How can interoperability approaches impact on
Systems-of-Information Systems characteristics?
Juliana Fernandes∗ Francisco Ferreira∗
juliana.fernandes@ifpi.edu.br francisco.ferreira@uniriotec.br
Federal Institute of Piauí (IFPI) Federal University of the
Campo Maior, Brazil State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO)
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Valdemar Graciano Neto
valdemarneto@ufg.br
Federal University of Goiás (UFG)
Goiânia, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Systems-of-Information Systems are a specific type of systems-of-
systems composed of independent information systems working
together to deliver new capabilities. Despite the benefits of the
synergistic collaboration of IS, the establishment of interoperability
links in the context of a SoIS is still a challenge, specially because of
the characteristics of this type of complex systems, i.e., autonomy,
belonging, connectivity, diversity, dynamism, emergent behavior,
evolutionary development, interdependence. The purpose of this
paper is to analyze how approaches to establish interoperability
may affect these specific characteristics of SoIS. We analyzed in-
teroperability approaches defined in ISO14258 (integrated, unified,
federated) and discussed their implications in designing and manag-
ing interoperability in SoIS. We used a knowledge base containing
ontological descriptions for well-known interoperability problems
and their solutions to support our discussion. As a contribution,
we provide a reference for SoIS architects on interoperability ap-
proaches and their impacts.
CCS CONCEPTS
• Software and its engineering → Interoperability.
KEYWORDS
systems of information systems, SoIS, interoperability, systems-of-
systems
∗ Both authors contributed equally to this research.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM
must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish,
to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a
fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
SBSI’20, November 3–6, 2020, São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil
© 2020 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-8873-3/20/11. . . $15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3411564.3411621
Felipe Cordeiro
felipe.paula@uniriotec.br
Federal University of the
State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO)
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Rodrigo Santos
rps@uniriotec.br
Federal University of the
State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO)
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
ACM Reference Format:
Juliana Fernandes, Francisco Ferreira, Felipe Cordeiro, Valdemar Graciano
Neto, and Rodrigo Santos. 2020. How can interoperability approaches im-
pact on Systems-of-Information Systems characteristics?. In XVI Brazil-
ian Symposium on Information Systems (SBSI’20), November 3–6, 2020, São
Bernardo do Campo, Brazil. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 8 pages. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3411564.3411621
1 INTRODUCTION
Over the years, global competition has pushed organizations to
participate in collaborative networks, building inter-organizational
alliances to respond to business demands and take advantage of
opportunities. Global companies, such as Amazon, have established
alliances with several other smaller companies to provide a more
diverse set of products in their portfolio. In parallel to the alliance
at business level, they also needed to establish interoperability
links between their information systems (IS) at the technical level
to make the selling process possible through Amazon platform.
These alliances among organizations demand the establishment
of different information flows, stakeholders and objectives to be
orchestrated around business processes to achieve goals that could
not be achieved by an IS in isolation. This arrangement of IS is part
of a class of complex systems known as Systems-of-Information
Systems (SoIS).
A remarkable example of SoIS is a smart city, in which the pur-
pose is delivering better services to citizens through collaboration
across multiple entities based on a cross-sectional information flow
supported by different business processes (BP), people, and tech-
nologies [13]. For enabling links among several organizations to-
wards a SoIS, interoperability, which is defined as the ability of
two or more systems to exchange information and make use of this
exchanged information [1], is a key quality attribute. Moreover,
such alliance is as more successful as the level of interoperability
reached, which makes full interoperability a desired solution. How-
ever, achieving the so-called full interoperability requires overcom-
ing several challenges, particularly conceptual, technical, human
and organizational barriers [15, 23]. This challenge is actually listed
as one of the Grand Research Challenges in Information Systems in
Brazil for 2016 to 2026 [5]. Given this scenario, the purpose of this
SBSI’20, November 3–6, 2020, São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil
paper is to analyze how approaches to establish interoperability
may affect specific characteristics of SoIS.
The broadly known standard ISO 14258 [16] prescribes three
recurrent approaches to establish interoperability links between
enterprises and their IS: Federated, Unified, and Integrated. Each of
such categories impose a different level of coupling to the involved
constituent IS; For instance, depending on the strategy an architect
chooses to link a set of systems, it can increase the level of inter-
dependence over constituent systems (CS1 ) to sustain the global
behaviors provided by the SoIS over time. In this case, a constituent
IS to be integrally serving the SoIS, increasing the coupling in the
overall SoIS, sacrificing their operational independence.
Hence, it’s necessary to discuss the impact of each interoperabil-
ity strategy over the operational independence of constituents that
characterizes SoIS. It is also necessary to overcome this rationale to
advance the discussion and establish a tradeoff between each of the
three styles to enable interoperability and their potential impact on
each characteristic of a SoIS. This can support an engineer/architect
could be aware of the barriers of each style for a SoIS and to decide
which one is more suitable to the establishment of their business
alliances.
The main contribution of this paper is to highlight how strategies
to establish interoperability between information systems could
impact on the essential characteristics of a SoIS. We intend that
our results can be used as a reference for building SoIS. Also, ar-
chitects/engineers can use it as inputs for performing a trade-off
analysis between the strategy used to establish interoperability
and the impact on the essential characteristics of SoIS. Thus, the
involved enterprises are free to decide which characteristics they
consider crucial and decide the architectural strategy that meets
their needs.
In this study we defined and conducted the following steps: (1)
A literature review to investigate characteristics of SoIS; (2) a lit-
erature review to investigate core concepts of interoperability; (3)
an analysis of the approaches (integrated, unified and federated)
defined in ISO 14258 standard for interoperability; (4) an analysis
of how SoIS characteristics can be influenced in the face of such
approaches. By proceeding, we extracted characteristics of SoS (and
inherited by SoIS) from relevant works in the area. We discussed
each characteristic (autonomy, belonging, connectivity, diversity,
dynamism, emergent behavior, evolutionary development, inter-
dependence) pointing challenges regarding interoperability in the
SoIS context.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2
presents the background; in Section 3, we discuss approaches for
establishing interoperability in SoIS under the light of ISO 14258
standard; in Section 4, we analyze how interoperability approaches
described in ISO 14258 affect the characteristics of SoIS; Section 5
presents a brief evaluation and discussion on results; and Section 6
presents the conclusions.
2 BACKGROUND
An IS is a collection of dynamically interconnected components
for collecting, storing, and processing data and for providing in-
formation and knowledge for supporting organizational decisions.
1 For sake of simplicity, herein CS will denote both singular and plural forms.
Juliana Fernandes, Francisco Ferreira, Felipe Cordeiro, Valdemar Graciano Neto, and Rodrigo Santos
Moreover, an IS is recognized by three distinct dimensions: human,
business and technical [19]. According to the Systems Engineering
Body of Knowledge (SEBoK), when multiple IS work collaboratively
to achieve a mutual goal, they create a complex system [3].
A complex system is composed of several independent and inter-
dependent parts interacting in a non-linear way, i.e., the behavior
cannot be precisely expressed as a result of the sum of the activities
of individual parts. Their inter-dependencies are difficult to de-
scribe, predict and design [2]. Complex systems have (i) adaptation,
(ii) self-organization, and (iii) emergence [32]. A particular type of
complex system is the so-called System-of-Systems (SoS) [25]. In
SoS, CS, which are independent systems working together, main-
tain their ownership, objectives, development methods and funding.
When CS encompass organizational IS and establish cooperation
to obtain mutual benefits (create new functionalities, technologies,
and business opportunities), the arrangement of CS can be classi-
fied as SoIS [28]. This type of system have specific properties: (i)
the existence of information flows among the constituent IS; (ii)
business process-oriented nature; and (iii) information creation and
added value through interoperability among IS and their organi-
zations, which cannot be obtained if their constituents operate in
isolation [11]. While SoS is primarily concerned with a technical
artifact (e.g., software), SoIS is concerned with other IS elements,
such as processes, technologies, and people needed to achieve IS
interoperability [12][25][35]. Thus, SoIS typifies the scope of SoS
as it crosses organizational boundaries, involving IS constituents
of different domains, and generating a large amount of informa-
tion. Particularly, IS interoperability (ISI) is considered a collective
and federalist phenomenon, not only an integration phenomenon,
not a “limiter of freedom” phenomenon, nor an exclusively tech-
nological phenomenon [35]. It encompasses a cultural, social and
human, communication, negotiation and diplomacy phenomenon
[35]. Therefore, SoIS may gather social elements, such as strategies
to represent stakeholders decisions and behaviors to enable the
creation of value and innovative ideas [20][35].
In order to investigate characteristics of SoIS, an informal litera-
ture review was realized. According to Teixeira et al. [36], SoIS is a
specific type of SoS and inherits the SoS characteristics. Thus, we
revisited four relevant studies that characterize SoS [22] (Maier,1996
[24]; Boardman and Sauser, 2006 [4]; DeLaurentis, 2009 [10]; Nielsen
et al., 2015 [30]) to define the characteristics that will be analyzed in
this work (Step 1). The characteristics recurrently assigned to SoS
in the literature are autonomy, belonging, connectivity, diversity,
dynamism, emergent behavior, evolutionary development and in-
terdependence [18]. Figure 1 depicts all the characteristics reported
in SoS studies and how they are correlated, traceable, and evolved
over the years according to the highlighted authors. We discuss
them individually, as follows.
Autonomy is related to how a system is governed by its own
rules despite external influences. For instance, CS perform their
functions according to their rules, even when they serve a global
goal [25]. It is related to the ability of a CS to pursue an individual
purpose [4] and its ability to operate outside of the arrangement.
This feature implies that a CS must offer behaviors related to its
role in a SoIS and behaviors related to its purpose, independent
from SoIS. That is, a CS exists by itself and does not depend on the
existence of the whole.
How can interoperability approaches impact on Systems-of-Information Systems characteristics?
Figure 1: Discussed Characteristics for SoIS evolved from Lu et al. [22].
Evolutionary development means that SoIS evolves as CS
evolve as well. Such evolution of CS happens in response to its
individual needs and can imply in benefits to SoIS, e.g., a new func-
tionality can be created. On the other hand, some functionalities
may be discontinued. SoIS must absorb these changes to maximize
gains or minimize unwanted effects.
Emergent behavior is the reason why an SoIS exists. It is the
behavior that results from the synergistic collaboration among CS
and is assigned to the arrangement as a whole. It can be desired or
unwanted. Despite the benefits provided by emergent behaviors,
CS give higher priority to their own objectives [11]. Therefore,
interoperability should enable emergent behaviors while preserving
the individual freedom of constituents.
Connectivity refers to the dispersion of CS so that some con-
nectivity mechanisms must exist to allow communication and infor-
mation sharing. This characteristic denotes a physical separation,
and models should have the ability to describe the connectivity
while still considering a distributed knowledge base, operational
costs, and eventual cultural and normative conflicts.
Interdependence is the mutual dependence resulting from the
need for a CS to rely on one another to accomplish a mission.
In this context, interdependence is particularly hard to measure
because of the level of freedom of the constituents. For instance,
when we consider Federated Information Systems (FIS) [6] the
components are autonomous, but in some cases, they have to give
up some autonomy to join the federation [6]. In SoIS, giving up
autonomy may not be an option for CS. The SoIS manager should
consider scenarios where interoperability may not occur, given the
unavailability of the constituents.
Diversity refers to the variety of elements of an SoIS. Diversity
is present in technologies, data formats, people, processes, protocols,
and even interpretations and purposes. This characteristic comes
from autonomy.
SBSI’20, November 3–6, 2020, São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil
Dynamicity is the characteristics of a SoIS to modify its struc-
ture and composition. Several authors consider this ability as an
essential feature, especially to ensure that an SoS can handle failures
and other threats at runtime. To ensure the ability to reconfigure
dynamically, the models of SoIS should abstract dynamic archi-
tectures and interfaces and provide information to thinking about
these dynamic structures [30].
Belonging means the CS perception of mutual benefit between
the parts [4]. Depending on the type of the SoIS, CS choose to
participate in an SoIS because they see an attractive cost-benefit
basis and because they believe in the ’higher’ goal to be achieved
by an SoS. The need for the perception of belonging is a natural
consequence of autonomy [34]. Designing interoperability should
consider an eventual abandonment of CS, that may want to leave
SoIS [33]. Since a CS is free to join or leave SoIS, the design of
interoperability should predict related implications for these be-
haviors. Interoperability, in turn, comprises an important quality
attribute essential to enable SoIS connectivity characteristic, for
example. Indeed, a SoIS is feasible through the establishment of
interoperability links among its CS. Supporting all interoperability
levels for specific domain applications can be considered as Full
Interoperability support [14][23].
Achieve full support for interoperability is a challenge for IS
researchers since it encompass many concepts, and an approach
that deals with all of them is required. As the Ontology for Enter-
prise Interoperability (OoEI) [26] establishes an understanding of
interoperability concepts, we used it to investigate the core con-
cepts of interoperability (Step 2). OoEI integrates an interoperability
knowledge provided by the Framework for Enterprise Interoper-
ability (FEI) [7] and Ontology of Interoperability (OoI) [27]. FEI
defines a classification scheme to categorize knowledge for interop-
erability according to three dimensions: interoperability barriers,
interoperability approaches, and enterprise levels [7]. OoI provides
a framework to describe problems and related solutions about the
SBSI’20, November 3–6, 2020, São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil Juliana Fernandes, Francisco Ferreira, Felipe Cordeiro, Valdemar Graciano Neto, and Rodrigo Santos
Figure 2: Traceability of characteristics discussed in this study. Inspired on the representation by [31][39].
interoperability domain [26]. Generally, knowledge about interop-
erability provides solutions to remove barriers [26].
According to Chen [7], interoperability barriers are described as
(i) conceptual i.e., concerned with the syntactic and semantic differ-
ences of information to be exchanged; (ii) technological i.e., refers
to the incompatibility of information technologies (e.g., architecture
and platforms, infrastructure) as well as problems concerning the
standards to present, store, exchange, process and communicate
the data; and (iii) organizational i.e., relates to the definition of re-
sponsibility and authority as well as incompatibility of organization
structures. Interoperability can take place at the various enterprise
levels, such as data, services, processes, and business.
Interoperability of data refers to make work together different
data models [7]. Interoperability of services is concerned with iden-
tifying, composing and gathering together multiple applications
[7]. Interoperability of processes aims to make several processes
work together (a process defines the sequence of the services, e.g.,
functions according to some specific needs of a company) [7]. Fi-
nally, interoperability of business refers to an harmonization at
the level of organization in spite of different modes of decision-
making, methods of work, legislation, culture of the company and
commercial approaches so that business can be developed between
companies [7]. Removing interoperability barriers can be performed
through three approaches according to ISO 14258 standard [16]: In-
tegrated, Unified and Federated architectural approaches [7]. Such
approaches are used in this study to investigate how each of them
can affect SoIS characteristics. We proceed with such discussion in
the next section.
3 INTEROPERABILITY APPROACHES
This section discusses interoperability concepts from OoEI [26],
which considers approaches from ISO 14258 standard described
by Chen [7] and Naudet et al. [26] (Step 3). A concept map paper
(Fig. 2), inspired on the representation by [31][39], was drawn to
support our discussion.
All elements and concepts from OoEI are considered as we un-
derstand that in a SoIS each CS maintain its independence on En-
terprise Level (EL) (Data, Services, Processes, Business). Although EL
concerns had been defined on three levels in FEI, we considered
important a broader perspective that include cultural, social and
human aspects [35]. Thus, the Human level was added. Even if full
interoperability in SoIS does not include direct human interven-
tion in interoperations [29]. Human perspective can assist SoIS
managers in management of technical teams or CS stakeholder
relations.
OoIE also addresses incompatibilities between systems. Incom-
patibility is defined as the condition of existence for interoperability
problems. This concept is a subclass of Interoperability Existence
Condition, i.e., this class formalizes the fact that a Relation is an
existing condition for interoperability problems. To advance the
discussion, we started from the Solution class demonstrated on
OoIE since the collaboration between IS is enabled by a solution.
We assume that any interoperability solution for a SoIS should
consider an appropriate approach that preserves the characteristics
presented in the background section. The approaches represented
in OoIE (Integrated, Unified, Federated) correspond to those specified
in ISO 14258 standard [16].
How can interoperability approaches impact on Systems-of-Information Systems characteristics?
For the sake of clarity and a proper understanding of interoper-
ability, we consider it important to previously expose the differences
between integration, compatibility, and interoperability since the
concepts may look similar but differ they in important aspects.
In integration, there are functional dependencies which imply in
less flexibility and resilience [9]. Integrated systems are sensitive
to failures, and small local functional or structural changes may
impact distant parts of an integrated system in an unpredictable
manner [40]. On the order hand, interoperability fosters a more
loosely coupled approach, where systems remain independent but
are coordinated insofar some collaboration is possible to take place
[40]. According to Weichhart and Wachholder[40], the interoper-
ability concept relies on a continuum from compatibility toward
integration (Fig.3). Compatibility means that one system does not
interfere in other’s systems functioning. However, two compatible
systems might not be able to collaborate. Thus, SoIS is not a struc-
ture composed of compatible CS since IS in SoIS should be able to
work collaboratively to achieve a goal.
Figure 3: Difference between the integration and interoper-
ability. Adapted by Weichhart and Wachholder [40].
There is no implementation standard for SoIS. The truth is that,
for each context, several variables affect how interoperability must
be implemented. For example, there may be scenarios in which
CS can give up a certain level of autonomy or can share the same
model of data representation. But there may be occasions when
this may not occur. What we propose in this work is to discuss
how the approaches can affect the characteristics presented in the
background section so that SoIS architects can have a reference on
which approach to choose to enable interoperability. We present
these characteristics below.
Integrated Approach means that there is a standard or shared
format for all CS [8][17][40]. Integrated paradigm consists of using
a shared template to representing all the concerned models
or for building systems [26]. In OoEI, the integrated approach
consists of using a Common Template for the representation of all
the concerned models or for building systems [26].
In Unified Approach, a meta-model is used and serves as a
common reference to map models’ semantics and syntax [26]. A
common meta-model provide means for establishing semantic
equivalence [17], and allows a translation between CS models even
though some loss of semantics or information can occur [37]. This
happens because individual needs of CS cannot be represented
directly [37]. Diverging concepts are mapped on a semantical level
that allows the translation between multiple systems [40]. OoEI
proposes using a Unified Meta-Model as a solution to a unified
approach. [27].
Federated Approach aims to establish interoperability ‘on the
fly’. In other words, federated systems should identify and adapt
to requirements at runtime [40]. Federated approach does not
SBSI’20, November 3–6, 2020, São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil
impose models, languages, or methods of work [40][37], and in-
teroperability problems are fixed while systems are running [26].
Models must be dynamically adapted rather than having a pre-
determined meta-model [26][17]. It is needed a negotiation that
allows the adaptation of the semantics at both sides (e.g., to map se-
mantics from one part to another and to exchange resource profiles)
[8]. For federated approach a kind of coordination was represent
in OoEI. The function of coordination class is not detailed on OoEI,
however, it shows that Federated Approach uses Coordination to
illustrate an authority entity or a negotiation in designing inter-
operability [38]. This coordination can be a role discussed in SoIS
context [11]. As we recognize that interoperability in SoIS should
deal with Concerns, characteristics aligned with the concerns on the
OoEI was added, i.e., Autonomy, Belonging, Conectivity, Diversity,
Dynamicity, Interdependence, Evolutionary Development, Interdepen-
dence. We did not deepen in solutions for addressing dynamicity in
SoIS as this subject is still under investigations.
As a contribution of this discussion, we adapt OoEI by adding in-
teroperability concerns for SoIS context. The representation of SoIS
characteristics grouped on OoEI is present on Figure 4. Concepts
and elements inherent interoperability in SoIS integrated into OoEI
are represented through purple ellipse. The analysis about each ISO
14258 interoperability approach and its influence on characteristics
of SoIS is conduced and detailed on Section 4.
4 ANALYSIS OF INTEROPERABILITY
APPROACHES ON SOIS CHARACTERISTICS
This section presents how each interoperability approach from ISO
14258 standard can affect the characteristics of SoIS presented in
Subsection 2.1. For each interoperability approach and each SoIS
characteristic, a researcher analyzed whether and how each ap-
proach may or may not threaten the maintenance of the feature in
a SoIS arrangement (Step 4). A qualitative analysis was tabulated ac-
cording to the answers of each researcher and finally, the consensus
was obtained. Figure 5 presents the results of our analysis.
4.1 Integrated Approach
In this approach, the autonomy of CS is strongly affected by stan-
dardization, specially through the use of common templates and
meta-templates. Such practices require CS to be forced to adopt
standards that may conflict with their individual goals. Moreover, it
should be considered the premise that CS prioritizes its individual
goal, even if an SoIS belongs to a single organization. As a example,
we can cite the case presented by Leite [21], where the author exem-
plifies the challenge of dealing with autonomy among independent
IS within an organizational context: in a specific organization, one
IS supports the financial activities of projects, and another supports
the physical part of these projects. As a technical solution, a shared
entrance is provided when there is a need for interoperating IS
in order to accomplish a mission. Nevertheless, analyzing details
about the organization of tasks, the routine of the first one team
concentrate on issues related to service providers contracts, and
the project manager works with financial goals. In the latter case,
contracts are not a priority. The author suggests that a solution to
the common entrance would have execution problems due to the
culture of the operators.
SBSI’20, November 3–6, 2020, São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil Juliana Fernandes, Francisco Ferreira, Felipe Cordeiro, Valdemar Graciano Neto, and Rodrigo Santos
Figure 4: Representation of the concerns (purple ellipses) of interoperability in SoIS integrated into OoEI. Yellow ellipses
represents OoI and blue ellipses represents FEI from OoEI. Evolved from Naudet et al. [26]
Integrated approach requires CS to be designed and built follow-
ing shared standards, which for SoIS may be a limitation because in
SoIS CS are usually already built. Evolutionary development is
also affected by integrated approaches as it depends on the ability
of CS to evolve as their needs changes over time. In this case, evolu-
tionary development is subject to constraints imposed by standards
and models that should be respected in this approach.
When a SoIS is designed, an emergent behavior is planned
although unplanned (and sometimes unwanted) behaviors might
arise. The integrated approach might limit unplanned behaviors. If
there is any change in models or standards, these changes must be
absorbed by all CS regardless of whether the change is related to
goal of SoIS or any of its constituents. This requires a coordination
with a certain level of authority in SoIS. Established patterns can re-
sult in a limitation of evolutionary development, as well as a preser-
vation of the planned emergent behavior (i.e., what is expected
from SoS), diversity, connectivity, and interdependence.
An integrated approach makes CS and SoIS less sensitive to
changes. Structural characteristics established by this approach do
not influence connectivity, interdependence, and dynamicity. On
the other hand, belonging, which is related to the benefit-cost of
participation of CS in SoIS, is positively affected because integrated
approaches means stable models, roles, and responsibilities. This
scenario facilitates the engagement of CS. The higher the sense of
belonging of the CS, which is leveraged by cost-benefit factors, the
higher the availability of resources (human and technical) to SoIS.
Diversity is affected because homogeneous elements are needed
to follow the given patterns and templates. Finally, according to
Chen [7], integrated approaches are best suited for deploying new
systems rather than applying it to existing systems. In general, CS
usually already exist in SoIS.
4.2 Unified Approach
In an unified approach, the characteristics of SoIS can be less af-
fected if we compare it with integrated approaches. However, ac-
cording to Tu et al.[37], an unified approach is not able to represent
directly individual needs of CS. A SoIS may not behave as desired
if its engineer is unaware of the constraints of CS in their own
context. These restrictions may overcome organizational bound-
aries and conflict with the objectives (emergent behaviors) of the
SoIS. According to Chen [7], unified approaches approach are well
suited for network interoperability or collaboration that seeks a
better understanding without the need for major changes to its own
models. There is an advantage over efforts, costs, and implemen-
tation models. Each CS can preserve its characteristics, but there
is a need to maintain an up-to-date standard meta-model for all
CS to understand. Keeping a meta-model up to date the tendency
is that autonomy, diversity, connectivity, interdependence,
emergent behavior, dynamics, evolutionary development of
a SoIS are preserved. If the meta-model (semantic representation /
equivalence tool) is not updated there may be implications for the
cited features given the difficulty of representing emerging changes
(e.g. adaptability to change, temporality, technologies, costs).
4.3 Federated Approach
In general, federated approaches are more flexible, preserving the
autonomy of CS since they are free to evolve according to their
individual needs, observing its constraints and the context in which
they belong. Thus, the evolutionary development of CS is also
How can interoperability approaches impact on Systems-of-Information Systems characteristics?
Figure 5: How approaches potentially impact the characteristics of SoIS.
a characteristic that is little affected by federated approaches. Dy-
namicity and diversity are also characteristics of SoIS that remain
preserved when federated approaches are used. However, the dy-
namism of ‘on the fly’ negotiations can cause connectivity (which
includes communication protocols) to be affected if negotiations do
not address all the issues that should be considered for collaboration
using a communication channel, especially in critical situations. As
a consequence, desired emergent behavior may not be achieved
precisely because of connectivity failures, which may also have
implications for interdependence among CS.
In critical situations, rapid responses are required and an feder-
ated approach may not be able to meet all the necessary require-
ments or there may not be enough time for negotiation. For instance,
in an ocean oil spill scenario, a SoIS manager without some active
contingency plans for oil pollution incidents can result in the death
of marine animals and flora.
5 EVALUATION AND DISCUSSIONS
We performed a survey with experts to evaluate the precision and
suitability of the concepts we dealt with and how they are related.
Moreover, the table with guidelines on the impact of the inter-
operability on SoIS characteristics for each architectural strategy
prescribed by ISO 14258 was also submitted to their evaluation.
The set of experts was formed by two experts in SoIS, one of
them also expert in software architecture, and two experts in inter-
operability. One of them was indirectly involved in the conduction
of the study. We used Likert scale and asked them whether (i) they
agree on the concepts depicted in Figure 4, (ii) they agree on the
relations established between the links and, (iii) they agree on how
each of the styles (Federated, Unified, Integrated) potentially im-
pact on the SoIS essential characteristics. They were unanimous
in strongly agreeing on the suitability and accuracy of the results
presented, even though they highlighted the speculative character
of some of the results. Regarding discussions, there is a small bias
on the results, since one of the experts was indirectly involved in
the conception of the solution. However, since other three also
agreed on the results, this fact reduces the threats to validity.
SBSI’20, November 3–6, 2020, São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil
We understand that, depending on how interoperability links
are established and depending on the business rules that govern
the SoIS, we actually face what we call a degree of autonomy. This
means that, depending on how much a SoIS relies on functionalities
provided by one or more constituents, their operational indepen-
dence can be consequently sacrificed, which leads to a new frontier
of investigation: in which degree each of the characteristics of a
SoIS is trully addressed? Our results foster this discussion and com-
prises an important contribution, since we glimpse how standard
forms adopted by industry and prescribed by ISO 14258 can po-
tentially affect the degree to which SoIS essential characteristics
are impacted. Further investigation is still needed, but the results
presented in this paper are a preliminary insight on the directions
to follow.
6 FINAL REMARKS
This paper presented research results to answer the following re-
search question: how can interoperability approaches affect SoIS
inherent characteristics? We envisioned that, depending on the
architectural strategies and business needs used to establish inter-
operability links between CS and form a SoIS, autonomy (indepen-
dence), belonging and other characteristics could be affected, since
dependency among CS and of the overall SoIS over the CS can
increase, reducing their independence. The main contribution of
this paper is to highlight how well-accepted industrial approaches
to establish interoperability prescribed by ISO 14258 standard may
affect these specific characteristics of SoIS. We also proposed an
adaptation of Ontology of Enterprise Interoperability (OoEI) to deal
concerns of interoperability in SoIS.
Interoperability in a SoIS should be designed according its con-
text. Each of the approaches presented affects how characteristics
of SoIS are manifested. It is up to the SoIS architect to choose the op-
tion that best fits the scenario in which he/she is working. Different
architectural strategies prescribed by ISO (Federated, Unified and
Integrated approaches) impact in different ways the SoIS charac-
teristics depending on the style chosen. We concluded that each of
SBSI’20, November 3–6, 2020, São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil Juliana Fernandes, Francisco Ferreira, Felipe Cordeiro, Valdemar Graciano Neto, and Rodrigo Santos
the strategies prescribed potentially increase coupling (in different
levels) between CS and between the overall SoIS and CS.
Our results can then be used as a reference for SoIS engineers
or architects to decide on which architectural strategy to use to
achieve their particular business needs. We intend to expand this
research towards a set of recommendations for interoperability in
SoIS, i.e., taking into consideration the particular characteristics of
SoIS (dynamicity, evolutionary development, emergent behavior,
diversity, connectivity, autonomy, belonging, connectivity, inter-
dependence). We endeavor to integrate these characteristics into
OoEI. However, we did not suggest solutions for addressing dynam-
icity in SoIS. As future work, we intend to investigate deeply how
to identify the degree of interdependence of the IS constituting a
SoIS to support the analysis of impacts for the fulfillment of the
objectives of a SoIS.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoa-
mento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code
001. The first author also thanks to Instituto Federal do Piauí (IFPI).
REFERENCES
[1] 1990. IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology. IEEE Std
610.12-1990 (1990), 1–84.
[2] Sharada Alampalli and Theresa Pardo. 2014. A study of complex systems devel-
oped through public private partnerships. In Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. ACM, Guimarães,
Portugal, 442–445.
[3] BKCASE Editorial Board. 2017. The Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of
Knowledge (SEBoK), v. 1.9.1. Technical Report.
[4] J. Boardman and B. Sauser. 2006. System of Systems - the meaning of ’of’. In
IEEE/SMC International Conference on System of Systems Engineering. IEEE, Los
Angeles, USA, 1–6.
[5] Clodis Boscarioli, Renata Araujo, and Rita Suzana. 2017. Grand Research Chal-
lenges in Information Systems in Brazil 2016 - 2026. Brazilian Computer Society.
[6] Susanne Busse, Ralf-Detlef Kutsche, Ulf Leser, and Herbert Weber. 1999. Feder-
ated information systems: Concepts, terminology and architectures. Forschungs-
berichte des Fachbereichs Informatik 99, 9 (1999), 1–38.
[7] David Chen. 2017. Framework for Enterprise Interoperability. John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd, Chapter 1, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119407928.ch1
[8] David Chen and Guy Doumeingts. 2004. Basic Concepts and Approaches to Develop
Interoperability of Enterprise Applications. Springer US, Boston, MA, 323–330.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35704-1_34
[9] Michele Dassisti, Ricardo Jardim-Goncalves, Arturo Molina, Ovidiu Noran, Hervé
Panetto, and Milan M Zdravković. 2013. Sustainability and interoperability: Two
facets of the same gold medal. In OTM Confederated International Conferences"
On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems". Springer, 250–261.
[10] Daniel DeLaurentis and Muharrem Mane. 2009. Acquisition management for
systems-of-systems: Exploratory model development and experimentation. In
6th Annual Acquisition Research Symposium of the Naval Postgraduate School:
Volume I: Defense Acquisition in Transition. 42 – 58.
[11] Juliana Fernandes, Francisco Henrique Cerdeira Ferreira, Felipe Cordeiro de
Paula, Valdemar Vicente Graciano Neto, and Rodrigo Pereira dos Santos. 2019. A
Conceptual Model for Systems-of-Information Systems. IEEE 20th International
Conference on Information Reuse and Integration for Data Science, 364–371.
[12] Marcelo Benites Gonçalves, Everton Cavalcante, Thais Batista, Flavio Oquendo,
and Elisa Yumi Nakagawa. 2014. Towards a conceptual model for Software-
intensive System-of-Systems. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics (SMC 2014). IEEE, San Diego, USA, 1605–1610.
[13] Valdemar Vicente Graciano Neto, Everton Cavalcante, Jamal El Hachem, and
Daniel Soares Santos. 2017. On the Interplay of Business Process Modeling and
Missions in Systems-of-Information Systems. In IEEE/ACM JSOS. IEEE, Buenos
Aires, Argentina, 72–73.
[14] Valdemar Vicente Graciano Neto, Flavio Oquendo, and Elisa Yumi Nakagawa.
2016. Systems-of-Systems: Challenges for Information Systems Research in the
Next 10 Years. In Big Research Challenges in Information Systems. Florianópolis,
Brazil, 1–3.
[15] R. Hellman. 2010. Organisational barriers to interoperability. In eChallenges
e-2010 Conference. 1–9.
[16] ISO 14258 (1998). Industrial automation systems and integration – Concepts and
rules for enterprise models. Standard. International Organization for Standardiza-
tion.
[17] Kurt Kosanke. 2006. ISO Standards for Interoperability: a comparison. In Interop-
erability of enterprise software and applications. Springer, 55–64.
[18] Cristiane Aparecida Lana, Nilton Mendes Souza, Márcio Eduardo Delamaro,
Elisa Yumi Nakagawa, Flávio Oquendo, and José Carlos Maldonado. 2016.
Systems-of-systems development: Initiatives, trends, and challenges. In 2016
XLII Latin American Computing Conference (CLEI). 1–12.
[19] Ken Laudon and Jane Laudon. 2009. Management Information Systems (11 ed.).
Pearson.
[20] Kenneth C Laudon and Jane Price Laudon. 2015. Management information systems.
Vol. 8. Prentice Hall.
[21] Julio Cesar Sampaio do Prado LEITE. 1994. Organização Federativa de Sistemas
de Informação. Revista de divulgação da CELEPAR–Informática do Paraná. In
Portuguese (1994).
[22] Yan Lu, Hervé Panetto, and Xinjian Gu. 2010. Ontology approach for the in-
teroperability of networked enterprises in supply chain environment. In OTM
Confederated International Conferences" On the Move to Meaningful Internet Sys-
tems". Springer, 229–238.
[23] Rita Suzana P. Maciel, José Maria N. David, Daniela Barreiro Claro, and Regina
Braga. 2017. Full Interoperability: Challenges and Opportunities for Future Infor-
mation Systems. Brazilian Computer Society, 107–118.
[24] Mark W. Maier. 1996. Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems. INCOSE
International Symposium 6, 1 (1996), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-
5837.1996.tb02054.x
[25] Mark W. Maier. 1998. Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. Systems
Engineering 1, 4 (1998), 267–284.
[26] Yannick Naudet, Thibaud Latour, Wided Guedria, and David Chen. 2010. Towards
a systemic formalisation of interoperability. Computers in Industry 61, 2 (2010),
176–185.
[27] Yannick Naudet, Thibaud Latour, Kevin Hausmann, Sven Abels, Axel Hahn, and
Paul Johannesson. 2006. Describing Interoperability: the OoI Ontology. In Pro-
ceedings of the Open Interop Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Ontologies for
Interoperability, Co-located with CAiSE’06 Conference. Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
[28] Valdemar V. Graciano Neto, Flavio Horita, Everton Cavalcante, Adair Rohling,
Jamal El-Hachem, Daniel Santos, and Elisa Y. Nakagawa. 2018. A Study on
Goals Specification for Systems-of-Information Systems: Design Principles and a
Conceptual Model. In Proceedings of the XIV Brazilian Symposium on Information
Systems (SBSI’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
Article Article 21, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3229345.3229369
[29] Valdemar Vicente Graciano Neto, Flavio Oquendo, and Elisa Yumi Nakagawa.
2017. Smart systems-of-information systems: Foundations and an assessment
model for research development. Grand Challenges in Information Systems for
the next 10 (2017), 1–12.
[30] C.B. Nielsen, P.G. Larsen, J. Fitzgerald, J. Woodcock, and J. Peleska. 2015. Systems
of systems engineering: Basic concepts, model-based techniques, and research
directions. Comput. Surveys 48, 2 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2794381
[31] Joseph D Novak and Alberto J Cañas. 2008. The theory underlying concept maps
and how to construct and use them. (2008).
[32] Julio M Ottino. 2004. Engineering complex systems. Nature 427, 6973 (2004),
399.
[33] Alejandro Salado. 2015. Abandonment: A natural consequence of autonomy and
belonging in systems-of-systems. In 2015 10th System of Systems Engineering
Conference (SoSE). IEEE, 352–357.
[34] A. Salado. 2016. Exile: A natural consequence of autonomy and belonging in
systems-of-systems. In Annual IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon). 1–5. https:
//doi.org/10.1109/SYSCON.2016.7490598
[35] Delfina de Sá Soares and Luis Amaral. 2014. Reflections on the concept of
interoperability in information systems. In Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 1. SCITEPRESS–Science and
Technology Publications, 331–339.
[36] Gabriel Teixeira, Victor Hugo L. Lopes, Rodrigo P. Santos, Mohamad Kassab, and
Valdemar Vicente Graciano Neto. 2019. The Status Quo of Systems-of-Information
Systems. In 7th SESoS/13th WDES. Montreal, Canada, 34–41.
[37] Zhiying Tu, Gregory Zacharewicz, and David Chen. 2016. A federated approach
to develop enterprise interoperability. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 27, 1
(2016), 11–31.
[38] Bernard Walliser. 1977. Systèmes et modèles: introduction critique à l’analyse de
systèmes. Editions du Seuil.
[39] Georg Weichhart. 2014. Requirements for Supporting Enterprise Interoperability
in Dynamic Environments. In Enterprise Interoperability VI. Springer, 479–488.
[40] Georg Weichhart and Dominik Wachholder. 2014. On the interoperability contri-
butions of S-BPM. In International Conference on Subject-Oriented Business Process
Management. Springer, 3–19.