This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-389T
entitled 'Information Technology: OMB Leadership Critical to Making
Needed Enterprise Architecture and E-government Progress' which was
released on March 21, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the
printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact
electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback.
Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility
features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
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:
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:
GAO-02-389T:
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 e-
government 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 e-government
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 e-government 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
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.[Footnote 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[Footnote 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.
Employing this framework, we analyzed 116 agencies' self-reported
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.
Background:
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.[Footnote 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.
What is an Enterprise Architecture?
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 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.
Federal Enterprise Architecture Activities and Our Past Findings: A
Brief History:
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 5] We subsequently issued architecture guidance,
[Footnote 6] as did other federal entities.
The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996,[Footnote 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.[Footnote
8] OMB recently issued more stringent guidance directing that agency
investments in IT be based on agency architectures.[Footnote 9]
Similarly, the CIO Council recently collaborated with us in issuing
two additional guidance documents describing, respectively, assessment
of whether agency-proposed IT investments are compliant with its
enterprise architecture;[Footnote 10] and an end-to-end set of steps
for managing the development, implementation, and maintenance of
enterprise architectures.[Footnote 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,[Footnote 12] the Federal
Aviation Administration air traffic control modernization,[Footnote
13] and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax systems modernization.
[Footnote 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,[Footnote 15] the U.S. Customs Service,
[Footnote 16] and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[Footnote
17] We have also reviewed the use of architectures for certain agency
functional areas, such as Department of Defense financial management
[Footnote 18] and combat identification systems.[Footnote 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.
Brief Overview of E-government Efforts:
As we testified in July 2001,[Footnote 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).[Footnote 21] And the public is
certainly on board: in a November 2001 poll, over 75 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.[Footnote 22]
Federal agencies have already implemented an array of e-government
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 e-government delivery mechanisms, such as
single point of entry and customer-relations management.[Footnote 23]
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)[Footnote 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."[Footnote 25] Our own reviews of agency GPEA implementation
plans found many omissions and inconsistencies, which indicates that
many agencies may be at risk of not meeting GPEA objectives.[Footnote
26]
We later testified, in 2001, that federal agencies had implemented or
were in the process of implementing a wide spectrum of e-government
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
e-government 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.
Figure 1: Numbers of Federal e-government Initiatives, by Type, as of
January 2001[A]:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Information dissemination: 809;
Forms only: 88;
Transactions: 460;
Transformation: 56.
[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).
[End of figure]
Figure 2 depicts the constituencies targeted by the e-government
initiatives; the greatest number are aimed directly at the American
citizen.
Figure 2: Numbers of Federal e-government Initiatives, by Constituent
Category, as of January 2001:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Government to citizen: 570;
Government to employee: 356;
Government to government348;
Government to business: 315.
Source: GSA in cooperation with the Federal CIO Council, An Inventory
of Federal e-Government Initiatives (Washington, D.C.: January 2001).
[End of figure]
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 e-government
investments.[Footnote 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 (state-federal), and
federal agency-to-agency efficiency and effectiveness. The task force
produced 24 initiatives, which were approved by the president's
management council in October 2001.[Footnote 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.
Table 1: Sample e-government Initiatives:
Name: EZ Tax Filing;
Function: Make it easier for citizens to file taxes in Web-enabled
environment;
Category: Government to citizen;
Proposed agency managing partner: Internal Revenue Service.
Name: One-Stop Business Compliance Information;
Function: 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;
Category: Government to business;
Proposed agency managing partner: Small Business Administration.
Name: Disaster Assistance and Crisis Response;
Function: Serve as a single application point for all disaster
assistance programs;
Category: Government to government;
Proposed agency managing partner: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Name: Enterprise Human Resources Integrations;
Function: 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;
Category: Internal efficiency and effectiveness;
Proposed agency managing partner: Office of Personnel Management.
Source: E-Government Strategy: Simplified Delivery of Services to
Citizens.
[End of table]
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.
A Five Stage Framework for Enterprise Architecture Maturity:
As part of our recent report on the state of enterprise architecture
management in the federal government,[Footnote 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:
[Refer to PDF for image: pyramid illustration of stages]
Core elements of each stage:
* Demonstrates commitment;
* Provides capability to meet commitment;
* Demonstrates satisfaction of commitment;
* Verifies satisfaction of commitment.
Stage 1: Creating EA awareness;
Stage 2: Building EA management foundation;
Stage 3: Developing architecture products;
Stage 4: Completing architecture products;
Stage 5: Leveraging EA for managing change.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 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; CIO-approved,
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.
Federal Enterprise Architecture Maturity Is Limited, But Positive
Signs for Progress Exist:
As our report details, the state of EA maturity governmentwide is not
good.[Footnote 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[Footnote 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:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Stage 1: Creating EA awareness;
Number of agencies: 56.
Stage 2: Building EA management foundation;
Number of agencies: 42.
Stage 3: Developing architecture products;
Number of agencies: 13.
Stage 4: Completing architecture products;
Number of agencies: 4.
Stage 5: Leveraging EA for managing change;
Number of agencies: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses.
[End of figure]
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 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 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.[Footnote 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,[Footnote 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, 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.
Enterprise Architecture Progress: Benefits and Challenges:
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 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:
Challenge: Funding;
Percentage of agencies: 50%.
Challenge: Management understanding;
Percentage of agencies: 39%.
Challenge: Parochialism;
Percentage of agencies: 39%.
Challenge: Skilled staff;
Percentage of agencies: 32%.
Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses.
[End of figure]
E-government Success Depends on Effective Use of Enterprise
Architectures:
As we testified last year,[Footnote 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[Footnote 36] includes an
e-government 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.[Footnote 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) 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.[Footnote 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.
OMB: The Lead Actor in Achieving Enterprise Architecture and E-
government Progress:
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.
Table 2: Enterprise Architecture Stages of the Agencies Having
"Managing Partner" Status in the 24 OMB e-government Initiatives:
Department/Agency: Department of Commerce;
EA stage: 3;
Initiative(s):
* International Trade Process Streamlining.
Department/Agency: Department of Education;
EA stage: 2;
Initiative(s):
* Online Access for Loans.
Department/Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency;
EA stage: 2;
Initiative(s):
* Disaster Assistance and Crisis Response.
Department/Agency: GSA;
EA stage: 2;
Initiative(s):
* e-Authentication;
* e-Travel;
* Federal Asset Sales;
* Integrated Acquisition Environment;
* USA Services.
Department/Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
EA stage: 1;
Initiative(s):
* Consolidated Health Informatics;
* e-Grants.
Department/Agency: Department of the Interior;
EA stage: 2;
Initiative(s):
* Geospatial Information One-Stop;
* Recreation One-Stop.
Department/Agency: IRS;
EA stage: 4;
Initiative(s):
* Expanding Electronic Tax Products for Business;
* EZ Tax Filing.
Department/Agency: Department of Labor;
EA stage: 2;
Initiative(s):
* Eligibility Assistance Online.
Department/Agency: National Archives and Records Administration;
EA stage: [A];
Initiative(s):
* Electronic Records Management.
Department/Agency: Office of Personnel Management (OPM);
EA stage: 4;
Initiative(s):
* Enterprise HR Integrations;
* e-Payroll/HR;
* e-Training;
* Recruitment One-Stop.
Department/Agency: Small Business Administration;
EA stage: 2;
Initiative(s):
* One-Stop Business Compliance Information.
Department/Agency: Social Security Administration;
EA stage: 2
Initiative(s):
* e-Vital.
Department/Agency: Department of Transportation;
EA stage: 2;
Initiative(s):
* Online Rulemaking Management.
Department/Agency: Department of the Treasury;
EA stage: 1;
Initiative(s):
* 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.
[End of table]
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 e-government
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 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.
Contact and Acknowledgments:
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 (2J2) 512-6257. Other major contributors to this testimony
included Mark T. Bird, John A. de Ferrari, Michael P. Fruitman, and
Pamlutricia Greenleaf.
[End of section]
Attachment: E-Government Initiatives:
The following table provides information on each of the 24 OMB-
sponsored e-government initiatives.
Name: Consolidated Health Informatics;
Function: Provides a simplified, unified system for sharing and
reusing medical record information among agencies and private
providers and insurers;
Category: Government to business;
Proposed agency managing partner: Department of Health and Human
Services.
Name: Disaster Assistance and Crisis Response;
Function: Serves as a single application point for all disaster
assistance programs;
Category: Government to government;
Proposed agency managing partner: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Name: e-Authentication;
Function: 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;
Category: Addressing Barriers to E-Government Success;
Proposed agency managing partner: GSA.
Name: e-Grants;
Function: Creates an electronic portal for grant recipients and
grantmaking agencies that will streamline federal grants management;
Category: Government to government;
Proposed agency managing partner: Department of Health and Human
Services.
Name: Electronic Records Management;
Function: Provides tools and guidance agencies need to manage their
records electronically;
Category: Internal efficiency and effectiveness;
Proposed agency managing partner: National Archives and Records
Administration.
Name: Eligibility Assistance Online;
Function: Provides common Internet portal for identifying government
benefits programs for which citizens may be eligible; targets high-
need demographic groups;
Category: Government to citizen;
Proposed agency managing partner: Department of Labor.
Name: Enterprise HR Integrations;
Function: 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;
Category: Internal efficiency and effectiveness;
Proposed agency managing partner: OPM.
Name: e-Payroll/HR;
Function: Simplifies/unifies payroll/human resources elements to
consolidate and integrate these functions across government;
Category: Internal efficiency and effectiveness;
Proposed agency managing partner: OPM.
Name: e-Training;
Function: Provides a repository of government-owned courseware,
enabling economies of scale pricing and fostering development of
communities of practice;
Category: Internal efficiency and effectiveness;
Proposed agency managing partner: OPM.
Name: e-Travel;
Function: Provides a common travel management system for agency use;
Category: Internal efficiency and effectiveness;
Proposed agency managing partner: GSA.
Name: e-Vital;
Function: Expands existing vital records on-line data exchange
activity between the federal and state governments;
Category: Government to government;
Proposed agency managing partner: Social Security Administration.
Name: Expanding Electronic Tax Products for Business;
Function: Reduces number of tax forms that employers must file, and
provides timely and accurate information and more available electronic
filing;
Category: Government to Business;
Proposed agency managing partner: IRS.
Name: EZ Tax Filing;
Function: Makes it easier for citizens to file taxes in Web-enabled
environment;
Category: Government to citizen;
Proposed agency managing partner: IRS.
Name: Federal Asset Sales;
Function: Provides easier locating of asset sales, irrespective of
agency involved, and allows bidding and purchasing electronically;
Category: Government to business;
Proposed agency managing partner: GSA.
Name: Geospatial Information One-Stop;
Function: Provides access to the government’s spatial data assets in
one location, and promotes collaboration with state and local
governments;
Category: Government to government;
Proposed agency managing partner: Department of the Interior.
Name: Integrated Acquisition Environment;
Function: Allows agencies to share information so that procurement and
other types of decisions can be more informed;
Category: Internal efficiency and effectiveness;
Proposed agency managing partner: GSA.
Name: International Trade Process Streamlining;
Function: Creates a single site where exporters can be assisted
electronically through entire export process;
Category: Government to business;
Proposed agency managing partner: Department of Commerce.
Name: One-Stop Business Compliance Information;
Function: 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;
Category: Government to business;
Proposed agency managing partner: Small Business Administration.
Name: Online Access for Loans;
Function: Allows citizens and business to find appropriate loan
programs;
Category: Government to citizen;
Proposed agency managing partner: Department of Education.
Name: Online Rulemaking Management;
Function: Provides access to all government rulemaking, anytime,
anywhere, by expanding an existing e-Docket system that permits use by
other agency systems through “storefronts;”
Category: Government to Business;
Proposed agency managing partner: Department of Transportation.
Name: Recreation One-Stop;
Function: Provides a one-stop, searchable database of recreational
areas nationwide; includes on-line campground reservations and
purchase of recreational passes, maps, and other products;
Category: Government to citizen;
Proposed agency managing partner: Department of the Interior.
Name: Recruitment One-Stop;
Function: 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;
Category: Internal efficiency and effectiveness;
Proposed agency managing partner: OPM.
Name: USA Services;
Function: Uses best practices in customer relationships to enable
citizens to quickly obtain service on-line while improving
responsiveness and consistency across government agencies;
Category: Government to citizen;
Proposed agency managing partner: GSA.
Name: Wireless Public SAFEty Interoperable COMmunications/Project
SAFECOM;
Function: Helps public safety agencies at all levels of government
achieve interoperability and eliminate redundant wireless
communications infrastructures;
Category: Government to government;
Proposed agency managing partner: Department of the Treasury.
And a 25th 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.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Enterprise
Architecture Use across the Federal Government Can Be Improved,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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.
[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Improving Mission
Performance through Strategic Information Management and Technology,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-94-115] (Washington,
D.C.: May 1994).
[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, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/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,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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).
[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,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/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, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/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,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-212] (Washington,
D.C.: Aug. 1, 2000).
[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology:
Architecture Needed to Guide Modernization of DOD's Financial
Operations, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-959T] (Washington,
D.C.: July 11, 2001).
[21] Survey conducted by the International City/County Management
Association and Public Technology, Inc.
[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, 107th Cong., 21 June 2001.
[26] U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government. Better
Information Needed on Agencies' Implementation of the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/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, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-861T]
(Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2001).
[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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-959T].
[28] Twenty-three initiatives were approved last October, with a 24th,
e-Payroll/IIN being added later. An additional 25th initiative, called
Federal Architecture, is included in OMB's February 2002 E-Government
Strategy. It plans to map government processes by line of business.
[29] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-6].
[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-6].
[31] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-6].
[32] The Customs Service, Department of the Army, Internal Revenue
Service, Office of Personnel Management, and Patent and Trademark
Office.
[33] Configuration management is a means for ensuring the integrity
and consistency of program and project products throughout their life
cycles.
[34] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AMID-00-212].
[35] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-O1-959T].
[36] E—Government Strategy: Simplified Delivery of Services to
Citizens.
[37] See the attachment to this statement for information on all of
the initiatives.
[38] We have not conducted work to determine OMB's progress in meeting
these goals.
[End of section]