The terms “integration” and “interfacing” are sometimes thrown around interchangeably when discussing this subject – but is there a difference in the real meaning of these terms?

The answer is definitely Yes.

Let’s take one specific example, which involves Warehouse Management Systems. When it comes to ERP/legacy to WMS interactions, there can be a huge difference.

Here are my observations about this.

Inexperienced people do “interfaces.” Also, unfortunately, many IT people think about connecting systems as “interfaces.”

But experienced people and people who have operational sensibilities think about things as “integrations.”

Here is an example: In a recent project where we were integrating a WMS with SAP, I was discussing the intricate nature of inventory recognition. Sometimes the lines of the warehouse boundaries can be a bit blurry and sometimes it is more like a hard line. In this specific case, the IT members of the team, all smart well-meaning people, insisted we do a particular interface a certain way.  What they were proposing would place an unreasonable burden on the receiving operations, in my opinion.

This caused me to pull out a couple of lines that, if you’ve done projects with me you know, I am famous for.  The first is “Information is virtual.  If we can’t figure out a way to not impact the physical part of the operation with requirements that are merely virtual – we are all a bunch of idiots.”

To which there was silence on the phone.  After some more discussion, a manager who should of known better said “You are doing the interface, you are not in operations.”

I thought this might be coming and got to use one of my other favorite lines. Unlike the first one, I cannot take credit for this. This is Brendon Sullivan in his defense of Ollie North in the Iran/Contra hearings of the 1980s:  “Because I, sir, am not a potted plant.”

In other words, I was not here just to do an interface. I was here to do a proper integration.  In an integration discussion, someone has to be the defender of the operation. I like to call this role the “operational conscience.”

The role of operational conscience is entirely about understanding, mitigating and/or removing the pain points that operations might feel when certain decisions are made by staff in other areas, such as IT, who although well-meaning have little domain experience.

In other words, there are a lot of good IT people doing interface work who have never set foot in a warehouse or DC. They do not understand the consequences of things like an extra keystroke or field entry on a mobile terminal.  They don’t understand that saying something as simple as “You’ll have to hold all of the inventory in receiving for a return until it is all ready to be processed in our interface” means a clogged dock.

Well-meaning does not imply well-versed.

So, how can you tell the difference between someone doing interfaces versus integrations?  One is just working on plumbing, the other is doing the plumbing and making sure it fits in the best way with the rest of the structure.

Good integrators are not, to borrow Mr. Sullivan’s line, “Potted Plants.” They are the operational conscience that determines the difference between successful integrations and those that do not serve operations the way they could.  When you are building an integration team, make sure you get integrators and just a bunch of “Potted Plants” writing interfaces.

http://www.scdigest.com/assets/experts/Fralick_10-04-08.php