End User PerspectiveDavid WhiteTechnology Manager, webMethodsJohnson & Johnson

Ajay AnandManager - Architecture & Integration ServicesJohnson & Johnson

Building an Enterprise Integration Strategy

David White

Johnson & JohnsonnDiversified healthcare company founded

in 1886 in New Brunswick, New Jersey.nMore than 200 operating companies in 54

countries.– International expansion started in 1919 with

Johnson & Johnson Canada– Companies established in Latin America,

Europe, Africa and Australia for more than 50 years.

nCompany was family-owned until listed on NYSE in 1944.

Corporate

Medical Devices &

DiagnosticsPharmaceuticals Consumer

Products

Systems SystemsSystems

Customers Customers CustomersProcessesProcessesProcesses

Processes Systems

Independent Businesses & Systems

External Partners

Corporate

Information Flow

Medical Devices &

DiagnosticsPharmaceuticals Consumer

Products

80% 80% 80%

Fundingn Project oriented funding model.n Contrary to almost all other systems in JNJ,

webMethods’ infrastructure was deployed as a centralized shared service with cost recovery model.

No overall fee paid by every company to fund infrastructure.Must prove value to the enterprise on a project-by-project basis.

n Decentralized IM.No centralized development organization.Projects must develop code themselves.

Early ExperiencesnDecentralized development resulted in a

plethora of:nMethodologiesnProject PlansnDocumentation StandardsnNaming StandardsnCoding Standards/OrganizationnError handling / Reporting facilitiesnLittle reuse

Total Business IntegrationnThe challenges.

How can we design integration today that will maximize reusability of data for the integrations of tomorrow?How can we design integration today that will minimize the negative effects of changing or adding systems in the future?How can we reduce current project design and development costs?

Total Business IntegrationnThe Solution.

Create a process-oriented integration framework that is “future-proof” and seamlessly links our heterogeneous business applications to facilitate the sharing of information internally and externally including partners, customers and other stakeholders.

AssumptionsAn integration can only be properly understood in the context of a business process.Standardizing messages is the key to maximizing reusability while at the same time minimizing the negative impact of changing or adding systems to an integration.Adopting a standard message structure that has the support of a large number of software companies provides the most flexibility, acceptability, and durability.

Value PropositionnReusable architecture and processes

Reduced integration time & costs for initial and follow-on projects.Standard methodology and resulting documentation stored in a repository maximizes leveraging.

• Especially valuable in decentralized development!

Common vocabulary facilitates knowledge transfer across the enterprise.Setting the standard for future integration.

Value PropositionnReduced complexity

Minimizes point-to-point interfaces.Long term reduction in change management and maintenance costs.

nPotential buffer for affiliates from future changes in application architecture.nMaximizes our middleware

investment and instantiates the use of XML.

Value PropositionnAbility to scale up developmentnWe now have middleware development

taking place around the world rather than in one place.nBeing able to distribute integration

development allows the integration team to be close to a large project no matter where it takes place.nSAP deployment in FL or JDE deployment in NJ.nWe require consulting firms to use our

methodology.

Application of TBI to a large integration project

Ajay Anand

Company 1 Company 2 Company 3 Company 4

SAP Common Integrat ion Serv ices JDE Common Integrat ion Serv ices

Corporate Financial Business Processes

Indirect(Ariba)

Stock - Direct(e-payables)

Stock-Indirect(Toolcr ib)

Miscel laneousAccounts Payable(e-payables)

webMethods (using TBI f ramework)

Procure-to-pay Integration

How TBI was applied ?

Define1.0

Design2.0

Build3.0

Deploy4.0

Implemented Integration SolutionLessons Learned

Integration DesignSource Code and ExecutablesDocumentationUnit Test CasesTest ResultsCTQ Acceptance

Logical DesignIntegration Test CasesArchitecture DocumentSimulation Document

Project DefinitionBusiness Process and Functional AreasSIPOC DiagramsUse CasesCTQ DocumentTechnical RequirementsSQA Plan and System Test Cases

Business Process Analysis1 . 1 R e q G LS e q u e n c e

V e r i f i c a t i o n

1 . 3 F i n a lR e q u i s i t i o n

A p p r o v a l

1 . 2 S u b m i tR e q u i s i t i o n

1 . 4 C r e a t e / C h a n g eA r i b a P O f o r N o n -

s t o c k m a t e r i a l

1 . 5 C r e a t e / C h a n g eR e c e i p t

S u p p l i e r C a r dO r d e r ?

2 o r 3 - w a y M a t c h( I n t e r n a l t oe P a y a b l e s )

2 + - w a y M a t c h( I n t e r n a l t o A r i b a )

1 . 6 C r e a t e V o u c h e r

1 . 7 C r e a t eP a y m e n t

P o s t G L E n t r i e s i nI n t e g r a l

G e n e r a t eS u m m a r y S u p p l i e r

C a r d P a y m e n tV o u c h e r

Y e s ( P C O )

N o ( 9 9 )

I t e m i s M a r k e dR e c e i v a b e ?

Y e s

1 . 8 P C a r dI n d v i d u a l

t r a n s a c t i o np o s t i n g

I N T E G R A Lb a s e d

a f f i l i a t e ?

A f f i l i a t ep o s t s G Le n t r i e s i n

E R P

N o

C r e a t e P a y m e n tf o r M o n t h l y A M E X

B i l l

= T B I S c o p e

L E G E N D

N o

Y e s

Business Process AnalysisA

RIB

AA

ffili

ate

ER

P

Create POor PO Change

Verify businessrules, standarddata, Supervisor

approves

ReceivesProject

AccountingData

ePay

able

s

Store the PO

End usercreates requisition

in Ariba

Future

Type99?

Store inAriba and

Reporting DWNo

YES

Send toePayables

CurrentProcess

Sequence DiagramA f f i l i a t e E R PA r i b a

G L S e q u e n c e V a l i d a t i o n R e q u e s t ( )

G L S e q u e n c e V e r i f i c a t i o n R e s p o n s e ( )

R e q V a l i d a t i o n R e q u e s t ( )

R e q V a l i d a t i o n R e s p o n s e ( )

F i n a l A p p r o v e d R e q V a l i d a t i o n R e q u e s t ( )

F i n a l A p p r o v e d R e q V a l i d a t i o n R e s p o n s e ( )

P u r c h a s e O r d e r ( )

G o o d s R e c e i p t ( )

P C a r d T r a n s a c t i o n P o s t i n g ( )

E R P v e r i f i e s G L s e q u e n c ea g a i n s t i t s i n t e r n a l l o g i c .

E R P v e r i f i e s R e q a g a i n s ti t s i n t e r n a l l o g i c

E R P v e r i f i e s R e q a g a i n s ti t s i n t e r n a l l o g i c

E R P s t o r e sp u r c h a s e o r d e r

E R P s t o r e s G o o d s R e c e i p t

E R P s t o r e s P C A R Dt r a n s a c t i o n d e t a i l s

( P O w i t h c o r r e s p o n d i n gd o l l a r a m o u n t )

e P a y a b l e s

S u p p l i e r I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( )

S u p p l i e r I n f o r m a t i o n R e s p o n s e ( )

S u p p l i e r I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( )

S u p p l i e r I n f o r m a t i o n R e s p o n s e ( )e P a y a b l e s s e a r c h e s

f o r r e q u e s t e d s u p p l i e r

e P a y a b l e s s e a r c h e sf o r r e q u e s t e d s u p p l i e r

XML Standard Selection

FIXML fpML

FinXML XBRL/XFRML

UBL OAGIS BODs

FAML for Financial Research IFX

Open Financial Exchange (OFX)

Procurement

FIXML fpML

FinXML XBRL/XFRML

UBL OAGIS BODs

FAML for Financial Research IFX

Open Financial Exchange (OFX)

Human Resources

FIXML fpML

FinXML XBRL/XFRML

UBL OAGIS BODs

FAML for Financial Research IFX

Open Financial Exchange (OFX)

Product Development

CIML fpML

CPExchange XBRL/XFRML

UBL OAGIS BODs

for Financial Research IFX

Sales, Marketing & CRM

FIXML fpML

FinXML XBRL/XFRML

UBL OAGIS BODs

FAML for Financial Research IFX

Open Financial Exchange (OFX)

Supply Chain Management

FIXML fpML

FinXML XBRL

UBL OAGIS BODs

FAML for Financial Research IFX

Open Financial Exchange (OFX) xCBL

Finance Business Process

Criteria xBRL xCBL

Raw Score

Weighted Score

Raw Score

Weighted Score

Maturity & Industry Acceptance(25% Weight)

2 0.5 3 0.75

J&J Business Fit (25% Weight)

1 0.25 2 0.50

Technical Architecture (50% Weight)

2.1 1.05 2.3 1.15

Total 5.1 1.8 7.3 2.4

Analysis Methodology

Conceptual Architecture

A r i b a

S A P J D E d w a r d sO n e W o r l d / W o r l d

e P a y a b l e s

S A Pa d a p t e r

J D E d w a r d sa d a p t e r

I n t e g r a t i o nS e r v e r

I n t e g r a t i o nS e r v e r

I n t e g r a t i o nS e r v e r

J D B Ca d a p t e rT B D

B r o k e rT e r r i t o r y

R e a dF l a t F i l e s

Architecture Recommendation• Architecture Analysis Document included:

ØConceptual Architecture

ØCoordination Pattern For Component Communication

ØApplication Communication Pattern Definition

ØError Handling Approach

ØArchitecture Review Approach

ØSecurity Considerations

ØReview of Infrastructure Needs

• Simulation was done to ensure that architecture meets customer’s needs

Build Activities

•Integration Design – Details the physical design of the interface point(s); includes naming standards, error handling, and security settings•Unit Test Cases – Based on the integration physical design to ensure that the interface point adhere to the integration physical design•Source Code and Executables – source code for the integrations and any executables (run-time code that may have been created•Code Review – Summarizes the results, issues, and follow-ups that come out of a formal code review•Test Results – Test Cases for unit, integration and system testing are all run in this phase; a summary is produced of all of the tests that were executed, and the results.

Deliverables FlowDEFINE

Busi

ness

Ana

lyst

Qual

ity M

anag

er

BusinessProcessAnalysis

Tech ReqDocument

SystemTest Cases

SoftwareQA Plan

Req WTReport

Gove

rnan

ce

FDRReport

DESIGN

FDRReport

LogicalDesign

LogicalDesign WT

Report

SimulationDocument

IntegrationTest Cases

Architect.Document

Arch

itect

/ De

sign

er

BUILD

Deve

lope

r

IntegrationWT Report

Unit TestResults

SystemTest Result

IntegrationTest

Results

IntegrationDesign

CodeReviews

ErrorHandling

Guide

Unit TestCases

SourceCode

FDRReport

CTQSignoff

Repository Repository Repository

DEPLOY

FDRReport

LessonsLearned

Repository

TBD

Benefits from using TBIReduced integration time & costs for initial and follow-on operating companies – 80% re-use goal (estimated savings for 6 companies above $6 million)Standardized methodology across multiple companies (several sub-team’s and SI’s)Improved accuracy of project estimatesCustomer satisfactionImproved reliabilitySuccessful executionSimplified governanceLower TCO