1 / 24

Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration

Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration. Eric Lambert (EDF R&D) Greg Robinson (Xtensible Solutions). Andre, Jean-Luc, Eric, and Greg. Bonjour!. Impacts of Deregulation on Business Processes. EDF adapted some of its former BP EDF created new ones

berit
Download Presentation

Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Building the Business Case for Addressing Semantics in Application Integration Eric Lambert (EDF R&D) Greg Robinson (Xtensible Solutions)

  2. Andre, Jean-Luc, Eric, and Greg Bonjour!

  3. 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

  4. A solution through a pragmatic use of standards Adoption of a Model Driven Integration : • Reduces labor to maintain overlapping data in multiples applications • Systematically generated common structure and common vocabulary reduces design time effort as well as coding errors • Reduces performance errors caused by inconsistent information. • Support for managing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and handling regulatory obligations. • Performs faster implementation of application functionality and business processes. • Reduces cost to maintain and extend existing applications. • Reduces risk of project schedule and budget overruns

  5. MultiSpeak (NRECA) International Context UCA : User groups TC57 OpenApplicationGroup W3C WG9DistributionFeeders CoordinationWG19 WG7ControlCenters CIM/61850 WG17 ? WG18 WG14 DMS WGs 10 Substations EPRI UCA2 Project WG13 EMS WG16 EPRI CCAPI Project OLEProcess Control (OPC) Object Mgmt. Group ebXML OASIS

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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 ?

  10. 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)

  11. CIM based API for several functions CIM Distribution API CIM XML GIS LV Planification function MV functions (Load calculation, …) CIM API for EDF Products PRAO (MV Planification function) CDPSM Profile CPSM Profile EUROSTAG(Power System Dynamics)

  12. The Model Driven Integration Process ‘Integrating’ the Integration Infrastructure Complex & Evolving Industry Standards, Methodologies & Architecture Patterns Evolving Utility Business Execution Requirements Evolving Business Partnerships Evolving Technologies & Products

  13. XML Information Model UML Information Model XML Contextual Model UML Contextual Model XML Exchange Model UML Exchange Model Methodology : Combining CIM & UN-CEFACT Core Components

  14. CIM XML World Constraints on Association + Assembling rules XML XSD Generic CIM Message Schema generation Constraints on attributes Reprocessed XML XSD A closer look…

  15. EDF Group Information System Division Information & Telecommunication Division EDF R&D Division Project Generation Information System Department Transmission Information System Department Distribution Information System Department Supplier Information System Department Project Project Project Project Working With Business Participants

  16. Successfully Scaling Up • Having a service mindset • Working with business units • Working with their (business unit) partners • Proactive change management(next slides)

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. Change Management Driving Forces Restraining Forces • Opportunity to learn new skills • Availability of training and tools • Lack of training/understanding • Power of internal expert • Inertia – why change? • Feeling that the job may be threatened • Not invented here • Our problems are special Status Quo [Source: Douglas K. Barry]

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. Adopting Standard Data Element Definitions Driving Forces Restraining Forces • Easier exchange of data • Reduced development time • Reduced maintenance costs • Costs to develop standard definitions • Costs to change existing systems • Existing data definitions are different • Some definitions need to be different • Products use different data definitions • Lack of industry standard definitions • Mergers and acquisitions Status Quo [Source: Douglas K. Barry]

  23. Adopting A Service-Oriented Architecture Driving Forces Restraining Forces • Interoperable networked applications • Emerging industry-wide standards • Easier access to enterprise-wide data • Easier exchange of data • Consistent enterprise-wide data • Reduced brittleness using tags • Support of Web Services in products • Reduced development time • Reduced maintenance costs • Availability of external services • Minimal effect of operational systems • Use of business intelligence software • Availability of training and tools • Opportunity to learn new skills • Mergers and acquisitions • Cost of development • Product/service doesn’t do everything • Deciding what data to route • Delays getting data updates distributed • Deciding what data to warehouse • Delays in getting data to the warehouse • Redundancy of data • Data quality issues • Effect on operation systems for up-to-the • moment data requests • Lack of training/understanding • Power of internal “experts” • Inertia – why change? • Feeling that job may be threatened • Not invented here • Our problems are special Business Issues Design Issues Status Quo Change Issues [Source: Douglas K. Barry]

  24. Conclusion • Combining CIM model and UN-CEFACT Core Component Technical Specification is a promising approach • The reusable methodologyprovide 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

More Related