Hubbry Logo
Event-driven process chainEvent-driven process chainMain
Open search
Event-driven process chain
Community hub
Event-driven process chain
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Event-driven process chain
Event-driven process chain
Event-driven process chain
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Example of a more complex EPC diagram (in German).

An event-driven process chain (EPC) is a type of flow chart for business process modeling. EPC can be used to configure enterprise resource planning execution, and for business process improvement. It can be used to control an autonomous workflow instance in work sharing.

The event-driven process chain method was developed within the framework of Architecture of Integrated Information Systems (ARIS) by August-Wilhelm Scheer at the Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Universität des Saarlandes (Institute for Business Information Systems at the University of Saarland) in the early 1990s.[1]

Overview

[edit]

Businesses use event-driven process chain diagrams to lay out business process workflows, originally in conjunction with SAP R/3 modeling, but now more widely. It is used by many companies for modeling, analyzing, and redesigning business processes. The event-driven process chain method was developed within the framework of Architecture of Integrated Information Systems (ARIS). As such it forms the core technique for modeling in ARIS, which serves to link the different views in the so-called control view. To quote from a 2006 publication on event-driven process chains:[2]

An Event-driven process chain (EPC) is an ordered graph of events and functions. It provides various connectors that allow alternative and parallel execution of processes. Furthermore it is specified by the usages of logical operators, such as OR, AND, and XOR. A major strength of EPC is claimed to be its simplicity and easy-to-understand notation. This makes EPC a widely acceptable technique to denote business processes.

The statement that event-driven process chains are ordered graphs is also found in other directed graphs for which no explicit node ordering is provided. No restrictions actually appear to exist on the possible structure of EPCs, but nontrivial structures involving parallelism have ill-defined execution semantics; in this respect they resemble UML activity diagrams.

Several scientific articles are devoted to providing well-defined execution semantics for general event-driven process chains.[3][4] One particular issue is that EPCs require non-local semantics,[5] i.e., the execution behavior of a particular node within an EPC may depend on the state of other parts of the EPC, arbitrarily far away.

Elements

[edit]
Elements of an Event-driven Process Chain

These elements are used in event-driven process chain diagrams:

Event
Events are passive elements in event-driven process chains. They describe under what circumstances a function or a process works or which state a function or a process results in. Examples of events are "requirement captured", "material in stock", etc. In the EPC graph an event is represented as hexagon. In general, an EPC diagram must start with an event and end with an event.
Function
Functions are active elements in an EPC. They model the tasks or activities within the company. Functions describe transformations from an initial state to a resulting state. If different resulting states can occur, the selection of the respective resulting state can be modeled explicitly as a decision function using logical connectors. Functions can be refined into another EPC. In this case it is called a hierarchical function. Examples of functions are "capture requirement", "check material in stock", etc. In the event-driven process chain graph a function is represented as rounded rectangle.
Process owner
Process owner is responsible for a function (i.e. a booking clerk is responsible for booking journeys). The process owner is usually part of an organization unit (i.e. a booking clerk belongs to the booking department). It is represented as a square with a vertical line.
Organization unit
Organization units determine which organization within the structure of an enterprise is responsible for a specific function. Examples are "sales department", "procurement department", etc. It is represented as an ellipse with a vertical line.
Information, material, or resource object
In the event-driven process chain, the information, material, or resource objects portray objects in the real world, for example business objects, entities, etc., which can be input data serving as the basis for a function, or output data produced by a function. Examples are "material", "order", etc. In the EPC graph such an object is represented as rectangle.
Logical connector
In the event-driven process chain the logical relationships between elements in the control flow, that is, events and functions are described by logical connectors. With the help of logical connectors it is possible to split the control flow from one flow to two or more flows and to synchronize the control flow from two or more flows to one flow.
Logical relationships
If function F1 completes, either events E1 or E2 occur
If either events E1 or E2 occur, function F1 starts
There are three kinds of logical relationships defined in event-driven process chains:
  • Branch/Merge: Branch and merge correspond to making decision of which path to choose among several control flows. A branch may have one incoming control flow and two or more outgoing control flows. When the condition is fulfilled, a branch activates exactly only one of the outgoing control flows and deactivates the others. The counterpart of a branch is a merge. A merge may have two or more incoming flows and one outgoing control flow. A merge synchronizes an activated and the deactivated alternatives. The control will then be passed to the next element after the merge. A branch in the EPC is represented by an opening XOR, whereas a merge is represented as a closing XOR connectors.
  • Fork/Join : Fork and join correspond to activating all paths in the control flow concurrently. A fork may have one incoming control flow and two or more outgoing control flows. When the condition is fulfilled, a fork activates all of the outgoing control flows in parallel. A join may have two or more incoming control flows and one outgoing control flow. A join synchronizes all activated incoming control flows. In the Event-driven Process Chain diagram how the concurrency achieved is not a matter. In reality the concurrency can be achieved by true parallelism or by virtual concurrency achieved by interleaving. A fork in the EPC is represented by an opening 'AND', whereas a join is represented as a closing 'AND' connectors.
  • OR : An 'OR' relationship corresponds to activating one or more paths among control flows. An opening 'OR' connector may have one incoming control flow and two or more outgoing control flows. When the condition is fulfilled, an opening 'OR' connector activates one or more control flows and deactivates the rest of them. The counterpart of this is the closing 'OR' connector. When at least one of the incoming control flows is activated, the closing 'OR' connector will pass the control to the next element after it.
Control flow
A control flow connects events with functions, process paths, or logical connectors creating chronological sequence and logical interdependencies between them. A control flow is represented as a dashed arrow.
Information flow
Information flows show the connection between functions and input or output data, upon which the function reads changes or writes.
Organization unit assignment
Organization unit assignments show the connection between an organization unit and the function it is responsible for.
Process path
Process paths serve as navigation aid in the EPC. They show the connection from or to other processes. The process path is represented as a compound symbol composed of a function symbol superimposed upon an event symbol. To employ the process path symbol in an Event-driven Process Chain diagram, a symbol is connected to the process path symbol, indicating that the process diagrammed incorporates the entirety of a second process which, for diagrammatic simplicity, is represented by a single symbol.

Example

[edit]

As shown in the example, a customer order received is the initial event which creates a requirement capture within the company. In order to specify this function, sales is responsible for marketing, currency etc. As a result, event 'requirement captured' leads to another new function: check material on stock, in order to manufacture the productions.

All input or output data about material remains in the information resource. After checking material, two events may happen-with or without material on stock. If positive, get material from stock; if not, order material from suppliers. Since the two situations cannot happen at the same time, XOR is the proper connector to link them together.

Meta-model

[edit]

Although a real process may include a series of stages until it is finished eventually, the main activities remain similar. An event triggers one function; and a function will lead to one event. Meanwhile, an event may involve one or more processes to fulfill but a process is unique for one event, the same goes for process and process path.

As for the function, its data may be included in one or more information resources, while organization unit is only responsible for one specific function.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Event-driven process chain

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The event-driven process chain (EPC) is a semi-formal conceptual modeling language designed for documenting, analyzing, and redesigning business processes through graphical representations that link events, functions, and logical connectors to illustrate workflow dynamics and decision points. Developed in 1992 by August-Wilhelm Scheer at the University of Saarland in Germany as a core component of the ARIS (Architecture of Integrated Information Systems) framework, EPC originated from earlier integration models like the Kölner Integrationsmodell and was formalized in collaboration with SAP for the SAP R/3 enterprise resource planning system. The SAP Reference Model, which incorporates EPC, includes over 10,000 sub-models with 604 non-trivial EPC diagrams, establishing it as a foundational tool for reference process modeling across industries such as telecommunications, manufacturing, logistics, and retail. At its core, an EPC diagram consists of events—depicting preconditions or state changes that trigger or result from processes—functions that represent the core activities or tasks performed by organizational units—and connectors such as (exclusive or), OR, and AND to handle branching, merging, and in control flows. Extensions like the extended EPC (eEPC) incorporate additional elements, including organizational units, information carriers (e.g., documents or IT systems), and resource flows, enabling more detailed modeling of complex interactions. EPC supports key activities in , including planning, simulation, verification of requirements, and execution monitoring, often integrated with tools like the ARIS Toolset for design and the EPC Markup Language (EPML) for model interchange. Its event-oriented structure facilitates the identification of process triggers and outcomes, making it particularly valuable for model-driven development in environments and cross-organizational workflows. Despite its widespread adoption, EPC's semi-formal nature has prompted research into formal semantics and verification techniques to address ambiguities in large-scale applications.

Introduction

Definition and Purpose

The Event-driven Process Chain (EPC) is a type of flowchart-based designed for representing business processes, where processes are triggered by specific events that initiate functions or activities. In this notation, events represent states or conditions that precede or follow functions, emphasizing the dynamic, event-oriented flow of workflows rather than purely sequential structures. The primary purpose of EPC within (BPM) is to facilitate the documentation, analysis, simulation, and configuration of enterprise workflows, particularly in () systems such as . It enables organizations to visualize operational sequences, identify inefficiencies, and support process improvements by mapping logical dependencies and control flows. EPC models are particularly valuable for blueprinting processes that can be directly transferred to tools, enhancing transparency and across the BPM lifecycle. Key characteristics of EPC include its semi-formal notation, which balances graphical simplicity with defined semantics for practical application, and its top-down hierarchical structure that allows decomposition into detailed sub-processes. Deeply integrated with the ARIS framework, EPC supports the incorporation of organizational, data, and risk perspectives into process models, making it suitable for comprehensive enterprise modeling. Developed primarily for business consulting and practical optimization rather than rigorous , EPC prioritizes in real-world scenarios over exhaustive mathematical precision.

History and Development

The Event-driven Process Chain (EPC) was developed in the early 1990s by August-Wilhelm Scheer and his team at the Institute for Information Systems (IWi) at the University of in . This work emerged as part of broader efforts to create structured methods for modeling business processes in information systems. EPC was initially introduced in 1992 as a key element of the ARIS () methodology, tailored to facilitate the implementation of software. Scheer's foundational book, ARIS - : Foundations of Enterprise Modeling, published that year by Springer, outlined EPC's role in capturing process logic through events and functions, establishing it as a practical tool for enterprise modeling. During the 1990s, EPC diagrams served mainly as informal visual aids for process documentation, gaining traction through commercial tools from IDS Scheer, the company Scheer founded in 1984 to promote ARIS. By the mid-1990s, EPC had achieved widespread adoption in German industry for analyzing and configuring processes, particularly in and IT sectors implementing integrated systems. In the , EPC evolved from these informal representations toward formalized semantics, with significant advancements in integrating it with Petri nets to enable precise verification, , and handling of concurrency. Key extensions appeared in subsequent ARIS publications, such as Scheer's works on frameworks, enhancing EPC's expressiveness for complex workflows. Up to 2025, ARIS standards have continued to advance, incorporating EPC into initiatives, including automated conformance checks and conversions to BPMN for agile process management in cloud-based environments.

Components

Basic Elements

Events in an Event-driven Process Chain (EPC) diagram are represented as hexagon-shaped nodes that denote specific states or conditions within a , such as triggers or outcomes that indicate when a begins or concludes. These passive elements always initiate and terminate the process chain, marking points where a particular situation holds true at a single moment in time. For instance, an event might be labeled "Order received" to signify the arrival of a customer order. Functions serve as the active components of an EPC , depicted as rounded rectangles that model tasks, activities, or operations performed to advance the . They represent transformations where inputs are converted into outputs, consuming time and resources to achieve objectives. An example is a function labeled "Process order," which handles the review and preparation of the received order. In the extended EPC (eEPC), information and material objects are essential supporting elements in EPC diagrams, illustrated as rectangles that symbolize data carriers, documents, or physical resources involved in the process. Information objects, such as "," represent intangible items like reports or databases that provide or receive during functions, while objects denote tangible items like products or tools that are used or produced. These objects connect to functions to indicate inputs and outputs, clarifying resource dependencies without altering the core process flow. The logical flow in an EPC diagram follows a strict alternating sequence where events exclusively connect to functions, and functions connect to events, forming a chain that ensures clear progression from state to action and back to state. This bidirectional linkage uses directed arrows to show the direction of influence, preventing direct event-to-event or function-to-function connections in the basic structure. Visual conventions for EPC elements adhere to standards established in the ARIS framework, with events typically rendered as hexagons, functions as rounded rectangles, and objects as plain rectangles to maintain consistency across diagrams. While colors are not rigidly prescribed, common practices include green shading for events to highlight their state-based nature and yellow or white for functions to emphasize activities, aiding quick visual differentiation.

Control and Organizational Elements

In event-driven process chain (EPC) models, control connectors serve as logical operators that manage process routing by enabling splits and joins between events and functions. These connectors dictate the flow based on specific logical conditions, ensuring precise representation of and parallelism. The three primary types are the (XOR), inclusive OR (OR), and AND operators, each with distinct behaviors for branching and merging paths. The XOR connector, symbolized as a circle containing an 'X', facilitates exclusive choices where exactly one outgoing path is activated from a split (one incoming arc to multiple outgoing arcs) or one incoming path determines activation at a join (multiple incoming arcs to one outgoing arc). This operator is essential for modeling mutually exclusive decisions, such as selecting between alternative process routes based on a single condition. For instance, in a process, an XOR split might route to either "Approve Purchase" or "Reject Purchase" depending on review outcomes. In contrast, the OR connector, typically represented as a , allows at least one path to be chosen in splits or requires at least one incoming path for joins, supporting inclusive branching for scenarios with multiple possible continuations. The AND connector, depicted as a circle with a plus sign (+), enforces parallelism by activating all outgoing paths in splits or synchronizing all incoming paths in joins, ideal for concurrent activities like simultaneous notifications to multiple departments. These connectors establish sequence and precedence by linking events to functions or vice versa, preventing direct connections between events to maintain the event-function alternation fundamental to EPC structure. In the extended EPC (eEPC), organizational elements in EPC models assign responsibilities to process participants, integrating human and structural aspects into the flow. These include organizational units, such as departments (e.g., "Sales Department"), represented as ovals or rectangles, which denote hierarchical entities responsible for functions. Roles, grouping persons or positions, are assigned to specific functions via connections like RA(S)CI (Responsible, Accountable, Supportive, Consulted, Informed), clarifying who executes tasks without altering the core event-function sequence. For example, a "Procure Materials" function might be linked to a "Purchasing Role" within the "Logistics Unit," ensuring accountability mapping. While EPC does not use strict pools or like BPMN, these assignments can be visually grouped to simulate swimlanes, aiding in visualization. Error handling in EPC is implicitly supported through XOR connectors, which enable exception branches for alternative paths in case of failures, such as diverting to a "Handle Error" function upon detecting an issue in a main flow. This mechanism allows modeling of contingencies without dedicated symbols, relying on the flexibility of splits to incorporate recovery sequences while preserving overall integrity. By combining control connectors with organizational assignments, EPC ensures that both logical flow and resource orchestration are clearly defined, facilitating and in business environments.

Syntax and Semantics

Connection Rules

In event-driven process chains (EPCs), the alternation rule governs the fundamental linkage between elements, requiring that events connect exclusively to functions and that functions connect only to events or control connectors. This strict sequencing ensures a logical flow where passive events trigger active functions, and functions in turn produce subsequent events, forming the core rhythm of the process model. Each function must have precisely one incoming arc and one outgoing arc, while each event can have at most one incoming arc and one outgoing arc, preventing multiple activations of passive elements. OR and XOR splits are prohibited immediately following events to maintain the passive nature of events, which cannot initiate branching decisions. Control connectors—depicted as diamonds—enforce branching and merging semantics to manage process flow. The XOR connector handles exclusive choices: at a split, exactly one outgoing path is selected based on a condition, and at a join, execution proceeds only after one incoming path completes while ensuring no other paths remain viable. The AND connector supports parallel execution: a split activates all outgoing paths simultaneously, and the corresponding join synchronizes by waiting for all incoming paths to complete. The OR connector enables conditional parallelism: a split activates one or more outgoing paths as conditions allow, and the join merges by waiting until all activated paths finish or become impossible, providing flexibility for inclusive decisions. To ensure precedence and consistency, every split connector must pair with a matching join of the same type (XOR with XOR, AND with AND, OR with OR), balancing the and preventing deadlocks where processes stall indefinitely. Dangling connections, such as unmatched arcs or incomplete branches, are invalid, as they violate the closed structure starting and ending with events. Cycles consisting solely of connectors without intervening functions or events are also prohibited to avoid undefined behaviors. Hierarchical refinement allows complex functions to be decomposed into sub-EPCs, treating the sub-process as a that preserves the top-level logic through defined input and output events. The refinement must maintain arc consistency, with the sub-EPC's entry event aligning with the function's incoming arc and its with the outgoing arc, without introducing alterations to the overall sequence or connector semantics. Validation criteria distinguish syntactic checks from semantic . Syntactic validation verifies structural , such as balanced splits and joins, adherence to the alternation rule, and absence of prohibited connections like OR/XOR splits after events. Semantic validation assesses runtime viability, ensuring no infinite loops through connector-only cycles and confirming deadlock-free execution via matched joins that resolve all active paths appropriately.

Meta-model and Formalization

The meta-model of the (EPC) defines it as a consisting of nodes representing events and functions, connected by arcs that denote sequences. Events capture state changes that trigger or result from process execution, while functions represent transformations or activities; connectors such as , and XOR operators further structure the logical branching among these nodes. This structure is formalized within the ARIS House architecture, where EPC occupies the Process View at the Requirements Definition level, integrating with Control, Function, , and Views to provide a holistic framework for . Formal semantics for EPC were advanced in the through mappings to s, enabling and verification of process behaviors. In this mapping, places correspond to , holding to indicate marked states, while transitions align with functions that consume input event and produce output ones upon firing. Introduced in extensions like those by Chen and Scheer in 1994, this approach allows analysis of concurrency, deadlock, and in EPC models. The basic transition rule follows standard enabledness: a transition tt is enabled if, for every input place p∈∙tp \in \bullet t, the marking M(p)≥1M(p) \geq 1; upon firing, it updates the marking as M′(p)=M(p)−1M'(p) = M(p) - 1 for p∈∙tp \in \bullet t and M′(p′)=M(p′)+1M'(p') = M(p') + 1 for p′∈t∙p' \in t \bullet, where ∙t\bullet t and t∙t \bullet denote pre- and post-sets, respectively. The original EPC exhibits a semi-formal , leading to ambiguities particularly in OR connector semantics, such as the OR-join problem where requires non-local knowledge of future paths, potentially causing inconsistent executions. These issues arise from informal definitions introduced around 1992, complicating precise behavioral predictions. Post-2000 resolutions, including join OR (jOR) variants proposed by Nüttgens and Rump in 2002, address this by imposing syntactical restrictions or local rules like dead-path elimination to ensure deterministic firing without cyclic dependencies. EPC aligns with standards for , notably through the EPC Markup Language (EPML), an XML-based format for exchanging models, initially developed by Mendling and Nüttgens in 2002 and refined for tool-neutral serialization of graph elements. EPML supports hierarchical and configurable EPC variants, facilitating integration across modeling environments. Broader influences include ISO/IEC 19763-5:2015, which incorporates EPC as an exemplar in its metamodel framework for process , with ongoing relevance as of 2025 in standards for ontologies.

Practical Usage

Modeling Examples

A simple example of an EPC diagram models the process in a retail business. The process begins with the start event "Order placed," which triggers the function "Check ." Following this, an (XOR) connector branches the flow based on inventory availability: if items are in stock, the process proceeds to the function "Prepare shipment," leading to the event "Order shipped"; if not, it routes to the function "Initiate return or reorder," resulting in the event "Order returned or reordered." To incorporate parallel execution, an AND connector can split the "Prepare shipment" function into simultaneous tasks, such as "Pack items" and "Update ," both of which must complete before merging at the AND join to the final event "Order fulfilled." This structure ensures logical while highlighting decision points and concurrent activities. For hierarchical modeling, consider refining a high-level function like "Process payment" from an order fulfillment EPC into a sub-EPC. At the top level, "Process payment" appears as a single function connected between events "Payment requested" and "Payment completed." Decomposition reveals the sub-EPC starting with the event "Payment method selected," followed by an OR connector to allow multiple paths: one for "Process credit card payment" (with sub-events "Card authorized" and function "Charge account"), another for "Process cash payment" (with event "Cash received" and function "Issue receipt"), and potentially others like "Process bank transfer." Each path converges at an OR join to the event "Payment authorized," which links back to the parent EPC. This refinement enables detailed analysis of alternatives without cluttering the high-level view. To construct an EPC diagram step by step, begin by placing the start event (e.g., a hexagon labeled "Order placed") on the , followed by an to the first function (rounded , "Check inventory"). Connect the function's output to an XOR connector ( or ) with labeled branches for decisions, ensuring each branch leads to subsequent events or functions via arrows. For parallel branches, insert an AND connector after a function, drawing multiple outgoing arrows to parallel functions (e.g., "Pack items" and "Generate "), then merge with a corresponding AND join. Object links, such as objects or organizational roles, can be attached to functions using dashed lines for context. Finally, end with a terminal event, verifying that all paths resolve logically. Common pitfalls in EPC modeling include unbalanced connectors, such as an XOR split without a matching XOR join, which can lead to undefined process states where multiple or no paths activate unexpectedly. For instance, an XOR split after "Check inventory" branching to "Ship" and "Return" must join via an XOR to ensure only one outcome proceeds, avoiding parallel execution errors; correction involves adding the appropriate join and testing flow completeness. Another error is connecting multiple incoming arrows directly to a function without a join, violating the rule that functions have exactly one input; resolve by inserting an XOR join beforehand. Adhering to these rules prevents syntactic invalidity and ensures models. Tools for creating EPC diagrams include the commercial ARIS platform by , which supports full hierarchical modeling and validation, and its free version, , suitable for basic diagrams. Online alternatives like draw.io with EPC stencil extensions also enable drawing without installation.

Applications and Benefits

Event-driven process chains (EPCs) are widely applied in (ERP) systems, particularly for configuring and documenting business processes in tools like and S/4HANA. In these contexts, EPCs facilitate the modeling of operational sequences, enabling precise alignment between business requirements and system implementations. Beyond ERP, EPCs support automation by visualizing event-triggered flows, which helps automate routine tasks in distributed systems. They are also instrumental in process reengineering across and service sectors, where they aid in analyzing and redesigning workflows to enhance operational flow. In the , EPCs have been employed in approaches to structure and flows, as demonstrated in studies on practices. For instance, EPC diagrams have been used to model the integration of functions and events in vehicle production and processes, supporting reengineering efforts. These applications have led to reported improvements, including streamlined execution and reduced times in ERP projects. EPCs offer several advantages over traditional flowchart methods, primarily due to their event-oriented structure, which makes them intuitive for non-experts in . This accessibility allows stakeholders without deep technical knowledge to participate in and validation. Additionally, EPCs support capabilities, enabling the identification of bottlenecks through dynamic of event-function interactions. Their hierarchical nature provides , permitting models to range from high-level overviews to detailed operational views without losing coherence. Despite these strengths, EPCs suffer from informal semantics, which can introduce ambiguities in complex models and limit direct execution without additional formalization. This limitation is often mitigated by verification tools, such as those integrated in ARIS, which apply reduction rules and Petri net transformations to ensure soundness and detect errors. As of , a key trend involves integrating EPCs with AI-driven to bridge normative models and actual process executions. Tools like ARIS Process Mining now allow direct reuse of EPC models for conformance checking against event logs, enhancing discovery and optimization through AI-enhanced . This synergy supports real-time monitoring and predictive improvements in dynamic environments.

Comparisons with Other Notations

The Event-driven Process Chain (EPC) differs from () primarily in its focus on high-level, conceptual modeling versus BPMN's emphasis on detailed, executable specifications. EPC employs simpler constructs like events and functions connected via logical operators, making it suitable for initial overviews in business contexts, whereas BPMN incorporates advanced elements such as gateways for complex branching, pools and lanes for organizational roles, and details that facilitate direct implementation in execution engines. This structural difference often results in information loss during EPC-to-BPMN transformations, as EPC lacks native support for certain patterns like multi-instance activities. An empirical survey of process modelers indicated that while EPC is perceived as more logical and comprehensive for strategic alignment, BPMN leads to fewer modeling errors due to its standardized semantics. In contrast to Petri nets, which provide a mathematical foundation for analyzing concurrency, deadlock, and through token-based transitions, EPC prioritizes graphical, business-oriented representations that emphasize event triggers and process flows without primitives. EPC's intuitive connector semantics aid end-users in understanding control flows like XOR splits, outperforming Petri nets in perceived ease-of-use and intention to adopt for non-technical audiences, though Petri nets excel in rigorous and checking. This makes EPC preferable for collaborative business modeling, while Petri nets are better suited for formal analysis in workflow verification. Compared to UML Activity Diagrams, EPC centers on event-driven workflows to capture business processes from a functional perspective, whereas UML Activity Diagrams offer broader applicability for modeling software behaviors, including object flows, signals, and pins for data handling. Experimental evaluations in contexts revealed that UML Activity Diagrams are rated higher in completeness and accuracy by engineers, as they support more precise behavioral specifications, but EPC facilitates quicker initial sketching for workflow overviews. EPC thus shines in event-centric requirements gathering within frameworks like ARIS, contrasting BPMN's and UML's stronger orientation toward execution and . Hybrid approaches integrating EPC with BPMN are common in tools like , which supports both notations in a shared repository to leverage EPC for high-level design and BPMN for detailed orchestration, enabling seamless transitions without full rework.

Extensions and Variants

Reference EPCs provide standardized templates for specific industries, enabling consistent modeling of common processes. For instance, the utilizes EPCs to outline core business processes in areas like , offering reusable blueprints that facilitate implementation and customization across enterprises. These templates promote interoperability and reduce modeling effort in sectors like . Formal variants of EPC address limitations in the standard notation by incorporating advanced control flows. The extended event-driven process chain (eEPC) augments the core elements with organizational units and information carriers, allowing for more precise representation of responsibilities and data flows in complex workflows. Similarly, yet another event-driven process chain (yEPC) introduces multiple instantiation parameters and cancellation constructs to support dynamic patterns like deferred choices and parallel routing, enhancing compatibility with business rules engines for automated execution. These variants enable probabilistic branching through parameterized functions, improving in time-sensitive applications. Tool-specific extensions expand EPC functionality within modeling environments. In ARIS, simulation modules integrate with EPC diagrams to evaluate process performance, generating statistics on throughput times, resource utilization, and bottlenecks without requiring external software. The extended process chain (EPK) variant in ARIS further adds elements, linking processes to organizational resources for holistic analysis. Semantic enhancements post-2010 focus on resolving ambiguities in standard EPC, particularly with OR connectors. EPCs enforce a property ensuring proper termination without deadlocks or livelocks, achieved by mapping to Petri nets and excluding ambiguous OR-joins in favor of explicit synchronization rules. This formalization, building on earlier work, provides polynomial-time verification and clearer join semantics, supporting reliable integration with ontology-based tools for enhanced process . As of 2025, future directions include AI-augmented EPC for dynamic processes, where agentic AI systems leverage event-driven structures to automate adaptations in real-time workflows, such as optimizing supply chains through predictive event triggering.

References

  1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227070115_Event-Driven_Process_chains_EPC
  2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227649222_Process_Modeling_using_Event-Driven_Process_Chains
  3. https://books.google.com/books/about/ARIS_Business_Process_Modeling.html?id=Jzuwm2uV7CQC
  4. https://ariscommunity.com/event-driven-process-chain
  5. https://ariscommunity.com/system/files/cs-aris-epc-en-24.pdf
  6. https://aris.com/resources/process-management/ds/aris-sap-solutions/
  7. https://www.vdaalst.com/publications/p474.pdf
  8. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-84628-613-1.pdf
  9. https://docs.aris.com/latest/yaa-method-guide/en/Method-Manual.pdf
  10. https://www.leadingpractice.com/about/award-winners/august-wilhelm-scheer/
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950584999000166
  12. https://research.tue.nl/files/1909396/9714860.pdf
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221585916_ARIS_Architecture_and_Reference_Models_for_Business_Process_Management
  14. https://aris.com/resources/process-mining/demo/epc-models-conformance-checks/
  15. https://ariscommunity.com/users/peter-eichhorn/2025-03-03-transform-epc-bpmn
  16. https://docs.aris.com/10.0.27.0/yaa-method-guide/en/Method-Manual.pdf
  17. https://process-maps.software/doku.php?id=user_guide:030_process_documentation_methodologies:020_creating_event-driven_process_diagrams
  18. https://www.conceptdraw.com/solution-park/business-process-EPC
  19. https://ariscommunity.com/system/files/cs-aris-basic-en-24.pdf
  20. https://vdaalst.com/publications/p354.pdf
  21. http://www.workflowpatterns.com/documentation/documents/EPK02.pdf
  22. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-7908-2698-2_3.pdf
  23. https://www.iso.org/standard/53761.html
  24. https://www.bwl.uni-hamburg.de/harcis/01-zentrum/01-team/chair/markus-nuettgens/publikationen/xml4BPM2006-proceedings.pdf
  25. https://ariscommunity.com/users/rbaureis/2010-03-22-basic-rules-epc-modelling
  26. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/create-an-event-driven-process-chain-epc-diagram-c821fae3-8621-46dd-b885-2239405554be
  27. https://www.conceptdraw.com/examples/event-process-modelling
  28. https://aris.com/resources/process-management/ds/aris-epc-cheat-sheet/
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042818300375
  30. https://www.omnitracker.com/en/resources/news/epc-and-bpmn-2-0-advantages-definition-and-differences/
  31. https://www.heflo.com/glossary/bpm/event-process-chain
  32. https://www.processon.io/blog/how-to-draw-epc
  33. https://blog.visual-paradigm.com/understanding-event-driven-process-chain-epc-diagrams-a-comprehensive-guide/
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166361507000176
  35. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-167/epk2005-paper2.pdf
  36. https://www.vdaalst.com/publications/p256.pdf
  37. https://ariscommunity.com/quick-videos/reuse-your-epc-models-conformance-checks-aris-process-mining
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228743775_Business_process_modelling_in_the_context_of_SOA_-_An_empirical_study_of_the_acceptance_between_EPC_and_BPMN
  39. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11538394_36
  40. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5328644
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224079438_EPC_vs_UML_Activity_Diagram_-_Two_Experiments_Examining_their_Usefulness_for_Requirements_Engineering
  42. https://www.signavio.com/bpmn-2-0-for-efficient-process-design/
  43. https://www.bwl.uni-hamburg.de/harcis/01-zentrum/01-team/chair/markus-nuettgens/publikationen/tr05-yepc.pdf
  44. https://aris.com/resources/process-management/ds/aris-simulation/
  45. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-167/epk2005-paper7.pdf
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220854162_Semantic_EPC_Enhancing_Process_Modeling_Using_Ontology_Languages
  47. https://blog.processhorizon.com/event-driven-sipoc-model-to-agentic-ai/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.