Eterprise iteroperability measuremet - Basic cocepts Nicolas Dacli, David Che, Bruo Vallespir LAPS/GRAI, Uiversity Bordeaux 1, ENSEIRB, UMR 5131 CNRS, 351 cours de la Libératio, 33405 Talece Cedex, Frace icolas.dacli@laps.u-bordeaux1.fr Abstract. Developig or improvig eterprise iteroperability implies that the level or degree of iteroperability is evaluated ad causes idetified ad aalysed. This paper tetatively presets the basic cocepts relatig to the measuremet of the degree of iteroperability. The degree of iteroperability of a eterprise ca be characterized by three types of measures: iteroperability potetiality, compatibility ad performace. The last two measures are discussed i detail ad some metrics are proposed. The proposed approach is rather straightforward usig the most saliet characteristics kow today for each measuremet. It is prospective ad prelimiary. Some discussio ad future developmet are give i the coclusio. 1 Itroductio Iteroperability is defied as the ability for two (or more) systems or compoets to exchage iformatio ad to use the iformatio that has bee exchaged [1]. To day few methods are developed to implemet a iteroperability solutio ad to evaluate the degree of iteroperability. The measure of the degree of iteroperability allows kowig the stregths ad weakesses of a compay. This measure could lead to the improvemet of iteroperability, ad to avoid deficiecies. Thus, developig iteroperability measuremet is becomig a importat challege. Some works have already bee performed i this domai [2], [3], [4], however it is difficult to defie metrics, maily due to the difficulty to idetify the parameters to characterise the iteroperability. The cocepts ad priciples preseted i this paper tetatively tackle this problem by adoptig a barriers drive approach. 2 Basic cocepts ad priciples Iteroperability measuremet aims at defiig metrics to qualify the degree of iteroperability. The implemetatio of metrics, i order to measure the degree of iteroperability is related to two priciples: (1) the idetificatio of the parameters relatig to iteroperability, (2) the characterizatio of these parameters by metrics.
2.1 Iteroperability barriers Eterprises are ot iteroperable because barriers to iteroperability do exist. Barriers are icompatibilities of various kids ad at various eterprise levels. There exist commo barriers to all eterprises whatever the sector of activities ad size. As a cosequece, iteroperability ca be see, i a first time, as a problem of compatibility betwee two systems, ot oly at ICT level, but all levels of eterprise. Thus developig iteroperability meas to develop kowledge ad implemet solutios which remove icompatibilities. Three categories of barriers are idetified [5]: coceptual (sytactic ad sematic), techological (related to the computer techology) ad orgaisatioal (resposibility/authority, orgaisatio structure). 2.2 Iteroperability degree The degree of iteroperability is a measure allowig characterisig the ability of iteroperatio betwee two eterprises (or systems). Metrics would eable for the parters to kow their agility i term of iteroperatio. At the curret stage of research, three types of measuremet are cosidered: (1) Iteroperability potetiality measuremet, (2) Iteroperability compatibility measuremet, ad (3) Iteroperability performace measuremet. The iteroperability degree of a give eterprise or a system ca be defied by a vector characterised by the three measuremets metioed above. 2.3 Iteroperability degree measures The potetiality measuremet is cocered with the idetificatio of a set of system properties that have impact o the iteroperability developmet. These measures are performed o oe eterprise/system without kowig the iteroperatio parter. The objective is to evaluate the potetiality of the system to evolve dyamically to adapt ad to accommodate with respect to potetial parters. For example, a ope system has a higher potetial of iteroperability tha a closed system. The compatibility measuremet has to be performed durig the egieerig stage i.e. whe systems are re-egieered i order to establish iteroperability. This measure is performed whe the parter/system of the iteroperatio is kow. The measure is doe with respect to the idetified barriers to iteroperability. The highest degree of compatibility meas that all the barriers to iteroperability are removed. The iverse situatio meas the poorest degree of iteroperability. The performace measuremet has to be performed durig the operatioal phase i.e. ru time, to evaluate the ability of iteroperatio betwee two cooperatig eterprises. I [6], a basic iteroperatio cycle has bee defied with three phases (exchage iformatio, use iformatio exchaged). Criteria such as cost, delay ad quality ca be used to measure the performace with respect to barriers ad levels durig a basic iteroperatio cycle. Therefore, each types of measuremet have to be valued with local coefficiets i order to get a global coefficiet ragig from poor iteroperability to good iteroperability.
3 Iteroperability measuremet techiques 3.1 Metrics for potetiality measures Iteroperability potetial is related to some itrisic properties of a system. These properties are usually built at the desig stage ito the system usig some desig priciples for iteroperability. The figure 1 shows the most importat properties givig high potetiality to a system to adapt i particularly i a federated eviromet. Properties Ope (1) Decoupled (1) Decetralized (1) Cofigurable (1) Closed (0) Coupled (0) Cetralized (0) Not-cofigurable (0) Fig. 1. The potetiality measuremet 3.2 Metrics for compatibility measures The compatibility measures are performed agaist the barriers to iteroperability. The followig shows a example of compatibility measures: The coceptual compatibility: sytactic compatibility: does the iformatio to be exchaged be expressed with the same sytax?: fully (1), o (0) sematic compatibility: does the iformatio to be exchaged have the same sematics?: fully (1), o (0) The techological compatibility: Platform techology: Are the IT platform techology compatible?: fully (1), o (0) Software techology: Are the software laguages are compatible?: fully (1), o (0) The orgaisatioal compatibility: Authority/resposibility: Are authorities/resposibilities clearly defied at the two sides?: fully (1), o (0) Orgaisatio structure: Are the orgaisatio structures compatible (ex. Hierarchical vs. etwork structures)?: yes (1), o (0) 3.3 Metrics for performace measures The performace measures are cocered with the exchage of iformatio ad use iformatio exchaged. For example, cocerig the exchage of iformatio: Cost of exchage: Cc ex ( cth cmea) =. With: c th : theoretic cost = the expected cost of the exchage, c mea : measured cost = the real cost of the exchage. c th (1)
Time (duratio) of the exchage: Ct ex ( tth tmea) =. With: t th : theoretic time = the expected duratio of the exchage, t mea : measured time = the real duratio of the exchage. Quality of the exchage: t th Cq ex = succ. tot With: succ = umber of exchage that succeeded, tot = total umber of exchage. As far as the use of iformatio exchaged is cocered: Coformity: cof Cc use =. rec With: cof = umber of iformatio that are coform rec = umber of iformatio received (2) (3) (4) 4 Coclusio - Discussio This paper has preseted basic cocepts ad metrics allowig evaluatig the degree of iteroperability betwee parters. However some poits still eed to be clarified. For each local coefficiet, which mechaism ca allow obtaiig various itermediate coefficiets betwee high ad low level, without reduce the importace of oe coefficiet? As far as the Iteroperability Degree is cocered, which meas of aggregatio ca allow combiig the local coefficiets i order to obtai a global coefficiet (ID)? Aother poit is related to the measuremet of the actio resultig of the iteroperatio. Eve if the actio is outside the cycle of iteroperatio, does its measuremet has to be take i cosideratio ad what is its importace to the iteroperability? Refereces 1. IEEE: IEEE stadard computer dictioary: a compilatio of IEEE stadard computer glossaries (1990) 2. Whitt, L.: The good, the bad ad the ugly of iteroperability metrics, Northhrop Grumma- Missio Systems presetatio (2004) 3. Hamilto, J., Rose, J.D., Summers, P.A.: Developig Iteroperability Metrics, i joit commad ad cotrol iteroperability: cuttig the gordia kot, Chapter 6 (2004) 4. Kasuic, M., Aderso, W.,: Measurig systems iteroperability: challeges ad opportuities, Software egieerig measuremet ad aalysis iitiative (2004) 5. Che, D., Dacli, N.: Framework for eterprise iteroperability, IFAC EI2N (2006)
6. Dacli, N., Che, D., Vallespir, B.: Desig priciples ad patter for decisioal iteroperability, i proceedigs of APMS (2005).