This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-6 
entitled 'Information Technology: Enterprise Architecture Use across 
the Federal Government Can Be Improved' which was released on February 
19, 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: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

February 2002: 

Information Technology: 

Enterprise Architecture Use across the Federal Government Can Be 
Improved: 

GAO-02-6: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-02-6, a report to Congressional Committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

GAO's experience with federal agencies has shown that attempts to 
modernize information technology environments without blueprints—
models simplifying the complexities of how agencies operate today, how 
they want to operate in the future, and how they will get there—often 
result in unconstrained investment and systems that are duplicative 
and ineffective. Enterprise architectures offer such blueprints. Given 
the issue's importance, GAO developed a maturity framework for 
enterprise architecture management and reviewed architecture use in 
the federal government, specifically determining agencies' 
development, implementation, and maintenance of these architectures, 
and OMB's oversight. 

What GAO Found: 

Agencies' use of enterprise architectures is a work in progress, with 
much left to be accomplished. Of the 116 agencies GAO surveyed, 98 
reported meeting the minimum criteria necessary, according to the GAO 
maturity framework, for stages 1 or 2—creating enterprise architecture 
awareness or building an enterprise architecture management foundation 
(see below). In contrast, only 5 agencies reported satisfying the 
practices that GAO believes are needed to effectively manage 
enterprise architecture activities (stages 4 or 5). 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

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. 

Stage 1: 56 agencies; 
Stage 2: 42 agencies; 
Stage 3: 13 agencies; 
Stage 4: 45 agencies; 
Stage 5: 1 agency. 

[End of figure] 

What accounts for this? Historically, agency executives have not fully 
understood the value of enterprise architectures; hence, these tools 
have lacked the executive sponsorship necessary to become a funding 
priority. In addition, human capital expertise in this area has been 
scarce. 

As a result, the risk is heightened that agencies will proceed with 
systems modernization-investment decisions without the benefit of this 
architectural context and will end up with systems that limit mission 
performance, often after significant unwise use of taxpayer funds.
OMB has recognized the importance of enterprise architectures and has 
moved, through its role in the budget process, to increase their use. 
We support these efforts and view them as positive first steps. 
However, OMB is focusing primarily on major agencies, relying largely 
on agency submissions, and is not using an independent benchmark that 
defines the incremental steps an agency can take to mature. Unless it 
enhances its oversight approach to address these areas, OMB will be 
challenged in advancing the state of governmentwide architecture 
maturity. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that OMB work with agencies to use the maturity model 
and agency baseline information in this report in helping agencies 
advance the state of their architecture development and measure 
progress. Relatedly, GAO recommends that OMB address the impediments 
to greater use of architectures. OMB officials stated that they would 
consider our recommendations. 

This is a test for developing highlights for a GAO report. The full 
report, including GAO's objectives, scope, methodology, and analysis, 
is available at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.govicgi-bin/getrpt?GA0-02-6]. For additional 
information about the report, contact Randolph C. Hite (202-512-3439). 
To provide comments on this test highlights, contact Keith Fultz (202-
512-3200) or email HighlightsTest@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

A Framework to Assist Agencies in Managing Their EA Efforts: 

All Agencies Have Initiated Some EA Activities, but Most Lack Core 
Elements: 

OMB Has Promoted and Is Overseeing EA Efforts, but Opportunities
Exist to Strengthen Oversight Approach: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Summary Listing of Department, Component Agency, and 
Independent Agency Responses against Five-Stage EA Maturity Framework: 

Appendix III: Detailed Comparison of Individual Department Responses
against Our Five-Stage EA Maturity Framework: 

Appendix IV: Detailed Comparison of Individual Component Agency 
Responses against Our Five-Stage EA Maturity Framework: 

Appendix V: Detailed Comparison of Individual Independent Agency 
Responses against Our Five-Stage EA Maturity Framework: 

Appendix VI: Survey of Federal Departments' Enterprise Architecture
Efforts: 

Appendix VII: Survey of Federal Agencies' Enterprise Architecture
Efforts: 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact And Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Agencies' Reported Actual Costs to Complete EA and
Annual Costs to Maintain EA: 

Table 2: Agencies' Reported Estimated Costs to Complete EA: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: GAO's Five Stages of EA Maturity (version 1.0): 

Figure 2: Summary of Federal Agencies' EA Maturity: 

Figure 3: Federal Agencies' Frequently Identified EA Benefits: 

Figure 4: Federal Agencies' Frequently Identified EA Management 
Challenges: 

Abbreviations: 

CIO: Chief Information Officer: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

EA: Enterprise Architectures: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

[End of section] 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

February 19, 2002: 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Fred Thompson: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Government Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Dan Burton: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Thomas M. Davis: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Jim Turner: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

Effectively and efficiently designing and erecting a modern building 
requires construction blueprints that define, among other things, the 
building's features, functions, and systems, including applicable 
building codes, rules, and standards, as well as the 
interrelationships among these components. Effectively and efficiently 
transforming an entity's operational and technology environments also 
requires a blueprint—commonly referred to as an enterprise 
architecture. Such an architecture includes descriptive models 
(defined in both business and technology terms) to aid decisionmakers 
in understanding the complexities around how the entity operates today 
and how it wants to operate in the future. It also includes a roadmap 
for transitioning to this future operational state.
Our experience with federal agencies has shown that attempting to 
modernize information technology (IT) environments without an 
enterprise architecture to guide and constrain investments often 
results in systems that are duplicative, not well integrated, 
unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface, and ineffective in 
supporting mission goals. Managed properly, architectures can clarify 
and help optimize the interdependencies and interrelationships among 
related enterprise operations and the underlying IT infrastructure and 
applications that support them. The development, implementation, and 
maintenance of architectures are a recognized hallmark of successful 
public and private organizations. Further, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Circular A-130,[Footnote 1] which implements the Clinger-
Cohen Act of 1996,[Footnote 2] requires executive branch agencies to 
use them. 

Because of the importance of these architectures, we reviewed the 
state of their use in the federal government. Our objectives were to 
determine (1) the status of federal agencies' efforts to develop, 
implement, and maintain enterprise architectures and (2) OMB's actions 
to oversee these efforts. To accomplish these goals, we surveyed 116 
federal agencies using a questionnaire that was based on the core 
elements of effective enterprise architecture management as defined in 
the Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council-published Practical Guide 
to Federal Enterprise Architecture.[Footnote 3] We did not 
independently verify the data that the agencies provided. Details of 
our objectives, scope, and methodology are discussed in appendix I. 

The state of the federal government's use of enterprise architectures 
is a work in progress, with much left to be accomplished. Although 
about 52 percent of federal departments and agencies report that they 
have satisfied at least those management practices that provide the 
foundation for developing, completing, and leveraging architectures, 
only about 4 percent report that they have satisfied the management 
practices that, in our view, are necessary to be an effective 
enterprise architecture manager. 

The state of enterprise architecture use in the federal government can 
be attributed to several related factors. Specifically, agency 
executives have historically not understood the purpose, content, and 
value of these architectures, a misunderstanding that in turn has not 
allowed these management tools to receive the executive sponsorship 
they need to be treated as a funding priority and to overcome the 
embedded cultural resistance to the non-parochial, entitywide approach 
that enterprise architectures promote. Further, skilled human capital 
in the discipline of enterprise architecture is a scarce resource. 
Accordingly, most federal agencies currently do not have the 
architectural context and enforcement mechanisms needed for making 
informed IT investment decisions, thus increasing the risk that these 
agencies will build and modernize systems that are duplicative, poorly 
integrated, unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface, and 
ineffective in optimizing agency mission performance. 

OMB has been an advocate of enterprise architecture development and 
use. Building on this advocacy, the agency has, among other things, 
begun to address this important area in its budget interactions with 
major departments and agencies. We support OMB's attention to this 
vitally important area Nevertheless, we believe that OMB's existing 
oversight approach can be improved by using a more structured means of 
measuring agency progress in advancing the state of enterprise 
architecture maturity, expanding the number of agencies subject to its 
oversight approach, and focusing on governmentwide actions needed to 
assist agencies in meeting common enterprise architecture challenges. 
We are providing the OMB director with the baseline data, improvement 
framework, and recommendations for making these improvements. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, officials from OMB's Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs generally agreed with our 
findings and conclusions and stated that they would consider our 
recommendations. They also provided additional information about 
recent and planned OMB enterprise architecture initiatives, which we 
have incorporated in the report. 

Background: 

Enterprise architectures (EA) provide a clear and comprehensive 
picture of an entity, whether an organization (e.g., federal 
department, agency, or bureau) or a functional or mission area that 
cuts across more than one organization (e.g., financial management). 
The concept of such architectures first emerged in the mid-1980s, and 
over the years various frameworks for defining the content of EAs have 
been published. Our work in the early 1990s identified architectures 
as a critical success factor for organizations that effectively 
leveraged IT in meeting their mission goals, and it advocated federal 
agency use of architectures. Since then, we have worked with the 
Congress, OMB, and the federal CIO Council to recognize the importance 
of architectures and assist agencies in developing and using them. 
Nevertheless, our reviews of agency IT management practices and major 
systems modernization programs continue to identify the lack of 
architectures as a major IT management weakness, and they have 
produced numerous recommendations to address this important area. In 
some cases, most notably the U.S. Customs Service, our work has shown 
that EA management has improved significantly. 

Enterprise Architectures: A Brief Description: 

Enterprise architectures are essential tools for effectively and 
efficiently engineering business processes and for implementing and 
evolving their supporting systems. In the simplest of terms, an 
enterprise is any purposeful activity and an architecture is the 
structure (or structural description) of an activity. More 
specifically, EM are systematically derived and captured descriptions—
in useful models, diagrams, and narrative—of the mode of operation for 
a given enterprise, which can be (1) a single organization or (2) a 
functional or mission area that transcends more than one 
organizational boundary (e.g., financial management, acquisition 
management, logistics management). The architecture describes the 
enterprise's operations in both (1) logical terms, such as 
interrelated business processes and business rules, information needs 
and flows, and work locations and users, and (2) technical terms, such 
as hardware, software, data, communications, and security attributes 
and performance standards. It provides these perspectives both for the 
enterprise's current or "as is" environment and for its target or "to 
be" environment, as well as a transition plan for moving from the "as 
is" to the "to be" environment. 

EA development, implementation, and maintenance is a basic tenet of 
effective IT management. Managed properly, these architectures can 
clarify and help optimize the interdependencies and interrelationships 
among an organization's business operations and the underlying IT 
infrastructure and applications that support these operations. 
Employed in concert with other important IT management controls, such 
as portfolio-based capital planning and investment control practices, 
EM can greatly increase the chances that organizations' operational 
and IT environments will be configured in such a way as to optimize 
mission performance. Our experience with federal agencies has shown 
that attempting to define and build major IT systems without using a 
complete architecture often results in systems that are duplicative, 
are not well integrated, and are unnecessarily costly to maintain and 
interface. 

Enterprise Architectures: A Brief History of Frameworks and Management 
Guidance: 

The concept of EM dates back to the mid-1980s. At that time, John 
Zachman, widely recognized as a leader in the field, identified the 
need to use a logical construction blueprint (i.e., an architecture) 
for defining and controlling the integration of systems and their 
components.[Footnote 4] Accordingly, Zachman developed a "framework" 
or structure for logically defining and capturing an architecture. 
Drawing parallels to the field of classical architecture, and, later, 
to the aircraft manufacturing industry, in which different work 
products (e.g., architect plans, contractor plans, shop plans, bills 
of lading) represent different views of the planned building or 
aircraft, respectively, Zachman's framework identified the kind of 
work products needed to understand and thus build a given system or 
entity. In short, this framework provides six perspectives or windows 
from which to view how a given entity operates. The perspectives are 
those of the (1) strategic planner, (2) system user, (3) system 
designer, (4) system developer, (5) subcontractor, and (6) system 
itself. Associated with each of these perspectives, Zachman also 
proposed six abstractions of the entity, or models covering (1) how 
the entity operates, (2) what the entity uses to operate, (3) where 
the entity operates, (4) who operates the entity, (5) when entity 
operations occur, and (6) why the entity operates. Zachman's framework 
provides a way to identify and describe an entity's existing and 
planned component parts and the parts' relationships before the costly 
and time-consuming efforts associated with developing or transforming 
the entity begin. 

Since the late 1980s, architecture frameworks have emerged within the 
federal government, beginning with the publication of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology framework in 1989.[Footnote 5] 
Subsequently, we issued EA guidance,[Footnote 6] and our research of 
successful public and private-sector organizations' IT management 
practices identified the use of EAs as a factor critical to these 
organizations' success.[Footnote 7] Since that time, other federal 
entities have issued EA frameworks, including the Department of 
Defense,[Footnote 8] Department of the Treasury,[Footnote 9] and the 
federal CIO Council.[Footnote 10] Although the various frameworks use 
different terminology and somewhat different structures, they are 
fundamentally consistent in purpose and content, and they are being 
used today to varying degrees by many federal agencies. 

The emergence of federal frameworks and guidance over the last 5 years 
owes largely to the Congress's passage of the Clinger-Cohen Act in 
1996.[Footnote 11] This act, among other things, requires the CIOs for 
major departments and agencies to develop, maintain, and facilitate 
the implementation of information technology architectures as a means 
of integrating business processes and agency goals with IT. In 
response to the act, OMB, in collaboration with us, issued guidance on 
the development and implementation of EAs.[Footnote 12] More recently, 
OMB issued additional guidance directing that agency investments in IT 
be based on agency architectures.[Footnote 13] Similarly, the CIO 
Council, in addition to publishing a federal enterprise architecture 
framework, recently collaborated with us in issuing two additional EA 
guidance documents. The first addresses EA enforcement and describes 
how an organization should go about assessing whether its proposed IT 
investments are compliant with its EA.[Footnote 14] The second 
addresses development, maintenance, and implementation, describing in 
practical terms an end-to-end set of steps for managing an EA 
program.[Footnote 15] More specifically, this guide explains how to 
get started and organized, what kind of management controls are 
needed, what factors to consider in formulating an EA development 
approach, how to go about defining the current and target architecture 
and the plan for sequencing from the current to the target, how to 
ensure that the architecture is implemented and enforced, and how to 
systematically refresh and maintain the architecture to ensure its 
currency and relevance. 

Weaknesses, Some Progress Found in Agencies' EA Management: 

We began reviewing federal agencies' use of architectures in 1994, 
focusing initially on those agencies that were pursuing major system 
modernization programs that were high-risk. These included the 
National Weather Service system modernization,[Footnote 16] the 
Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control modernization, 
[Footnote 17] and the Internal Revenue Service tax systems 
modernization.[Footnote 18] Generally, we reported that these agencies 
EM were incomplete, and we made recommendations that they develop and 
implement complete EAs to guide their modernization efforts. 

Since then, we have reviewed architecture management at other federal 
agencies, including the Department of Education,[Footnote 19] Customs 
Service,[Footnote 20] Immigration and Naturalization Service,[Footnote 
21] and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,[Footnote 22] and 
we have reviewed the use of EAs for certain agency functional areas, 
such as DOD financial management,[Footnote 23] logistics management, 
[Footnote 24] and combat identification.[Footnote 25] These reviews 
have continued to identify the absence of complete and enforced EAs, 
which in turn have led to agency business operations, systems, and 
data that are stovepiped, duplicative, and incompatible, and have 
forced 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, 
particularly those at which our recommendations were made many years 
ago. However, this progress has taken considerable time to achieve. 
Other agencies have yet to make much progress. The most notable 
exception to this is the Customs Service, which completed an EA as 
well as the management controls for maintaining it and enforcing IT 
investments' compliance with it in approximately 1 year. 

A Framework to Assist Agencies in Managing Their EA Efforts: 

The ability to effectively manage an activity requires useful measures 
of activity status in relation to a standard. In the case of federal 
agencies' EA efforts, no such standard or method for measuring status 
and progress over time has existed. Accordingly, we have developed an 
initial version of an EA management maturity framework to serve as 
this standard that is based on the core elements from the CIO Council-
published practical guide for EA management. Specifically, we arranged 
these core elements into a series of five hierarchical stages based on 
the implicit dependencies among these elements addressed in the guide. 
We also categorized these core elements into attributes associated 
with effectively discharging any management function—namely, elements 
that demonstrate organizational commitment, such as policies and 
approvals; elements that provide the capability to satisfy the 
commitment, such as assignment of organizational roles and 
responsibilities; elements that demonstrate satisfaction of the 
commitment, such as EA plans and products; and elements that verify 
satisfaction of the commitment, such as measurements. This framework 
construct is consistent with other maturity frameworks, such as our 
Information Technology Investment Management framework.[Footnote 26] 

The framework's five stages of EA management maturity are depicted in 
figure 1 and constitute an initial version of our EA maturity 
framework (version 1.0). Associated with each stage is a description 
of EA management core elements, categorized as discussed above. All of 
the elements associated with a particular stage must be met in order 
to achieve that stage of maturity. 

Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness is characterized by either no plans to 
develop and use an EA, or plans and actions that do not yet 
demonstrate an awareness of the value of having and using one. While 
Stage 1 agencies may have initiated some EA core elements, these 
agencies' efforts are ad hoc and unstructured, and do not provide the 
management foundation necessary for successful EA development. 

Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation focuses on assignment 
of roles and responsibilities and establishment of plans for 
developing EA products. Specifically, a Stage 2 agency has designated 
a chief architect and established and staffed a program office 
responsible for EA development. Further, a steering committee or group 
that has responsibility for directing and overseeing the development 
has been established and the membership of the steering committee is 
comprised of business and IT representatives. At Stage 2, the agency 
either has plans for developing or has begun development of at least 
some of the necessary EA products. This stage also requires the agency 
to have selected both a framework that will be the basis for the 
nature and content of the specific products it plans to develop, and 
an automated tool to help in the development. 

Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products focuses on actual 
development of EA products. At Stage 3, the agency has defined the 
scope of its EA as encompassing the entire enterprise, whether 
organization-based or function-based, and it has a written and 
approved policy demonstrating institutional commitment. Although the 
products may not yet be complete, they are intended to describe the 
agency in business, data, applications, and technology terms. Further, 
the products are to describe the current (i.e., "as is") and future 
(i.e., "to be") states and the plan for transitioning from current to 
future state (i.e., sequencing plan). Also, as the architecture 
products are being developed, they are to be subject to configuration 
control. 

Stage 4: Completing EA Products is characterized by complete and 
approved EA products that the agency can use to help select and 
control its portfolio of IT investments. The complete products 
describe the agency in business, data, applications, and technology 
terms. Also, the products are complete in that they describe the 
agency's current and future states and the transition plan for 
sequencing from the current state to the future state. Further, the 
agency's CIO has approved the EA and the agency has a written policy 
requiring that IT investments comply with the EA. 

Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change entails evolving the 
products according to a written and approved policy for EA 
maintenance. Also at this stage, either the steering committee, 
investment review board, or agency head approves the EA. Finally, the 
agency has incorporated the EA into its corporate decisionmaking and 
has established and is using metrics to measure the effectiveness of 
its EA. 

Figure 1: GAO's Five Stages of EA Maturity (version 1.0): 

[Refer to PDF for image: table] 

Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all elements 
in Stage 4); 
Core Elements: 
Demonstrates commitment: Written/approved policy exists for EA 
maintenance; 
Provides capability to meet commitment: [Empty]; 
Demonstrates satisfaction of commitment: Either EA steering committee, 
investment review board, or agency head has approved EA; 
Verifies satisfaction of commitment: Metrics exist for measuring EA 
benefits. 

Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements in 
Stage 3); 
Core Elements: 
Demonstrates commitment: Written/approved policy exists for 
information technology investment compliance with EA; 
Provides capability to meet commitment: [Empty]; 
Demonstrates satisfaction of commitment: EA products: 
* describe enterprise's business—and the data, applications, and 
technology that support it; 
* describe as is environment, to be environment, and sequencing plan; 
Agency chief information officer has approved EA. 

Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all elements in 
Stage 2); 
Core Elements: 
Demonstrates commitment: 
Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Provides capability to meet commitment: EA products are under 
configuration management; 
Demonstrates satisfaction of commitment: EA products: 
* describe or will describe enterprise's business—and the data, 
applications, and technology that support it; 
* describe or will describe as is environment, to be environment, and 
sequencing plan; 
EA scope is enterprise-focused. 

Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Core Elements: 
Demonstrates commitment: Committee or group representing the 
enterprise is responsible for directing, overseeing, or approving EA. 
Provides capability to meet commitment: Program office responsible for 
EA development exists; Chief architect exists; EA being developed 
using a framework and automated tool; 
Demonstrates satisfaction of commitment: EA plans: 
* call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data, 
applications, or technology; 
* call for describing as is" environment, to be environment, or 
sequencing plan. 

Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness; 
Core Elements: 
Demonstrates commitment: Agency is aware of EA. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

All Agencies Have Initiated Some EA Activities, but Most Lack Core 
Elements: 

According to our survey results, the federal government as a whole has 
not reached a mature state of EA management. In particular, about 52 
percent of federal agencies reported having at least the management 
foundation that is needed to begin successfully developing, 
implementing, and maintaining an EA, and about 48 percent of agencies 
have not yet advanced to this basic stage of maturity. At the other 
extreme, only about 4 percent of federal agencies' EA efforts have 
matured to the point that they can be considered effective,[Footnote 
27] with only one agency, the Customs Service, attaining the highest 
stage of maturity. This overall state of maturity is consistent for 
each of the three components that make up the 116 federal agencies 
that we surveyed: departments (e.g., Department of the Treasury), 
department component agencies (e.g., Internal Revenue Service), and 
independent agencies (e.g., Social Security Administration). (See 
figure 2.) A summary listing of the 116 agencies' EA maturity is 
provided in appendix II of this report. Detailed summaries of 
individual departments', component agencies', and independent 
agencies' EA maturity are provided in appendixes III, IV, and V, 
respectively. 

Figure 2: Summary of Federal Agencies' EA Maturity: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 4 vertical bar graphs] 

All agencies, total = 116: 
Maturity stage: Stage 1: 56 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 2: 42 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 3: 13 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 4: 45 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 5: 1 agency. 

Departments, total = 14: 
Maturity stage: Stage 1: 5 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 2: 5 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 3: 4 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 4: 0 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 5: 0 agencies. 

Component agencies, total = 76	
Maturity stage: Stage 1: 39 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 2: 27 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 3: 6 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 4: 3 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 5: 1 agency. 

Independent agencies, total = 26
Maturity stage: Stage 1: 12 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 2: 10 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 3: 3 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 4: 0 agencies; 
Maturity stage: Stage 5: 0 agencies. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses. 

[End of figure] 

Despite this less-than-mature state of affairs, our survey revealed 
some signs of progress. For example, most agencies are performing 
certain core elements of our maturity framework, such as using a 
specific EA framework and automated tool. Moreover, about 82 percent 
of those agencies at a given maturity stage are also reportedly 
performing one or more core elements associated with a higher maturity 
stage. Other relevant EA management information, such as costs and 
benefits, was also reported by agencies that we surveyed. Each of 
these areas is discussed in greater detail below. 

It is extremely important that federal agencies advance the state of 
their EA maturity. Without well-defined and used architectures, 
agencies will likely continue the same IT investment practices of the 
past, practices that have produced nonintegrated, duplicative, and 
suboptimized agency operations and supporting IT environments. 

Most Agencies Are Performing Certain Maturity Framework Core Elements: 

Regardless of individual agencies' maturity levels, most agencies (75 
percent or more) report performing certain core elements related to 
stages 2 and 3 of our framework, and thus the prospects for future 
improvements in the state of the federal government's EA maturity are 
promising. For example, at least three out of four agencies are 
performing four core elements related to Building the EA Management 
Foundation (stage 2). Specifically, 75 percent of agencies have 
established a program office responsible for EA development; 75 
percent of agencies have selected an architecture framework and an 
automated development and maintenance tool; 81 percent of agencies 
plan for their architecture products to describe the enterprise in one 
or more of the following terms: business, data, applications, or 
technology; and 82 percent of agencies plan their architecture 
products to describe one or more of the following: the "as is" 
environment, the "to be" environment, or the sequencing plan. 

Most agencies also report performing three core elements related to 
Developing Architecture Products (stage 3). Specifically, 76 percent 
of agencies have scoped their EA to cover the entire enterprise; 77 
percent of agencies plan for their EA products to describe the 
enterprise in all of the following terms: business, data, 
applications, and technology; and 77 percent of agencies plan their EA 
products to describe all of the following: the "as is" environment, 
the "to be" environment, and the sequencing plan. 

Most Agencies Are Performing Core Elements Associated with a Higher 
Maturity Stage: 

Although an agency may meet all the core elements associated with only 
one particular maturity stage, this agency could also be performing 
one or more core elements associated with higher maturity stages. Our 
analysis of survey results shows that this is frequently the case. In 
fact, 82 percent of agencies in stage 1 through stage 4 are performing 
at least one core element above their current maturity stage. In 
particular, of the 56 agencies at stage 1, 35 are performing core 
elements that meet at least one of the criteria in stage 2 through 
stage 5. 

Moreover, some of these agencies need to satisfy only one additional 
core element in order to advance one or more maturity stages, meaning 
that the opportunity exists for some agencies to quickly advance their 
respective EA maturity levels. About 46 percent of the agencies (53 
out of 115) need to satisfy only one additional core element to 
advance to at least the next maturity stage.[Footnote 28] Moreover, 8 
of these agencies could advance two stages by satisfying just one 
additional core element, and one agency, the Defense Contract Audit 
Agency, could climb three stages (from stage 2 to stage 5) by 
satisfying just one additional core element. 

About 9 percent of the agencies (10 out of 115) need to satisfy only 
two core elements in order to advance two maturity stages, and 3 
percent (4 out of 115) need to satisfy three additional core elements 
to advance three maturity stages. One agency, the Defense Legal 
Services Agency, could advance from stage 1 to stage 5 by satisfying 
only two additional core elements. As noted above, the Food and Drug 
Administration and the International Trade Administration, which are 
currently stage 1 agencies, could advance to stage 5 by satisfying a 
total of four additional core elements, one at each of stages 2 
through 5. 

Departmental Leadership Can Influence the Maturity of the Component 
Agencies: 

Of the 14 cabinet-level departments, all of which responded to our 
survey, 6 have established a policy governing the development of EA by 
their component agencies; 8 have not. Our analysis of the maturity 
level of component agencies, using resampling methods, provides 
statistical evidence that the average maturity level of component 
agencies in departments with an EA policy is higher than the average 
maturity level of component agencies in departments without an EA 
policy. Specifically, the average maturity level of the component 
agencies within departments that have departmentwide policies is 1.9, 
while the average maturity level of the component agencies within 
departments that do not have a policy is 1.5. The Departments of 
Commerce and the Treasury, for example, which both have a 
departmentwide policy, have average EA maturity levels of 2.2 for 
their component agencies. In contrast, no department that lacks a 
policy has an average EA maturity level higher than 1.7. 

Available Agency EA Cost Data Show Variability: 

As discussed in the CIO Council-published EA management practical 
guide, the scope and nature of the enterprise and the extent of 
enterprise transformation and modernization envisioned will dictate 
the depth and detail of the architecture to be developed and 
maintained. Thus, the EA has to be tailored to the individual 
enterprise and that enterprise's intended use of the architecture. 
Accordingly, the level of resources that an agency invests in its EA 
is likely to vary. 

Our survey data showed considerable variability among agencies in the 
cost to develop and maintain EM. For those agencies that reported 
having completed an EA, the actual development costs that they 
reported ranged from $70,000 to $18.2 million. (See table 1.) In 
developing this range, we only included those 14 agencies that 
satisfied our maturity framework's definition of a complete EA (i.e., 
the EA products describe the enterprise's business and the data, 
applications, and technology that support it; the EA products describe 
the "as is" environment, "to be" environment, and the plan for 
sequencing from the "as is" to the "to be"; and the agency CIO has 
approved the EA). In doing so, we did not include EA development cost 
data reported by 31 other agencies because they did not satisfy our 
maturity framework's definition of a complete EA. For the 14 agencies 
that had completed EAs, the annual costs reported for architecture 
maintenance ranged from $30,000 to $1.5 million. (See table 1.) 

Table 1: Agencies' Reported Actual Costs to Complete EA and Annual 
Costs to Maintain EA: 

Agency: Patent and Trademark Office; 
Actual cost to complete EA: None reported; 
Annual cost to maintain EA: $30,000. 

Agency: International Trade Administration; 
Actual cost to complete EA: $70,000; 
Annual cost to maintain EA: $10,000. 

Agency: Defense Legal Services Agency; 
Actual cost to complete EA: $120,000; 
Annual cost to maintain EA: $30,000. 

Agency: Federal Railroad Administration; 
Actual cost to complete EA: $194,000; 
Annual cost to maintain EA: 0. 

Agency: Farm Service Agency; 
Actual cost to complete EA: $200,000; 
Annual cost to maintain EA: None reported. 

Agency: Bureau of Prisons; 
Actual cost to complete EA: $276,000; 
Annual cost to maintain EA: 0. 

Agency: Census Bureau; 
Actual cost to complete EA: $285,000; 
Annual cost to maintain EA: $170,000. 

Agency: Defense Contract Audit Agency; 
Actual cost to complete EA: $358,000; 
Annual cost to maintain EA: 0. 

Agency: Office of Personnel Management; 
Actual cost to complete EA: $400,000; 
Annual cost to maintain EA: $65,000. 

Agency: Small Business Administration; 
Actual cost to complete EA: $1,100,000; 
Annual cost to maintain EA: $200,000. 

Agency: Veterans Health Administration; 
Actual cost to complete EA: $2,100,000; 
Annual cost to maintain EA: $1,000,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Actual cost to complete EA: $3,600,000; 
Annual cost to maintain EA: $800,000. 

Agency: Customs Service; 
Actual cost to complete EA: $6,000,000; 
Annual cost to maintain EA: $1,500,000. 

Agency: Internal Revenue Service; 
Actual cost to complete EA: $18,200,000; 
Annual cost to maintain EA: None reported. 

Source: Agency survey responses. 

[End of table] 

For agencies that reported not having completed an EA, 32 reported the 
estimated costs associated with completing one. These estimated EA 
completion costs ranged from $100,000 to $25.3 million. (See table 2.) 
Generally, the variability in the reported EA costs can be attributed, 
at least in part, to differences in the respective agencies' size and 
complexity. 

Table 2: Agencies' Reported Estimated Costs to Complete EA: 

Agency: Economic Development Administration; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $100,000. 

Agency: Smithsonian Institution; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $225,000. 

Agency: Peace Corps; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $250,000. 

Agency: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $300,000. 
	
Agency: Coast Guard; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $300,000. 

Agency: Railroad Retirement Board; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $400,000. 

Agency: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $500,000. 

Agency: Administration for Children and Families; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $750,000. 

Agency: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $750,000. 
	
Agency: General Services Administration; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $898,000. 

Agency: U.S. Mint; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $900,000. 

Agency: Bureau of Reclamation; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $1,000,000. 

Agency: Social Security Administration; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $1,100,000. 

Agency: Defense Logistics Agency; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $1,200,000. 
	
Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $1,500,000. 

Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $1,500,000. 

Agency: Immigration and Naturalization Service; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $1,600,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $2,280,000. 

Agency: Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $2,500,000. 

Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $2,500,000. 

Agency: Drug Enforcement Administration; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $2,800,000. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $3,000,000. 

Agency: Department of Transportation; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $3,000,000. 

Agency: Department of State; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $4,280,000. 

Agency: Defense Threat Reduction Agency; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $6,731,000. 

Agency: Department of Labor; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $7,000,000. 
	
Agency: Forest Service; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $12,500,000. 

Agency: Department of the Navy; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $15,000,000. 

Agency: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $15,000,000. 

Agency: Natural Resources Conservation Service; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $15,000,000. 
	
Agency: National Imagery and Mapping Agency; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $20,000,000. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Estimated cost to complete EA: $25,300,000. 

Source: Agency survey responses. 

[End of table] 

Agencies Cite Similar EA Benefits: 

OMB policy, CIO Council guidance, and our reviews have identified 
multiple benefits of developing EAs, including avoiding duplication 
between IT systems, promoting integration of systems, reducing system-
related costs, and optimizing mission performance. The agencies' 
responses to our survey echoed these and offered additional benefits 
associated with developing and using an EA. Specifically, the most 
frequently cited EA benefit was lower system-related costs, which was 
identified by 53 percent of agencies. Benefits related to enhanced 
productivity and improved efficiency were cited by 49 percent of 
agencies, while improved organization and change management was 
another frequently identified benefit, cited by 41 percent of 
agencies. Improved systems interoperability was a benefit cited by 24 
percent of agencies. (See figure 3.) 

Figure 3: Federal Agencies' Frequently Identified EA Benefits 
Percentage of agencies: 

[Refer to PDF: vertical bar graph] 

Benefit: Lower costs; 
Percentage of agencies: 53%. 

Benefit: Enhanced productivity; 
Percentage of agencies: 49%. 

Benefit: Improved management; 
Percentage of agencies: 41%. 

Benefit: Greater interoperability; 
Percentage of agencies: 24%. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses. 

[End of figure] 

Agencies Cite Similar EA Management Challenges: 

Effectively developing, implementing, and maintaining an EA is a 
challenging endeavor. As discussed in the CIO Council-published EA 
management practical guide, factors critical to the successful use of 
EAs include obtaining top management support and commitment, ensuring 
that the scope of the architecture is enterprisewide, and having the 
requisite resources (financial and human capital) to get the job done. 

The agencies that we surveyed affirmed these critical success factors 
by identifying them as significant EA management challenges. 
Specifically, about 39 percent of the agencies stated that getting top 
management to understand the purpose, content, and value of these 
architectures was a challenge. According to the CIO Council-published 
EA management guide, such understanding is critical to architecture 
programs receiving executive sponsorship. Without executive 
understanding and support, obtaining sufficient funding and overcoming 
agency component organizations' parochialism and cultural resistance 
to introducing change that attempts to optimize the enterprise, rather 
than the "stovepiped" enterprise components, can also be a significant 
challenge. The agencies we surveyed agreed, with about 50 and 39 
percent reporting funding and parochialism, respectively, as 
challenges. Additionally, 32 percent of the agencies surveyed reported 
that obtaining skilled staff is also a challenge. (See figure 4.) 

Figure 4: 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] 

Customs Service Is a Model EA Management Agency: 	 

In 1998, we reported that the Customs Service lacked a complete EA and 
the management controls to effectively enforce one, and we made 
recommendations to correct these problems.[Footnote 29] Customs agreed 
with our findings and recommendations, and it made addressing them a 
top agency priority. In April 2000, we reported that Customs had 
developed a complete EA.[Footnote 30] We have since cited Customs as 
an example of a federal agency with an effective architecture 
management program. 

The results of our survey and analysis of survey responses against our 
maturity framework affirm Customs as a role model agency for EA 
management. According to the survey results, Customs is the only 
agency that has achieved stage 5 maturity, meaning that it has 
satisfied all the core elements of the framework. In particular, 
Customs' EA is agencywide in scope, and it has been approved by the 
Customs CIO, Investment Review Board, and commissioner. Its EA program 
includes a program office and an executive steering committee 
responsible for EA development and maintenance. It also includes 
descriptions of the agency's "as is" and "to be" environments, as well 
as a sequencing plan for moving from the former to the latter. Customs 
has also developed qualitative and quantitative metrics for measuring 
benefits derived from using its architecture. In addition, Customs has 
written and approved policies and associated management processes to 
ensure that IT investments are compliant with the EA, and to ensure 
that it is proactively maintained. 

OMB Has Promoted and Is Overseeing EA Efforts, but Opportunities Exist 
to Strengthen Oversight Approach: 

Performance measurement is a core tenet of the Government Performance 
and Results Act of 1993.[Footnote 31] In essence, it codifies the 
widely recognized and accepted management axiom that one cannot manage 
what one cannot measure. Without the ability to measure performance 
and progress, management's ability to oversee a given program is 
greatly diminished, and the opportunities to effectively ensure that 
goals and objectives are met are lost. 

OMB recognizes the importance of EAs and, since the 1996 passage of 
the Clinger-Cohen Act, has acted to promote them. For example, OMB
(1) issued guidance on the purpose and use of enterprise architectures 
shortly after the act was passed,[Footnote 32] (2) issued subsequent 
guidance directing that agency investment in IT be based on agency 
EAs,[Footnote 33] and (3) beginning with the fiscal year 2002 budget 
cycle, required agency budget submissions to show IT investments in 
several areas, including architecture development.[Footnote 34] 
Beginning with the fiscal year 2003 budget cycle, it also required the 
departments and major agencies that are CIO Council members to address 
how IT investment decisionmaking addresses architecture alignment and, 
in cases in which an agency does not have an architecture, to provide 
a plan for developing one.[Footnote 35] In this latter case, OMB 
officials told us, they are also holding meetings with agencies to 
ensure that proposed IT investments are justified until an 
architecture is completed and integrated into the agency's capital 
planning and investment control processes. Other steps that OMB has 
taken are: (1) to assess the status of major department and agency 
architectures against selected CIO Council guidance; (2) to elevate 
the CIO Council's level of focus and attention on EA management by, 
for example, establishing an enterprise architecture committee; and 
(3) to begin developing business-level architectural views of certain 
governmentwide missions or functions, such as disaster preparedness, 
grants and loans, and law enforcement. 

OMB's increased attention to and oversight of federal enterprise 
architecture are central to advancing the federal government's state 
of architecture maturity. However, OMB's existing oversight approach 
focuses on major agencies and relies largely on unverified agency 
submissions. This approach can be strengthened by using a more 
structured means of measuring agency architecture status and progress, 
expanding the number of agencies covered, and identifying and pursuing 
governmentwide solutions to common enterprise architecture challenges 
that agencies face. Without enhancing its governmentwide approach to 
overseeing EA use and employing a standard that systematically 
specifies the core elements of architecture management success and a 
practical way to measure agency efforts against this standard over 
time, OMB will be challenged in leading and attaining governmentwide 
maturation in this important area. 

Conclusions: 

The current state of the federal government's use of EM is mixed, but 
overall it is not sufficiently mature to support well-informed IT 
investment decisionmaking. As a result, most federal agencies 
currently run the serious risk of investing in IT solutions that will 
not overcome but will, rather, perpetuate longstanding 
incompatibilities and duplication within agency operational and 
systems environments. With recently issued federal guidance and 
increased OMB attention to EA management, however, the outlook for 
advancement in federal agency EA maturity holds promise. Nevertheless, 
opportunities exist to significantly improve this outlook by OMB's 
adopting a governmentwide, structured, and systematic approach to 
promoting EA use, measuring agency progress, and identifying the need 
for governmentwide EA management challenges. The EA maturity framework 
and the survey results contained in this report provide OMB, possibly 
in collaboration with the federal CIO Council, with the foundation for 
adopting such an approach. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To assist in its oversight of federal agencies' use of EAs, we 
recommend that the OMB director, in collaboration with the federal CIO 
Council, use the maturity framework and agency baseline information 
provided in this report as the basis for helping agencies to advance 
the state of their respective EA development, implementation, and 
maintenance efforts, and for measuring agency progress. In doing so, 
we further recommend that the OMB director require each of the 
agencies discussed in this report to (1) submit to OMB an annual 
update of the agency's satisfaction of each of the core elements 
contained in the maturity framework, and (2) have this update verified 
by the agency's inspector general or comparable audit function before 
it is submitted to OMB. 

Additionally, we recommend that the director, in collaboration with 
the CIO Council, develop and implement a plan to address 
governmentwide impediments to greater agency use of EM. At a minimum, 
this plan should include the two primary challenges identified in this 
report—agency executive management understanding of EAs and 
availability of EA human capital expertise. 

Further, we recommend that the director report annually to the Senate 
Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on 
Government Reform on the results of its annual update of the state and 
progress of federal agencies EA efforts. 

Agency Comments: 

In oral comments on a draft of this report, officials from OMB's 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, including the 
Information Policy and Technology Branch chief, generally agreed with 
our findings and conclusions and stated that they would consider our 
recommendations. The officials also provided information on recent OMB 
actions intended to advance enterprise architecture use in the federal 
government. We have incorporated this information in the report. We 
view these recent OMB actions as positive steps. Nevertheless, we also 
believe that OMB can improve on these actions by implementing the 
recommendations in this report. 

Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we 
plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from the date of this 
letter. We will then send copies to the OMB director. Copies will also 
be available at our Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

Should you or your staff have any questions on matters discussed in 
this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3439. I can also be 
reached by e-mail at HiteR@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report 
are listed in appendix VIII. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Randolph C. Hite: 
Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to determine (1) the status of federal agencies' 
efforts to develop, implement, and maintain EM, and (2) OMB's actions 
to oversee these efforts. 

To address our objectives, we obtained and reviewed relevant guidance 
on EAs, such as OMB Memorandum 97-16 (now rescinded), entitled 
Information Technology Architecture; OMB Circular A-130, entitled 
Management of Federal Information Resources; and federal CIO Council-
published guidance, including the Federal Enterprise Architecture 
Framework Version 1.1 and A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise 
Architecture. We also researched past GAO reports and guidance on 
management and use of enterprise architectures, and identified and 
reviewed relevant private-sector research on EA frameworks and 
management, as well as federal agencies' EA frameworks, including the 
Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework and the Department of 
Defense's Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, 
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Architecture Framework. 

Next, we used the CIO Council-published practical guide to develop a 
series of questions to determine the extent to which an agency was 
meeting the core elements of the guide, and to determine agencies' 
experiences in pursuing their respective EA efforts. We then 
incorporated these questions into two data-collection instruments—one 
for federal departments (see appendix VI) and one for agencies that 
were either components within a department or independent agencies 
(see appendix VII). We pre-tested our survey instrument at one federal 
department and one component agency. 

Prior to distributing the survey instruments, we identified 116 
executive branch federal agencies to include in our survey population. 
These agencies consisted of all cabinet-level departments and 
agencies, major component agencies or bureaus within departments, and 
other independent agencies. To identify the 116 agencies, we reviewed 
federal departments' organizational charts and other information, such 
as component agency fiscal year 2002 budget requests. We limited the 
selected agencies to those identified in the United States Government 
Manual and the Budget of the United States Government (Fiscal Year 
2002) as having budget requests in excess of $100 million. The 116 
agencies are identified in appendix II. 

For each agency to be surveyed, we identified the CIO or comparable 
official and notified each of our work and distributed the appropriate 
survey instrument to each via e-mail. In addition, we discussed the 
purpose and content of the survey instrument with agency officials 
when requested. All 116 agencies responded to our survey. Also, timing 
of agency responses varied, ranging from June 2001 to October 2001, 
and thus the determinations in this report regarding the state of EA 
maturity at specific agencies and groups of agencies are linked to 
particular points in time. Appendix DI, appendix IV, and appendix V, 
which contain the results of our analysis of each agency's response to 
our survey, identify the date that each agency responded. We did not 
verify the accuracy of the data that the agencies reported or the 
effectiveness of any agency's efforts that satisfied an EA core 
element. However, we did contact agency officials when necessary to 
clarify their responses. 

Next, we developed an EA management maturity framework to use in 
analyzing agency responses to our survey instrument. To do so, we 
categorized each core element of the CIO Council-published practical 
guide for EA management, which formed much of the content of our 
survey instrument, into a series of five related and hierarchical 
stages. In developing this hierarchy, we drew upon the core elements' 
implicit dependencies and sequence of presentation as presented in the 
guide. We also categorized these core elements into those attributes 
associated with effectively discharging any management function—
namely, elements that demonstrate organizational commitment, such as 
policies and approvals; elements that provide the capability to 
satisfy the commitment, such as assignment of organizational roles and 
responsibilities; elements that demonstrate satisfaction of the 
commitment, such as EA plans and products; and elements that verify 
satisfaction of the commitment, such as measurements. We validated our 
framework with CIO Council and GAO officials who were the principal 
authors of the CIO Council-published practical guide on which the 
framework is based. 

We then analyzed agency responses against the maturity framework's 
core elements to determine whether the element was satisfied. In 
conducting this analysis, we considered all agency responses related 
to a given core element of the framework. For example, if an agency 
reported that it had developed an EA, we reviewed responses to other 
survey questions to determine whether the EA had included requisite 
components for a complete architecture, such as the target 
architecture and sequencing plans for transitioning to the target 
environment. In instances in which agencies reported that their EAs 
did not include major components or did not meet the core element as 
defined in the framework, we placed the agencies' efforts relating to 
that core element at the next lowest stage of framework maturity. 

After compiling agency responses and determining agencies' respective 
maturity stages, we analyzed responses across different slices of our 
agency population to determine patterns and issues. Finally, we 
reviewed OMB efforts to oversee federal agency EA development, 
including analyzing relevant policy guidance and interviewing OMB 
officials about ongoing and planned management actions. 

We conducted our work at the 116 identified federal agencies 
headquarters offices in Washington, D.C., and Arlington, Virginia, 
from May 2001 through December 2001, in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Summary Listing of Department, Component Agency, and 
Independent Agency Responses against Five-Stage EA Maturity Framework: 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Marketing Service; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection; 
Service	
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Farm Service Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food and Nutrition Service; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service; 	
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Foreign Agricultural Service; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Forest Service; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Natural Resources Conservation 
Service; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Risk Management Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Rural Utilities Service; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Commerce; 
Maturity Stage: 3. 

Agency: Department of Commerce:	Bureau of the Census; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Commerce:	Economic Development Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Commerce:	International Trade Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Commerce:	National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 3. 

Agency: Department of Commerce:	U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; 
Maturity Stage: 4. 

Agency: Department of Defense; 
Maturity Stage: 3. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Commissary Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Contract Audit Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Contract Management Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Information Systems Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Intelligence Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Legal Services Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Service; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Threat Reduction Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force; 
Maturity Stage: 3. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army; 
Maturity Stage: 4. 

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Defense: National Imagery and Mapping Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Defense: National Security Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Defense: U.S. Marine Corps; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Education; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for 
Children and Families; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention; 
Maturity Stage: 3. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare 
and Medicaid Services; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug 
Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Health Resources and 
Services Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Program Support 
Center; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management; 
Maturity Stage: 3. 

Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of the Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of the Interior: Minerals Management Service; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of the Interior: National Park Service; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of the Interior: Office of Surface Mining Agency: 
Department of the Interior: Reclamation and Enforcement; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of the Interior: U.S. Geological Survey; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Justice; 
Maturity Stage: 3. 

Agency: Department of Justice: Drug Enforcement Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Prisons; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Justice: Immigration and Naturalization Service; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Justice: U.S. Marshals Service; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Labor; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of State; 
Maturity Stage: 3. 

Agency: Department of Transportation; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 3. 

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Railroad Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Transportation: National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Transportation: U.S. Coast Guard; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Bureau of the Public Debt; 
Maturity Stage: 3. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Comptroller of the Currency; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Management Service	
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service; 
Maturity Stage: 4. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of Thrift Supervision; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Secret Service; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury: U.S. Customs Service; 
Maturity Stage: 5. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury: U.S. Mint; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Benefits Agency: 
Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Agency for International Development; 
Maturity Stage: 3. 

Agency: Central Intelligence Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 3. 

Agency: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Executive Office of the President; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Export-Import Bank; 
Maturity Stage: 3. 

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Federal Reserve System; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: General Services Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Legal Services Corporation; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: National Credit Union Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: National Labor Relations Board; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Office of Personnel Management; 
Maturity Stage: 4. 

Agency: Peace Corps; 
Maturity Stage: 1. 

Agency: Railroad Retirement Board; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Small Business Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Smithsonian Institution; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: Social Security Administration; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

Agency: U.S. Postal Service; 
Maturity Stage: 2. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Detailed Comparison of Individual Department Responses 
against Our Five-Stage EA Maturity Framework: 

Department of Agriculture: Stage l: 
The Department of Agriculture provided its survey response on July 9, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Commerce: Stage 3: 
The Department of Commerce provided its survey response on June 29, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Defense: Stage 3: 
The Department of Defense provided its survey response on July 25, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Education: Stage 2: 
The Department of Education provided its survey response on July 23, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Energy: Stage 2: 
The Department of Energy provided its survey response on June 28, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Health and Human Services: Stage l: 
The Department of Health and Human Services provided its survey 
response on August 14, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Housing and Urban Development: Stage l: 
The Department of Housing and Urban Development provided its survey 
response on June 28, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of the Interior: Stage 2: 
The Department of the Interior provided its survey response on June 
29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Justice: Stage 3: 
The Department of Justice provided its survey response on July 10, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Labor: Stage 2: 
The Department of Labor provided its survey response on July 2, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of State: Stage 3: 
The Department of State provided its survey response on July 13, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Transportation: Stage 2: 
The Department of Transportation provided its survey response on June 
29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of the Treasury: Stage l: 
The Department of the Treasury provided its survey response on June 
28, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Veterans Affairs: Stage l: 
The Department of Veterans Affairs provided its survey response on 
August 17, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

[End of Appendix III] 

Appendix IV: Detailed Comparison of Individual Component Agency 
Responses against Our Five-Stage EA Maturity Framework: 

Department of Agriculture: 

Agricultural Marketing Service: Stage l: 
The Agricultural Marketing Service provided its survey response on 
July 9, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Agricultural Research Service: Stage l: 
The Agricultural Research Service provided its survey response on July 
13, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Stage l: 
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service provided its survey 
response on June 26, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: Stage l: 
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
provided its survey response on July 9, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Farm Service Agency: Stage 2: 
The Farm Service Agency provided its survey response on July 9, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Food and Nutrition Service: Stage l: 
The Food and Nutrition Service provided its survey response on July 
17, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Food Safety and Inspection Service: Stage l: 
The Food Safety and Inspection Service provided its survey response on 
July 9, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Foreign Agricultural Service: Stage l: 
The Foreign Agricultural Service provided its survey response on July 
12, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Forest Service: Stage 2: 
The Forest Service provided its survey response on August 3, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Stage 2: 
The Natural Resources Conservation Service provided its survey 
response on June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Risk Management Agency: Stage l: 
The Risk Management Agency provided its survey response on July 27, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Rural Utilities Service: Stage 2: 
The Rural Utilities Service provided its survey response on July 13, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Commerce: 

Bureau of the Census: Stage 2: 
The Bureau of the Census provided its survey response on June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Economic Development Administration: Stage l: 
The Economic Development Administration provided its survey response 
on July 10, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

International Trade Administration: Stage l: 
The International Trade Administration provided its survey response on 
June 26, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Stage 3: 
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided its 
survey response on June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: Stage 4: 
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office provided its survey response on 
June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Defense: 

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization: Stage 2: 
The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization provided its survey 
response on July 25, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: Stage l: 
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency provided its survey 
response on July 25, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Defense Commissary Agency: Stage l: 
The Defense Commissary Agency provided its survey response on July 25, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Defense Contract Audit Agency: Stage 2: 
The Defense Contract Audit Agency provided its survey response on July 
25, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Defense Contract Management Agency: Stage 2: 
The Defense Contract Management Agency provided its survey response on 
July 3, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Defense Information Systems Agency: Stage l: 
The Defense Information Systems Agency provided its survey response on 
July 11, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Defense Intelligence Agency: Stage 2: 
The Defense Intelligence Agency provided its survey response on July 
25, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Defense Legal Services Agency: Stage l: 
The Defense Legal Services Agency provided its survey response on July 
25, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Defense Logistics Agency: Stage l: 
The Defense Logistics Agency provided its survey response on July 25, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency: Stage l: 
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency provided its survey response 
on July 25, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Defense Security Service: Stage 2: 
The Defense Security Service provided its survey response on July 25, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency: Stage 2: 
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency provided its survey response on 
July 25, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of the Air Force: Stage 3: 
The Department of the Air Force provided its survey response on July 
27, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of the Army: Stage 4: 
The Department of the Army provided its survey response on July 25, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of the Navy: Stage 2: 
The Department of the Navy provided its survey response on July 25, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

National Imagery and Mapping Agency: Stage 2: 
The National Imagery and Mapping Agency provided its survey response 
on July 25, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

National Security Agency: Stage 2: 
The National Security Agency provided its survey response on September 
27, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Marine Corps: Stage l: 
The U.S. Marine Corps provided its survey response on July 25, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Health and Human Services: 

Administration for Children and Families: Stage l: 
The Administration for Children and Families provided its survey 
response on June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Stage l: 
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality provided its survey 
response on July 12, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Stage 3: 
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided its survey 
response on July 23, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Stage 2: 
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provided its survey 
response on June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Food and Drug Administration: Stage l: 
The Food and Drug Administration provided its survey response on July 
13, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Health Resources and Services Administration: Stage l: 
The Health Resources and Services Administration provided its survey 
response on June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Indian Health Service: Stage 2: 
The Indian Health Service provided its survey response on June 29, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Program Support Center: Stage l: 
The Program Support Center provided its survey response on June 29, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of the Interior: 

Bureau of Indian Affairs: Stage l: 
The Bureau of Indian Affairs provided its survey response on July 6, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Bureau of Land Management: Stage 3: 
The Bureau of Land Management provided its survey response on June 15, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Bureau of Reclamation: Stage l: 
The Bureau of Reclamation provided its survey response on July 6, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Fish and Wildlife Service: Stage l: 
The Fish and Wildlife Service provided its survey response on July 10, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Minerals Management Service: Stage l: 
The Minerals Management Service provided its survey response on June 
29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

National Park Service: Stage l: 
The National Park Service provided its survey response on July 25, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement: Stage 2: 
The Office of Surface Milling Reclamation and Enforcement provided its 
survey response on July 12, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Geological Survey: Stage l: 
The U. S. Geological Survey provided its survey response on July 16, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Justice: 

Drug Enforcement Administration: Stage 2: 
The Drug Enforcement Administration provided its survey response on 
July 18, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Federal Bureau of Investigation: Stage l: 
The Federal Bureau of Investigation provided its survey response on 
July 18, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Federal Bureau of Prisons: Stage 2: 
The Federal Bureau of Prisons provided its survey response on July 18, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Immigration and Naturalization Service: Stage l: 
The Immigration and Naturalization Service provided its survey 
response on July 18, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Marshals Service: Stage l: 
The U.S. Marshals Service provided its survey response on June 29, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Transportation: 

Federal Aviation Administration: Stage 3: 
The Federal Aviation Administration provided its survey response on 
June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Federal Highway Administration: Stage l: 
The Federal Highway Administration provided its survey response on 
June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Stage 2: 
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration provided its survey 
response on June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Federal Railroad Administration: Stage l: 
The Federal Railroad Administration provided its survey response on 
June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Federal Transit Administration: Stage l: 
The Federal Transit Administration provided its survey response on 
June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Stage 2: 
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provided its survey 
response on June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Coast Guard: Stage 2: 
The U.S. Coast Guard provided its survey response on June 26, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of the Treasury: 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms: Stage 2: 
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms provided its survey 
response on July 16, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Bureau of Engraving and Printing: Stage l: 
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing provided its survey response on 
June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Bureau of the Public Debt: Stage 3: 
The Bureau of the Public Debt provided its survey response on July 5, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Comptroller of the Currency: Stage l: 
The Comptroller of the Currency provided its survey response on June 
28, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: Stage l: 
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provided its survey 
response on September 5, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Financial Management Service: Stage 2: 
The Financial Management Service provided its survey response on June 
28, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Internal Revenue Service: Stage 4: 
The Internal Revenue Service provided its survey response on July 20, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Office of Thrift Supervision: Stage l: 
The Office of Thrift Supervision provided its survey response on June 
29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Secret Service: Stage 2: 
The Secret Service provided its survey response on June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Customs Service: Stage 5: 
The U.S. Customs Service provided its survey response on July 25, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Mint: Stage 2: 
The U.S. Mint provided its survey response on June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Department of Veterans Affairs: 

Veterans Benefits Administration: Stage l: 
The Veterans Benefits Administration provided its survey response on 
August 2, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Veterans Health Administration: Stage 2: 
The Veterans Health Administration provided its survey response on 
July 20, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

[End of Appendix IV] 

Appendix V: Detailed Comparison of Individual Independent Agency 
Responses against Our Five-Stage EA Maturity Framework: 

Agency for International Development: Stage 3: 
The Agency for International Development provided its survey response 
on June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Central Intelligence Agency: Stage l: 
The Central Intelligence Agency provided its survey response on August 
6, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Corporation for National and Community Service: Stage l: 
The Corporation for National and Community Service provided its survey 
response on July 20, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Environmental Protection Agency: Stage 3: 
The Environmental Protection Agency provided its survey response on 
June 28, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Stage l: 
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provided its survey 
response on August 1, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Executive Office of the President: Stage 2: 
The Executive Office of the President provided its survey response on 
October 1, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Export-Import Bank: Stage 3: 
The Export-Import Bank provided its survey response on September 20, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Stage l: 
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation provided its survey response 
on July 20, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Stage 2: 
The Federal Emergency Management Agency provided its survey response 
on July 12, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Stage l: 
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provided its survey response 
on August 27, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Federal Reserve System: Stage l: 
The Federal Reserve System provided its survey response on August 23, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board: Stage l: 
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board provided its survey 
response on July 20, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

General Services Administration: Stage 2: 
The General Services Administration provided its survey response on 
July 2, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Legal Services Corporation: Stage l: 
The Legal Services Corporation provided its survey response on 
September 4, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Stage 2: 
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration provided its survey 
response on July 25, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

National Credit Union Administration: Stage l: 
The National Credit Union Administration provided its survey response 
on July 18, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

National Labor Relations Board: Stage l: 
The National Labor Relations Board provided its survey response on 
August 9, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Stage l: 
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission provided its survey response on July 
23, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Office of Personnel Management: Stage 4: 
The Office of Personnel Management provided its survey response on 
June 29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Peace Corps: Stage l: 
The Peace Corps provided its survey response on July 20, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Railroad Retirement Board: Stage 2: 
The Railroad Retirement Board provided its survey response on July 11, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Securities and Exchange Commission: Stage 2: 
The Securities and Exchange Commission provided its survey response on 
July 19, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Small Business Administration: Stage 2: 
The Small Business Administration provided its survey response on June 
29, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Smithsonian Institution: Stage 2: 
The Smithsonian Institution provided its survey response on July 31, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

Social Security Administration: Stage 2: 
The Social Security Administration provided its survey response on 
July 3, 2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Postal Service: Stage 2: 
The U.S. Postal Service provided its survey response on August 13, 
2001. 

Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for Managing Change (includes all 
elements from stage 4); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing Architecture Products (includes all elements
from stage 3); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe “as is” environment, “to be” environment,
and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? No; 
* Agency chief information officer has approved EA; 
Satisfied? No. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing Architecture Products (includes all 
elements from stage 2); 
Description: 
* Written/approved policy exists for EA development; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products are under configuration management; 
Satisfied? No; 
* EA products describe or will describe enterprise’s business—-and the 
data, applications, and technology that support it; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA products describe or will describe “as is” environment, “to
be” environment, and sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA scope is enterprise-focused; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation; 
Description: 
* Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Program office responsible for EA development exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA being developed using a framework and automated tool; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business, data,
applications, or technology; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
* EA plans call for describing “as is” environment, “to be”
environment, or sequencing plan; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness. 
Description: 
Agency is aware of EA; 
Satisfied? Yes. 

[End of table] 

[End of Appendix V] 

Appendix VI: Survey of Federal Departments' Enterprise Architecture 
Efforts: 

United States General Accounting Office: 

Survey of Federal Departments' Enterprise Architecture Efforts: 

Introduction: 

To assist Congress in its oversight of the federal government, GAO is 
conducting a survey of federal departments' and agencies' enterprise 
architecture efforts to gauge progress towards meeting Clinger-Cohen 
Act and OMB requirements and to identify successes that can be shared 
with other federal agencies. There are two versions of this survey, 
this version is being sent to cabinet-level departments and a 
different version is being sent to federal agencies. 

Enterprise architectures are well-defined and enforced blueprints 
(i.e., descriptions) for operational and technological change. Such an 
architecture provides a clear and comprehensive picture of an entity, 
whether it is an organization (e.g., federal department, agency, or 
bureau) or a functional or mission area that cuts across more than one 
organization (e.g., financial management). This picture consists of 
three integrated components: (1) a snapshot of the enterprise's 
current operational and technological environment; (2) a snapshot of 
its target environment; and (3) a capital investment roadmap for 
transitioning (i.e. sequencing plan) from the current to the target 
environment. 

We are requesting departments and agencies to provide information from 
readily available data. We are not asking that extensive analyses be 
performed in order to respond to these questions. Please complete this 
survey and return it to GAO no later than June 29, 2001. 

You may return your completed survey and any supporting materials 
requested by mail or by fax. If you mail us your survey, the address 
is: 

U.S. General Accounting Office: 
Mark T. Bird: 
Assistant Director: 
Information Technology Team: 
441 G Street, NW, Room 4R26: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

If you return your survey by fax, the fax number is (202) 512-6450: 
Attn: Mark T. Bird. 

We are also asking that you provide the name and telephone number of a 
contact for your department who can answer any questions we may have 
about your survey responses. 

Department Contact: 
Name:	
Title: 	
Organization:	
Telephone: 
Fax: 
Email: 

If you have any questions, please contact: 

Mark T. Bird, Assistant Director: 
Voice: (202) 512-6260: 
Fax: (202) 512-6450: 
Email: birdm@gao.gov: 

1. Which of the following best describes your department's status with 
respect to enterprise architecture? (Check one.) 
We have developed an enterprise architecture: Skip to question 4.
We do not have an enterprise architecture, but are in the process of 
developing one: Skip to question 4.
We do not have an enterprise architecture, but plan to develop one: 
Continue with question 2.
We do not have and do not plan to develop an enterprise architecture: 
Skip to question 3. 

2. Please briefly describe your department's plan to develop an 
enterprise architecture, including the date by which you plan to have 
the enterprise architecture developed. 

If you were directed to answer question 2, you have completed the 
survey. Please return it as soon as possible. Thank you. 

3. If your department does not have or plan to develop an enterprise 
architecture, please explain why in the space below. 

If you were directed to answer question 3, you have completed the 
survey. Please return it as soon as possible. Thank you. 

4. Which of the following best describes the scope of your 
department's completed or in process enterprise architecture(s). 
(Check all that apply) 
Department-wide, organization based; 
Department component, organization-based; 
Functional or mission area (e.g., financial management,
logistics management, grant management, etc.); 
Please list the functional or mission areas covered by your 
department's enterprise architecture: 

Please follow the following instructions based on your answer to 
question 4. 

If you checked only box #1 (Department-wide, organization-based) or 
checked box #1 and any other box: 
Answer all of the remaining questions for your department-wide, 
organization-based enterprise architecture. 

If you checked box #2 (Department component, organization-based), but 
did not check box #1: You have completed the survey. Please return it 
as soon as possible. Thank you. (We are collecting this information 
directly from department components.) 

If you checked box #3 (Functional or mission area), but did not check 
box #1: You have completed the survey. Please return it as soon as 
possible. Thank you. 

You should answer the following questions if your department has an 
enterprise architecture or is in the process of developing one. 

5. Does (or will) this particular enterprise architecture include the 
following? (Check one box for each row.) 

A description of the department's business (i.e., mission): 
Yes, it does (1): 
Yes, it	will (2): 
No (3): 

A description of the department's data that support the department's 
business: 
Yes, it does (1): 
Yes, it	will (2): 
No (3): 

A description of the department's applications that support the 
department's business: 
Yes, it does (1): 
Yes, it	will (2): 
No (3): 

A description of the agency's technology that supports the 
department's business: 

6. Does (or will) this particular enterprise architecture include the 
following? (Check one box for each 
row.)				 

A description of the current or "as is" environment: 
Yes, it does (1): 
Yes, it	will (2): 
No (3): 

A description of the target or "to be" environment: 
Yes, it does (1): 
Yes, it	will (2): 
No (3): 

A description of the sequencing plan for moving from the "as is" to 
the "to be" environment: 
Yes, it does (1): 
Yes, it	will (2): 
No (3): 

6a. If you answered "No" to any of the items in question 6, please 
explain why. 

7. Does your department have a written and approved policy for the 
development, maintenance, and use of enterprise architecture? 
(Check one box for each	row. If policy is written but not approved, 
please check "No"). 	 
Development: 
Yes: 
No: 
Maintenance: 
Yes: 
No: 

Use: 
Yes: 
No: 

8. Has your department established the following entities? (Check one 
box for each row.)		
	
Committees or groups with responsibility for such things as directing, 
overseeing, and/or approving the enterprise architecture; 
Yes: 
No: 

A program office or individuals with responsibility for such things as 
developing and maintaining the enterprise architecture; 
Yes: 
No: 

9. Does your department's architecture program staff (including 
department employees and/or contractors) include the following? (Check 
one box in each row.)			
	
Chief Architect: Heads the Enterprise Architecture Program Management 
Office (EAPMO), organizes and manages the EA core team, directs 
development of the baseline and target architecture; 
Yes: 
No: 
		
Senior Architecture Consultant: Provides architecture strategy and 
planning consultation to the Chief Architect; 
Yes: 
No: 

Business Architect: Analyzes and documents business processes, 
scenarios, and information flow; 
Yes: 
No: 

Applications Architect: Analyzes and documents systems, internal and 
external interfaces, control, and data flow; 
Yes: 
No: 

Information Architect: Analyzes and documents business information 
(logical and physical) and associated relationships; 
Yes: 
No: 

Infrastructure Architect: Analyzes and documents system environments, 
including network communications, nodes, operating systems, 
applications, application servers, web and portal servers, and 
middleware; 
Yes: 
No: 

Security Systems Architect: Oversees, coordinates, and documents IT 
security aspects of the EA, including design, operations, encryption, 
vulnerability, access, and the use of authentication processes; 
Yes: 
No: 

Technical Writer: Ensures that policies, guidebooks, and other 
documentation within the EA repository are clear, concise, usable, and 
conform to configuration management standards; 
Yes: 
No: 

Quality Assurance Specialist: Ensures that all established program and 
project standards, processes, and practices are met; 
Yes: 
No: 

Risk Management Specialist: Identifies, monitors, and controls risks 
in light of environmental factors and constraints; 
Yes: 
No: 

Configuration Control Specialist: Assures that all changes are 
identified, tracked, monitored, and appropriately documented; 
Yes: 
No: 

Other: 
Specify:			 

10. Which of the following automated tools are being used for this 
enterprise architecture? For each tool being used, how satisfied or 
dissatisfied box.) (Check yes or no in each row. If yes, check 
additional box.) 

Framework by Ptech: 					
Is the tool being used: 
Yes: 
No: 
If tool is being used, are you: 
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 

Rational Rose by Rational Corp. 
Is the tool being used: 
Yes: 
No: 
If tool is being used, are you: 
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 

Systems Architect by Popkin: 
Is the tool being used: 
Yes: 
No: 
If tool is being used, are you: 
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 

Microsoft Word: 
Is the tool being used: 
Yes: 
No: 
If tool is being used, are you: 
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 

Microsoft Excel: 
Is the tool being used: 
Yes: 
No: 
If tool is being used, are you: 
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 

Microsoft PowerPoint: 
Is the tool being used: 
Yes: 
No: 
If tool is being used, are you: 
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 

Other - Specify: 
	
11. Which of the following model(s) or framework(s) did your 
department use to develop this enterprise architecture?	(Check all 
that apply.) 
	
1. Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, 
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR). 

2. Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF). 

3. Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework (TEAF). 

4. National Institute of Standards and Technology Framework (NIST). 

5. Zachman Framework. 

6. Other - Specify: 

7. None of the above. 

12. Which of the following best describes how your department's 
enterprise architecture was or is being developed? (Check one) 

1. Developed in-house using contractor support. 

2. Developed in-house without any contractor support. 

3. Acquired from a contractor. 

13. Was your department's enterprise architecture: (Check one box in 
each row.) 

Approved by your department's chief information officer? 
Yes: 
No: 
		
Approved by your department's enterprise architecture steering 
committee? 
Yes: 
No: 

Approved by your department's investment review board? 
Yes: 
No: 

Approved by the head of your department (i.e., your department's 
secretary)? 
Yes: 
No: 

Approved by other official or committee? Please specify: 
Yes: 
No: 

Submitted to OMB? 
Yes: 
No: 

14. We are classifying as "complete" enterprise architecture(s) that 
meet any of the criteria listed in question 13. Did you answer "Yes" 
to one or more levels of approval/submission in question 13?
(Check one and provide additional information) 

1. Yes: Please provide the following costs for your department's 
completed enterprise architecture: 
(Note: cost figures should include all costs that have gone into the 
implementation of your department's enterprise architecture, including 
the cost of outside contractors) 
The actual cost at completion: 
The average annual maintenance cost: 

2. No: Please provide the estimated total cost of your department's 
enterprise architecture at completion: 
(Note: cost figures should include all costs that have gone into the 
implementation of your department's enterprise architecture, including 
the cost of outside contractors) 

15. Is your department's enterprise architecture under configuration 
control? (Check one box and provide additional information if 
necessary) 

1. Yes: If yes, please provide: 
Date of current version: 
Current version number: 

2. No. 

16. Does your department have a written policy that requires that 
information technology investments comply with the enterprise 
architecture? (Check one.) 

1. Yes: Continue with question 17. 
2. No: Skip to question 18. 

17. Does your department permit waivers to its requirement that 
information technology investments comply with the enterprise 
architecture? (Check one) 

1. Yes, only if the request provides a written justification. 

2. Yes, a waiver can be granted based on an informal request. 

3. No, the agency does not provide for waivers to this policy. 

18. Was your department's decision to develop an enterprise 
architecture based on: 1) a business case that provided economic 
justification (i.e., benefits in excess of costs); 2) the need to 
comply with the Clinger-Cohen Act and/or OMB requirements; and/or, 3) 
some other factor(s) was considered? (Check all that apply.) 

1. A business case that anticipated a positive return. 

2. The need to comply with Clinger-Cohen and/or OMB requirements. 

3. Other factor(s) - Please specify: 

19. What are the primary quantitative and qualitative benefits that 
your department expected to achieve by developing an enterprise 
architecture? 

Quantitative benefits: 
a. 
b.
c. 
d. 
Qualitative benefits: 
e. 
f. 
g. 
h. 

20. Of the benefits that you listed in question 19, to what extent, if 
at all, have each of them been attained thus far? (Check one box in 
each row that corresponds to the benefits listed in the previous 
question) 

Benefits (By letter of question 19): 

Quantitative benefits: 
						
Benefit a: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 
	
Benefit b: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 

Benefit c: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 

Benefit d: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 

Qualitative benefits: 

Benefit e: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 

Benefit f: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 
	
Benefit g: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 

Benefit h: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 

21. To what extent, if at all, did the following challenges enterprise 
architecture? (Check one box in each affect the development of your 
department's row.)					
	
Top management's understanding of the importance and value of 
enterprise architecture: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 

Parochialism/cultural resistance: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 

Funding: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 

Skilled staff: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 

Other — Please specify:	 

22. Has your department developed quantitative or qualitative measures 
(i.e., metrics) of the benefits derived from using enterprise 
architecture? (Check one) 

1. Yes: Continue with question. 
2. No: Skip to question 24. 
	
Please describe these metrics used for measuring benefits. 

24. Has your department issued policy or guidance for your department 
components' enterprise architecture development, maintenance, or use? 

1. Yes: Please enclose a copy of the policy or guidance with your 
response. 
2. No. 

25. What steps does your department take to ensure that the department 
components are adhering to the policy (e.g., oversight and approval 
processes)? 
a. 
b. 
c. 
d. 
e. 

26. Is your department's enterprise architecture published? (Check 
one.) 
1. Yes: Please enclose a copy of any high-level, supporting 
architecture products with your response. 
2. No. 

27. Please provide any additional comments on your department's 
enterprise architecture program in the space provided. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

Please return your survey and any requested supporting materials to
the address or fax number indicated on page 1. 

[End of Appendix VI] 

Appendix VII: Survey of Federal Agencies' Enterprise Architecture 
Efforts: 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Survey of Federal Agencies' Enterprise Architecture Efforts: 

Introduction: 

To assist Congress in its oversight of the federal government, GAO is 
conducting a survey of federal departments' and agencies' enterprise 
architecture efforts to gauge progress towards meeting Clinger-Cohen 
Act and OMB requirements and to identify successes that can be shared 
with other federal agencies. There are two versions of this survey, 
this version is being sent to federal agencies and a different version 
is being sent to cabinet-level departments. 

Enterprise architectures are well-defined and enforced blueprints 
(i.e., descriptions) for operational and technological change. Such an 
architecture provides a clear and comprehensive picture of an entity, 
whether it is an organization (e.g., federal department, agency, or 
bureau) or a functional or mission area that cuts across more than one 
organization (e.g., financial management). This picture consists of 
three integrated components: (1) a snapshot of the enterprise's 
current operational and technological environment; (2) a snapshot of 
its target environment; and (3) a capital investment roadmap for 
transitioning (i e sequencing plan) from the current to the target 
environment. 

We are requesting departments and agencies to provide information from 
readily available data. We are not asking that extensive analyses be 
performed in order to respond to these questions. Please complete this 
survey and return it to GAO no later than July 20, 2001. 

You may return your completed survey and any supporting materials 
requested by mail or by fax. If you mail us your survey, the address 
is: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
Mark T. Bird: 
Assistant Director: 
Information Technology Team: 
441 G Street, NW, Room 4R26: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

If you return your survey by fax, the fax number is (202) 512-6450: 
Attn: Mark T. Bird. 

We are also asking that you provide the name and telephone number of a 
contact for your agency who can answer any questions we may have about 
your survey responses. 

Agency Contact: 
Name: 
Title: 
Organization: 
Telephone: 
Fax: 
Email: 

If you have any questions, please contact: 

Mark T. Bird, Assistant Director: 
Voice: (202) 512-6260: 
Fax: (202) 512-6450: 
Email: birdm@gao.gov: 

1. Which of the following best describes your agency's status with 
respect to enterprise architecture? (Check one) 

1.We have developed an enterprise architecture: Skip to question 4.
2. We do not have an enterprise architecture, but are in the process 
of developing one: Skip to question 4. 
3. We do not have an enterprise architecture, but plan to develop one: 
Continue with question 2.
4. We do not have and do not plan to develop an enterprise 
architecture: Skip to question 3. 

2. Please briefly describe your agency's plan to develop an enterprise 
architecture, including the date by which you plan to have the 
enterprise architecture developed. 

If you were directed to answer question 2, you have completed the 
survey. 

Please return it as soon as possible. Thank you. 

3. If your agency does not have or plan to develop an enterprise 
architecture, please explain why in the space below. 

If you were directed to answer question 3, you have completed the 
survey. 

Please return it as soon as possible. Thank you. 

4. Which of the following best describes the scope of your 
department's completed or in process enterprise architecture(s). 
(Check all that apply) 
Department-wide, organization based; 
Department component, organization-based; 
Functional or mission area (e.g., financial management,
logistics management, grant management, etc.); 
Please list the functional or mission areas covered by your 
department's enterprise architecture: 

Please follow the following instructions based on your answer to 
question 4. 

If you checked only box #1 (Department-wide, organization-based) or 
checked box #1 and any other box: 
Answer all of the remaining questions for your department-wide, 
organization-based enterprise architecture. 

If you checked box #2 (Department component, organization-based), but 
did not check box #1: You have completed the survey. Please return it 
as soon as possible. Thank you. (We are collecting this information 
directly from department components.) 

If you checked box #3 (Functional or mission area), but did not check 
box #1: You have completed the survey. Please return it as soon as 
possible. Thank you. 

You should answer the following questions if your department has an 
enterprise architecture or is in the process of developing one. 

5. Does (or will) this particular enterprise architecture include the 
following? (Check one box for each row.) 

A description of the department's business (i.e., mission): 
Yes, it does (1): 
Yes, it	will (2): 
No (3): 

A description of the department's data that support the department's 
business: 
Yes, it does (1): 
Yes, it	will (2): 
No (3): 

A description of the department's applications that support the 
department's business: 
Yes, it does (1): 
Yes, it	will (2): 
No (3): 

A description of the agency's technology that supports the 
department's business: 

6. Does (or will) this particular enterprise architecture include the 
following? (Check one box for each 
row.)				 

A description of the current or "as is" environment: 
Yes, it does (1): 
Yes, it	will (2): 
No (3): 

A description of the target or "to be" environment: 
Yes, it does (1): 
Yes, it	will (2): 
No (3): 

A description of the sequencing plan for moving from the "as is" to 
the "to be" environment: 
Yes, it does (1): 
Yes, it	will (2): 
No (3): 

6a. If you answered "No" to any of the items in question 6, please 
explain why. 

7. Does your department have a written and approved policy for the 
development, maintenance, and use of enterprise architecture? 
(Check one box for each	row. If policy is written but not approved, 
please check "No"). 	 
Development: 
Yes: 
No: 
Maintenance: 
Yes: 
No: 

Use: 
Yes: 
No: 

8. Has your department established the following entities? (Check one 
box for each row.)		
	
Committees or groups with responsibility for such things as directing, 
overseeing, and/or approving the enterprise architecture; 
Yes: 
No: 

A program office or individuals with responsibility for such things as 
developing and maintaining the enterprise architecture; 
Yes: 
No: 

9. Does your department's architecture program staff (including 
department employees and/or contractors) include the following? (Check 
one box in each row.)			
	
Chief Architect: Heads the Enterprise Architecture Program Management 
Office (EAPMO), organizes and manages the EA core team, directs 
development of the baseline and target architecture; 
Yes: 
No: 
		
Senior Architecture Consultant: Provides architecture strategy and 
planning consultation to the Chief Architect; 
Yes: 
No: 

Business Architect: Analyzes and documents business processes, 
scenarios, and information flow; 
Yes: 
No: 

Applications Architect: Analyzes and documents systems, internal and 
external interfaces, control, and data flow; 
Yes: 
No: 

Information Architect: Analyzes and documents business information 
(logical and physical) and associated relationships; 
Yes: 
No: 

Infrastructure Architect: Analyzes and documents system environments, 
including network communications, nodes, operating systems, 
applications, application servers, web and portal servers, and 
middleware; 
Yes: 
No: 

Security Systems Architect: Oversees, coordinates, and documents IT 
security aspects of the EA, including design, operations, encryption, 
vulnerability, access, and the use of authentication processes; 
Yes: 
No: 

Technical Writer: Ensures that policies, guidebooks, and other 
documentation within the EA repository are clear, concise, usable, and 
conform to configuration management standards; 
Yes: 
No: 

Quality Assurance Specialist: Ensures that all established program and 
project standards, processes, and practices are met; 
Yes: 
No: 

Risk Management Specialist: Identifies, monitors, and controls risks 
in light of environmental factors and constraints; 
Yes: 
No: 

Configuration Control Specialist: Assures that all changes are 
identified, tracked, monitored, and appropriately documented; 
Yes: 
No: 

Other: 
Specify:			 

10. Which of the following automated tools are being used for this 
enterprise architecture? For each tool being used, how satisfied or 
dissatisfied box.) (Check yes or no in each row. If yes, check 
additional box.) 

Framework by Ptech: 					
Is the tool being used: 
Yes: 
No: 
If tool is being used, are you: 
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 

Rational Rose by Rational Corp. 
Is the tool being used: 
Yes: 
No: 
If tool is being used, are you: 
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 

Systems Architect by Popkin: 
Is the tool being used: 
Yes: 
No: 
If tool is being used, are you: 
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 

Microsoft Word: 
Is the tool being used: 
Yes: 
No: 
If tool is being used, are you: 
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 

Microsoft Excel: 
Is the tool being used: 
Yes: 
No: 
If tool is being used, are you: 
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 

Microsoft PowerPoint: 
Is the tool being used: 
Yes: 
No: 
If tool is being used, are you: 
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 

Other - Specify: 
	
11. Which of the following model(s) or framework(s) did your 
department use to develop this enterprise architecture?	(Check all 
that apply.) 
	
1. Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, 
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR). 

2. Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF). 

3. Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework (TEAF). 

4. National Institute of Standards and Technology Framework (NIST). 

5. Zachman Framework. 

6. Other - Specify: 

7. None of the above. 

12. Which of the following best describes how your department's 
enterprise architecture was or is being developed? (Check one) 

1. Developed in-house using contractor support. 

2. Developed in-house without any contractor support. 

3. Acquired from a contractor. 

13. Was your department's enterprise architecture: (Check one box in 
each row.) 

Approved by your department's chief information officer? 
Yes: 
No: 
		
Approved by your department's enterprise architecture steering 
committee? 
Yes: 
No: 

Approved by your department's investment review board? 
Yes: 
No: 

Approved by the head of your department (i.e., your department's 
secretary)? 
Yes: 
No: 

Approved by other official or committee? Please specify: 
Yes: 
No: 

Submitted to OMB? 
Yes: 
No: 

14. We are classifying as "complete" enterprise architecture(s) that 
meet any of the criteria listed in question 13. Did you answer "Yes" 
to one or more levels of approval/submission in question 13?
(Check one and provide additional information) 

1. Yes: Please provide the following costs for your department's 
completed enterprise architecture: 
(Note: cost figures should include all costs that have gone into the 
implementation of your department's enterprise architecture, including 
the cost of outside contractors) 
The actual cost at completion: 
The average annual maintenance cost: 

2. No: Please provide the estimated total cost of your department's 
enterprise architecture at completion: 
(Note: cost figures should include all costs that have gone into the 
implementation of your department's enterprise architecture, including 
the cost of outside contractors) 

15. Is your department's enterprise architecture under configuration 
control? (Check one box and provide additional information if 
necessary) 

1. Yes: If yes, please provide: 
Date of current version: 
Current version number: 

2. No. 

16. Does your department have a written policy that requires that 
information technology investments comply with the enterprise 
architecture? (Check one.) 

1. Yes: Continue with question 17. 
2. No: Skip to question 18. 

17. Does your department permit waivers to its requirement that 
information technology investments comply with the enterprise 
architecture? (Check one) 

1. Yes, only if the request provides a written justification. 

2. Yes, a waiver can be granted based on an informal request. 

3. No, the agency does not provide for waivers to this policy. 

18. Was your department's decision to develop an enterprise 
architecture based on: 1) a business case that provided economic 
justification (i.e., benefits in excess of costs); 2) the need to 
comply with the Clinger-Cohen Act and/or OMB requirements; and/or, 3) 
some other factor(s) was considered? (Check all that apply.) 

1. A business case that anticipated a positive return. 

2. The need to comply with Clinger-Cohen and/or OMB requirements. 

3. Other factor(s) - Please specify: 

19. What are the primary quantitative and qualitative benefits that 
your department expected to achieve by developing an enterprise 
architecture? 

Quantitative benefits: 
a. 
b.
c. 
d. 
Qualitative benefits: 
e. 
f. 
g. 
h. 

20. Of the benefits that you listed in question 19, to what extent, if 
at all, have each of them been attained thus far? (Check one box in 
each row that corresponds to the benefits listed in the previous 
question) 

Benefits (By letter of question 19): 

Quantitative benefits: 
						
Benefit a: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 
	
Benefit b: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 

Benefit c: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 

Benefit d: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 

Qualitative benefits: 

Benefit e: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 

Benefit f: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 
	
Benefit g: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 

Benefit h: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 
Too early to say: 

21. To what extent, if at all, did the following challenges enterprise 
architecture? (Check one box in each affect the development of your 
department's row.)					
	
Top management's understanding of the importance and value of 
enterprise architecture: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 

Parochialism/cultural resistance: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 

Funding: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 

Skilled staff: 
Very great extent: 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Some or little extent: 
No extent: 

Other — Please specify:	 

22. Has your department developed quantitative or qualitative measures 
(i.e., metrics) of the benefits derived from using enterprise 
architecture? (Check one) 

1. Yes: Continue with question. 
2. No: Skip to question 24. 
	
Please describe these metrics used for measuring benefits. 

24. Is your agency a sub-component of a cabinet level federal 
department such as the Department of Treasury or USDA? (Check one.) 
1. Yes: Continue with question 25. 
2. No: Skip to question 27. 

25. To what extent, if at all, has your agency's department provided 
oversight of your enterprise architecture efforts? (Check one)
1. Very great extent. 
2. Great extent. 
3. Moderate extent. 
4. Some or little extent. 
5. No extent. 

26. Was your agency's enterprise architecture approved by your 
department's chief information officer? (Check one) 
1. Yes. 
2. No. 

27. Is your agency's enterprise architecture published? (Check one.)
1. Yes: Please enclose a copy of any high-level, supporting 
architecture products with your response.
2. No. 

28. Please provide any additional comments you would like to make on 
your agency's enterprise architecture program in the space provided. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

Please return your survey and any requested supporting materials to
the address or fax number indicated on page 1. 

[End of Appendix VII] 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact And Staff Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact: 

Mark T. Bird, (202) 512-6260. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the person named above, Nabajyoti Barkakati, Holly 
Booth, Michael P. Fruitman, Pamlutricia Greenleaf, and Stuart M. 
Kaufman made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Management of Federal Information Resources, Office of Management 
and Budget, Circular No. A-130 (November 30, 2000). 

[2] Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, Public Law 104-106, section 5125, 110 
Stat. 684 (1996). 

[3] A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0, 
Chief Information Officers Council (February 2001). 

[4] J. A. Zachman, "A Framework for Information Systems Architecture," 
IBM Systems Journal, vol. 26(3), 1987. 

[5] National Institute of Standards and Technology, Information 
Management Directions: The Integration Challenge, Special Publication 
500-167 (September 1989). 

[6] Strategic Information Planning: Framework for Designing and 
Developing System Architectures [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/IMTEC-92-51], June 1992. 

[7] Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance through Strategic 
Information Management and Technology [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-94-115], May 1994. 

[8] DOD C4ISR Architecture Framework, Version 2.0, December 18, 1997. 

[9] Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 1.0, July 3, 
2000. 

[10] Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 1.1, September 
1999. 

[11] Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, Public Law 104-106, section 5125, 110 
Stat.684 (1996). 

[12] Information Technology Architectures, Office of Management and 
Budget Memorandum M-97-16 (June 18, 1997), rescinded with the update 
of OMB Circular A-130, November 30, 2000. 

[13] Management of Federal Information Resources, Office of Management 
and Budget, Circular No. A-130 (November 30, 2000). 

[14] Chief Information Officers Council, Architecture Alignment and 
Assessment Guide, October 2000. 

[15] Chief Information Officers Council, A Practical Guide to Federal 
Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0, February 2001. 

[16] Weather Forecasting: Systems Architecture Needed for National 
Weather Service Modernization [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-94-28], March 11, 1994. 

[17] Air Traffic Control: Complete and Enforced Architecture Needed 
for FAA Systems Modernization [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-97-30], February 3, 1997. 

[18] 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], February 24, 1998. 

[19] Student Financial Aid Information: Systems Architecture Needed to 
Improve Programs' Efficiency [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-97-122], July 29, 1997. 

[20] 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], May 5, 1998. 

[21] Information Technology: INS Needs to Better Manage the 
Development of Its Enterprise Architecture [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-212], August 1, 2000. 

[22] Medicare: Information Systems Modernization Needs Stronger 
Management and Support [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-824], September 20, 2001. 

[23] Information Technology: Architecture Needed to Guide 
Modernization of DOD's Financial Operations [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-525], May 17, 2001. 

[24] Information Technology: DLA Should Strengthen Business Systems 
Modernization Architecture and Investment Activities [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-631], June 29, 2001. 

[25] Combat Identification Systems: Strengthened Management Efforts 
Needed to Ensure Required Capabilities [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-632], June 25, 2001. 

[26] Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for 
Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, Exposure Draft, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-10.1.23], May 2000. 

[27] The Department of the Army, the Internal Revenue Service, the 
Office of Personnel Management, and the Patent and Trademark Office 
have all attained stage 4 of our maturity framework. 

[28] One of the 116 agencies included in our analysis has achieved 
stage 5 of our framework (i.e., satisfied all the core elements). 

[29] 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] (May 5, 1998). 

[30] U.S. Customs Service: Observations on Selected Operations and 
Program Issues, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-00-150] (April 20, 2000). 

[31]Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Public Law No. 103-
62, August 3, 1993. 

[32] Information Technology Architectures, Office of Management and 
Budget Memorandum M-97-16 (June 18, 1997). 

[33] Management of Federal Information Resources, Office of Management 
and Budget, Circular No. A-130 (November 30, 2000). 

[34] Preparation and Submission of Budget Estimates, Office of 
Management and Budget, Circular A-11 (November 8, 2001). 

[35] CIO Council members include the Departments of Agriculture, 
Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, 
Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, 
Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs Major agencies that 
are CIO Council members include the Army, Navy, Air Force, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
Central Intelligence Agency, Small Business Administration, Social 
Security Administration, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, Agency for International Development, General Services 
Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, and Office of Personnel Management. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current 
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The 
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using 
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 
including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail 
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.go