Maturity Model for Interoperability Potential Measurement

Interoperability potential concerns the preparation level of an enterprise to establish an efficient collaboration with possible partners. In order to improve their interoperability, enterprises need to know witch level of maturity they have achieved. This article proposes a complete maturity model composed by a methodology and a reference set of parameters to measure interoperability potential. In order to clarify the proposal, an example of application in a real case is described.


INTRODUCTION
In the current economic context, enterprises must collaborate with one another efficiently in order to minimize costs, offer new services, deal with new challenges, and be more competitive, both in times of crisis or economic recession and in times of growth. One of the main problems that enterprises face when it comes to establishing efficient collaborative working relationships is the lack of cultural, conceptual, organizational, process, and technological compatibility (Doumeingts & Chen, 2003).
The concept of enterprise interoperability thus appears as a solution to such problems. Many definitions of interoperability have been put forward over the years (Ford, Colombi, Graham, & Jacques, 2007). Nevertheless, in this article, enterprise interoperability is defined as the capacity enterprises and organizations have to collaborate in an efficient manner while preserving their own identities and their own ways of doing business through mechanisms that act as facilitators. In this context, preserving their identity means that the enterprise does not substantially modify its structure and processes in order to achieve compatibility with other enterprises.
Interoperability is considered to be achieved if the efficient collaboration takes place, at least, in the business, knowledge, and information and communication technologies (ICT) layers, and also considering semantics aspects that complement the previous three (Chen, Vallespir, & Daclin, 2008).
To improve enterprise interoperability, it is necessary to analyze the current situation and perform a diagnosis of it in order to be able to identify any problems that might exist, as well as opportunities for improvement. Within this process of evaluation of enterprise interoperability, different metrics have to be defined in order to assess the aspects that favor or restrict it (Chen & Daclin, 2007). In addition, these metrics must be organized in a maturity model. A maturity model defines the states or levels at which an enterprise or system can be situated, a set of good practices, goals, and quantifiable parameters that make it possible to determine on which of the levels the enterprise currently stands, and also a series of proposals with which to evolve from one level of maturity to a higher one (Ahern, Clouse, & Turner, 2004). The concept of maturity models is not exclusively restricted to the field of enterprise interoperability but is actually used in practice to measure the extent to which any technology or system is being adopted in the enterprise. Different types of interoperability can be measured by maturity models. In this article we focus on interoperability potential measurement, which concerns the capability of an enterprise to interoperate with an unknown partner.
Although the literature offers different approaches to maturity models for measuring enterprise interoperability, these proposals focus on justifying the importance of measuring interoperability and on defining the possible levels an enterprise may find itself on, depending on its capacity to interoperate (Chen & Daclin, 2007). Yet, none of the proposals define (1) what to measure; they do not state what parameters are suitable for analyzing or evaluating enterprise interoperability; or (2) how to measure; they do not propose appropriate methods for obtaining those parameters and evaluating them (which would enable them to determine the level of interoperability achieved by an enterprise or a process) in a satisfactory way. Thus, existing interoperability maturity models offer a good starting point, but must be improved. MATURITY MODEL FOR INTEROPERABILITY POTENTIAL 219 To solve this problem, this article describes a potential interoperability Maturity Model that structures the measuring process in different views, identifies the parameters to be measured in each view, and proposes a detailed methodology to offer guidance in the process of measuring and evaluating those parameters. In order to validate and to evaluate the applicability and benefits of this proposal, a description of the use of the model to an enterprise in the textile sector is shown.
This article is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the approaches and the projects carried out on maturity models that were considered during the development of the proposal; Section 3 consists of the maturity model proposed, which includes the measurement parameters, the methodology, and its phases; Section 4 briefly outlines how the framework was applied to a real enterprise and discusses practical aspects of this application. Finally, in Section 5, conclusions and future work are showed.

LITERATURE REVIEW IN INTEROPERABILITY AND MATURITY MODELS
In the context of enterprise networks, interoperability refers to the ability to carry out efficient interactions (i.e., exchange information, products, and services) between enterprise systems on at least three enterprise layers (i.e. data, services, and processes), considering the semantics defined in a given context (Doumeingts & Chen, 2003). Interoperability must consider organizational, economic, and social aspects, as well as technological changes.
Two integrated enterprises could also be said to interoperate satisfactorily, since the homogeneity of their processes and systems implies a full (and effortless) capacity to collaborate and exchange information (INTEROP, 2008). The problem arises when the enterprises that need to work together do not want to adopt an integrated way of collaborating and employ heterogeneous systems, different tools and procedures, and also different concepts or languages. Moreover, setting up the collaboration must not imply a loss of their independence or of their capacity to continue to work in an autonomous manner or to collaborate with other organizations (Campos, Martí, Grangel, Mascherpa, & Chalmeta, 2008).
Another important aspect to be taken into account when developing proposals for improvement in interoperability is that, although we usually refer to collaborations with external institutions, it is included (and are even based on) collaborations between different departments or systems that exists within the enterprise itself and which were set up to carry out internal processes. This is defined as intra-interoperability.
In order to establish and define projects for improving interoperability, first it is necessary to evaluate and diagnose the situation in which the enterprise currently finds itself and to suggest improvements that favor evolution in this field. To measure this situation, it is necessary to consider a maturity model, as far as interoperability is concerned.
The term Maturity Model was made popular by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) when the Capability Maturity Model© was put forward in 1986 (Dymond, 1995). This maturity model has gradually evolved with each new version and is widely accepted as a guide for evaluating the business processes of an organization (Ahern et al., 2004). Based on this initiative, several maturity models have also been put forward in interoperability research (Ford et al., 2007;Guedria, Naudet, & Chen, 2008).
In the last decade, different maturity models applied to interoperability have been proposed, both in just the technological field and also taking into account all the different layers of the enterprise (Kasunic & Anderson, 2004). In most cases, the existing maturity models only define the interoperability enterprise levels; there are some maturity models that include a set of good practices advising enterprises about how to become interoperable (Daclin, Chen, & Vallespir, 2006a;Pardo & Burke, 2008). However, in general, the proposals do not go into great depth regarding which aspects need to be evaluated, how to measure them in order to assign a level of maturity, and how to improve this level if it is considered necessary to do so. The next sections provide a more detailed description of the interoperability maturity models that, because of their relevance and contents, were taken as the starting point for the proposal in this work.

Levels of Information Systems Interoperability (LISI)
The first significant initiative carried out to measure interoperability was proposed by the DoD C4ISR Working Group and entitled Levels of Information Systems Interoperability (LISI) (C4ISR, 1988). The aim of LISI was to establish (and, consequently, to improve) the maturity of the information systems used by the U.S. Department of Defense in joint actions implemented between different military units. LISI provides a maturity model including the levels definition, the necessary processes to identify the interoperability needs, and how to enable the information systems to support those needs.
LISI proposes five levels of maturity: Isolated, Connected, Distributed, Domain and Enterprise. To establish these levels of maturity, it defines four areas of interest named PAID, which stands for Procedures, Applications, Infrastructure and Data. This maturity model establishes a first approach in order to develop a full maturity model, although the proposal is essentially focused on the technological platforms that support information systems and does not cover all the areas of interest that must be taken into account in enterprise interoperability, such as knowledge or semantic.

Organizational Interoperability Maturity Model for C2
The model proposed by Clark and Jones (1999) completed the LISI model by extending it into organizational layers. It was proposed in the Command and Control (C2) framework of the Allied Joint Task Forces. It proposed five layers of support and a maturity model that established the following levels (from best to worst): unified, combined, collaborative, ad hoc, and independent.
These levels were aligned with the LISI levels, and attributes for organizational interoperability were defined for each one. However, no method of measuring the level achieved is described in detail. EIMM defines five enterprise interoperability levels-Performed, Modeled, Integrated, Interoperable, and Optimizing. EIMM helps to assess an organization's level of maturity concerning the use of enterprise models as well as the capability of these models to enable the company to establish collaborations. Based on an EIMM assessment, companies will be guided to choose the right concepts in order to improve their capabilities, by taking into account the environment and enterprise challenges (Berre et al., 2007). Although EIMM states that parameters and methods must be defined to measure interoperability, no complete proposal has been put forward showing the steps to be followed or the methods and tools to be used to carry out this measurement.

Barriers Driven Methodology Maturity Model
Another maturity model is proposed as a result of the Barriers Driven Methodology (Chen & Daclin, 2007;Daclin, Chen, & Vallespir, 2006b). This methodology considers three types of interoperability measurement: • The interoperability potentiality measurement, which is concerned with the ability of an enterprise to interoperate without the need to know its interoperation partner and, consequently, with identifying a set of characteristics that have an impact on interoperability.
The aim is to measure the intrinsic capabilities of an enterprise to interoperate with an unknown partner. This measure must evaluate the accessibility and facilities an enterprise has to set up collaborations with others, the use of standards, the organization's flexibility in the use of enterprise modeling, and so forth. • The interoperability compatibility measurement evaluates a current relationship between known stakeholders. In other words, it is measured while the interoperability project is being carried out in order to establish how well two partners are suited to be able to interoperate. Considers the evolution of levels and where the risk of encountering problems is low • The interoperability performance measurement has to be set up during the operational phase to evaluate aspects related with the costs involved in implementing interoperability between two enterprises or systems in terms of time or economic investments.
The levels defined to support interoperability potentiality measurement are: Isolated, Initial, Executable, Connectable, and Interoperable. Table 1 shows the description for each of these levels.
Interoperability potentiality measurement of an enterprise will evaluate how prepared it is to establish, smoothly and efficiently, collaborations with possible partners, relations with current and new customers, business agreements with suppliers, and communication with governmental or financial institutions. Being prepared and having a high level of interoperability potentiality is a critical factor that will enable the enterprise to adapt to changes and new needs or requirements from the market in a dynamic manner, which will result in better business outcomes.
Although Barriers Driven Methodology highlights the importance of evaluating the interoperability potentiality measurement of enterprises as a critical aspect for carrying out improvement projects, it does not put forward or define a proposal as regards how to measure this interoperability potentiality in a practical way.

The Levels of the Conceptual Interoperability Model
In Tolk and Muguira's (2003) proposal, the levels of interoperability are defined considering the data to be interchanged and the interface documentation. These levels are: This model tries to build a bridge between conceptual design and technical design for interoperability. However, although the proposal provides a different view of interoperability, these maturity levels are defined regarding only the interoperability of data and the conceptual design of the databases.

PROPOSAL OF A MATURITY MODEL FOR POTENTIAL INTEROPERABILITY MEASUREMENT
In order to improve and increase interoperability potential, that is, the level of preparation of an enterprise to establish an efficient collaboration with possible and unknown enterprises, it is necessary to measure the current situation in order to identify problems and opportunities for improvement as well as to define an action plan. To do this, being able to use a maturity model is a valuable aid.
As a result of the literature review in maturity models and interoperability, different maturity models exist that propose levels that can be assigned to an enterprise regarding its interoperability maturity. Yet they do not provide either parameters with which to measure interoperability or interoperability potential (taking into account different views such as processes, departments, technology, etc.) or a methodology to address the process of measurement and to help identify the improvements needed to increase the level of interoperability. Consequently, these are important problems concerning the measurement of the interoperability potential that remain unsolved.
To help to solve this problem, a maturity model called MM-IRIS, which would serve as a support in the evaluation process for detecting the current interoperability potential of an enterprise, was developed and applied to a practical case. This model includes: • A set of parameters considering different enterprise views. • A methodology that guides to evaluate which maturity level of potential interoperability is achieved for each of the processes the enterprise performs.
This proposal completes and improves the current status of research in this field, where the methods and maturity models analyzed only define levels and attributes but do not describe how to measure or evaluate these levels.
The research method that was used to obtain the MM-IRIS maturity model was the qualitative case study method. The work plan that was followed was based on the inductive analysis of qualitative data (Yin, 1994), adapted to proposals for the generalization of a theory from an interpretative investigation (Walsham, 1995), and consisted in the following seven stages: Definition of research purposes; Literature review; Case selection; Definition of research methods and resources; Fieldwork; Formulation of the MM-IRIS maturity model; and Verification of the rigor and quality of the study.
These enterprise views, the parameters, and the methodology defined are described in the next subsections.

Enterprise Views
The level of maturity in potential interoperability is not homogeneous across the entire the enterprise and it is therefore necessary to define different views of the enterprise that make it possible to detect the levels attained in each case. In the MM-IRIS, the following views are proposed: Business, Process Management, Knowledge, Human Resources, ICT, and Semantics: • The Business view considers the strategic aspects related with the interoperability, culture, mission, vision, values, and the economic, social, and environmental policies of organizations. In order to interoperate, enterprises must have aspects that favor collaborations defined within their strategy. The use of Enterprise Modeling and business-related barriers must be evaluated as a support to this view. • The Business Process Management view includes the work methods (and therefore aspects related to productivity and cutting costs). Interoperability can only be reached when it is based on an efficient interaction with the processes of other enterprises, including processes that generate sustainability. This view takes into account aspects of processes and services, the business layers and data, and values the use (as a support) of Enterprise Modeling and of Architectures and Platforms. • The Human Resources view, which considers the skills, competencies, roles, culture, collaborative capacity, and so forth, of employees who participate in interoperability processes. Aspects related with the three domains are evaluated from the point of view of the use and training of the personnel of the enterprise. • The Knowledge view, which includes establishing a knowledge management system with which to identify, extract, represent, process, and exploit the knowledge that facilitates efficient cooperation among the different enterprises. Its evaluation takes into consideration aspects related with data, services, support technology, and the use of ontologies.

• The Information and Communication Technologies
(ICT) view, which helps applications, data, and communication components to interconnect automatically. This view considers aspects related with data and services from the technological point of view and the supporting platforms and architectures as the domain to be evaluated. • The Semantics view is used to facilitate the understanding of the terminology used by the enterprises that wish to collaborate, that is to say, it considers the aspects needed to ensure that the information is interpreted in the same way. It is related with the data layer and measures aspects related with their own ontologies and barriers.
These views are defined by taking into account the literature dealing with enterprise interoperability and especially the measurement of interoperability. The authors' own experiences in real enterprise interoperability projects are valuable assets that are also considered. Thus, the business, process management and ICT views were adopted from Chen and Daclin (2007); the semantic and knowledge views were included following a review of the paper on enterprise layers by Doumeingts (2003), who stressed the importance of these aspects in enterprise interoperability; and finally, the human resources view was defined based on the lessons learned in enterprise interoperability projects carried out by the authors, since the previous views did not take into account people's capacity for interoperability, which is an essential aspect for achieving full interoperability. The parameters defined in the ICT view will concern, above all, general technological issues in the enterprise. In each of the other views, use of the ICT as a support will be valued.

Measurement Parameters of Each View
Interoperability is accomplished if it is achieved in all areas or views of the enterprise. Hence, carrying out a separate evaluation of each of them will make it possible to detect where there is a greater need for improvement and to define projects that are suitable for each case.
In defining the measurement parameters of each of the views, all the relevant aspects identified in the literature which must be considered to reach interoperability were taken into account. In order to define the measurement parameters for each of the views, the following issues and concepts identified in the literature have been considered: • Interoperability domains to provide enterprise interoperability solutions defined by IDEAS (2006) and INTEROP (2008) are: EM, which deals with the representation of the inter-networked organization and considers how to ensure interoperability between different models; Architecture and Platforms (A&P), which considers the necessary technology to implement interoperable applications; and ONTO, which ensure that the semantics used are understandable by the two systems. • Enterprise layers where interoperability must be achieved are: business, knowledge, ICT, and semantics (Doumeingts & Chen, 2003). • Barriers to be overcome by interoperability defined in Chen and Daclin (2007) as: technological, conceptual and organizational.
These works highlight the importance of measuring interoperability, the aspects to be considered in measuring it and the criteria for setting the levels of interoperability. These results, together with the findings from previous work carried out by the authors in the fields of methodologies and interoperability (Campos et al., 2008), of knowledge modeling (Grangel, Chalmeta, & Campos, 2007), and performance measurement systems (Chalmeta & Grangel, 2005), were then used to define the indicators for measuring interoperability potential. Next, the parameters for each view are defined and justified. For each set of parameters, the relationships between each potential interoperability level and the measurement results of the parameters are shown in Tables 2-7.

Parameters for the Business View
The first step to measure the enterprise potential interoperability maturity is to establish the enterprise's vision and strategy when faced with the challenges of reaching a suitable level of interoperability. In order to define the parameters of this view, it is deemed necessary to measure those aspects related with the strategic plans of the enterprise that have repercussions on its capacity to establish collaborations. Having certifications endorsed by official-especially international-organizations, such as the International Standards for Business, Government and Society (ISO), (http//www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue.htm), will allow collaborations to be established more clearly and quickly.  Written specifications that are known to those responsible for process management and a certain amount of short-term planning Connectable Formal specifications, documents and models exist, and the processes are planned Interoperable Standard processes models exist, are improved and are taken into account in the company's short-and long-term plans for continuous improvement There is no organized structure or plans for training. Initial There is a tacit, informally recognized structure. Executable There is a clear organized structure and the possibility of training of human resources is taken into consideration.

Connectable
There is a clear organizational structure and plans for training human resources. Interoperable There is a clear dynamic organizational structure, plans for continuous training, and policies and incentives for improvement. There is no concern for or definition of knowledge management. Initial The need has been detected and the idea of incorporating the development of a knowledge management system within the plans of the enterprise is being considered. There is tacit knowledge. Executable Explicit knowledge exists but it is not managed.

Connectable
Explicit knowledge and a management system in need of improvement both exist. Interoperable A knowledge management system and plans for continuous improvement both exist.  There is no collection of terms and no homogeneity. Initial There are some manual lists or simple records of general and common terms. Executable There are data bases that can be managed in order to define and identify terms and to establish correspondences between them and other thesaurus of the industrial sector.

Connectable
There is a common thesaurus that is used internally and for eternal collaborations. Interoperable There is a maintainable ontology to clarify the correct comprehension of the terms used both internal and externally.
Processes in enterprises will be organized and will comply with standards that other firms can rate positively when it comes to establishing new businesses or maintaining existing ones. Next, parameters are detailed, and Table 2 shows each potential interoperability level and the measurement results.
• Sustainability and quality policies, certified by official bodies: an enterprise that already has, or is implementing, these standards will be able to establish collaborations more efficiently. • Any certifications in the area of quality and sustainability that the enterprise already has will be evaluated, as will those that are pending but are currently being assessed. A study will be conducted to compare the minimum standards that the enterprise must have by law and those that exist at state, autonomic, and international level. • The capacity/willingness to adapt to organizational, technological, and social changes. Flexibility and adaptation to change can be evaluated by the number of training schemes that exist in the enterprise related to the incorporation of new business models or new technologies. Projects that have been carried out, or are due to be carried out soon, that take into account social aspects such as sustainability or gender equality, will be valued. The new business approach towards aspects with social repercussions is an added value that can be decisive when it comes to establishing relations with public bodies that value such issues. • Strategy as regards the use of technologies as a support to aid in collaborations with other enterprises. Projects carried out in recent years on improvements in the technological field that may result in better interactions with other firms and the proposals included in the strategic plans will be evaluated. • Policies with respect to the use of technological and information standards. Whether or not this type of policy exists and the willingness to adopt them will be key factors that must be evaluated in order to know the extent to which the enterprise is ready to interoperate.
• Policies of (social, technological, etc.) evaluation of possible partners prior to establishing relations. The existence of procedures that allow the capacities and characteristics of a possible collaborator to be ascertained and evaluated, taking into account not only technological aspects but also organizational and social responsibility, will make it possible to know whether the company is prepared to be more efficient when selecting future collaborations. • Contractual policies regarding collaborations with other bodies. Evaluating the existence of conditions beyond those contemplated by the law will make it possible to know whether the enterprise controls and establishes its own criteria when it comes to interoperating with another enterprise.

Parameters for the Process Management View
The processes view will evaluate the level of formalization that exists, the documents and use of EM languages, and the capacity to exchange and make public the parts of the processes in which collaborations with other firms may take place. The parameters considered are: • Identification of processes in which there is some collaboration with external institutions: it is necessary to find out whether the processes are identified, whether they are documented and within the collaborators reach, and whether they are represented in some EM standard. • Formalization of processes: tacit, documented, modeled procedures. Evaluations will be conducted to determine whether procedures have been defined or whether activities are simply carried out as they are learnt from experience. If the processes have been formally defined, they will be evaluated to determine whether they are documented, together with the modeling languages and tools used to represent them. • Process planning: studies will be conducted to examine whether processes are planned and, if so, which deadlines are set and the level of detail to which they are planned.
• Quality measurement and control: in processes that involve collaboration with external institutions, information must be gathered in order to evaluate in which cases methods and indicators have been developed to measure the quality and to control processes. Table 3 shows each potential interoperability level and the measurement results for these parameters.

Parameters for the Human Resources View
One aspect that is fundamental in order to have a good level of potential interoperability is human resources: how prepared the workers are, the plans for training that exist in the company, and how easily human resources adapt to changes. The parameters to be measured in this view are: • Organizational structure: there is a well-defined and documented structure with a clear hierarchy and allocated functions. • Assigned roles, flexibility to exchange jobs. • Training the enterprise has a training plan that takes into account different levels and contents depending on the tasks and human resources. • Evaluation and control: assigning resources to follow up, supervise and make processes known. Table 4 shows each potential interoperability level and the measurement results for these parameters.

Parameters for the Knowledge View
The knowledge view covers aspects concerned with how knowledge is managed and transmitted, not only internally, but also how it is identified and transmitted to possible collaborators that need to use it. The potential interoperability of an enterprise will, in turn, be marked by the level of maturity that exists in the management of its knowledge, since greater specification of enterprise knowledge makes the company better prepared to establish efficient collaborations with possible stakeholders that seek to interoperate with it.
Furthermore, companies have a greater level of maturity in this field if they have the capacity to apply the ICT to enterprise knowledge management by a Knowledge Management System (KMS). The first aim would be to identify the knowledge that is going to be managed by the system, that is to say, the target knowledge. The parameters are: • Knowledge that is exchanged and points of interaction, which will make it possible to detect the existence of at least tacit knowledge in the processes of the enterprise. • Channels of knowledge to evaluate the use of suitable methods and technologies for the exchange of information. • Existence of a KMS.
• Identification of the conceptual blocks of knowledge and the target knowledge that the enterprise wishes to manage; thus, evaluations are carried out to determine whether possible stakeholders and points for exchanging or sharing knowledge have been identified. • Type of conceptual blocks on which the target knowledge has been defined. • Identification of the explicit and tacit sources of knowledge. • Knowledge modeling that has been identified, so that the enterprise's target knowledge concerning its processes, products, resources, suppliers, customers, and so forth, is made explicit. • Exploitation of knowledge by means of a KMS. Table 5 shows each potential interoperability level and the measurement results for these parameters.

Parameters for the ICT View
Information technologies play a fundamental role in achieving a high level of maturity. The use of standard platforms and technologies is essential to be able to interoperate and to be able to open up new collaborations efficiently; companies not prepared to cooperate with each other using ICT and interenterprise applications will fall through their business (Hoving, 2007). In this section, the use of ICT and projects that have been planned to improve them will be evaluated. The parameters are: • ICT resources for communication: which ones exist, which ones are standard. • Systems for the integrated management of information: whether they exist, whether they are used, and whether training is carried out in this respect. • Planning of technology needs in order to support collaborations. • Policies for the development of platform-independent technologies that can be adapted to different systems. • Infrastructures to support process management (Workflow, EM tools, etc.) • Infrastructures to support the [control] of both internal processes (auditing, register of the use of the services) and those of external entities. • Services for public use if they exist, their use is recorded or they are planned for the future. Table 6 shows each potential interoperability level and the measurement results for these parameters.

Parameters for the Semantics View
The Semantics view is concerned with ensuring that the precise meaning of any exchanged information can be understood by any other processes, people, collaborative external enterprises, and ICT applications. So, taking in account that Ontology domain addresses the semantics necessary to ensure interoperability (Duque, Campos, Jimenez-Ruiz, & Chalmeta, 2009), the high level of maturity will be achieved if the use of ontologies is applied to support collaborations and internal business management. The proposed parameters are: • Databases and contexts where these databases operate. • Collections of terms: whether they exist and whether there are methods to collect and process them. • Planning technologies and infrastructures for supporting these collections of terms and mappings. • Mapping between own collection of terms and public thesaurus. • Planning about acquiring [ontology] tools and training human resources on the use of them. • Ontology developed to support both semantic webs and collaboration processes. Table 7 shows each potential interoperability level and the measurement results for these parameters.

Maturity Measuring Methodology
In order to evaluate the interoperability potential level, a step-based methodology has been developed. The phases of the methodology will be carried out progressively, and iterations can also take place. This means that it is necessary to repeat or improve part of the results from the previous phase as the measurement project advances.
During the application of the methodology, it is necessary to collect information. The main technique employed is a questionnaire that must be developed considering the parameters already defined for each view. Each parameter is transformed into one or several questions on a questionnaire which is adapted to the enterprise, taking into account its business processes and the (current and potential) collaborations that were previously identified and which may be internal (between departments) or with external entities. The questions can be quantifiable in absolute values, scored on a given scale (from 1 to 5), with yes/no answers or as a percentage (for example, % of employees with a higher education). In any case, each question must include a section where the respondent can describe whether this aspect needs improving or not, or if the current situation is seen to be sufficient.
While the questionnaire is being developed, weightings must be defined for each of the questions, and it must be determined which results correspond to each of the levels, taking into account the previous descriptions produced in the tables for each of the views.
Next, each phase of the methodology is described in greater detail. Figure 1 shows graphically the phases proposed and the main results obtained from each phase, according to the enterprise views defined.

Phase 1: Project Planning
The basic aim of this phase is to define the conceptual aspects of the enterprise as regards interoperability, taking into account the business view and the strategic and cultural goals. Since it represents the beginning of the project, it is necessary to define the personnel that will be involved in the work, to establish the scope (areas and/or processes) to be evaluated and possible restrictions concerning time or costs, and to estimate and schedule the project in order to control it.
In this phase, the parameters of the business view are taken into account in order to develop questionnaires and interviews to evaluate the strategic plans, the policy of the enterprise, and the preparation degree to cope with the challenge of improving its potential interoperability. The techniques to be utilized in this phase are information collection techniques, above all face-toface interviews with company managers and, more especially, with those who are more deeply involved in the strategic and improvement projects at the enterprise, such as quality, information technologies, or I+D managers. Documents about quality standards and the company mission and its vision are also collected. This first result makes it possible to evaluate whether it is feasible to continue with the rest of the phases or if it would be better to limit the study and measurement to the interrelations among the departments in order to carry out a preliminary assessment of internal interoperability in the company. In an enterprise where the business strategy does not include fundamental aspects such as policies on external collaboration or strategies for improving these collaborations or the ICT, there will be no point in evaluating their potential interoperability maturity in further detail in the remaining views.
The results are: planning, where criteria and priorities are established in order to delimit the scope of the project and its feasibility; definition of the strategy for carrying out the following phases of the measurement project; and evaluation of potential interoperability in the Business view.

Phase 2: Definition and Classification of Collaborations
After identifying the fact that the enterprise has established or planned certain policies or needs in relation to interoperability as part of its strategic plans, the second phase has three basic aims: 1. To identify and classify the internal collaborations for each of the processes. 2. To identify and classify the external entities with which situations of interoperability take or may take place, considering each of the enterprise's business processes. 3. To identify the current collaborations with these external entities, taking into account processes and departments involved.
The first step is to study and review the organizational structure of the company, to review the process map, and to identify the collaborations that exist between each department for each of the enterprise's business processes. The process map and the organizational structure are then used to identify and classify the types of collaboration that can be set up and the stakeholders, for example: financial institutions; governmental entities; large, small, or medium-sized supplier enterprises; and large, small, or medium-sized customers.
It is necessary to have reliable up-to-date information about the business processes that the company carries out, the departments involved, and the company's business strategy, with respect to other supplier or purchaser entities with which it may interoperate. Information about the organization and the hierarchical structure of the company and its process map will be used as working documents. The results of identifying and classifying the departments involved in each process will be as follows: • An interdepartmental interaction matrix that shows, for each process, what department is responsible and what interactions it establishes with other departments. • An external collaboration matrix that considers what the current interactions with external entities are for each process and department. • A list of current and potential partners or collaborators.

Phase 3: Measurement and Collection of Results
The main result from this phase is a questionnaire for evaluating interoperability potential maturity that is adapted to the structure and processes of the enterprise. The questionnaire is organized by taking into account the collaboration matrices that were obtained earlier and the parameters for the Process Management, HR, Knowledge, ICT and Semantics views. Several questions are defined for each of the parameters. The criterion for defining the number of questions and their content is that they should allow the parameter to be evaluated within the context of the interoperability of the enterprise. For example, in most cases it will be necessary to define questions that make it possible to measure whether the parameter exists, whether it is known, whether it has been documented, whether it is modeled, or whether it is supported by the technological tools or standards. Different iterations may occur until a final questionnaire is obtained, as described in Palomares, Campos, and Palomero (2010). Two critical aspects in constructing the questionnaire are that it must be both easy to understand and simple to answer. In order to make it easy to understand, it is essential to get top and middle management involved so that the questions can be adapted to the terminology and peculiarities of the enterprise. To make it easy to answer, the questions were designed in such a way that they can be answered with a set of values ranging from 1, for the worst situation, to 5, for the best. There is also a column for the interviewee to add whether the situation needs improving or if it is considered to be satisfactory. Other outcomes in this phase include: • Review of the documents obtained in Phase 1. • Definition of tactical goals. • Questionnaires to evaluate the potential interoperability for each process. • Completed questionnaires.

Phase 4: Analysis and Quantification
With the answers given in each of the questionnaires, and taking into account the levels and weightings assigned to each parameter, a detailed analysis must now be performed to identify current situations and those which have been considered to be in need of improvement. Since the study is conducted by processes and views, one particular process can have a high level of interoperability in one view and with respect to one group of collaborators, but at the same time have shortcomings or a low level in another aspect or view.
In this phase, data analysis techniques and cost/benefit analysis must be used, and the members of the work team must meet to compare results with the users. The results are the potential interoperability levels and the identification of needs of improvement, both of them detailed for each process, collaboration (internal, current, and potential with external entities) and view.

Phase 5: Proposals for Improvement
Once the results from the questionnaires have been quantified, an analysis must be conducted to study and evaluate the points or processes where the level of interoperability reached needs to be improved. In this analysis, the strategic aspects identified initially in the first activity must be taken into account. The result of this evaluation is a proposal for projects arranged in order of priority, in which the current "AS-IS" situation and the one that is sought (or "TO-BE") are both established.
Traditional cost/benefits analysis is a very useful tool to define the priority of the projects within the interoperability project. However, organizational, technical, and operational aspects should also be considered. The results are a proposal including: medium and long-term interoperability improvement projects, interoperability future needs, and a viability analysis.

A CASE EXAMPLE
The MM-IRIS maturity model was applied to a large textile enterprise to be validated and provides some practical aspects that can guide similar applications in other cases. The enterprise is a large company from the textile sector that is firmly rooted in both the Spanish national and the international markets. It has a complete supply chain, logistics centers separated from its centers of production, and suppliers of finished and semi-finished products in different countries.
It has different types of customers, including micro/small, medium-sized, and large enterprises, with a wide range of technologies and policies. Like any company, it has relations with public or governmental and financial institutions.
An evaluation of the firm's potentiality to interoperate both with customers and with suppliers of raw materials and intermediate or finished products will allow have a number of benefits for the company. For example, it will be able to develop strategic plans that help it to improve these collaborations, make more reliable choices (in terms of results) regarding possible partners in interoperability projects, and evaluate certain aspects that, due to the production and supply structure, are crucial to the enterprise. Next, the procedure adopted for the application of the MM-IRIS in this company is described.

Project Planning (Phase 1)
Initially, an introductory meeting was held with managers from the company and those in charge of a number of different departments. At this meeting, the basic concepts and aims of the work to be carried out were explained, and the benefits that the enterprise would gain from collaborating in the project were also outlined. More specifically, these benefits were: (1) a reappraisal of its organizational structure and process management; (2) measurement of the level of potential interoperability; (3) diagnosis of its situation in this area; and (4) definition and study of the feasibility of projects for improving interoperability in the short and medium term. Following this meeting, a work team was set up that included both research personnel and management staff from the company's Quality and Information Systems departments.
In order to define the conceptual aspects and to establish the scope of the project, a preliminary research task was conducted. This task included a revision of the enterprise process map and an evaluation of what the strategic view about interoperability was.
To be able to evaluate these strategic aspects, the business view parameters were considered and a first questionnaire for high level managers was developed. This questionnaire had two main objectives: to identify strategic needs, capacity and willingness with regard to interoperability aspects, and to determine the current organizational structure, departments, responsibilities and policies about interoperability.
A subset of the questions which were applied is shown in Table 8. In this case the possibility of including comments in the questions was also considered, so that the managers could offer more detailed information.
Explicit results were the project plan, including the scope, and the main departments and staff involved. Other outcomes were: • Recognition that the enterprise applies interoperability principles (although not explicitly) to carry out different transactions and processes involving external collaborators, such as financial and governmental institutions, suppliers and customers. • Identification that a suitable but insufficient policy regarding the use of ICT as a support for business processes was also found to exist. • Revision of the documentation and the information about the organization of the company.

Definition and Classification of Collaborations (Phase 2)
During the first phase, the project team reviewed the current process map of the enterprise. This yielded the following results: • An update of the process map (after the revision).
• Identification of the processes that produced collaborations both between different departments as well as with external entities. • A first definition of the most significant groups of potential collaborators (see Table 9). In order to produce a classification of current and potential partners it was taken into account economical aspects, governmental institutions, law impositions and commercial agreements.
The information was then used to create the internal collaboration matrix and the external collaboration matrix.
In Figure 2, a partial example of the internal collaboration matrix, for each macro-process and departments involved, obtained is shown. The departments are coded by letters, and the matrix X shows if there is collaboration between the department in the column and in the row, for a micro-process in particular.

Measurement and Collection of Results (Phase 3)
In order to produce the questionnaires, some specific characteristics of the enterprise were considered. In particular, this company is organized into departments that are responsible for processes. The enterprise business processes, which were identified in the previous phase, provide information about what kind of collaborations are carried out between departments as well as with external entities. Therefore, in this case, it was decided that a separate questionnaire should be created for each department to ask about the processes under its responsibility.
For each department, one specific collaboration matrix was defined that took into account only those processes under its responsibility and its own collaborations, including both internal and external ones. Figure 3 shows an example for the Purchasing department. Therefore, the second step was to define questions for the parameters of each view. Each question is answered on the specific department's collaboration matrix. The current situation can be valued from 1 (the worse situation) to 5 (the best). The users can also identify whether improvements are needed in the column "OK/NO". As an example, Table 10 shows the questions developed for the ICT view, and Figure 4 shows the final structure of the questionnaire. After several iterations to obtain an accurate and customized questionnaire, the final version was applied with the collaboration of the managers in the Quality and Information Systems departments. This fact generated more confidence in the managers of other departments who were interviewed and enabled more reliable results to be obtained more efficiently.

Analysis and Quantification (Phase 4)
After obtaining the filled-in questionnaires, the results obtained by the members of the research group involved in the project were then analyzed and quantified. One implicit result was the positive evaluation of the efficiency and correctness of the questions that were posed. Statistics and comparisons of data were carried out in parameters where the answers could be grouped and quantified. A qualitative report was also drawn up that included not only an evaluation of the answers but also a list of the points in which the greatest need for improvement was detected.
The final result was a detailed evaluation of the potential interoperability for each process and view. As an example of the results, Figure 5 shows a bar graph that includes the results obtained in three of the views for some of the enterprise departments and two processes.

Proposals for Improvement (Phase 5)
In addition to this diagnosis, in relation to interoperability, a proposal was also put forward for short and long-term improvements in those departments where the most urgent needs were detected, including the corresponding feasibility study for the identified short-term projects.

Lessons Learned
The MM-IRIS maturity model provides a series of clear steps to be followed and a set of results that allow a detailed evaluation of the potential interoperability to be performed. At the same time, an analysis of different organizational aspects of the enterprise can also be conducted. The development of the  questionnaire as the central and fundamental task in the evaluation of maturity in potential interoperability must be a job that is carried out in close collaboration with qualified staff from the firm. The participants in the project noticed that the application of the questionnaire-with open questions-provides subjective results that must be analyzed within the context of the persons who participate. It has also been identified that for the same real scenario, different answers can be collected that consider the personal perception of the people interviewed. In this sense it is important to identify the main participants and those who have the knowledge and the capabilities to make decisions. A quantitative method of collecting results would have provided greater accuracy and trust than the qualitative method used. Nevertheless, owing to the characteristics of the parameters and of the non-technological views, the quantitative method cannot be used. It is necessary to take into account aspects that are deduced from meetings and from open questions, where 232 C. CAMPOS ET AL. managers can suggest improvement needs and bear in mind other specific situations. However, results will become more reliable as the level of commitment of management goes up and interviewees are informed correctly about the benefits of the project. In addition to an evaluation of its level of maturity in the area of potential interoperability and the aspects in need of improvement, the enterprise also gained other benefits from applying MM-IRIS, such as: • Department managers improved their knowledge and training in relation to interoperability aspects. • Business processes were reviewed, above all, those in which the enterprise collaborates with external institutions. • The enterprise was already carrying out some of its collaborations efficiently, but evaluating them by means of this work enabled it to detect aspects that could be improved and which were not being implemented properly. • Definition and classification of current and potential collaborators. • Having criteria that enabled the enterprise to evaluate and select possible collaborators.
The application of MM-IRIS provides several different benefits, such as: • Identification of current collaborations and potential stakeholders that may best fit future needs.
• Review of current interoperability situation in all the enterprise views. • Identification of strategic needs to improve interoperability. • Design of an interoperability guidance plan where the different projects for improving it are defined. • New business opportunities generated by the implementation of the interoperability improvement projects, reduced costs and enhanced effectiveness and efficiency of the enterprise.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
In order to improve all the aspects that affect the capacity to interoperate, first it is necessary to be able to evaluate the AS-IS situation, considering aspects related with process management, organizational features, human resources, and the semantics of the company. In addition to knowing their capacity to interoperate with known collaborators, enterprises also need to know how prepared they are to establish relations in the future. Evaluating the level of interoperability potential (taking into account all the views of the enterprise with details of each process) enables the company to become aware of its strong points in this field and of the improvement projects it could consider in order to raise better chances of collaboration. To support these objectives, it is necessary to have a set of methodological guidelines to indicate the procedures to be carried out.
The level of interoperability potentiality cannot be improved in such a way that it goes straight from an initial level (level 1) to an interoperable level (level 5); instead, it is necessary to implement projects that allow the processes of the enterprise to gradually evolve from one level to the next one. It is also important to note that not all the processes in an enterprise require the same level of interoperability. In some processes, a medium level may be sufficient, while in others, requirements imposed by the market or by other stakeholders may call for the highest level.
Parameters related with the domains of interoperability and with the conditions that the company processes must fulfill in order to be prepared for new collaborations, while also taking into account different views, can be used by the management of an enterprise as a solid foundation on which to carry out diagnoses and proposals for improvement projects.
With regard to future work in this area, some reflections need to be made on the new proposals that research on interoperability is evolving towards, and more particularly on the recommendations suggested by Future Internet Enterprise Systems Cluster (Community Research and Development Information Service; CORDIS). Research recommendations point to the idea that a new notion of enterprise and enterprise network is arising. Various lines of research that take the new scenario into account have been suggested, for example, incorporating the role of enterprise culture in enterprise collaboration or the notion of sustainability, including economic, environmental and social dimensions. Bearing this proposal in mind, the evolution of the work presented in this article should consider new characteristics for measuring interoperability potential that take into account the aspects of this new approach by including parameters in each view in order to evaluate them.