Importance of Enterprise Architectures

The importance of enterprise architectures is a basic tenet of IT  management, and their effective use is a recognized hallmark of successful  public and private organizations. Stage 3: Developing the EA. Our 2001 Survey Showed the Immature State of Federal Agency Architecture Management

We first surveyed enterprise architecture management maturity across the  federal government in 2001, and we reported in February 2002 that about  52 percent of federal agencies reported having at least the management  foundation that is needed to begin successfully developing, implementing,  and maintaining an enterprise architecture, and that about 48 percent of  agencies had not yet advanced to that basic stage of maturity. These challenges were (1) overcoming limited executive understanding,  (2) inadequate funding, (3) insufficient skilled staff, and (4) organizational  parochialism. Agencies Are Making Limited Architecture Management Progress; Most Programs Remain Immature

Our 2003 survey results indicate that while some individual agencies have  made progress in improving their enterprise architecture management  maturity, progress for the federal government as a whole has not occurred. Although progress for agencies in the aggregate  continued to be limited, departments as a group made the most progress:  the average maturity for the 14 departments that responded to both the  2001 and 2003 surveys increased from 1.93 to 2.00 against Version 1.0 of the  framework. One agency, the Executive Office of the President, provided  responses placing it at a stage of enterprise architecture management  maturity that can be considered mature and effective. One possible reason for this situation, which is discussed later in  this report, is that OMB’s oversight of agency enterprise architecture  efforts focuses on departments and major independent agencies—not on  component agencies. To achieve Stage 5, the GIG architecture needs to satisfy the  Stage 4 element “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’ ” and the Stage 5 elements  “Return on EA investment is measured and reported” and “Organization  head has approved current version of EA.” IRS could become a Stage 5  agency by satisfying the Stage 4 elements “Business, performance,  information/data, application/service, and technology descriptions address  security” and “EA products and management processes undergo  independent verification and validation” and the Stage 5 element “Return  on EA investment is measured and reported.” Table 7 shows the agencies  that need to satisfy 5 or fewer elements to achieve Stage 5 under Version  1.1. However, despite OMB’s actions, the  same management challenges facing agencies 2 years ago have increased in  prevalence, and agencies report mixed results from OMB’s efforts to  address these challenges. OMB expects agencies to use the model, as part of their capital  planning and investment control processes, to help identify opportunities  to consolidate IT investments across the federal government. Accordingly, the level of resources that an agency invests in its architecture  is likely to vary. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to determine (1) what progress federal agencies have  made in effectively developing, implementing, and maintaining their  enterprise architectures and (2) the actions of the Office of Management  and Budget (OMB) to advance the state of enterprise architecture  development and use across the federal government. If model or framework is being used, are you . Does your agency/department permit waivers to its requirement that IT investments comply with the enterprise   architecture? How satisfied is your agency/department with OMB’s efforts to address the following enterprise architecture  management challenges GAO reported in its February 2002 report (GAO-02-6)?
Why GAO Did This Study

A well-defined enterprise architecture (EA) is a blueprint for institutional modernization and evolution that consists of models describing how an entity operates today and how it intends to operate in the future, along with a plan for how it intends to transition to this future state. Such architectures are essential tools whose effective development and use are recognized hallmarks of successful organizations. Because of the importance of these architectures, GAO was asked to determine (1) what progress federal agencies have made in effectively developing, implementing, and maintaining their EAs and (2) the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) actions to advance the state of EA development and use across the federal government.

What GAO Found

Federal agencies' progress toward effective EA management is limited. GAO surveyed federal agencies on their EA programs and compared the results with those of a similar survey that GAO conducted in 2001 (GAO-02-6). To assign a maturity level to agencies, GAO used its EA management maturity framework, which is a five-stage model that defines criteria that govern where an EA program stands in its progression toward being effectively managed (with Stage 1 being ineffective and Stage 5 being highly effective). Comparing the 2001 and 2003 survey results revealed a very similar overall picture, in which slight increases in agencies achieving Stage 3 status were offset by slight increases in agencies being at Stage 1. In addition, when GAO assessed the 2003 survey results against a recent update of the framework (GAO-03-584G), agencies' average maturity was slightly lower. An exception to this is the Executive Office of the President, which is a Stage 5 agency under the latest version of the framework. Part of the reason for this limited progress across the federal government is that agencies continue to face long-standing EA challenges, such as limited executive understanding of EA and a scarcity of skilled architecture staff. Since 2001, more agencies now report these as significant challenges. OMB has undertaken a variety of actions to advance the state of EA use across the federal government, such as collecting and analyzing architectures for major departments and agencies and requiring that major information technology (IT) investments comply with them. Additionally, OMB has developed parts of a governmentwide EA, and by requiring a mapping of agency architectures to this federal EA as part of the budget review process, it has called attention to the need for agencies to further their own architecture efforts. However, despite OMB's actions, the agencies' responses indicate that only about one-half are satisfied with OMB's leadership in addressing long-standing EA challenges. Until these challenges are effectively addressed, agencies' maturity levels as a whole are likely to remain stagnant, limiting their ability to effectively invest in IT.