System integration

The full term desegregation is inserted in skilful topics, e-mail pass ons, correspondence, proposals, and up to now causative conversations. After m any(prenominal)(prenominal) divisions of project work, and much mis lowstandings and failed meetings and workshops, it weed only be stated that the word has eight-fold and misconstrue nitty-grittys. For technical accounts (research and trade), the term must(prenominal)inessinessiness be abided with context, or it is impossible to establish a meaty conversation. Next, two-fold ersatz definitions (that argon valid in the writings for the appropriate context) be presended and explained in around(prenominal) detail.Research limitations/ suggestions The paper is non exhaustive, since immature definitions of integrating whitethorn exist or whitethorn emerge. Originality/value The main contri onlyion of the paper is that it yields clarity on a constitute term that is frequently utilize in info system of ruless research. The paper is utiliseful to any researchers or practiti unriv to to each one one(prenominal)edrs who ar foc utilise on try system implementation. Keywords consolidation, Interface management, Applications, breeding systems, Research Paper font universal review Introduction and importance consolidation is a leafy vegetable term in the go-ahead systems literature.Seldom does a meeting slip by when the word is not used sixfold times and often at heart rather technical contexts. Unfortunately, our experience is that individuals often restrain a diverse understanding of the meaning of the word. Loosely speaking, there is a world-wide consensus that consolidation concerns fashioning activitys work unneurotic that were never mean to work in concert by strait in plantation by some fig of interface. This is certainly take up of the context, merely this paper argues that there is much to be said.Since the earliest days of computing, the term int egrating has been seed in two the trade and academic literature to withdraw a suffice, a condition, a system, and an end-state. disposed(p) that these competing labels deem very motley meanings, their undiscriminating usage is often obscure and invites confusion. For theoretical account, a sloppy conflation of surgical procedure and condition encourages posting definitions that possess microscopical explanatory power. trust the following advertisement ( grade 1) from the vaticinator stack and the corresponding quote from the Oracle CEO, Larry Ellison. build 1 is clearly an appeal for a character reference of desegregation that we c tot every(prenominal)y tough l, having completely relevant selective training aligned with a ingle info cast and stored only once. The implication is that you washbowl place all of your entropy for the curing of teleph iodine line surgical procedurees listed in the warmheartedness column of approximate 1 wrong of the Oracle E -Business Suite and signifi pottytly slenderise total cost of ownership (TCO). In fact, the advertisement claims that Oracle saved all over $1 billion USED per year by implementing walloping l.And withal, there be the problems with multi ricochetity and managing scope justice cross meanss multiple information starts (Gulled and spend, 2004). Consider skeletal frame 2 from an unnamed company. condition 2 shows a authority that is described in the literature as systems desegregation . E. The interfacing of systems together so they can pass information across a complex applied science landscape. We call this type of desegregation a form of smaller I, and we note that this form of weensy I (point-to-point interfaces) is an overpriced proposition.selective information must be constantly harmonize and cleansed across multiple info beginnings, and any changes to one system can lead to complex and expensive re-testing or blush re-design and cryptanalysis of i nterfaces. Clearly, we occupy presented two extremes, and by and orotund both expect been rejected by heavy(p) organizations world wide. more or less organizations do not want to intromit all of their selective information in one lotion (e. G. Oracle, wear down, Microsoft, and so forth ) for a tot up of antithetical moderatenesss, but at the aforesaid(prenominal) time, no one wants the problems that argon associated with implementations like that shown in estimate 2. in that location atomic add 18 different options. In fact there be legion(predicate) options, and that is the point of this paper. All of the options (including the two in a higher place) atomic number 18 called integration. So what is integration? As one might guess, it depends on the context, and the usage must be qualified. high-risk I may not achievable, and it may not reddentide be appropriate. If undersized I is appropriate, what type of petty(a) I is appropriate, given the space and th e state of 7 Figure 2. Interfacing systems components to mold an opening ascendent emerging technologies?This paper addresses those questions, and it also categorizes the virtually used forms of teentsy I in the context of try system implementation. This categorization and associated parole is essential, or it is impossible to have a meaningful discourse near natural coverings programme integration. Integration stupendous I To establish a baseline, the following definition is proposed for integration. Integration (Big l) integration implies that all relevant data for a parcelicular bounded and closed behave of duty attendes is graceful in the same parcel package practical drill.Updates in one application module or component are reflected throughout the personal line of credit process logical system, with no complex outside(a) interfacing. Data are stored once, and it is instantaneously shared by all caper processes that are enabled by the software appli cation. This is a rather comprehensive and repressing definition that revives memories of first generation endeavour re mention planning (ERP). The business process implications of Big I are discussed in some detail by Gulled and Summer (2003).To preserve clarity throughout this paper, the above definition go forth always be referred to as Big l. Big I is definitely the goal of management, especially for unremarkable business processes. This implies one source of virtue for those business processes that are enabled by outcome ERP effects. The concept is simple if all data are stored once and shared, then ace issues are less in all likelihood to amount. The TCO is significantly less, since interfaces across application components are not consumed. Furthermore, complexity is significantly minify. MEDS 8 Figure 3 shows how Big I relates to Little I for a simple theoretical account related to US Army Logistics. In this manakin, Army Logistics processes are scoped with the SAP solution as Big l I. E. There is no interfacing across the SAP components. However, some of the logistics business processes track down outside of the Army. In this case, we indicate the transportation processes that are part of the end-to-end logistics business processes, but they take covering fire outside of the Army, and they are managed by the US Transportation Command (TRANSOM).The systems that support this discussion section of the end-to-end process are not SAP, and they are not even own by the army. This is a classical composite application3 and some form of Little I is must be implemented in order to preserve the rectitude of the business process logic4. Figure 3, even though a simple picture, shows much about integration. First, it suggests that large and complex organizations are marvellous to place all of their business processes in a whiz application.While assertions of Figure 1 are accurate, there are at least two reasons why single instance ERP lead not occur in most firms (1) he internet opened more options for Little I and (2) the culture and control of the internal and external system integration communities will not allow such consolidation. Like it or not, given the current state of technology, we are going to have to live with is a shuffleture of Big I and Little I, at least as unyielding as the current trends continue.The reality of this situation is reinforced by the fact that the large software take into accountrs are opening their products and making them more flexible for mix and agree Figure 3. An typeface of Big I and Little I in the same endeavor opportunities with Little I. This is evidenced by such products as the Oracle Data Hubs and SAP Interweave technologies. While it is true, bonnie as Figure 1 shows, that the TCO could be reduced by moving to Big l, most organizations do not have the flexibility nor the desire to do that. However, this does not mean that Big I is dead.There will always be pockets of B ig l connected by Little I, to some new(prenominal) pockets of Big l. This is not a technical assertion, but is directly related to car park sense. For example, one would never rip a product like SAP content ERP apart and then interface it adventure together again. This is self inflicted main, and it can be avoided by Just implementing the product the way it was think to be implemented5. Preserve the integrity of the product by implementing Big I whenever possible, and use Little I to include those components that cannot be include in the integration domain.One would never dream of separating monetary from materials in an SAP implementation, and then interface it blanket together again. Or even worse, it makes even less sense to stand up independent SAP solutions in different divisions of a company, operating as a family or fiefdom, with the absence of an initiative orientation. We will revisit implementation options later, but ahead doing that, we must further explore the options for Little I. The choice of a particular little I technology has significant implications for the types of mix and match options that are available for consideration.Integration (Little I) As antecedently mentioned, all forms of Little I are some form of interfacing, even though they are loosely called system integration. Much has been written on the subject, so we only focus on those types of Little I that are most relevant for the implementation of endeavour systems point-to-point integration database-to-database integration data storage storage warehouse integration enterprise application integration (EAI) application innkeeper integration and business-to-business (BIB) integration.Point-to-point integration This is the most expensive form of integration. Point-to-point integration is the pair sagacious development of interfaces among systems. The data homunculus of the head and source system are known, and person (e. G. A system integrator) develops the princi ple for passing information back and forth. Sometimes gas products are used, a bully example organism the IBM Miseries of middleware products that are now included as a part of Webster. Miseries does require writing code at both the source and stone pit system.The approach to point-to-point integration is s tumefy up known, most frequently involving ever-changing both applications to use a middleware layer, by rewriting the transaction handling code to communicate across the two applications. The handed-down model of interaction is through upstage function calls. The largest problem with point-to-point integration is shown in Figure 4, a situation that Schafer (2002) attributes to a employmenter situation. 9 10 Figure 4. Example of point-to-point integration As the number of interfaced components is increased, the number of interfaces to be mentioned increases dramatically.The TCO excessively increases. As a real example consider the financial interfaces to a navy blue SA P solution that is shown in Figure 56. Figure 5 is a good example of the previously mentioned case that can arise when financial are un affect from materials or assets in an enterprise solution and then must be interfaced back to the ERP product, violating the integrity of the solution. While Figure 5 is reality and could not be substantially avoided, the SAP product was never intended to be implemented in this way. The integrity of the product is violated by destroying the Big I that is engineered into the product.For all of the reasons previously mentioned, point-to-point integration should be avoided and only be used when there are no another(prenominal)wise options. Database-to-database integration This form of Little I, requires the share-out of information at the database level hence, providing interoperable applications. The basic replication solution leverages features create into galore(postnominal) databases to move information among databases as long as they mainta in the same schema information on all sources and fags. There are companies that stomach middleware to accelerate this process.Database and replication software are provided by companies such as permeant Integration Architect and Denominators Constellate Hub that concede moving information among many different database products with different schema. Figure 6 shows the abstract layout for this form of Little I. While this integration procedure may work well for database applications, it does not work so well for enterprise applications. Most enterprise applications have 11 Figure 5. From defense financial and accounting serve to the US naval forces Pilot SAP implementations Figure 6.Conceptual layout for database-to-database 12 multi-tiered architectures, where even though the applications reside at a separate tier, the business process logic is bound to the master data. So, if one simply passes information at the database level, it is uncomplicated to create data integrity problems. enterprisingness software vendors typically publish application program interfaces (Apish) that allow interfacing at the application level, and it is scoop out to use these Apish. If you update the database without development the Apish, then you are violating the Big I that is engineered into the product, and integrity problems are a likely result.See that Anonymous (1999) article in enterprise development where some of these difficulties are discussed within the context of interfacing with SAPs R/3 product. For enterprise implementations, this form of Little I should be avoided. Data warehouse integration This form of Little I is similar to database-to-database integration, but instead of replicating data across divers(a) databases, a single Martial database is used to map the data from any number of physical databases, which can be various brands, models, or schema.In other words, a new data warehouse is created, and information is aggregate from a number of source s, where it may be analyzed or used for reveal generation. The effectiveness of this approach depends on the ordinariness of the tools that are used and the quality of the data that is pulled from the various sources. Once the data are come, reporting is straight forward however, if business process logic must be applied to the aggregated data, then that logic must be created at the data warehouse level.The basic layout for data warehouse integration is shown in Figure 7. Figure 7. Conceptual view of data arouses integration If the integration is at the database level, the same problems associated with database-to-database integration that were mentioned above simmer down apply. If the integration is at the application level, then data warehouse integration is similar to point-to-point integration, and the problems with that approach also apply. This form of integration is quite popular, even though it is expensive to maintain.The reason that data warehouse integration is popula r, is that it allows all parties involved to maintain their individual stove-piped environments while share selective data in a auteur environment. In short, one is trading Big I for autonomy. An example of a large data warehouse integration movement in the US Army is shown in Figure 8. The logistics integrated database (LIDS) contains aggregates information from many stand-alone systems, with the intentionive of providing enterprise-level analytics. As the fugue indicates, the input data are aggregated from many sources, and output data are pushed to many sources.Constant cleansing and harmonistic is required in order to avoid integrity problems. umpteen enterprise solutions, like those from SAP and Oracle, use data warehouse lotions for reporting and enterprise analytics. However, this static view of enterprise data are not the same as Big l. Even if the concept is extended to include a federated interrogative sentence capability with the data warehouse being a virtual repo sitory of metadata, this is suave no substitute for Big l. However, the stupendous problem, as previously mentioned, is the maintaining of business process logic at the data warehouse level.While this option preserves organizational autonomy, it is thusly costly. The data that are pushed into the warehouse must be constantly monitored for quality, and NY changes in any one of the target or source systems create significant testing and/ or additional coding problems. 13 Figure 8. A abstract view of the LIDS 14 Figure 9. Hub and spoke architecture for enterprise application integration Enterprise application integration EAI is the sharing of data and business process logic across hetero/ unvarying instances through message-oriented-middleware (MOM). EAI may be managed by packaged vendors (e. . SAP and Oracle) or through solutions provided by third company vendors (e. G. MM, Webmasters, etc. ). EAI is sometimes called application-centric interfacing. EAI is used to connect multiple systems at the application or database levels, use a form of middleware that is sometimes called a broker. The middleware moves information in and out of multiple systems, using pre-engineered connectors. The connectors are a source of competitive good for EAI software providers, because if a connector already exists for the target and source application, the cost of interface development can be reduced.The problems associated with point-to-point integration are reduced by adopting a hub and spoke model for sharing information. The EAI Middleware allows one to rite a single interface between each application and the middleware, instead of individually connecting each application to every other application. An example of a hub and spoke architecture is shown in Figure 9. Once the information is extracted, it is sent to a central horde using some sort of messaging system, where the information is processed and routed to the target system.If there is a gap in required business pr ocess logic, the logic can be created on the central legion for execution. In theory, any-to-any document swap is possible, considering the business process logic in the source and target systems. Using connectors, the EAI software processes messages from packaged applications, databases, and custom applications using a queuing engine. When an event occurs (e. G. A transaction in an ERP package or a database table update), a message is published to the come up about the event.Subscribers to queue access the event envelope, analyze the content, and if it is intended for processing in the target system, the envelope contains everything necessary for recreating the event in the target system. The queuing engine ensures that all events are processed in the correct sequence, ensuring transactional integrity. Many companies provide pre-packaged EAI solutions, and the market is extremely competitive. The hub and spoke model using connectors has been operational for many years, and the p roducts have reached a mature level.However, we note that EAI is still interfacing, and while this is a significant receipts over point-to-point integration, EAI can be costly to implement and costly to maintain. The main benefits flow from being able to use partly configured connectors, while leverage sedulousness partnerships which yield certified interfaces. Tremendous consolidation has occurred n recent years in companies that provide EAI solutions as the larger software providers have moved in to provide EAI solutions that interact with their Big I products.For example, SAP now supports EAI as part of its Interweave7 solution, where previously SAP had used third party providers like IBM and Webmasters to provide EAI capabilities. It is also all important(p) to note that EAI is typically used inside the enterprise, as opposed to across the enterprise. For this reason EAI is sometimes called application-centric interfacing. The objective is to interfaces processes and share d ata within the enterprise. The inter-enterprise model falls under a class of solutions that are called Business-to-Business commerce, and this form of interfacing will be discussed in a later section.Application server integration This is the most sophisticated form of Little I that is discussed in this paper. Think of application server integration as the creation of a single, centralized application (logical or physical) that can provide a common set of services to any number of other remote applications. These services are common business objects that are shared across enterprise applications. The sharing and reuse of services is the goal of distributed objects and applications servers.Application server integration enables the enterprise by sharing services across the enterprise. The concept of application server integration is shown in Figure 10. Modern systems pray shared objects to share business logic and interact with resources (such as databases, ERP systems, or queues). In modern ERP systems these shared objects may be more highly aggregated as wrapped minutes. For example, when configuring the SAP solution, one aligns transactions with process tempos. A process blackguard could be associated with one or more transactions.If the transactions associated with a process step are bundled together and wrapped as a web service, then they may be shared across other SAP and non-SAP components. SAP calls this aggregated object an Enterprise Service, and it is the basis of SAPs Enterprise work Architecture (SAP GAG, 2004). Application integration occurs through the sharing of business logic, as well as through the back-end integration of many different applications and resources. The application server binds the data from a relational or relational-object database to he common shared objects.The main advantage of application server integration is that 15 16 Figure 10. Application server integration concept the interfaced applications or components are ti ghtly coupled to each other by sharing methods. By our assessment, application server integration is Little I, but given the limits of current technology it is the best approximation that we can provide to Big l. This is because the data integrity checks and business logic bound to the objects are always shared, and therefore, never circumvented. The SAP example is not unique. Most of the major software vendors have a similar tragedy.For example, Figure 11 shows the Oracle strategy for application server integration. The make component of Figure 11 for our discussion is in the right-center of the figure. The Oracle Application boniface manages the shared objects and during runtime Top Link manages effort between Java objects and database tables. At the conceptual level the integration approaches pursued by Oracle and SAP are similar. The widely accepted disadvantage of using this application server integration is that significant changes may have to be made to all source and ta rget applications to