A New Framework for Evaluating the Functional Capabilities of Intra-Enterprise Application Integration Technologies Hossein Moradi and Ardeshir Bahreininejad* Department of Industrial Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Iran,
[email protected] [email protected]
Abstract: Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) technologies facilitate the sharing of information and business processes of interrelated information systems in order to achieve the target integrated systems. Different EAI solutions and technologies provide various capabilities which lead to the complexity of their evaluation process. To reduce this complexity, appropriate tools for evaluating the functional capabilities of EAI technologies are required. This paper proposes a new framework for evaluating the functional capabilities of EAI technologies, which simplify the process of evaluating the functional capabilities of intra-enterprise integration technologies and solutions. The proposed framework for evaluating the EAI technologies was enhanced using the structural and conceptual aspects of previous frameworks. It offers a new schema for which various EAI technologies are categorized in different classes and are evaluated based on their supporting level for functional integration capabilities’ criteria. The new framework offers two lists containing integration technologies and their associated classifications, and functional capabilities of integration technologies. The proposed framework is a novel one which can be used by information system experts for evaluation and comparison purposes of various integration technologies. Keywords: Enterprise Application Integration, Evaluation Framework, Functional Capabilities, Integration Technologies, Application and Information System
1. Introduction Nowadays, organizations need high-speed coordination and information exchange for in-time response to the market changes and customer requirements. Structure of such organizations may be designed in a functional oriented manner and are aligned with the mission of a functional unit instead of the whole organization considering the domination of the functional paradigm in such organizations. This behavior may create islands of information systems in organizations which make information flow and management inconsistent. To resolve this problem, many organizations are implementing enterprise systems such as first generation ERP 1 systems. However, some organizations are heavily dependent on legacy systems which may not be easily eliminated and should be integrated in the enterprise with other systems. Additionally, various ERP systems existing in an organization may also require integration. In Information Technology literature, technologies and solutions which offer the integration of current information systems are considered as EAI solutions. Erasala et al. define the EAI as "the integration of applications that enables information sharing and business processes, both of which result in efficient operations and flexible delivery of business services to the customer. Implementing EAI does not invariably involve discarding current or legacy applications; rather it unlocks the value of these applications and deploys their functionality in a scalable and robust way" [1]. Mosawi et al. have proposed two types of integration: inter-application integration and intra-application integration. "Intra-application integration seeks to incorporate enterprise applications and exchange information at enterprise level. It requires that enterprise systems leverage and integrate into the new business systems. Inter-application integration allows enterprise to integrate its business process with its business partner’s process, to improve business efficiency" [2]. 1
enterprise resource planning
50
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 2010/4
A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING THE FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITIES OF INTRA-EAI TECHNOLOGIES
Excess of coupling in enterprise integration may result in complexity between applications. For example, one-to-one communications between many applications in an integration solution results in communication bottlenecks. Additionally, changing an application may require changes in other application. Therefore, coupling may result in cost increasing. Nowadays, other integration solutions (such as EAI packages and virtual database) were appeared which make the management of integration easier and more scalable. Intrinsically, every EAI initiative requires financial investment by an organization. Therefore, the evaluation of technologies involved in an EAI may greatly reduce the risk in costs. Furthermore, the wide variety of EAI technologies and solutions in addition to the numerous associated capabilities, make the evaluation and selection of these technologies too complex. To resolve this complexity, appropriate tools should be used for evaluating the capabilities provided by EAI technologies. This paper focuses on offering a new framework for evaluating the functional capabilities of EAI technologies and answers the following questions: • What kind of intra-enterprise application integration technologies are available in today's IT market? • What kind of functional capabilities are provided by the intra-enterprise application integration technologies? The following section describes the research method used in this paper. After that, regarding the research questions, we narrow the scope of this research. In section 4, we have a review on the research process which includes the structure of the proposed framework, the proposed list of integration technologies and their associated classifications, the proposed list of functional integration capabilities, the proposed evaluation framework, and the verification phase. Section 5 compares the proposed framework with previous evaluation frameworks. After that, we introduce a multistep-process to utilize the proposed framework by experts and finally, we end the paper with research conclusions.
2. Research Method The research method for this paper is based on objective data gathering and analysis. Objectively, this research may be applicable because its objective is simplifying the integration problem in information system area. The data gathering for this research is based on literature reviews on EAI technologies and their associated capabilities as well as evaluation frameworks. Furthermore, the analysis method of this research is qualitative.
3. Research Scope As described by Hasselbring [17], the integration problem can be defined in three levels include the Business level (business to business integration), Application level (application to application integration) and Software Platform level (integration of different software platform with each other). Regarding the wideness of the integration problem, and considering the research questions, we have narrowed the scope of this research. Therefore, integration technologies and functional capabilities related to Application and Software Platform levels are attended and Business specific level technologies and capabilities such as UML tools and process simulation capability have not considered in the research scope. Furthermore, the explicit inter-organizational technologies and capabilities such as EDI technology and partner management capability have excluded from the research scope. Also, the non-functional or support capabilities such as security, flexibility, distribution, scalability and development services which are inevitable software systems’ capabilities have excluded from the research scope. Therefore, our research scope would be on intra-enterprise functional capabilities of intra-enterprise application integration technologies at application and software platform level.
4. Research Process As shown in the figure 1, the first step of this research is to identify some of the most important frameworks for the evaluation of integration technologies and selecting two of the most important frameworks amongst them. After employing structural analysis on them, a new structure for evaluating the functional capabilities of integration technologies is proposed. The proposed structure includes various integration technologies based on different classes and evaluated on their supporting level criteria for functional integration capabilities. Based on such structure, the next sections focus on discovering the proposed list of integration technologies and their
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 2010/4
51
HOSSEIN MORADI
AND
ARDESHIR BAHREININEJAD
associated classifications as well as recommending the proposed list of functional integration capabilities.
Identify the important frameworks for evaluation of integration technologies from EAI Literature
Analyzing the current evaluation frameworks and propose a new structure for evaluating the functional capabilities of integration technologies
Discover the list of integration technologies from literature
Discover the list of integration capabilities from literature
Refine and classify the list of integration technologies and recommending the proposed list of integration technologies and their associated classification
Refine, classify and extend the list of integration capabilities and recommending the proposed list of functional integration capabilities
Insert the proposed classes, technologies and functional integration capabilities at the proposed structure and proposing a brand new framework for evaluating the functional capabilities of EAI technologies
Evaluate and verify proposed framework through a semi-structured questionnaire with integration
Figure 1.The major steps of the research process For discovering the above items, we extracted a list of integration technologies from literature, and then with refinement and classification of this list, we determined the proposed list of integration technologies and their associated classification. In the next step, a list of integration capabilities determined. After refinement, classification and extension of this list, we proposed a new list of functional integration capabilities. Then, with merging the proposed classes, technologies and functional integration capabilities in the proposed structure, a new framework for evaluating the functional capabilities of integration technologies is proposed. Finally, we evaluated and verified proposed framework through a semi-structured questionnaire with integration experts. As described above, the research process of this paper includes the following steps dealing with: • The structure of proposed framework • The proposed list of integration technologies and their associated classification • The proposed list of functional integration capabilities • The proposed evaluation framework • Evaluation and verification phase
4.1
The structure of proposed framework
The variations in EAI enablers and their capabilities lead to the complexity of selecting the integration technologies. To resolve this complexity, numerous frameworks have been developed [3][4][14][16]. This research conducted a survey on such frameworks and two of the most important frameworks were chosen. The first selected framework was proposed by Themistocleous et al. [3] in 2004 and the second framework provided by Forrester Research Corporation [4] in 2005. Themistocleous et al. have evaluated various EAI technologies based on the following criteria:
52
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 2010/4
A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING THE FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITIES OF INTRA-EAI TECHNOLOGIES
• • •
Application elements (data, objects and processes), Integration layers (transportation, translation and process automation), and Classifications of system types (custom-to-custom integration, custom-to-packaged integration, custom-to-e-business integration, packaged-to-packaged integration, packaged-to-e-business integration, e-business-to-e-business integration, custom-to-packaged-to-e-business integration) [3]. In this framework [3], the evaluated technologies and their associated classification include: Database oriented middleware (ODBC 2 and JDBC 3 ), message oriented technologies (RPC 4 , MOM 5 , message broker and XML 6 ), transaction based technologies (include TPM 7 and application servers), distributed object technologies (CORBA 8 , DCOM/COM 9 and EJB 10 ) and interface oriented technologies (include screen wrapper, APIs 11 and adapters). Themistocleous et al. conducted a case study using a semi-structured questionnaire with people involved in the evaluation and implementation of EAI projects. The feedback from people was to add a connectivity layer to the aforementioned integration layers [3]. Themistocleous et al. also claimed, there is no single technology that supports the integration of all applications' elements and, indicates that a combination of integration technologies is required to facilitate the integration of data, objects and processes [3]. In evaluation framework proposed by Forrester Research Corporation in 2005, various integration solutions include Web services, ESB 12 , EAI 13 , BPM 14 and BSH 15 were compared with each other based on their functionalities. The criteria used in this framework include messaging, routing, data transformation, connectivity, partner management, process management, human workflow, process monitoring, process simulation and business rules [4]. In our opinion, the advantage of first framework proposed in [3] is its evaluation case (the list of integration technologies and their classification) and the advantage of second framework proposed in [4] is its evaluation criteria (evaluation based on the functionalities of integration technologies). In this paper, we address these criteria by the name of "functional integration capabilities". This research aims at extending the structure and content of these frameworks by combining the evaluation features of both frameworks to enhance the evaluation of functional capabilities of integration technologies. The structure of the proposed framework is shown in Table 1.
2
Open Database Connectivity Java Database Connectivity 4 Remote Procedure Call 5 Message Oriented Middleware 6 Extensible Markup Language 7 Transaction Processing Monitors 8 Common Object Request Broker Architecture 9 Distributed Common Object Model/ Common Object Model 10 Enterprise JavaBeans 11 Application Programming Interface 12 Enterprise service Bus 13 Enterprise Application Integration 14 Business Process Management 15 Business Services Hub 3
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 2010/4
53
HOSSEIN MORADI
AND
ARDESHIR BAHREININEJAD
Table 1.The structure of proposed framework Evaluation Criteria (Functional Integration Capability) Capability 1 Capability 2 Capability Classification Integration Technologies Class1
Technology 1 Technology 2 Technology ...
Class 2
Technology 1 Technology 2 Technology ...
Class ...
Technology 1 Technology 2 Technology ...
The proposed structure may be used to evaluate various integration technologies based on the functional integration capabilities criteria. The next stage has focused on determining the proposed list of integration technologies and their classification as well as recommending the proposed list of functional integration capabilities.
4.2 The proposed list of Integration technologies and their associated classification A list of integration technologies is proposed by extracting the technologies from EAI literature which is shown in Table 2. Information system experts can use this list to review and understand various integration technologies better. Using information given in Table 2, and after refinement and classification of the extracted list of integration technologies (Table 2), a new list of integration technologies and their associated classification was proposed and shown in Table 3. After refining the list of integration technologies, the shadowed rows in Table 2 were eliminated for the following reasons: The P2P 16 , DOT 17 and CBD 18 are considered as classes instead of an explicit kind of integration technology. P2P which is a traditional class of integration technologies that includes RPC and MOM technologies [9], have not regarded as an explicit classes in our proposed list. DOT and CBD refer to a similar class of technologies, where we call it Distributed Object Technologies class. The process or workflow modeling and UML 19 have eliminated from the proposed list, since they are Business level technologies and have not considered in the research scope 20 . Furthermore, EDI 21 , supply chain integration and on-line trading brokers’ technologies eliminated from the proposed list, since they are inter-enterprise application integration technologies and have not included in our research scope. Furthermore, unknown technologies such as BSH and bridge that addressed just by one researcher of twelve ones, and have not considered by other important references, were excluded from the proposed list. Data Mart and data warehouse which are not independent integration technologies and are used as basic and supporting tools for data replication and ETL technologies, were also excluded from the proposed list. Finally, transaction management, common application services, business logic, metadata management and transformation that are capabilities of integration technologies, and are not an explicit kind of technology, were excluded from the proposed list of integration technologies, and inserted in the list of integration capabilities (displayed in Table 4), where we describe them in section 4.3. 16
Point to Point Distributed Object Technologies 18 Component Based Development 19 Unified Modeling Language 20 The scope of this research is described in section 3 (research scope) 21 Electronic Data Interchange 17
54
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 2010/4
A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING THE FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITIES OF INTRA-EAI TECHNOLOGIES
Table 2.The extracted list of integration technologies from literature Reference
Synonyms
Natis [5] Gulledge [6]; Natis [5]; Gold-Bernstein Message Queuing technology [7]; Vandersluis [8]; Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10] Gold-Bernstein [7]; Natis [5]; Linthicum Publish/ Subscribe [9] Gulledge [6]; Gold-Bernstein[7]; Vandersluis [8]; Themistocleous et al. Remote Function Call [3]; Linthicum [9] Gulledge [6]; Themistocleous et al. [3]
Technology File Transfer Tools Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) Publish/Subscribe Broker Remote Procedure Calls (RPC) Extensible Markup Language (XML)
Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum [9]
Open Database Connectivity (ODBC )
Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum [9]
Java Database Connectivity (JDBC )
Natis [5]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10] Gulledge [6]; Natis [5]; Gold-Bernstein Adapter, Connector, Application [7]; Vandersluis [8]; Themistocleous et Wrapper and Gateway al. [3]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10] Natis [5]; Themistocleous et al. [3]; Screen Scrapper Adapter Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10] Vandersluis [8]; Mosawi et al. [2]; Application Interface, Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum [9]; Component-based Application Johnson [10] Interface Sapient [11]; Forrester [4]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10] Tomlinson & Zimmermann [12]; Forrester [4] Natis [5]; Mosawi et al. [2]; Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10] Natis [5]; Mosawi et al. [2]; Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10]
Database Gateway
Themistocleous et al. [3]; Johnson [10]
Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB)
Application Adapter Screen Scraper Application (API)
Programming
Interface
Web Services Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Common Object Request Architecture (CORBA)
Broker
Common Object Model/ Distributed Common Object Model (COM/ DCOM)
Gulledge [6]; Mosawi et al. [2]; Database Replication Data Replication Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10] Sapient [11]; Gold-Bernstein [7]; Extract, Transform and Load (ETL) Vandersluis [8]; Mosawi et al. [2] Gulledge [6]; Vandersluis [8]; Mosawi et Federated Database and Virtual Database al. [2]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10] Database Federation Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum, [9]; Transaction Processing Monitors (TPM) Johnson [10] Gulledge [6]; Themistocleous et al. [3]; Application Server Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10] Gulledge [6]; Johannesson & Perjons [13]; Sapient [11]; Tomlinson & Message Broker and Integration Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) Zimmermann [12]; Natis [5]; Forrester Broker Broker [4]; Vandersluis [8]; Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10] Johannesson & Perjons [13]; Natis [5]; Business Process Management (BPM) Process Broker Forrester [4]; Mosawi et al. [2] Package Gold-Bernstein [7]; Gulledge [6] Gold-Bernstein [7] Forrester [4] Johnson [10] Mosawi et al. [2]
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 2010/4
EDI Process or Workflow Modeling, UML, Supply Chain Integration, On-line Trading Brokers BSH Bridge Data Mart and Data Warehouse Technologies
55
HOSSEIN MORADI
Reference
AND
ARDESHIR BAHREININEJAD
Synonyms
Johannesson & Perjons [13]; Sapient [11] Vandersluis [8]
Technology P2P DOT
Tomlinson & Zimmermann [12]
CBD
Gold-Bernstein [7]
Transaction Management, Common Application Services, Business Logic, Metadata Management
Vandersluis [8]
Transformation
Table 3.The proposed list of integration technologies and their associated classification
Classification
Integration Technologies
Instance
File Transfer Technologies
File Transfer Tools
FTP
22
Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) MSMQ 23 Publish/Subscribe Broker JMS 24 Elementary Message Oriented Middleware Remote Procedure Calls (RPC) DCE 25 Extensible Markup Language (XML) XML Standards Open Database Connectivity (ODBC ) ODBC Database Access Technologies Java Database Connectivity (JDBC ) JDBC 26 Database Gateway Information Builders' EDA/SQL 27 Application Adapter JCA Screen Scraper Ekiwi Screen Scraper Enterprise Application Access Technologies Application Programming Interface 28 SAP's BAPI (API) Web Services Web Services Standards Service-Oriented Technologies Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Sonic ESB Common Object Request Broker CORBA Architecture (CORBA) Distributed Object Technologies Common Object Model/ Distributed COM/ DCOM Common Object Model (COM/ DCOM) Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) EJB Data Replication Data-Oriented Technologies Extract, Transform and Load (ETL) IBM WebSphere DataStage Virtual Database CONNX Solutions Transaction Processing Monitors (TPM)Tuxedo Transaction Monitor Transaction-Oriented Technologies Application Server WebLogic Application Server Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) WebMethods Products Modern Brokers Business Process Management (BPM) 29 Filenet BPMS Package
As displayed in Table 3, the proposed list of integration technologies and their associated classification include nine classes of file transfer technologies (file transfer tools), elementary message oriented middleware (include MOM, publish/subscribe broker, RPC and XML), database access technologies (include ODBC, JDBC and database gateway), application access technologies (include application adapter, screen scrapper and API), service-oriented technologies (include web services and ESB), distributed object technologies (include CORBA, COM/DCOM and EJB), data-oriented technologies (include data replication, ETL tools and virtual database), transaction-oriented 22
File Transfer Protocol Microsoft Message Queue 24 Java Message Service 25 Distributed Computing Environment 26 Enterprise Data Access/ Structured Query Language 27 J2EE Connector Architecture 28 Business API 29 BPM system 23
56
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 2010/4
A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING THE FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITIES OF INTRA-EAI TECHNOLOGIES
technologies (include TPM and application server) and modern brokers (include EAI broker and BPM package). To help the reader, we placed an instance of each technology in Table 3. Table 4.The extracted list of integration capabilities from literature The integration capability
Synonyms
Researchers
Messaging service
Messaging; transportation; communication Services (data transport)
Forrester [4];Themistocleous & Irani [14]; Erasala et al. [2];
Persistence service
Persistence (logging and message warehousing)
Linthicum [9]
Distribution services
Distribution service; Routing; intelligent routing; distribution service (message routing); information routing (one to one, many to many and many to one, intelligent routing and filters); base connectivity (addressing style (peer-to-peer, publish/subscribe or broadcasting) and communication coupling ( synchronous or asynchronous))
Puschmann & Alt [16]; Forrester [4]; Natis [5]; Erasala et al. [2]; Linthicum [9]; Hagen [15];
Connectivity service
Connectivity; communication middleware and adapters; resource interface (adapter); connectivity (support for Forrester [4]; Natis [5]; Hagen information-oriented connections, service-oriented connections, coupling , cohesion, transaction oriented [15]; Linthicum [9]; connections and abstractions); connectivity; connectivity Themistocleous & Irani [14]; Puschmann & Alt [16]; services (communication, addressing, delivery and security services) and interface services (interface translation and metadata representation services)
Transformation service
transformation (syntactic conversion, and semantic transformation); data transformation; translation; transformation; transformation (support for differences in application semantics, differences in content and abstract data types); transformation services (identification, validation and synchronization services)
Natis [5]; Forrester [4]; Themistocleous & Irani [14]; Hagen [15]; Erasala et al. [2]; Linthicum [9]; Puschmann & Alt [16];
Transaction management service
Transactionality (short-term transaction, long-term transactions and state management); transformation services (transaction processing services); transformation services (transactional integrity)
Linthicum [9]; Puschmann & Alt [16]; Erasala et al. [2];
Business rules; rules; process management (business rules) Process management; Business process management (high-speed composite application); intra-broker process control; process automation; Process management (coordinates and controls the Process/workflow/rule transformational services layer); process awareness management services (support for process management, sub processes, hierarchy, inheritance, service control and information movement); process management services (transformation coordination services) Human workflow; business process management (longrunning work flow); inter-application process control (workflow) Process monitoring; business activity monitor (event and state management); process awareness (business activity monitoring) Inter-organizational Business process (inter-organizational processes); service partner management Process-awareness (support for modeling, optimization and abstraction of business processes); process Business level service simulation; development services (process modeling) Process monitoring service
Common service
Forrester [4]; Hagen [15]; Erasala et al. [2];
Forrester [4]; Natis [5]; Hagen [15]; Themistocleous & Irani [14]; Erasala et al [2]; Linthicum [9]; Puschmann & Alt [16];
Forrester [4]; Natis [5]; Hagen [15]; Forrester [4]; Natis [5]; Linthicum [9]; Erasala et al. [2]; Forrester [4] Linthicum [9]; Forrester [4]; Puschmann & Alt [16]
Development, administrative, metadata (message dictionary) and security services; development services Natis [5]; Puschmann & Alt (transformation specification and interface development) [16] and runtime services (distribution, scalability and monitoring)
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 2010/4
57
HOSSEIN MORADI
AND
ARDESHIR BAHREININEJAD
4.3 The proposed list of Functional integration capabilities The capabilities of integration technologies were extracted from literature and given in Table 4. This table is a good review of various integration capabilities and their synonyms referred by different researchers in literature, and can be used by IT experts to understand various kinds of integration capabilities more. After refining, classifying and extending the list of integration capabilities given in Table 4, a proposed list of functional integration capabilities was given in Table 5. During the refinement process, interorganizational service was excluded from the proposed list, since inter-enterprise application integration technologies and capabilities were not considered in our research scope. Furthermore, business level service was excluded from the proposed list, since Business specific level capabilities were not considered in the research scope. Additionally, Common service that includes the nonfunctional capabilities of integration technologies was also eliminated, since it was not included in research scope. Also, regarding the importance of connectivity capability, we classified it into two explicit capabilities include service-oriented connectivity and information-oriented connectivity. Additionally, regarding the importance of the transformation capability, we considered it as two new items include syntactic conversion and semantic transformation. As displayed in Table 5, the proposed list of functional integration capabilities include messaging, persistence, routing, service-oriented connectivity, information-oriented connectivity, syntactic conversion, semantic transformation, transaction management, business rule management, process management, human workflow management and process monitoring. There is also a brief description for the proposed list of functional integration capabilities in Table 5. Table 5.The proposed list of functional integration capabilitiesDescription Functional Integration Capability Support for the data transfer between applications
Messaging
Support for the message routing between applications
Routing
Support for the logging and warehousing of exchanged data
Persistence
Support for the service-oriented connectivity between applications (share application services and invoking them)
Service-Oriented Connectivity
Support for the information-oriented connectivity between applications (share and exchange information between applications)
Information-Oriented Connectivity
Support for the syntactic conversion (adaptation) of exchanged data
Syntactic Conversion
Support for the semantic transformation (semantic mapping) of exchanged information
Semantic Transformation
Support for the short-term and long-term transactions
Transaction Management
Support for the management of business rules
Business Rule Management
Support for the management of fully-automated business processes where the composition of process elements occurs fairly rapid
Process Management
Support for the management of semi-automated workflows where the composition of process elements occurs in long-term
Human Workflow Management
Support for the management and supervising on business activities (business activity monitoring)
Process Monitoring
4.4 The proposed evaluation framework After proposing an innovative structure for evaluating the integration technologies in first part of this section, and recommending the list of integration technologies and their associated classification in second part, and suggesting the list of functional integration capabilities in third part, we achieved to the final evaluation framework. As displayed in Table 6, the proposed framework is a brand new and useful tool which can be used by information system experts for evaluating and comparing the functional capabilities of integration technologies. This framework has extended the previous frameworks from two viewpoints. It combined the evaluation features of both Themistocleous et al.[3] and Forrester[4] frameworks by extending the
58
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 2010/4
A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING THE FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITIES OF INTRA-EAI TECHNOLOGIES
structure and content of these frameworks as well as adding new items to those frameworks to enhance the evaluation of functional capabilities of integration technologies. Table 6.The proposed framework for evaluating the functional capabilities of integration technologies
Messaging Routing Persistence Informationoriented Connectivity Service-oriented Connectivity Syntactic Conversion Semantic Transformation Transaction Management Business Rules Management Process Management Human Workflow Management Process Monitoring
Evaluation Criteria (Functional Integration Capability)
Classification File Transfer Technology
Elementary Message Oriented Middleware
Database Access Technologies
Application Access Technologies ServiceOriented Technologies
Distributed Object Technologies
Data-Oriented Technologies TransactionOriented Technologies
Integration Technologies File Transfer Tools Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) Publish/Subscribe Broker Remote Procedure Calls (RPC) Extensible Markup Language (XML) Open Database Connectivity (ODBC ) Java Database Connectivity (JDBC ) Database Gateway Application Adapter Screen Scraper Application Programming Interface (API) Web Services Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) Common Object Model/ Distributed Common Object Model (COM/ DCOM) Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) Data Replication Extract, Transform and Load (ETL) Virtual Database Transaction Processing Monitors (TPM)
Application Server Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) Broker Business Process Modern Brokers Management (BPM) Package
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 2010/4
59
HOSSEIN MORADI
AND
ARDESHIR BAHREININEJAD
The proposed framework offers a new schema for which various EAI technologies are categorized in different classes and are evaluated based on their supporting level for functional integration capabilities’ criteria. Furthermore, it offers two lists containing integration technologies and their associated classifications as well as functional capabilities of integration technologies.
4.5 Evaluation and verification phase Finally, we evaluated our framework through an interview with information system experts as well as prepare a semi-structured questionnaire and sending it to a list of integration experts electronically. Finally we received feedback from 24 academics and 11 practical experts. Here are some of the most important feedbacks from experts: •
Most experts said our proposed list of integration technologies is comprehensive, and it's difficult to add a new item to the proposed list, however a few number of experts excluded some rows from our proposed list (for instance, file transfer technologies).
•
A few number of researchers believed that we should add additional criteria such as organizational issues, budget, security, scalability, process modeling and etc. to the criteria section. Regarding this point that we have narrowed our research scope, and also our framework goal is evaluating functional capabilities of integration technologies, not the enterprise integration needs; these criticisms are not related to our proposed framework, however there is an option to propose a more comprehensive evaluation framework in future researches.
5. Comparison In this section, we compare our proposed evaluating framework with two similar ones in literature. The first glance to the proposed framework, we will find a brand new framework. Structurally, it uses a new schema which has enhanced using the structural and conceptual aspects of previous frameworks. Conceptually, the evaluation case of proposed framework (the list of integration technologies and their associated classifications) has obtained from the Themistocleous et al. framework [3], and also the concept of its evaluation criteria has obtained from the Forrester framework [4]. The list of functional capabilities of proposed framework, are very similar to Forrester framework [4], but our criteria are extended or eliminated. The list of integration technologies and their associated classification of proposed framework is fairly similar to Themistocleous et al. framework [3], but we have introduced some new technologies and classified integration technologies differently.
6. Application of Framework Information system practitioners and managers can utilize the proposed framework for evaluation and comparison purposes of various integration technologies. Here there is a multi-step process to use this framework in real world.
60
•
Practitioners and managers involved in intra-enterprise application integration projects must prepare a list of integration needs (here addresses as IN) that should be met by integration technologies. As proposed by Hasselbring [17], these needs can be classified as three levels of integration requirements: business level (addresses as IN.BL), application level and software platform level (addresses as IN.ASL). So Application and software platform level needs (IN.ASL) are extracted from the list of integration needs.
•
These needs can also be classified as two different classes: functional needs (addresses as IN.ASL.F), and non-functional needs (addresses as IN.ASL.NF). Functional needs (IN.ASL.F) should be extracted from the above list. Consequently you have a list of functional requirements that should be met by application integration technologies.
•
Now, you can use the proposed framework to choose the right technology to adapt the integration needs. Considering the list of functional integration requirements (IN.ASL.F), experts can choose the right functional integration capabilities from the columns of proposed framework (addresses as IC.ASL.F)
•
After that, regarding your selection of functional integration capabilities (IC.ASL.F), choose one or multiple technologies from the proposed framework and insert them into a new list of application integration technologies that meet your functional requirements at Application and Software platform level (addresses as AIT.ASL.F).
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 2010/4
A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING THE FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITIES OF INTRA-EAI TECHNOLOGIES
•
Your selection (AIT.ASL.F) would be appropriate from the functional aspect; however you should re-evaluate and filter this list from non-functional aspect to reach a list of application integration technologies that meet your both functional and non-functional requirements at Application and Software platform level (addresses as AIT.ASL).
•
Finally you should re-evaluate and filter narrowed list of application integration technologies (AIT.ASL) from business viewpoint and prepare a list of one or multiple application integration technologies that addresses here as AIT.
•
Remaining application integration technologies in AIT list would be the right tools to meet intraenterprise application integration needs.
7. Conclusion This paper had two outcomes. It has gathered two lists of various integration technologies and integration capabilities proposed by different researchers in EAI literature. EAI experts can utilize these two lists to review and understand various integration technologies and their related capabilities more. Furthermore, we proposed a brand new framework for evaluating the functional capabilities of intraenterprise application integration technologies, which simplify the process of evaluating the capabilities of integration technologies and solutions. The proposed framework for evaluating the EAI technologies was enhanced using the structural and conceptual aspects of previous frameworks. Information system experts can utilize the proposed framework for evaluation and comparison purposes of various integration technologies. However regarding our research scope and limitations, they should evaluate organizational and non-functional capabilities of integration technologies independently.
References [1] [2]
[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
Erasala, N., Yen, D.C. and Rajkumar, T.M.: Enterprise Application Integration in the electronic commerce world. Computer Standards & Interfaces 25, 2003, pp. 69–82. Mosawi, A.A., Zhao,L. and Macaulay, L.: A Model Driven Architecture for Enterprise Application Integration. IEEE Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii, 2006 Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z, Love, P.E.D.: Evaluating the integration of supply chain information systems: A case study. European Journal of Operational Research 159, 2004, pp. 393–405. Brodie, M.L.: Integration in A Service-Oriented World: The Big Picture Presentation, Verizon Communications, 2006 Natis, Y.: The IS Platform of 2003: The Enterprise Central Nervous System. Gartner Research. Paris, 2001 Gulledge, T.: What is integration? Industrial Management & Data Systems 106(1), 2006, pp. 5-20. Evgeniou, T.: Information Integration and Information Strategies for Adaptive Enterprises. European Management Journal 20(5), 2002, pp. 486–494. Vandersluis, K.: XML-Based Integration with XAware: Unifying Applications and Data in Today's E-Business World. Maximum Press, 2004 Linthicum, D.S.: Next Generation Application Integration: from simple information to Web Services. Addison-Wesley, 2003 Johnson, P.: Enterprise software system integration an architectural perspective. Industrial Information and Control Systems 133. Stockholm, KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, 2002 Sapient: Enterprise Integration Options Presentation version 0.1, MIT University. 2004 Tomlinson, M. and Zimmermann, O.: Building Service-Oriented Architectures with Web Services, IBM Corporation, 2005 Johannesson, P. and Perjons, E.: Design principles for process modeling in enterprise application integration. Information Systems 26, 2001, pp. 165–184. Themistocleous, M. and Irani, Z.: Towards a Novel Framework for the Assessment of Enterprise Application Integration Packages. IEEE- Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, IEEE Computer Society, 2002
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 2010/4
61
HOSSEIN MORADI
[15] [16]
[17]
62
AND
ARDESHIR BAHREININEJAD
Struver, S.C.: The Impact of Web Services in the context of Enterprise Application Integration in the Financial Services Industry. Comptence Center EAI. Berlin, TU Berlin: 127, 2002 Puschmann, T. and Alt, R.: Enterprise application integration systems and architecture-the case of the Robert Bosch Group. The Journal of Enterprise Information Management 17(2), 2004, pp. 105-116. Hasselbring, W.: Information System Integration. ACM - communications of the ACM 43(6), 2000, pp. 33-38.
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 2010/4
