Abstract
The purpose of this article is to evaluate the Enterprise Architecture (EA) program for an Anonymous Federal Agency (AFA), a title chosen because actual situations from a federal agency EA program are used in this article, some of which are sensitive in nature. The evaluation methodology used in this article is based of the United States Government Accountability Office’s EA Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF) and its five stages of EA program maturity. In 2005, AFA’s current capability to utilize their EA received the lowest EAMMF rating (Stage 1) overall, with only some EA areas being at Stage 2. The AFA could improve their EA program by (1) avoiding Anne Lapkin’s “seven worst EA practices”; (2) involving stakeholders from throughout the AFA enterprise, not just from information technology; (3) education, involving, and requiring leadership’s participation (business and technical); and (4) remembering that developing EA documentation is an important aspect of the EA program, but may not be the best way to affect cultural change and use of the EA in planning and decision-making. Involving stakeholders is the most important element in using EA to improve agency performance.
Keywords
enterprise architecture, strategic planning, management maturity framework, capital planning and investment control process, auditing, review
About the author
Sue E. Bussells is a federal sector Chief Technology Officer who is currently engaged in guiding critical process reengineering efforts and consulting on strategic planning, IT Capital Planning, Enterprise Architecture, information security, and technology/business integration. Ms. Bussells has held key positions at several federal agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Veteran’s Affairs. She is a graduate of Roosevelt University where she earned a bachelor’s degree in computer science and mathematics. Ms. Bussells also holds a masters degree in information and resources management from Webster University. Her research interests include human interrelationships and communication, systems thinking, and the development of process-centric holistic organizations.
References
Bussells, S. (2005). Orchestrating Electronic Government: “The Games People Play to Survive the Dog Fight.” Unpublished manuscript, National Defense University, WaShington, DC.
Federal Chief Information Officers Council. (2001). “A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture” (Version 1.0). http://www.cio.gov/archive/bpeaguide.pdf.
Government Accountability Office. (2003a). “Information Technology: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management.” GAO-03-584G. Washington, DC.
Government Accountability Office. (2003b). “Leadership Remains Key to Agencies Making Progress on Enterprise Architecture Efforts.” GAO-04-40. Washington, DC.
Government Accountability Office. (2004). “Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity” (Version 1.1). GAO-04-394G. Washington, DC.
Lapkin, A. (2005). “Management Update: The Seven Fatal Mistakes of Enterprise Architecture.” Gartner ID; G00126623. Gartner Group, Inc.
Office of Management and Budget, (2000). “Management of Federal Information Resources.” OMB Circular No. A-130. Washington, DC. November 30, 2000.
Spewak, S. (1992). “Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing a Blueprint for Data, Applications, and Technology;” John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY.
United States Congress (1996). Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, Public Law 104-106, Section 5125, 110 Stat. 684.
Walton, M. (1986). “The Deming Management Method.” The Putnam Publishing Group. New York, NY
Zachman, J. (1987). “A Framework for Information Systems Architecture.” IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 26, No.3.
Journal of Enterprise Architecture