Network Computing is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Force Fit: Page 3 of 10

4. The network and server staffs are charged with keeping the new process running and monitoring its health--even if the monitoring tools are not built in.

Now add two more systems to the mix, each needing to interface with existing apps. That gives you a total of 12 interfaces for four systems, each requiring maintenance by two separate project teams (see "Without EAI" in the illustration).

Now let's see how you'd resolve this problem if you had EAI in your toolbox: The businessperson would still need to determine what process is necessary. But he or she would have a graphical tool--a business process modeler--to draw out the interaction, probably with help from the systems analyst; and a developer or EAI specialist would implement the bottom layer of the system, where data is transferred between the customer-information and order-fulfillment systems. While a developer would still need to write code to accomplish complex integration goals, where systems interact without any human intervention, most simple data transfer or validation would be achievable through a GUI, ultimately saving time and money.

If each system in our typical organization interfaces only with the EAI server, we're down to eight interfaces for four systems--one each to get data from the EAI server and one to send data to the EAI server (see "With EAI" in the illustration below).

Not only is this much more manageable, but you get the added benefit of centralized management to enforce error-reporting and log-generation rules.

Granted, the real world is more complex than this scenario, both in number of systems and number of interfaces per system, but look at how much you stand to gain.