Capabilities of Intra-Enterprise Application Integration
Technologies
Hossein MoradiandArdeshir Bahreininejad*
Department of Industrial Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Iran, [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 ERP1 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
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
associated classifications as well as recommending the proposed list of functional integration capabilities.
Discover the list of integration capabilities from literature 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
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
Refine, classify and extend the list of integration capabilities and recommending
the proposed list of functional integration capabilities
Discover the list of integration technologies from literature
Refine and classify the list of integration technologies and recommending the proposed list of integration technologies and
their associated classification
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:
• 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 (ODBC2 and JDBC3), message oriented technologies (RPC4, MOM5, message broker and XML6), transaction based technologies (include TPM7 and application servers), distributed object technologies (CORBA8, DCOM/COM9 and EJB10) and interface oriented technologies (include screen wrapper, APIs11 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, ESB12, EAI13, BPM14 and BSH15 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 3
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
Table 1.The structure of proposed framework Evaluation Criteria (Functional Integration Capability)
Capability 1 Capability 2 Capability Classification Integration Technologies Technology 1 Technology 2 Class1 Technology ... Technology 1 Technology 2 Class 2 Technology ... Technology 1 Technology 2 Class ... 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 P2P16, DOT17 and CBD18 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 UML19 have eliminated from the proposed list, since they are Business level technologies and have not considered in the research scope20. Furthermore, EDI21, 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 17
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
Table 2.The extracted list of integration technologies from literature
Reference Synonyms Technology
Natis [5] File Transfer Tools
Gulledge [6]; Natis [5]; Gold-Bernstein [7]; Vandersluis [8]; Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10]
Message Queuing technology
Message Oriented Middleware (MOM)
Gold-Bernstein [7]; Natis [5]; Linthicum
[9] Publish/ Subscribe Publish/Subscribe Broker Gulledge [6]; Gold-Bernstein[7];
Vandersluis [8]; Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum [9]
Remote Function Call Remote Procedure Calls (RPC)
Gulledge [6]; Themistocleous et al. [3] 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] Database Gateway
Gulledge [6]; Natis [5]; Gold-Bernstein [7]; Vandersluis [8]; Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10]
Adapter, Connector, Application
Wrapper and Gateway Application Adapter Natis [5]; Themistocleous et al. [3];
Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10]
Screen Scrapper Adapter
Screen Scraper Vandersluis [8]; Mosawi et al. [2];
Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10]
Application Interface,
Component-based Application Interface
Application Programming Interface (API)
Sapient [11]; Forrester [4]; Linthicum [9];
Johnson [10] Web Services
Tomlinson & Zimmermann [12];
Forrester [4] Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Natis [5]; Mosawi et al. [2];
Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10]
Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA)
Natis [5]; Mosawi et al. [2];
Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10]
Common Object Model/ Distributed Common Object Model (COM/ DCOM)
Themistocleous et al. [3]; Johnson [10] Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) Gulledge [6]; Mosawi et al. [2];
Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10] Database Replication Data Replication Sapient [11]; Gold-Bernstein [7];
Vandersluis [8]; Mosawi et al. [2] Extract, Transform and Load (ETL) Gulledge [6]; Vandersluis [8]; Mosawi et
al. [2]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10]
Federated Database and
Database Federation Virtual Database Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum, [9];
Johnson [10] Transaction Processing Monitors (TPM) Gulledge [6]; Themistocleous et al. [3];
Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10] Application Server Gulledge [6]; Johannesson & Perjons
[13]; Sapient [11]; Tomlinson & Zimmermann [12]; Natis [5]; Forrester [4]; Vandersluis [8]; Themistocleous et al. [3]; Linthicum [9]; Johnson [10]
Message Broker and Integration Broker
Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) Broker
Johannesson & Perjons [13]; Natis [5];
Forrester [4]; Mosawi et al. [2] Process Broker
Business Process Management (BPM) Package
Gold-Bernstein [7]; Gulledge [6] EDI
Gold-Bernstein [7]
Process or Workflow Modeling, UML, Supply Chain Integration, On-line Trading Brokers
Forrester [4] BSH
Johnson [10] Bridge
Mosawi et al. [2] Data Mart and Data Warehouse Technologies
Reference Synonyms Technology Johannesson & Perjons [13]; Sapient
[11] P2P
Vandersluis [8] 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 FTP22
Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) MSMQ23
Publish/Subscribe Broker JMS24
Remote Procedure Calls (RPC) DCE25
Elementary Message Oriented Middleware
Extensible Markup Language (XML) XML Standards
Open Database Connectivity (ODBC ) ODBC
Java Database Connectivity (JDBC ) JDBC
Database Access Technologies
Database Gateway Information Builders' EDA/SQL26
Application Adapter JCA27
Screen Scraper Ekiwi Screen Scraper Enterprise
Application Access Technologies
Application Programming Interface
(API) SAP's BAPI
28
Web Services Web Services Standards
Service-Oriented Technologies
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Sonic ESB
Common Object Request Broker
Architecture (CORBA) CORBA Common Object Model/ Distributed
Common Object Model (COM/ DCOM) COM/ DCOM
Distributed Object Technologies
Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) EJB
Data Replication
Extract, Transform and Load (ETL) IBM WebSphere DataStage
Data-Oriented Technologies
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)
Package Filenet BPMS
29
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 23
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
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 information-oriented connections, service-oriented connections, coupling , cohesion, transaction oriented connections and abstractions); connectivity; connectivity services (communication, addressing, delivery and security services) and interface services (interface translation and metadata representation services)
Forrester [4]; Natis [5]; Hagen [15]; Linthicum [9];
Themistocleous & Irani [14]; Puschmann & Alt [16];
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)
Forrester [4]; Hagen [15]; Erasala et al. [2]; Process management; Business process management
(high-speed composite application); intra-broker process control; process automation; Process management (coordinates and controls the
nal services layer); process awareness (support for process management, sub processes, hierarchy, inheritance, service control and information movement); process management services
transformatio
(transformation coordination services)
Forrester [4]; Natis [5]; Hagen [15]; Themistocleous & Irani [14]; Erasala et al [2];
Linthicum [9]; Puschmann & Alt [16];
Process/workflow/rule management services
Human workflow; business process management (long-running work flow); inter-application process control (workflow)
Forrester [4]; Natis [5]; Hagen [15];
Process monitoring service
Process monitoring; business activity monitor (event and state management); process awareness (business activity monitoring)
Forrester [4]; Natis [5]; Linthicum [9];
Inter-organizational service
Business process (inter-organizational processes);
partner management Erasala et al. [2]; Forrester [4]
Business level service
Process-awareness (support for modeling, optimization and abstraction of business processes); process simulation; development services (process modeling)
Linthicum [9]; Forrester [4]; Puschmann & Alt [16]
Common service
Development, administrative, metadata (message dictionary) and security services; development services (transformation specification and interface development) and runtime services (distribution, scalability and monitoring)
Natis [5]; Puschmann & Alt [16]
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, inter-organizational 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 non-functional 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
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 Evaluation Criteria
(Functional Integration Capability)
Messaging Routi ng Persistenc e Information- orie nted Connectivity Service-orie nte d
Connectivity Syntactic Conv
ersio
n
Semantic Transformation Transactio
n
Mana
geme
n
t
Business Rules Mana
geme n t Process Mana geme n t
Human Workflow Mana
geme n t Process Monitori ng Classification Integration Technologies File Transfer
Technology File Transfer Tools
Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) Publish/Subscribe Broker
Remote Procedure Calls (RPC) Elementary Message Oriented Middleware Extensible Markup Language (XML) Open Database Connectivity (ODBC ) Java Database Connectivity (JDBC ) Database Access Technologies Database Gateway Application Adapter Screen Scraper Application Access
Technologies Application ProgrammingInterface (API)
Web Services
Service-Oriented Technologies
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) Common Object Model/ Distributed Common Object Model (COM/ DCOM) Distributed Object Technologies Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) Data Replication Extract, Transform and Load (ETL) Data-Oriented Technologies Virtual Database Transaction Processing Monitors (TPM) Transaction-Oriented
Technologies Application Server
Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) Broker
Modern Brokers Business Process Management (BPM)
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.
• 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).
• 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 intra-enterprise 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 intra-enterprise 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] 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.
[2] 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
[3] 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. [4] Brodie, M.L.: Integration in A Service-Oriented World: The Big Picture Presentation, Verizon
Communications, 2006
[5] Natis, Y.: The IS Platform of 2003: The Enterprise Central Nervous System. Gartner Research. Paris, 2001
[6] Gulledge, T.: What is integration? Industrial Management & Data Systems 106(1), 2006, pp. 5-20.
[7] Evgeniou, T.: Information Integration and Information Strategies for Adaptive Enterprises. European Management Journal 20(5), 2002, pp. 486–494.
[8] Vandersluis, K.: XML-Based Integration with XAware: Unifying Applications and Data in Today's E-Business World. Maximum Press, 2004
[9] Linthicum, D.S.: Next Generation Application Integration: from simple information to Web Services. Addison-Wesley, 2003
[10] Johnson, P.: Enterprise software system integration an architectural perspective. Industrial Information and Control Systems 133. Stockholm, KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, 2002 [11] Sapient: Enterprise Integration Options Presentation version 0.1, MIT University. 2004 [12] Tomlinson, M. and Zimmermann, O.: Building Service-Oriented Architectures with Web
Services, IBM Corporation, 2005
[13] Johannesson, P. and Perjons, E.: Design principles for process modeling in enterprise application integration. Information Systems 26, 2001, pp. 165–184.
[14] Themistocleous, M. and Irani, Z.: Towards a Novel Framework for the Assessment of Enterprise Application Integration Packages. IEEE- Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International
[15] 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
[16] 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.
[17] Hasselbring, W.: Information System Integration. ACM - communications of the ACM 43(6), 2000, pp. 33-38.
