a simulated error matched to the respective agent to be tested is generated in step 1 of the method shown in fig1 and is automatically sent to the respective associated agent at predetermined time intervals that can be cyclically or non - cyclically predetermined . in step 2 it is evaluated and protocolled whether the sent error is detected by the agent and thus categorized and communicated as an error by the agent . if the result is positive ( thus if the error is detected ), in step 3 the agent communicates the error to the associated evaluation module . from this the conclusion is drawn in step 4 that the agent operates without error and as provided by the system . furthermore , in step 5 the check ensues as to whether the error detected by the agent is a simulated error that exclusively applies to the testing of the functionality of the agent and therefore is to be ignored by the evaluation module insofar as that no further measures are required ( in particular no communication to the system management has to ensue , as shown in step 6 ) or whether it is an actual error that requires an associated error relaying and the introduction of further measures . if the test in step 5 indicates that it is not a simulated error deliberately generated to test the functionality of the agent , in step 7 a corresponding message is transmitted to the system management . each of the steps 5 through 7 contains the information that the agent operates without error . therefore , a further measure by the system management as pertains to the agent is not provided in this region of the workflow . the step 1 is then repeated at predetermined time intervals . if the result of the evaluation in step 2 is negative , thus if a simulated error sent to the agent is not detected by this and no corresponding message from the agent to an employed monitoring module ensues , in step 8 a communication is automatically generated and sent to the system management as a direct consequence of the absence of the error message on the part of the tested agent . this communication comprises the information that the agent exhibits functional deficiencies , thus operates incorrectly . in step 9 an evaluation of the number of the automatically generated error messages regarding the operation of the agent ( thus function failures ) ensues . if their number lies in the range between one error message ( thus one failure of the agent ) and three failures , in a step 10 the agent is restarted via the system management , whereby the restart can comprise a preceding shutdown and / or a resetting of the settings to the default values . after an occurred restart , the agent is again involved in the automatic monitoring routine ; the monitoring process of the agent for functionality thus restarts with a repetition as of step 1 . if the evaluation of the failures of the agent in step 9 yields an error count greater than three , an automatic communication in this regard to the system administrator ensues in step 11 as a superordinate instance of the system management . the necessary consequence of a multiple breakdown of the agent detected in step 9 , the replacement of the appertaining agent , ensues at the direction of the system administrator in step 12 . after replacement of the agent , the new agent is integrated into the monitoring routine that begins in step 1 with the automatic generation and sending of a simulated error matched to the agent to be tested . fig2 shows the organization structure of the edp system that that is monitored by the described method . a monitoring unit 20 generates a simulated error dependent on a number of specifications of an agent 22 and sends this to the associated agent 22 . the monitoring unit has a suitable transmission module ( not shown here ). in the positive case the receiver of the simulated error ( the agent 22 ) detects the error and sends a corresponding communication to a reception module ( likewise not shown here ) in the monitoring unit 20 . the agent 22 proceeds in the same way with a detected actual error , which it communicates to the reception module of the monitoring unit 20 due to the monitoring of the functional entity 24 . the reception module internally relays the communication of the agent 22 to an evaluation module 26 , wherein the evaluation module 26 makes the decision of whether the cause for the error message sent by the agent 22 is a simulated error or an actual error of one of the functional entities 24 . if it is a simulated error , the evaluated module 26 exclusively detects a correctly operating agent 22 and introduces no further measures . however , if it is an actual error that is detected by the evaluation module 26 based on the error message of the agent 22 monitoring the process 24 , the evaluation module 26 relays this error message to the system management 28 via the monitoring unit 20 superordinate thereto . this system management 28 introduces further measures for error correction and / or for the further process workflow . if a simulated error is sent from the monitoring unit 20 to the agent 22 via the transmission module and the expected reaction of the agent 22 does not appear at the reception module , a communication to the evaluation module 26 about the non - occurred reaction of the agent 22 ensues . the consequence ensuing from this is a restart of the appertaining agent 22 or , as of a number of more than three failures of the agent 22 , a communication to the system administrator 30 , who decides about a replacement of the agent 22 based on the present information . the reaction of an agent that reacts without error and detects and correctly processes a simulated error is shown in fig3 : the error simulator 32 sends a simulated error 300 to the agent 22 as well as an identification file 301 associated with the error to the monitoring unit 20 . after receipt of the simulated error 300 , the agent 22 reports back a corresponding message 302 to the evaluation module 26 of the monitoring unit 20 . a timer 34 serves to monitor the temporal progression 303 of the testing from the generation and sending of the simulated error 300 up to the communication of the agent 22 via the receipt of the simulated error 300 at the monitoring unit 20 over a predetermined time window . the expected reaction , containing the recognition gained from this of the conclusion that the agent 22 operates without error , ensues within a predetermined time window . in the error association 304 it is checked using a stored encoding of the error whether the error communicated in the step 302 is an actual or a simulated error . this occurs in the monitoring unit 20 by a comparison of the code in the step 302 with the previously sent identification file 301 . in the workflow presented here , the message about the receipt of an error coincides with the identification file 301 , such that the command to erase 305 the error message 300 and the further system - internal information connected with this and / or a resetting of the agent 22 to a default setting is enacted by the evaluation module 26 of the monitoring unit 20 . a communication of the error 300 to the system management 28 is not necessary and also does not ensue since it is not an actual error and no further measures are to be introduced . fig4 shows the workflow of the process given a malfunction of the agent 22 . here as well as a simulated error is sent from the error simulator 32 to the agent and an identification file 301 associated with the simulated error is sent to the monitoring unit 20 . the timer 34 monitors the temporal workflow 303 of the process , which timer 34 here registers a temporal overrun in the workflow shown here , thus an overrun of the time span predetermined for the expected response of the agent 22 . a corresponding message about this result of the temporal progression is sent to the monitoring unit 20 . in a step 305 , the monitoring unit 20 then sends a command to erase the error message 300 and the further system - internal information connected with this and / or of a resetting of the agent 22 to a default setting , as well as a status report 307 to the system management 28 with the determination that the agent 22 is not reacting as expected . a predetermined reaction of the system management 28 thereupon ensues , which reaction can set in motion further measures , to which belong a restart of the agent 22 in a first step as well as , as of an error count greater than three ( thus multiple passes of the testing method with the same negative result ), a corresponding message to the system administrator ( not shown here ). fig5 shows the eradication of an actual error in the system . the error simulation 32 here generates no error . the agent 22 detects an error during its observation and monitoring of a process and reports this error to the monitoring unit 20 in a step 302 . the monitoring unit 20 initiates the next step provides for this case . in this step ( the error association 304 ), using a stored encoding of the error it is checked whether the error communicated in the error detection and communication 302 is an actual error or a simulated error . this occurs in the monitoring unit 20 via a comparison of the code in the step 302 with the data stored for error types . if the monitoring unit 20 recognizes an actual error via this comparison , a corresponding error message 308 to the system management 28 ensues , such that from there further measures can be set in motion . although modifications and changes may be suggested by those skilled in the art , it is the intention of the inventor to embody within the patent warranted hereon all changes and modifications as reasonably and properly come within the scope of his contribution to the art .