Developing or improving enterprise interoperability implies that the degree of interoperability can be measured, and causes identified and analysed. This paper aims at presenting an enterprise interoperability measurement approach developed within the frame of the two main European IST projects in this field: INTEROP NoE and ATHENA IP. Having given the basic concepts on enterprise interoperability, the paper focuses on presenting three kinds of enterprise interoperability measurements: interoperability potentiality, interoperability compatibility and interoperability performance. Future works and perspective are discussed as part of conclusion.
Interoperability is still a vague concept and has many definitions and connotations to
different people in different sectors and domains. Starting from a pure software
problem in the middle of 90’s, interoperability is taking on a wider meaning to cover
the many knowledge spaces, dimensions and layers of single and collaborating
enterprise. Since a decade, although some efforts have been made to develop
enterprise interoperability, especially in Europe [
This paper is concerned with the research undertaken within INTEROP NoE and ATHENA IP during the period of 2003-2007. The objective is to present enterprise interoperability measurement concepts and principles. After having given basic concepts on enterprise interoperability in section 2, the paper discusses in detail in section 3 the three basic interoperability measurements (potentiality, compatibility and performance). The three measurements proposed are consistent to and built on the conceptual interoperability framework presented in section 2. An illustration example is outlined in section 4 to show how to identify interoperability barriers through an interoperability compatibility measure. Future works are given as part of conclusion at the end of the paper. It is to note that the approach proposed in the paper should be considered as a basis. Detailed and operational methodology still needs to be developed to guide users to carry out these measurements.
Generally speaking, interoperability is the capability for two (or more) systems to
exchange information [
Three categories of barriers (conceptual, technological and organisational) are
identified as follows [
This section defines the interoperations that can take place in the various areas of
concerns of the enterprise [
According to ISO 14258 (Concepts and rules for enterprise models), there are three
basic ways to relate entities together to establish interoperations [
Fig. 1 describes formally the basic concepts defined above and their relationships.
Business Process Service Data
Interoperability knowledge
provides Solution
uses Interoperability
approach concerns Interoperability concern
removes Interoperability
barrier Integrated
Unified
Federated
Fig. 1. Basic concepts of enterprise interoperability [
Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS 2008
The fact that interoperability can be improved means that metrics for measuring
interoperability can be defined. Measuring interoperability allows a company
knowing its strengths and weaknesses to interoperate and to prioritize actions to
improve the interoperability. Current state-of-the-art focuses on solving some specific
interoperability problems at technological level; few researches have been done to
deal with interoperability measuring problem. Existing approaches mainly focus on
maturity measure issues [
The interoperability potentiality is concerned with a set of characteristics that have impact on the ability to interoperate with a third partner. The objective of this measure is to evaluate the potential of a system to accommodate dynamically to overcome possible barriers when interacting with a partner.
We define the potentiality as the fact that an enterprise possesses intrinsic attributes related to interoperability, which make it easier to interoperate with other enterprises, in the eventuality of a partnership. In other words, potentiality is an intraenterprise evaluation without the need to know the interoperating partner. The main goal is to increase the capability of interoperation and decrease the risk to meet problems during a partnership. Generally speaking, through this measure the potentiality for an enterprise to interoperate with a unknown partner can be accessed, such as for example, the use of standards, the flexibility of its organization, the openness of its ICT infrastructure, the existence of its enterprise models, etc.
Today few methods are developed for measuring interoperability potentiality.
Existing approaches mainly focus on maturity measure, for examples the LISI (Levels
of Information Systems Interoperability) proposed a maturity model for measuring
interoperability in five levels of maturity [
The proposed enterprise interoperability potentiality model concerns the
evaluation of an enterprise according to the three categories of barriers that impact the
development of interoperability, and the four areas of concern where interoperability
takes place, i.e. business, processes, services and data. For each category of barriers
and each concern, five levels are defined to characterize the potentiality [
Fig. 2 gives interoperability maturity model illustrated at the business level.
Business
Conceptual potentiality
Organizational potentiality
Technological potentiality Isolated, Initial, Executable, Connectable, Interoperable
Isolated, Initial, Executable, Connectable, Interoperable
Isolated, Initial, Executable Connectable, Interoperable It is to note that the maximum potentiality does not imply full interoperability. Indeed, the use of standard tools by an enterprise does not ensure that a partner will use the same ones. Hence, problems of interoperability can still appear. The interoperability compatibility measurement has to be performed during the engineering stage i.e. when systems are re-engineered in order to establish interoperability. In contrary to interoperability potentiality measure, the interoperability compatibility measure can only be performed when the two partner/system of the interoperation is known. The measure is done with respect to the identified barriers to interoperability. The highest compatibility means there is no barrier to interoperability. The inverse situation means the poorest compatibility for interoperability.
As an example, Fig. 3 shows an illustration of barriers identified at the moment when company A and company B wish to establish interoperability. In the figure, ‘+++’ means that there exist an important barrier between the two enterprises, ‘+’ means weak barrier, ‘++’ is in between, and ‘-‘ means that there is no barrier.
Company A Company B Company A Iop concerns
CONCEPTUAL TECHNOLOGICAL ORGANISATIONAL CompcaonnyceIBorpns BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICE DATA +++ +++ + ++ ++ ++ +++ +++ +
BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICE
DATA Identifying interoperability barriers is only concerned with those ‘things’ that need to be shared and exchanged between two systems/companies. Interoperability requires a common basis for those elements. Typically, not all of the information managed by two systems is shared. Therefore, interoperability requires identifying the shared elements and possible barriers between these elements.
The compatibility measure can be performed with the help of a questionnaire. For example, regarding the three categories of interoperability barriers, following questions can be asked:
Conceptual compatibility: Syntactic: is the information to be exchanged expressed with the same syntax? Semantic: does the information to be exchanged have the same meaning?
Organizational compatibility: Persons: are authorities/responsibilities clearly defined at both sides? Organization: are the organization structures compatible?
Technological compatibility: Platform: are the IT platform technologies compatible? Communications: do the partners use the same protocols of exchange?
The measure can also be valued. If an incompatibility is detected, the coefficient 1 is assigned to the interoperability concern and the barrier that are considered. Conversely, the coefficient 0 will be given when none incompatibilities is detected. Following this rule, the compatibility matrix (Fig. 4) can be built.
Barriers
Conceptual
Organizational
Technology Concerns
Business Processes Services
Data syntactic semantic
authorities responsibilities organization platform communication 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 The performance measurement is to be done during the test or operation phase of two interoperate enterprises. Criteria such as cost, delay and quality can be used to measure the operational performance. Each kind of measurement can be evaluated with local coefficients in order to get a global coefficient ranging from “poor interoperability” to “good interoperability”.
The time of interoperation corresponds to the duration between the date when information is requested and the date when the requested information is used. The time of interoperation can be decomposed in several periods of time. Fig. 5 proposes a decomposition of the time of interoperation (adapted from Kasunic [11]). The request time represents the duration between the date when a request is sent and the date when the request is received by the partner. The treatment time of the request corresponds to the time to treat the request. The return time corresponds to the duration between the date when the requested information is sent back and the date when the information is received. The time to use represents duration of latency, i.e. the duration between the date when the information is received and the date when the information is exploited.
Thus, the real value of the time of interoperation can be defined as the sum of all
the periods of time composing this one. This real value can be noted as follow [
The assessment of the time of interoperation corresponds to the comparison between the real value of the time of interoperation and the time expected by the partners. If the time measured is longer than expected, then there is a deficiency in terms of time of interoperation.
The quality of interoperation takes in consideration three kinds of quality: (1) the quality of exchange, (2) the quality of use and, (3) the quality of conformity.
The quality of exchange draws up if the exchange is correctly performed i.e. if
information sent to a partner succeeds. The quality of use represents the number of
information received by a partner in comparison with the number of information
requested. A number of information received superior (difficulty to teat all
information) or minor (shortage of information) to the number of information
requested means a deficiency. The quality of conformity corresponds to the
exploitation of the information i.e. if the information received is exploitable or not.
Thus the quality of interoperation can be defined as the sum of the three kinds of
quality. The quality of interoperation can be noted as follow [
in q = Δq + Δq ex ut + Δq conf Where: • qin, the quality of interoperation • Δqex, the quality of exchange • |Δqut|, the absolute value of use • Δqconf, the quality of conformity
The assessment of the quality of interoperation corresponds to the comparison between the real value of the quality of interoperation and the quality expected by the partners. A difference means a deficiency in terms of quality of interoperation.
The cost of interoperation is defined by the costs induced by the removing of the
barriers and the modification of the systems to obtain a satisfying time and quality of
interoperation. It is defined as [
C in = C ex + C ut Where: • Cin, the cost of interoperation • Cex, the cost of exchange, i.e. the cost to exchange information • Cut, the cost needed to make the information exchanged usable
The assessment of the cost of interoperation corresponds to the comparison between the real value of the cost of interoperation and the cost expected by the partners. If the cost measured is higher than the expected cost, it means a deficiency in terms of cost of interoperation.
This section presents an illustration example based on a Carrier-Shipper Scenario to
show the use of the compatibility measure to detect possible interoperability barriers.
The case was provided by SAP and used in ATHENA A8 project [
Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS 2008 9 Carrier A
Shipper
Carrier B Caalculate Rate Generrate Routing
Code Generate Label
Sales Orrder Delivery Picking Packing Shhiipment
CCalculateRRate Generate Routing
Cooddee
Generate Label To analyze existing situation and identify possible barriers between the three companies, interoperability compatibility measure has been performed.
Fig. 7 shows an illustration example of the measure. Tools and methods used in two companies in the four areas of interoperability concerns were identified and compared, and their compatibilities assessed. For example, different data models/formats with different semantics are used by the two companies, resulting in important conceptual barriers at data level. A template was developed in the project to document more in detail the barriers encountered and potential solutions that may be used to overcome the barriers. An example of this template is shown table 1.
The proposed work is related to existing researches in the following ways:
Existing works [11], [
The proposed potentiality measure model allows extending the LISI maturity model (dedicated to information systems) to cover the four areas of enterprise interoperability concerns (data, service, process, business) and three categories of interoperability barriers (conceptual, technological, organizational).
The interoperability compatibility measure can be done only if the two systems in question are known. At the current stage, the measure is performed using questionnaire to collect the information on the systems and applications used at the both sides and possible incompatibilities determined by experts of the domain. For example, if two ERP systems use two different terms to designate customer orders (ex. Order and Command) then there is semantic incompatibility.
The interoperability performance measurement is not only concerned with the technology aspect (IT systems) but also human and organizational ones. For example, the time measure covers not only possible data/information transmission time by IT systems which is quite small, but also delay caused by human factors (such as rigid and centralized organization, long human reaction delay etc.). The interoperability concept itself considered in the paper takes into account both IT and human aspects.
The calculation of metrics for interoperability potentiality and compatibility measurements is done through human judgment and evaluation. Knowledge-based system can be built for these measures in the future.
The use of these measures depends on the context and objective of the companies. Generally speaking, the potentiality measure can be used at any time in a company to evaluate its interoperability potential. A questionnaire can be elaborated to help collect relevant information. The compatibility measure can be used in an interoperability project: at the beginning to determine existing interoperability degree and identify existing barriers between two enterprise systems; and at the end of the project to measure the interoperability degree achieved and improvement. The performance measure is used after the project when two systems are in interoperation so that operational performance (time, quality, and cost) can be accessed.
Interoperability solutions can be categorized according to their ability to overcome interoperability barriers and linked to interoperability problems identified by these measures. An interoperability solution repository can be built based on the conceptual interoperability framework presented in section 2.
This paper has presented basic concepts and approaches of enterprise interoperability measurement. The paper also contributed to establish a science base of enterprise interoperability considered in the roadmap for enterprise interoperability by the European Commission [16]. The basic concepts of enterprise interoperability presented in section 2 served as basis by European Standardisation Committee CEN TC310/WG1 to elaborate an international standard in collaboration with ISO TC184 SC5/WG1: CEN/ISO 11354 (Framework for Enterprise Interoperability). The three kinds of enterprise interoperability measurements allows considering the three aspects of interoperability evaluation: measuring the set of intrinsic properties of the system for interoperability (potentiality measure); detecting barriers between two particular enterprises (compatibility measure); and performance evaluation during the operational phase (performance measure). The three measures are complementary and consistent with respect to enterprise interoperability concepts.
Concerning interoperability potentiality measurement, the approach presented mainly focused on the maturity measure. Other system properties that have impact on interoperability such as openness, flexibility to change and to adapt, configurability (not only for IT system, but also organizational structure), etc. need to be investigated and explicitly considered.
Relating to compatibility measurement, it is to note that the measure can be used in an interoperability engineering project to evaluate both existing interoperability degree at the beginning of the project and the achieved degree at the end of the project so that improvement of interoperability can be assessed.
For interoperability performance measurement, the measures proposed at this stage of research are rather straightforward and need to be tested in more industrial cases for refinement and validation. It is also to note that the criteria used (time, quality and cost) are also used in other approaches to evaluate industrial system’s performance in general.
This work is mainly based on the works performed within the INTEROP NoE (Contract n° 508011) and ATHENA IP (Contract n° 507849) funded by the European Commission under the IST 6th Framework Programme. The authors grant acknowledgements to INTEROP and ATHENA consortiums, especially to members of worWP DI (Domain Interoperability) of INTEROP NoE and ATHENA A8.