Service enabling Telecommunications – lessons for Buildings and Grid

Peter Carbone, Vice President of SOA for Nortel, gave a nice high level talk on the challenges facing a company that grew up with rigid account control and vertical integration in a regulated environment learning to dance in the world of SOA and mash-ups. As markets for building systems are still characterized by rigid account control and vertical integration, and the power grid is still vertically integrated, regulated, and almost complete account control, there are some useful lessons.

Infrastructure convergence was the enabling and driving change for telecommunications. Provisioning telecommunications was long the most difficult task. Over the last decade, the diverse communication infrastructure converged to a single packet-based infrastructure with resulting dramatic simplification of security and reliability. The questions move from “What low level communications do you need” to “What interactive services do you need?”

This evolution changed how Nortel had to think about and market their services. Before the change, Nortel sold vertically integrated applications that were inflexible. As the core technologies converged, Nortel was forced to decompose advanced services into core functions and then plug them back into the new architecture.

Fortunately, decomposing integrated services into core functions looks a lot like defining a service for service oriented architecture. Fundamental telecommunications functions can now be built into enterprise applications without requiring exotic skills are deep domain knowledge.

Skills-based routing and deployment was one example. Peter discussed a SAP integration with critical system causing expensive downtime, emergency part ordering, and synchronizing communication with an outside expert so that the repair personnel, the piece of equipment, and, via telecommunications and real-time identification of the expert on call, the expert’s telepresence were synchronized.

In a similar vein, he discussed abstracting the GPS function from the cell phone to block access in the security system when the phone was in a forbidden zone. Peter gave many more examples and you can find his slides on the OASIS conference site.

So what can building systems and the power grid learn from this?

Well, the owners expect the systems to just run, and are annoyed whenever someone says words like BACnet or LON (or any other control protocol) in their presence. We need to decompose advanced services to discover the core functions, from the owner’s and the tenant’s perspective, and present them as interfaces that can be plugged back into the enterprise.

As Peter summed up the C-Level response: “I just spent $100 Million fixing my processes, you had better be compatible.”

Building services that can present themselves as that can interact with SAP, or with PeopleSoft will have an advantage. The services that know how to display themselves on Google Earth will know how to request the nearest technician.

Likewise, Grid requests that present themselves to ERP services will find faster acceptance. Grid requests that describe grid pricing as shapes that can be pinned to Google Earth will enable the enterprise to come up with multi-site responses that may be different from any single site.

No one cares about the old vertical applications. Enterprise interactions are everything.

Semantic Assembly of Business Projects

I attended a super presentation this morning, that is a presentation on Semantics Utilized for Process management within and between Enterprises (SUPER). SUPER’s goal is to use ontological frameworks to make web services autodiscoverable and autoconfigurable.

While web services have enabled interactions between systems and companies more flexibly than ever before, they are still too hard to work with. Today’s web services were often created any naming standards were readily available. All too often, the similar items will have different names in very similar service offerings (poor semantic interoperability). When elements in two services share the same name, they may mean different things to the two services because they mean different things to the two companies (poor ontological interoperability).

Even when the fields have the same definition, they may be laden with external information that is not part of the schema. Certain aparantyl simple terms such as “shipping date” and “receiving date” may be overlaid with legal contracts that are not apparent in the web service description.

The SUPER project attempts to do the semantic assembly of business projects from existing services. By comparing ontologies, SUPER can rank available services as to how well they conform to the expectations of the business analyst. The goal of SUPER automated integration. Today, it can prepare a semi-automated response that leverages annotation, service comparison, and even composing hybrid services to deal with heterogeneity of service offerings.

Beware, though, as SUPER relies on a whole alphabet soup of standards.

SUPER uses Web Service Modeling Ontology (WSMO) to characterize systems, WSMO looks for strict WS compliance and strict decoupling of services. WSMO relies on ontology based classification of services to define core mediation services and execution semantics. WSMO is about service description, not implementation, defining a path to Semantic Business Process Management (SBPM).

SUPER augments SBPM by defining a semantic execution environment (SEE) based upon an open reference ontology. SEE is an architecture that defines what it is possible to ask for, but that does not specify how to do it, or at what granularity. SEE mediates between ontological representations rather than mediating between different behaviors

If you want to play around with this, there is a lot of open source material you can pull down, including:

• Apache ODE, a BPEL aware web server based on Apache
• WSMO Studio, an extended Eclipse
• WSMX on SourceForge
• SUPER, www.ip-super.org

These guys are bright and driven, and their work is well worth checking out.

Organizing System Behaviors

One Ring to rule them all , One Ring to find them , One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them – J.R.R. Tolkien

Central control, including influences on apparently distributed systems that their owners do not anticipate, are the bane of civil society in Tolkien’s classic trilogy. Today’s models for the control of another kind of power reach deep into businesses and people’s homes, and will ultimately provoke reaction that will limit their scope and range.

Today, building systems and energy user are participants in some very bad markets. Good markets have multiple participants making value decisions to trade freely. Good markets encourage the buyers to selected products based upon value delivered, however the buyer perceives value. Good markets drive innovation and performance as sellers compete to find more profitable ways to deliver the same value, or new ways to deliver more value, to those customers. Building systems and energy are not part of such a market.

Future power systems and future buildings will be interactive at every level, from the generation of power to the provision of building-side amenities. Old centralized models of control, especially a regulated focus on cost recovery instead of value delivery, provide the organizing tenets of today’s energy markets. Energy markets that share information and decision making will achieve greater acceptance and benefits through their influence on autonomous systems than central control ever will.

Buildings are becoming complex adaptive systems that involve large numbers of distributed agents and rules governing their interactions. These agents will react to the actions of other agents and to changes in the environment. The building systems will be autonomous, so control and decision-making will be decentralized and distributed. As these agents mature and develop, they will interact with the businesses in the buildings, the lives of those in the homes, and the external environment of the power grid and environment. These autonomous systems will ultimately adapt to the changes that they themselves helped to bring about through their independent decisions.

A defining characteristic of a complex adaptive system, and thereby of well functioning markets, is that they are self-organizing; self-organization is an emergent property. Emergence simply means that a larger-scale pattern emerges out of the interaction of the smaller-scale decisions and actions of the agents.

Emergent patterns arise out of the interaction of decentralized agents acting with distributed control. Distributed control is actually self control in response to individual incentives. The most effective and innovative markets exhibit emergent order, when the larger-scale pattern that emerges is one of coordination of voluntary activity. This contrasts greatly with the ineffective and anti-innovative results that derive from the imposition of a pattern in a top-down or command-and-control manner. Even in ostensibly similar markets, the two processes of achieving order can yield dramatically different results.

This month marks the 100^th anniversary of the decision to regulate U.S. markets in energy generation and distribution. The decision was in part technical; the means to measure use were limited and control functions were primitive. A poor understanding of markets contributed to the decision. The largest factor, however, was the technocratic populism that held sway around the world for much of the century—a now discredited theory that was at the heart of most of the last century’s wars and social unrest. Markets for electricity generation, distribution, and use are among the last remnants of these failed models for organization of complex systems.

The technology props to this bad theory are no longer valid. It is time to use new technology and new models of system organization to end the 100 year experiment that wastes energy and inhibits innovation in the name of control.