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

• 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

A solution through a pragmatic use of standards

Adoption of a Model Driven Integration : 1. Reduces labor to maintain overlapping data in multiples

applications

2. Systematically generated common structure and common vocabulary reduces design time effort as well as coding errors

3. Reduces performance errors caused by inconsistent information.

4. Support for managing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and handling regulatory obligations.

5. Performs faster implementation of application functionality and business processes.

6. Reduces cost to maintain and extend existing applications.

7. Reduces risk of project schedule and budget overruns

International Context

OLEProcessControl(OPC)

WG14DMS

Coordination

WG19

WG13EMS

WGs 10Substations

OpenApplication

Group

WG7ControlCenters

TC57

WG9Distribution

Feeders

EPRIUCA2ProjectEPRI

CCAPIProject

W3C

CIM/61850

ebXMLObjectMgmt.Group

WG17

WG16

WG18

OASIS

?

UCA : User groups

MultiSpeak(NRECA)

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

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

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

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 ?

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)

CIM based API for several functions

CIM Distribution API

GISLV Planification function

CIMXML

MV functions (Load calculation, …)

CIM API for EDF ProductsCDPSM Profile

CPSM Profile

PRAO (MV Planification function)

EUROSTAG (Power System Dynamics)

‘Integrating’ the Integration Infrastructure

Evolving UtilityBusiness Execution

Requirements

Complex & EvolvingIndustry Standards,

Methodologies &Architecture Patterns

EvolvingTechnologies &

Products

EvolvingBusiness

Partnerships

TheModel Driven

IntegrationProcess

Methodology : Combining CIM & UN-CEFACT Core Components

UML Information Model

UML Exchange

Model

UML Contextual

Model

XML Information

Model

XML Contextual

Model

XML Exchange

Model

A closer look…

, , A, , B

, , C , , D

, , E

1

, , F

CIM XML World

Constraints on Association + Assembling rules

, , A

, , B , , C , , D

, , E

1

, , F

1

, , C , , D

, , E

1

, , F

1

, , A+B

XML XSD

Generic CIM Message Schema generation

ReprocessedXML XSD

Constraints on attributes

Working With Business Participants

EDF Group Information System Division

Generation Information System Department

Transmission Information System

Department

Distribution Information System

Department

Supplier Information System Department

Project Project Project Project

Information & Telecommunication Division

EDF R&D Division

Project

Successfully Scaling Up

• Having a service mindset

• Working with business units

• Working with their (business unit) partners• Proactive change management (next slides)

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

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

Change Management

Driving Forces Restraining Forces

1. Opportunity to learn new skills

2. Availability of training and tools

1. Lack of training/understanding

2. Power of internal expert

3. Inertia – why change?

4. Feeling that the job may be threatened

5. Not invented here

6. Our problems are specialSta

tus

Quo

[Source: Douglas K. Barry]

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

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

Adopting Standard Data Element Definitions

Driving Forces Restraining Forces

1. Easier exchange of data

2. Reduced development time

3. Reduced maintenance costs

1. Costs to develop standard definitions

2. Costs to change existing systems

3. Existing data definitions are different

4. Some definitions need to be different

5. Products use different data definitions

6. Lack of industry standard definitions

7. Mergers and acquisitions

Sta

tus

Quo

[Source: Douglas K. Barry]

Adopting A Service-Oriented Architecture

Driving Forces Restraining Forces

1. Interoperable networked applications

2. Emerging industry-wide standards

3. Easier access to enterprise-wide data

4. Easier exchange of data

5. Consistent enterprise-wide data

6. Reduced brittleness using tags

7. Support of Web Services in products

8. Reduced development time

9. Reduced maintenance costs

10. Availability of external services

11. Minimal effect of operational systems

12. Use of business intelligence software

13. Availability of training and tools

14. Opportunity to learn new skills

15. Mergers and acquisitions

1. Cost of development

2. Product/service doesn’t do everything

3. Deciding what data to route

4. Delays getting data updates distributed

5. Deciding what data to warehouse

6. Delays in getting data to the warehouse

7. Redundancy of data

8. Data quality issues

9. Effect on operation systems for up-to-the moment data requests

1. Lack of training/understanding

2. Power of internal “experts”

3. Inertia – why change?

4. Feeling that job may be threatened

5. Not invented here

6. Our problems are special

Sta

tus

Quo

[Source: Douglas K. Barry]

BusinessIssues

DesignIssues

ChangeIssues

Conclusion

• Combining CIM model and UN-CEFACT Core Component Technical Specification is a promising approach

• The reusable methodology provide 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