The interfacing or integrating debate goes on.

In our last issue, ConQuest's Tony Day gave his opinion on the difference between systems that are integrated or interfaced. His view was supported by his take on certain market realities. In this issue Paul Watkins of Masterbill gives his view.

Before we can establish the difference between systems that are integrated or interfaced, let's define exactly what we mean by both terms.

An integrated system is a complete system that is used to carry out all required functions, whereas an interfaced system comprises a number of independent parts, each of which remains independent until it needs to share information with (or provide information to) another independent system. Each independent system is used to carry out its particular specialist function.

The biggest difference between an integrated system and an interfaced system is the ability for the software application to carry out each specialist function in isolation.

Is this difference understood just by IT decision makers or those who will use and trust the software to do their day-to-day jobs?
In a small company the IT decision maker is almost certainly the user. In a large company the IT decision maker may not be the user, but will undoubtedly be aware that unless they involve the potential users in the decision they are unlikely to welcome the introduction of the new system(s).

Both parties would normally understand that each function has its own specialist software solutions and that some of these solutions will be better suited to their business than others.

What considerations mean that interfacing software is often the preferred option over a truly integrated system?
The biggest concern over an integrated system is whether each individual function has been fully appreciated and understood by the software vendor when they were designing and developing the system.

It is reasonable to ask at this stage if there is such a thing as an integrated system that will satisfy all parties in a Construction company. Users will not and should not accept that one function in an integrated system is inferior, although another is superior. If separate individuals carry out these two functions, will they ever reach a decision on which system to adopt? It is impossible to apply the rule that 'one size fits all', as most Construction companies will have their own way of doing things and most people involved in the IT decision will want a system that doesn't try to change the way they work but simply makes it more efficient.

Does interfacing have to mean slower information/data movement and is it error-prone?
It is true that passing data from one function to another is easier when the software is all part of one complete solution supplied by one supplier. However, it is almost impossible to produce an integrated system that carries out all functions in the best possible way - yet it is not impossible to create satisfactory interfaces between separate software applications. The most important thing in interfacing is that both parties responsible for the development of the software understand the reason for interfacing and are committed to making it work, by adopting clear and well documented interfacing or exchange standards. This should ensure that information and data movement is fast and error free.
It is worth remembering that each software vendor may have to solve a number of issues in order to incorporate the interfacing standard and it is often the amount of development required balanced against the reward that will affect their approach to solving any interfacing problems.

Does true integration mean the buyer is stuck with a single vendor rather than selecting best of breed components?
If only I had a pound for each of the users who have told me that their company has purchased a complete solution, only for them to realise that it doesn't meet their needs in all departments and they are now looking for an alternative system to carry out that particular function, or worse, some departments have reverted back to their previous paper-based system. In my experience, users will not embrace a system that does not satisfy their particular requirements in their particular function, nor will they pay for parts of a system they know they will never use.

In conclusion
The best solution for any company is to adopt the best solution in each department, meaning that interfacing is nearly always the preferred option. We must remember that the Construction Industry is essentially an interfacing industry, with any number of specialists and components interfacing together to create the complete and best possible solution for the client. It is unlikely that those who work in this industry will need convincing of the benefits of interfacing over integrating.

Conquest Ltd

ConQuest are specialists in construction estimating & surveying software. The unrivalled quality & reliability of their products comes from years…