Modern production systems face a central question: How can a Manufacturing Execution System (MES) be designed to remain flexible and scalable in the long term without compromising stability or performance?
This question was the starting point of a project we carried out together with the Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation (IPA) The goal was to evaluate the extent to which a microservice architecture is suitable for MES and how individual services can be meaningfully separated and orchestrated.
Project approach
The project was based on the IEC 62264 standard, which provides a uniform description of key production processes and information flows. In particular, the activity model of IEC 62264-3:2016 enabled a clear functional separation and thus offered the ideal basis for:
• To technically differentiate microservices
• Define interfaces clearly
• to ensure a consistent data architecture
Based on this, we developed a fully functional, modular MES prototype consisting of several independent software modules. The following technologies were used:
• Backend: Java / Spring Boot with REST APIs
• Frontend: React, TypeScript and Vite with Material.io
• Infrastructure: Docker, Docker Compose, PostgreSQL, MQTT
• Project management: Azure DevOps, agile implementation using Scrum
By consistently separating the modules functionally, we were able to completely decouple key MES core areas such as production planning, resource management and order processing.
Structure of the microservice system
Based on the activity model, the MES was structured into eight clearly defined microservices. Five of these were implemented, and three were developed conceptually.
An overview of the services, including the conceptual microservices (MS6–MS8), is shown in Figure 1.
Each microservice includes:
• a dedicated backend
• a custom frontend
• a standalone database
This architecture enables:
• independent further development
• separate deployments
• targeted scaling of individual functional areas
A central portal consolidates all frontends, ensuring a consistent user experience despite the distributed structure. Additionally, an MQTT broker has been integrated to handle asynchronous communication and production-related events.
Microservices at a glance
The MES was structured into a total of eight clearly defined microservices based on the activity model of IEC 62264-3:2016. Five of these were implemented, and three more were developed conceptually (see Figure 1).
MS1 – Resource Management
Management and provision of all relevant production resources such as machines, materials, tools, and personnel. The service makes this information available to other microservices in a standardized format.
MS2 – Product Definition
It depicts products, bills of materials, work plans, and production structures. It forms the basis for planning and execution and provides product-related master data.
MS3 – Production Planning
Creation and management of production plans based on orders, resource availability, and product definitions. The goal is realistic and adaptable planning that takes capacities and priorities into account.
MS4 – Production Control
Orchestration and control of ongoing production. The service translates planning data into executable production orders and coordinates their execution across the involved resources.
MS5 – Production version
Support for the operational production level (e.g., at workstations or lines). Here, work steps are started, completed, and changes are recorded.
MS6 – Production data acquisition (conceptual)
Collection and storage of production and process data such as statuses, times, and feedback. This data forms the basis for transparency, traceability, and subsequent analysis.
MS7 – Production monitoring (conceptual)
Planned provision of real-time transparency regarding production status, including visualization of deviations, disruptions, and key performance indicators.
MS8 – Production Performance Analysis (Conceptual)
Evaluation of historical production data to analyze efficiency, throughput times and performance indicators as a basis for continuous improvement processes.
project results
A key objective was the evaluation of the microservice architecture within the MES context. Extensive experience from design, implementation, and integration was incorporated into this evaluation. The following aspects were specifically assessed:
• the professional rationale for the separation
• the delimitation of responsibilities
• Impact on development, maintenance and deployment
In the next step, our research partner will further test the system in collaboration with industrial companies. In-depth analyses in realistic scenarios are planned to validate its practicality, scalability, and transferability.
Our Conclusion
Microservice architectures offer great potential in the MES context with regard to modularity, flexibility, and scalability. At the same time, the project revealed that not all functional areas are equally well suited to fine-grained separation.
Well suited: MS1, MS2, MS5
Less easily achievable with precise differentiation: MS3, MS4 – here, a split leads to a higher need for coordination, closer data dependencies and additional synchronization effort.
The IEC 62264 standard provides a solid foundation, but leaves room for interpretation in some areas – for example, regarding the handling of modified or aborted orders. These aspects must be clearly defined at the architectural level.
Together with our research partner, we will further deepen the findings in the next project phases and evaluate them under real production conditions.
Are you working on similar topics or planning an MES project?
Let's exchange ideas!
