Enterprise Interoperability

237 Pages·2017·10.523 MB·English

by  Archimède, Bernard, Vallespir, Bruno

Enterprise Interoperability
Enterprise Interoperability Set
coordinated by
Bernard Archimède and Jean-Paul Bourrières
Volume 1
Enterprise Interoperability

INTEROP-PGSO Vision

Edited by

Bernard Archimède
Bruno Vallespir
First published 2017 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as
permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced,
stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers,
or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the
CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the
undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
27-37 St George’s Road 111 River Street
London SW19 4EU Hoboken, NJ 07030
UK USA
www.iste.co.uk www.wiley.com

© ISTE Ltd 2017
The rights of Bernard Archimède and Bruno Vallespir to be identified as the authors of this work have
been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017932961

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-084-3
Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Gérald SANTUCCI
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Bernard ARCHIMÈDE, Jean-Paul BOURRIÈRES,
Guy DOUMEINGTS and Bruno VALLESPIR
Chapter 1. Framework for Enterprise Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
David CHEN
1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Enterprise interoperability concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.1. Interoperability barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.2. Interoperability concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.3. Interoperability approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3. Framework for Enterprise Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.1. Problem space versus solution space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.2. The two basic dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.3. The third dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.4. Complementary dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.4. Conclusion and prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.5. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chapter 2. Networked Companies and a
Typology of Collaborations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Séverine BLANC SERRIER, Yves DUCQ and Bruno VALLESPIR
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2. Various types of collaboration between companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.1. Strategic alliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
vi Enterprise Interoperability
2.2.2. Integrated logistics management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.3. Network enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2.4. Virtual organizations and clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.2.5. Virtual communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.3. Classification of the various types of
collaboration and interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.3.1. Long-term strategic collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.5. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Chapter 3. Designing Natively Interoperable Complex
Systems: An Interface Design Pattern Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Vincent CHAPURLAT and Nicolas DACLIN
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2. Work program: context, problematic, hypothesis
and expected contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3. Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.4. Interface design pattern model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.5. Conclusion and further work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.6. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.7. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Chapter 4. Software Development and
Interoperability: A Metric-based Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Mamadou Samba CAMARA, Rémy DUPAS and Yves DUCQ
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.2. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.2.1. Literature of software requirements’ verification and validation . . . . . . 68
4.2.2. System state evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.2.3. Interoperability literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.2.4. The method for the validation and verification
of interoperability requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.2.5. Calculation of business process performance
indicators from event logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.2.6. Event logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.3. Metric-based approach for software development
and interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.3.1. Data collection framework for the validation
and verification of interoperability requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.3.2. Evaluation and improvement of available data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.4. Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.4.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Contents vii
4.4.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.6. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Chapter 5. Decisional Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Nicolas DACLIN, David CHEN and Bruno VALLESPIR
5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.2. Decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.2.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.2.2. Decision-making in the GRAI model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.2.3. Formal characterization of decision-making in the GRAI model . . . . . . 92
5.3. Decisional interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.3.1. Basic concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.3.2. Design principles for decisional interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.3.3. Formal characterization of decisional interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.5. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Chapter 6. The Interoperability Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Nicolas DACLIN, David CHEN and Bruno VALLESPIR
6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.2. Models for evaluation of interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.3. Interoperability measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.3.1. The potentiality measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.3.2. Interoperability degree measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.3.3. Performance measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.4. Taking it further . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.5. Conclusion and prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.6. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Chapter 7. Interoperability and Supply Chain Management . . . . . . . . . . 131
Matthieu LAURAS, Sébastien TRUPTIL, Aurélie CHARLES,
Yacine OUZROUT and Jacques LAMOTHE
7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
7.2. Supply chains interoperability needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.3. Various types of supply chain interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.4. The main logistic Information Systems to support interoperability . . . . . . . 138
7.5. Main architectures to support logistic interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7.6. SaaS applications revolutionize logistic interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
7.7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
7.8. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
viii Enterprise Interoperability
Chapter 8. Organizational Interoperability Between
Public and Private Actors in an Extended Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Yacine BOUALLOUCHE, Raphaël CHENOUARD, Catherine DA CUNHA
and Alain BERNARD
8.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
8.2. Public–private network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
8.3. Inter-organizational interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
8.4. Management framework for extended administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
8.5. Application to the “public clothing” function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
8.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
8.7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
8.8. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Chapter 9. An Inventory of Interoperability in
Healthcare Ecosystems: Characterization and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . 167
Elyes LAMINE, Wided GUÉDRIA, Ariadna RIUS SOLER, Jordi AYZA GRAELLS,
Franck FONTANILI, Léonard JANER-GARCÍA and Hervé PINGAUD
9.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
9.2. eHealth interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
9.3. Levels of interoperability in eHealth ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
9.3.1. Technical interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
9.3.2. Semantic interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
9.3.3. Organizational interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
9.4. Survey of interoperability frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
9.4.1. eHealth European Interoperability
Framework (eHeath EIF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
9.4.2. Health Information Systems Interoperability
Framework (HIS-IF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
9.4.3. eHealth Interoperability Framework (eHealth IF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
9.4.4. Personal Health Systems framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
9.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
9.5.1. Interoperability levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
9.5.2. Interoperability concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
9.5.3. Interoperability approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
9.5.4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
9.6. Conclusion and future work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
9.7. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
9.8. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
List of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Foreword
I am glad that the INTEROP-VLab Grand-Sud-Ouest (GSO) pole, which is well
known by the international interoperability community for its commitment to
advancing the frontiers of interoperability in crisis management, e-Health and
Transport, has decided to publish an annual series on Enterprise Interoperability of
which the present book is the first opus. And I am grateful for having been invited to
write this foreword: this is an honor for the Head of Unit at the European Commission
who had the privilege to witness and accompany the development of the founding
project – the INTEROP Network of Excellence – and the progress of its remarkable
spin-off – the International Virtual Lab for Enterprise Interoperability.
When interoperability became a topic of extensive discussion in the late 1990s,
the term was fundamentally referring to the ability to exchange functionality and
interpretable data between two software entities. Over the past fifteen years much
work has been done on interoperability of applications and software, in particular
within Europe that can legitimately claim pride and honor for its achievements. This
has been the work of a generation, which will have an enormous impact for years
and even decades to come, on the ability to make systems talk to each other.
However, my feeling is that interoperability is the epitome of an unending race
between disruptive technological change and relentless modeling and standardization
efforts. I will give just two examples.
We know that the future of manufacturing lies in cybermanufacturing (i.e.
research in and prototyping of operating systems and applications to create
platforms for large-scale manufacturing), biomanufacturing (i.e. basic research at
the intersection betweem biology and engineering to revolutionize healthcare) and
nanomanufacturing (i.e. basic research at the intersection between chemistry,
physics and engineering to manipulate matter at atomic and molecular scales).
x Enterprise Interoperability
We also know that the future of the Internet of Things – empowering trillions of
devices (or “Things”) to tell us how best to use them – lies in a common platform
that works the way the smartphone does today, which requires, in particular,
semantic interoperability between architectures, standards and ontologies by design
as well as security by design.
The future of manufacturing and the Internet of Things are for me the biggest
challenges facing the interoperability community. I am fully aware of how unfair it
may look to say that work on interoperability has just begun. So much has been done
so well already. Perhaps there are words like interoperability that have a kind of
destiny. This is the magic and the tragedy of such words – they have roots that can
grow very long but they also have nodes that make it sometimes hard for them to
take off and fly where we want them to. I experienced this feeling during the 8 years
in the European Commission while managing the eBusiness Unit (which after some
years was renamed the Networked Enterprise and Radio Frequency Identification
Unit).
I was appointed Head of the eBusiness Unit of European Commission’s
Directorate-General Information Society and Media (DG INFSO-D/5) on 1 March
2004 during an incredibly interesting and rich period of the European Research Area
(integrating, strengthening, structuring). With the Lisbon Strategy and its eEurope
action plan (the EU to become the most dynamic and most competitive knowledge-
based economy within 10 years), the Barcelona Declaration (education,
employment, enlargement) and the Gothenburg objective (sustainability), I inherited
a huge and diverse portfolio of projects: 12 Framework Programme 6 (FP6) IST1
projects, 177 Framework Programme 5 (FP5) IST projects and 16 Framework
Programme 4 (FP4) ESPRIT projects (whose contracts were not yet closed). The 12
FP6-IST projects were retained by European Commission Decision following the
evaluation of the proposals submitted to Call 1 of Strategic Objective 2.3.1.9
“Networked Businesses and Governments”. These projects were to be
complemented soon by other projects allocated to my unit from FP6-IST Call 2
“Applications and Services for the Mobile User and Worker” (Strategic Objective
2.3.2.6, 2 projects) and the Joint Call between the IST Programme and the
Nanotechnology and Nanosciences, Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
and New Production Processes and Devices (NMP) Programme (Strategic Objective
2.3.3.1, 4 projects).
The proliferation of projects selected from a succession of calls and addressing
similar technologies, applications, services and related socio-economic issues, had
grim prospects in terms of coherence, effectiveness and impact. Therefore, I decided

1 IST: the Information Society Technologies programme (under Framework Programmes 5
and 6).
Foreword xi
to organize consultations as a key process between projects. Convinced that it was
possible to make the value of the work in this field exceed the value of the
individual projects, I invited people and their organizations involved in the new
FP6-IST projects to come together and to share their knowledge and experience to
their mutual benefit. The main objectives of the consultations were the following: to
maximize technological relevance for mid- to long-term R&D work on ICT for
Business and support system integration and engineering in specific application
areas of strategic interest; to assess socio- and techno-economic factors, regional
variations and trends, as well as developments in policy and regulation, in order to
interpret their impact on specific R&D actions; to foster pre-normative research,
interoperability, benchmarking and best practice; to identify critical success factors
for trials and pilot demonstrations; to integrate assessment and technical validation
results to ensure that valid results of projects were properly taken into account in the
ongoing work of others; to create synergy with Member State activities (in the
framework of the European Research Area) and other European programs (Eureka);
and finally to stimulate and enhance collaboration on common communication,
dissemination and exploitation aspects.
During the Spring of 2004 my unit created four “clusters” of projects to manage
consultations, including one on Enterprise Interoperability, initially composed of
four projects: ATHENA (integrated project), INTEROP (network of excellence),
NO-REST (specific targeted research project) and TRUSTCOM (integrated project).
This was the beginning of an 8-year long period of extensive collaboration between
EU-funded projects in the field of Enterprise Interoperability (2004–2012) with the
work constantly stimulated and assessed by my unit through the regular running of
consultation meetings in Brussels.
For the sake of completeness, I need to stress that European interest in Enterprise
Interoperability started before I headed the eBusiness Unit and created the cluster. In
fact, the work resulted from a road-mapping initiative called IDEAS (in fact a
thematic network named Interoperability Developments of Enterprise Applications
and Software), launched by DG INFSO in 2000 as a response to repeated requests
by European Industry (e.g., Aerospace, Automotive, Manufacturing) to address the
issue of the cost of non-interoperability of information technology solutions. Joël
Bacquet, Project Officer in the eBusiness Unit, then managed by Jesus Villasante,
had initially invited Guy Doumeingts, Professor at University of Bordeaux, to create
a Task Force on Enterprise Interoperability in order to assess key issues and report
to the Unit research options for tackling them. After two years of extensive
discussions, the Task Force composed of fifteen experts completed a review of the
state of the art on Enterprise Interoperability and proposed the IDEAS roadmap. I
want to express here my gratitude to Joël Bacquet and Guy Doumeingts, two
pioneers, for their extraordinary dedication to the European cause, their prolific
scientific work, their unfailing drive to tackle problems until they are solved, and of