International Journal of Business and Management

May, 2008

Empowerment the IDEF0 Modeling Language

Loukas Tsironis (Corresponding author)
Technical University of Crete
Department of Production & Management Engineering
73100, Chania, Greece
Tel: +30-2821-037-361

E-mail: [email protected]

Andreas Gentsos & Vassilis Moustakis

Technical University of Crete
Department of Production & Management Engineering
73100, Chania, Greece
Abstract
In the present article we discuss, evaluate and improve the IDEF0 modeling language. In order to meet end user
requirements, we suggest concrete improvements which empower the language to face real world problems such as:
human errors, process delays, parallel processes and detail information description. The experimentation field
comprised from a common production system. Improved IDEF0 seem to overcome several deficiencies and increase
its modeling performance. Results showed that language deficiencies were clarified. Thus, the improvements made,
constitute better modeling performance and the development of more reliable models.
Keywords: IDEF0, Human error, Process delays, Parallel processes
1. Introduction
The term Business Process (BP) is widely used among Business individuals and researchers. It includes an activity
or set of activities that supplied with one or more kinds of inputs and transforms them into an output which adds
value to the potential customer (Hammer and Champy, 1993). Each activity composites of components such as tasks,
information, materials, operators and machines. Examples of a BP can be a production line, the functions within
organizational departments, a decision making process and so on.
The study of BPs based on their analysis through the representation and description of their component information,
which flows among activities. The study and analysis of BPs can be transacted through the consideration of certain
Business Models (BM). BP organizational modeling implies the utilization of specific Business Process Modeling
Languages (BPMLs), corresponding software tools for the graphical description of observed behavior of processes in
a business system. The result of the modeling process is a well structured and well mapped business model, which
represents, in depth, the actual process components and its course. Models enable end users to face the complex and
dynamic nature of modern BPs. Models are very useful in the entire BP life cycle course supporting its identification,
description, redesign and continual improvement.
A very popular BPML is the IDEF0 (Ross, 1985; Feldmann, 1998; Kalnis et al., 2000; Kalnis, 2004; Recker et al.,
2006; Liu and Fang, 2006;). IDEF0 applies to all kinds of organizational systems independently of their size or
complexity (Godwin et al, 1989).
BPML makes use of objects for the graphic description of information flow. These objects are called components. The
type of information that contains a process component (e.g. document, file) is called component information and it is
steered by BPML semantics. Semantics of a BPML refers to the logical identification, of a syntax component and the
appropriate linkages among them. Thus, a model that imitates the real world system, according to the principles and
methodology of BPML, is created.
A BP is decomposed in functions, where every function captures components and semantics. It is a set of one or more
functions, integrated in diagrams. A model composed from a number of diagrams develops in hierarchical fashion. For
the modeling task and the application of the BPMLs, we used specific software tools.
The selection of a BPML for the organization constitutes a strategic goal for the establishment of effective
communication among people who take part in a BP, in order to assure the quality of its outputs. Thus, the evaluation
and comparison of BPMLs constitutes an organizational need.
109

Vol. 3, No. 5

International Journal of Business and Management

In the present article we cope with several concrete deficiencies of IDEF0. Furthermore, we recommend specific
syntax components and semantics that are targeted to improve the selected BPML in order to cover more
organizational needs.
To document our findings we used the modeling case of a real production system.
The purpose of this article is to reveal several deficiencies of IDEF0 during the modeling phase, to improve these
deficiencies and increase the modeling performance of the IDEF0. Some of the revealed deficiencies are:
(1) Errors. An error occurs after the influence of several factors resulting in an undesirable outcome. The error can
be caused by an individual or a machine. Thus the errors can be categorized to human errors and machine faults.
(2) According to (1) remark, we propose new design capabilities for the detection of errors.
(3) Process delays. Process delays can be described as the several reasons that cause a delay to the process course.
(4) Parallel processes. Processes that are flow together.
(5) The transferred information. It concerns the exact descriptions of data or objects related to functions.
Scientific literature identifies a few attempts to assess IDEF0 and present its shortcomings (Tsironis et al 2007).
However, a particular problem in this context is the lack of research regarding what is to be considered good design
(Mendling, 2007). For instance several aspects or characteristics of BPML evaluation can be read at (Godwin, et al.,
1989; Hernandez-Matias et al., 2006; Jansen-Vullers and Netjes, 2006; Janssen et al., 1997; Kalnis et al., 1998;
Killich et al., 1999; Kudrass et al., 1996; Shen et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2006).
However, in all studies the need for a thorough evaluation of BPML tools is emphasized. In all articles it is reported
that this need arises from the specific weaknesses in the resulting models, which create several problems within
organizations (e.g. miscommunication among people and/or departments). Moreover, this need is empowered by the
fact that BP modeling is a continuous and time demanding procedure, which has no pre-defined outcome
(Tsalgatidou, 1998).
In some of the previously cited articles, the authors assign the need for improvements in BPMLs in order to describe
BPs completely. In others authors, noticed the need for a better synergy between BPMLs and the corresponding
software tools.
Janssen et al., (1997) and Wang et al., (2006) compared BMPLs. They argue that there is no BPML able to
completely satisfy end user needs. They noted that there are significant deficiencies in languages and that they can
be if syntax components and semantics can be simply exchanged with one another. Similarly Jansen-Vullers and
Netjes (2006) work underlines the incompleteness in specific capabilities of business simulation tools.
The static nature of IDEF0 and the absence of an adequate dynamic representation of the process is also reported by
Godwin et al., (1989). Shen et al., (2004) compared IDEF0, IDEF3 and DFD (Data Flow Diagram). They present
the deficiencies of each language. Particularly for IDEF0, one of the main drawbacks they report is the absence of
time representation in a process. The absence of time representation for the description of a BP is supported by
Killich et al., (1999). The need for a new innovative and complete BPM tool was reported in Hernandez-Matias et
al., (2006).
Apart from reported in the literature findings, the need for better BPMLs created during the modeling steps on two
real worlds BPs in Tsironis et al, (2007). They detected a communication gap among end users or departments
when trying to interpret BP diagrams. Furthermore, they observed that the available syntax components confused
modelers and end users. The objectives were not obvious. What seemed to be the exact outputs of the process and of
which type (e.g. document, a component which is using to update the database) was not clear. The former
observation was also noted in Shen et al., (2004).
All the above articles identify the need for a thorough research on the modeling performance of IDEF0. On the other
hand, there is a lack on discussing the modeling of factors such as the variable nature of BPs due to the inclusion of
human operators for example.
Another aspect that enforces the need of this research is the cost enclosed during poor designed BP models.
Mendling (2007) reports that the costs of errors increase exponentially over the development life cycle it is of
paramount importance to discover errors as early as possible.
As an experimentation field we select a traditional production process. Specifically we used IDEF0 to model the
machine part production process as it described in SADT, (year). For the modeling phase we used Workflow
Modeler software (ref). After the creation of IDEF0 model and diagrams we transformed the process by the insertion
of errors, delays and parallel processes.
110

International Journal of Business and Management

May, 2008

The remainder of the article is organized as follows. In section that follows we present the basics of IDEF0 and tool
used herein. In the following section we describe the application field based on which we applied our proposed
improvements. The following section we discuss the proposed syntax components and methodology approaches for
the IDEF0 language. Finally we conclude with some remarks on our findings concerning its applicability and the
quality of results.
2. IDEF0
The IDEF0 language is an updated version of the Structured Analysis and Design Technique (SADT) (Marca and
McGowan, 1988) proposed by D. Ross in 1976 for structured analysis of systems. It is accepted in the USA as a
federal standard (IDEF0, 1993).
IDEF0 is a BPML used to model decisions, actions, and activities of an organization or system (IDEF0, 1993). The
resulting model expresses knowledge about how a system, process, or organization works (Wang et al., 2006).
IDEF0 describes the specific steps of a process course and the relationships developed. It also records the
information flows, resulting from these relationships.
Finally, IDEF0 model includes a set of syntax components essential for BP integration. The syntax components
include boxes, arrows and diagrams. Boxes represent functions, defined as activities, processes or transformations.
Arrows represent data or objects related to functions. The format also provides the basis for model configuration
management (IDEFO, 1993).
For the application of IDEF0 on modeling tasks we choose Workflow modeler (Meta Software, 2003) due to its ease
of use and its ability to provide the whole set of syntax components of IDEF0 language. Workflow modeler is a
standalone software due to its features. It supports modeling capabilities based on IDEF0, IDEF3 and IDEF1X
BPMLs. It is also supports exporting the model to Workflow Simulator, a very useful module for simulation
purposes of the model.
During the modeling stage we faced several differences that the software has with the basic notion of IDEF0
language. These can be summarized to the following:
(1) The software demands only one input arrow.
(2) Mechanism arrows that originate from the output of a specific process does not allow to the diagram
(3) Tunneled arrows are not recognizable
(4) By default in Workflow Modeler there is an attention point to the synchronization of feedback procedures.
3. Case study: model representation
We adapt a model taken from Marca and McGowan (1988). This model describes the manufacturing process of a
specific part in a machine workshop. The model consists of six diagrams. Inputs in the model constitute raw
materials, mechanical parts and the appropriate information that enclosed in the process (i.e Job completion request,
quality standard manual). Process output is the outgoing part. An overview of the manufacturing process is
presenting in A0 diagram (figure 1).
In the specific manufacturing process (figure 1) are implemented three basic operations, which can be seen in A0
diagram. The first operation includes information assignments about what specific tasks should implement and how.
This operation involves the insertion of plans, activities order and time duration and sequences. In the output is
generated the appropriate manufacturing time and specific plans that are sending to the main manufacturing process.
The second operation represents the main manufacturing process of each part. In this operation perform activities
and tasks such as: machine preparation, part processing, and tool selection. Process inputs include raw materials,
machines and tools, while outputs include finished and unfinished job.
The third operation represents the control of the final products produced in the second operation. The assessment of
the work done until this point and the measurement of final products dimensions are performed in this operation. If
the final product does not meet the standards then it will forward back to the appropriate process stage.
These three operations are visualizing in A1, A2 and A3 diagrams respectively and every one of them disaggregated
in child diagrams which demonstrate the course of sub-operations.
4. Improvements
In the paragraphs that follows we present modeling attempts for the cases of errors and delays. Our attempts lie,
basically, in the insertion of new syntax components and semantics to the IDEF0 language. We propose the use of
specific logical operators in order to model errors and delays within the BP. The following table 1 summarizes and
111

Vol. 3, No. 5

International Journal of Business and Management

describes the proposed logical operators. A lengthy analysis and explanation on the use of logical operators can be
found in the forthcoming paragraphs.
4.1 Errors
An error can occur when any factor affects the process course. The outcome of error affection is always an
undesirable or unexpected result. Errors can be predictable or not. Consequently the time that an error occurs can be
deterministic or stochastic.
When the error generated by individuals interference then is called human error. Human errors occurrence time
cannot be predicted. On the contrary machine errors is sometimes predictable and depends on its life cycle.
One of the disadvantages that burdens IDEF0, is the lack of modeling notations in any type of errors. This happens
because the existence of IDEF0 based only to the description of the process course and not to the identification or
prediction of errors. Furthermore, is not obvious to any kind of end user the effects that an error might have. In the
present section we are trying to enhance and empower IDEF0 with proposed modeling notations in order to cope
with possible errors in the process.
Modeling of errors can be achieved by inserting as modeling notation specific logical operators. Logical operators,
used in some BPMLs for connecting several Functions and Events. We, herein, propose the use of logical operators
in order to describe and represent several aspects of activities (e.g. human errors) as continuity and try with this way
to visualize them. Logical operators used for instance to EPC language. We were modeling the process with the use
of AND operator and XOR operator. The AND is used for parallel execution of Functions. The OR is used
for decisions, when one or more choices are possible. The XOR is used for decisions, when only one of several
choices is possible. Logical operators can be used as a general modeling notation and not only for the identification
of errors.
The use of logical operators in the output of the process enables the modeler to present the possible directions when
a possible error can occur. In other words the modeler design new output directions in the face of an error. For
instance logical operator XOR can be locate in process output and provide three discreet options, desirable or
undesirable result and no result.
In figure 2 we present an example that helps to be comprehensive our modeling rationale.
Figure 2 presents the A3 diagram of our case. Logical operators AND and XOR inducted to model all the
possible aspects of the process. In activity A31, for instance, there are two aspects in the output Seal and Assess Job.
The AND operator can be used in order the two aspects can go along. Assess job task, might have 3 aspects on the
output: Good, wrong or no assessment. Logical operator XOR can cover those three aspects.
4.2 Delays
Process delays can occur either after the affection of an error or after a mismanagement of an activity. The insertion
of the appropriate logical operator can resolve this problem. We propose a logical operator which means that if the
corresponding arrow is activated a process delay will occur. In other words the delays operator is an optical signal
which points the possibility of an unwanted event.
Activity A235 (figure 3) can be described as follows (Marca and McGowan, 1988): Place bins to easily load raw
materials and catch scrap. Take into account material properties and the direction of cuts to determine where scrap
will be thrown. The activity has two possible outcomes: correct or erroneous placement of bins. In order to cover
those two aspects we place the XOR operator at the outcome of the activity. Observe that when an erroneous
placement takes place then the process might have a delay of the fulfillment of its objectives.
4.3 Parallel processes
Two arrows generating from two activities might further join in one. That could be an indication that the first two
activities might act in parallel. Parallel processes are not visible to an IDEF0 diagram. Parallel processes are those
that progress at the same time. They can begin together but not finished at the same time or they could start at
different times and ending together or one of them can start before the other and ends after the other and so on. The
main characteristic of parallel processes is that in order for a new process to start they must have been finished.
The case of parallel processes handled by the insertion of a specific logical operator which is named as parallel
operator. This parallel process logical operator characterizes the arrows which join from the leading processes
come from parallel processes. The non parallel processes operator identifies that from two arrows the predecessor is
the one that arrives first. That is that the event with the smaller finishing time will first pass from the operator and
the other one will queuing.
112

International Journal of Business and Management

May, 2008

Figure 4(a) sets off the concept of modeling the parallel and non-parallel processes in IDEF0. Activities A233, A234
and A235 are parallel processes and this fact is indicated with the appropriate logical operator.
On the opposite, figure 4(b) visualizes a confusion point in IDEF0. Activities A241 and A242 although they seem to
act in parallel they are not and that is why the non-parallel operator placed in the appropriate point on the diagram.
5. Proposed design capabilities
In the present paragraph we describe a proposed way of the development of an internal control procedure which
enables the BPML to conduct control for errors.
As it is mentioned before errors is very possible to appear in a production process, sometimes depending on known
reasons and sometimes on unknown. In the current stage we propose the development of an internal error control
procedure in every diagram of the IDEF0 model. This procedure based on a three step notion: Control, Execution
and Control-Decision.
We can design a BPML that can develop diagrams with embodied abilities of sending information on the
appropriate activities that should be accomplished in order to have a standard based process.
The first step controls the status of the process and reports about the necessary actions should be done for the
fulfillment of the process. Afterwards it sends information to the diagram boxes through control arrows on the way
that should be acted. Usually control step comprises of one box.
Second step concerns the development of the child diagram based on the standards that have been instituted. This
step based on more than one boxes. Box output constitutes the input for the following one.
Third and final step controls and verifies that the pre-set standards were met. If control action identifies an error then
a feedback procedure supplies the first steps control action. The main difference between first and last control
action is that in the first check what and how things should perform, while in the last check if standards had been
met and deciding what else missing that should have been done.
As it is known any IDEF0 diagram comprises from three until six boxes. If the completion of the three steps requires
more than six boxes then new child diagrams should form. However, the new child diagram should underlie the
notions of the IDEF0 language.
The proposed rational, described earlier, can be seen in figure 5. For instance from A1 box first step, Control, is
conducted. From A1 box the green arrows provide with the appropriate description of what exactly should be done
at the later stages of the process. The A2 box represents the second step, Execution, of the overall process. A2 box
receive information on the way it should acts in order to fulfill process requirements and standards. The third step,
Control-Decision, consists of the boxes A3 and A4. In the final stage the produced product is controlled in A3 box,
which decided whether it should rejects and returns to A2 box or continue to A4 box in order to comes out of the
system. This is the reason why A2 box sends the blueprints in order to help the process on the control and decisions
should make.
5.1 Number of arrow components
The number of elements that are enclosed in an arrow can be varied across the diagram components. It would be
very helpful for the end user to see the number of arrow components during the modeling phase. Many times it is
possible that the number or input components in an activity to differ from the output ones. This could be happened if
the activity selects some components and sending them in a lower activity.
Workflow modeler provides the option to denote the number of components carrying by the arrows. This option
represent with the sz symbol on the starting point of the arrow.
Figure 6 depicts the way that we propose the formation and the appearance of the carrying information on the
arrows. For instance lets assume that the carrying information of the arrow tool crib concerns six parts. The
activity A22 pick tool will select three of them that should be used for processing, according to the information
provided by activity A21 evaluate job progress. Consequently, activitys A22 output arrow will tagged by the
index sz=3, meaning that its size is equal to three parts (figure 6).
However, it would be more helpful, the number of components to appear at the starting and ending points of the
arrow. Due to the big length of IDEF0 arrows that frequently have. The information about the number of
components could be useful for arrows that are represent parts, process elements or tools. Finally, the use of
enclosed number of components should constitute a very useful piece of information concerning production, time,
and cost, which are very useful elements during simulation phase.
113

Vol. 3, No. 5

International Journal of Business and Management

6. Discussion
Top down hierarchical design fashion, ICOM and component semantics are the most strong points of IDEF0
language. These three design components lead to the establishment of good communication infrastructure among
design components and within diagrams of the IDEF0 model. However, the design of complex and tight diagrams is
one of its critical disadvantages.
During practicing with IDEF0, we noticed several shortcomings, from the human involvement point of view. Our
first thoughts fluctuate upon questions such as: What happens if a human error takes place? Is it designable? Is it
predictable? Can the model inform the modeler somehow?
Furthermore, some additional questions that can not be solved with the current version of IDEF0 occupied our
minds and created unsolved problems. These questions were: What happens if a justified or unjustified delay occurs
in the process? How it can be modeled, or how it can alert the modeler of the possible occurrence?
The answers of these questions along with some additional interference on the parallel processes and enhancements
of information annotations of the exact arrow carrying information discussed and investigated herein.
As evidenced in the former paragraphs of the article, the proposed work solve many practical real world problems.
Results shown that the developed version of IDEF0 performs better and helps the modeler to produce comprehend
and easy to read diagrams. The produced diagrams reveal cases where the decision maker has to predict them with
the use of additional tools and methodologies.
The objective of the article is to enhance the IDEF0 in order to increase modeling power and model BPs more
thoroughly and exhaustively. The produced models cover all the cases and events and finally all the unwanted
situations that governing BPs because of their uncertainty nature. Uncertainty lies on the participation of human,
machines and external factors within the BP.
References
Bosil, J., Giaglis, G., & Hlupic, V. (2000). IDEF diagrams and petri nets for business process modelling. In
Proceedings of the 2000 winter simulation conference (pp. 16761683).
Feldmann C. G. (1998). The practical guide to business process reengineering using IDEF0. Dorset House
Publishing, New York.
Godwin, A., Gleeson, J. and Gwillian, D. (1989). An assessment of the IDEF notations as descriptive tools.
Information Systems, 14 (1), 13-28.
Hernandez-Matias, J., Vizan, A., Hidalgo, A., Rios, J. (2006). Evaluation of techniques for manufacturing process
analysis. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 17 (5), 571-583
IDEF0 (1993.) Integration Definition for Function Modelling. FIPS Publication 183. National Institute of Standards
and Technology.
J. Mendling (2007). Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPC Business Process Models. Doctoral Thesis, Vienna
University of Economics and Business Administration. Vienna, Austria.
Kalnins, A. (2004). Business modeling, Languages and tools. - Progress in Industrial Mathematics. Proceedings of
the 13th European Conference on Mathematics for Industry (ECMI). Springer: Berlin, 41-52.
Kalnins, A., Barzdins, J. and Podnieks, K. (2000). Modeling Languages and Tools: State of the Art. Proceedings of
the 2nd International Conference on Simulation, Gaming, Training and Business Process Reengineering. Riga.
211-214.
Karpe, Y. S. (2006). Weave-Room Performance Decision-Making Process In Textiles: Mapping An Information
Engineering Methodology, Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, North Carolina State University
Liu, W. and Fang, K. (2006). Using IDEF0/Petri net for Ontology-Based Task Knowledge Analysis. The Case of
Emergency Response for Debris-Flow. Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences.
Ma, Z., Zhang,W. and Ma, W. (2002). Extending IDEF1X to model fuzzy data. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing.
13, 295307.
Marca, D. A. and McGowan, C. L. (1987). SADT: Structured Analysis and Design Technique. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Mayer, R.J. (1992). IDEF0 function modeling. A reconstruction of the original Air Force Wright Aeronautical
Laboratory Technical Report.
114

International Journal of Business and Management

May, 2008

Metasoftware. (2007). Workflow Modeler Users Guide. [Online] Available: http:// www.metasoftware.com (May
2007).
Presley, A. and D. Liles (1995). The Use of IDEF0 for the Design and Specification of Methodologies.
Proceedings of the 4th Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Nashville.
Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P. (2006). Business Process Modeling: A Maturing Discipline?
BPM Center Report, No. BPM-06-20. [Online] Available http://www.BPMCenter.org (May, 2007).
Roger, K.J., Whitman, L., Underdown, R. (1998). The Enterprise Integration issues Encountered with Agile Process
Introduction. [Online] Available http://arri.uta.edu/eif/rogersfaim98.pdf (May 2007)
Ross, D. T. (1985). Applications and extensions of SADT. Computer. 4, 25-34
Tsironis, L., Anastasiou, K. and Moustakis, V. (2007). A framework for BPML assessment and improvement: a case
study using IDEF0 and eEPC, Business Process Management Journal (Submitted).

AUTHOR: A.Gentsos
PROJECT: PMS

USED AT:

DATE: 15/3/2007
REV:

NOTES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

READER

WORKING
DRAFT
RECOMMENDED
PUBLICATION

C1 Job Comletion
Requests

C2
Approval Seal

DATE

CONT EXT :

Quality
Standars Manual

Job Status

I1

Outoing Part

Work Kit

O1

Job Completion
Estimates

Manage
Job

Blueprint

O2

A1

Job Plans
Foreman
Raw Materials
& Unfinished Parts
I2

Complete
Work
Kit

Machines & Tools

Finished or
Unfinished
Job

A2

Approved But
Unfinished
Job

Mechanist
Approved
Job

Tagget Part

Scrap
Matls

Inspect
Job
A3

Rejected Job

Machine Shop
Personel

NODE:

A0

Inspector
M1

TITLE:

Built Special Part

NUMBER:

P. 2

Figure 1. The A0 diagram of the model

115

Vol. 3, No. 5

International Journal of Business and Management

Figure 2. Transformation of A3 diagram

Figure 3. Part of the A23 diagram, depicted the delays operator

116

International Journal of Business and Management

May, 2008

4a

4b

Figure 4. Parts of A24 and A23 diagrams presenting

the discrimination of parallel and non-parallel processes

PUBLICATION
C1 Job Comletion
Requests

Approval Seal 2

C2

Quality
Standars Manual

Job Status

I1

Outoing Part

Work Kit

Manage
Job

Job Completion
Estimates

O1

Blueprint

O2

A1

Job Plans
Foreman

Raw Materials

Complete
Work
Kit

I2
I3

Machines & Tools

A2

Finished or
Unfinished
Job

Mechanist

Approval Seal

Approved
Job 2

Send
a Ready
Part

Inspect
Job

A4

A3

Approved
Job

Rejected Job

Machine Shop
Personel

NODE:

A0

Inspector
M1

TITLE:

Built Special Part

NUMBER:

P. 2

Figure 5. The A0 diagram remarks the 3 design stages

117

International Journal of Business and Management

Vol. 3, No. 5
Job Plans
C1

COND=Var=0
First Check

Choose

O2
Finished or
Unfinished
Job

COND=Var=1
Parts

A26

Job Status

Evaluate
Job
Progress

O1

Next Job Order Step

A21

Notes

Rejected Job

STC=Raw_Materials

I1
Machning Results

Machines & Tools

A24

Blueprint
And
Notes

Tool Crib

Pick
Tool

I2

SZ=3
Selected
Tools

A22

Machine
And
Assemble

Ready
Machine
Place
OL=Var2=0

Machines On The Floor

Setup
Machining
Place

Sz=3

Use
Machine
Place

A23

A25

M1
Mechanist

NODE:

A2

TITLE:

NUMBER:

Complete Work Kit

P. 4

Figure 6. The A2 diagram depicts the appearance of the carrying information on the arrows
Table 1. The proposed logical operators and their notion
Logical Operator

118

Label

Description

AND

Both of preceding and following

arrows, triggered.

XOR

One of the preceding or

following arrows will trigger.

DELAY

If the particular arrow triggered,

then the process will concern
under delay.

PARALLEL

The arrows that gathered to the

operator came from parallel
processes.

NON-PARALLEL

The information that comes

from the arrow that reach the
operator first is admitted to pass
first.