This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-519
entitled 'DOD Business Systems Modernization: Military Departments Need
to Strengthen Management of Enterprise Architecture Programs' which was
released on May 12, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
May 2008:
DOD Business Systems Modernization:
Military Departments Need to Strengthen Management of Enterprise
Architecture Programs:
GAO-08-519:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-519, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 1995, GAO designated Department of Defense (DOD) business systems
modernization as a high-risk program, and the program remains on the
high-risk list today. A key to successful systems modernization is
having and using an enterprise architecture as an authoritative frame
of reference, or blueprint, for system investment decisions. To assist
DOD in modernizing its business systems, Congress passed legislation
consistent with prior GAO recommendations for DOD to develop and
implement a business enterprise architecture (BEA). In response, DOD
developed a corporate BEA that it intends to federate, or extend, to
the military departments and defense agencies.
To support GAO’s legislative mandate to review DOD’s BEA, GAO evaluated
the status of the Air Force, Navy, and Army architecture programs. To
accomplish this, GAO used its Enterprise Architecture Management
Maturity Framework and associated evaluation method.
What GAO Found:
The enterprise architecture programs within the Departments of the Air
Force, Navy, and Army have yet to advance to a level that can be
considered fully mature. Specifically, all three departments are at the
initial stage of GAO’s architecture maturity framework. This means that
they have not fully satisfied all the core elements associated with the
framework’s second stage (establishing the management foundation for
developing, maintaining, and using the architecture) or any of the
framework’s higher stages: Stage 3 (developing the architecture), Stage
4 (completing the architecture), and Stage 5 (leveraging the
architecture for organizational change). An organization generally
needs to have achieved the fifth stage in the framework for it to have
an effective architecture program because, at this stage, the
management controls and structures are in place for using an approved
architecture to guide and constrain system investments in a way that
produces institutional results.
Although each department is at Stage 1, the status of the programs vary
considerably. Specifically, the Air Force far exceeds both the Navy and
the Army, while the Navy generally exceeds the Army, in terms of the
total percentage of core elements that are fully satisfied. Moreover,
of the core elements that have not been fully satisfied by at least one
of the three departments, most relate to architecture content, use, and
measurement. Even though none of the departments have fully satisfied
sufficient core elements to advance beyond Stage 1, the Air Force has
at least partially satisfied all the core elements associated with
Stages 2 and 3, as well as all but three core elements across all
stages, and the Navy has at least partially satisfied all the core
elements for Stage 2. In addition, the Air Force has made important
progress in the last 2 years in maturing its architecture program,
while the Navy’s progress has been mixed, and the Army has not made any
progress.
Collectively, this means that DOD, as a whole, is not as well
positioned as it should be to realize the significant benefits that a
well-managed federation of architectures can afford its business
systems modernization efforts. Individually, it means that the Air
Force has a solid architectural foundation on which to continue
building, while the Navy and, even more so, the Army has much to
accomplish. According to Air Force officials, its progress owes largely
to the architecture-related focus, commitment, and leadership of senior
department executives, including the Secretary.
Table: Percent of Framework Elements Fully Satisfied by Framework
Maturity Stage:
Military department: Air Force;
All Stages: 61%;
Stage 2: 78%;
Stage 3: 83%;
Stage 4: 38%;
Stage 5: 50%.
Military department: Navy;
All Stages: 13%;
Stage 2: 22%;
Stage 3: 17%;
Stage 4: 0%;
Stage 5: 13%.
Military department: Army;
All Stages: 3%;
Stage 2: 11%;
Stage 3: 0%;
Stage 4: 0%;
Stage 5: 0%.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of table]
What GAO Recommends:
Given the relative status and progress of the military departments’
architecture programs, and GAO’s existing recommendations for improving
their maturity, GAO reiterates these existing recommendations and
recommends that the Navy and Army reach out to the Air Force to learn
from and apply its architecture-related lessons learned and
experiences. In written comments, DOD agreed with GAO’s recommendation.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-519]. For more
information, contact Randolph C. Hite at (202) 512-3439 or
hiter@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Maturity of Military Department Enterprise Architecture Programs
Continues to Vary:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix III: Brief History of Architecture Frameworks and Management
Guidance:
Appendix IV: Department of the Air Force Assessment:
Appendix V: Department of the Navy Assessment:
Appendix VI: Department of the Army Assessment:
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Summary of EAMMF Version 1.1 Core Elements Categorized by
Group:
Table 2: Percent of Framework Elements Fully, Partially, and Not
Satisfied by the Military Departments in 2006:
Table 3: Percent of Framework Elements Fully Satisfied, by Maturity
Stage:
Table 4: Percent of Architecture Framework Core Elements Satisfied, by
Group:
Table 5: Percent of Framework Elements at Least Partially Satisfied, by
Stage:
Table 6: Net Change in Percent of Framework Elements Satisfied from
2006 to 2008:
Table 7: Stage 2 Evaluation Criteria:
Table 8: Stage 3 Evaluation Criteria:
Table 9: Stage 4 Evaluation Criteria:
Table 10: Stage 5 Evaluation Criteria:
Table 11: Federal Enterprise Architecture Reference Models:
Table 12: OMB EA Assessment Framework Capability Areas:
Figures:
Figure 1: Summary of EAMMF Version 1.1: Maturity Stages, Critical
Success Attributes, and Core Elements:
Figure 2: Simplified Conceptual Depiction of the DOD EA Federation
Strategy:
Abbreviations:
ASD(NII)/CIO: Assistant Secretary of Defense (Networks and Information
Integration)/Chief Information Officer:
BEA: business enterprise architecture:
BMA: Business Mission Area:
CIO: Chief Information Officer:
DBSMC: Defense Business Systems Management Committee:
DOD: Department of Defense:
EA: enterprise architecture:
EAMMF: Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework;
GIG: Global Information Grid:
IT: information technology:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 12, 2008:
Congressional Committees:
For decades, the Department of Defense (DOD) has been challenged in
modernizing its thousands of business systems. In 1995, we first
designated DOD's business systems modernization program as high risk,
and we continue to designate it as such today. As our research on
public and private sector organizations shows, one key ingredient to a
successful systems modernization program is having and using a well-
defined enterprise architecture. Accordingly, we made recommendations
to the Secretary of Defense in 2001 that included the means for
effectively developing and implementing an enterprise architecture.
[Footnote 1] Between 2001 and 2005, we reported on challenges that the
department faced in its efforts to develop a business enterprise
architecture (BEA) and made additional recommendations.[Footnote 2]
To require DOD to address these and other modernization management
challenges, Congress included provisions in the Ronald W. Reagan
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005[Footnote 3]
that were consistent with our recommendations. In response, DOD adopted
an incremental, federated approach to developing its BEA. We
subsequently reported that this approach was consistent with best
practices and that the initial version of the architecture provided a
foundation on which to build and align the department's BEA with
subsidiary architectures (i.e., military department and defense agency
component-and individual program-level architectures).[Footnote 4]
In light of the critical role that military department architectures
play in DOD's federated BEA construct, you asked us to assess the
status of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force enterprise
architecture programs. To accomplish this, we used a standard data and
document collection instrument to obtain key information about each
department's architecture governance, content, use, and measurement. On
the basis of the military departments' responses and supporting
documentation, we analyzed the extent to which each satisfied the 31
core elements in our architecture maturity framework.[Footnote 5] We
also compared the current status of each military department's program
against the status that we reported in 2006.[Footnote 6] We performed
our work in the metropolitan area of Washington, D.C., from September
2007 through March 2008 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. Details on our objectives, scope, and methodology are
provided in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
The military departments' respective enterprise architecture programs
have yet to advance to a level that can be considered mature. To
effectively establish and leverage enterprise architectures as
instruments of organizational transformation, research by us and others
show that architecture programs should be founded upon both an
institutional commitment and a measured and verified organizational
capability to properly develop, maintain, and use the architecture to
affect operational and technological change. Our framework for managing
and evaluating the status of architecture programs consists of 31 core
elements related to architecture governance, content, use, and
measurement that are associated with five stages of maturity. In 2006,
we reported that the Departments of the Air Force, Navy, and Army were
in the initial stage of our framework, and they remain so today. This
means that they have not fully satisfied all the core elements
associated with the framework's second stage (establishing the
management foundation for developing, maintaining, and using the
architecture); nor have they fully satisfied the core elements
associated with Stage 3 (developing the architecture), 4 (completing
the architecture), and 5 (leveraging the architecture for
organizational change). As we have previously reported, an organization
generally needs to have achieved Stage 5 in our framework for it to
have an effective architecture program because, at this stage, the full
complement of architecture products and supporting management controls
and structures are in place to guide and constrain information
technology (IT) investments in a way that produces institutional
results.
Although each of the departments remain at Stage 1 of our maturity
framework, the current status of their architecture programs are not
identical. Also, while each department has not fully satisfied a number
of core elements, some of them are at least partially satisfied. Most
of the core elements that have not been fully or partially satisfied
relate to developing sufficient architecture content (sufficient scope,
depth, understanding, integrity, and consistency of products). In
addition, even though all three departments remain at Stage 1 of our
framework, one department has made important progress since 2006. More
specifically:
* The Air Force's architecture program is more mature than the Navy's,
which is more mature than the Army's. The three military departments
have fully satisfied 61, 13, and 3 percent, and partially satisfied 29,
52, and 13 percent, of our framework's core elements, respectively. In
addition, the Air Force and the Navy have at least partially satisfied
the core elements associated with the framework's second stage
(establishing the architecture management foundation), and the Air
Force has partially satisfied the elements in the third stage
(developing the architecture).
* The Air Force has at least partially satisfied nearly all of the
governance, content, use, and measurement-related core elements in our
framework, while the Navy has at least partially satisfied most of the
governance and content-related core elements. In contrast, the Army has
only partially satisfied a few of the governance and use-related core
elements and has not satisfied any of the content and measurement core
elements.
* The Air Force has made the most progress in the last 2 years in
addressing our prior recommendations for satisfying our framework's
core elements. For example, it has increased the percentage of core
elements that are fully satisfied from 45 to 61 percent. In contrast,
the Army has made the least progress, with its percentage of fully
satisfied core elements remaining unchanged.
As we have previously reported, the key to having a mature architecture
program, and thereby realizing the benefits of an architecture-centric
approach to IT investment decision making, is sustained executive
leadership. This is because virtually all of the barriers to
effectively developing and using architectures, such as parochialism,
cultural resistance, adequate resources, and top management
understanding, can be addressed through such leadership. In this
regard, Air Force officials attributed their progress to the direct
involvement and commitment of the Secretary of the Air Force.
Because we have outstanding recommendations to the Secretary of Defense
aimed at, among other things, having each of the military departments
fully satisfy the core elements in our architecture framework, we are
not making additional recommendations relative to our framework at this
time. However, given the uneven status and progress of the respective
military departments to date, opportunities exist for the Army and Navy
to learn from the Air Force's experiences in maturing its architecture
program. Therefore, we reiterate our outstanding recommendations and
further recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretaries
of the Navy and Army to ensure that their departments reach out to the
Department of the Air Force to learn from and apply the lessons and
experiences that have allowed the Air Force to make the progress it has
in maturing its architecture program. In written comments on a draft of
this report, signed by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Business
Transformation), and reprinted in appendix II, the department agreed
with our recommendation.
Background:
DOD is a massive and complex organization. To illustrate, the
department reported that its fiscal year 2007 operations involved
approximately $1.5 trillion in assets and $2.1 trillion in liabilities,
more than 2.9 million military and civilian personnel, and $544 billion
in net cost of operations.
In support of its military operations, the department performs an
assortment of interrelated and interdependent business functions--
using thousands of business systems--related to major business areas
such as weapon systems management, supply chain management,
procurement, health care management, and financial management. The
ability of these systems to operate as intended affects the lives of
our warfighters both on and off the battlefield. As we have previously
reported,[Footnote 7] the DOD systems environment that supports these
business functions is overly complex; error-prone; and characterized by
little standardization across the department, multiple systems
performing the same tasks, the same data stored in multiple systems,
and the need for data to be entered manually into multiple systems.
Moreover, DOD recently reported that this systems environment is
comprised of approximately 3,000 separate business systems.
For fiscal year 2007, Congress appropriated approximately $15.7 billion
to DOD; for fiscal year 2008, DOD has requested about $15.9 billion in
appropriated funds to operate, maintain, and modernize these business
systems and the associated infrastructures, of which approximately $11
billion was requested for the military departments.
DOD's pervasive business system and related financial management
deficiencies adversely affect its ability to assess resource
requirements; control costs; ensure basic accountability; anticipate
future costs and claims on the budget; measure performance; maintain
funds control; prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and address
pressing management issues. In fact, DOD currently bears
responsibility, in whole or in part, for 15 of the 27 federal
government's program areas that we have designated as high risk.
[Footnote 8] Eight of these areas are specific to DOD[Footnote 9] and
the department shares responsibility for 7 other governmentwide high-
risk areas.[Footnote 10] DOD's business systems modernization is one of
the high-risk areas, and it is an essential component for addressing
many of the department's other high-risk areas. For example, modernized
business systems are integral to the department's efforts to address
its financial, supply chain, and information security management high-
risk areas. A well-defined and effectively implemented enterprise
architecture is, in turn, integral to the successful modernization of
DOD's business systems.
Enterprise Architecture Is Critical to Achieving Successful Systems
Modernization:
An enterprise architecture (EA) is a blueprint that describes an
organization's or a functional area's current and desired state in both
logical and technical terms, as well as a plan for transitioning
between the two states. As such, it is a recognized tenet of
organizational transformation and IT management in public and private
organizations. Without an EA, it is unlikely that an organization will
be able to transform business processes and modernize supporting
systems to minimize overlap and maximize interoperability. For more
than a decade, we have conducted work to improve agency architecture
efforts. To this end, we developed the Enterprise Architecture
Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF) that provides federal agencies
with a common benchmarking tool for assessing the management of their
EA efforts and developing improvement plans.
Enterprise Architecture Description and Importance:
An enterprise can be viewed as either a single organization or a
functional area that transcends more than one organization (e.g.,
financial management or homeland security). An architecture can be
viewed as the structure (or structural description) of any activity.
Thus, EAs are systematically derived and captured descriptions depicted
in models, diagrams, and narratives.
More specifically, an architecture describes the enterprise in logical
terms (such as interrelated business processes and business rules,
information needs and flows, and work locations and users) as well as
in technical terms (such as hardware, software, data, communications,
security attributes, and performance standards). It provides these
perspectives both for the enterprise's current, or "as-is,"
environment, and for its target, or "to-be," environment, and it
provides a transition plan for moving from the "as-is" to the "to-be"
environment.
The importance of EAs is a basic tenet of both organizational
transformation and IT management, and their effective use is a
recognized hallmark of successful public and private organizations. For
over a decade, we have promoted the use of architectures, recognizing
them as a crucial means to a challenging end: optimized agency
operations and performance. The alternative, as our work has shown, is
the perpetuation of the kinds of operational environments that saddle
many agencies today, in which the lack of integration among business
operations and the IT resources that support them leads to systems that
are duplicative, not well integrated, and unnecessarily costly to
maintain and interface.[Footnote 11] Employed in concert with other
important IT management controls (such as portfolio-based capital
planning and investment control practices), architectures can greatly
increase the chances that organizations' operational and IT
environments will be configured to optimize mission performance.
The concept of EAs originated in the mid-1980s; various frameworks for
defining the content of these architectures have been published by
government agencies and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Moreover, legislation and federal guidance requires agencies to develop
and use architectures. (See appendix III for a brief description of
architecture frameworks and related legislation and management
guidance.)
GAO's Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework:
In 2002, we developed version 1.0 of the EAMMF to provide federal
agencies with a common benchmarking tool for planning and measuring
their efforts to improve enterprise architecture management, as well as
to provide OMB with a means for doing the same governmentwide. We
issued an update of the framework (version 1.1) in 2003.[Footnote 12]
This framework is an extension of A Practical Guide to Federal
Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0, published by the Chief
Information Officers Council.[Footnote 13] Version 1.1 of the framework
arranges 31 core elements (practices or conditions that are needed for
effective enterprise architecture management) into a matrix of five
hierarchical maturity stages and four critical success attributes that
apply to each stage. Within a given stage, each critical success
attribute includes between one and four core elements. Based on the
implicit dependencies among the core elements, the EAMMF associates
each element with one of five maturity stages (see fig. 1). The core
elements can be further categorized by four groups: architecture
governance, content, use, and measurement.
EAMMF Stages:
Stage 1: Creating enterprise architecture awareness. At Stage 1, either
an organization does not have plans to develop and use an architecture,
or it has plans that do not demonstrate an awareness of the value of
having and using an architecture. While Stage 1 agencies may have
initiated some enterprise architecture activity, these agencies'
efforts are ad hoc and unstructured, lack institutional leadership and
direction, and do not provide the management foundation necessary for
successful enterprise architecture development as defined in Stage 2.
Stage 2: Building the enterprise architecture management foundation. An
organization at Stage 2 recognizes that the EA is a corporate asset by
vesting accountability for it in an executive body that represents the
entire enterprise. At this stage, an organization assigns architecture
management roles and responsibilities and establishes plans for
developing architecture products and for measuring program progress and
product quality; it also commits the resources necessary for developing
an architecture--people, processes, and tools. Specifically, a Stage 2
organization has designated a chief architect and established and
staffed a program office responsible for EA development and
maintenance. Further, it has established a committee or group that has
responsibility for governance (i.e., directing, overseeing, and
approving architecture development and maintenance). This committee or
group membership has enterprisewide representation. At Stage 2, the
organization either has plans for developing or has started developing
at least some architecture products, and it has developed an
enterprisewide awareness of the value of enterprise architecture and
its intended use in managing its IT investments. The organization has
also selected a framework and a methodology that will be the basis for
developing the architecture products and has selected a tool for
automating these activities.
Stage 3: Developing the enterprise architecture. An organization at
Stage 3 focuses on developing architecture products according to the
selected framework, methodology, tool, and established management
plans. Roles and responsibilities assigned in the previous stage are in
place, and resources are being applied to develop actual products. At
this stage, the scope of the architecture has been defined to encompass
the entire enterprise, whether organization-based or function-based.
Although the products may not be complete, they are intended to
describe the organization in terms of business, performance,
information/data, service/application, and technology (including
security explicitly in each), as provided for in the framework,
methodology, tool, and management plans.[Footnote 14] Further, the
products are to describe the current ("as-is") and future ("to-be")
states and the plan for transitioning from the current to the future
state (the sequencing plan). As the products are developed and evolve,
they are subject to configuration management. Further, through the
established enterprise architecture management foundation, the
organization is tracking and measuring its progress against plans,
identifying and addressing variances, as appropriate, and then
reporting on its progress.
Stage 4: Completing the enterprise architecture. An organization at
Stage 4 has completed its architecture products, meaning that the
products have been approved by the EA steering committee (established
in Stage 2) or an investment review board and by the Chief Information
Officer (CIO). The completed products collectively describe the
enterprise in terms of business, performance, information/data,
service/application, and technology for both its current and future
operating states; the products also include a plan for transitioning
from the current to the future state. Further, an independent agent has
assessed the quality (i.e., completeness and accuracy) of the
architecture products. Additionally, evolution of the approved products
is governed by a written EA maintenance policy approved by the head of
the organization.
Stage 5: Leveraging the enterprise architecture to manage change. An
organization at Stage 5 has secured senior leadership approval of the
architecture products and a written institutional policy stating that
IT investments must comply with the architecture, unless granted an
explicit compliance waiver. Further, decision makers are using the
architecture to identify and address ongoing and proposed IT
investments that are conflicting, overlapping, not strategically
linked, or redundant. As a result, Stage 5 entities avoid unwarranted
overlap across investments and ensure maximum systems interoperability.
Maximum interoperability, in turn, ensures the selection and funding of
IT investments with manageable risks and returns. Also, at Stage 5, the
organization tracks and measures EA benefits or return on investment,
and adjustments are continuously made to both the architecture
management process and the enterprise architecture products.
EAMMF Attributes:
Attribute 1: Demonstrates commitment. Because the EA is a corporate
asset for systematically managing institutional change, the support and
sponsorship of the head of the enterprise are essential to the success
of the architecture effort. An approved enterprise policy statement
provides such support and sponsorship by promoting institutional buy-in
and encouraging resource commitment from participating components.
Equally important in demonstrating commitment is vesting ownership of
the architecture in an executive body that collectively owns the
enterprise.
Attribute 2: Provides capability to meet commitment. The success of the
EA effort depends largely on the organization's capacity to develop,
maintain, and implement the enterprise architecture. Consistent with
any large IT project, these capabilities include providing adequate
resources (i.e., people, processes, and technology), defining clear
roles and responsibilities, and defining and implementing
organizational structures and process management controls that promote
accountability and effective project execution.
Attribute 3: Demonstrates satisfaction of commitment. Satisfaction of
the organization's commitment to develop, maintain, and implement an EA
is demonstrated by the production of artifacts (e.g., the plans and
products). Such artifacts demonstrate follow through--actual EA
production. Satisfaction of commitment is further demonstrated by
senior leadership approval of enterprise architecture documents and
artifacts; such approval communicates institutional endorsement and
ownership of the architecture and the change that it is intended to
drive.
Attribute 4: Verifies satisfaction of commitment. This attribute
focuses on measuring and disclosing the extent to which efforts to
develop, maintain, and implement the EA have fulfilled stated goals or
commitments of the enterprise architecture. Measuring such performance
allows for tracking progress that has been made toward stated goals,
allows appropriate actions to be taken when performance deviates
significantly from goals, and creates incentives to influence both
institutional and individual behaviors. Figure 1 illustrates the
EAMMF's maturity stages, attributes, and core elements.
Figure 1: Summary of EAMMF Version 1.1: Maturity Stages, Critical
Success Attributes, and Core Elements:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a table containing a summary of EAMMF Version 1.1:
Maturity Stages, Critical Success Attributes, and Core Elements.
Maturation increases from stage one through stage five. The following
information is depicted:
Attribute 1: Demonstrates commitment;
Stage 1: Creating EA awareness: [Empty];
Stage 2: Adequate resources exist. Committee or group representing the
enterprise is responsible for directing, overseeing, and approving EA.
Stage 3: Developing EA products: Building the EA management foundation:
Written and approved organization policy exists for EA development.
Stage 4: Completing EA products: Written and approved organization
policy exists for EA maintenance.
Stage 5: Leveraging the EA to manage change: Written and approved
organization policy exists for IT investment compliance with EA.
Attribute 2: Provides capability to meet commitment;
Stage 1: Creating EA awareness: [Empty];
Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: Program office
responsible for EA development and maintenance exists. Chief architect
exists. EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool.
Stage 3: Developing EA products: EA products are under configuration
management.
Stage 4: Completing EA products: EA products and management processes
undergo independent verification and validation.
Stage 5: Leveraging the EA to manage change: Process exists to formally
manage EA change.EA is integral component of IT investment management
process.
Attribute 3: Demonstrates satisfaction of commitment;
Stage 1: Creating EA awareness: [Empty];
Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA plans call for
describing both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments of the
enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for transitioning from the “as-
is” to the “to-be.” EA plans call for describing both the “as-is” and
the “to-be” environments in terms of business, performance,
information/data, application/service, and technology. EA plans call
for business, performance, information/data, application/service, and
technology descriptions to address security.
Stage 3: Developing EA products: EA products describe or will describe
both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments of the enterprise, as
well as a sequencing plan for transitioning from the “as-is” to the “to-
be.” Both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments are described or
will be described in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology. Business, performance,
information/data, application/service, and technology descriptions
address or will address security.
Stage 4: Completing EA products: EA products describe both the “as-is”
and the “to-be” environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing
plan for transitioning from the “as-is” to the “to-be.” Both the “as-
is” and the “to-be” environments are described in terms of business,
performance, information/data, application/service, and technology.
Business, performance, information/data, application/service, and
technology descriptions address security.Organization CIO has approved
current version of EA. Committee or group representing the enterprise
or the investment review board has approved current version of EA.
Stage 5: Leveraging the EA to manage change: EA products are
periodically updated. IT investments comply with EA.Organization head
has approved current version of EA.
Attribute 4: Verifies satisfaction of commitment;
Stage 1: Creating EA awareness: [Empty];
Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA plans call for
developing metrics for measuring EA progress, quality, compliance, and
return on investment.
Stage 3: Developing EA products: Progress against EA plans is measured
and reported.
Stage 4: Completing EA products: Quality of EA products is measured and
reported.
Stage 5: Leveraging the EA to manage change: Return on EA investment is
measured and reported. Compliance with EA is measured and reported.
Source: GAO.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of figure]
EAMMF Groups:
The framework's 31 core elements can also be placed in one of four
groups of architecture-related activities, processes, products, events
and structures. The groups are architecture governance, content, use,
and measurement. Each is defined below.
* Governance refers to core elements that provide the management
structures and processes needed to guide and direct the architecture
program.
* Content refers to core elements that provide for the scope, depth,
integrity, understanding, and consistency of products and artifacts
that make up the architecture.
* Use refers to core elements that provide for an architecture-centric
approach to IT investment management (i.e., treating architecture as
the authoritative frame of reference in guiding and constraining IT
investments).
* Measurement refers to core elements that provide for determining and
disclosing progress in developing, maintaining, and using the
architecture, including measurement against plans, process standards,
and product quality standards.
These groups are generally consistent with the capability area
descriptions in the OMB EA assessment tool.[Footnote 15] For example,
OMB's completion capability area addresses ensuring that architecture
products describe the agency in terms of processes, services, data,
technology, and performance and that the agency has developed a
transition strategy. Similarly, our content group includes developing
and completing these same EA products. In addition, OMB's results
capability area addresses performance measurement, as does our
measurement group, and OMB's use capability area addresses many of the
same elements in our governance and use groups. Table 1 lists the core
elements according to EAMMF group.
Table 1: Summary of EAMMF Version 1.1 Core Elements Categorized by
Group:
Group: Governance;
Core element: Adequate resources exist (Stage 2).
Group: Governance;
Core element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is
responsible for directing, overseeing, and approving EA (Stage 2).
Group: Governance;
Core element: Program office responsible for EA development and
maintenance exists (Stage 2).
Group: Governance;
Core element: Chief architect exists (Stage 2).
Group: Governance;
Core element: EA being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool (Stage 2).
Group: Governance;
Core element: EA plans call for describing "as-is" environment, "to-be"
environment, and sequencing plan (Stage 2).
Group: Governance;
Core element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of
business, performance, information/data, application/service, and
technology (Stage 2).
Group: Governance;
Core element: EA plans call for business, performance,
information/data, application/service, and technology to address
security (Stage 2).
Group: Governance;
Core element: Written and approved policy exists for EA development
(Stage 3).
Group: Governance;
Core element: Written and approved policy exists for EA maintenance
(Stage 4).
Group: Governance;
Core element: Organization CIO has approved EA (Stage 4).
Group: Governance;
Core element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA (Stage 4).
Group: Governance;
Core element: Written and approved organization policy exists for IT
investment compliance with EA (Stage 5).
Group: Governance;
Core element: Organization head has approved current version of EA
(Stage 5).
Group: Content;
Core element: EA products are under configuration management (Stage 3).
Group: Content;
Core element: EA products describe or will describe "as-is"
environment, "to-be" environment, and sequencing plan (Stage 3).
Group: Content;
Core element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or
will be described in terms given in Stage 2 (Stage 3).
Group: Content;
Core element: These descriptions address or will address security
(Stage 3).
Group: Content;
Core element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation (Stage 4).
Group: Content;
Core element: EA products describe "as-is" environment, "to-be"
environment, and sequencing plan (Stage 4).
Group: Content;
Core element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in
terms given in Stage 2 (Stage 4).
Group: Content;
Core element: These descriptions address security (Stage 4).
Group: Content;
Core element: Process exists to formally manage EA change (Stage 5).
Group: Content;
Core element: EA products are periodically updated (Stage 5).
Group: Use;
Core element: EA is integral component of IT investment management
process (Stage 5).
Group: Use;
Core element: IT investments comply with EA (Stage 5).
Group: Measurement;
Core element: EA plans call for developing metrics to measure EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment (Stage 2).
Group: Measurement;
Core element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported (Stage
3).
Group: Measurement;
Core element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported (Stage
4).
Group: Measurement;
Core element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported (Stage
5).
Group: Measurement;
Core element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported (Stage 5).
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
DOD's Efforts to Adopt a Federated Approach to Architecting All of Its
Mission Areas:
DOD is pursing a federated strategy to develop and implement the many
and varied architectures across the department's four mission areas--
Warfighting,[Footnote 16] Business,[Footnote 17] DOD Intelligence,
[Footnote 18] and Enterprise Information Environment.[Footnote 19]
According to officials in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Networks and Information Integration)/Chief Information
Officer (ASD(NII)/CIO), they have issued a strategy for evolving DOD's
Global Information Grid (GIG)[Footnote 20] architecture that is to
provide a comprehensive architectural description of the entire DOD
enterprise, including all mission areas and the relationships between
and among all levels of the enterprise (e.g., mission areas,
components, and programs). Figure 2 provides a simplified, conceptual
depiction of DOD's EA federation strategy.
Figure 2: Simplified, Conceptual Depiction of the DOD EA Federation
Strategy:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a Simplified, Conceptual Depiction of the DOD EA
Federation organizational chart, as follows:
Department Layer:
Global Information Grid.
Mission Area Layer (fed by Department Layer):
* Warfighting Mission Area;
- Warfighting EA.
* Business Mission Area;
- Business EA.
* Intelligence Mission Area;
- Intelligence EA.
* Enterprise Information Environment Mission Area;
- Enterprise Information Environment EA.
Component Layer (Fed by Mission Area Layer):
* Service;
* Agency;
* Combat Command.
Program Layer (fed by Component Layer):
* Individual programs.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of figure]
ASD(NII)/CIO officials stated that the goal of this strategy is to
improve the ability of DOD's mission areas, components, and programs to
share architectural information. In this regard, officials stated that
the DOD EA federation strategy will define federation and integration
concepts, alignment (i.e., linking and mapping) processes, and shared
services.
The first Business Mission Area (BMA) federation strategy was released
in September 2006, according to ASD(NII)/CIO officials. Its purpose is
to expand on the DOD EA federation strategy and provide details on how
various aspects of the federation will be applied within the
department's BMA. In this regard, the BMA strategy cites the following
four goals:
* establish a capability to search for data in member architectures
that may be relevant for analysis, reference, or reuse;
* develop a consistent set of standards for architecture configuration
management that will enable users to determine the development status
and quality of data in various architectures;
* establish a standard methodology for specifying linkages among
existing component architectures that were developed using different
tools and that are maintained in independent repositories; and:
* develop a standard methodology to reuse capabilities described by
various architectures.
To assist in accomplishing these goals, the strategy described three
concepts that are to be applied:
1. Tiered accountability provides for architecture development at each
of the department's organizational levels.
2. Net-centricity provides for seamless and timely accessibility to
information where and when needed via the department's interconnected
network environment.
3. Federating DOD architectures provides for linking or aligning
subordinate and parent architectures via the mapping of common
architectural information. This concept advocates subordinate
architecture alignment to the parent architecture.
DOD Roles and Responsibilities for Business Enterprise Architecture
Development and Use:
In 2005, DOD reassigned responsibility for directing, overseeing, and
executing its business transformation and systems modernization efforts
to the Defense Business Systems Management Committee (DBSMC) and the
Business Transformation Agency. The DBSMC is chaired by the Deputy
Secretary of Defense and serves as the highest-ranking governance body
for business systems modernization activities. According to its
charter, the DBSMC provides strategic direction and plans for the BMA
in coordination with the Warfighting and the Enterprise Information
Environment Mission Areas. The DBSMC is also responsible for reviewing
and approving the BEA and the Enterprise Transition Plan.
The Business Transformation Agency operates under the authority,
direction, and control of the DBSMC and reports to the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics in the
incumbent's capacity as the vice chair of the DBSMC. Oversight for this
agency is provided by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Business Transformation, and day-to-day management is provided by the
director. The Business Transformation Agency's primary responsibility
is to lead and coordinate business transformation efforts across the
department. In particular, it is responsible for (1) maintaining and
updating the department's architecture, (2) ensuring that functional
priorities and requirements of various defense component organizations
are reflected in the architecture, and (3) ensuring the adoption of DOD-
wide information and process standards as defined in the architecture.
Under DOD's tiered accountability approach to systems modernization,
components are responsible for defining their respective component
architectures and transition plans. Similarly, program managers are
responsible for developing program-level architectures and transition
plans and ensuring integration with the architectures and transition
plans developed and executed at the enterprise and component levels.
Summary of GAO's Prior Reviews on Business Enterprise Architecture and
Military Department Architectures:
Between May 2001 and July 2005, we reported on DOD's efforts to develop
an architecture and identified serious problems and concerns with the
department's architecture program, including the lack of specific plans
outlining how DOD would extend and evolve the architecture to include
the missing scope and detail.[Footnote 21] To address these concerns,
in September 2003,[Footnote 22] we recommended that DOD develop a well-
defined, near-term plan for extending and evolving the architecture and
ensure that this plan would address our recommendations: defining roles
and responsibilities of all stakeholders involved in extending and
evolving the architecture, explaining dependencies among planned
activities, and defining measures of progress for the activities.
In response to our recommendations, in 2005, DOD adopted a 6-month
incremental approach to developing its architecture and released
version 3.0 of the BEA and the associated transition plan in September
2005, describing them as the initial baselines. Since then, DOD has
released three updated versions of both--version 3.1, released on March
15, 2006; version 4.0, released on September 28, 2006; and version 4.1,
released on March 15, 2007. As we have previously reported,[Footnote
23] these incremental versions have provided additional content and
clarity and resolved limitations that we identified in the prior
versions. For example, version 4.1 improved the Financial Visibility
business enterprise priority area by including the Standard Financial
Information Structure data elements and business rules to support cost
accounting and reporting. In addition, version 4.1 addressed, to
varying degrees, missing elements, inconsistencies, and usability
issues that we previously identified.
In August 2006,[Footnote 24] we reported that the Departments of the
Air Force, Navy, and Army had fully satisfied about 45, 32, and 3
percent, and partially satisfied 26, 39, and 42 percent, respectively,
of the 31 core elements in our architecture maturity framework (see
table 2).
Table 2: Percent of Framework Elements Fully, Partially, and Not
Satisfied by the Military Departments in 2006:
Military departments: Air Force;
Fully satisfied: 45%;
Partially satisfied: 26%;
Not satisfied: 29%.
Military departments: Navy;
Fully satisfied: 32;
Partially satisfied: 39;
Not satisfied: 29.
Military departments: Army;
Fully satisfied: 3;
Partially satisfied: 42;
Not satisfied: 55.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of table]
By comparison, other major federal departments and agencies that we
reviewed had, as a whole, fully satisfied about 67 percent of the
framework's core elements. Among the key elements that all three
military departments had not fully satisfied were developing
architecture products that describe their respective target
architectural environments and developing transition plans for
migrating to a target environment. Furthermore, while the military
departments had partially satisfied between 26 and 42 percent of the
core elements in our framework, we reported that partially satisfied
elements were not necessarily easy to satisfy fully, such as those that
address architecture content; and thus, partials can have serious
implications for the quality and usability of an architecture. To
assist the military departments in addressing their EA challenges and
managing their programs, we recommended that they develop and implement
plans for fully satisfying each of the conditions in our framework. DOD
generally agreed with our findings and recommendations.
In April 2007,[Footnote 25] we reported that DOD's BMA federation
strategy provided a foundation on which to build and align DOD's parent
BEA with its subordinate architectures (i.e., component-and program-
level architectures). In particular, we found that this strategy (1)
stated the department's federated architecture goals; (2) described
federation concepts that are to be applied; and (3) included high-level
activities, capabilities, products, and services that are intended to
facilitate implementation of the concepts. However, we also reported
that DOD had yet to define the details needed to execute the strategy,
such as how the architecture federation was to be governed; how
alignment with the DOD federation strategy and other potential mission-
area federation strategies was to be achieved; how component
architectures' alignment with incremental versions of the BEA was to be
achieved; how shared services would be identified, exposed, and
subscribed to; and what milestones would be used to measure progress
and results. As a result, we concluded that much remained to be decided
and accomplished before DOD would have in place the means to create a
federated architecture and thus be able to fully satisfy both our prior
recommendations and legislative requirements aimed at adopting an
architecture-centric approach to departmentwide business systems
investment management.
In May 2007,[Footnote 26] we concluded that while DOD has made progress
in developing the BEA, much remained to be accomplished. In particular,
we reported that DOD had yet to extend and evolve its corporate BEA
through the development of aligned, subordinate architectures for each
of its component organizations, and while it had developed a strategy
for federating the BEA in this manner, this strategy lacked the detail
needed for it to be fully effective. We also reported that this
situation was compounded by the known immaturity of the military
departments' architecture efforts. Accordingly, we recommended that DOD
include in its annual report to Congress on compliance with section 332
of the Fiscal Year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act the results
of assessments by its BEA independent verification and validation
contractor on the completeness, consistency, understandability, and
usability of its federated family of business mission architectures,
including the associated transition plans. DOD agreed with this
recommendation.
Maturity of Military Department Enterprise Architecture Programs
Continues to Vary:
Each of the military departments' enterprise architecture programs is
at the initial stage of our maturity framework, meaning that each has
not fully satisfied all of the core elements associated with the
framework's second stage (establishing the management foundation for
developing, maintaining, and using the architecture). Also, none have
fully satisfied the core elements associated with Stage 3 (developing
the architecture), 4 (completing the architecture), and 5 (leveraging
the architecture for organizational change). As a result, none have yet
to advance to a state that can be considered fully mature and
effective. Although all departments are at Stage 1, the status of the
three vary considerably. Specifically, the Air Force far exceeds the
Navy, which generally exceeds the Army, in terms of the total number of
core elements that are fully satisfied. Further, even though all three
are at Stage 1, the Air Force has at least partially satisfied all of
the core elements associated with Stage 3 and has partially satisfied
all but three core elements across all stages. The Navy has at least
partially satisfied all of the core elements associated with Stage 2
and all but one of the Stage 3 core elements. Moreover, the Air Force
has made important progress in maturing its EA program over the last 2
years, while the Navy has made mixed progress, and the Army has not
made progress.
As our research shows, the state of an organization's EA program owes
largely to the extent to which the program has benefited from sustained
executive leadership. This is because virtually all of the barriers to
effectively developing and using architectures, such as parochialism,
cultural resistance, adequate resources, and top management
understanding, can be addressed through such leadership. In this
regard, Air Force officials attributed their progress toward
establishing a fully mature architecture program to sustained executive
leadership. Without fully mature programs, the departments introduce
increased risk of developing and implementing IT solutions that are
duplicative, do not interoperate, and thus do not optimize
departmentwide performance.
The Military Departments' Full Satisfaction of Our Framework's Core
Elements Varies, but None Have Programs That Are Fully Mature:
To reach a given stage of maturity under our architecture framework and
associated evaluation methodology, a military department had to fully
satisfy all of the core elements at that stage. Using this criterion,
each of the military departments is at Stage 1, meaning that none could
demonstrate through verifiable documentation that it has established
all of the core foundational commitments and capabilities needed to
effectively manage the development, maintenance, and implementation of
an architecture. However, this does not mean that the departments are
at identical states of maturity. Rather, the Air Force is considerably
more advanced than the Navy and Army. (See appendices IV through VI for
details on the extent to which each military department satisfied each
of the core elements of our maturity framework.)
Assigning the military departments' architecture programs to a maturity
stage based on whether all elements of a stage are fully satisfied
provides only one perspective on these programs. Another is the extent
to which each program has also fully satisfied core elements across
higher stages of maturity. When the percentage of core elements that
have been fully satisfied across all stages is considered, a similar
picture of the departments' relative variability is evident.
Specifically, the percent of all core elements that are fully satisfied
ranges from a high of 61 percent for the Air Force to a low of 3
percent for the Army (the Navy fully satisfied 13 percent of the core
elements). Table 3 summarizes the percentage of core elements that are
fully satisfied in total, by maturity stage, for each military
department.
Table 3: Percent of Framework Elements Fully Satisfied, by Maturity
Stage:
Military departments: Air Force;
Framework elements fully satisfied: All stages: 61%;
Framework elements fully satisfied: Stage 2: 78%;
Framework elements fully satisfied: Stage 3: 83%;
Framework elements fully satisfied: Stage 4: 38%;
Framework elements fully satisfied: Stage 5: 50%.
Military departments: Navy;
Framework elements fully satisfied: All stages: 13%;
Framework elements fully satisfied: Stage 2: 22%;
Framework elements fully satisfied: Stage 3: 17%;
Framework elements fully satisfied: Stage 4: 0%;
Framework elements fully satisfied: Stage 5: 13%.
Military departments: Army;
Framework elements fully satisfied: All stages: 3%;
Framework elements fully satisfied: Stage 2: 11%;
Framework elements fully satisfied: Stage 3: 0%;
Framework elements fully satisfied: Stage 4: 0%;
Framework elements fully satisfied: Stage 5: 0%.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of table]
Notwithstanding this perspective, it is important to note that the
staging of core elements in our framework provide a hierarchical or
systematic progression to establishing a mature and effective
architecture program. That is, core elements associated with lower
framework stages generally support the effective execution of higher
maturity stage core elements. For instance, if a program has developed
its full suite of "as-is" and "to-be" architecture products, including
a sequencing plan (Stage 4 core elements), but the products are not
under configuration management (Stage 3 core element), then the
integrity and consistency of the products cannot be adequately assured.
In this regard, even though the Navy has partially developed its EA
products, the quality of these products is questionable because the
Navy has not placed them under configuration management.
Further, not satisfying even a single lower stage core element can have
a significant impact on the effectiveness of an architecture program.
For example, not using a defined framework or methodology (Stage 2 core
element) or not performing configuration management (Stage 3 core
element), can significantly limit the quality and utility of an
architecture. DOD's experience between 2001 and 2005 in developing its
BEA is a case in point. During this time, we made a series of
recommendations grounded in, among other things, our architecture
management framework to ensure that it was successful in doing
so.[Footnote 27] In 2005,[Footnote 28] we reported that despite
investing hundreds of millions of dollars and 4 years in developing
multiple versions of wide-ranging architecture products, the department
did not have a well-defined architecture, and what it did develop had
limited utility. Among other things, we attributed the poor state of
its architecture products to methodological, human capital, and
configuration management weaknesses.
Looking at related groupings of core elements that are fully satisfied
also provides a useful perspective on the state of the military
departments' architecture programs. As noted earlier, these groupings
of core elements are architecture governance, content, use, and
measurement. Overall, the military departments varied in the extent to
which each of the groups were met. For example, while the Air Force
fully satisfied 71 percent of the governance core elements, the Navy
and Army only fully satisfied 14 and 7 percent, respectively. The
extent to which each department satisfied the core elements in each
grouping are discussed below. (See table 4 for a summary of the extent
to which each department fully satisfied these groupings.)
* Governance refers to core elements that provide the management
structures and processes needed to guide and direct an architecture
program. Neither the Navy nor the Army has established effective
architecture governance, having satisfied only 14 and 7 percent of
these core elements, respectively. For example, neither has a written
or approved departmentwide policy for EA development and maintenance or
for requiring that IT investments comply with the EA. This is important
because approved policies demonstrate institutional commitment to
having and using an architecture. As our framework states, an approved
enterprisewide policy provides the kind of top management support and
sponsorship needed to overcome the barriers to architecture development
and use. In contrast, the Air Force has fully satisfied the majority of
governance core elements. However, the remaining unsatisfied core
elements are significant. For example, it has not fully established a
committee or group with representation from across the enterprise to
direct, oversee, and approve the architecture. This is significant
because the architecture is a corporate asset that needs to be
enterprisewide in scope and accepted by senior leadership if it is to
be leveraged effectively for organizational change.
Table 4: Percent of Architecture Framework Core Elements Satisfied, by
Group:
Military departments: Air Force;
Framework groups: Governance: 71%;
Framework groups: Content: 60%;
Framework groups: Use: 50%;
Framework groups: Measurement: 40%.
Military departments: Navy;
Framework groups: Governance: 14%;
Framework groups: Content: 10%;
Framework groups: Use: 0%;
Framework groups: Measurement: 20%.
Military departments: Army;
Framework groups: Governance: 7%;
Framework groups: Content: 0%;
Framework groups: Use: 0%;
Framework groups: Measurement: 0%.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of table]
* Content refers to core elements that provide for the scope, depth,
integrity, understanding, and consistency of products and artifacts
that make up the architecture. Only the Air Force has fully satisfied
much in the way of architecture content, having fully met 60 percent of
the core elements, with the Navy and Army meeting only 10 and 0
percent, respectively. For example, while the Air Force has placed its
EA products under configuration management and provided for ensuring
that its EA products will describe the "as-is" environment, "to-be"
environment, and sequencing plan, neither the Navy nor the Army has
done the same. Moreover, none of the departments have fully addressed
security as part of their respective "as-is" and "to-be" products
developed to date. This is important because security is relevant and
essential to every aspect of an organization's operations, and
therefore, the nature and substance of institutionalized security
requirements, controls, and standards should be embedded throughout the
architecture. Further, none of the departments is using an independent
verification and validation agent to help ensure the quality of these
products. As we have previously reported, independent verification and
validation is a proven means for obtaining unbiased insight into such
essential architecture qualities as completeness, understandability,
and consistency.
* Use refers to core elements that provide for an architecture-centric
approach to IT investment management (i.e., treating architecture as
the authoritative frame of reference for guiding and constraining IT
investments). Again, the Air Force has fully satisfied 50 percent of
this grouping's core elements, while the Navy and the Army have fully
satisfied none of the core elements. For example, the Air Force has
made its EA an integral component of its IT investment process by
requiring that investments demonstrate their architectural compliance.
This is important because in order for the benefits of an EA to be
realized, IT investments must comply with it. However, neither the Air
Force nor the other two departments could demonstrate that their
respective IT investments are actually in compliance with their
respective architectures. This is relevant because the benefits from
using an EA, such as improved information sharing, increased
consolidation, enhanced productivity, and lower costs, cannot be fully
realized unless individual investments are actually in compliance with,
for example, architectural rules and standards.
* Measurement refers to core elements that provide for determining and
disclosing progress in developing, maintaining, and using the EA,
including measurement against plans, process standards, and product
quality. None of the departments satisfied many of these core elements.
Specifically, the Air Force fully satisfied 40 percent and the Navy
fully satisfied 20 percent of these core elements, while the Army did
not satisfy any. For example, while the Air Force has plans that call
for the development of metrics to measure EA progress, quality,
compliance, and return on investment, and the Navy is measuring and
reporting on progress against plans, none of the departments is
measuring and reporting on IT investment compliance with its
architecture or return on investment from its architecture program.
Without measuring architecture development, maintenance, and use, an
organization is not positioned to take timely corrective action to
address deviations from plans, expectations, and outcomes, which in
turn limits the chances of EA program success.
The Military Departments' Partial Satisfaction of Framework's Core
Elements Also Varies, and Provides a Basis from Which to Build:
In instances where the military departments have not fully satisfied
certain core elements in our framework, two have at least partially
satisfied[Footnote 29] many of these elements. To illustrate, the Air
Force would improve to Stage 3 if the criterion for being at a given
stage was relaxed to only partially satisfying a core element.
Moreover, the Navy would advance to Stage 2 under this less demanding
criterion. In contrast, the Army would remain at Stage 1.
Partial satisfaction of a core element is an indicator of some progress
and provides a basis on which to improve. Nevertheless, it also
indicates that more work is needed, for example, to establish
architectural commitments and capabilities and to demonstrate and
verify that both exist and are functioning as intended. Moreover, even
though a core element can be partially satisfied, what remains to fully
satisfy it can be significant and can require considerable time and
resources. Thus, it is important to note that even though the
departments have partially satisfied some core elements, fully
satisfying some of them may remain a challenge. It is also important to
note that fully, rather than partially, satisfying certain elements,
such as those that fall within the architecture content group, are key
to the success of an EA. Not fully satisfying these elements can have
important implications for the quality of an architecture, and thus its
usability and results. The extent to which each of the departments
partially satisfied the core elements at each stage of our framework is
discussed below and summarized in table 5.
* The Air Force has at least partially satisfied 100 percent of the
elements associated with Stages 2 and 3 and has a solid base on which
to build an effective architecture management foundation and its
associated plans and products. Nevertheless, important aspects of a
successful architecture program are still missing. For example, while
the Air Force is developing its EA using a framework (the Air Force EA
Framework) and an automated tool (Metis ArchitectTM[Footnote 30]), it
does not have a documented methodology governing how its architecture
is being developed and maintained. This is important because a
methodology provides a common set of procedures for developing EA
products and helps to ensure consistency in how these products are
developed and maintained across the organization. Also, while the Air
Force does have metrics related to its EA, these metrics do not address
measuring progress against plans. As our framework states, progress in
developing EA products should be measured against EA plans so that
deviations from expectations can be examined for cause and impact and
appropriate actions can be taken to address them.
Table 5: Percent of Framework Elements at Least Partially Satisfied, by
Stage:
Military departments: Air Force;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: All stages: 90%;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: Stage 2: 100%;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: Stage 3: 100%;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: Stage 4: 75%;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: Stage 5: 88%.
Military departments: Navy;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: All stages: 65%;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: Stage 2: 100%;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: Stage 3: 83%;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: Stage 4: 63%;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: Stage 5: 13%.
Military departments: Army;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: All stages: 16%;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: Stage 2: 44%;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: Stage 3: 0%;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: Stage 4: 0%;
Framework elements fully or partially satisfied: Stage 5: 13%.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of table]
* The Navy has at least partially satisfied 93 percent of the elements
associated with Stages 2 and 3 and has in place many aspects of the
core elements that support these stages, which it can use to continue
establishing an effective architecture management foundation and
associated plans and products. However, important aspects of certain
core elements are missing. For example, similar to the Air Force, the
Navy is developing its EA using a framework (the DOD Architecture
Framework) and automated tools (Telelogic System Architect®[Footnote
31] and Metis ArchitectTM). Also, similar to the Air Force, the Navy
does not have a documented methodology governing how its architecture
is being developed and maintained. In addition, the Navy has yet to
establish a committee or group representing the enterprise that is
responsible for directing, overseeing, or approving the architecture.
Establishing such a governance entity is important because it
demonstrates the organization's commitment to building and using an
architecture and helps to obtain necessary buy-in from across the
organization. Further, while the Navy has drafted an EA policy, the
policy has not yet been approved. Approval is important because it
demonstrates senior leadership commitment to the architecture and
clearly assigns responsibility and accountability for development and
maintenance of the architecture.
* The Army has at least partially satisfied 27 percent of the elements
associated with Stages 2 and 3, but has not made progress toward
establishing the commitments and capabilities that comprise the core
elements integral to an effective architecture management foundation
and associated plans and products. In particular, while the Army has an
EA program office, the office does not have an approved charter. A
program charter is important because it defines key aspects about how
the office will operate in order to achieve program goals and outcomes.
Further, while the Army is using an automated tool (System Architect)
to capture architecture products, it is not using a framework or
methodology. This is significant because the framework provides a
defined structure and nomenclature for representing architecture
information across the organization and the methodology describes a
common set of procedures to be used for developing products in a
coherent way. Together, they help to ensure that activities associated
with capturing the architecture are understood by those involved and
are completed in a consistent, accountable, and repeatable manner.
The Military Departments Varied in the Extent to Which Their
Architecture Programs Have Recently Improved:
We reported in August 2006 that each of the military departments was at
the initial stage of our architecture maturity framework.[Footnote 32]
More specifically, we reported that the Air Force, Navy, and Army had
fully satisfied 45, 32, and 3 percent, and that they had partially
satisfied 26, 39, and 42 percent, of the 31 core elements,
respectively. Accordingly, we made recommendations for each department
to fully implement the framework's core elements.
Since then, the departments have addressed our recommendations to
varying degrees. Specifically, the Air Force has made the most
progress, increasing the percentage of fully satisfied core elements
from 45 to 61 percent and increasing the percentage of partially
satisfied core elements from 26 to 29 percent. The Navy has made mixed
progress, decreasing the percentage of fully satisfied core elements
from 32 to13 percent and increasing the percentage of partially
satisfied core elements from 39 to 52 percent. The Army has not made
progress, keeping the percentage of fully satisfied core elements at 3
percent while decreasing the percentage of partially satisfied core
elements from 42 to 13 percent. The specific progress made by each
department is discussed below and summarized in table 6.
* The Air Force's 16 percent increase in the core elements that are
fully satisfied relate to five core elements. For example, we
previously reported that the Air Force's architecture program plans did
not call for developing metrics to measure EA progress, quality,
compliance, and return on investment. Since then, the Air Force has
expanded its plans to include such metrics. The addition of these
metrics is important because they provide the basis for knowing whether
program expectations are being met, which could prompt timely
corrective action to address any significant deviations. Also, while
the Air Force did not previously have its architecture products under
configuration management, it has since done so. This progress is
important because it helps to integrate and align the products and to
track and manage changes to them in a way that ensures product
integrity. Finally, the Air Force has also established the architecture
as an integral component of its IT investment management process by
explicitly requiring that its IT investments align with the EA. This
was not the case in 2006 and represents a significant improvement
because without requiring alignment, investments are more likely to
deviate from the architecture in ways that increase duplication of
effort and decrease interoperability.
The Air Force's 3 percent increase in the core elements that are
partially satisfied relate to three core elements. For example, we
reported in 2006 that the Air Force's EA products did not address
security. Since then, the Air Force has developed an Information
Assurance Domain Architecture to augment its EA products. To the Air
Force's credit, this document addresses important aspects of security
relative to its technical reference models. However, it does not
similarly address security in relation to the EA's business, systems,
and information models. For example, the business models do not address
the goals and strategies for addressing current security risks and
future security threats. In addition, while the Air Force now has a
sequencing plan, this plan is not complete because it does not include,
and is not grounded in, an analysis of the gap in capabilities between
the department's "as-is" and "to-be" architectural environments. Such a
gap analysis is necessary to determine what capabilities are currently
lacking and which capabilities will need to be acquired or developed in
a sequence that is based on a variety of factors.
According to Air Force officials, the positive progress that it has
made in maturing its architecture program is due, in large part, to the
focus, commitment, and leadership of senior department executives,
including the Secretary of the Air Force. In this regard, they said
that their experiences and lessons learned show that such leadership
paved the way for establishing the department's institutional
commitment to its EA. Such commitment, they said, is demonstrated by
the Air Force's approved EA policies and funding, and its capabilities
to meet commitments, such as the department's structures and processes
for governing architecture development and implementation.
Table 6: Net Change in Percent of Framework Elements Satisfied from
2006 to 2008:
Military departments: Air Force;
Fully satisfied: +16%;
Partially satisfied: +3%.
Military departments: Navy;
Fully satisfied: -19%;
Partially satisfied: +13%.
Military departments: Army;
Fully satisfied: 0%;
Partially satisfied: -29%.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of table]
* The Navy's 19 percent decrease in the core elements that are fully
satisfied relate to six core elements, and according to Navy officials,
are largely due to the Navy's recent efforts to expand the scope of its
architecture program beyond that which existed in 2006. More
specifically, in 2006, the Navy's architecture program was focused on
what it refers to as FORCEnet, which is the Navy's IT infrastructure
architecture. During the course of our review, the Navy reported that
it has adopted DOD's federated architecture approach, thereby expanding
its program to include all Navy organizations and all architecture
reference models (e.g., business, data, performance). However, it has
yet to reflect this expansion in program scope in key governance
documents, such as its EA policies and plans, that relate to these six
core elements. Without fully satisfying these governance core elements,
the department will be challenged in its ability to develop and
implement a Navy-wide federated architecture.
The 13 percent increase in the core elements that are partially
satisfied are largely associated with three content-related core
elements. For example, we reported in 2006 that the Navy's FORCEnet
products did not include descriptions of the "to-be" architecture in
terms of, for example, business, information/data, applications/
service, and performance. Under the Navy's expanded scope, it has since
developed "to-be" architecture products (DOD Architecture Framework
views) that address these areas. However, these products are not yet
sufficiently complete. To illustrate, the functional areas (e.g., human
resources) in the business or operational views have not been
decomposed into functional activities (e.g., recruiting) and processes
(e.g., interviewing), and the information exchanges between functional
areas in the operational views are not defined. Moreover, there are no
data models to identify and describe relationships among the data
elements within each functional area.
According to Navy officials, the shift to a broader, federated approach
to developing and implementing a Navy enterprise architecture was
recently endorsed by secretariat-level leadership and senior department
executives.
* The Army continues to fully satisfy one core element (having a chief
architect). However, it has also experienced a 29 percent decrease in
those core elements that it had partially satisfied in 2006 (nine core
elements), most of which relate to such governance topics as EA
policies and plans. Specifically, the plans and policies that the Army
had in 2006 were not approved. Because they were not approved, they did
not fully satisfy the various associated core elements. Since then, the
Army official principally responsible for the program told us that the
department's senior executives, including the Army Vice-Chief of Staff,
have endorsed a new architecture approach in which the Army will use
OMB's reference models (e.g., business, performance, information/
data). To this end, the officials said that decisions are to be made in
the near future about how to best structure the program to implement
this approach, including what the program's scope will be and what
resources will be needed to sustain it. This official added that once
these decisions are made, as part of the Army's budget submission and
approval process, the EA policies and plans will be updated to reflect
these decisions.
Conclusions:
If managed effectively, enterprise architectures can be a useful change
management and organizational transformation tool. The conditions for
effectively managing enterprise architecture programs are contained in
our five stage architecture maturity framework. None of the military
departments has fully satisfied all of the conditions needed to achieve
Stage 2 or above in the framework, which means that none have programs
that we would currently consider effective and mature. However, the
Navy has partially satisfied most, and the Air Force has partially
satisfied all, of the core elements needed to be at Stage 3. In
addition, among the three military departments, the Air Force has
satisfied the most core elements across all framework stages. Moreover,
the Air Force has demonstrated the most progress in the last 2 years in
satisfying the framework's core elements. However, the military
departments have not yet met the conditions for the effective
governance, content, use and measurement of their respective
architecture programs. The Air Force has a solid foundation on which to
continue building, but the Navy and, even more so, the Army has much to
accomplish before either will have effective and mature architecture
programs. As a result, DOD, as a whole, is not as well positioned as it
should be to realize the significant benefits that a well-managed
federation of architecture programs can provide.
As we have previously reported, the key to having a mature architecture
program, and thereby realizing the benefits of an architecture-centric
approach to IT investment decision making, is sustained executive
leadership. This is because virtually all of the barriers to
effectively developing and using architectures, such as parochialism,
cultural resistance, adequate resources, and top management
understanding, can be addressed through such leadership. For the
military departments to advance their respective architecture programs,
sustained executive leadership will be needed. In this regard, the Navy
and the Army could benefit from the lessons learned and experiences to
date of the Air Force's efforts to mature its architecture program.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Because we have outstanding recommendations to the Secretary of Defense
aimed at, among other things, having the Departments of the Air Force,
Navy, and Army fully satisfy each of the core elements in our
architecture framework, we are not making additional recommendations
relative to our framework at this time. However, given the uneven
status and progress of the respective military departments, we
reiterate our outstanding recommendations and further recommend that
the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretaries of the Navy and Army to
ensure that their respective departments reach out to the Department of
the Air Force to learn from and apply the lessons and experiences that
have allowed the Air Force to make the progress it has in maturing its
architecture program.
Agency Comments:
In written comments on a draft of this report, signed by the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Business Transformation) and reprinted in
appendix II, the department agreed with our recommendation, and
described efforts underway and planned to implement it.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and the
Secretary of Defense. Copies of this report will be made available to
other interested parties on request. This report will also be available
at no charge on our Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions on matters discussed in this
report, please contact me at (202) 512-3439 or hiter@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII.
Signed by:
Randolph C. Hite:
Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues:
List of Committees:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ted Stevens:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John P. Murtha:
Chairman:
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objective was to determine the current status of the military
departments' enterprise architecture efforts. To do so, we used a data
collection instrument based on our Enterprise Architecture Management
Maturity Framework (EAMMF), and related guidance, such as the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-130 and guidance published by the
federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council, as well as our past
reports and guidance on the management and content of enterprise
architectures. We also met with the chief architects of the military
departments to discuss our scope and methodology, share the data
collection instrument, and discuss the type and nature of supporting
documentation needed to verify responses to instrument questions.
On the basis of documentation provided to support the departments'
respective responses to our data collection instrument, we analyzed the
extent to which each department satisfied the 31 core elements in our
EAMMF. To guide our analyses, we used our standard evaluation criteria
for determining whether a given core element was fully satisfied,
partially satisfied, or not satisfied (See tables 7, 8, 9, and 10 for
the core elements of Stages 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively.) To fully
satisfy a core element, sufficient documentation had to be provided to
permit us to verify that all aspects of the core element were met. To
partially satisfy a core element, sufficient documentation had to be
provided to permit us to verify that at least some aspects of the core
element were met. Core elements that did not meet criteria for fully or
partially satisfied were judged to be not satisfied.
Table 7: Stage 2 Evaluation Criteria:
Core element: Adequate resources exist;
Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that "very adequate," "somewhat
adequate," or "neither adequate nor inadequate" resources exist for
funding, personnel, and tools.
Core element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is
responsible for directing, overseeing, and approving enterprise
architecture (EA);
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that a committee or group
representing the enterprise is responsible for direction, oversight,
and approval of the enterprise architecture; (2) provided a charter or
other documentation supporting the group's responsibilities; and (3)
provided sample meeting minutes or other documentation confirming that
meetings have been held.
Core element: Program office responsible for EA development and
maintenance exists;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that a program office is
responsible for EA development and maintenance and (2) provided
documentation supporting their assertion.
Core element: Chief architect exists;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that chief architect exists
and (2) provided documentation or assertion that the chief architect is
responsible and accountable for EA and serves as the EA program
manager.
Core element: EA being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that the enterprise
architecture is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; (2) provided documentation supporting the use of a
framework and automated tool; and (3) provided a documented methodology
that includes steps for developing, maintaining, and validating the
enterprise architecture.
Core element: EA plans call for describing "as-is" environment, "to-be"
environment, and sequencing plan;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that EA plans call for
describing the "as-is" and "to-be" environments and a sequencing plan
and (2) provided plans that document this assertion; or agency (1)
responded that the EA describes the "as- is" and "to-be" environments
and a sequencing plan and (2) provided documentation to support this
assertion.
Core element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of
business, performance, information/data, application/service, and
technology;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that EA plans call for
describing the enterprise in terms of business, performance,
information/data, application/service, and technology and (2) provided
plans that document this assertion; or agency (1) responded that the EA
describes the enterprise in terms of business, performance,
information/data, application/service, and technology and (2) provided
documentation to support this assertion.
Core element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/
data, application/service, and technology to address security;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that EA plans call for
business, performance, information/data, application/service, and
technology descriptions to address security and (2) provided plans that
document this assertion; or agency (1) responded that the business,
performance, information/data, application/service, and technology
descriptions address security and (2) provided documentation to support
this assertion.
Core element: EA plans call for developing metrics to measure EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that EA plans call for
developing metrics to measure EA progress, quality, compliance, and
return on investment and (2) provided plans to support this assertion;
or responded (1) that EA progress, quality, compliance, and/or return
on investment is measured and reported and (2) provided support for
this assertion.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Table 8: Stage 3 Evaluation Criteria:
Core element: Written and approved policy exists for EA development;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that a written and approved
organization policy exists for EA development and (2) provided a policy
that supported this assertion.
Core element: EA products are under configuration management;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that EA products are under
configuration management and (2) provided their formally documented
configuration management approach.
Core element: EA products describe or will describe "as-is"
environment, "to-be" environment, and sequencing plan;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that EA plans call for
describing the "as-is" and "to-be" environments and a sequencing plan,
(2) provided plans that document this assertion, and (3) responded that
it is "in the process of developing the EA" or that it "has developed
an EA"; or agency (1) responded that the EA describes the "as-is" and
"to-be" environments and a sequencing plan and (2) provided
documentation to support this assertion.
Core element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or
will be described in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that EA plans call for
describing the enterprise in terms of business, performance,
information/data, application/service, and technology; (2) provided
plans that document this assertion; and (3) responded that it is "in
the process of developing the EA" or that it "has developed an EA"; or
agency (1) responded that the EA describes the enterprise in terms of
business, performance, information/data, application/service, and
technology and (2) provided documentation to support this assertion.
Core element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that EA plans call for
business, performance, information/data, application/service, and
technology descriptions to address security; (2) provided plans that
document this assertion; and (3) responded that it is "in the process
of developing the EA" or that it "has developed an EA"; or agency (1)
responded that the business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions address security and
(2) provided documentation to support this assertion.
Core element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that it measures and reports
progress against plans; (2) provided a description of how progress
against plans is measured and reported; and (3) provided sample reports
that include sample measures.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Table 9: Stage 4 Evaluation Criteria:
Core element: Written and approved policy exists for EA maintenance;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that a written and approved
organization policy exists for EA maintenance and (2) provided a policy
that supported this assertion.
Core element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that EA products and
management processes undergo independent verification and validation;
(2) provided proof that independent verification and validation
activities were conducted by an independent third party and reported
outside the span of control of the chief architect; and (3) provided
sample independent verification and validation (IV&V) reports to the
audit team. Independence was a critical element for satisfaction of
this item.
Core element: EA products describe "as-is" environment, "to-be"
environment, and sequencing plan;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that the EA describes the "as-
is" and "to-be" environments and a sequencing plan; (2) provided
documentation to support this assertion; and (3) responded that it has
developed an EA. In addition, an agency could not receive full credit
for satisfying this element unless it fully satisfied the element,
"Both 'as is' and 'to-be' environments are described in terms of
business, performance, information/data, application/service, and
technology."
Core element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in
terms of business, performance, information/data, application/service,
and technology;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that the EA describes the
enterprise in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; (2) provided documentation to
support this assertion; and (3) responded that it has developed an EA.
Core element: These descriptions address security;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that the business,
performance, information/data, application/service, and technology
descriptions address security; (2) provided documentation to support
this assertion; and (3) responded that it has developed an EA.
Core element: Organization CIO has approved EA;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that the CIO has approved the
current version of the EA and (2) provided a signature page or other
proof that the CIO has approved the current version of the EA.
Core element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that a committee or group
representing the enterprise or the investment review board has approved
the current version of the EA and (2) provided meeting minutes or other
proof that a committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved the current version of the EA.
Core element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that it measures and reports
product quality, (2) provided a description of how quality is measured
and reported, and (3) provided sample reports that include sample
measures.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Table 10: Stage 5 Evaluation Criteria:
Core element: Written and approved organization policy exists for
Information Technology (IT) investment compliance with EA;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that a written and approved
organization policy exists for IT investment compliance with EA and (2)
provided a written policy to support this assertion.
Core element: Process exists to formally manage EA change;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that a process exists to
formally manage EA change and (2) provided evidence to support this
assertion.
Core element: EA is integral component of IT investment management
process;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that EA is an integral
component of IT investment management process; (2) provided
documentation describing how the EA is used when making IT investment
decisions; (3) provided evidence that a sequencing plan exists to guide
IT investments; and (4) partially or fully satisfied at least one of
the following Stage 3 elements: (a) EA products describe or will
describe "as-is" environment, "to-be" environment, and sequencing plan;
(b) both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; or (c) these descriptions address
or will address security.
Core element: EA products are periodically updated;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that EA products are
periodically updated and (2) provided a description of the process used
for updating EA products.
Core element: IT investments comply with EA;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that IT investments comply
with EA; (2) provided evidence that IT is not selected and approved
under the organization's capital planning and investment control
process unless it is compliant with the EA; and (3) partially or fully
satisfied at least one of the following Stage 3 elements: (a) EA
products describe or will describe "as-is" environment, "to-be"
environment, and sequencing plan; (b) both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments are described or will be described in terms of business,
performance, information/data, application/service, and technology; or
(c) these descriptions address or will address security.
Core element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that the organization head
has approved the current version of the EA; (2) provided a signature
page or other proof that organization head or a deputy organization
head has approved current version of EA or provided proof of formal
delegation of this activity and subsequent approval; and (3) partially
or fully satisfied at least one of the following Stage 3 elements: (a)
EA products describe or will describe "as-is" environment, "to-be"
environment, and sequencing plan; (b) both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments are described or will be described in terms given in Stage
2; or (c) these descriptions address or will address security.
Core element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that return on investment has
been measured and reported; (2) provided a description of how return on
investment is measured and reported; and (3) provided sample reports
that included sample measures.
Core element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported;
Evaluation criteria: Agency (1) responded that compliance has been
measured and reported, (2) provided a description of how compliance is
measured and reported, and (3) provided sample reports that included
sample measures.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
In applying our methodology, we first analyzed and determined the
extent to which each department satisfied the core elements in our
framework, and then met with their representatives to discuss core
elements that were not satisfied and why. As part of this interaction,
we sought, and in some cases were provided, additional supporting
documentation. We then considered this documentation when determining
the degree to which each department satisfied each core element. In
applying our evaluation criteria, we analyzed the results across
different core elements to determine patterns and issues.
We conducted our work in the metropolitan area of Washington, D.C.,
from September 2007 through March 2008, in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Acquisition Technology And Logistics:
3000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-3000:
April 16, 2008:
Mr. Randolph C. Hite:
Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Hite:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft
Report, GAO-08-519, "DOD Business Systems Modernization: Military
Departments Need to Strengthen Management of Enterprise Architecture
Programs" dated March 10, 2008 (GAO Code 310652). Detail comments on
the report recommendations are enclosed.
This report reiterates the value, already recognized by the Department,
of sharing lessons learned in architecture development and
implementation across the Business Mission Area (BMA). Enterprise
architecture development across the Department has gained significant
momentum and continues to mature at both the enterprise and component
levels, although, as noted in the GAO report, some components are
further along in development than others.
To further maturation and share benchmark "best practices," two
important information sharing venues have been created. The Bi-Weekly
BMA CIO Meeting and the Architecture Summits provide forums for sharing
the lessons learned described in the single GAO recommendation. The
Department continues to receive positive feedback on the value of these
venues and views them as clear channels for cross-departmental
information sharing.
Additionally, the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Chief
Management Officer, will direct the Departments of the Army and Navy to
reach out to the Department of the Air Force to seek additional
opportunities to transfer architecture best practices at the enterprise
and component levels. As we continue to improve the Department's
business transformation efforts, we welcome GAO's insight and
partnership in reaching the common goal of maturing and strengthening
our enterprise architecture programs.
Signed by:
Paul A. Brinkley:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense:
(Business Transformation):
Enclosure: As stated:
GAO Draft Report Dated March 10, 2008:
GAO-08-519 (GAO CODE 310652):
"DOD Business Systems Modernization: Military Departments Need To
Strengthen Management Of Enterprise Architecture Programs"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendation:
Recommendation: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct
the Secretaries of the Army and Navy to ensure that their respective
Departments reach out to the Department of the Air Force to learn from
and apply the lessons and experiences that have allowed the Air Force
to make the progress it has in maturing its architecture program. (p.
38/GAO Draft Report)
DOD Response: Concur.
The Department strongly values the sharing of information across the
enterprise. Many formal and informal architecture-related discussions
are currently taking place. Two examples of formal discussion include
the Bi-Weekly Chief Information Officer (CTO) Meetings and a recent
Architecture Summit conducted in March 2008. These venues have included
CIO representation from the DoD services and Agencies to include the
Department of the Army, Navy and Air Force. Information exchanges such
as these and others have proven valuable in transferring knowledge
across the enterprise.
Additionally, the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Chief
Management Officer, will direct the Departments of the Army and Navy to
reach out to the Department of the Air Force to seek additional
opportunities to transfer architecture best practices at the enterprise
and component levels where appropriate given the unique differences of
each organization.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Brief History of Architecture Frameworks and Management
Guidance:
During the mid-1980s, John Zachman, widely recognized as a leader in
the field of enterprise architecture, identified the need to use a
logical construction blueprint (i.e., an architecture) for defining and
controlling the integration of systems and their components.[Footnote
33] Accordingly, Zachman developed a structure, or framework, for
defining and capturing an architecture, which provides for six
perspectives, or "windows," from which to view the enterprise.[Footnote
34] Zachman also proposed six abstractions, or models, associated with
each of these perspectives.[Footnote 35] Zachman's framework provides a
way to identify and describe an entity's existing and planned component
parts and the parts' relationships before the entity begins the costly
and time-consuming efforts associated with developing or transforming
itself.
Since Zachman introduced his framework, a number of frameworks have
emerged within the federal government, beginning with the publication
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology framework in
1989. Since that time, other federal entities have issued frameworks,
including the Department of Defense and the Department of the Treasury.
In September 1999, the federal Chief Information Officers Council
published the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, which was
intended to provide federal agencies with a common construct for their
architectures, thereby facilitating the coordination of common business
processes, technology insertion, information flows, and system
investments among federal agencies. The Federal Enterprise Architecture
Framework described an approach, including models and definitions, for
developing and documenting architecture descriptions for
multiorganizational functional segments of the federal government.
[Footnote 36]
More recently, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established the
Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office to develop a
federal enterprise architecture according to a collection of five
"reference models" (see table 11). These models are intended to
facilitate governmentwide improvement through cross-agency analysis and
the identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities
for collaboration, interoperability, and integration within and across
government agencies.
Table 11: Federal Enterprise Architecture Reference Models:
Reference model: Performance Reference Model;
Description: Provides a common set of general performance outputs and
measures for agencies to use to achieve business goals and objectives.
Reference model: Business Reference Model;
Description: Describes the business operations of the federal
government independent of the agencies that perform them, including
defining the services provided to state and local governments.
Reference model: Service Component Reference Model;
Description: Identifies and classifies IT service (i.e., application)
components that support federal agencies and promotes the reuse of
components across agencies.
Reference model: Data and Information Reference Model;
Description: Describes, at an aggregate level, the types of data and
information that support program and business line operations, and the
relationships among these types.
Reference model: Technical Reference Model; Description:
Describes how technology is supporting the delivery of service
components, including relevant standards for implementing the
technology.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Although these post-Zachman frameworks differ in their nomenclatures
and modeling approaches, each consistently provides for defining an
enterprise's operations in both logical and technical terms, provides
for defining these perspectives for the enterprise's current and target
environments, and calls for a transition plan between the two.
Legislation and federal guidance address enterprise architecture.
Specifically, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 directs the CIOs of major
departments and agencies to develop, maintain, and facilitate the
implementation of information technology architectures as a means of
integrating agency goals and business processes with information
technology.[Footnote 37] Also, OMB Circular A-130, which implements the
Clinger-Cohen Act, requires that agencies document and submit their
initial enterprise architectures and that agencies submit updates when
significant changes to their enterprise architectures occur. The
circular also directs OMB to use various reviews to evaluate the
adequacy and efficiency of each agency's compliance with the circular.
Since then, OMB has developed and implemented an enterprise
architecture assessment tool. According to OMB, the tool helps to
illustrate the current state of an agency's architecture and assists
agencies in integrating architectures into their decision-making
processes. The latest version of the assessment tool (2.0) was released
in December 2005 and includes three capability areas: (1) completion,
(2) use, and (3) results. Table 12 describes each of these areas.
Table 12: OMB EA Assessment Framework Capability Areas:
Capability area: Completion;
Description: Addresses ensuring that architecture products describe the
agency in terms of processes, services, data, technology, and
performance and that the agency has developed a transition strategy.
Capability area: Use;
Description: Addresses the establishment of important management
practices, processes, and policies, such as configuration management,
communications, and integration of the architecture with capital
planning processes.
Capability area:
Results; Description: Addresses the effectiveness and value of the
architecture by encouraging performance measurements and using it to
ensure agency policies align to OMB IT policy.
Source: OMB.
[End of table]
The tool also includes criteria for scoring an agency's architecture
program on a scale of 0 to 5.[Footnote 38] In early 2006, the major
departments and agencies were required by OMB to provide a self-
assessment of their architecture programs using the tool. OMB then used
the self assessment to develop its own assessment. These assessment
results are to be used in determining the agency's e-Government score
within the President's Management Agenda.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Table: Department of the Air Force Assessment:
Stages and elements: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness: Agency is aware of
EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: n/a.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation:
Adequate resources exist;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and approving EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation:
Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance exists;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation:
Chief architect exists;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA
being developed using a framework, methodology, and automated tool;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA
plans call for describing "as-is" environment, "to-be" environment, and
sequencing plan;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA
plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, performance,
information/data, applications/service, and technology;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA
plans call for business, performance, information/data,
applications/service, and technology to address security;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA
plans call for developing metrics to measure EA progress, quality,
compliance, and return on investment;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: Written
and approved policy exists for EA development;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: EA
products are under configuration management;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: EA
products describe or will describe "as-is" environment, "to-be"
environment, and sequencing plan;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: Both
"as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be described in
terms given in Stage 2;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: These
descriptions address or will address security;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products:
Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: Written
and approved policy exists for EA maintenance;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: EA
products and management processes undergo independent verification and
validation;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: EA
products describe "as-is" environment, "to-be" environment, and
sequencing plan;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: Both
"as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms given in Stage
2;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: These
descriptions address security;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products:
Organization CIO has approved EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products:
Committee or group representing the enterprise or the investment review
board has approved current version of EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: Quality
of EA products is measured and reported;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Written and approved organization policy exists for IT
investment compliance with EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Process exists to formally manage EA change;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: EA products are periodically updated;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: IT investments comply with EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Return on EA investment is measured and reported;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Compliance with EA is measured and reported;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Table: Department of the Navy Assessment:
Stages and elements: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness: Agency is aware of
EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: n/a.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation:
Adequate resources exist;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and approving EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation:
Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance exists;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation:
Chief architect exists;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA
being developed using a framework, methodology, and automated tool;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA
plans call for describing "as-is" environment, "to-be" environment, and
sequencing plan;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA
plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, performance,
information/data, applications/service, and technology;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA
plans call for business, performance, information/data,
applications/service, and technology to address security;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA
plans call for developing metrics to measure EA progress, quality,
compliance, and return on investment;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: Written
and approved policy exists for EA development;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: EA
products are under configuration management;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: EA
products describe or will describe "as-is" environment, "to-be"
environment, and sequencing plan;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: Both
"as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be described in
terms given in Stage 2;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: These
descriptions address or will address security;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products:
Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: Written
and approved policy exists for EA maintenance;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: EA
products and management processes undergo independent verification and
validation;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: EA
products describe "as-is" environment, "to-be" environment, and
sequencing plan;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: Both
"as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms given in Stage
2;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: These
descriptions address security;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products:
Organization CIO has approved current version EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products:
Committee or group representing the enterprise or the investment review
board has approved current version of EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: Quality
of EA products is measured and reported;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Written and approved organization policy exists for IT
investment compliance with EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Process exists to formally manage EA change;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: EA products are periodically updated;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: IT investments comply with EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Return on EA investment is measured and reported;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Compliance with EA is measured and reported;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Table: Department of the Army Assessment:
Stages and elements: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness: Agency is aware of
EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: n/a.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation:
Adequate resources exist;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and approving EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation:
Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance exists;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation:
Chief architect exists;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Yes.
Stages and elements: EA being developed using a framework, methodology,
and automated tool;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA
plans call for describing "as-is" environment, "to-be" environment, and
sequencing plan;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA
plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, performance,
information/data, applications/service, and technology;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA
plans call for business, performance, information/data,
applications/service, and technology to address security;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation: EA
plans call for developing metrics to measure EA progress, quality,
compliance, and return on investment;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: Written
and approved policy exists for EA development;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: EA
products are under configuration management;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: EA
products describe or will describe "as-is" environment, "to-be"
environment, and sequencing plan;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: Both
"as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be described in
terms given in Stage 2;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products: These
descriptions address or will address security;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 3: Developing architecture products:
Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: Written
and approved policy exists for EA maintenance;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: EA
products and management processes undergo independent verification and
validation;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: EA
products describe "as-is" environment, "to-be" environment, and
sequencing plan;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: Both
"as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms given in Stage
2;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: These
descriptions address security;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products:
Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products:
Committee or group representing the enterprise or the investment review
board has approved current version of EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 4: Completing architecture products: Quality
of EA products is measured and reported;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Written and approved organization policy exists for IT
investment compliance with EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Process exists to formally manage EA change;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Extent to which element is satisfied: Partial.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: EA products are periodically updated;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: IT investments comply with EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Return on EA investment is measured and reported;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Stages and elements: Stage 5: Leveraging the architecture to manage
change: Compliance with EA is measured and reported;
Extent to which element is satisfied: No.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Randolph C. Hite, (202) 512-3439 or hiter@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Tonia Johnson (Assistant
Director), Timothy Eagle, Elena Epps, Michael Holland, Neela Lakhmani,
Rebecca LaPaze, Anh Le, and Freda Paintsil made key contributions to
this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Information Technology: Architecture Needed to Guide
Modernization of DOD's Financial Operations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-525] (Washington, D.C.: May
17, 2001).
[2] GAO, DOD Business Systems Modernization: Progress Continues to Be
Made in Establishing Corporate Management Controls, but Further Steps
Are Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-733]
(Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2007); GAO, Business System Modernization:
Strategy for Evolving DOD's Business Enterprise Architecture Offers a
Conceptual Approach, but Execution Details Are Needed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-451] (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
16, 2007), GAO, Defense Business Transformation: A Comprehensive Plan,
Integrated Efforts, and Sustained Leadership Are Needed to Assure
Success, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-229T]
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 16, 2006); GAO, Business Systems Modernization:
DOD Continues to Improve Institutional Approach, but Further Steps
Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-658]
(Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2006); GAO, DOD Business Systems
Modernization: Long-Standing Weaknesses in Enterprise Architecture
Development Need to Be Addressed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-05-702] (Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005); GAO, DOD
Business Systems Modernization: Limited Progress in Development of
Business Enterprise Architecture and Oversight of Information
Technology Investments, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-04-731R] (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2004); and GAO, DOD
Business Systems Modernization: Important Progress Made to Develop
Business Enterprise Architecture, but Much Work Remains, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1018] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
19, 2003).
[3] Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005, Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 332, 118 Stat. 1811, 1851-1856 (Oct. 28,
2004) (codified in part at 10 U.S.C. § 2222).
[4] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-451].
[5] GAO, Information Technology: A Framework for Assessing and
Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 1.1), [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-584G] (Washington D.C.: Apr.
2003).
[6] GAO, Enterprise Architecture: Leadership Remains Key to
Establishing and Leveraging Architectures for Organizational
Transformation, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-
831] (Washington D.C.: Aug. 14, 2006).
[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-658].
[8] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310].
[9] These 8 high-risk areas include DOD's overall approach to (1)
business transformation, (2) business systems modernization, (3)
financial management, (4) the personnel security clearance program, (5)
supply chain management, (6) support infrastructure management, (7)
weapon systems acquisition, and (8) contract management.
[10] The 7 governmentwide high-risk areas are: (1) disability programs,
(2) ensuring the effective protection of technologies critical to U.S.
national security interests, (3) interagency contracting, (4)
information systems and critical infrastructure, (5) information-
sharing for homeland security, (6) human capital, and (7) real
property.
[11] GAO, Homeland Security: Efforts Under Way to Develop Enterprise
Architecture, but Much Work Remains, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-04-777] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 6, 2004); GAO,
Information Technology: Architecture Needed to Guide NASA's Financial
Management Modernization, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-04-43] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 21, 2003); GAO,
Information Technology: DLA Should Strengthen Business Systems
Modernization Architecture and Investment Activities, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-631] (Washington, D.C.: June
29, 2001); [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-731R];
and [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1018].
[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-584G].
[13] Chief Information Officers Council, A Practical Guide to Federal
Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0 (February 2001).
[14] This set of products is consistent with OMB's federal enterprise
architecture reference models.
[15] The OMB EA Assessment Framework Version 2.2 tool helps illustrate
the current state of an agency's architecture and assists agencies in
integrating architectures into their decision-making processes. The
latest version of the assessment tool (2.2) was released in October
2007 and includes three capability areas: (1) completion, (2) use, and
(3) results. The tool also includes criteria for scoring an agency's
architecture program on a scale of 0 to 5. A score of 0 means
undefined, 1 means initial, 2 means managed, 3 means used, 4 means
results-oriented, and 5 means optimized.
[16] The Warfighting Mission Area focuses on transforming how DOD
achieves its mission objectives by addressing joint warfighting
capabilities and providing life-cycle oversight to applicable DOD
component and combatant command IT investments.
[17] The Business Mission Area is responsible for ensuring that
capabilities, resources, and materiel are reliably delivered to the
warfighter. Specifically, the Business Mission Area addresses areas
such as real property and human resources management.
[18] The DOD Intelligence Mission Area is focused on establishing
advanced capabilities to anticipate adversaries and includes IT
investments within the military intelligence program and defense
component programs of the National Intelligence Program.
[19] The Enterprise Information Environment Mission Area enables the
functions of the other mission areas (e.g., Warfighting Mission Area,
Business Mission Area, and Intelligence Mission Area) and encompasses
all communications; computing; and core enterprise service systems,
equipment, or software that provides a common information capability or
service for enterprise use.
[20] According to DOD, GIG consists of a globally interconnected, end-
to-end set of information capabilities, associated processes, and
personnel for collecting, processing, storing, disseminating, and
managing information on demand to warfighters, policymakers, and
support personnel. As such, the GIG architecture spans all four mission
areas.
[21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-525],
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-458], [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-571R], [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-877R], [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1018], [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-731R], [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-381], and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-702].
[22] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1018].
[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-451].
[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-831].
[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-451].
[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-733].
[27] See, for example, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-01-525], [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-03-458], [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-04-731R], [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-05-702], and GAO, DOD Business Systems Modernization:
Important Progress Made in Establishing Foundational Architecture
Products and Investment Management Practices, but Much Work Remains,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-219] (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 23, 2005).
[28] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-702].
[29] Partially satisfied means that a department has addressed some,
but not all, aspects of the core element.
[30] Metis ArchitectTM is an architecture tool from Troux Technologies,
Inc.
[31] Telelogic System Architect® is a set of architecture tools from
Telelogic, Inc.
[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-831].
[33] J. A. Zachman, "A Framework for Information Systems Architecture,"
IBM Systems Journal vol. 26, no. 3 (1987).
[34] The windows include (1) the strategic planner, (2) the system
user, (3) the system designer, (4) the system developer, (5) the
subcontractor, and (6) the system itself.
[35] The models cover (1) how the entity operates, (2) what the entity
uses to operate, (3) where the entity operates, (4) who operates the
entity, (5) when entity operations occur, and (6) why the entity
operates.
[36] Similar to Zachman's framework, the Federal Enterprise
Architecture Framework's proposed models describe an entity's business,
data necessary to conduct the business, applications to manage the
data, and technology to support the applications.
[37] 40 U.S.C. sections 11315.
[38] A score of 0 means undefined, 1 means initial, 2 means managed, 3
means utilized, 4 means results-oriented, and 5 means optimized.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: