david chen ims-laps university bordeaux 1, france barriers driven methodology for enterprise...
TRANSCRIPT
David Chen
IMS-LAPS
University Bordeaux 1, France
BARRIERS DRIVEN METHODOLOGY FOR ENTERPRISE INTEROPERABILITY
Developing Methodology :motivations & objectives
MotivationsLack of methodological support to implement enterprise interoperability
Existing methodologies are not well adapted to handle interoperability issues
Need to develop a methodology independent from any application and technology
ObjectivesTo define a structured approach in a step by step manner
To allow selecting and composing available interoperability solutions and tools according to identified requirements
To identify and involve various actors of studied enterprise and specialists
To allow measuring the “interoperability degree” between parties
To develop methodology
• Guide the implementation of the interoperability• Avoid hazardous approaches (reduce time and cost to implement)• Capitalize good practices and solutions
Enterprise interoperability
- Interoperability: the ability for two (or more) systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged (IEEE)
Definition Interoperability application domain
Interoperabilityresearch domain
Ex. ERP, SCM, PLM, Virtual enterprise,…
Ex. Concepts, metrics, models, framework
Generic concepts, principles, solutions and methodology
Requirements, experiences, validations
- Enterprise interoperability: the ability of interaction between enterprise systems. It is considered as significant if the interactions can take place at least at the three different levels: data, services and process, with a semantics defined in a given business context (IDEAS)
Basic Concepts
METHODOLOGY
ENABLING T
OOLS
INFRASTRUCTURE
SOLUTIONS
ENTERPRISE A
BUSINESS
PROCESS
SERVICE
DATA
BUSINESS
PROCESS
SERVICE
DATA
ENTERPRISE B
INTEGRATED
UNIFIED
FEDERATED
APPROACHES
CO
NC
EP
TU
EL
TE
CH
NO
LO
GIC
AL
OR
GA
NIS
AT
ION
AL
BARRIERS
Hypothesis and Research:
- Enterprises are not interoperable because there exist barriers to interoperability- Barriers are incompatibilities of various kinds at the various enterprise levels- Identify common barriers to interoperability and solutions to remove barriers
Components of the methodology
Structured procedure Interoperability MeasurementStructured groups/meetings
Definition ofobjectives and needs
Existing systemanalysis
Select and combinesolutions
Implementationand test
Definition ofobjectives and needs
Existing systemanalysis
Existing systemanalysis
Select and combinesolutions
Select and combinesolutions
Implementationand test
Implementationand test
Solutions and
existing tools
InteroperabilityFramework
EnterpriseInteroperabilityMaturity Model
(EIMM)
EnterpriseInteroperability
DegreeMeasurement
Structured procedure Interoperability MeasurementStructured groups/meetings
Definition ofobjectives and needs
Existing systemanalysis
Select and combinesolutions
Implementationand test
Definition ofobjectives and needs
Existing systemanalysis
Existing systemanalysis
Select and combinesolutions
Select and combinesolutions
Implementationand test
Implementationand test
Solutions and
existing tools
InteroperabilityFramework
EnterpriseInteroperabilityMaturity Model
(EIMM)
EnterpriseInteroperability
DegreeMeasurement
Interoperability Framework
Three basic dimensions:
- Interoperability concerns (represent interoperability aspects between two enterprises)
Business, Process, Service, Data.
- Interoperability barriers (represent incompatibilities between two enterprises)
Conceptual (syntax & semantic), Technological (platform & software), Organizational (authority/responsibility & organization).
- Interoperability approaches (represent the ways in which the barriers are removed)
Integrated, Unified, Federated.
Interoperabilitybarriers
Inte
rop
erab
ility
co
nce
rns
Inte
roper
abili
ty
appro
aches
Interoperability knowledge/solution
1. Interoperability concern Process level2. Interoperability barrier Conceptual (Syntax and sematics)3. Interoperability approach Unified approach
4. Interoperability problemdifferent process models use different process languges and are not interoperable
5. Interoperability knowledge
Define a neutral Process Specification Language (PSL) and related ontology as a metamodel to allow mapping between different process models
6. Example (optional)
7. RemarksInitially proposed by NIST, now moved to standardisation at ISO level
8. References
ISO CD 18629 (2001), Industrial automation systems and integration, Process Specification Language (PSL), JW8/ISO 184/SC4/SC5
Interoperability knowledge/solution templateName of the knowledge/solution: PSL
Template description
Interoperability measurement
Company A Company B
concernsCONCEPTUAL TECHNOLOGICAL ORGANISATIONAL
BUSINESS
PROCESS
SERVICE
DATA
Company ACONCEPTUAL TECHNOLOGICAL ORGANISATIONAL
BUSINESS
PROCESS
SERVICE
DATA
+++
+++
+++
+++ ++
++
++
+ +
-
-
-
BUSINESS
PROCESS
SERVICE
DATA
BUSINESS
PROCESS
SERVICE
DATA
Company B
concernsIopIop
++++
+-++
-
Maturity model
Interoperabilitycompatibilitymeasurement(EIDM)
Interoperabilityperformancemeasurement(EIDM)
Interoperability potentialMeasurement(EIMM) Compatibility matrix
Performance measures
+++ +++
Critical
WeakNone-
Considerable
EIMM vs EIDM
Definition ofobjectives and needs
Existing systemanalysis
Select and combinesolutions
Implementationand test
• Define objectives of Io and performance targeted; evaluate the feasibility and cost; project planning• Define needs of Io in terms of the levels of the enter--prise and approach (integrated, unified, federated)
• Identify actors, applications and systems involved in interoperation• Detect barriers and problems to Io, measure existing Io degree, analyze strong and weak points
• Search and select available Io solution elements using the interoperability framework• Combine and construct a company specific Io solution
• Implement and test the Io solution; perform a performance measure• Training company staff
Structured approach
Structured groups /meetings
Implementation/test
Interviews
Project board
t
Specialist
group
Existing system Analysis Select/combine solutions
(1)Synthesis
group
Project board
Define objectives Guide the study Assess solutions
Interviewees
(provide information)
Group of specialistsTo propose
To analyze & to validate
To provide information
To validate
Synthesis group
Main responsible people of the company
Perform the study and search for solution
Adopted from GRAI methodology
ATHENA A8 Scenario: Carrier-Shipper
Shipper
Sales OrderSales Order
DeliveryDelivery
PickingPicking
PackingPacking
ShipmentShipment
Carrier A
Calculate RateCalculate Rate
Generate RoutingCode
Generate RoutingCode
Generate LabelGenerate Label
Carrier B
Calculate RateCalculate Rate
Generate Routing Code
Generate Routing Code
Generate LabelGenerate Label
Who is responsible?
How is the process configured?
Which applications?
What’s the data structure?
1. Definition of objectives and needs
[Provided by SAP for ATHENA A8]
uses
QuestionnaireEIMM
Conceptual Technological Organizational
Business MPCE
Process BPEL
Services
Data EXPRESS
to obtain
Capability matrix
Existing System Analysis – EIMM & EIDM
Shipper
Existing System AnalysisDetecting barriers
Conceptual Technological
Organizational
Business Proprietary
Process
Services
Data FedEx Xml description
Conceptual Technological
Organizational
Business Proprietary
Process BPEL
Services
Data Express document
+++ +++
Critical
Considerable
WeakNone-
© ATHENA Consortium 2006 4
ATHENA A8 /2006
barriers
levels CONCEPTUAL TECHNOLOGICAL ORGANISATIONAL
BUSINESS
PROCESS
SERVICE
DATA
-
-
-
-
-
+ -
-
-
-
++
+++
FedEx
Shipper
Template elements Description
Interoperability concerns DataInteroperability barriers Conceptual barrier - Incompatible syntactic and semantic representation
of data at each interacting partnerInteroperability problem Different models adopted by the companies makes data exchange
difficult as enterprises cannot exchange their data automaticallyATHENA solution identified - Conceptual solutions: Annotation of proprietary models according to
common ontology to allow data reconciliation- Technical solutions: A3 tools, WSDL Analyzer
Outcome of ATHENA results evaluation – Relevance to SMEs
- Adoption of the common generic ontology reflecting the business domain
- The WSDL Analyzer detects mismatches between data a service expects and provides
- Relevant for SME which receive required interfaces of big companies which expect that their smaller business partners adapt to their interfaces
Select / Combine solutions
Template: Data exchange barrier
© ATHENA Consortium 2006 4
ATHENA A8 /2006
barriers
levels CONCEPTUAL TECHNOLOGICAL ORGANISATIONAL
BUSINESS
PROCESS
SERVICE
DATA
-
-
-
-
-
+ -
-
-
-
++
+++
© ATHENA Consortium 2006 4
ATHENA A8 /2006
barriers
levels CONCEPTUAL TECHNOLOGICAL ORGANISATIONAL
BUSINESS
PROCESS
SERVICE
DATA
-
-
-
-
-
+ -
-
-
-
++
+++
Conclusions
Incompatibility is the fundamental concept used in defining the interoperability domain
Broad sense, not limited to ‘technical’ aspect but also ‘business’, ‘organization’, and concerns all levels of the enterprise
generic characteristic of the interoperability research, regardless of the content of information exchanged between two systems
Generic methodology, structured approach supported by Iop framework and Iop measurements, and Iop knowledge repository