Towards an Enterprise Interoperability Framework

Paula Kotzé

and Irina Neaga

Meraka Institute, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

Pretoria, South Africa

Institute for ICT Advancement, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

Port Elizabeth, South Africa

Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Systems Engineering Division

Loughborough University, Leicestershire, U.K.

Abstract. This paper presents relevant interoperability approaches and solu-

tions applied to global/international networked (collaborative) enterprises or or-

ganisations and conceptualise an enhanced enterprise interoperability frame-

work. The paper covers several key aspects including how holistic approaches

of architecting principles, standards and semantics contribute to the develop-

ment of an interoperability framework that can be flexibly used for interoper-

able complex systems, particularly ICT, that support global enterprises includ-

ing organisations from multiple countries, e.g. European and African organisa-

tions. This proposed comprehensive approach of interoperability covers not

only technical aspects, but also semantics alongside organisational and cultural

aspects. The use of systems engineering thinking and architecting for achieving

interoperability of complex systems is suggested.

1 Introduction

The term enterprise in the context of enterprise architecture can be used to denote

both an entire and a specific domain within the enterprise. In both instances, the archi-

tecture traverses multiple systems, and multiple functional groups within the enter-

prise. Furthermore, an extended enterprise these days frequently includes partners,

suppliers, and customers [27]. If the goal is to integrate an extended enterprise, then

the enterprise architecture should comprise a reference to the partners, suppliers, and

customers, as well as internal business units. In this case interoperability becomes a

key issue to be considered in enterprise architecture.

Interoperability is a key concern for network enabled complex systems, which in

turn have facilitated the collaborative enterprise and implicitly globalisation. Interop-

erability has, for example, been the focus of European and African IST programmes

and initiatives such as INTEROP-VLAB (The International Virtual Laboratory for

Enterprise Interoperability) (http://interop-vlab.eu/) and ATHENA [1], and the Inter-

operability in African Parliamentary Information Systems initiative [30]. Despite a

huge amount of literature on interoperability research and applications [5, 16, 17],

from a practical perspective interoperability research is still in an early stage. There

Kotzé P. and Neaga I. (2010).

Towards an Enterprise Interoperability Framework.

In Proceedings of the International Joint Workshop on Technologies for Context-Aware Business Process Management, Advanced Enterprise

Architecture and Repositories and Recent Trends in SOA Based Information Systems, pages 26-29

DOI: 10.5220/0003027100260029

 SciTePress

are still several issues that require novel solutions based on innovative approaches.

Some of these issues are:

− Using standards do not always guarantee achieving interoperability.

− Applying architecting principles do not always guarantee achieving interoperabil-

ity.

− Not comprehensively addressing enterprise-wide information protection, trust and

security issues, which are crucial for assuring trusted electronic business relation-

ships and virtual/online collaboration, as well as different networking enablement

such as electronic supply chains or network centric operations /enabled capability

in most enterprises [19, 26].

− Non-technical issues, such as cultural and human communication and interaction

alongside computer and human domain specific knowledge, are proven to become

barriers in achieving interoperability.

− There is a need for analysis and evaluation of interoperability itself.

− Improvements of existing system interoperability should be beneficial.

− Rapid development of technology may decrease the degree of systems interopera-

bility if the interoperability requirements are not considered at design level.

There are several approaches, from different perspectives, to achieving interopera-

bility. Examples include those based on semantic technologies and service orientation

[5, 29], as well as support for different types of applications such as electronic busi-

ness and electronic government [16, 17, 30].

However, the existing approaches are only part of potential solutions of interoper-

able complex systems (e.g. an enterprise or organisation) or ‘systems of systems’ (e.g.

an enterprise operating in different cultural and political environments), and enabled

through networking or collaboration. A holistic approach of enterprise interoperability

on all levels of the enterprise is also required. A call therefore arises to define an inte-

grated enterprise interoperability framework that could be applied to an extended

enterprise, including its possible global divisions and supply chains. We use to term

global to refer to the global (international) economy in which traditional barriers is no

longer prohibitive.

The principles of systems engineering, including aspects such as holism, emergent

behaviour, boundary, etc., can be applied to any system, complex or otherwise, pro-

vided systems thinking is employed at all levels of the system. Systems thinking is an

approach to problem solving, by viewing ‘problems’ as parts of an overall system,

rather than reacting to a specific part, outcomes or events and potentially contributing

to further development of unintended consequences. Systems thinking involves a set

of methods or practices within a framework that is based on the belief that the com-

ponent parts of a system can best be understood in the context of relationships with

each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation [4]. There is no doubt that

interoperable systems are complex systems that should be holistically analysed and

modelled.

The motivation behind this paper is to advance the research on enterprise interop-

erability using a systems engineering holistic approach in order to propose compo-

nents to be considered in developing a global enterprise interoperability framework.

The paper was motivated by the authors’ experience in collaborative enterprise pro-

jects spanning Europe and Africa, and the paper addresses enterprise interoperability

in this context.

The specific aim of this paper is to present a first step towards proposing a harmo-

nised set of concepts regarding interoperability that can support a wide range of appli-

cations and will also enable global organisations/enterprises, including European and

African specific needs, requirements and cultural aspects.

In order to achieve this aim, the paper has two objectives:

− To provide an overview of existing interoperability approaches, standards and

architectural practice in order to define a common approach or mapping possibility.

− To propose the way forward in conceptualising the requirements for a global enter-

prise interoperability framework based on sound enterprise architecture and sys-

tems engineering principles.

Section 2 of the paper provides some background to the concept of an enterprise. It

also presents definitions and description of the levels of interoperability. Section 3

includes an overview of enterprise interoperability frameworks, models and solutions

and positions them relatively to each other. Section 4 introduces first steps and sug-

gestions for the requirements of a global enterprise interoperability framework. Sec-

tion 5 concludes.

2 Background

2.1 What is an Enterprise?

The concept of the ‘enterprise’ is increasingly used by both practitioners and re-

searchers from a wide variety of settings. Despite the wide usage, there are consider-

able differences in the scope of definition and the purpose in adopting the enterprise

perspective. The term enterprise has been applied in the context of corporations, small

businesses, non-profit institutions, government bodies, educational institutions, space

stations, and other kinds of organisations such as living environments (e.g. house-

holds).

However, many authors have considered an expanded definition of enterprise

clearly different from an organisation that is a single entity from an ownership per-

spective [12]. TOGAF defines an enterprise as a collection of organisations with a

common set of goals, for example, a government agency, an entire corporation or a

division of a corporation, a single department in a corporation, or a chain of geo-

graphically distant organisations linked together by common ownership [27]. The

European Commission [11] defines an enterprise as ‘an entity, regardless of its legal

form including partnerships or associations regularly engaged in economic activities’.

Some authors have retained the term enterprise for a single organisation and used

‘extended enterprise’ to represent a set of firms within a value chain or production

network that collaborate to produce a finished product [9] in a global con-

text/economy. Another definition for the extended enterprise that has several similari-

ties with the global enterprise is that it is a loose partnership that is neither character-

ized as an arm’s length relationship nor a vertical integration [10]. Despite the evident

need for greater intra- and inter-organisational collaboration leading to more prolific

use of ‘enterprise’, the term remains ambiguous [20].

An enterprise can thus be viewed as a complex system consisting of processes that

can be engineered both individually and holistically. The majority of these processes

require the involvement of or interaction with a human at some time. The nature of

enterprises is therefore in essence socio-technical systems, where ‘the operating prin-

ciple consists of the ability of human beings to enter into and comply with commit-

ments’ [8: 12].

2.2 What is Interoperability?

There is yet no single definition for the term interoperability. Moreover, a unique

definition of interoperability of complex systems is not provided here.

The term interoperability is often used in a technical systems engineering sense, or

alternatively in a broad sense, taking into account social, political, and organisational

factors that impact system to system performance.

On a technical level, the IEEE, for example, defines interoperability as ‘the ability

of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the infor-

mation that has been exchanged’ [15]. The Open Group [27: 32], likewise, defines

interoperability, in the context of TOGAF Version 9, as the ability ‘to share informa-

tion and services’, ‘of two or more systems to exchange and use information’, and ‘of

systems to provide and receive services from other systems’ enabling them to operate

together effectively. The European Interoperability Framework defines interoperabili-

ty more holistically as ‘the ability of information and communication technology

(ICT) systems and of the business processes they support to exchange data and to

enable the sharing of information and knowledge’ [14: 5].

In contrast, NATO’s definition of interoperability is, for example, more organisa-

tional focused: ‘Interoperability is the ability of systems, units, or forces to provide

the services to, and accept services from other systems, units or forces and to use the

services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together’ [18].

Interoperability is thus the ability of two or more different entities (be they pieces

of software, processes, systems, business units, etc.) to ‘inter-operate’ [29].

2.3 What is Enterprise Interoperability?

To face current business challenges, modern enterprises have to be interoperable in

terms of not only their IT systems, but also their business processes, their applications

and even their human resources, whether from an intra or inter-organisational point of

view. Enterprise interoperability is concerned with interoperability between organisa-

tional units or business processes either within a large (distributed) enterprise or

within an enterprise network [29]. The challenge lies in facilitating communication,

cooperation, and coordination among these units and processes. From an enterprise

architecture and a systems engineering perspective operating into a networked envi-

ronment place the requirements for interoperability alongside the maintainability,

reliability, safety and supportability requirements of a system [2].

Enterprise interoperability is linked to enterprise integration. Enterprise integration

can be vertical or horizontal, and full, loose or tight. Vertical integration refers to

integration of a line of business from its tactical planning to operation levels. Hori-

zontal integration refers to integration of the various domains (i.e. business areas) of

the enterprise, or with its partners and environment. In full integration components

systems are no longer distinguishable in the system. With tight integration compo-

nents are still distinguishable but any modification on any of them may have direct

impact on others. With loose integration component systems continue to exist on their

own, but can operate as components of the integrated system [29].

Enterprise interoperability ties in with loose integration. It provides two or more

business entities with the ability to exchange or share information and of using func-

tionality of one another in a distributed and heterogeneous environment. Component

systems are preserved as they are and the reuse process is facilitated.

2.4 Levels of Interoperability

The European Interoperability Framework (EIF) identifies three levels of interopera-

bility [14]:

− Organisational interoperability is focused on the definition of business goals, mod-

elling business processes and organisational collaboration issues.

− Semantic interoperability is concerned with ensuring that the exact same meaning

of exchanged information is obtainable in the same way by any other computer

system and/or human agent that were not initially trained for this purpose.

− Technical interoperability covers the technical matters of connecting systems and

services through interfaces, protocols etc. applying appropriate software engineer-

ing techniques and methodologies.

Fig. 1 depicts these main levels of interoperability. The arrows show that in order

to achieve the interoperability between system A and system B that are using different

architectural frameworks, different levels of interoperability are considered.

Technical

Semantic

Organisational and Business

System B

Architecture

System A

Architecture

Human and Cultural Barriers

Management of External Relationships

Fig. 1. European Interoperability Frame-

work levels of interoperability.

Fig. 2. Levels of interoperability and

barriers.

However, in order to achieve enterprise interoperability the levels of interoperabil-

ity must also take into consideration the socio-technical nature of an enterprise.

Achieving enterprise interoperability therefore requires efforts from a technical as

well as non-technical perspective. The technical issues are covered by EIF. The non-

technical issues involve human and cultural barriers to interoperability. These aspects

are shown in Fig. 2.

In defining business interoperability, Legner and Wende [17] considered some of

the non-technical issues by identifying four levels of interoperability in the business

interoperability framework (BIF): information systems (type of interaction, connec-

Technical

Semantic

Organisational and Business

System B

Architecture

System A

Architecture

tivity, and security and trust); collaborative business process interoperability (public

process, process visibility and business semantics); employees and culture interopera-

bility (trust and partner management), and management of external relationships (co-

operation process and cooperation targets). Tsagkani [28] identifies a further level of

enterprise interoperability, namely pragmatic interoperability, which captures the

willingness of partners for the actions necessary for the collaboration and involves

both capability of performing a requested action, and policies dictating whether the

potential action is preferable for the enterprise to be involved.

Whitman and Panetto [31] refer to both knowledge and cultural differences. They

have identified explicit and tacit knowledge communication gaps during the enter-

prise design activities involving multi-national teams, as well as in globally manufac-

turing processes of products. An experienced engineer would use some tacit rules

involved in the design process that include assumptions that is not explicitly stated.

What is tacit knowledge in one culture may be explicit in another, and vice versa.

They have also indicated that language is not the only cultural issue in semantic inter-

operation, and that the concern of different cultures having different design philoso-

phies is also important. Various cultures have different constraints and different ob-

jectives, and culture impacts business.

To be interoperable the exchange of knowledge across dissimilar cultures in differ-

ent native languages is imperative. Successfully interchanging enterprise information

therefore requires what is known as intercultural communication power [7].

2.5 Uncovering Systems Interoperability Issues by Applying Systems Thinking

From a systemic perspective interoperability problems and approaches should con-

sider conceptual relations and interdependencies between interoperability and other

system/sub-system/component characteristics such as agility and collaboration, which

are supported through knowledge and ontology modelling, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The

figure also outlines the key aspects which define the systems characteristics and con-

ceptual or soft relations between them. Enterprise interoperability is therefore intrinsi-

cally an enterprise architecture issue in that it covers all the concerns that should be

holistically addressed during an enterprise architecture exercise.

Systems thinking embedded in the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) developed by

Checkland [4] identifies problem situations, formulates from these a set of root defini-

tions of relevant purposeful human activity systems, builds up conceptual models of

the systems, compares the models with reality, and makes changes that should be

systematically desirable and culturally feasible. Using SSM the systems or enterprise

interoperability problems can be uncovered through the definition of a ‘big picture’ of

the whole system or enterprise and its components, problem framing and stakeholder

involvement in the different stages of systems definition, and modelling through in-

terviews and workshops.

Collaboration

Agility

Interoperability

Network

Enabled

System

•Robustness

•Resilience

•Responsiveness

•Flexibility

•Innovation

•Adaptation

•Technical

o Equipment

and Platforms

o Data

o Processes

•Semantic

• Organisational

• Business

•Enterprise

• Network Organisations /

Enterprise

• Virtual Professional

Communities

• Social Networking

Fig. 3. Interoperability and other system characteristics (adapted from [22]).

3 Research into Enterprise Interoperability

A global interoperability framework and related models should consider the existing

approaches and aim to their harmonisation at conceptual level, and mapping from a

practical perspective. Therefore a brief comparative overview of existing approaches

is presented, analysing their gaps and potential bridging solutions.

3.1 Current Solutions to Interoperability Frameworks

The European Interoperability Framework (EIF) [14] defines a set of recommenda-

tions and guidelines for services, especially for electronic government applications, in

order for public administrations, enterprises and citizens to interact across borders in a

pan-European context. For it to be extended and applied for applications in, for exam-

ple, African countries the EIF framework should consider particular issues of African

enterprises or organisations. A Euro-African (global) interoperability framework

would therefore be required.

Progress has been made by the framework AKOMA NTOSO (Architecture for

Knowledge-Oriented Management of African Normative Texts using Open Standards

and Ontologies). It is enabling effective access to, and exchange of, machine-readable

African parliamentary documents, such as legislation and debate record [30]. It aims

to the standardisation of technology-neutral representations of African parliamentary

documents in order to improve inter-parliamentary cooperation, and reduce the costs

of parliamentary IT support systems.

C4IF (C4 Interoperability Framework), C4 from the first letters of the core con-

cepts of the framework (connection, communication, consolidation, and collabora-

tion), has been developed using some well-defined concepts from linguistics. Based

on the language/action perspective this framework is focused on the techniques ap-

plied to information systems in order to communicate, and modelling this communi-

cation as a discourse [25].

DARPA and C4ISR have initiated the LISI (Levels of Information System Interop-

erability) capabilities model where a common frame/structure defined as a matrix was

introduced with five interoperability maturity levels addressing four interoperability

attributes organized as dimensions: procedures, applications, infrastructure, and data

(PAID) [3]. The dimensions (attributes) are assessed in terms of five hierarchical

levels of interoperability readiness, the stages through which systems should logically

progress or ‘mature’ in order to improve their ability to interoperate: isolated systems

(manual), connected systems (peer-to-peer), distributed systems (functional), domain

systems (integrated), and enterprise systems (universal).

While the LISI model is technical in nature, and does not include the role of people

and knowledge, it does expand the definition of interoperability beyond the ability to

exchange data from one system to another: it considers the ability to exchange and

share services between systems.

NCOIC (Network Centric Operations Industrial Consortium) has produced a

framework and SCOPE Model (systems, capabilities, operations, programs, and en-

terprises) [21]. The model is designed to characterize interoperability-relevant aspects

or capabilities of a system or set of systems over a network in terms of a set of dimen-

sions and values along those dimensions. The SCOPE model can be applied to char-

acterize networking capabilities and its impact on human and machine interaction.

3.2 Technical Solutions to Interoperability

Achieving interoperability usually means implementing specifications and standards

that may support interoperability in the environment in which the systems have to

operate. However, it is possible to implement a specification or standard and not

achieve interoperability when the systems with which one seeks to interoperate

(communicate, exchange information, etc.) do not make use the same specification or

standard. This is why so much of implementing interoperability goes down to the

planning and communicating stage. Therefore it is required to do extensive research, a

thorough consultation, consider shared requirements and come up with a working

consensus on what needs to be achieved. Projects which rush into implementation

without proper enterprise architecture, consultation and development of requirements

and specifications, may have difficulties further along the way. A systems engineering

approach for enterprise interoperability solutions are therefore recommended.

3.3 Achieving Interoperability through Standardisation

Several standard-based application protocols (APs) and business objects (BOs) are

available. They cover many of the major technological, economic and human activi-

ties, and have been produced by international organisations such as ISO (International

Organisation for Standardization), UN (United Nations), CEN (European Committee

for Standardization), OMG (Object Management Group), NIST (National Institute of

Standards and Technology), etc. However, according to Grilo et al. [13], amongst

practitioners most of these standards are not widely adopted, either by lack of aware-

ness or due to especially private commercial interests within the software develop-

ment process. Moreover, when they are selected, they are sometimes used inade-

quately, mainly due to an imprecise interpretation of the scope. This results in diffi-

culties in achieving interoperability with other systems and introduces limitations in

potential future reuse and model extensibility when creating new components.

3.4 Achieving Interoperability through Architecting

Architecting to support interoperable systems in terms of their definition, develop-

ment, and through life cycle maintenance imply the realisation of the following main

aspects [6]:

− Ensuring interoperability and connectivity of architectures, consistency, compli-

ance with applicable directives, and architectural information shar-

ing/dissemination.

− Facilitating implementation of policies and procedures, acquisition strategies, sys-

tems engineering, configuration management, and technical standards.

− Standardisation in terms of reference, modelling tools, architecture data elements,

architecture data structures, hardware and software interfaces, architectural repre-

sentations, and level of detail/abstraction.

Enterprise architecture refers to a comprehensive description of all the key ele-

ments and relationships that fully describe an enterprise. The elements to be described

may be data, network equipments, software components, business locations, human

resources, etc. Enterprise architecting aims at aligning the business processes and

main objectives of an enterprise, with the applications and systems that build up its

technical infrastructure. Enterprise architecture is therefore an important support for

interoperability in network enabled environments, since they contribute to align the

models of the enterprises/organisations that are required to interoperate.

There are many different approaches to describing the elements of enterprise archi-

tecture. For example, the Zachman Framework, an ontology for describing the enter-

prise [32], uses a two dimensional classification schema for descriptive representa-

tions of an enterprise. It intersects the primitive communication interrogatives (what

(inventory sets), who (process transformations), where (network nodes), who (organ-

isational groups), when (timing periods), and why (motivation reasons)) with reifica-

tion transformations (identification, definition, representation, specification, configu-

ration, and instantiation). Another example is the domain specific frameworks.

MODAF (Ministry of Defence Architectural Framework) in the United Kingdom, for

example, supports interoperability as a standard architectural framework, which en-

ables the coherent sharing of architecting information that facilitates the identification

of gaps and overlaps between operating processes and the systems that support them.

MODAF has been developed based on the Department of Defence Architectural

Framework (DoDAF), which provides operational, system and technical views.

Within the domain of security, SABSA (Sherwood Applied Business Security Archi-

tecture) is an example of a framework and methodology for enterprise security archi-

tecture and service management used by numerous enterprises [26]. There have been

identified mapping capabilities between the architectural frameworks, for example,

DoDAF/MODAF mapped to Zachman [24]; and C4ISR mapped to GERAM (Gener-

alised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology) developed by the IFIP-

IFAC Task Force, and adopted as an Appendix of ISO15704:2000 [23]. ~

3.5 Mapping Interoperability Frameworks and Exchange Languages

As a summary, Fig. 4 classifies approaches to interoperability into two classes, com-

monality-based and interaction-based, making a notional attempt to position specific

concepts, initiatives, technologies, and products within that space.



Fig. 4. Mapping Interoperability Frameworks and Exchange Languages [21].

One way to characterize and harmonise these approaches is top-down versus bot-

tom-up. Top-down approaches typically address the problem from an enterprise archi-

tecture, or broad scope of a generic socio-technical system, and through different

layers of abstractions using modelling tools. Bottom-up approaches seek to achieve

interoperability by adoption of specific technologies or information representation

standards. While contrasting top-down with bottom-up approaches is a useful distinc-

tion, commonality-based approaches focus on the execution environments of systems

and are directed to achieve interoperability across an enterprise by defining how every

system within that scope adopt a particular set of standard elements for their execu-

tion environment.

4 Towards a Global Enterprise Interoperability Framework

This paper has two objectives: the previous sections provided an analysis of existing

interoperability approaches, standards and architectural practice, addressing the first

objective. The second objective was to conceptualise the way forward in deriving the

requirements for a global enterprise interoperability framework based on sound enter-

prise architecture and systems engineering principles, integrating a common approach

or mapping of the various interoperability approaches. This section addresses the

second objective.

4.1 Starting Research Questions

Fig. 5 attempts to illustrate the various components that should be considered in

deriving a global enterprise interoperability framework. These requirements are based

on the following research questions:

− How to effectively combine the various components depicted in Fig. 5 to create an

effective and efficient enterprise architecture methodology, leading to an effective

and efficient systems engineering approach to interoperable secure systems?

− How to make (newly) designed enterprises and systems interoperable when de-

ployed in any place, at any time?

− How to enhance systems security aspects, since many interoperability approaches

do not consider security requirements and security engineering does not include

systems interoperability?

− How to include the human aspects, e.g. social and cultural issues, in order to de-

velop interoperable socio-technical systems/complex systems?

− How to consider and address external and unexpected events affecting an enter-

prise operation?

Socio-Technical

System A

Socio-Technical

System B

Strategies for

Generic Systems

Interoperability

Knowledge,

Information

System and

Enterprise

Models

Architecting

Principles

Interoperable

Technologies

and Standards

Fig. 5. Towards a global enterprise interoperability framework.

4.2 Proposed Research Methods

We propose the use of roadmapping as a research technique in order to define the

vision of enterprise interoperability, the current state of the art, as well as the existing

gaps and methods including an implementation plan to achieve the vision. Roadmap-

ping has the advantages of a consistent and unified presentation of the concepts and

can harmonise the views of researchers and practitioners through a consensus building

approach.

To determine the state of the art, we propose the use of an analytical research

method, involving an in-depth study and evaluation of existing approaches and solu-

tions to enterprise interoperability in an attempt to unify or harmonise them. This

should be combined with sound systems engineering and enterprise architecture prin-

ciples in guiding the way forward.

The work of Chen and Doumeingts [5] provides some guidelines that can serve as

a starting point for investigating the interoperability of enterprises. Their work pre-

sents basic concepts, framework and roadmaps to develop interoperability of enter-

prise applications and software, tackling the interoperability problem from multiple

but integrated views. Some of the issues addressed include: why enterprises need to

interoperate, how enterprises interoperate, as well as what constitutes interoperability

as a capability.

The proposed systems engineering research methods include holistic problem

space definition, multiple perspective/view approaches, as well as multi-disciplinary

studies and systems thinking. Applying SSM [4] as a research methodology in addi-

tion to systems engineering approaches, for example, could provide an integrated

enhanced method to analyse complex systems and situations involving human activi-

ties. SSM is a research methodology initially designed for management studies, SSM

distinguishes itself from ‘hard’ systems approaches in the way it deals with the notion

of ‘system’. Hard systems approaches see systems as ontological entities, i.e., as enti-

ties existing in the real world, as bounded entities with a physical existence that can

be formally described or designed to fulfill a given purpose. SSM treats the notion of

system as an epistemological rather than ontological entity, as a mental construct used

for human understanding. A combined hard and soft systems approach applied to

interoperable complex systems could therefore be useful due to the following reasons:

1. Exploring of systems thinking about real-world situations in which interoperable

systems in collaborative and competitive networked environments are operating.

2. Exploring the diverse perspectives relevant to the identified situations through

‘root definitions’.

3. Analyzing, presenting and discussing interoperable systems operating in different

situations/contexts stressing diverse perspectives.

4. Building diverse conceptual models corresponding to different perspectives.

5. Debating the situations and debating models.

6. Defining feasible and desirable changes through new implementation solutions.

7. Repeating the process for a new perception of the situation, seeking to accommo-

date the conflicting systems characteristics and their relationships.

5 Conclusions

This paper discussed various interoperability issues related to enterprises and the

approaches aimed at addressing interoperability at various conceptual levels. We

conceptualised the basic requirements for a global enterprise interoperability frame-

work to address the interoperability of complex systems enabled by a networked envi-

ronment. One of the main issues identified in the paper is explicitly addressing the

non-technical factors (human and cultural issues, and the management of external

relationships) that could be barriers or obstacles in achieving enterprise interoperabil-

ity, identifying the gaps and potential solutions based on using existing approaches

and frameworks.

Addressing interoperability in a clear unambiguous manner at several levels (or-

ganisational (business and human interaction), semantic (service and information

sharing) and technical, is a useful architecture planning tool. The notions of interop-

erability will become ever more important in the service oriented architecture (SOA)

environment where services will be shared internally and externally in ever more

inter-dependent extended enterprises [27].

Future research directions include the provision of a complete definition of the

framework and applying it to different situations and case studies using systems engi-

neering and enterprise architecture methods, combined with a dynamic roadmap.

There is also an important need to develop an agreed architectural framework and

representation language, as well as an evaluation method/metrics to support complex

interoperable systems including the analysis of their degree of interoperability.

References

1. Berre, A.-J., Elvesæter, B., Figay, N., Guglielmina, C.J., S. G., Karlsen, S.G.: The

ATHENA Interoperability Framework Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on

Interoperability for Enterprise Software and Applications (I-ESA'07). Springer (2007) 569-

580

2. Blanchard, B.S.: System Engineering Management. John Wiley & Sons Inc (2008)

3. C4ISR Architecture Working Group: Levels of Information Systems Interoperability

(LISI). (1998) 4 - 97; D91 - D13

4. Checkland, P.: Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex (1981)

5. Chen, D., Doumeingts, G.: European initiatives to develop interoperability of enterprise

applications—basic concepts, framework and roadmap. Annual Reviews in Control 27

(2003) 153-162

6. Curts, R.J., Campbel, D.E.: Architecture: The Road to Interoperability. Command &

Control Research & Technology Symposium, U.S. Naval War College, Rhode Island

(1999)

7. de Silva, D., de Silva, D.: How to gain a competitive edge in international business through

inter-cultural communication power. Proceedings of Pan-Pacific Conference XII: A

Business, Economic, and Technological Exchange, Dunedin (1995)

8. Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology - Theory and Methodology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

(2006)

9. Dyer, J.H.: Collaborative Advantage. Oxford University Press, London (2000)

10. Dyer, J.H., Singh, H.: The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of inter-

organizational competitive advantage. The American Academy Review 23 (1998) 66-79

11. European Commission: Commission recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the

definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Official Journal European Union

C (2003) L124/136-141

12. Gollner, J: Managing Knowledge in the Fractal Enterprise. (1999)

13. Grilo, A., Jardim-Goncalves, R., and Cruz-Machado, V.: A Framework for Measuring

Value in Business Interoperability. IEEE Transactions (2007) 520-524

14. IDABC: European Interoperability Framework for Pan-European eGovernment Services,

Luxembourg (2004)

15. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A

Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. IEEE, New York (1990)

16. Legner, C., Lebreton, B.: Business interoperability research: Present achievements and

upcoming challenges. Electronic Markets 17 (2007) 176−186

17. Legner, C., Wende, K.: Towards an Excellence Framework for Business Interoperability.

19th Bled eConference eValues (2006)

18. Moon, T., Fewell, S. and Reynolds, H.: The What, Why, When and How of

Interoperability. Defence & Security Analysis 24 (2008) 5-17

19. Mouratidis, H., Giorgini, P.: Integrating Security and Software Engineering – Advances

and Future Visions. Idea Group Publishing (2007)

20. Murman, E., Allen, T., Bozdogan, K., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., Mcmanus, H., Nightingale,

D., Rebentisch, E., Shields, T., Stahl, F., Walton, M., Warmkessel, J., Weiss, S., Widnall,

S.: Lean Enterprise Value: Insights from MIT's Lean Aerospace Initiative. Palgrave

Macmillan, Basingstoke (2002)

21. NCOIC: Network-Centric Operations Industry Consortium - SCOPE (Systems,

Capabilities, Operations, Programs, and Enterprises) Model for Interoperability Assessment

V1.0. (2008)

22. Neaga, E.I., Henshaw, M.: NEC Themes: A Conceptual Analysis and Applied Principles.

Proceedings of the Conference RNEC’08, Leeds (2008) CD

23. Noran, O.: A systematic evaluation of the C4ISR AF using ISO15704 Annex A (GERAM).

Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 407-427

24. Orne, D.: Architectural Framework Meta Models and NEC. NECTISE MODAF/DoDAF

Seminar SEIC, Loughborough University (2006)

25. Peristeras, V., Tarabanis, K.: The Connection, Communication, Consolidation,

Collaboration Interoperability Framework (C4IF)for Information Systems Interoperability.

IBIS - Interoperability in Business Information Systems 1 (2006) 61-72

26. Sherwood, J., Clark, A., Lynas, D.: Enterprise Security Architecture: A Business Driven

Approach. CMP Books (2005)

27. The Open Group: TOGAF Version 9. Van Haren Publishing, Amersfoort (2009)

28. Tsagkani, C.: Inter-Organizational Collaboration on the Process Layer. Proceedings of the

IFIP/ACM SIGAPP INTEROP-ESA Conference. Springer Science, Geneva (2005) 129-

138

29. Vernadat, F.B.: Interoperable enterprise systems: Principles, concepts, and methods Annual

Reviews in Control 31 (2007) 137 - 145

30. Vitali, F., Zeni, F.: Working Towards Open Access to Parliamentary Information and

Interoperability in African Parliamentary Information Systems" in (Eds) , 2006. In:

Cunningham, P., Cunningham, M. (eds.): IST-Africa 2006 Conference Proceedings. IIMC

International Information Management Corporation (2006)

31. Whitman, L.E., Panetto, H.: The missing link: Culture and language barriers to

interoperability. Annual Reviews in Control 30 (2006) 233-241

32. Zachman International: The Zachman Framework. (2008)