planning Compliance Processes ... Processes
1. M2O(Market-to-Order)
Processes Processes Processes Management Processes
2. O2C(Order-to-Cash)
Operation Projects
3. R2S(Request-to-Service)
Tender Warranty & After
Business Development Handover & start up Execution Close out Sales
7. R2P(Request-to-Project)
Operation Services
5. S2D(Stock-to-Disposal)
Order Management Execution service (R2S) Warranty & After
Business Development Tender (M2O) (O2C)
6. B2R(Book-to-Report)
Sales
4. P2P(Purchase-to-Pay)
Support
H2R
(Hire-to-Retire)
Human Resource Accounting & Controlling IT Processes Property & Facility Communication & Public
Legal Processes
Processes (H2R) Processes (B2R) (Supportive & Business) Processes Relations Processes
D2O
(Demand-to-Operation)
S2P GRC BI
Supply Chain (P2P) Master Data ... Processes
S2D Processes ... Processes ... Processes
(Strategy-to-Plan) (Governance, risk, compliance) (Business Intelligence)
Management Processes
C2F I2D
(Communication-to-Feedback) (Idea-to-Divest)
Fig. 2: Horizontal development towards a full process map
3 Actions Taken
The Corporate Project Management Office and one of the largest engineering
units at Bilfinger decided to jointly tackle the challenge to set up a BPM system
with all advantages but ample flexibility to accommodate engineering needs.
The extension of the Bilfinger Process and System Harmonization program was
carried out in 2018 and took place in two dimensions.
On the one hand, a horizontal development was performed towards a full
process map [1] (called process house at Bilfinger) containing all the processes at
Bilfinger beyond the commercial processes. As illustrated in Fig. 2, the processes
were separated into four groups that can be classified into three categories, in
line with standard process classification frameworks [3]: (i) operation (operative
or core) processes, which involve projects and service operations (e.g. Project
Management); (ii) support processes, mostly encompassing commercial processes
(e.g. Accounting and Controlling); and (iii) management processes (e.g. Quality
or Legal). A special effort was put into the simplification of the language for the
end user.
On the other hand, a vertical (top-down) development was conducted towards
a process architecture [1]. As depicted in Fig. 3, a drill-down option allows brows-
ing from the process map to the operative workflow level, which reflects detailed
knowledge (e.g. project related business among others electrical engineering) in
the form of executable business process models.
The definition of the detailed process models as part of the vertical devel-
opment was the most cumbersome task. Based on our personal experience of
unsuccessful huge BPM initiatives in the industry for standardization of the
whole business in complex project environments, the plant engineering business
of Bilfinger decided to increase the reliability of the operation business processes
that can be grouped as simple/best practice processes as well as to provide an
adaptable backbone for achieving the best quality results. The hypothesis was
that individual views (quick starter maps) for individual businesses or entities
would increase user acceptance.
6 Bolboli et al.
Bilfinger Process House
Bilfinger Process House
Management
Business Strategy &
Quality Management OHSE Management Ideas & Innovation
Operational Planning Processes Compliance Processes ... Processes
Processes Processes Management Processes
Operation Projects
Tender Warranty & After
Business Development Handover & start up Execution Close out Sales
Operation Services
Order Management Execution service (R2S) Warranty & After
Business Development Tender (M2O) (O2C) Sales
Support
Human Resource Accounting & Controlling IT Processes Property & Facility Communication & Public
Legal Processes Processes
Processes (H2R) Processes (B2R) (Supportive & Business) Relations Processes
Supply Chain (P2P) Master Data ... Processes
Management Processes S2D Processes ... Processes ... Processes
Fig. 3: Vertical development towards a process architecture
Complex Complicated
The relationships between cause and effect can The relationship between cause and effect
only be perceived in retrospect. requires analysis or the use of expert knowledge.
probe-sense-respond sense-analyze-respond
emergent practice good practice
novel practice best practice
act-sense-respond sense-categorize-respond
There is no relationship between cause and effect The relationship between cause and effect is
systems levels. obvious to all.
Chaotic Simple
Fig. 4: Cynefin framework (inspired by [5])
Therefore, we avoided establishing a huge BPM initiative at corporate level
and selected two pilot units in our project business sector and prioritized end-to-
end processes into three waves with different types of processes. The first wave
targeted Project Management and Engineering, the second one Procurement,
Sales and Business Development, and the third and last one Construction and
Commissioning. We experimented a novel BPM approach based on the Cynefin
framework [5] propelled by the aforementioned large casuistry stemming from
project management.
Cynefin is a so-called sense-making framework, which means that its value
is not so much in logical arguments or empirical verifications as in its effect on
the sense-making and decision-making capabilities of those who use it. It gives
decision makers powerful new constructs that they can use to make sense of a
wide range of unspecified problems and is particularly useful in collective sense-
making because it is designed to allow shared understandings to emerge. Key in
Cynefin is the notion of un-order (which in process-oriented vocabulary could
BPM Adoption at Bilfinger 7
be interpreted as flexibility), not as a lack of order but as a different kind of
order where the whole is never the sum of the parts, every intervention is also a
diagnostic and every diagnostic an intervention, and any act changes the nature
of the system. Based on this, the Cynefin framework has five domains, four of
which are named, and a fifth central area, which is the domain of disorder, as
depicted in Fig. 4. The right-hand domains are those of order, the left-hand
domains those of un-order, and none of the domains we will describe here is
more desirable than any other; there are no implied value axes. In short:
– The Simple domain has known causes and effects whose relationships are
generally linear, empirical in nature, and not open to dispute. The objectivity
is such that any reasonable person would accept the constraints of best
practice. This is the domain of process reengineering,
– The Complicated domain has knowable causes and effects whose relationships
may be stable but they may not be fully known, or they may be known only
by a limited group of people (experts). Everything in this domain is capable
of movement to the known domain. The only issue is whether we can afford
the time and resources to move from the knowable to the known. This is
the domain of systems thinking, the learning organization, and the adaptive
enterprise, all of which are too often confused with complexity theory. The
decision model here is to sense incoming data, analyze that data, and then
respond in accordance with expert advice or interpretation of that analysis.
– The Complex domain has complex cause-effect relationships. Patterns may
repeat for a time but we cannot be sure that they will continue to repeat
because the underlying sources of the patterns are not open to inspection
(and the observation of the system may itself disrupt the patterns). Thus,
relying on expert opinions based on historically stable patterns of meaning
will insufficiently prepare us to recognize and act upon unexpected patterns.
The decision model in this space is to create probes to make the patterns or
potential patterns more visible beforehand, then sense those patterns and
respond by stabilizing the patterns that we find desirable, by destabilizing
those we do not want, and by seeding the space so that patterns we want
are more likely to emerge. This requires gaininig multiple perspectives on
the nature of the system.
– The Chaotic domain has chaos, which means that there are no perceivable
relationships between cause and effect, and the system is turbulent, which
implies that we do not have the response time to investigate change. Applying
best practice is probably what precipitated chaos in the first place; there is
nothing to analyze; and waiting for patterns to emerge is a waste of time. The
decision model in this space is to act, quickly and decisively, to reduce the
turbulence; and then to sense immediately the reaction to that intervention
so that we can respond accordingly.
When using the Cynefin framework, the way of thinking about moving be-
tween domains is as important as the way of thinking about the domain we are
in, because a move across boundaries requires a shift to a different model of
8 Bolboli et al.
Bilfinger master process house
Include latest version of best
practices identified by units
Adapted view for
Bilfinger unit 1 (blue print
for selected processes)
Adapted view for
Bilfinger unit 2
Adapted view for
Bilfinger unit XX
Fig. 5: Roll out approach
understanding and interpretation as well as a different leadership style. As we
had to face a situation in which the information about the processes could be
knowable and complex because the project-adapted processes were tailored to
customer’s needs, we used the Cynefin framework to design business processes
(and define the respective BPMN models) lying in the Simple, Complicated and
Complex domains as well as to build an adaptable blueprint as a frame for the
execution of the adapted processes. We did this as follows.
First, we created a blueprint with the most developed Bilfinger unit focusing
on the first-wave processes in the form of a process map and the respective
process model definitions. This blueprint was offered as a reference model to
other units. For every project, a copy of the model(s) was done and later adapted
according to the customer’s needs (cf. Fig. 5). The units encompassed process
belonging to the three aforementioned domain, and they thus had to be treated
differently.
Those processes classified in the Cynefin’s Simple domain were considered
well-known due to the large amount of data and knowledge available about them.
In designing these processes, potential risks that typically bring projects from
the Simple to the Chaotic category were evaluated (e.g. an unexpected situation
in which the project manager has an accident and is unable to fulfill his role for
an unlimited period of time). In this way, process-based risk management was
forced and mitigation measures were defined.
In order to handle the Complicated and Complex domains, we had to recog-
nize flexible as a valid state in plant engineering. Consequently, we created one
frame that covered flexible socio-technical systems (for complicated scenarios) as
BPM Adoption at Bilfinger 9
Standard Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
processes
Addiotional
X
step
Project Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Steps 4
Company Processes Pick and/or modify processes Modified
processes
Project manual
Contract
Fig. 6: Pick-and-modify approach
well as ecosystems (for more complex ones). In the Complicated domain, variants
of good practices were offered to the end users with a company-specific approach
for the adaption of processes according to the business case (cf. Fig. 6). The Com-
plex domain included intricate components and complex interconnections, and
they had to be adapted to rapid change. A probe-sense-respond approach with
fast reality check and the evaluation of the probes was needed, and the learn-
ings were captured for potential future needs. In general, the most challenging
processes (with highest potential of innovation regarding customer needs) at
Bilfinger are often in the Complex domain.
Along the execution of theses actions we had to make a number of decisions
and considerations to face several challenges that emerged. These decisions and
the methods used could be of help for other organizations that have to address
similar problems and thus could be seen as guidelines for BPM adoption in
complex settings from a real-life experience. They have been classified according
to two different goals, as summarized next:
1. One of our main concerns was to ensure the applicability of the BPM ap-
proach. Several actions were taken in this regard, specifically:
(a) Rather than a big corporate project, we executed small BPM projects
with a clear focus on a specific set of processes that are prioritized. In
this line, we sought the harmonization and standardization of operative
processes only in the areas in which it was reasonable. For us, the har-
monization of processes had a different target than establishing process
orientation with a particular scope in each unit.
(b) We established a blueprint for BPM governance and adapted it to the
specific requirements of the selected pilot units.
(c) We used a strong modeling tool to enable fast process development and
an easy application for our end users.
(d) In line with the previous point, we designed everything around the end
users (end-to-end processes) and aligned all our execution activities to
the particular customers’ needs (internal and external). We prioritized
our customers and employees in all BPM decisions rather than any stan-
dardized principles (e.g. BPMN language, ISO 9001 norm [6]).
10 Bolboli et al.
(e) We used agile tools, such as SCRUM2 for challenges in the Complex
domain. Following the SCRUM recommendations, we installed a strong
moderator for project development for such processes.
2. Typical process models and BPM initiatives create a limited long-term im-
pact on execution quality in complex environments like our plant engineering
project business. Making significant execution improvements required a lot
of work on our basic paradigm, so we invested a lot in answering the question
“Why do we need process orientation and why do we need the shift from
thinking in functions to thinking in processes?” rather than only focusing on
the matter of how we build process models and what to focus on for design
and execution. The aim was to increase the acceptance of BPM activities.
Several actions were also taken in this regard, specifically:
(a) We enabled the possibility to find and work on mono disciplinary con-
tents with a tailor-made view in order to enable individual disciplines
that speed up the understanding of the processed by the end users.
(b) Gamification approaches [7,8] were developed to enable paradigm shift in
the mindset of the affected stakeholders at different levels. Among others,
we developed and applied a version of the famous coin-flipping game
Slotter that was adapted to BPM. The target was to experience different
levels of efficiency and stability of business processes and compare them
to our daily business. This aimed to help to clarify the added value of a
process-oriented execution approach.
(c) A Bilfinger-specific SIPOC (Supplier, Input, Process, Output, and Cus-
tomer) template [9] was also created based on the Formula 1 pit-stop
team work. Specifically, we analyzed videos of how pneumatic tires are
changed in Formula 1 playing them in slow motion to understand how
they manage to come up with a solution (i.e. do what needs to be done)
in just two minutes.
(d) Lastly, we created short movies to communicate the BPM benefits that
were being achieved.
4 Results Achieved
At the beginning of this initiative we suffered an initial reluctance and sceptical
opinions to the paradigm shift from most of our stakeholders. However, after
the development of our novel approach for the progressive definition of process
architectures for different organizational units, we received positive feedback
from our internal (e.g. employees) and external (e.g. customers) stakeholders.
The paradigm shift with the adoption of BPM was a great experience and it
became obvious in the pilot groups we worked with. In addition, flexibility in the
way how business processes can be applied could be achieved. Using the guiding
principles described above, we looked at BPM from a completely different angle.
It was an important step towards increasing the BPM impact and overcoming
the complex environment of our business.
2
https://www.scrum.org.
BPM Adoption at Bilfinger 11
In addition, the advantages acknowledged by the engineering community were
a reduction of interface risks, a more reliable process execution, a much quicker
integration of temporary staff and hence, the opportunity to foster resource
leveling between the companies.
5 Lessons Learned
We believe one of our key success factors was to design a blueprint as a universal
enterprise process architecture and create a copy of if (and its process models) at
the project start (for every project). Such initial model was then stripped down
to the relevant processes and altered and amended in accordance to the project
specific needs. We would follow a similar approach if we had to face a similar
problem in the future.
In our opinion, another key success factor was the application of gamification
to ease the paradigm shift and help the end users to understand the end-to-
end processes. We could spend weeks and months, or even years, laboring with
process models trying to change our results and not even begin to approach the
phenomenon of change that occurred spontaneously when our employees saw
things different and understood why. With games and playing videos we managed
to make them understand and believe in the advantages of BPM adoption.
In this journey, we also noticed that simply deploying process models in a
process modeling tool does not necessarily lead to their desired comprehension
and use. All employees have to be trained and be taught that process models are
a means of communication and that they are never finalized, as improvement is
an iterative and continuous task.
6 Conclusions
From the work performed we can conclude that establishing BPM at big size
corporate companies is a complex task that needs to be done progressively and
giving the same importance to the implementation of the BPM practices as
to the efforts required to change the mindset of the end users towards process
orientation. The approach must be flexible in order to accommodate different
customers’ needs and should be applied to several distinct scenarios in order to
evaluate its validity. In case of success, the positive feedback creates intrinsic
motivation for other organizational units within the corporate and can be rolled
out easier.
Given the good results achieved, we are planning to continue to use our
approach and practices within the remaining Bilfinger units tackling the re-
quirements of other types of processes. Applying the approach to other pilots
will help us to improve the blueprint. In addition, we aim to give visibility to
our approach beyond our company’s boundaries so that other organizations can
gain knowledge on our experience with BPM adoption and apply it in their own
settings. Getting informed about the benefits achieved in previous cases would
help to move from a top-down approach (in which the top management of the
12 Bolboli et al.
company pushes the adoption of BPM to the units by a harmonized approach,
and units tend to show resistance) to a bottom-up approach (in which the units
themselves are interested in adopting BPM so a blueprint can be more easily
created).
References
1. M. Dumas, M. L. Rosa, J. Mendling, and H. A. Reijers, Fundamentals of Business
Process Management. Springer, 2 ed., 2018.
2. H. Hasan, Unordered Business Processes, Sustainability and Green IS, pp. 39–58.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012.
3. Website, “APQC’s Process Classification Framework.” https://www.apqc.org/
pcf-process-classification-framework, Last accessed in July 2019.
4. OMG, “BPMN 2.0,” recommendation, OMG, 2011.
5. C. F. Kurtz and D. J. Snowden, “The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a
complex and complicated world,” IBM Systems Journal, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 462–483,
2003.
6. Website, “ISO 9001:2015 on Quality Management Systems.” https://www.iso.
org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9001:ed-5:v1:en, Last accessed in July 2019.
7. S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L. Nacke, “From Game Design Elements to
Gamefulness: Defining “Gamification”,” in International Academic MindTrek Con-
ference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, pp. 9–15, 2011.
8. J. De Smedt, J. De Weerdt, E. Serral, and J. Vanthienen, “Gamification of Declar-
ative Process Models for Learning and Model Verification,” in Business Process
Management Workshops (M. Reichert and H. A. Reijers, eds.), pp. 432–443, 2016.
9. Website, “SIPOC Template Description.” https://goleansixsigma.com/sipoc/,
Last accessed in July 2019.