The core elements can be further categorized  by four groups: architecture governance, content, use, and measurement. Stage 4: Completing the EA. Specifically, although only seven have fully satisfied all  the stage 2 elements, the 27 have on average fully satisfied 80, 78, 61, and 52  percent of the stage 2, 3, 4, and 5 elements, respectively. Most of the 27 have also at least  partially satisfied a number of additional core elements across all the  stages. For example, all but 7 have at least partially satisfied all the  elements required to achieve stage 3 or higher. Without mature enterprise architecture programs, some departments and  agencies will not realize the many benefits that they attributed to  architectures, and they are at risk of investing in IT assets that are  duplicative, not well-integrated, and do not optimally support mission  operations. The Degree to which Major Departments and Agencies Have Fully Satisfied Our Framework’s Core Elements Is Uneven and Their Collective Efforts Can Be Viewed as a Work-in- Progress

To qualify for a given stage of maturity under our architecture management  framework, a department or agency had to fully satisfy all of the core  elements at that stage. Notwithstanding the additional perspective that the percentage of core  elements fully satisfied across all stages provides, it is important to note  that the staged core elements in our framework represent a hierarchical or  systematic progression to establishing a well-managed architecture  program, meaning that core elements associated with lower framework  stages generally support the effective execution of higher maturity stage  core elements. The challenge that most  departments and agencies cited as being experienced to the greatest extent  is the one that having and using an architecture is intended to overcome—  organizational parochialism and cultural resistance to adopting an  enterprisewide mode of operation in which organizational parts are sub- optimized in order to optimize the performance and results of the  enterprise as a whole. As we have previously reported, sustained top management leadership is  the key to overcoming each of these challenges. Without such  organizational leadership, the benefits of enterprise architecture will not be  fully realized. Recommendations for Executive Action

To assist the 27 major departments and agencies in addressing enterprise  architecture challenges, managing their architecture programs, and  realizing architecture benefits, we recommend that the Administrators of  the Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration,  National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Small Business  Administration, and U.S. Agency for International Development; the  Attorney General; the Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory  Commission and Social Security Administration; the Directors of the  National Science Foundation and the Office of Personnel Management; and  the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,  Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security,  Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation,  Treasury, and Veterans Affairs ensure that their respective enterprise  architecture programs develop and implement plans for fully satisfying  each of the conditions in our enterprise architecture management maturity  framework. Of these categories,  architecture development activities accounted for the majority of costs— about $594 million (87 percent). This information includes  architecture tools and frameworks. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Our objective was to determine the current status of federal department  and agency enterprise architecture efforts.
Why GAO Did This Study

A well-defined enterprise architecture is an essential tool for leveraging information technology (IT) to transform business and mission operations. GAO's experience has shown that attempting to modernize and evolve IT environments without an architecture to guide and constrain investments results in operations and systems that are duplicative, not well integrated, costly to maintain, and ineffective in supporting mission goals. In light of the importance of enterprise architectures, GAO developed a five stage architecture management maturity framework that defines what needs to be done to effectively manage an architecture program. Under GAO's framework, a fully mature architecture program is one that satisfies all elements of all stages of the framework. As agreed, GAO's objective was to determine the status of major federal department and agency enterprise architecture efforts.

What GAO Found

The state of the enterprise architecture programs at the 27 major federal departments and agencies is mixed, with several having very immature programs, several having more mature programs, and most being somewhere in between. Collectively, the majority of these architecture efforts can be viewed as a work-in-progress with much remaining to be accomplished before the federal government as a whole fully realizes their transformational value. More specifically, seven architecture programs have advanced beyond the initial stage of the GAO framework, meaning that they have fully satisfied all core elements associated with the framework's second stage (establishing the management foundation for developing, using, and maintaining the architecture). Of these seven, three have also fully satisfied all the core elements associated with the third stage (developing the architecture). None have fully satisfied all of the core elements associated with the fourth (completing the architecture) and fifth (leveraging the architecture for organizational change) stages. Nevertheless, most have fully satisfied a number of the core elements across the stages higher than the stage in which they have met all core elements, with all 27 collectively satisfying about 80, 78, 61, and 52 percent of the stage two through five core elements, respectively. Further, most have partially satisfied additional elements across all the stages, and seven need to fully satisfy five or fewer elements to achieve the fifth stage. The key to these departments and agencies building upon their current status, and ultimately realizing the benefits that they cited architectures providing, is sustained executive leadership, as virtually all the challenges that they reported can be addressed by such leadership. Examples of the challenges are organizational parochialism and cultural resistance, adequate resources (human capital and funding), and top management understanding; examples of benefits cited are better information sharing, consolidation, improved productivity, and reduced costs.