Introduction Hector Macleod –CCNA student –Systems Integration Engineer Subject - IP addressing.
Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration
description
Transcript of Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration
![Page 1: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration
Eric Lambert (EDF R&D)
Greg Robinson (Xtensible Solutions)
![Page 2: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Andre, Jean-Luc, Eric, and Greg
Bonjour!
![Page 3: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Impacts of Deregulation on Business Processes
• EDF adapted some of its former BP
• EDF created new ones
• EDF has to anticipate (i.e : DER on MV network and impact on BP, …)
• Information System require more agility
• More integration points have appeared
• But : 50% of system integration costs are attributed to semantic issues
![Page 4: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
A solution through a pragmatic use of standards
Adoption of a Model Driven Integration : 1. Reduces labor to maintain overlapping data in multiples
applications
2. Systematically generated common structure and common vocabulary reduces design time effort as well as coding errors
3. Reduces performance errors caused by inconsistent information.
4. Support for managing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and handling regulatory obligations.
5. Performs faster implementation of application functionality and business processes.
6. Reduces cost to maintain and extend existing applications.
7. Reduces risk of project schedule and budget overruns
![Page 5: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
International Context
OLEProcessControl(OPC)
WG14DMS
Coordination
WG19
WG13EMS
WGs 10Substations
OpenApplication
Group
WG7ControlCenters
TC57
WG9Distribution
Feeders
EPRIUCA2ProjectEPRI
CCAPIProject
W3C
CIM/61850
ebXMLObjectMgmt.Group
WG17
WG16
WG18
OASIS
?
UCA : User groups
MultiSpeak(NRECA)
![Page 6: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Perceived and real problems with standards
• The CIM (Common Information Model) is still evolving
• CIM is in English (only)• “Establishing a common language” is an
unreachable utopia • A methodology deriving XML message
types from a UML model is not necessary • Compliant products are not offered yet on a
large scale in the marketplace
![Page 7: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Answers to some of these problems
• The intended use of the CIM is for inter-application integration, not intra-application integration
• The CIM is aimed at being a technical integration language
• The model is requisite for ensuring that every element of every message is used consistently across messages on an enterprise-wide basis
• Several rounds of interoperability tests have been and will be performed
• CIM User Group has been created
![Page 8: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
EDF R&D Cimergy Project Key numbers
• Started as an innovative action in 2003
• Labeled as an EDF R&D project in 2004
• Budget : 1,5 M USD / year
• Team ~ 7 people
![Page 9: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Goals of Cimergy
• Define methodology and tools requirements in order to use IEC TC57 standards 61970, 61968.
• Participate actively in the TC57 standardization effort• Promote the methodology and standards inside EDF• Understand and help the harmonization process
– IEC TC57 61970/61968 and 61850– IEC TC57 and UN-CEFACT, ETSO, ebIx
• Reduce the gap between IT people and Automation people• Is or is not
– the CIM an opportunity for EDF Operational Divisions ?
![Page 10: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
CIM Approaches
• Bottom-up approach : 2 applications need to exchange Data, CIM is used for specifying interfaces
– Several Transmission/Distribution applications have been wrapped with a CIM import/export interface
• Top-Down Approach : Main Objective of the project in 2005
– Model Driven Integration approach– Based on the UN-CEFACT Modeling Methodology (called
Core Components Technical Specification), CIM Model, and ISO 11179
– Uses cases completed with Distribution Division – CIM Products experimented : MDI (Xtensible Solutions)
![Page 11: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
CIM based API for several functions
CIM Distribution API
GISLV Planification function
CIMXML
MV functions (Load calculation, …)
CIM API for EDF ProductsCDPSM Profile
CPSM Profile
PRAO (MV Planification function)
EUROSTAG (Power System Dynamics)
![Page 12: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
‘Integrating’ the Integration Infrastructure
Evolving UtilityBusiness Execution
Requirements
Complex & EvolvingIndustry Standards,
Methodologies &Architecture Patterns
EvolvingTechnologies &
Products
EvolvingBusiness
Partnerships
TheModel Driven
IntegrationProcess
![Page 13: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Methodology : Combining CIM & UN-CEFACT Core Components
UML Information Model
UML Exchange
Model
UML Contextual
Model
XML Information
Model
XML Contextual
Model
XML Exchange
Model
![Page 14: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
A closer look…
, , A, , B
, , C , , D
, , E
1
, , F
CIM XML World
Constraints on Association + Assembling rules
, , A
, , B , , C , , D
, , E
1
, , F
1
, , C , , D
, , E
1
, , F
1
, , A+B
XML XSD
Generic CIM Message Schema generation
ReprocessedXML XSD
Constraints on attributes
![Page 15: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Working With Business Participants
EDF Group Information System Division
Generation Information System Department
Transmission Information System
Department
Distribution Information System
Department
Supplier Information System Department
Project Project Project Project
Information & Telecommunication Division
EDF R&D Division
Project
![Page 16: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Successfully Scaling Up
• Having a service mindset
• Working with business units
• Working with their (business unit) partners• Proactive change management (next slides)
![Page 17: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Resistance to Change
• Human resistance my be the biggest hurdle– 25% will like the change & look forward to it– 25% will hate change– 50% will wait and see
• The neutral zone– Between the way things were and the way
things will be (during the project)– Marked by confusion and uncertainty– No clear markers and no promises
![Page 18: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Forms of resistance
• Almost everyone has concern about measuring up in a new environment
• Resistance can take many forms– Constant questioning– Forms of confusion– Silence or easy acceptance
![Page 19: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Change Management
Driving Forces Restraining Forces
1. Opportunity to learn new skills
2. Availability of training and tools
1. Lack of training/understanding
2. Power of internal expert
3. Inertia – why change?
4. Feeling that the job may be threatened
5. Not invented here
6. Our problems are specialSta
tus
Quo
[Source: Douglas K. Barry]
![Page 20: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Overcoming Resistance
• Anticipate resistance in advance, before the project begins
• Select the right people– Start by identifying the right kind of skills and
experience– What is not available internally must be obtained
externally either through hiring or contracting– A big factor in failed projects is a lack of personnel with
the skills and experience required
• Pairing team members together– People in pairs should not have the same issues
![Page 21: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Overcoming Resistance
• Really listen – Sometimes the person is only voicing symptoms, not
the main problem
• Communicate at many levels– Do not over-promise and then not meet the promise;
it’s sets a foundation of mistrust
• Seek appropriate avenues to involve people– Ask for people’s input and review
• Get resistance out in the open– Talk about it in a neutral and non-threatening way
![Page 22: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Adopting Standard Data Element Definitions
Driving Forces Restraining Forces
1. Easier exchange of data
2. Reduced development time
3. Reduced maintenance costs
1. Costs to develop standard definitions
2. Costs to change existing systems
3. Existing data definitions are different
4. Some definitions need to be different
5. Products use different data definitions
6. Lack of industry standard definitions
7. Mergers and acquisitions
Sta
tus
Quo
[Source: Douglas K. Barry]
![Page 23: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Adopting A Service-Oriented Architecture
Driving Forces Restraining Forces
1. Interoperable networked applications
2. Emerging industry-wide standards
3. Easier access to enterprise-wide data
4. Easier exchange of data
5. Consistent enterprise-wide data
6. Reduced brittleness using tags
7. Support of Web Services in products
8. Reduced development time
9. Reduced maintenance costs
10. Availability of external services
11. Minimal effect of operational systems
12. Use of business intelligence software
13. Availability of training and tools
14. Opportunity to learn new skills
15. Mergers and acquisitions
1. Cost of development
2. Product/service doesn’t do everything
3. Deciding what data to route
4. Delays getting data updates distributed
5. Deciding what data to warehouse
6. Delays in getting data to the warehouse
7. Redundancy of data
8. Data quality issues
9. Effect on operation systems for up-to-the moment data requests
1. Lack of training/understanding
2. Power of internal “experts”
3. Inertia – why change?
4. Feeling that job may be threatened
5. Not invented here
6. Our problems are special
Sta
tus
Quo
[Source: Douglas K. Barry]
BusinessIssues
DesignIssues
ChangeIssues
![Page 24: Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070411/568147a4550346895db4dd60/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Conclusion
• Combining CIM model and UN-CEFACT Core Component Technical Specification is a promising approach
• The reusable methodology provide end-to-end requirements traceability
• As more projects leverage the infrastructure, more data becomes available as part of one coherent body of information
• Faster integration of application systems and information should improve EDF’s ability to react quickly to business changes
• Less dependence on individual vendors• There is one methodology and managed tool set to
ensure consistency and leverage