j&j end user perspective - the open...
TRANSCRIPT
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