Improving contract management. An Enterprise Architecture Is Critical to an Organization’s Ability to Effectively Modernize Its Business Operations and Systems

Effective use of enterprise architectures, or modernization blueprints, is a  trademark of successful public and private organizations. During the course of our review of IFMP, NASA took  steps to correct this situation by establishing key architecture management  capabilities and undertaking the development of an initial version of an  enterprise architecture that, according to the chief technology officer, will  provide some missing contextual information (operational and technical). However, NASA has not established other key architecture management  capabilities, such as designating an accountable corporate entity to lead  the architecture effort, having an approved policy for developing and  maintaining the architecture, and implementing an independent  verification and validation function to provide needed assurance that  architecture products and architecture management processes are  effective. The chief technology officer agreed that NASA needs an effective  enterprise architecture program and stated that efforts are under way to  establish one. Based on our experience in reviewing other agencies, not  having an effective enterprise architecture program is attributable to,  among other things, limited senior management understanding and  commitment and cultural resistance to having and using an architecture. The architecture artifacts that NASA’s chief technology officer provided to  us and represented as those used to date in acquiring and implementing  IFMP do not contain sufficient context (depth and scope of agencywide  operational and technical requirements) to effectively guide and constrain  agencywide business transformation and systems modernization efforts. Our experience with federal agencies has shown that attempting to define  and build major IT systems without first completing an enterprise  architecture often results in IT systems that are duplicative, are not well  integrated, are unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface, and do not  effectively optimize mission performance. Appoint a chief architect. Develop an architecture program management plan. Conclusions

NASA’s acquisition and implementation of six major IFMP system  components outside the context of an enterprise architecture was not a  prudent decision. Such a systems modernization approach unnecessarily  increases the risk that system components will not effectively and  efficiently support agencywide operations, which in turn leads to costly  system rework. It is critical for NASA to discontinue this approach and  adopt the best practice of managing its IFMP system investments within  the context of a well-defined enterprise architecture. For example, the agency stated that it has  developed a 3-year plan for refining the latest version of its architecture, as  well as a plan to guide the agency in using the architecture to achieve  NASA’s strategic goals. Key contributors to this  report are acknowledged in appendix V.

Objective, Scope and Methodology

To determine whether the National Aeronautics and Space Administration  (NASA) had and was using an enterprise architecture to guide and  constrain its investment in its Integrated Financial Management Program  (IFMP), we requested all NASA enterprise architecture artifacts and related  documentation that had been used to date to guide and constrain IFMP  and, based on what we were provided by NASA’s chief technology officer,  compared them to relevant guidance. The available architecture products recognize the need for an  implementing strategy to streamline financial operations and  identify IFMP as that strategy. As written, the policy requires the CIO to  develop an information technology (IT)  architecture, which is one aspect of an EA.
Why GAO Did This Study

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is in the process of modernizing its financial management operations and supporting information technology systems. This modernization, known as the Integrated Financial Management Program (IFMP), is intended to provide NASA with an agencywide, integrated approach to performing critical business functions, such as contract management--an area that GAO first designated as high risk in 1990 and continues to do so today. GAO was requested to review various aspects of IFMP, and this report is one in a series on the program. The objective of this review was to determine whether NASA has been acquiring and implementing IFMP in the context of an enterprise architecture.

What GAO Found

To date, NASA has acquired and implemented significant components of IFMP without an enterprise architecture to guide and constrain the program. An enterprise architecture is an organizational blueprint that defines--in both business and technology terms--how an organization operates today and how it intends to operate in the future; it also provides a plan for transitioning to this future state. Using an enterprise architecture to guide and constrain systems modernization programs is a federal requirement and a recognized best practice of successful public and private organizations. In addition, GAO's research has shown that attempting major modernization programs such as IFMP without a well-defined enterprise architecture risks, among other things, building systems that are duplicative, are not interoperable, and do not effectively and efficiently support mission operations and performance. During the course of GAO's work, NASA recognized the need for an enterprise architecture and has taken steps to develop one. For example, it has established an architecture program office, designated a chief architect, and selected an architecture framework to use. In addition, after GAO completed its audit work, NASA released an initial version of an enterprise architecture, which the chief technology officer stated was not yet complete and would be improved upon in future versions. However, the agency has yet to establish other key architecture management capabilities, such as designating an accountable corporate entity to lead the architecture effort, having an approved policy for developing and maintaining the architecture, and implementing an independent verification and validation function to provide needed assurance that architecture products and architecture management processes are effective. Moreover, the architecture products used to date to manage NASA's investment in IFMP did not provide sufficient context (depth and scope of agencywide operational and technical requirements) to effectively guide and constrain the program. The chief technology officer agreed that NASA needs an effective enterprise architecture program and stated that efforts are under way to establish one. GAO's experience in reviewing other agencies has shown that not having an effective enterprise architecture program can be attributed to, among other things, an absence of senior management understanding and support, as well as cultural resistance. NASA's current approach to acquiring and implementing IFMP outside the context of an architecture unnecessarily increases the risk that the program's system components will not effectively and efficiently support agencywide operations. The result will be costly system rework. It is critical for NASA to discontinue this approach and adopt the best practice of managing its IFMP system investments within the context of a well-defined enterprise architecture.