Reflections on the Concept of Interoperability in Information Systems
Delfina Soares and Luis Amaral
ALGORITMI Research Center, University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, Guimarães, Portugal
Keywords: Interoperability, Information Systems, Sociotechnical.
Abstract: Information systems interoperability is one of the main concerns and challenges of information systems
managers and researchers, most of whom perceive and approach it on a pure or predominantly technological
perspective. In this paper, we argue that a sociotechnical perspective of information systems interoperability
should be adopted and we set out seven assertions that, if taken into consideration, may improve the
understanding, management, and study of the information systems interoperability phenomenon.
1 INTRODUCTION
Interoperability became a popular term in recent
years, catching the attention of professionals and
researchers of the most various domains.
Despite of its current huge popularity,
interoperability is not a recent term or concern.
According to the Webster’s Timeline History of
Interoperability, this term has been used for decades
in domains such as the military, transportation,
healthcare, public safety, communications, and
computer science (Parker, 2009). More recently,
interoperability has become a central issue for
professionals and researchers in the Information
Systems (IS) domain.
Information systems interoperability is
considered a mandatory issue for organizations’
success, and even for their survival, in the current
networked and globalized world, since it may
increase organizations’ agility and competitiveness,
allow the provision of different and more integrated
services, reduce operation costs, and improve
organization’s efficiency.
Besides being considered as something
mandatory and beneficial, IS interoperability is also
recognized as a complex, challenging, and difficult
to achieve phenomenon. Indeed, many IS
interoperability initiatives have failed to succeed and
much of the money, effort, and time spent in them
have not produced the expected results.
Many of the failures and problems found may be
due to the inadequate interpretation and too narrow
perspective that many practitioners and academics
have on the IS interoperability concept.
Indeed, after a detailed and thorough literature
review on the IS interoperability subject, as well as
the analysis of multiple successful and unsuccessful
IS interoperability practical cases, it is our
conviction that the IS interoperability concept is
many times mainly, or even exclusively, addressed
and treated on a technical perspective. We argue that
a pure technical perspective of IS interoperability
may undermine and jeopardize the achievement of
truly and adequate levels of interoperability between
IS in organizations. Hence, a wider perspective of IS
interoperability concept is needed, not only to
improve the work of professionals as well as of
researchers and academics in IS interoperability
field. Along this paper we will expose some
thoughts that support this argument.
This paper is organized as follows. After this
introduction, in section two we reflect on the
interoperability concept. By analyzing and
comparing multiple definitions found for the term,
we point out a set of key ideas underlying the
concept of interoperability and highlight the
existence of a certain misconception and misuse of
the terms “interoperability” and “integration”. In
section three remarks are made concerning the
interpretation of the interoperability concept in the
IS domain. Based on the thoughts and remarks set
out in sections 2 and 3, as well as on the experience
and knowledge that we gained by conducting
research studies on IS interoperability in public
administration, we advance in section 4 seven
assertions concerning the IS interoperability
phenomenon. Final conclusions are presented in
section 5.
331
Soares D. and Amaral L..
Reflections on the Concept of Interoperability in Information Systems.
DOI: 10.5220/0004969703310339
In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2014), pages 331-339
ISBN: 978-989-758-027-7
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
2 THE INTEROPERABILITY
CONCEPT
Despite being a term frequently used in current
written and spoken discourses, the meaning of
interoperability remains somewhat ambiguous and
diffuse (Chen, 2005; CompTIA, 2004; Miller, 2000).
Two main aspects seem to justify the ambiguity
regarding the concept of interoperability: (i) the
existence of numerous and different definitions for
the term, each of which highlighting a particular set
of ideas and different perspectives that can be
associated with it, and (ii) the lack of clarity that
exists between the meaning ascribed to
“interoperability” and to “integration”, which is a
term often used as synonym of interoperability.
These two aspects will be discussed in more detail in
the following subsections.
2.1 Key Ideas Underlying the
Interoperability Concept
To better understand the concept of interoperability
a wide range of definitions for this term was
collected from the literature and analyzed (see
Appendix).
As can be seen from Appendix, some of the
definitions are very generic, defining interoperability
in a very broadly way. This is the case, for example,
of the definition found in Compact Oxford English
Dictionary, where the term interoperable is defined
as “able to operate together”. Although this short
definition exposes indeed the central idea underlying
to the term interoperability (the idea of operating
together), it is too generic. This excessive generality
may easily lead to different understandings,
depending on how the terms “operate” and
“together” are interpreted. For example, if “operate”
is interpreted as “run something” and “together” is
interpreted as “physical proximity”, then it is
possible to say that in a situation where two software
systems are both installed and running in the same
machine there is interoperability between them,
which does not correspond, in fact, to the meaning
of this term.
Definition 8, by the IEEE, which considers
interoperability as “the ability of two or more
systems or components to exchange information and
use the exchanged information”, introduces
additional detail, that helps to prevent erroneous
interpretations such as the one described above. In
fact, the two requirements included in the IEEE
definition (one requirement is the existence of an
exchange and the other requirement is the fact that
who gets what is exchanged uses it to do something)
are aspects highlighted in most of the gathered
definitions, being thus considered as two essential
ideas underlying the interoperability concept.
Definition 29 adds to the ability to exchange and use
data the ability of one entity to use functionality of
the other entities.
According to Chen (2005), a situation of
interoperability is characterized by the idea of
“acting on demand”, i.e., one entity does something
in response to a request received from another entity
(the solicitor entity). Thus, there is only
interoperability between two entities A and B if
entity A is able to send its request to entity B and
entity B is able to receive that request, to understand
it and perform something that actually corresponds
to the action that entity A intended to see executed
by entity B in response to the request made.
Another requirement that seems essential for the
existence of interoperability is related to the need of
existing “understanding” between the entities that
exchange the information. In fact, although two
entities may be able to exchange information, there
will only be effective interoperability between them
if they have a shared understanding of the
exchanged information. If this does not occur,
although they could be able to interact, to exchange
information, and use the exchanged information, the
result of these interactions may not correspond to
what would be expected. The need for the existence
of a shared understanding between interoperating
entities is explicit, for example, in definitions 5, 23,
and 25 of Appendix.
According to definitions 19, 24, and 26, another
prime characteristic of interoperability is the fact
that each of the involved entities should be able to
operate without having to know details about the
internal mode of operation of the other entities and
without having to do a significant effort to change its
internal mode of operation.
Two additional ideas characterizing a scenario of
interoperability are still evidenced by some
definitions. One such idea is exposed in definitions
4, 18, 22, and 28 and refers to the fact that entities
should act in order to achieve a common goal or
objective. As regarded by Chen (2005), we can only
achieve true interoperability if the action of
participating entities contributes to the achievement
of a common goal, which is the ultimate goal
intended for the outlined interoperation procedure.
A final key idea is implicit in definitions 3, 8, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 28 and
refers to the fact that the involved entities are usually
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
332
heterogeneous entities (they were created or
developed in an isolated and independent way) that
operate autonomously. The preservation of this
autonomy of operation is fundamental and thus the
ability to create interoperability between entities
must be achieved with minimum interference in the
autonomy of each one of them.
The ideas pointed out in previous paragraphs
highlight a set of key aspects underlying the
interoperability concept. Given this set of key ideas
– “two or more entities”, “operating together”,
“shared understanding”, “effortless operation”,
“operation with a common goal”, “autonomy”,
“heterogeneity” – we conceive interoperability as
the ability of two or more heterogeneous and
autonomously operating entities to exchange and
use information or functionality of each other,
correctly, conveniently, and without a significant
effort, in order to contribute to the achievement of a
specific purpose.
According to these ideas, the use of the term
interoperability refers to situations where entities
developed in isolation, operating independently, and
exhibiting disparate characteristics are able to
operate jointly to achieve an overall objective, while
maintaining their autonomy and heterogeneity and
without having to know the specific characteristics
of the other entities with which they interoperate.
2.2 Interoperability versus Integration
As mentioned before, another factor contributing to
the ambiguity surrounding the understanding of the
concept of interoperability refers to the absence of
clarity between the terms interoperability and
integration, which are often used in an
indiscriminate and undifferentiated way.
According to the IEEE dictionary, integration
can be defined as “the process of combining
software components, hardware components or both
in an overall system” or as “the merger or combining
of two or more lower-level elements into a
functioning and unified higher-level element with
the functional and physical interfaces satisfied”
(IEEE, 1997: p. 537). The idea of fusion and
unification set out in these definitions is also evident
in the definition of Merriam-Webster online
dictionary, where “integrate” is defined as “to form,
coordinate, or blend into a functioning or unified
whole”, “to unite with something else” or “to
incorporate into a larger unit” (integrate, 2014).
While in a situation of interoperability
participating entities remain autonomous and
independent, so that any of them can be easily
replaced by another with similar specification
without changing the functionality of the overall
system, in a situation of integration participating
entities are assimilated into a larger whole (Busson
and Keravel, 2005; Chen et al. 2008; Dodd et al.,
2003). This may cause serious difficulties and lead
to a loss of functionality of the overall system if any
entity changes or needs to be replaced (Busson and
Keravel, 2005). Integration is thus considered as
extending beyond interoperability, in that, unlike
interoperability, it involves a degree of functional
dependency between the involved entities (Busson
and Keravel, 2005; Chen et al. 2008; EC, 2008;
Faughn, 2002; Panetto and Molina 2008). In this
sense, it can be said that a family of integrated
entities must be interoperable, but interoperable
entities do not necessarily have to be integrated
(Chen and Doumeingts, 2003; Chen et al. 2008;
Panetto and Molina 2008).
Table 1 highlights three differences usually cited
between interoperability and integration.
Table 1: Characteristics of Interoperability and
Integration.
Interoperability Integration
Coexistence Unification
Autonomy Assimilation
Loosely coupled Tightly coupled
Unlike what happens in full integration, in which
the connections between the entities are rigid and
fixed, in interoperability the connections between
entities are more flexible, being easy to establish and
change (Aubert et al., 2003). For this reason,
interoperability assumes a relevant role in complex
and uncertain environments, where involved actors
and relations are unpredictable and dynamic. Indeed,
it is increasingly difficult to fully anticipate the
number and kind of interconnections in which a
given entity (be it a software component, an
application, an information system, an organization,
or whatever kind of entity) will be involved in the
future (Carney and Oberndorf, 2004).
As curiously noted by Sasovova et al. (2001), the
existence of high levels of integration between the
internal systems of an organization may constrain a
set of high level strategic decisions, such as the
decision to sell or dispose an organizational unit or
to outsource some business activities or services. In
situations like those, if the internal systems of the
organization are tightly integrated, a significant
effort will be needed to disintegrate them. According
to the same authors, disintegration efforts may
constitute an even harder and risky task than the task
ReflectionsontheConceptofInteroperabilityinInformationSystems
333
of integrating them. Thus, contrarily to the most
common thought, the existence of a high level of
integration between systems may not be the most
appropriate solution for any given context (Aubert et
al., 2003; Lee and Myers, 2004; Sasovova et al.,
2001; Pavlou and Singletary, 2002), since it may
significantly compromise the agility, flexibility, and
responsiveness of organizations.
3 INTEROPERABILITY
IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS
In the previous section we presented a set of basic
ideas underlying the concept of interoperability,
independently of the domain in which this term is
used. However, a full and rich meaning of the term
is only achieved when it is analyzed and interpreted
in its context of use. This means that when talking
about interoperability between information systems
it is fundamental to understand the implications that
the IS context can bring to the way interoperability
concept is interpreted and treated.
Different perspectives on information systems
can be found in literature. One of such perspectives
envisages IS as sociotechnical systems, i.e., systems
that encompass elements of social and technological
nature.
The coexistence of these two elements is
reflected in some IS definitions, such as the one
advanced by Visala (1991: 349) where information
system is defined as “a social and technical system
that models and provides information about a
universe of discourse”, or in the definition presented
by Alter (1992: 7) for whom “information system is
a system that consists of people, work practices,
technology, and information, which interact in order
to accomplish organizational goals”. The same
perspective is shared by Amaral (1994) that
considers information system as being an abstraction
that results from observing an organization from an
information perspective, as well as the human,
organizational and technological resources involved
in the information gathering, storing, processing and
delivering.
Three central ideas emerge from the above
definitions, namely that an Information System:
i. is an abstraction of the organization, which
means that it is something inherent and
intrinsic to the organization (i.e., if there exists
an organization, there exists its information
system);
ii. is, in its essence, a system of social and human
activity;
iii. is, in its existence, a technologically supported
system (information technologies are
increasingly supporting the organization
information system).
In this sense, as illustrated in Figure 1, people,
processes and technologies are constituting elements
of the information system of an organization:
information in the organization is handled by people
to run a set of organizational processes that
contribute to the achievement of organization’s
objectives and to the fulfillment of organization’s
mission; the execution of the organizational
processes is supported and facilitated by the use of
technologies.
Figure 1: Information System as Sociotechnical System.
The importance that social and organizational
issues assume in the design, development,
management, adoption, and use of information
systems has long been documented in the literature.
According to a survey conducted by Doherty and
King (1998), only 10% of existing faults and failures
in IS development projects were due to
technological issues, with the remaining 90%
attributed to social and organizational issues. These
issues tend to be even more prevalent and
determinant in inter-organizational IS, since the
number and diversity of technologies, organizational
processes, people and interests involved is bigger
(Luna-Reyes et al., 2005).
To considerer information systems as
sociotechnical systems has an immediate
consequence for the discussion set forth in this paper
which is: the phenomenon of “information systems
interoperability” should be perceived, implemented,
managed, and studied in a sociotechnical perspective
(Figure 2). In other words, the process of achieving
true and effective interoperability between
information systems requires more than the mere
connection, understanding and joint operation
capacity of the technological elements of the
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
334
information systems; it requires that this connection,
understanding and joint operation capacity be
extended to the other relevant elements of
information systems: processes and people.
Figure 2: IS Interoperability: A Sociotechnical
Perspective.
Indeed, as stressed in Reach (2004: 6),
“ultimately, interoperability is the result of human to
human agreements; given a human agreement to be
interoperable, technology can help implement that
agreement but no amount of technology can achieve
true interoperability in the absence of human
agreement”. Hence, while the importance of the
technological component is undeniable, human and
social components of this phenomenon should not be
ignored. This view is also shared by Dodd et al. who
consider that interoperability starts first with people.
As the authors recall “sometimes just getting the
right people in the room does wonders for
interoperability, trust and sharing” (Dodd et al.,
2003: 12).
4 ASSERTIONS ABOUT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
INTEROPERABILITY
The thoughts brought out in previous sections
concerning the concepts of interoperability and of
information systems, and the knowledge that
resulted from previous research studies we
undertook on interoperability in public
administration information systems, led us to
formulate seven assertions about the phenomenon of
IS interoperability, which we believe are relevant
and should frame the way this phenomenon may be
viewed, managed and studied.
A1 - IS Interoperability: A Collective Phenomenon
IS interoperability is a phenomenon that involves at
least two but most of the times many entities. Each
of the involved entities assumes an important role in
it. As so, IS interoperability initiatives and efforts
must be planned, developed, managed and studied as
collective initiatives or efforts. This sets new
challenges to organizations, managers and
researchers and requires from them a new mindset of
cooperative and collaborative work.
A2 - IS Interoperability: Not an Integration
Phenomenon
As argued in section 2.2, although often used
interchangeably, interoperability and integration
terms refer to different phenomena. Due to
unsuccessful past experiences of IS integration,
many of them associated with the implementation of
ERP systems, a misconception of interoperability
and its association with integration initiatives may
generate enormous difficulties and resistances to
accept the IS interoperability phenomenon. For this
reason, it seems fundamental to demystify the
difference between interoperability and integration.
A3 - IS Interoperability: A Federalist Phenomenon
In section 2.1 the preservation of the entities’
autonomy of operation was mentioned as a key idea
underlying the concept of interoperability. This idea
reflects the federalist nature that should characterize
interoperability (Chen, 2005; Daclin, 2005;
Doumeingts and Chen, 2003; Tsagkani, 2005).
Federalism is described by Schwarzenbacher and
Wagner (2005) as the structural and organizational
principle by which separate and autonomous entities
combine efforts to reach a global operation, while
preserving as much as possible, their individuality,
autonomy, and independence.
Indeed, in an interoperability scenario, despite
involved entities should be able to operate together
to promote the image of a whole, their independence
and autonomy should be maintained (Lueders,
2005), thus allowing them to preserve their own
identity and way of working (Daclin, 2005; Lueders,
2005).
This federalist nature represents a valuable
characteristic of interoperability since it can avoid or
mitigate many difficulties and resistances that could
arise if entities would have to change significantly
their way of operating or their information systems.
A4 - IS Interoperability: Not a “Limiter of
Freedom” Phenomenon
Due to the misconception pointed out in assertion
A2, some entities view interoperability as something
that will limit their freedom of choice and action. It
is common to think that “to be able to work and
operate jointly” may imply “to be subject to major
changes and to have to adopt new data formats,
semantics, procedures, and technologies”. This is
not, however, the intent underlying interoperability.
ReflectionsontheConceptofInteroperabilityinInformationSystems
335
As stressed in assertion A3, in an
interoperability scenario each entity should preserve
its autonomy and independence of functioning. In
other words, each entity should be free to organize
its internal data, processes and technologies as it
wants, as soon as it agrees and follows a set of rules
and standards at multiple levels that allows it to
externally connect to, exchange data, and understand
the data exchanged with other entities.
Although some entities may also argue that the
need to adopt and follow a predefined specific set of
standards to be able to interoperate is also something
limiting of their freedom, this seems to us an
excessive argument. Actually, a minimum set of
shared rules and norms between the parts is expected
to exist, otherwise it would be impossible to achieve
any kind of collective action.
Hence, it is fundamental to understand that the
federalist nature of the interoperability phenomenon
reduces to a minimum the lack of freedom of the
entities, since it can increase interoperability
acceptance.
A5 - IS Interoperability: Not an Exclusively
Technological Phenomenon
The existence of interoperability between
information systems requires undoubtedly the ability
of those systems to interoperate at a technological
level. However, as argued, IS are sociotechnical
systems, encompassing other elements besides the
technological ones. Additionally, as pointed in
assertion A1, interoperability is a collective
phenomenon, that may involve multiple entities,
each of them with its organizational, cultural, human
and technological legacy. For this reason, the
challenges around IS interoperability phenomenon
are huge, complex and diverse, tending to be even
more related to organizational, behavioral, and
cultural issues than to technical issues. As such, it
becomes essential to demystify the idea commonly
shared in literature and practice that interoperability
is only, or essentially, a technological challenge.
A6 - IS Interoperability: A Cultural, Social and
Human Phenomenon
Interoperability begins and ends with people.
Ultimately, it is people, with their values, their
perceptions, their beliefs and their experiences that
dictate the success of interoperability between IS: it
is people who think, manage and coordinate the
phenomenon of interoperability; it is people who
define, agree and adopt standards and rules essential
for the achievement of interoperability, and it is
people who fit and align systems and their
interpretative contexts so that the necessary
understanding for the existence of interoperability is
achieved. It is does fundamental to take a broad
perspective, including cultural, social and human
aspects, when studying, implementing, and
managing information systems interoperability.
A7 - IS Interoperability: A Communication,
Negotiation and Diplomacy Phenomenon
Since IS interoperability is a collective phenomenon,
which depends largely on the existence of standards
and agreements between all the involved parts, the
implementation of interoperability between IS
constitutes unavoidably a phenomenon of
communication, negotiation and diplomacy.
Therefore, communication, negotiation and
diplomacy skills are key ingredients in order to
define a consensual set of norms and rules that are
broadly accepted and adopted by the parties.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The assertions set out in last paragraphs derive from
and reflect the widen vision that we have on the
information systems concept information systems
as sociotechnical systems , which consequently led
us to interpret IS interoperability in a sociotechnical
perspective.
This kind of interpretation is not so commonly
found in the literature as we thought. Indeed, most of
the works on IS interoperability treat this
phenomenon in a pure technological perspective.
While calling it IS interoperability, many of the
works end by focusing their attention on IT
interoperability and applications interoperability. In
our opinion, this is not the same thing. The
reflections presented in this paper intend precisely to
call the attention to this fact, and serve as basis for
further discussions on this.
The seven assertions enunciated highlight what
seems to be crucial issues on the phenomenon of IS
interoperability and constitute new insights on how
this phenomenon should be interpreted.
To be aware of these issues seems to be
fundamental for those who are involved in IS
interoperability implementation and management
projects as well as for those that study, research and
try to better understand the phenomenon of
interoperability between information systems. To
have only a partial view of the IS interoperability
phenomenon may threaten the success of many IS
interoperability efforts. Therefore, it is our
conviction that these assertions should reap the
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
336
attention and penetrate the mindset of those involved
in this area and should be taken into account when
implementing and researching in the area of IS
interoperability.
Additional reflections and discussion are needed,
and future work should be done in order to
understand the value of each of those assertions and
their consequences for IS interoperability
practitioners and researches communities.
REFERENCES
Alter, S., 1992. Information Systems: A Management
Perspective, Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Amaral, L., 1994. PRAXIS: Um Referencial para o
Planeamento de Sistemas de Informação. PhD Thesis,
University of Minho, Braga.
Aubert, B., Vandenbosch, B., and Mignerat, M., 2003.
Towards the Measurement of Process Integration.
Available: http://expertise.hec.ca/gresi/wp-content
/uploads/3013/02/cahier0306.pdf (29 Sept 2013).
Busson, A. and Keravel, A., 2005. Interoperable
government providing services: key questions and
solutions analysed through 40 case studies collected in
Europe. In Proceedings of the eGov-Interop'05
Conference, 23-24 February, Geneva, Switzerland.
Carney, D. and Oberndorf, P., 2004. Integration and
Interoperability Models for Systems of Systems.
Available: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/assets
/sstcincose.pdf (4 Dec 2013).
Chen, D., 2005. Practices, principles and patterns for
interoperability. Report of INTEROP NoE, FP6 –
Network of Excellence – Deliverable 6.1, May 2005.
Chen, D. and Doumeingts, G., 2003. European initiatives
to develop interoperability of enterprise applications -
basic concepts, framework and roadmap. Annual
Reviews in Control 27(2): 153–162.
Chen, D., Doumeingts, G., and Vernadat, F., 2008.
Architectures for enterprise integration and
interoperability: Past, present and future. Computers in
Industry 59 (7): 647-659.
CompTIA, 2004. European Interoperability Framework -
ICT Industry Recommendations. White Paper.
Daclin, N., 2005. Contribution to a methodology to
develop interoperability of enterprise applications. In
Proceedings of the INTEROP-ESA'05, 23-25
February, Geneva, Switzerland.
Dodd, J., Peat, B., Mayo, D., Christian, E., and Webber,
D., 2003. Interoperability Strategy: Concepts,
Challenges, and Recommendations. Industry Advisory
Council.
Doherty, N. and King, M., 1998. The importance of
Organisational Issues in Systems Development.
Information Technology & People 11(2): 104–123.
EC, 2008. Draft document as basis for EIF 2.0. Draft for
public comments. European Commission.
Faughn, A., 2002. Interoperability: Is it Achievable?
Program on Information Resources Policy. Available:
http://pirp.harvard.edu/pubs_pdf/faughn/faughn-p02-
6.pdf (2 Dec 2013).
IEEE, 1997. The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical
and Electronics Terms. 6th Edition. New York:
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
integrate, 2014. In Merriam-Webster.com. Available:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ary/integrate
(14 Jan 2014).
Lee, J. and Myers, M., 2004. The Challenges of Enterprise
Integration: Cycles of Integration and Desintegration
Over Time. In Proceedings of the 25th International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2004),
December 2004, Washington DC, USA.
Lueders, H., 2005. Interoperability and Open Standards
for eGovernment Services. In Proceedings of the
eGov-Interop'05 Conference, 23-24 February, Geneva,
Switzerland..
Luna-Reyes, L., Zhang, J., Gil-Garcia, R., Cresswell, A.,
2005. Information systems development as emergent
socio-technical change: a practice approach. European
Journal of Information Systems 14(2): 93-105.
Miller, P., 2000. Interoperability: What is it and Why
should I want it?. Available: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk
/issue24/interoperability (29 Sep 2013).
Panetto, H. and Molina A., 2008. Enterprise integration
and interoperability in manufacturing systems: Trends
and issues. Computers in Industry 59 (7): 641-646.
Parker, P., 2009. Interoperability: Webster’s Timeline
History, 1983-2007. California: ICON Group Int.
Pavlou, P. and Singletary, L., 2002. Empirical Study of
Stakeholders' Perceived Benefits of Integration
Attributes for Enterprise IT Applications. In
Proceedings of the 8th Americas Conference on
Information Systems (AMCIS 2002).
Reach, 2004. Reach Interoperability Guidelines:
Interoperability Theory and Practice. Available:
http://sdec.reach.ie/rigs/rig0012/pdf/rig0012_v0_41.pd
f (9 May 2005).
Sasovova, Z., Heng, M. and Newman, M., 2001. Limits to
Using ERP Systems. In Proceedings of the 7th
Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS
2001), Paper 221: 1142-1146.
Schwarzenbacher, K. and Wagner, J., 2005. The
Federative Principle in Business Architecture. In
Proceedings of the INTEROP-ESA'05, 23–25
February, Geneva, Switzerland.
Tsagkani, C., 2005. Inter-Organisational Collaboration on
the Process Layer. In Proceedings of the INTEROP-
ESA'05, 23–25 February, Geneva, Switzerland.
Visala, S., 1991. Broadening the Empirical Framework of
Information Systems Research. In Nissen, H., Klein,
H. and Hirschheim, R. (Eds.), Information Systems
Research: Contemporary Approaches & Emergent
Traditions: 347–364. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
ReflectionsontheConceptofInteroperabilityinInformationSystems
337
APPENDIX
LIST OF DEFINITIONS OF INTEROPERABILITY
1. Interoperable – adjective (of computer systems or software) able to operate in conjunction.
Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 2005.
2. Interoperability – characteristic that allows the connection and jointly of multiple computers.
Grande Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa,Porto Editora, 2004.
3. Interoperability is the ability to use resources from diverse origins as if they had been designed as parts of a single
system.
Bollinger, T., 2000. A Guide to Understanding Emerging Interoperability Technologies. MITRE
(http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_00/bollinger_interoperability/bollinger_interop.pdf).
4. (A) Interoperability is the ability of systems, units, or forces to provide services to and accept services from other
systems, units, or forces and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together.
(B) The condition achieved among communications-electronics systems or items of communications-electronics
equipment when information or services can be exchanged directly and satisfactorily between them and/or their users.
DOD-NATO JP 1-02 (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp1_02.pdf).
5. The ability of one system to receive and process intelligible information of mutual interest transmitted by another
system.
[JINTACCS 74] cited in Kasunic, M. and Anderson, W., 2004. Measuring Systems Interoperability: Challenges and Opportunities,
Carnegie Mellon University.
6. Interoperability is the ability of information systems to operate in conjunction with each other encompassing
communication protocols, hardware, software, application, and data compatibility layers.
ICH Glossary of Terms (http://www.ichnet.org/glossary.htm).
Poler, R., Tomás, J. and Velardi, P., 2005. Interoperability Glossary, INTEROP NoE, Deliverable 10.1, Version 1B.
7. Enabling different systems to work together and exchange data.
CETIS Acronyms and Glossary (http://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/enterprise/glossary)
8. (A) Interoperability is the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the
information that has been exchanged.
(B) The capability for units of equipment to work together to do useful functions.
(C) The capability, promoted but not guaranteed by joint conformance with a given set of standards, that enables
heterogeneous equipment, generally built by various vendors, to work together in a network environment.
(D) The ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information in a heterogeneous network and use
that information.
IEEE, 1997. The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms. 6th Edition. New York: Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers.
9. Interoperability is the ability to exchange information and mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
Council Directive of 14 May 199 on the legal protection of computer programmes (91/250/EEC).
10. Interoperability is the ability of independent, distributed software components to operate together as part of a larger
system.
http://www.canri.nsw.gov.au/glossary.html
11. Interoperability is the ability of computer systems made by different manufacturers to operate with one another.
http://www.iomega.com/europe/support/english/documents/11240e.html
12. Interoperability is the ability to operate and exchange information in a multivendor/multiproduct network.
http://www.networkcables.com/i.htm
13. Interoperability is the ability of software and hardware to communicate and function across multiple machines, under
multiple vendor formats.
http://dli.grainger.uiuc.edu/glossary.htm
http://www.aot.state.vt.us/CaddHelp/cadd/glossary/gloss_i.htm
14. Interoperability is the ability of a network to operate with other networks, such as two systems based on different
protocols or technologies.
http://www.roadtripamerica.com/dashboarding/glossary.htm
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
338
15. Interoperability is the ability of different types of databases, applications, operating systems, and platforms to function
in an integrated manner.
http://www.dddmag.com/scripts/glossary.asp
16. Interoperability is the ability of one manufacturer's computer equipment to operate alongside, communicate with, and
exchange information with another vendor's dissimilar computer equipment.
http://www.networkbuyersguide.com/search/105487.htm
17. Interoperability is the ability to exchange and use information (usually in a large heterogeneous network made up of
several local area networks).
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/interoperability
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
18. Interoperability is the ability of different types of computers, networks, operating systems, and applications to work
together effectively, without prior communication, in order to exchange information in a useful and meaningful
manner.
Dublin Core Metadata Glossary (http://library.csun.edu/mwoodley/dublincoreglossary.html).
19. Interoperability is the ability of content, a subsystem or system to seamlessly work with other systems, subsystems or
content via the use of agreed specifications/standards.
http://www.tasi.ac.uk/glossary/glossary_technical.html
20. Interoperability is the ability of heterogeneous systems and networks to communicate and cooperate through specified
standards.
http://info.louisiana.edu/dept/glosi.html
21. Interoperability is the ability of equipment from multiple vendors to communicate using standardized protocols.
http://www.nationaldatamux.com/G50001.htm
22. Interoperability may be defined as a process that effectively links two or more systems (marketplaces or other service
providers) or organizations in a partial or fully transparent manner (for users).
Scriven, G., "Interoperability in Australian Government E-Procurement - Strategy versus Reality", 7th Pacific Asia Conference on
Information Systems, Adelaide, South Africa, 2003.
23. Interoperability is achieved only if the interaction between two systems can, at least, take place at the three levels: data,
resource and business process with the semantics defined in a business context.
Chen, D. and G. Doumeingts (2003). "European initiatives to develop interoperability of enterprise applications:- basic concepts,
framework and roadmap." Annual Reviews in Control, 27(2): 153-162.
24. Interoperability is the capability to communicate, execute programs, or transfer data among various functional units in a
manner that requires the user to have little or no knowledge of the unique characteristics of those units.
ISO 19119 Services.
25. Interoperability is the ability to share and exchange information using common syntax and semantics to meet an
application-specific functional relationship through the use of a common interface.
ISO16100.
26. In a purely technological perspective, interoperability concerns the ability of two or more ICT assets (hardware devices,
communications devices or software components) to easily or automatically work together. In a business perspective,
the previous definition expands to include the ability of two or more business processes, or services, to easily or
automatically work together.
CompTIA, European Interoperability Framework — ICT Industry Recommendations (White Paper), 2004.
27. Interoperability is the ability of ICT systems and of the business processes they support to exchange data and to enable
sharing of information and knowledge.
IDABC, European Interoperability Framework for pan-European eGovernment Services, 2004.
28. Interoperability is the ability of disparate and diverse organizations to interact towards mutually beneficial and agreed
common goals, involving the sharing of information and knowledge between the organizations via the business
processes they support, by means of the exchange of data between their respective information and communication
technology (ICT) systems.
IDABC, European Interoperability Framework for pan-European eGovernment Services, 2008.
29. Interoperability is defined as the ability to communicate, execute programs, or transfer data among various functional
units due to the use of common languages and protocols, requiring little or no knowledge of the user about the specific
features of these units.
APDSI, 2011, Glossário da Sociedade da Informação (http://www.apdsi.pt/uploads/news/id432/gloss%C3%
Alrio%da%20si%20-%20vers%C3%A3o%202011.pdf)
ReflectionsontheConceptofInteroperabilityinInformationSystems
339
