![](media/image1.png){width="1.0368055555555555in"
height="1.3in"}Collaborative Architecture Validation White Paper

Validated Solutions for E-Business and

Secure Information Infrastructure

# Contents

Contents [1](#contents)

Executive Summary [2](#executive-summary)

The Interoperability Clearinghouse: Bridging the Knowledge-Base Gap
[5](#the-interoperability-clearinghouse-bridging-the-knowledge-base-gap)

The Problem: Keeping Up with the Rate of IT Change
[7](#the-problem-keeping-up-with-the-rate-of-it-change)

Problematic Information Sources [8](#problematic-information-sources)

Supply Chain Collaboration: A Lexicon for Knowledge Management
[8](#supply-chain-collaboration-a-lexicon-for-knowledge-management)

Standards Development Organizations (SDOs)
[8](#standards-development-organizations-sdos)

Independent Software Vendors (ISVs)
[9](#independent-software-vendors-isvs)

Enterprise Solution Providers (ESP)
[9](#enterprise-solution-providers-esp)

Domain Implementers [9](#domain-implementers)

Architecture Centric Collaboration Model
[9](#architecture-centric-collaboration-model)

The Interoperability Clearinghouse: An Honest IT Information Broker
[10](#the-interoperability-clearinghouse-an-honest-broker-for-it-solutions)

The Interoperability Clearinghouse Methodology
[11](#the-interoperability-clearinghouse-methodology)

Architectonics Considerations [12](#architectonics-considerations)

Self Validation Model (Stone Soup)
[13](#self-validation-model-stone-soup)

Testimonials [13](#testimonials)

Summary [15](#summary)

Contact Information [15](#contact-information)

Look for this symbol from all your enterprise technology suppliers:
[16](#look-for-this-symbol-from-all-your-enterprise-technology-suppliers)

The Interoperability Clearinghouse

Collaborative Architecture Validation Methodology

# Executive Summary

We work in a world of models.

Herein lies the problem. There is a wide variety of industry computing
models (OSI's RM-ODP, DoD's GIG, TAFIM, VP Gore's NII, IBM's Open
Blueprint,....). Similarly, there is an even wider variety of standards
and commercial products to plug into these integrated digital models.
The problem is apparent when a CIO's organization is asked for a
solution to a particular business problem and must weave through
numerous offerings to get there, all the while keeping track of his own
model (architecture baseline). For example, if the CIO of a hospital
wanted to have DICOM-based patient images available on the desktop of
each resident physician, eventually he would find that using a web
browser in an intranet infrastructure isn't an option---due to imaging
incompatibilities. The key word is \"eventually\". The hospital IT
department might spend thousands of research dollars and waste many
person-hours and before uncovering this fact, if at all. In the most
cases, the project starts over from scratch due to interoperability
problems. In the best case, only a portion of the time and money might
be lost. What if this CIO had the ability to determine interoperability
and compliance issues *before* starting a project? Multiply cost/time
savings across all medical facilities, all financial institutions and
all government agencies. The picture becomes clear. This validation
information would be invaluable, especially now for those programs that
are mission critical and time sensitive.

The Interoperability Clearinghouse (ICH) targets this goal. The ICH is a
cooperative, non-profit organization whose primary goal is to create an
industry collaboratory (honest broker) where interoperability
information is organized, validated and shared as sets of best
practices. This clearinghouse is a knowledge base to which any IS
professional can map an intended solution and determine where potential
show stoppers might be. Reconsider the hospital CIO. If this person
could walk through the ICH Knowledge base, using existing industry
implementation knowledge, he would find a virtual proof of concept or
list of potential solutions sets in one source. The task becomes one of
implementing, *not* investigating. This is true collaboration.

The ICH has major commitments to move ahead from both the public and
private sectors, as well as from leading standards organizations. Work
has already started. Architecture frameworks are being defined and
validated for secure information infrastructure and e-business
solutions. Implementation successes from industry's most progressive
organizations have already been documented and organized. Standards
groups, ISVs, solution providers and domain users are working together
to reduce the time, risk and cost of developing their architecture
blueprints. Your challenge is to cooperate or increase the risk of
failure!

The advent of the internet and secure information infrastructure has
increased a proliferation of IT standards and products supported a "plug
and play" paradigm. These technologies define a new model for enterprise
computing that promises to address critical IS needs not adequately
addressed by the traditional client-server model:

-   Improved modularity of target systems by impacting the architecture
    process.

-   Aid in component interoperability by tying standards templates to
    vendor conformance.

-   Support configuration management by providing tools that document
    how components interoperate.

-   Provide means of technology insertion by showing impact of new
    components on the model.

-   Improve operations and maintenance by reducing the redundant
    component evaluation and testing process. Lessons learned from
    related efforts will be incorporated into an Interoperability
    Clearinghouse

Nearly every market has embraced the distributed computing and the
Internet, hoping to obtain anticipated benefits---in particular, plug
and play interoperability with reduced cost of migrating systems.
Realizing plug and play component-based architectures involves new
challenges: testing, validation, integration and, most importantly,
cooperation. The strategy is to incorporate these modules into the
enterprise infrastructure as it progresses towards vendor independence.
All at once, vendors are racing to add new features and functions into a
flood of product releases. There is a contradiction between the goals of
end-user enterprises and the competitive realities of the information
technology market. Enterprises must preserve existing capabilities to
maintain and enhance interworking as systems evolve with commercial
technology innovations. Downtime, from poorly tested and integrated
components, can cost money and lives---millions of dollars a minute in
finance and telecommunications systems; life-critical systems in
aerospace, defense, healthcare, and transportation. The paradigm of open
systems has brought flexibility and challenge. End-users industries have
two choices for staying competitive. They can:

1.  Develop a model for integrating open systems components into an
    interoperable architecture. Or

2.  Go back to the single vendor solution model of old, and tie their
    success to the vendor's. However, this has been tried in the past,
    and failed. Can't we learn from our past mistakes?

History tells us the last alternative is full of perils. If you choose
#1 as your information system (IS) model, then read on.

A federation of open system companies is bringing their combined
resources to bear. Their goal is realizing an equivalent level of
interoperability possible from a single vendor, but with the
multi-vendor technical capabilities needed for today\'s business system
requirements. Until now, there has been no single place to define this
"integrated solution suites" (or frameworks) of products and services
for a domain specific need. There is no single value-added reseller or
organization to act as an unbiased solution-testing and validation
clearinghouse which will bring this puzzle together. An entity to
fulfill this role is obviously needed. Some information resource
managers are understandably tempted to go back to a single vendor or
single provider solution as the alternative to open systems. Enterprise
Integration is becoming increasingly difficult, risky and costly.
Technologies are becoming too complex and dynamic for any one
organization to track, test and validation. These problems are
intensified by the lack of a common commercial architecture science
(architectonics) for research and validation. The plethora of offerings
makes this puzzle impossible to understand and assemble, and the danger
is in what we do not know!

Today, enterprises are spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually
(approx. 12.5% of their entire IT budget) on testing commercial product
suites before integrating them into their technical architectures. These
organizations lack objective data on how well these new products conform
to standards, and how well these products work together in integrated
environments. This validation data already exists in small portions
throughout the industry. Our goal is to pull these diverse knowledge
sources together through a public service consortium that works together
to propagate an Internet-based collaboratory of implementation best
practices.

In this new era of web/object technology and secure distributed systems,
it is hard for systems engineers to keep current with evolving standards
and associated technologies. IS developers struggle to create their own
interoperable sets of tools supporting their development and deployment
needs. These needs are not unique; other organizations and industries
are struggling with the same technologies and interoperable solution
sets. Corporate IS organizations spend up to 70% of their Information
Technology budget on development, testing and maintenance of
interoperable product suites. Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) product
reuse supposedly makes the process of enterprise IS development and
migration simpler and less costly. However, with the rate of technology
change (including constant product revisions), it is impossible for IS
to manage configuration changes and incorporate new capabilities. Each
change may have an impact on the entire enterprise's interoperation. If
the results of everyone's testing and validation were collaborated into
a single repository, IS developers could focus on their applications.
Attempts to share lessons learned, at a smaller scale, is already being
exercised elsewhere in industry: the Defense Information Infrastructure
Common Operating Environment (DII COE) and throughout other major
vertical industry domains; the Telecom Industry (through TINA-C), the
Financial Industry (through SIMC, BITS), and the Healthcare Industry
(through HIMSS and GCPR). Even these proactive initiatives haven't kept
up with innovations in distributed computing and the Internet.

Problems of the IT industry are evident in the mainstream publications
of COMPUTERWORLD, Information Week, INFO WORLD and PC Week. These
publications have reported this "interoperability" issue is the major
stumbling block to mainstream adoption of distributed computing
technology. The growth of consulting services targeting systems design
and integration to the Fortune 100 is further evidence. Consulting
firms: Andersen Consulting, IBM Global Service, Ernst & Young,
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, EDS, SAIC, Lockheed Martin, KPMG, Litton PRC,
Raytheon, and others have committed to substantial practices in
distributed computing systems architecture.

Only now are the metrics justifying migration to distributed
component-based computing and the Internet being documented. Preliminary
analysis shows a significant return on investment, and reduced cost of
development (5/1) versus traditional client/server 2-tier computing.
Early adopters have shown that component technology and the Internet
together reduce infrastructure costs compared to stovepipe approaches. A
major challenge is the an interoperability road map for making this
paradigm shift. The lack of a roadmap or of metrics is a primary
stumbling block to acceptance. The Interoperability Clearinghouse (ICH)
proposed in this document is a feasible approach for solving these
problems. In particular, the ICH would automatically guide IT users
through the maze of standards and product data into customizable
interoperability roadmaps taking industry to interworking products for
the enterprise.

Unless industry can find a way to collaborate more effectively in
sharing implementation best practices, the solution to this
multi-faceted problem requires a significant investment in internal IT
research and testing. But thanks to investments from both industry and
government, industry *has* found a way to effectively share
implementation and best-practices knowledge through the Interoperability
Clearinghouse (ICH). The ICH was conceived in 1996 as a joint
government/industry consortium where standards groups, software vendors,
solution providers and practitioners could "publish" their respective
offerings and implementation experiences for the benefit of all. By
leveraging the Internet, emergent knowledge management and portal
technologies and new architectonics techniques, this information can
also be self-validating.

## The Interoperability Clearinghouse: Bridging the Knowledge-Base Gap

**In 1996, a non-profit 501C6 corporation was conceived to provide
industry the necessary mechanisms for dealing with both the complexity
and rate of change of IT offerings the information age brought upon us.
With its goal to serve IT suppliers and buyers alike, the
Interoperability Clearinghouse (ICH), now provides the forum, methods,
knowledge base, and relationships to take one of the greatest challenges
in making sound and timely architectural choices.**

Large organizations are especially susceptible to interoperability
problems due to the autonomy of departmental system buyers, and the
inability to assess the impact of new technologies on the existing
infrastructure. It is not surprising that major IT program failures are
at an all time high, running between 54 to 70%.

Outsourcing can transfer some of the development work and risk, but it
does not address the enterprise problem. IT architects need a better way
of managing technology based upon real information, not guesswork and
marketing illusions.

IT architects need a means of determining what is the mainstream of
technology from many perspectives:

-   IT Standards

-   COTS Products and E-Solution Sets

-   Solution providers (integrators, consultancies)

-   Implementation Best Practices

Moreover, there are critical issues for any IT organization are:

-   Is their current technology insertion process support the today's
    cycle times and complexity issues ?

-   Which solution set and/or suite of COTS products effectively
    interoperate while also enforcing ones adopted domain architecture?
    How do you verify before you buy?

In most cases, third-party interoperability knowledge exists. Somebody
outside of your organization has already invested and discovered the
answers. In fact, 12.5% of IT budgets in organizations is typically
expended for in-house product insertion testing. The interoperability
and compatibility answers may be in the company across the street or
right around the corner on the Internet. This is the gap bridged by the
Interoperability Clearinghouse (ICH).

The ICH's Architecture Baseline, Mentoring, Validation and Immersion
Programs are designed specifically to help IT decision-makers build
successful architectures based on third-party-*proven* evidence.

Acquisition of IT architectural components is challenge enough for IT
decisions-makers in our fast-changing IT market. Gathering and keeping
up-to-date with the necessary knowledge of architectures, standards, and
products, in an unbiased, in-depth form, goes way beyond the internal
capacity for most IT shops. Moreover, without accurate information for
selecting products and configurations that fit the target architecture,
risks can be substantial. For every technology acquisition, one needs to
resolve several key issues:

-   What is the optimal architecture to serve my critical business
    requirement's? Is it realistic, appropriate, proactive, and
    feasible? Which architecture method should I use to model this?

-   Which combination of IT technologies and standards are compatible
    with this target architecture?

-   Which heterogeneous product suites work together effectively? Which
    specific versions are applicable and in what environments and which
    domains?

-   How do I manage my baseline of adopted standards and technologies in
    this fast paced market? How to I track and manage change
    effectively?

-   What are the cascade of changes required when inserting new
    technology into my enterprise system?

-   How can systems engineering keep up with the rate of technology
    change? Is there an alternative information source than marketing
    literature?

To answer these questions usefully, the ICH must necessarily remain an
\"honest broker\" of IT understanding. The ICH represents a real-time
collective of just in time (JIT) IT architecture guidance based on the
real-world, third-party, best practices of right now. A self-updating,
trustworthy resource, organized such that IT decision-makers receive the
knowledge and depth IT understanding they need, *in their specific
context*, for sound planning, decision making and proactive action that
will stand the test of time.

# The Problem: Keeping Up with the Rate of IT Change

Facing the IT challenges described above, IT decision-makers need to
leverage the best of current IT technology offerings and maximize
productivity and capability while not wasting existing legacy
investment.

Furthermore, as IT architectures evolve into secure distributed
networked environments, they encounter a new set of technical challenges
for the systems engineering process. These challenges in a modern
enterprise integration environment can be characterized by the same
driving factors that originally influenced the creation of the ICH
evaluation criteria for a constant flux of enterprise technologies. The
ICH focus and knowledge base addresses standards, products and
implementation services for the following components of an integrated
digital environment for e-Business and secure information
infrastructure;

-   Component Technology (blend of object orientation and Internet
    technologies)

-   Web/Internet Environments (Web, XML, Java)

-   Object/Internet Middleware (COM+, EJB, CORBA, Publish/Subscribe,
    Messaging, DCE/RPC)

-   Enterprise Directories

-   Information Assurance (PKI/X509, Firewalls, Single Sign-on, ...)

-   Dynamic Architectonics (the science of architectures)

-   Knowledge Management

-   Portals and Data Warehouses

-   E-Commerce and B2B Solutions

-   Information Infrastructure Platforms (Operating Environments,
    Network Protocols)

-   Real Time extensions to the above

    IT decision-makers are in critical need of a formalized,
    success-based methodology for defining enterprise architectures and
    means of keeping these "blueprints" updated. In order to develop and
    maintain these architecture models, IT practitioners and system
    engineers, need several mechanisms to deal with the inherit
    complexities of these models and a way of keeping up with the rate
    of change;

-   An Industry collaboratory to help define interdependencies between
    disparate standards and technologies into an enterprise model

-   knowledge management tools for managing this data

-   architecture methods and tools for rendering artifacts into domain
    models

-   technology self-validation process to separate the wheat from the
    shaft

-   domain architectures to model industry trends and best practices

-   honest broker to help identify validated solutions suites based on
    implementation successes

    After years of research, the combined work of standards groups,
    ISVs, solution providers and domain implementers have formed this
    virtual non profit collaborator that incorporates these existing
    puzzle pieces into one dynamic, self-maintaining collaboratory \--
    The Interoperability Clearinghouse.

## Problematic Information Sources

Resolving these issues presents a challenge because most of the
information available for such decisions is located in marketing
communications, a source known for "stretching" functionality
assertions. Furthermore, periodicals and research organizations often
use this questionable source of information is for their reports.
Diligence, therefore, precludes basing IT decisions upon marketing
information and press releases.

What is needed is unbiased, factual information, based upon hard
experience, testing results, and implementation successes \--
third-party evidence of proven and interoperable technology selections
that have worked in other environments similar to a given procurement's
architectural context. This is exactly the role filled by the ICH as a
mentor and honest broker.

# Supply Chain Collaboration: A Lexicon for Knowledge Management

The critical information to most of our most pressing questions already
exists within vertical industry IT supply chains. To facilitate the
bridging of these knowledge gaps, "owners" of these knowledge sources
need only to agree on the *lexicon* by which architectural artifacts are
described.

## Standards Development Organizations (SDOs)

Standards, whether de facto or de jure, represent the "blueprints" by
which technology is defined and agreed upon. Since most standards
organizations cannot identify or advise on optimal implementations, a
mechanism is needed to link business requirements with standards with
product implementations. By creating a lexicon or meta-model of these
interdependent standards and technologies, systems architects can
incorporate these disparate architectural artifacts into optimized
enterprise-solution models. Thanks to advances in collaboration
technologies, these lexicons can enable the development of enterprise
architecture models by domain.

Advancements in architectonics (the science of architectures) provide
specification approaches for defining these models. IEEE 1471 provides
much of the nomenclature, while ISO's Reference Model for Open
Distributed Processing (RM-ODP), provides the different views for
rendering these models. Successful application of these architecture
methods can be found in the TINA-Consortium and Object Management
Group\'s Object Management Architecture (OMG OMA).

## Independent Software Vendors (ISVs)

One of the greatest challenges for many ISVs is communicating their
unique capabilities in this fast paced, ever changing market. Supply
chain partners\' attempts to articulate these solution offerings into a
standard's based architecture model compounds this problem. The recent
surge in industry portal efforts provides evidence of industry's most
recent attempt to deal with these complexities and to collaborate.
However, the best proof of viability and applicability is past
performance. So how can an ISV model these past successes in a
re-useable model for both Solution Provides and Domain Implementers?

## Enterprise Solution Providers (ESP)

System integrators, solution providers and the like feel the greatest
pressure of keeping up with the rate of technology change and the
increasing complexity of developing secure and interoperable solutions
for industry. Thus, the problem is two-fold;

1)  Keeping up with, and validating new ISV offerings for incorporation
    into an enterprise solution set.

2)  Communicating the value proposition of these solution offerings to
    domain implementers based on best practices.

By using the predefined ICH lexicon ISVs, enterprise solution providers
can collaborate to validate their architecture piece parts (COTS
products) and interoperability connectors while also articulating their
unique capabilities using ICH domain-specific architecture models. By
architecturally collaborating in this way, supply chain partners can
accelerate the rate of technology adoption while at the same time
minimizing the necessary internal validation resources needed to support
their enterprise customers.

## Domain Implementers

The crushing demand for reliable, in-context architectural product
specification data is a primary motivator for technology domain
implementers (corporate users). It is appropriate, therefore, that the
IT industry, who services these users, invest in ways to better
articulate how their disparate technologies are used to serve corporate
users\' IT needs. The "blueprints" by which these artifacts are defined
comprise systems architectures. It follows therefore, that in this era
of greater collaboration, SDOs, ISVs, and ESPs must work more closely
together to help reduce the cost, time and risk of defining these
enterprise solutions for E-Business and Secure Information
Infrastructure.

## Architecture Centric Collaboration Model

Since the supply chain partners are motivated to share information, and
validation cycle time is the enemy of process, a neutral clearinghouse
where these architectural artifacts can be rendered and maintained is a
critical need. With the advent of web-enabling technologies and
knowledge management tools, the practicality of filling this void can
finally be resolved. Together with the Interoperability Clearinghouse as
the honest broker of these architectural artifacts, the IT industry now
has a means of reducing the cost, risk and time of building enterprise
solutions.

# The Interoperability Clearinghouse: An Honest Broker for IT Solutions

The Interoperability Clearinghouse (ICH) provides validated and
architecturally relevant answers on appropriate emerging technologies.
The ICH is a consortium of standards development organizations (SDOs),
Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), solution providers (and
integrators), commercial developers, and domain specific practitioners
focussed on reducing the chaos in the IT industry. This ICH collaborates
on defining enterprise architectures based on best commercial practices.
The goal of this consortium is to bring maximum value to the IT
architect by providing timely information resources to the IT
implementation team. Through the ICH, top architects and systems
implementers are pooling their resources to make e-commerce and
distributed network computing a reality. The ICH delivers validated and
interoperable enterprise architectures, based on best practices and
validation data synthesized from reliable testing and implementation
experiences. The ICH collaborative validation model provide the key
ingredients for coping with the rate of technology change, and the means
of configuring secure and reliable solution. The entire IT supply chain
is served by leveraging one or more of the following ICH Membership
services;

-   **Collaboration:** Domain Architecture Working Groups bring together
    supply chain partners.

-   **Architectonics:** (Science of Architectures) New Standard Approach
    for Enterprise Solutions for Information Assurance, Distributed
    Computing and E-Business

-   **Technology Lexicons:** XML templates for rendering implementation
    specifications

-   **Real Time Research and Validation Collaboratory:** By using
    existing testing and implementation results, the ICH network
    provides a unique approach for keeping current with the rate of
    technology change, and cut through the marketing hype

-   **Knowledge Management:** ICH networks works together to track IT
    standards and technologies by industry domain. This data is managed
    in a DARPA sponsored Distributed Component-based Architecture
    Modeling tool and used in creating customer research reports for ICH
    Charter Members

-   **Implementation Best Practices:** <Industry@E-Business> domain
    industry best practices forums. Building on past success of the
    <Industry@OOTS> series, that supported finance, telecom, government,
    justice, healthcare and defense/aerospace industries. Managed and
    operated by The OBJECTive Technology Groups (www.TheOTG.com).
    <Defense@E-Business> is the first of these series.

Through the ICH, leading industry IT providers bring the best of
commercial practices to bear in the delivery of IT solutions for
business challenges. IT implementers can get the facts about technology
standards, product offerings and implementation services through a
non-profit solutions consortium that provides value. The ICH has the
flexibility to engage industry's best and brightest so organizations can
learn from success and avoid previous documented failures.

# The Interoperability Clearinghouse Methodology

After four years of architectonics research and development, the ICH
network ([www.ichnet.org](http://www.ichnet.org/)) has established a
collaborative architecture validation methodology that addresses the
rate of technology change, and the incredible complexity that the
internet age has thrust upon us. The ICH validation methodology is based
on the fundamentals of the Reference Model for Open Distributed
Processing (RM ODP), and takes advantage of several primary sources of
validation data:

-   Standards developed technology lexicons

-   Vendor-provided product specifications (features, interfaces,
    interdependencies, user success profiles)

-   Integration supplied testing and implementation data

-   End user supplied success profiles

The Interoperability Clearinghouse Validation Methodology follows an
orderly sequence of activities as depicted below:

![](media/image2.wmf)

**ICH Validation Process**

As this figure illustrates, the ICH validation methodology defines the
process for selecting the optimal mix of IT resources (standards,
products, and implementation services). The ICH process uses pre-defined
evaluation criteria, which provides specific metrics against which
candidate tools and COTS products can be uniformly measured and
ultimately compared in an unbiased, business driven environment.

During any validation process, the initial candidate set of solution
options is derived from the ICH knowledge base of products, reviews of
available literature, and market surveys of industry sources
specializing in the identification of technologies for various
applications/purposes. The extensive nature of an initial products
listing necessitates a high level filtering to short list of viable
offerings that meet the mandatory requirements of an evaluation, such as
compatibility, capability, and interoperability issues. The "mix" of
viable standards, software components, tools, and implementation
resources are defined in terms past success in similar domains, from
which the systems engineering organization can begin to make informed
decisions.

## Architectonics Considerations

The technical architecture (implementation blueprints) for any
enterprise is typically in a constant state of flux as it continues to
grow and adapt as needed to support specific technical needs. Functional
and technical requirements are therefore in a state of continual
evolution. Accordingly, it is necessary to make a number of assumptions
related to the architectural direction in order to proceed with the any
on-going enterprise system programs. These assumptions must be well
documented and clearly understood as valid criteria for future decision
making.

Furthermore, assumptions made must be based, in part, upon a review of
related architectural efforts to date. This usually requires at least an
informal, targeted architectural baseline effort. Nevertheless, typical
assumptions are:

-   To successfully implement a n-tier distributed architecture, one
    must be able to construct detailed architecture blueprints that
    enable the mapping of business requirements to viable and
    interoperable solution suites

-   The ability to implement a open, secure, heterogeneous environments
    in future systems development efforts requires a common information
    infrastructure based on standard interfaces

-   Traditional monolithic architecture methods (POSIX, TAFIM, FRAME) do
    not enable the refinement of implementation "blueprints", the
    systems engineering plans for enterprise architectures.
    Architectonics methods must be applied that account for this new
    computing reality (i.e., OSI RM-ODP, IEEE 1471, OMG OMA)

-   Use of COTS products and component technology will be maximized to
    improve time to deliver and reduce cost. It is far less risky to buy
    than to build if both equally meet the business needs. However, most
    product marketing literature lack the specification data needed for
    making source selections.

-   Information Assurance is not a feature, it must be part of the
    overall system design and technology selection process

These assumptions are obvious to most fortune 500 IT shops, many of
these principles are overlooked. Base on the feedback from nearly all
quadrants of industry, an alternative approach to architecture
validation must accommodate the need for greater detail including
interface definitions and interdependencies between products (product
combinitorics) if one is to adequately manage their IT portfolio. It
should also be noted, if not intuitively obvious, that Architecture
Validation and Research services should come from an organization with
no vested interests in standards, COTS products, or implementation
services. Given the complexity and breadth of the market, these services
will likely come from a network of knowledge experts.

![](media/image3.wmf)**ICH Research and Validation Influences**

Influencing factors typically incorporated in this process are depicted
in figure 5-2 above. These influences affect the architecture
development process and thereby affect tools evaluation efforts and
potentially many other development efforts. The key ingredients to this
collaborative validation effort is information sharing, all of which
benefits all except those who survive through sheer marketing.

## Self Validation Model (Stone Soup)

As visible in the above diagram, the ICH relies on its members to
provide specification data based on the technology lexicons collectively
developed. Since the ICH method does not report on negative finding, it
relies on independent testing labs, integrators and domain implementers
to verify vendor claims. For a small subscription fee, any vendor is
provided access to the knowledge base, and able to submit their products
into the process for validation. If the current set of validation
sources already part of the ICH network cannot vouch for the product in
question, then the ISV will be encouraged to submit its customers and
testers as its validation source. Since all product claims must be
verified, initial submissions of features, functions, interfaces and
inter-connections will be grayed out until verified. Verification
sources will be encouraged to verify only those functions and features
tested or implemented, and will be rewarded with additional access time
for their detailed contributions. This self supporting validation model
is often referred to as "Stone Soup\" since it requires little
investment by any of the parties, and each is rewarded with a rich
mixture of *information soup*!

# Testimonials {#testimonials .Section-Heading}

Is this possible? The evidence is YES. Below are a few quotations from
industry's most influential organizations regarding the importance of
this collaborative industry initiative;

-   **IBM:** \" IBM, will continue to be an influential force in
    promoting open systems and interoperability, and as such, sees the
    Interoperability Clearinghouse as one of the more significant
    initiatives in defining the road map to enterprise computing. Our
    support of this initiative is further evidence of our commitment to
    open, standards based IT\".

-   **OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, DEPUTY CIO**: "Since the value
    of the ICH to our programs increases rapidly through results
    sharing, we encourage the defense community and IT industry to
    participate directly in the public service initiative in terms of
    sponsorship and lessons learned"

-   **SUN MICROSYSTEMS**: "Sun applauds the efforts of the OMG, OTG and
    DARPA in Developing an 'Interoperability Clearinghouse' tool. This
    ambitious project will help to evangelize what Sun has been saying
    for so long. 'Open systems are the best way to protect IT
    investments.' "

-   **OBJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP**: "As one of the leading advocates of
    open systems and interoperability, the OMG believes that the
    Interoperability Clearinghouse initiative will help users realize
    the benefits from our combined efforts." Says Bill Hoffman,
    President and COO

-   **LOCKHEED MARTIN**: "This initiative complements several on going
    COTS efforts within Lockheed Martin Corp., and we recognize the
    potential value that the (Interoperability Clearinghouse) effort
    will bring to industry"

-   **EDS**: "The leveraging of our efforts with other parties through
    the formulation of a non-profit consortium is the most cost
    effective and efficient way of achieving the goal of
    interoperability assurance among heterogeneous systems. This ICH
    capability will augment our capability and provide us much more
    information about products, standards, and viable enterprise
    solution sets than we could ever realize through our own internal
    efforts."

-   **UNISYS**: "The Interoperability Clearinghouse is an important
    forum in the drive towards viable, interoperable E-Business
    solutions. Unisys is pleased to join the other leaders in support of
    this key industry initiative"

-   **OPEN APPLICATIONS GROUP**: "We at the Open Applications Group are
    interested in this initiative and will incorporate our
    specifications and testing results into the ICH once built."

-   **NATIONAL STANDARDS TESTING LAB**: "We recognize the criticality of
    testing and will work with the Interoperability Clearinghouse to
    propagate our results".

-   **OSD Logistics:** "DoD's Adoption of COTS based Information
    Infrastructure can be significantly enhanced through the
    Interoperability Clearinghouse tools and processes. I hope DoD does
    not miss out on this great opportunity to join in this industry
    information sharing initiative". (Zack Goldstein)

-   **KPMG**: "As Information Engineering is involved in the development
    of object/component applications, we would like to be involved in
    your activities."

-   George Tenet, **CIA** 50th anniversary speech "We must be able to
    sift out the accurate information, to organize the confusion of
    data, and to project ahead when the stakes are high for the United
    States. "

# Summary {#summary .Section-Heading}

For industry to succeed in coping with the fast paced Internet age of
rapidly changing technology and increased user demand, it must refocus
IT efforts back on technical architectures as a way of reducing
complexity and risk, while creating a mechanism for unambiguously
communicating technology choices. Industry is already struggling with
the ten-fold increase in technology offerings and the multitude of
functions and interfaces each of these bring. To cope, and to survive,
industry must collaborate on its technology research and validation
efforts, because there is just too much investigation required for any
one organization to deal with. The Interoperability Clearinghouse
provides a neutral collaboratory, with the tools and technique needed to
facilitate dynamic exchange of technology research and validation effort
artifacts.

In facing the daunting rate of change in today's IT marketplace,
industry practitioners need an honest broker who:

-   Has clear, non-conflicting motives

-   Has the knowledge and organizational structure to deal with
    competing interests

-   Is trustworthy, accurate, and reliable

-   Has an architectonics process and tools for dealing with complexity
    and technology cycle times

-   Is experienced in critical aspects of COTS selection processes

-   Has access to a wide experience base (SDOs, ISVs, ESPs) from which
    it can refine these architecture models

The ICH is that honest broker, and through its membership, IT
practitioners gain the advantage of real-world, third-party-validated
expertise, viewed from within their specific context. With this
resource, long-term IT decision-makers can make architectural calls that
will stand the test of time because they are based on the shared
combinatorial successes of others. As we move forward with this new
computing paradigm, we invite those open systems advocates to show their
colors, and join this collaborative industry initiative. Together,
success is now within reach.

# Contact Information {#contact-information .Section-Heading}

***The Interoperability Clearinghouse network can be accessed through
the following:***

> The Interoperability Clearinghouse
>
> 8011 Washington Avenue
>
> Alexandria, VA 22308
>
> \(703\) 768-4975 (voice) - (703) 765-9295 (fax)
>
> email: <info@ICHnet.org>
>
> web: [www.ICHnet.org](http://www.ichnet.org/)
>
> For Government Agencies and/or Federal Systems Integrators, The
> OBJECTive Technology Group, an ICH Charter Member, facilitates
> contract actions in behalf of the membership. The OTG is a small,
> woman owned business that has committed its market research and
> architecture resources to the ICH mission. The OTG also manages and
> operates the ICH Best Practices conference series call
> <Industry@E-Business>, as well as on-site forums.
>
> The OTG can be contacted at
>
> \(703\) 768-0400 (voice)
>
> email: info@TheOTG.com
>
> web: [www.TheOTG.com](http://www.TheOTG.com/)

# ![](media/image1.png){width="1.5951388888888889in" height="2.0in"}Look for this symbol from all your enterprise technology suppliers: