Zeszyty Naukowe 24(96) 111

Scientific Journals Zeszyty Naukowe

Maritime University of Szczecin Akademia Morska w Szczecinie
2010, 24(96) pp. 111117 2010, 24(96) s. 111117
Syntax errors in the EPC diagrams of the integrated
management system documents
Bdy skadniowe w diagramach EPC w dokumentacji
zintegrowanych systemw zarzdzania
Bartosz Szczniak
Silesian University of Technology, Faculty of Organisation and Management
Institute of Production Engineering
Politechnika lska w Gliwicach, Wydzia Organizacji i Zarzdzania, Instytut Inynierii Produkcji
41-800 Zabrze, ul. Roosevelta 26, e-mail: bartosz.szczesniak@polsl.pl
Key words: procedure creation, process modelling, EPC models
Abstract
The EPC methodology enables accurate modelling of economic processes. One of the main spheres of its
application is procedure creation under quality, occupational health and safety or environment management
systems. The development of the methodology in question has led to establishment of precise conditions that
must be conformed with in a correct process model. The main theme of the article is a general discussion of
the EPC methodology. Based on an analysis of numerous literary studies published, a set of principles that
should be met by an EPC diagram as a graphical representation of the process being described has been
identified and discussed. Another subject touched upon in the article is the results of examinations of 156
diagrams from documents of integrated management systems implemented in two companies. The
examinations conducted have implied that the diagrams created in the course of the documentation drawing
up do not conform with many of the applicable requirements. The individual syntax errors occurring in the
documents have been identified and discussed in the paper, and special attention has been paid to those
related to application of the OR and XOR split connectors as well as those occurring when joining diagrams.
Sowa kluczowe: tworzenie procedur, modelowanie procesw, modele EPC
Abstrakt
Metodologia EPC pozwala na precyzyjne modelowanie procesw gospodarczych. Wrd wielu obszarw jej
zastosowania znajduje si miedzy innymi tworzenie procedur w ramach systemu zarzdzania jakoci, bez-
pieczestwem i higien pracy czy rodowiskiem. W ramach rozwoju metodologii okrelone zostay precyzyj-
ne zasady, ktre musz by spenione przez prawidowy model procesu. W artykule omwiono oglnie meto-
dologi EPC. Na podstawie bada literaturowych zidentyfikowano i przedstawiono zbir regu, ktre powin-
ny by spenione przez diagram EPC bdcy graficzn prezentacj opisywanego procesu. Przedstawiono
rwnie wyniki bada przeprowadzonych na 156 diagramach pochodzcych z dokumentacji zintegrowanych
systemw zarzdzania z dwch firm. W wyniku bada stwierdzono, e tworzone w ramach dokumentacji
diagramy nie speniaj wielu z przedstawionych zasad. Zidentyfikowano i omwiono pojawiajce si
w dokumentacji poszczeglne bdy skadniowe. Za szczeglnie istotne uznano bdy zwizane ze stosowa-
niem operatorw rozdzielajcych OR i XOR oraz bdy pojawiajce si w zakresie czenia diagramw.


Introduction
In the process of documenting a quality
management system conforming with the ISO 9000
standards, an environment management system
conforming with ISO 14000 as well as an
occupational health and safety management system
conforming with PN-N 18000, there are procedures
being created to describe the manner of performing
the individual activities in a company. Under these
procedures, the course of a process being described
can be provided in a descriptive form as a plain
Bartosz Szczniak

112 Scientific Journals 24(96)
text. However, such a solution seems not
transparent enough. In order to understand exactly
how the individual activities are interlinked, it is
necessary to invest a lot of energy and time. Low
transparency of such a solution leads to a situation
that the errors occurring in the process description
are often very difficult to notice. Therefore, while
developing procedures, besides the textual
description, graphical methods are used to depict
the appropriate manner of behaviour. The most
common of such methods applied in the procedures
is visualisation of the process chain by means of
a classic block diagram. Sometimes, however, due
to the fact that certain dedicated IT tools supporting
the procedure creation process and the subsequent
documentation administration are used, the most
applicable methods are those used for the sake of
the economic process modelling, one of which is
the EPC modelling method. The methodology in
question was created and is currently being
developed under the programme of collaboration
between the scholars of the Institute for Economic
Information Science in Saarbrcken and the SAP
AG company. The actual authors of the method are
claimed to be G. Keller, M. Nttgens and A.W.
Scheer. Its first study was published in 1992 [1].
It contained various principles of creating process
models by application of events and functions
taking place alternately. However, the principles
proposed were of informal nature. The works
leading to the actual formalisation of the principles
were undertaken by W. van der Alst, M. Nttgens
and F.J. Rump. W. van der Alst who managed to
publish a formal description of the EPC models in
1999 [2]. The principles they proposed applied to
individual models only. The formalised principles
applicable to individual models as well as the
principles of creating more complex structures as
a result of joining models were published by
M. Nttgens and F.J. Rump in 2002 [3]. In the
years to come, many authors proposed their own
formal rules of creating EPC models. The actual
guidelines to their syntax can be found in numerous
studies including those of V. Gruhn, R. Laue,
J. Mendling, E Kindler or N. Cuntz [4, 5, 6, 7, 8].
Besides the problems of syntax, authors of many
publications focus on the subject of semantics
applicable to the methodology in question [3, 4, 5,
6]. The problem of the economic processes
modelling using the EPC models has also been
widely discussed in the Polish literature. The
general rules of their creation were provided in the
studies by R. Gabryelczyk and M. Lasek [9, 10].
Currently, the methodology of describing pro-
cesses by means of the EPC models finds common
application in numerous spheres of a company
activity the most important of which are [11]:
process analysis,
accounting of operating costs,
simulation,
process documenting,
risk management,
work flow management,
knowledge management,
quality management.
Using the aforementioned models involves
application of the appropriate IT solutions.
Undoubtedly, the most commonly applied and
advanced tools supporting this technology are the
solutions delivered by IDS Scheer. They constitute
a group of solutions integrated around the ARIS
platform which, while being constantly developed
and improved for many years now, ensures support
for the decided majority of the concepts of the EPC
models application. One of the spheres of applica-
tion of the concepts discussed is creation and sub-
sequent administration of the documentation for the
systems of quality, environment or occupational
health and safety management. For the sake of crea-
tion of the procedures describing the course of
the individual processes, tools such as ARIS Easy
Design or ARIS Toolset can be used for the model-
ling. For publication of the documents drawn up,
tools like ARIS Process Portal or ARIS Business
Publisher can be used. In Poland, some of the tools
frequently used for creation and administration of
the management system documentation are the
solutions delivered by DGA S.A. In this case, the
models are created in DGA Process, and the docu-
ments are published by means of DGA Quality.
Using the aforementioned solutions entails nume-
rous advantages the most important of which are
definitely the possibility of transparently and
precisely reviewing the given process, providing
the company employees with easy access to the
documentation being developed as well as to the
documents used in the processes, and ensuring
support for the processes of the documentation
amending. Another significant advantage of those
solutions is also the option of using the models
created for the management system documentation
purposes under future projects. It is a common
situation that implementation of, for instance,
a quality management system is treated as the
means to put the organisation in order before
a comprehensive IT system is implemented, e.g. the
ERP, CRM or workflow system [12]. Unfortu-
nately, one can easily notice that in spite of having
established very precise and clear rules of the EPC
Syntax errors in the EPC diagrams of the integrated management system documents

Zeszyty Naukowe 24(96) 113
models creation, there are still syntax errors occur-
ring in the documentation developed. The main
purpose of the models prepared under the manage-
ment system documentation itself is the visualisa-
tion as well as transparent communication of
the course of the given process to the employees
reading the procedures. The fact that the errors
occur may cause doubts of the persons well aware
of the principles relevant to the methodology being
applied. In other spheres in which the methods in
question are used, occurrence of the syntax errors
can even make the models created useless. In the
following sections of the article, based on the
analysis of the literary references, the principles
which should be adhered to when creating the EPC
diagrams have been discussed. The author has also
presented various kinds of syntax errors identified
in the diagrams examined under the documentation
of the quality and environment management sys-
tems analysed.
EPC models
Based on the publications referred to in the
introduction, one can indicate the main features of
the EPC models. In order to create a model of the
given economic process, it is to be represented as
a set of events and functions taking place alter-
nately. The functions determine the actions to be
performed under the process. The events apply to
the individual states of the process. Most com-
monly, they are simply statements that something
has happened. They are usually represented as sen-
tences relating to the past. The examples of events
can be as follows: the audit plan was approved or
the time has come to prepare the budget. Unlike
the events, the functions are usually formed as
commands in the imperative. The examples of
functions can be: prepare the audit plan or pre-
pare the technical documentation. Besides the
functions and events, at the beginning or the end of
the EPC model, there can be a process interface.
This element is a reference to the process model
which is to be implemented before or after the cur-
rent one. The fact of having the process interface
at the model beginning implies that the current
process is performed after the end of the preceding
one. The fact of having the process interface at
the model end implies that the current process
is followed by another one. The name assigned to
the process interface is the name of the model it
refers to. Using the process interface is one of the
methods of joining the EPC models. This method is
applied when the models are related to the
processes performed in a specific sequence.
Another case of joining processes is when one of
the functions of the given process is to be expanded
by means of another EPC model. In such a case, the
joining is done using the function being expanded.
The models linked with another models by means
of the process interface or a function are called
hierarchical. The models containing no such inter-
faces are known as flat.
At the beginning of each model, there must be
an event or a process interface. When the model
begins with an event, it determines a situation after
which the process is to be performed and it is called
the starting event. Also at the end of each model,
there must be a process interface or an event which,
in this case, is known as the final event. In order to
represent the process chain, functions, events and
process interfaces can be connected directly or by
means of connectors OR, XOR and AND. Each of
these connectors can function as a split or join
connector. The split connectors are used to divide
the course of the process into several paths. The
join connectors are used to join several paths into
one. When the AND split connector is used in the
process, all the functions following it are to be
performed or all the events following it are to
happen. When this connector is used as a join
connector, the process can be continued when all
the events preceding it take place or when all the
functions preceding it are accomplished. When the
XOR split connector is used, after the connector in
the process, only one of the events following it is
actually to take place. When this connector is the
join connector, the process will be continued when
exactly one of the events preceding it takes place or
when exactly one of the functions preceding it is
performed. When the OR split connector is used in
the process, at least one of the events following it is
to happen. When the OR connector is used as the
joining one, the process will be continued when at
least one of the events preceding it takes place or
when at least one of the functions preceding it is
performed. Among all the applications of the
connectors, the most restrictive rules are in effect
when split connector OR and XOR are used. In
both cases, the elements following the connectors
cannot be functions. They can only be events. The
basic EPC models represent the process chain. In
order to have the information on additional
significant elements related to the economic
process being described included, one applies the
eEPC models expanding the basic concepts of the
EPC models. These models, besides the afore-
mentioned elements, also use elements related to
the organisational structure and to the documents
drawn up and used in the process. The EPC models
in the graphical form are depicted by means of the
Bartosz Szczniak

114 Scientific Journals 24(96)
relevant EPC diagrams. These diagrams are based
on the symbols presented in figure 1 and connected
with the arrows indicating the process chain. For
the sake of graphical representation of the process
being modelled, also office process diagrams are
used. In these diagrams, different, more employee-
-friendly graphical symbols are used, however, the
general principles governing them remain the same
as in the EPC diagrams.

Fig. 1. Basic symbols used in the EPC diagrams
Rys. 1. Podstawowe symbole stosowane w diagramach EPC
Based on the formalised principles of the EPC
model syntax, one can establish specific rules that
must be complied with by an EPC diagram:
1) All components of the EPC diagram are inter-
linked by means of arrows.
2) The components cannot be linked with more
than one arrow.
3) None of the components can be linked with an
arrow with itself.
4) Functions have exactly one incoming and one
outgoing arrow.
5) Events can have:
a) exactly one incoming and one outgoing
arrow,
b) only one outgoing arrow (starting event),
c) only one incoming arrow (final event).
6) Process interfaces can have exactly one in-
coming or one outgoing arrow.
7) The diagram must be provided with at least one
starting event or at least one process interface
with one outgoing arrow. There must also be
at least one final event or at least one process
interface with one outgoing arrow.
8) Functions can only be linked to events with ar-
rows.
9) Process interfaces can only be linked to events
with arrows.
10) Events can only be linked to functions or proc-
ess interfaces with arrows.
11) The links referred to in items 610 can be
established directly or indirectly by means of
connectors.
12) The connectors can have:
a) one incoming arrow and several outgoing
arrows (such connectors are known as the
split connectors),
b) several incoming arrows and one outgoing
arrow (such connectors are known as the
join connectors).
13) The diagram can have no loop consisting of
connectors only.
14) Neither split connector OR or split connector
XOR can be used after an event.
15) A function can be linked with one EPC diagram
at maximum.
16) Each process interface must be linked with
exactly one EPC diagram.
If the successive EPC diagram is linked with
the current one by means of a function, then:
vall the events preceding the given function
constitute a set which corresponds to the set
of starting events of the EPC diagram
linked,
all the events following the given function
constitute a set which corresponds to the set
of final events of the EPC diagram linked.
17) If the successive EPC diagram (B) is linked
with the current EPC diagram (A) by means
of the process interface, then all the events pre-
ceding the process interface in diagram A
which points to diagram B take place after the
process interface in diagram B which points to
diagram A.
18) As a result of a series of links between the indi-
vidual diagrams, the given EPC diagram must
not be linked with itself.
Syntax errors in the diagrams examined
In the course of the examinations conducted on
the diagrams from documents of the integrated
management systems of two companies, it was
revealed that, in some cases, they were not con-
forming with the aforementioned syntax rules. The
most frequent nonconformity was the occurrence of
the subsequent functions directly after one another
or their being split with only the connector without
the required event to split them. In the group of 156
diagrams examined, this type of nonconformity
was found in as many as 140. A similar error
was putting two events one after another and the
occurrence of a process interface after a function
and a function after a process interface. These kinds
of syntax errors have been shown in figure 2.
In the documents subject to examinations, there
were 19 diagrams containing errors of an event
following an event, a process interface occurred
directly after a function in 7 diagrams and a func-
tion was placed directly after a process interface in
5 cases. Two functions or two events occurring
after each other, unless this error involves non-
observance of some of the other syntax rules, seem
not to pose a serious problem to the process under-
standing. However, this is not the case when there
event function
conne



s

process
interface
Syntax errors in the EPC diagrams of the integrated management system documents

Zeszyty Naukowe 24(96) 115
are functions and a process interface occurring after
each other. If one is to observe the principle that
there must be an event between a function and an
interface, in each path of the process before the first
function and after the last one, there must be an
event explicitly identifying the state in which the
process is to be initiated as well as the state in
which it is to be concluded. If a process is finalised
with a process interface directly following a func-
tion, there is no information on the final state
included in the diagram. If there is an interface
connected with a function at the process beginning,
the diagram contains no information on the event
that must take place for the process to be per-
formed. A similar effect is obtained when one of
the EPC diagram paths is not finished with an
event. However, this type of error was rather
seldom, as it was encountered in only two of
the diagrams being analysed. In one case, it caused
the lack of any final event in the diagram, being
a situation which occurred three times in total in
the materials examined. In one case, the error was
related to concluding all the process paths with
a function, and in two other cases, there was a loop-
ing in the process causing the diagram developed
to lack any ending. This kind of error has been
depicted in figure 3. In process 1, the lack of a final
event is due to the fact that the path ends with
a function, and in process 2, the missing event is an
effect of the process looping.
Another error found in the diagrams being
examined was the occurrence of a function or
a process interface after split connector OR or split
connector XOR. In both cases, after the connectors,
there should be an event to determine the situation
in which the given process path is to be taken.
If there is no such event, one cannot correctly un-
derstand the process logic where the paths split.
The lack of an event after split connector OR was
revealed in 4 cases, and the same happened for split
connector XOR in 17 of the diagrams analysed.
This error has been shown in figure 4.
The interesting peculiarity is that this kind of
error always occurred in relation to the error of
using functions or a function and a process
interface after each other. Despite having revealed
the error of using split connector XOR or OR
directly after an event in 4 diagrams, the error of
inappropriate placement of a component after the
connector was not revealed in any of them, even
though it should have occurred bearing in mind the
principle of alternate placement of the individual
components. Consequently, one could notice that
although the very error depicted in figure 1, related
to using functions or a function and a process
interface directly after each other, does not interfere
with the actual message of the process to a large
extent, it could contribute to the occurrence of other
errors which may distort the message far more
seriously. Distortion of the process logic is also the
case when there is more than one arrow coming to
or going out of such diagram components as
functions, i.e. when the same components are
F2 F1 F2 F1

PL1

PL1

PL1

PL1
Fig. 4. Syntax error consisting in placing a function or a process interface after split connector XOR or OR
Rys. 4. Bd skadniowy polegajcy na wystpieniu funkcji lub cznika procesw po operatorze rozdzielajcym XOR lub OR
E1 F1

PL1
E2 F2

PL1
F1
F1
Fig. 2. Syntax errors of placing functions and events after one
another, placing functions after process interfaces and process
interfaces after functions
Rys. 2. Bdy skadniowe polegajce na wystpowaniu po
sobie funkcji, zdarze, funkcji po cznikach oraz cznikw
po funkcjach
E1
F1
E2
F2
E1
F1
E2
Process 1 Process 2
Fig. 3. Syntax error of a missing final event
Rys. 3. Bd skadniowy polegajcy na braku zdarzenia ko-
czcego
Bartosz Szczniak

116 Scientific Journals 24(96)
linked with more than one preceding component or
more than one subsequent component. In such
a case, the logic of splitting and joining the process
is completely missing. In the materials being
examined, this kind of error occurred in 7 diagrams
for functions, in 10 diagrams for events and in 6
diagrams for process interfaces. The last error
identified in the scope of creating single EPC
diagrams was the application of a connector as
a join connector and simultaneously as the split
connector. This error, however, does not distort the
information on the process course to much, and it
was revealed in 5 diagrams.
Another group of errors is related to joining
EPC diagrams. In this case, the first kind of error is
the non-compliance between the events occurring
before and after the process interfaces in the
interlinked diagrams. This was the case in the
situation depicted in figure 5.

Fig. 5. Syntax error of non-compliance between the events
occurring before and after the process interfaces in the inter-
linked diagrams
Rys. 5. Bd skadniowy polegajcy na braku zgodnoci po-
midzy zdarzeniami wystpujcymi przed i po cznikach
procesw w poczonych diagramach
By observing the principles of joining diagrams,
one can create a single flat diagram based on a set
of hierarchical ones [3] which is impossible if the
aforementioned error occurs. Such a problem was
found in 23 pairs, i.e. in 46 joined diagrams. In the
group being analysed, there were 95 hierarchical
diagrams. This means that the error occurred in as
many as 48% of the diagrams examined. Another
error leading to merely a seeming joining of
diagrams is placement of a process interface in only
one of the diagrams. This was the case in the
situation depicted in figure 6.
Also in this situation, it was impossible to create
one flat diagram from the diagrams joined in such
a manner. This error can occur in two variants. The
first one is a situation when, in the current diagram,
there is a process interface pointing at another
diagram, describing the process, which is to be
performed after the end of the current process, and
there is no interface pointing at the current diagram
in the subsequent one. This variant was charac-
teristic of 23 diagrams analysed. The second variant
is a situation when there is a process interface
pointing at the preceding diagram in the current
one, but there is no interface pointing at the current
diagram in the preceding one. This variant of the
error was identified in 14 diagrams. The last of the
errors found was placing a process interface inside
the diagram. In such cases, the process interface
was treated as a interface pointing at the subsequent
diagram and simultaneously as one pointing at the
preceding diagram. This error was revealed in 5
diagrams.
Conclusions
The examinations conducted have implied that
despite having very precise principles of creating
EPC diagrams, there are numerous errors occurring
in the diagrams developed for the sake of the
documentation of integrated management systems.
Bearing in mind the possibility of distorting the
actual message of a diagram as well as the
incidence of the individual errors, the most
significant of them are: using a function after split
connectors OR and XOR, joining diagrams without
compliance between the events before and after the
given process interface, and joining diagrams by
means of a process interface placed in only one of
the diagrams. Another major error is also joining
events, functions or process interfaces with other
components using more than one incoming or
outgoing arrow. All the errors revealed in the
course of the examinations imply the spheres to
which one must pay special attention while
modelling economic process by application of the
E1
F1
E2
Process 1 Process 2

Process 2
E3
F2
E4

Process 1
E2 E3
E1
F1
E2
Process 1 Process 2

Process 2
E3
F2
E4
E5
F3




E6



Process 3
E7
F4
E8
Process 3 Process 4
Fig. 6. Application of a process interface in only one of the
joined diagrams
Rys. 6. Zastosowanie cznika procesw po stronie jednego
z czonych diagramw
Syntax errors in the EPC diagrams of the integrated management system documents

Zeszyty Naukowe 24(96) 117
methodology discussed as well as during the
training courses organised in this scope.
References
1. KELLER G., NTTGENS M, SCHEER A.W.: Semantische
Prozemodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignis-
gesteuerter Prozeketten (EPK). [in:] Scheer, A.-W.
(Hrsg.): Verffentlichungen des Instituts fr Wirtschafts-
informatik, Heft 89, Saarbrcken 1992.
2. W.M.P. VAN DER AALST.: Formalization and verification of
event-driven process chains, Information and Software
Technology 1999, 41, 639650.
3. NTTGENS M., RUMP F.J.: Syntax und Semantik Ereignis-
gesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK). [in:] Desel, J.; Weske, M.
(Hrsg.): Promise 2002 Prozessorientierte Methoden und
Werkzeuge fr die Entwicklung von Informationssystemen,
Proceedings des GI-Workshops und Fachgruppentreffens
(Potsdam, October 2002), LNI Vol. P-21, Bonn 2002,
6477.
4. CUNTZ N.; KINDLER E.: On the semantics of EPCs:
Efficient calculation and simulation. [in:] Nttgens, M.;
Rump, F.J. (Hrsg.): EPK 2004 Geschftsprozessmana-
gement mit Ereignisgesteuerten Prozessketten, Proceedings
des GI-Workshops und Arbeitskreistreffens, Luxemburg,
2004, 726.
5. KINDLER E.: On the semantics of EPCs: A framework for
resolving the vicious circle. Technical Report, Reihe
Informatik, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany,
2003.
6. MENDLING J., W.M.P. VAN DER AALST: Towards EPC
Semantics based on State and Context. [in:] M. Nttgens,
F.J. Rump, J. Mendling, Eds: Proc. of the 5th GI Workshop
on Event-Driven Process Chains (EPK 2006), Vienna,
Austria, 2006, 2548.
7. MENDLING J.; NTTGENS M.: EPC Modelling based on
Implicit Arc Types. [in:] Godlevsky M.; Liddle S.W.;
Mayr, H.C. (Eds.): Information Systems Technology and
its Applications, International Conference ISTA2003, June
1921, 2003, Kharkiv, Ukraine, Proceedings. LNI 30 GI
2003, 131142.
8. GRUHN V., LAUE R.: Forderungen an hierarchische EPK-
Schemata, EPK, vol. 303 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings,
CEUR-WS.org, 2007, 5976.
9. GABRYELCZYK R.: ARIS w dokumentowaniu procesw
biznesu. Diffin, Warszawa 2006.
10. GABRYELCZYK R., LASEK M.: Modelowanie procesw
gospodarczych za pomoc ARIS-TOOLSET. Nowy
Dziennik Sp. z o.o. and Warsaw University, Warszawa
1998.
11. Website: Universitt Hamburg EPK Community: http://
www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/index.php?id=1604
(08.04.2010).
12. Website: DGA S.A. http://www.dga.pl/strony/1/i/627.php
(08.04.2010).



Recenzent:
prof. dr hab. in. Krzysztof Chwesiuk
Akademia Morska w Szczecinie