1. David Chen IMS-LAPS University Bordeaux 1, France
BARRIERS DRIVEN METHODOLOGY FOR ENTERPRISE INTEROPERABILITY
David Chen
IMS-LAPS
University Bordeaux 1, France
Developed within the frame of ATHENA Integrated Project and INTEROP NoE
Existing methodologies focus on enterprise integration (ex: GRAI, CIMOSA, PERA, ARIS,…)

2. Developing Methodology : motivations & objectives
Lack 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
Objectives
To 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

3. Enterprise interoperability
Definition
Ex. ERP, SCM, PLM, Virtual 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)
application domain
Requirements,
Generic concepts,
experiences,
principles, solutions
validations
and methodology
Ex. Concepts, metrics,
Interoperability
models, framework
research domain
- 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)

4. Basic Concepts 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
ENTERPRISE A
ENTERPRISE B
INTEGRATED
UNIFIED
FEDERATED
APPROACHES
CONCEPTUEL
TECHNOLOGICAL
ORGANISATIONAL
BARRIERS
BUSINESS
PROCESS
SERVICE
DATA
METHODOLOGY
ENABLING TOOLS
INFRASTRUCTURE
SOLUTIONS

5. Interoperability ontology
(Naudet, 2007)

6. Components of the methodology

7. 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.
Interoperability
barriers
Interoperability concerns
approaches

8. Interoperability knowledge/solution
Template description

9. Interoperability measurement
EIMM vs EIDM
Critical
Maturity model
+++ ++ +
Considerable
Weak -
None
concerns
CONCEPTUAL
TECHNOLOGICAL
ORGANISATIONAL
BUSINESS
PROCESS
SERVICE
DATA
Company A
+++ ++ + -
Company B
Iop
Interoperability
compatibility
measurement
(EIDM)
Interoperability
potential
Measurement
(EIMM)
Compatibility matrix
Company A
Company B
+++ + - ++
Interoperability
performance
measurement
(EIDM)
Performance measures

10. Structured approach
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)
Definition of
objectives and needs
Existing system
analysis
Select and combine
solutions
Implementation
and test
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

11. Structured groups /meetings
Project board
Define objectives
Guide the study
Assess solutions
Interviewees
(provide information)
Group of specialists
To 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
Implementation/test
Interviews
Project
board t
Specialist
group
Existing system Analysis
Select/combine solutions
(1)
Synthesis
Adopted from GRAI methodology

12. ATHENA A8 Scenario: Carrier-Shipper
1. Definition of objectives and needs
Carrier A
Shipper
Carrier B
Who is responsible?
How is the process configured?
Which applications?
What’s the data structure?
Sales Order
Calculate Rate
Delivery
Calculate Rate
Picking
Generate Routing
Code
Generate Routing
Code
Packing
Generate Label
Generate Label
Shipment
[Provided by SAP for ATHENA A8]

13. Existing System Analysis – EIMM & EIDM
Questionnaire
EIMM
uses
Capability matrix
Conceptual
Technological
Organizational
Business
MPCE
Process
BPEL
Services
Data
EXPRESS
to obtain
Shipper

14. Existing System Analysis Detecting barriers
FedEx
Conceptual
Technological
Organizational
Business
Proprietary
Process
Services
Data
FedEx Xml description
+++ ++ +
Critical
Considerable
Weak
None - - + ++
+++
Shipper
Conceptual
Technological
Organizational
Business
Proprietary
Process
BPEL
Services
Data
Express document

15. Carrier-Shipper Scenario Barriers

16. Interoperability knowledge/solutions repository

17. Select / Combine solutions
Template: Data exchange barrier
Template elements
Description
Interoperability concerns
Data
Interoperability barriers
Conceptual barrier - Incompatible syntactic and semantic representation of data at each interacting partner
Interoperability problem
Different models adopted by the companies makes data exchange difficult as enterprises cannot exchange their data automatically
ATHENA 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

18. 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