Advertisement

Interoperability Service Utility Model and its Simulation for Improving the Business Process Collaboration

  • Nassim Zbib
  • Bernard Archimède
  • Philippe Charbonnaud
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings of the I-ESA Conferences book series (IESACONF, volume 5)

Abstract

In this paper an interoperability service utility (ISU) model is defined and formalized for improving the collaboration between partners. The ISU model makes it possible to limit the associated risk during the exchange of herogeneous information between enterprises. Another advantage of the approach consists in the simulation-based evaluation method of the impact of interoperability parameters on the performances of the business process. The integration of the ISU model was achieved at the business activity level and a method for performance evaluation is presented. The effectiveness of the ISU model was studied in a national industrial project and is shown herein on a simple example of P2P collaboration.

Keywords

Interoperability service utility Business process Event-based simulation I3G P2P collaboration Performance evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work has been partly granted by the french interministerial fund and supported by Interop-VLab-PGSO. The authors wish to acknowledge and all the ISTA3 Project partners for their contribution during the development of various ideas presented in this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Konstantas D, Bourrières JP, Léonard M, Boudjlida N. Interoperability of enterprise software and applications. In INTEROP-ESA’05. Geneva, Switzerland: Springer-Verlag; 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE standard computer dictionary: a compilation of IEEE standard computer glossaries. New York; 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baïna S, Panetto H, Morel G. A holonic approach for application interoperability in manufacturing systems environment. Prague: In Proc of the 16th IFAC World Congress; 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kabak Y, Dogac A, Ocalan C, Cimen S, Laleci GB. iSURF Semantic Interoperability Service Utility for Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment. Istanbul, Turkey: eChallanges Conference; 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Popplewell K, Stojanovic N, Abecker A, Apostolou D, Mentzas G, Harding J. Supporting Adaptive Enterprise Collaboration through Semantic Knowledge Services. In Proceedings of IESA, Enterprise Interoperability III, 381–393. Berlin, Germany; 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang Y, Liu S, Jiao Y. An Interoperability Service Utility Platform for Automobile Supply Chain Management. Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, 12th, pages 230-237. Munich, Germany; 2008.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kosanke K. ISO Standards for Interoperability: a comparison. In INTEROP-ESA’05, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Applications. Geneva, Switzerland; 2005.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C4ISR, Architecture Working Group (AWG). Levels of Information Systems Interoperability (LISI); 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tolk A, Muguira JA. The Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model. Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop. Orlando, Florida, USA: Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization; 2003.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daclin N, Chen D, Vallespir B. Enterprise interoperability measurement – Basic concepts. In Enterprise Modeling and Ontologies for Interoperability. Luxemburg; 2006.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blanc S, Ducq Y, Vallespir B. Evolution management toward interoperable supply chains using performance measurement. 4th International Workshop on Performance Measurement, Implementation of Performance Measurement Systems for Supply Chains. Bordeaux; 2005.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ishak K, Archimede B, Charbonnaud P. Applicative architecture for interoperable distributed planning of multi-site projects. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Digital Enterprise Technology. Nantes; 2008.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Turner M, Kitchenham B, Brereton P, Charters S, Budgen D. Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, Volume 52, Issue 5, Pages 463–479. 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nassim Zbib
    • 1
  • Bernard Archimède
    • 1
  • Philippe Charbonnaud
    • 1
  1. 1.INPT-ENITUniversity of ToulouseTarbesFrance

Personalised recommendations