Otra occisión en La Sarga II

Interoperability can be described as the ability to exchange and use information. IEC standard IEC/65/290/DC describes it as the level of compatibility (Izza 2009). The IEC standard classifies the levels of compatibility as:

 Incompatible

Interchangeability includes the concept of interoperability and requires that the semantic and application functionality is defined such that should any system be substituted it will continue to operate albeit possibly with different dynamic responses (Izza 2009).

The work by Izza (2009) provides a thorough review of Integration approaches, which reviews much of the same material as the work reviewed on Interoperability Frameworks (see Interoperability Frameworks section). This work refers to the risk of confusing

interoperability and integration; however, seems to occasionally blur the line between these concepts in its review. This work resulted in a useful 2D evaluation framework of integration techniques and tools using an axis with a scale form syntactic to semantic and the other axis static to dynamic.

2.6.2.1 Integration continuum

Panetto, Molina (2008) states that integration is generally considered to 'go beyond mere interoperability' to involve some level of function dependence. By this definition integrated systems must be interoperable but interoperable system may not be integrated. Interfacing can be considered a level of integration below interoperability. The implied description of fully integrated systems as being superior to interoperable systems does not take account of the issue of robustness; by this definition and failure of one system integrated with another is likely to result in a failure of the integrated systems, while interoperable systems are likely to be more robust.

Panetto, Molina (2008) goes on to provide a useful comparison of some key integration frameworks which can be summarised as:

 Levels of Information System Interoperability (LISI): Focuses on technical

interoperability and the complexity of interoperation in 5 stages (Isolated, Connected, Functional Distributed, Domain Integrated, Universal)

 Organisational Interoperability Maturity (OIM): Extends the LISI model into the areas of Organisational Interoperability in 5 stages (Independent, Ad-hoc, Collaborated, Integrated, Unified)

 Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model (LCIM): Extends the technical model of LISI in the area of Conceptual Interoperability in 5 stages (System Specific,

Documented, Aligned Static, Aligned Dynamic, Harmonised)

 NATO C3 Technical Architecture (NC3TA): Focuses on the level of content structure in 4 levels (Unstructured data, Structured data, seamless data sharing, and seamless information sharing)

 European Interoperability Framework (EIF): This framework shows the progressive levels of challenge that must be overcome to achieve increasing levels of

interoperability (Technical, Semantic and Organisational)

The review aligns these frameworks and allows the conclusion that to achieve

organisationally integrated and seamless information sharing that domain integration and dynamic alignment of concepts must have been achieved which requires the Technical and Semantic challenges to have been overcome. To achieve unified information sharing the concepts must be harmonised, the technical interoperation must be universal and the organisational challenges must also be overcome.

2.6.2.2 Taxonomy

A major obstacle in information exchange is the differences in taxonomies used by various members of a supply chain. The work of Taghaboni-Dutta, Trappey et al. (2010) proposes an XML based framework for a supply chain integration hub that resolves this issue using an XML schema for interfacing. This work proposes that it resolves the interoperability issue, but it can be seen that while it only provides an advanced level of interfacing or integration, the data structures and hierarchies alone do not resolve the potential semantic

inconsistencies which will prevent interoperability.

2.6.2.3 Systems and technology

Even if an enterprise uses current technology there is still complexity associated with interoperation between systems’ competing software tools (Young et al. 2007).

A number of large enterprises have tried to overcome the challenge of integration or

interoperation across systems by insisting that their suppliers use the same tools. This only results in the issue being pushed further down the supply chain, onto suppliers who are likely to be dealing with other enterprises who will use different systems. This issue is significant, and within the Automotive Industry alone the impact has been assessed as being in the order of $1Billion (Young et al. 2009, Borgo, Leitão 2007).

Web based technologies are improving global access to IT support solutions, they generally still focus on discrete areas of the business or systems, and in themselves do not have the capability to resolve the interoperability issues. Attempts to create inter-domain integrated systems have required significant overheads and result in inflexibility hence is not currently practically supported (Young et al. 2007).

The Information and Communication Technology requirements for interoperability have been identified as a key challenge by NIST, INTEROP and work by a number of authors. This work has also identified that the traditional approaches to integrated information sharing

have fallen short of the requirements for enterprise level decision making (Young et al. 2009) as do the approaches using interfacing systems or middleware (MESA 2012).

2.6.2.4 Information systems customisation for integration

The review by Izza (2009) of information systems integration provides some useful categorisations of systems which will need to be considered when defining an integration approach e.g.:

 Black box – unavailability of code or interfaces

 Grey box – unavailability of code but availability of interfaces

 White box – availability of code and interfaces

This work draws the important conclusion that even if the code is available it is generally inappropriate to modify it, advocating the use of application wrappers or interfacing systems.

It can be inferred that any code/ system customisation would reduce the ability to migrate from one application to another.

2.6.2.5 PLM

The conventional description of PLM as “a strategic business approach for the collaboration, creation, management and dissemination and use of product definition information” (Anon 2008) does not fully represent the current developments in PLM Design and Manufacturing Information and Knowledge Management such as (Young et al. 2007, Chungoora, Young 2010a, Young et al. 2009, Liu, Young 2007, Choi 2010) which are developing wider information models and capabilities covering all aspects of the process and resources required to operate the enterprise. Much of the work reviewed in the literature review is either directly or indirectly contributing to this field.

2.6.2.6 PLM information exchange

Product Lifecycle Management tools are a key tool for product data and data storage and exchange. PLM systems have evolved from the conventional CAD and PDM tools hence much of the development on this toolset has focused on the Design context of the lifecycle and the management of product, process and resource information.(Young et al. 2009, Choi 2010). While these systems provide a method of information organisation and management they have significant limitations in terms of representing knowledge. The tight configuration control requirements of PLM systems do not fit well with the requirements of interoperable collaborative engineering (across domains or multiple system) (Young et al. 2010).