Scenario 74 - Standalone MRP to Standalone MES

74.0 Overview

Scenario #74 describes the integration of business software involved with the process of a customer requesting the status from a third party laboratory who has previously been requested to perform lab tests on customer provided samples, and test results have not been received by the Customer according the predefined time limit specified in the contracted Service Level Agreement. The Customer requests status from the Third Party Lab via the GetInspectionOrder BOD, and status and planned completion is communicated by Third Party Lab to the Customer using the ShowInspectionOrder BOD.

The purpose of this scenario is to describe the participants in a mainstream business process, and to illustrate how the business systems of those participants can be integrated through messages exchange to realize the goals of that business process. This scenario is not meant to be the only model for integrating customer applications to lab information management applications. It is simply one model that may be used to guide one’s own integration efforts.

Since the function and composition of the business software components that might be used to produce or exchange the information described in the scenario vary widely, specific software components will not be described. Software components which might be involved in realizing this scenario include:

  • Lab Information Management Systems
  • Enterprise Resource Planning / Customer Relationship Management Systems
  • Order Management System

This is not a complete list but is meant to be a representative sample of systems that might be involved in generation or exchange of the information involved in the Check Inspection Order Status process.

74.1 Scenario Diagram

The scenario below contains the participants involved in the interaction, the dialog flows or conversation between them, certain assumptions about the sequence of events, and assumptions about the technical approach.

This is a model to be used as a design recommendation, not a required approach.

74.2 Assumptions

This scenario assumes a loosely coupled, asynchronous approach with transaction management required but not explicitly defined.

This scenario describes how one or more components of a Customer’s business systems can interact with the business system of a Third Party Laboratory for testing services.

The term Third Party Lab can be substituted simply as “Lab” if the lab is internal to an organization.

The manual creation and barcode labeling of samples labeled in accordance with the associated InspectionOrder is required but not depicted. Barcode labeling of individual samples and the creation of a manifest showing all shipped samples is highly recommended. The manual exchange, from the Customer to the Third Party Laboratory, of the labeled samples upon which testing is to be performed is required but not depicted.

There may be instances where all of the data necessary to accomplish the business goal is contained in the documents and other instances where additional binary information accompanies the InspectionOrder.

74.3 Participant Definitions

This scenario contains two major application: Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) or Farm Management Information System (FMIS), and a Lab’s Lab Information Management System (LIMS). The definitions and details of these applications are left to the designer but are assumed to contain the functionality as defined by what is commonly sold in the commercial marketplace today. This definition is broadly accepted by the scenario designers and is a direct result of the decision not to define how the processing takes place within any individual application.

Typical capabilities of these participants are described:

  • Customer is the participant that requests the testing services
  • The Third Party Lab participant uses an application often referred to a Lab Information Management Systems (LIMS). The LIMS will manage testing services, and collect data off test instruments

Each application must be able perform the services defined by the message BOD (business object document), but the internals of the application are not required or desired to be exposed at this level of standardized abstraction.

The most important factors in defining these participants is to ensure that an integration designer can communicate the requirements precisely enough to specify and design the integration processes needed and their interrelationships.

Note that the evolution of eCommerce has yielded independent trading exchanges and other intermediaries between business operations and inventory management providers. Requirements and operations for intermediaries should be similar to direct links between the two components.

74.4 Business Workflow (Sequence)

The business workflow is graphically represented by starting at the Scenario top and reading from top down and from left to right. The arrows in a sequence diagrams shows the message exchanged, and the response to the message. A ConfirmBOD provides an acknowledge to the initial request that the original request was received and understood as a valid. The Acknowledge(noun) message indicates that the transaction was processed (committed), and a business person has reviewed and provided information related to the next step (accepted, rejected, etc.).

The exchange of OAGIS BODs such as the GetTestResults and ShowTestResults may follow several different workflows depending on the capabilities of the customer submitting the InspectionOrder. For example, the Third Party Lab can publish the test results to the Customer�s application directly using the ProcessTestResults, and the Customer would response with a ConfirmBOD and AcknowledgeTestResults.

The sequence diagram illustrates the data exchanges involved within the business process.

  • The first business event in the integration scenario is where the Customer sends the ProcessInspectionOrder BOD to the laboratory, which identifies the samples and tests to be performed on each sample. The Customer manually sends the physical samples to the lab.
  • Upon receipt of the samples, the LIMS system sends the ConfirmBOD and the AcknowledgeInspectionOrder BOD to the Customer. The Lab prepares the (sub)samples (physical movement of samples out of scope for this scenario).
  • The Customer waits for the TestResults, until the agreed time specified in the Service Level Agreement (SLA) is reached.
  • The Customer initiates a query to the Third Party Lab for the InspectionOrder(s) that have reached the time limit using the GetInspectionOrder BOD.
  • The Third Party Lab responds with ShowInspectionOrder BOD, and provides the Customer the Status at either the InspectionOrder level, at a sample level, and /or at the TestRequest level. The PlannedCompletionDateTime would also be provided at each level.
  • The Customer can interrogate the ShowInspectionOrder, view the PlannedCompletionDateTime, and determine if action is required on their end; for example, if more sample matter (material) is needed by the lab to complete the test. For each InspectionOrder that shows complete status, but TestResults were never received, the Customer may call the GetTestResults BOD.
  • The Third Party Lab would then respond with the ShowTestResults BOD.
  • What is not shown in the diagram are the instructions related to the physical movement of the samples to the laboratory. This activity may involve additional logistics related messages that are covered within other OAGIS Scenarios.

74.5 Exception Handling

Exception handling is highly localized as the result of an implementation’s infrastructure, management and business rules. As such, this section of the Scenario documentation is planned to be used as a guide to help understand the additional intent of these Scenarios. If no exceptions are noted here, then it can be assumed that the Scenario designers agreed that the Scenario is straight forward and has no additional needs:

  • The Confirm BOD is typically intended to be used by the original receiving application to communicate to the sending application that the information it sent in the message BOD (business object document) was received and understood and can be processed.

  • If the information was not received or understood, or contained errors of any type, it is accepted practice for the OAGIS users to presume that the data was not acted on.

  • In the absence of a Confirm BOD within a previously agreed time limit (e.g., SLA, normally defined in an out-of-band agreement), the originator will resend the original message.

  • As errors and assumptions are the bane of any implementation, it is strongly recommended that the Confirm BOD be used to prevent any potential problem although it is not a requirement by OAGIS use.


OAGi and its members welcome your feedback.