Information Technology: OMB Leadership Critical to Making Needed 
Enterprise Architecture and E-government Progress (21-MAR-02,	 
GAO-02-389T).							 
								 
Enterprise architectures are high-level blueprints for		 
transforming how a given entity, whether it be a federal agency  
or a federal function that cuts across agencies, operates.	 
E-government refers to a mode of operations to enhance access to 
and delivery of government information and service to citizens,  
business partners, employees, other agencies, and other levels of
government. Enterprise architectures provide a vital means to a  
desired end--successful deliver of e-government applications,	 
which in turn promise improved government performance and	 
accountability. Under the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
leadership, the president's fiscal year 2003 budget proposes 24  
e-government initiatives, most involving multiple agencies. These
initiatives have laudable goals, including elimination of	 
redundant, nonintegrated business operations and systems that	 
could produce several billions of dollars in savings from	 
improved operational efficiency and improved service to citizens,
private-sector businesses, and state and local governments. The  
success of these initiatives hinges in large part on whether they
are pursued within the context of enterprise architectures.	 
Approved architectures for most of these initiatives do not	 
currently exist. OMB has been a proponent of enterprise 	 
architectures, and has recently devoted increased attention to	 
them; in moving forward, however, it can and should play a larger
role. The maturity framework and benchmark data about 116	 
departments, component agencies, and independent agencies GAO	 
reviews in this testimony provide important baseline information 
against which targeted improvement across the government can be  
defined and measured.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-389T					        
    ACCNO:   A02928						        
  TITLE:     Information Technology: OMB Leadership Critical to Making
Needed Enterprise Architecture and E-government Progress	 
     DATE:   03/21/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Electronic government				 
	     Information resources management			 
	     Information technology				 
	     Strategic planning 				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-389T
     
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

OMB Leadership Critical to Making Needed Enterprise Architecture and E-
government Progress Statement of Randolph C. Hite Director, Information
Technology Architecture and Systems Issues and David L. McClure Director,
Information Technology Management Issues

United States General Accounting Office GAO Testimony Before the
Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy, Committee on Government
Reform, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery Expected at 2 p. m. EST Thursday, March 21, 2002
GAO- 02- 389T

GAO- 02- 389T Page 1

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be here
today to discuss the status and relationship of two critically important
components of the federal government?s efforts to improve performance and
accountability through information technology (IT)- enterprise architectures
and electronic (e-) government.

Enterprise architectures are high- level blueprints for transforming how a
given entity, whether it be a federal agency or a federal function that cuts
across agencies, operates. Without enterprise architectures to guide and
constrain IT investments, such as egovernment initiatives, stovepipe
operations and systems can emerge, which in turn can lead to needless
duplication,

incompatibilities, and additional costs. E- government refers to a mode of
operations (using people, process, and technology- particularly Web- based
Internet technology) to enhance access to and delivery of government
information and service to citizens,

business partners, employees, other agencies, and other levels of
government. It has the potential to help build better relationships between
the government and its customer bases by making interaction smoother,
easier, and more efficient. Together, enterprise architectures provide a
vital means to a desired end-

successful delivery of e- government applications, which in turn promise
improved government performance and accountability. This hearing on
enterprise architectures and e- government is timely for two reasons. First,
the president has made expanding egovernment

integral to his recent five- part management agenda for making the federal
government more focused on citizens and results. Under the Office of
Management and Budget?s (OMB) leadership, the president?s fiscal year 2003
budget proposes 24 egovernment initiatives, most involving multiple
agencies. These initiatives have laudable goals, including elimination of
redundant, nonintegrated business operations and systems that, according to
OMB, could produce several billions of dollars in savings from improved
operational efficiency and, perhaps even more important, improved service to
citizens, private- sector businesses, and state and local governments.

At the same time, these initiatives face various challenges, one of which is
the second reason for the timeliness of this hearing. That is, the success
of these initiatives hinges in large part on whether

GAO- 02- 389T Page 2

they are pursued within the context of enterprise architectures. Currently,
approved architectures for most of these initiatives do not yet exist.
Overcoming this obstacle would be a formidable undertaking even if federal
agencies were now successfully using enterprise architectures to manage
their respective operational and technological environments. Unfortunately,
this is not the case, as our recent report for this subcommittee and others
shows. 1 Our testimony today will address our framework for advancing and
measuring enterprise

architecture management maturity, a snapshot of the state of enterprise
architecture management maturity across the federal government,

the role of enterprise architectures in the successful implementation of e-
government initiatives, and

the need for strong OMB leadership in helping the maturity of enterprise
architecture management for both individual agencies and federal e-
government initiatives.

Hierarchical in nature, our initial version of a management framework for
enterprise architecture management maturity 2 defines five distinct stages.
Associated with each are practices that

constitute the core elements of effectively managing any endeavor- namely,
practices that (1) demonstrate an enterprise architecture commitment, (2)
provide the capability to meet this commitment, (3) demonstrate satisfaction
of the commitment, and (4) verify satisfaction of the commitment. 1 U. S.
General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Enterprise Architecture
Use across the Federal Government Can Be Improved, GAO- 02- 6 (Washington,
D. C.: Feb. 19, 2002). This report was addressed to the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs and the full House Committee on Government Reform, as
well as this subcommittee. 2 Our framework is based on the core elements
found in A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture (version 1.0),
published by the federal Chief Information Officers Council in February
2001, and developed in collaboration with us and others.

GAO- 02- 389T Page 3

Employing this framework, we analyzed 116 agencies? selfreported
architecture management information, and produced a snapshot in time of the
federal government?s state of affairs. This snapshot shows that architecture
use in the federal government is largely a work in progress, with much left
to be accomplished. Nevertheless, there are reasons for optimism, and our
recent work

at selected agencies shows at least pockets of progress. One factor
accounting for the overall immature state of affairs has been that agency
leaders have not traditionally understood the purpose and value of
enterprise architectures, thus not giving them the priority

attention they deserve and require. E- government applications have already
been introduced in federal agencies. As these applications evolve and become
more sophisticated, resulting in fundamental business process

transformation in federal agencies, and as they extend beyond a single
federal agency, their success will become more dependent on whether they are
defined and introduced within the context of enterprise architectures. OMB
has been a proponent of enterprise architectures, and has

recently devoted increased attention to them; in moving forward, however, it
can and should play a larger role. We believe that the tools presented in
our report- the maturity framework itself and benchmark data about 116
departments, component agencies, and

independent agencies- provide important baseline information against which
targeted improvement across the government can be defined and measured.
Accordingly, we have made recommendation to OMB for adopting and employing
them. OMB has agreed to consider our recommendations. We believe that it
should move quickly in implementing them, not only because of their
importance to attaining more architecture- centric decisionmaking within
individual agencies, but also because they will contribute to OMB?s ability
to effectively establish the architectural context needed to successfully
pursue the president?s e- government initiatives.

GAO- 02- 389T Page 4

Enterprise architecture development, implementation, and maintenance is a
basic tenet of effective IT management. Used in concert with other IT
management controls, they can greatly increase the chances for optimal
mission performance. We have

found that attempting to modernize operations and systems without an
architecture leads to operational and systems duplication, lack of
integration, and unnecessary expense. Our best practices research of
successful public and private- sector organizations has similarly identified
enterprise architectures as

essential to effective business and technology transformation. 3 Expanded
use of e- government, which involves people, processes, and technology, is
one avenue that the federal government is pursuing to transform how it does
business internally and externally with citizens, private- sector
businesses, and state and local governments. In fact, the president made e-
government expansion one of the five key elements in his management and
performance plan for making government citizen- centered, results- oriented,
and market- based.

In simplest terms, an enterprise is any purposeful activity, and an
architecture is the structure (or structural description) of anything; thus
simply making an enterprise architecture a way to describe the structural
composition of such activities as a federal agency or a government function
that transcends more than one agency (e. g., grants management). Building on
this, enterprise architectures consist of models, diagrams, tables, and
narrative, which together translate the complexities of a given entity into
simplified yet meaningful representations of how the entity operates (and
intends to operate). Such operations are described in logical terms (e. g.,
business processes, rules, information needs and flows, users, locations)
and technical terms (e. g., hardware, software, data, communications, and
security standards and

3 U. S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Improving Mission
Performance through Strategic Information Management and Technology, GAO/
AIMD- 94- 115 (Washington, D. C.: May 1994). Background What is an
Enterprise

Architecture?

GAO- 02- 389T Page 5

protocols). These windows into the entity?s operations are provided for the
current, or ?as is,? environment, as well as for the target, or ?to be,?
environment. A third element is a transition plan that charts the journey
between the two.

The concept of enterprise architectures in the federal government can be
traced back to the late 1980s, when the National Institute of Standards and
Technology issued architectural guidance. 4 Shortly thereafter, our research
of public and private- sector organizations identified these architectures
as instrumental to organizational success in effectively leveraging IT in
meeting mission goals. 5 We subsequently issued architecture guidance, 6 as
did other federal entities.

The Clinger- Cohen Act of 1996, 7 which directs the chief information
officers (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 IT, served as
an important catalyst in promoting greater awareness and use of
architectures in the federal government. In response to the act,

OMB, in collaboration with us, issued architecture development and
implementation guidance. 8 OMB recently issued more stringent guidance
directing that agency investments in IT be based on agency architectures. 9
Similarly, the CIO Council recently collaborated with us in issuing two
additional guidance documents describing, respectively, assessment of
whether

4 National Institute of Standards and Technology, Information Management
Directions: The Integration Challenge, Special Publication 500- 167
(Gaithersburg, Md.: September 1989). 5 U. S. General Accounting Office,
Meeting the Government?s Technology Challenge: Results of a GAO Symposium,
GAO/ IMTEC- 90- 23 (Washington, D. C.: February 1990). 6 U. S. General
Accounting Office, Strategic Information Planning: Framework for Designing
and Developing System Architectures, GAO/ IMTEC- 92- 51 (Washington, D. C.:
June 1992). 7 Clinger- Cohen Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 106, section 5125,
110 Stat. 684. 8 Office of Management and Budget, Information Technology
Architectures, Memorandum M- 97- 16 (Washington, D. C.: June 18, 1997),
rescinded with the update of OMB Circular No. A- 130, Nov. 30, 2000. 9
Office of Management and Budget, Management of Federal Information
Resources, Circular No. A- 130 (Washington, D. C.: Nov. 30, 2000). Federal
Enterprise Architecture Activities and Our Past Findings: A Brief

History

GAO- 02- 389T Page 6

agency- proposed IT investments are compliant with its enterprise
architecture; 10 and an end- to- end set of steps for managing the
development, implementation, and maintenance of enterprise architectures. 11
We have been reviewing federal agencies? use of architectures

since 1994, focusing initially on those agencies that were pursuing major
systems modernization programs that were high- risk. These included the
National Weather Service modernization, 12 the Federal Aviation
Administration air traffic control modernization, 13 and the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) tax systems

modernization. 14 We reported that these agencies? did not have complete
architectures, and we made detailed recommendations to assist the agencies
in developing, maintaining, and implementing them.

Since then, we have tracked the progress of these agencies and reviewed
architecture management at other agencies, including the Department of
Education, 15 the U. S. Customs Service, 16 and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. 17 We have also reviewed

10 Chief Information Officers Council, Architecture Alignment and Assessment
Guide (Washington, D. C.: October 2000). 11 A Practical Guide to Federal
Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0. 12 U. S. General Accounting Office,
Weather Forecasting: Systems Architecture Needed for National Weather
Service Modernization, GAO/ AIMD- 94- 28 (Washington, D. C.: March 11,
1994). 13 U. S. General Accounting Office, Air Traffic Control: Complete and
Enforced Architecture Needed for FAA Systems Modernization, GAO/ AIMD- 97-
30 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 3, 1997). 14 U. S. General Accounting Office,
Tax Systems Modernization: Blueprint Is a Good Start but Not Yet
Sufficiently Complete to Build or Acquire Systems, GAO/ AIMD/ GGD- 98- 54
(Washington, D. C.: Feb. 24, 1998). 15 U. S. General Accounting Office,
Student Financial Aid Information: Systems Architecture Needed to Improve
Programs? Efficiency, GAO/ AIMD- 97- 122 (Washington, D. C.: July 29, 1997).
16 U. S. General Accounting Office, Customs Service Modernization:
Architecture Must Be Complete and Enforced to Effectively Build and Maintain
Systems, GAO/ AIMD- 98- 70 (Washington, D. C.: May 5, 1998). 17 U. S.
General Accounting Office, Information Technology: INS Needs to Better
Manage the Development of Its Enterprise Architecture, GAO/ AIMD- 00- 212
(Washington, D. C.: Aug. 1, 2000).

GAO- 02- 389T Page 7

the use of architectures for certain agency functional areas, such as
Department of Defense financial management 18 and combat identification
systems. 19 These reviews have continued to identify

the absence of complete and enforced architectures as a fundamental IT
management weakness, leading to agency business operations, systems, and
data that are incompatible, and forcing agencies either not to share data or
to depend on expensive, custom- developed interface systems to do so. In
response to our recommendations, some agencies have made progress. But this
progress has taken a long time, and other agencies have yet to make similar
strides. As we testified in July 2001, 20 advances in the use of IT and the

Internet are continuing to change the way all levels of government
communicate, use and disseminate information, deliver services, and conduct
business. These advances offer great potential in helping build better
relationships between government and the

public by facilitating timely and efficient interaction. Accordingly,
governments are increasingly turning to the Internet to conduct paperless
acquisitions, provide interactive electronic services to the public, and
tailor or personalize information. States and

localities have been in the forefront of using electronic government, at
least in terms of having Web sites: a survey in the fall of 2000 found that
about 83 percent of local governments had such sites, but that few were
providing interactive, on- line service delivery (although they planned to
do so in the future). 21 And the public is certainly on board: in a November
2001 poll, over 75

18 U. S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Architecture
Needed to Guide Modernization of DOD?s Financial Operations, GAO- 01- 525
(Washington, D. C.: May 17, 2001). 19 U. S. General Accounting Office,
Combat Identification Systems: Strengthened Management Efforts Needed to
Ensure Required Capabilities, GAO- 01- 632 (Washington, D. C.: June 25,
2001). 20 U. S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Challenges
Must Be Addressed With Effective Leadership and Management, GAO- 01- 959T
(Washington, D. C.: July 11, 2001). 21 Survey conducted by the International
City/ County Management Association and Public Technology, Inc. Brief
Overview of Egovernment Efforts

GAO- 02- 389T Page 8

percent of all Americans reported having used a government Web site, and 90
percent favored increased government investment in information- sharing
initiatives aimed at apprehending and prosecuting criminals and terrorists.
22 Federal agencies have already implemented an array of egovernment

applications, including using the Internet to collect and disseminate
information and forms, buy and pay for goods and services, submit bids and
proposals, and apply for licenses, grants, and benefits. In fact, a study of
22 countries? e- government efforts showed that the U. S. federal government
had developed an

extensive on- line presence. However, this study also judged the U. S.
federal government as below average with respect to egovernment delivery
mechanisms, such as single point of entry and customer- relations
management. 23 The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) 24 promotes

e- government expansion by requiring that by October 21, 2003, federal
agencies provide the public, when practicable, the option of submitting,
maintaining, and disclosing required information electronically. The act
makes OMB responsible for ensuring that agencies meet this implementation
deadline. OMB, in turn, required each agency, by October 2000, to develop
and submit an implementation plan and schedule. In testimony last year on
GPEA implementation, the director of OMB stated that ?agency progress in
going electronic is mixed.? 25 Our own reviews of

agency GPEA implementation plans found many omissions and 22 Hart- Teeter
poll reported in The Council for Excellence in Government : E- Government:
To Connect, Protect, and Serve Us (February 2002). The nationally
representative survey polled 961 American adults, including an ?oversample?
of 155 Internet users; it has a 3.5 percent margin of error. 23 Accenture,
eGovernment Leadership: Rhetoric vs. Reality- Closing the Gap (April 2001).
24 Public Law 105- 277, Div. C, title XVII, October 1998. 25 House Committee
on Government Reform. Statement of Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., director, OMB,
107 th Cong., 21 June 2001.

GAO- 02- 389T Page 9

inconsistencies, which indicates that many agencies may be at risk of not
meeting GPEA objectives. 26 We later testified, in 2001, that federal
agencies had implemented or were in the process of implementing a wide
spectrum of egovernment

initiatives. This variety is illustrated by figure 1, which depicts the
types of federal e- government initiatives reported by 37 departments and
agencies. The category with the greatest number of initiatives is
?information dissemination?- reported by the General Services Administration
(GSA) and the federal CIO

Council to be the least technically complex; it involves implementing
applications on the Internet that make electronic information readily
accessible. In the next category-? forms?- agencies provide downloadable
electronic forms. The

?transaction? category is a more complex implementation of egovernment and
includes initiatives such as submitting patent applications via the
Internet. Finally, in the last category-

?transformation?- the e- government initiative is expected to transform the
way the government operates. For example, the Navy?s Virtual Naval Hospital
initiative is to provide a digital science library, and is designed to
deliver expert medical information to providers and patients at the point of
care. 26 U. S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Better
Information Needed on Agencies? Implementation of the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act, GAO- 01- 1100 (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 28, 2001) and U. S.
General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Selected Agency Plans for
Implementing the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, GAO- 01- 861T
(Washington, D. C.: June 21, 2001).

GAO- 02- 389T Page 10 Figure 1: Numbers of Federal e- government
Initiatives, by Type, as of January 2001. a

a Transactions are defined as end- to- end completed electronically.
Transformation is defined as government?s taking a global focus, government
involvement being minimal, and citizens not needing to know the government
entity to obtain services. Source: General Services Administration in
cooperation with the Federal CIO Council, An Inventory of Federal e-
Government Initiatives (Washington, D. C.: January 2001). Figure 2 depicts
the constituencies targeted by the e- government initiatives; the greatest
number are aimed directly at the American

citizen.

88 460

56 809

0 100

200 300

400 500

600 700

800 900

Information dissemination

Forms only Transactions Transformation

GAO- 02- 389T Page 11 Figure 2: Numbers of Federal e- government
Initiatives, by Constituent Category, as of January 2001.

Source: GSA in cooperation with the Federal CIO Council, An Inventory of
Federal e- Government Initiatives (Washington, D. C.: January 2001). We also
testified at this time that e- government implementation faced many
challenges. These challenges included, among other things, the need for
architectures to guide and constrain egovernment investments. 27
Subsequently, the OMB director created an e- government task

force to identify priority actions aimed at improving service to
individuals, service to businesses, intergovernmental affairs
(statefederal), and federal agency- to- agency efficiency and

27 The challenges we identified were (1) sustaining committed executive
leadership, (2) building an e- government business case, which includes
development of an enterprise architecture, (3) maintaining a citizen focus,
(4) protecting personal privacy, (5) implementing appropriate security
controls, (6) maintaining electronic records, (7) maintaining a robust
technical infrastructure, (8) IT workforce management, and (9) ensuring
uniform service to the public. See GAO- 01- 959T. 570

315 348 356

0 100

200 300

400 500

600 Government to

citizen Government to

employee Government to

government Government to

business

GAO- 02- 389T Page 12

effectiveness. The task force produced 24 initiatives, which were approved
by the president?s management council in October 2001. 28 Criteria for
settling on the 24 were expected value to citizens, potential for
improvements in agency operational efficiency and savings, and likelihood of
deploying within 18- 24 months. According to the task force report, these
initiatives could generate several billions of dollars in savings by
reducing operating inefficiencies, redundant spending, and excessive
paperwork. Further, the report states that the initiatives will provide
service to citizens in minutes or hours, compared with today?s standard of
days or weeks, and will make available over $1 billion in savings from
aligning redundant IT investments. Table 1

provides examples of these initiatives. 28 Twenty- three initiatives were
approved last October, with a 24 th , e- Payroll/ HR, being added later. An
additional 25 th initiative, called Federal Architecture, is included in
OMB?s February 2002 E- Government Strategy. It plans to map government
processes by line of business.

GAO- 02- 389T Page 13 Table 1: Sample e- government Initiatives. Name
Function Category

Proposed agency managing

partner

EZ Tax Filing Make it easier for citizens to file taxes in Web- enabled
environment

Government to citizen

Internal Revenue Service

One- Stop Business Compliance Information Provide information on laws and
regulations; offer ?wizards?

and tutorials enabling citizens to determine if rules apply to them; permits
can be completed, submitted, approved on- line, to extent possible

Government to business Small Business Administration

Disaster Assistance and Crisis Response Serve as a single application point
for all disaster assistance

programs Government to

government Federal Emergency

Management Agency

Enterprise Human Resources Integrations Eliminate need for paper employee
records, enable strategic decisions regarding human capital and financial
resources; allow electronic transfer of data, better protect employee rights
and benefits, and improve governmentwide reporting

and data analysis; enable faster security clearances Internal efficiency and
effectiveness Office of Personnel

Management Source: E- Government Strategy: Simplified Delivery of Services
to Citizens. The 24 initiatives form the core of OMB?s strategy for

accomplishing the president? e- government expansion agenda-- one of the
five key elements in the president?s management agenda and performance plan
issued in August 2001.

GAO- 02- 389T Page 14

As part of our recent report on the state of enterprise architecture
management in the federal government, 29 we developed an initial version of
a framework for defining and measuring architecture management progress.
This framework defines five stages of maturity, beginning at the bottom with
stage 1, Creating EA Awareness, and rising ultimately to stage 5, Leveraging
EA for Managing Change. Figure 3 provides a simplified depiction of the

framework.

Figure 3: A Simplified Depiction of our Enterprise Architecture Maturity
Framework.

Source: GAO. 29 GAO- 02- 6. A Five Stage Framework for Enterprise

Architecture Maturity

GAO- 02- 389T Page 15

The stages build, from 1 to 5, such that each stage includes all of the
elements of the prior stage. Each stage in briefly summarized below. A more
detailed description is in our report. 30 Stage 1, Creating Architecture
Awareness, signifies either no

architecture plans, or plans that do not yet demonstrate awareness of the
architecture?s value. While some core elements may have been initiated, such
actions are ad hoc and unstructured, and do

not provide the needed foundation for successful development.

Stage 2, Building Architecture Management Foundation,

focuses on assigning roles and responsibilities and establishing plans for
developing architecture products; this would include a chief architect and a
staffed program office. Also required is a steering committee- with
representatives of both business and IT- to oversee development. An
architecture framework and automated tool should also have been selected.

Stage 3, Developing Architecture Products, addresses the creation of
properly scoped components of the architecture. While products are not yet
complete, plans provide for an architecture

that characterizes the agency in business, data, applications, and
technology terms. They also describe the current condition, target state,
and sequencing plan for making the transition.

Stage 4, Completing Architecture Products, is just that; CIOapproved,
properly scoped products exist for use in selecting and controlling IT
investments. Further, agency policy requires that IT investments comply with
the architecture.

Stage 5, Leveraging the Architecture for Managing Change,

entails evolving the architecture products according to an approved policy
for architecture maintenance. The architecture is approved by the steering
committee, investment review board, or agency head. Finally, it is being
used for IT investment

decisionmaking, and metrics about the architecture?s use and value are being
captured. 30 GAO- 02- 6.

GAO- 02- 389T Page 16

As our report details, the state of EA maturity governmentwide is not good.
31 About half of the 116 agencies surveyed had reached at least stage 2,
having a management foundation in place. This means that half had not,
remaining in stage 1. At the other end of

the spectrum, only 5 of the 116 agencies 32 reported that they were
satisfying the core elements needed to be considered effective architecture
managers, meaning that they have approved architectures that are being used
to some extent in selecting and controlling IT investments (stage 4 or 5).
Figure 4 depicts the number of agencies at each stage.

Figure 4: Number of Agencies at Each Stage of Enterprise Architecture
Maturity, and Stage Definitions.

0 10

20 30

40 50

60 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

56 42

13 4

1 Number of agencies

Maturity stage

MATURITY FRAMEWORK STAGES 5 Leveraging EA for managing change

4 Completing architecture products

3 Developing architecture products

2 Building EA management foundation

1 Creating EA awareness Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses.

Despite this immature state of affairs, embedded in the agency responses to
our survey are signs that near- term progress is possible. For example,
about 75 percent of the agencies have

established an enterprise architecture program office, and about 31 GAO- 02-
6. 32 The Customs Service, Department of the Army, Internal Revenue Service,
Office of Personnel Management, and Patent and Trademark Office. Federal
Enterprise Architecture Maturity

Is Limited, But Positive Signs for Progress Exist

GAO- 02- 389T Page 17

75 percent have likewise selected an architecture framework and automated
tool.

Further, in several cases, agencies have satisfied some elements of a higher
stage (say, stage 3), but are still categorized lower (stage 2) because, in
such an example, not all of the stage 3 tasks have been satisfied. Over 80
percent of the agencies, in fact, reported performing one or more core
elements associated with a higher stage of maturity. Specifically:

Of the 56 agencies in stage 1, 35 are performing core elements that meet at
least one criterion found in stages 2- 5. About half of the 116 agencies
must satisfy only one additional core element to advance to the next stage.
In fact, 8 of the 53

agencies in this category could jump two stages by satisfying just one more
element. One agency- the Defense Contract Audit Agency- could climb three
stages, from stage 2 to stage 5, by satisfying just one additional core
element: placing their

EA products under configuration management. 33 It is also important to
remember that the self- reported agency data that we used are as of a
specific point in time, a snapshot; responses were received by us between
June and October 2001. Anecdotal evidence suggests that if such a picture
were taken today, it would reflect a somewhat better situation. For example:

The Immigration and Naturalization Service has been working to implement our
recommendations for correcting its enterprise architecture management
weaknesses, 34 and it has made some progress since responding to our survey
in July 2001. Judged at stage 1 on the basis of its responses to us at that
time, it now reports that it has satisfied the single element it was missing
in order to be at stage 2-- an automated architecture tool. Further, INS
reports completing the initial version of its current, ?as is? architecture
for data, application,

33 Configuration management is a means for ensuring the integrity and
consistency of program and project products throughout their life cycles. 34
GAO/ AIMD- 00- 212.

GAO- 02- 389T Page 18

and technology. It is currently focusing on developing its target (? to be?)
architecture, and plans to complete this work- along with a transition plan-
by October 1, 2002.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, judged as being at stage
2 level of maturity because it reported not satisfying one stage 3 core
element- having the architecture products that it was developing under
configuration control- has since addressed this weakness. Accordingly, it
would now be considered stage 3.

Judged as a stage 1 agency based on the information it reported, the
Department of Veterans Affairs has made progress in two important areas
necessary to building the foundation for effective EA management.
Specifically, it now

has an acting chief architect and is recruiting a permanent one, and is in
the process of establishing an EA program management office.

Additionally, it is important to recognize that enterprise architectures are
living documents; to be effective change management tools, they must be
continuously maintained, meaning new versions will be created to reflect
shifts in business priorities and strategies and emerging technologies. Such
revision

and update also signal agency architecture maturity progression. IRS is a
case in point. Judged a stage 4 agency on the basis of information it
submitted last July and remaining so today, IRS has nonetheless continued to
evolve its architecture, subsequently producing updated versions. On the
basis of IRS officials? briefings to us, the latest version is more robust
and content rich than previous versions, including, for example, an
enterprisewide focus, multiple levels of business decomposition, and a
detailed logical data model.

In the absence of enterprise architectures, agency operations and systems
have been allowed to ?morph? over time in isolation from one another, thus
producing standalone, subagency islands of processes and automation. As we
have repeatedly reported, the

result is suboptimization of the whole (the agency) in favor of the needs of
the parochial parts (agency components). These Enterprise Architecture

Progress: Benefits and Challenges

GAO- 02- 389T Page 19

undesirable consequences of ?architecture- free? past practices point to the
benefits to be realized from having and using enterprise architectures. Our
survey of agency enterprise architecture management efforts

highlighted these benefits. Specifically, about 40- 50 percent of the
agencies responding cited the following benefits from enterprise
architectures: (1) lower system- related costs, (2) enhanced

productivity and improved efficiency, and (3) improved organization and
change management. Further, about 25 percent cited improved systems
interoperability as an additional benefit. Given these impressive benefits,
why has progress across the

federal government been so meager? When asked about challenges and potential
barriers to developing and using enterprise architectures, the four areas
most often cited by agencies that responded to our inquiry were lack of
funding, limited management understanding, parochialism, and shortage of
skilled staff. Ironically, these are some of the very challenges

facing OMB in implementing its e- government initiatives. (See figure 5.)

Figure 5: Federal Agencies? Frequently Identified EA Management Challenges.

50 39 39

32 0 5

10 15

20 25

30 35

40 45

50 Funding Management

understanding Parochialism Skilled staff Percentage of agencies

g g

Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses.

GAO- 02- 389T Page 20

As we testified last year, 35 opportunities abound for expanded use of e-
government to provide faster, more convenient, and more efficient on- line
information access and services to citizens. However, many challenges exist,
and past mistakes serve to remind us that IT solutions carry with them risks
as well as benefits. If not managed properly, these risks can become
problems that rob the nation of promised IT investment value. The key to
success is to proceed in a way that employs proven IT management best
practices. Metaphorically, these practices are the horse that pulls the cart
that contains the e- government initiatives. In the past, federal agencies
have largely allowed the cart to get ahead of the horse. For OMB?s e-
government initiatives to succeed, this pitfall must be avoided.

One proven best practice is developing, maintaining, and using enterprise
architectures to guide and constrain IT investments. When well developed,
maintained, and used, they bring clarity and understanding to the
interrelationships and interdependencies among business operations and the
underlying IT infrastructure and applications that support the operations.
Used in concert with other IT management best practices, they can greatly
increase the

chances for optimizing overall mission performance. As noted, attempting to
modernize operations and systems without architectures leads to operational
and systems duplication, lack of integration, and unnecessary expense. OMB?s
recently released e- government strategy 36 includes an egovernment federal
architecture project, a goal of which was to develop, by March 15, 2002,
certain enterprise architecture products for each of the 24 e- government
initiatives. 37 Another goal is to collect and analyze available agency
architecture information with an eye toward identifying new e- government
initiatives. A final goal is to develop federal (i. e., governmentwide) 35
GAO- 01- 959T. 36 E- Government Strategy: Simplified Delivery of Services to
Citizens. 37 See the attachment to this statement for information on all of
the initiatives. E- government Success Depends on Effective Use of

Enterprise Architectures

GAO- 02- 389T Page 21

architecture products in four focus areas: homeland security, economic
stimulus, social services, and ?back office? operations. These latter two
goals are to be accomplished by April 30, 2002. 38 The need for progress in
the federal government?s use of enterprise architectures is undeniable, and
OMB?s central role in

holding agencies accountable and helping them to progress in this area is
equally obvious. At stake is not only the ability of federal agencies to
effectively transform their respective operations and supporting systems
environments, and thus elevate their performance, but also the ability of
agencies to effectively work together in implementing integrated e-
government solutions, thereby advancing governmentwide mission effectiveness
and efficiency.

To its credit, OMB has taken important steps in the last year to promote and
oversee agency development and use of enterprise architectures. We support
these efforts. Nevertheless, OMB?s approach has been to focus only on the 24
major departments and agencies, and to rely on the unverified, nonstandard
status reporting of each. Restated, OMB is not using a structured,
systematic approach to define and measure architecture progress and identify
associated governmentwide challenges and solutions. Also to OMB?s credit, it
has committed to developing enterprise

architectures for its e- government initiatives, and has set challenging
goals for doing so. Aside from the ambitious time frames it has established
and the sheer breadth and magnitude of these architecture efforts, a
challenge facing OMB is overcoming

the less- than- stellar state of the government?s enterprise architecture
affairs, as our testimony and recent report show, particularly for those
agencies that have lead responsibility for the initiatives. For example, as
table 2 indicates, 2 of the 13 lead agencies for the 24 e- government
initiatives are at an enterprise architecture stage of 1, 8 are at stage 2,
1 is at stage 3, and only 2 are at stage 4. None have reached stage 5.

38 We have not conducted work to determine OMB?s progress in meeting these
goals. OMB: The Lead Actor in Achieving Enterprise

Architecture and Egovernment Progress

GAO- 02- 389T Page 22 Table 2: Enterprise Architecture Stages of the
Agencies

Having ?Managing Partner? Status in the 24 OMB egovernment Initiatives.

Department/ Agency EA stage Initiative( s)

Department of Commerce 3 International Trade Process Streamlining

Department of Education 2 Online Access for Loans

Federal Emergency Management Agency 2 Disaster Assistance and Crisis
Response

e- Authentication e- Travel Federal Asset Sales Integrated Acquisition
Environment

GSA 2

USA Services Consolidated Health Informatics Department of Health and Human
Services 1

e- Grants Geospatial Information One- Stop Department of the Interior

2

Recreation One- Stop Expanding Electronic Tax Products for Business IRS 4

EZ Tax Filing

Department of Labor 2 Eligibility Assistance Online

National Archives and Records Administration

a Electronic Records Management Enterprise HR Integrations e- Payroll/ HR e-
Training

Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

4

Recruitment One- Stop

Small Business Administration 2 One- Stop Business Compliance Information

Social Security Administration 2 e- Vital

Department of Transportation

2 Online Rulemaking Management

Department of the Treasury

1 Wireless Public SAFEty Interoperable COMmunications/ Project SAFECOM a The
National Archives and Records Administration was not included in our survey
due to the size of its budget. Source: E- Government Strategy: Simplified
Delivery of Services to Citizens.

GAO- 02- 389T Page 23

Strong OMB leadership is especially pivotal to ensuring that both agency-
specific investments in IT and governmentwide investments in e- government
are made within the context of enterprise architectures. To do less
jeopardizes realizing the full potential and benefits of these investments.
OMB has thus far demonstrated leadership on both fronts, but the importance
of these investments requires it to go farther. Accordingly, we have made
recommendations to the director of OMB aimed at strengthening its enterprise
architecture leadership

through adoption of the maturity framework we developed, use of the baseline
agency architecture information that we collected as a maturity benchmark,
and periodic maturation reporting, all with the intent of bringing greater
emphasis, and thus meaningful progress, to this important area. While these
recommendations were made in the context of agency- specific architectures
and investments, they have relevance to the OMB- led e- government
architecture project and initiatives as well. OMB has agreed to consider
implementing them. We encourage OMB to move swiftly in accepting and
implementing these recommendations.

* * * * * In conclusion, federal agencies? use of enterprise architectures
is mixed, but overall insufficient to support informed IT investment
decisionmaking. As a result, most agencies are at risk of investing

in IT solutions that will not overcome, but rather will perpetuate,
longstanding incompatibilities and duplication within agency operational and
systems environments. This risk is amplified for investments that involve
multiple agencies, such as OMB?s egovernment initiatives, because they too
require effectively defined and effectively implemented architectures to be
successful, and the reasons that have stymied agency- specific architecture
efforts are an order of magnitude greater when more than one agency is
involved.

Given that effective use of enterprise architectures is a key element to
successfully investing in IT solutions, the burden is on OMB as the federal
government?s IT management leader to ensure that agencies meet their
enterprise architecture obligations and

that progress is made across the federal government. To do less

GAO- 02- 389T Page 24

risks both unwise IT spending and missed opportunities. To assist OMB in
shouldering this burden, we have provided it with important tools for
defining, measuring, and promoting enterprise architecture maturation across
federal agencies.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. We would be pleased to answer
any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have at this
time.

Should you have any questions about this testimony, please contact us by e-
mail at hiter@ gao. gov or mcclured@ gao. gov, or by phone at (202) 512-
3439 or (202) 512- 6257. Other major contributors to this testimony included
Mark T. Bird, John A. de Ferrari, Michael P. Fruitman, and Pamlutricia
Greenleaf. Contact and Acknowledgments

Attachment E- Government Initiatives 25 GAO- 02- 389T Page

The following table provides information on each of the 24 OMBsponsored e-
government initiatives. Name Function Category

Proposed agency managing

partner

Consolidated Health Informatics Provides a simplified, unified system for
sharing and reusing medical record information among agencies and private
providers and insurers.

Government to business Department of

Health and Human Services Disaster Assistance and

Crisis Response Serves as a single application point for all disaster
assistance programs. Government to

government Federal Emergency

Management Agency

e- Authentication Builds and enables mutual trust needed for widespread use
of electronic interactions between the public and government and across
governments; provides a method for satisfactorily establishing identity.

Addressing Barriers to E- Government Success GSA

e- Grants Creates an electronic portal for grant recipients and grant making
agencies that will streamline federal grants management.

Government to government

Department of Health and Human Services Electronic Records

Management Provides tools and guidance agencies need to manage their records
electronically. Internal efficiency and effectiveness National

Archives and Records Administration

Eligibility Assistance Online Provides common Internet portal for
identifying government

benefits programs for which citizens may be eligible; targets high- need
demographic groups.

Government to citizen Department of

Labor

Enterprise HR Integrations Eliminates need for paper employee records,
enables strategic decisions regarding human capital and financial resources;
allows electronic transfer of HR data, better protects employee rights and
benefits, and improves governmentwide reporting and data analysis; enables
faster

security clearances. Internal efficiency and effectiveness

OPM

e- Payroll/ HR Simplifies/ unifies payroll/ human resources elements to
consolidate and integrate these functions across government. Internal
efficiency and effectiveness

OPM

e- Training Provides a repository of government- owned courseware, enabling
economies of scale pricing and fostering development of communities of
practice.

Internal efficiency and effectiveness OPM

e- Travel Provides a common travel management system for agency use.

Internal efficiency and effectiveness GSA

e- Vital Expands existing vital records on- line data exchange activity
between the federal and state governments. Government to government

Social Security Administration

Attachment E- Government Initiatives 26 GAO- 02- 389T Page

Name Function Category Proposed

agency managing partner

Expanding Electronic Tax Products for Business Reduces number of tax forms
that employers must file, and provides timely and accurate information and
more available electronic filing.

Government to Business IRS

EZ Tax Filing Makes it easier for citizens to file taxes in Web- enabled
environment. Government to citizen

IRS

Federal Asset Sales Provides easier locating of asset sales, irrespective of
agency involved, and allows bidding and purchasing electronically.
Government to business

GSA

Geospatial Information One- Stop Provides access to the government?s spatial
data assets in one location, and promotes collaboration with state and local
governments. Government to

government Department of the Interior

Integrated Acquisition Environment

Allows agencies to share information so that procurement and other types of
decisions can be more informed. Internal efficiency and effectiveness

GSA

International Trade Process Streamlining

Creates a single site where exporters can be assisted electronically through
entire export process. Government to business

Department of Commerce One- Stop Business

Compliance Information Provides information on laws and regulations; offers
?wizards? and tutorials enabling citizens to determine if rules apply to
them; permits can be completed, submitted, approved on- line, to extent
possible.

Government to business Small Business Administration

Online Access for Loans Allows citizens and business to find appropriate
loan programs. Government to citizen

Department of Education

Online Rulemaking Management

Provides access to all government rulemaking, anytime, anywhere, by
expanding an existing e- Docket system that permits use by other agency
systems through ?storefronts.? Government to

Business Department of Transportation

Recreation One- Stop Provides a one- stop, searchable database of
recreational areas nationwide; includes on- line campground reservations and
purchase of recreational passes, maps, and other products. Government to

citizen Department of the Interior

Recruitment One- Stop Improves federal hiring process by improving automated
employment information system; provides job- seekers with on- line status
feedback and provides employees with a

searchable resume database. Internal efficiency and effectiveness OPM

USA Services Uses best practices in customer relationships to enable
citizens to quickly obtain service on- line while improving responsiveness
and consistency across government agencies.

Government to citizen

GSA

Attachment E- Government Initiatives 27 GAO- 02- 389T Page

Name Function Category Proposed

agency managing partner

Wireless Public SAFEty Interoperable COMmunications/ Project SAFECOM Helps
public safety agencies at all levels of government achieve interoperability
and eliminate redundant wireless communications infrastructures.

Government to government

Department of the Treasury

And a 25 th initiative, just announced last month called Federal
Architecture, managed by OMB, will develop information and data and
application interface standards to eliminate redundancies and yield improved
operating efficiencies governmentwide.

Source: E- Government Strategy: Simplified Delivery of Services to Citizens.
(310227)
*** End of document. ***