"To integrate is noble, to succeed - divine!"

Integration Challenge Panel Chris Brown, Senior Systems Analyst, Hewitt Associates Dana Freeman, President and CEO, HRchitect, Inc. Brad Harris, Founder, Modulelink

“Integration Challenge Panel”, April 28, 2003 Chris Brown, Senior Systems Analyst, Hewitt Associates

Benefits Outsourcing Overview §Client outsources some/all of 401(k), pension, healthcare administration §Client owns demographic and payroll data §We accept and apply changes (“elections”) based on user request (e.g. birth of child) and client data (e.g. change to part-time status) §We drive external systems based on elections (e.g. tell a carrier/HMO to cover the child, tell payroll to change payroll deductions)

Current Architecture §Classic 3-tier model, built around batch interfaces l Big Iron, Mainframes z/OS servers in a 3-way sysplex Employment, pay, benefits history for 13 million participants stored in DB2 l Our application is Object-Oriented COBOL frontable by Java l Re-architecting not an option

Problem: Latency § Inherent latency, typically up to two weeks for message to get from HRIS to carrier §Bad customer experience!

Reducing Latency §Obviously can reduce latency by moving away from huge weekly batch files toward transaction-based messages §But what should messages contain? §Need to be able to apply changes to 250+ client HR and payroll and 500+ carriers

Solution: HR-XML §Data model is good enough and platform- neutral §Easy to fit in existing architecture l MQSeries & homegrown Java handlers l Web Services & J2EE implementation l Even batch mode on z/OS (390 mainframe) §Using XSL to transform HR-XML to our “native” transaction layout

Questions?

“Integration Challenge Panel”, April 28, 2003 Dana Freeman, President and CEO, HRchitect, Inc.

Software Vendor Challenges Developing custom point to point integration solutions to multiple complementary software vendors is risky and expensive R&D budget is spent on developing, certifying and maintaining custom integration instead of enhancing the core product Only the complementary vendors with the highest ROI (impact on sales revenue) can be justified

Software Vendor Challenges Formal alliance partnerships are normally required to develop, certify and maintain the integration If complementary vendors begin to offer competitive products, alliance partnerships break down and ongoing maintenance of the integration becomes a challenge Joint customers get caught in the middle and customer satisfaction may be impacted

HR-XML Software Vendor Value Proposition Invest in integrating to one HR-XML standard to support multiple complementary software vendors Maintain ongoing integration commitments and keep your customers satisfied even when alliance partners become competitors Lots of complementary software partners increases the HR-XML value proposition Transactions requiring real-time integration (HTTPS) make HR-XML more attractive

Customer Challenges Developing custom point to point integration solutions between complementary software vendors requires specialized skills and is expensive IT budget is spent on developing, testing and maintaining custom integration instead of new IT initiatives with greater ROI Freedom of Choice - vendor supported integration is only available for a limited number of complementary software vendors If vendor alliance partnerships break down, the customer ends up owning the ongoing maintenance of the integration

HR-XML Customer Value Proposition Shifts the integration development and maintenance responsibility to the software vendors Freedom of Choice – select from a wider variety of complementary software vendors Risk Mitigation – vendors are more likely to continue supporting the integration even if they become competitors Leverage HR-XML specifications to exchange data with custom developed in-house applications

HR-XML Background Checking Specification Example

HR-XML Adoption Challenges Software vendors must support the specifications Legacy products do not support XML New generation products do support XML Integration tool kits including middleware i.e. webMethods, Vitria etc. XML and other enabling technologies are “wet cement” Customers need to adopt XML and a real-time integration approach Legacy systems do not support XML Batch/FTP is often still the preferred approach XML overhead and processing efficiency

Questions?

“Integration Challenge Panel”, April 28, 2003 Brad Harris, Founder, Modulelink