Interoperability

Interoperability

Interoperability refers to the process whereby people, systems, and data are connected. The word interoperability can be viewed in a broad way, or a more technical way. It may take in to account software procedures, but also social and political meaning.

One definition of interoperability considers it as the ability of several systems or components to exchange data and to utilize the data that has been exchanged.

In the field of telecommunications, interoperability has a twofold definition. It is first thought of as the ability of forces, systems, or units to provide services while also accepting services from other systems, forces, or units, and to utilize services exchanged as a means of enabling them to effectively operate together.

The other half of the definition of interoperability refers to the condition that is attained among electronics and communications systems or items of such equipment when services or data can be exchanged directly between them and their users. The amount of interoperability must be defined when referring to particular cases.

In the case of two way radio, interoperability consists of three dimensions. One is devoted to scalable capacity; another to compatible communications paths, such as equipment, signaling, and compatible frequencies; and a third is devoted to radio system coverage or adequate signal strength.

Software

In terms of software, the word interoperability is employed as a means of describing different programs’ capability to exchange information through a common set of Business procedures, while simultaneously writing and reading the same file formats and utilizing identical protocols. The ability to execute the same binary code on various processor platforms is typically not a part of the definition of interoperability.

When interoperability is lacking, it implies that the products in question were not designed with standardization in mind. Indeed, interoperability is certainly not taken for granted in the computing and electronic data processing worlds, particularly in the non standards based portion.

Interoperability has been defined as the capability of communicating, executing programs, and transferring data among various functional units in a fashion that necessitates that the user have at least some knowledge of those units’ unique characteristics. Such a definition tends to focus on interoperability’s more technical side. At the same time, some will argue that interoperability is indeed more of an organizational concern.

To be precise, interoperability tends to have a huge impact on the organization in question, engulfing questions of ownership (i.e. do people have any desire to share their data?), employment (i.e. are individuals willing to undergo training?), as well as usability concerns. In such a context, it might be more precise to speak of “Business process interoperability.”

Interoperability can have major financial consequences, such as network externalities. In the event that a competitor’s products are not interoperable (this often happens owing to such problems as trade secrets, patents, or failure of coordination), then the result can be either market failure or monopoly.

It is for this reason that governments and user communities are encouraged to take steps to show the positive aspects of interoperability in various situations. In the United Kingdom, for instance, there is interoperability on the eGovernment level known as e-GIF.

In terms of user communities in the United Kingdom, Neutral Third Party has been creating standards in recent years for Business process interoperability. Another good example of a third party that is neutral is the Request for Comments documents located on the Internet Engineering Task Force.

Interoperability is typically attained in one of four ways – via the engineering of products, the partnership between an industry and a community, the implementation of service standards, and good access to IP and other forms of technology.

It is a well known fact that interoperability tends to be viewed as a concern for experts in the field only. The implications of interoperability for daily living are oftentimes overlooked or underrated. The recent case, however, of Microsoft versus the European Commission is a good indicator of how interoperability can become wrapped up in vital questions regarding relationships of power.

It was in the year 2004 that the European Commission reached the conclusion that Microsoft had abused its market power through deliberately restricting the degree of interoperability that existed between Window PCs and non Microsoft work group servers.

In restricting interoperability in this fashion, Microsoft managed to a acquire a major portion of the market share for work group server operating systems, which form the heart of corporate Information Technology networks. As a result of this case, Microsoft was asked to disclose accurate, complete interface info, which enabled rival vendors to compete on equal footing.

The most recent Microsoft efforts surrounding the subject of interoperability indicate a shift in their approach and commitment to interoperability. Such attempts include the migration of Microsoft Office file formats to ECMA Office Open XML, as well as several interoperability partner agreements – one of the most notable examples of this is their recent partnership with Novell. Microsoft has yet to fully resolve this issue.

There was also a recent debate, in the year 2005, about interoperability in the European parliament regarding software patents.