This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-902 
entitled 'Organizational Transformation: Military Departments Can 
Improve Their Enterprise Architecture Programs' which was released on 
September 26, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
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 Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate: 

September 2011: 

Organizational Transformation: 

Military Departments Can Improve Their Enterprise Architecture 
Programs: 

GAO-11-902: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-902, a report to the Committee on Armed Services, 
U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) spends billions of dollars annually to 
build and maintain information technology (IT) systems intended to 
support its mission. For decades, DOD has been challenged in 
modernizing its systems environment to reduce duplication and increase 
integration. Such modernizations can be guided by an enterprise 
architecture—a blueprint that describes an organization’s current and 
target state for its business operations and supporting IT systems and 
a plan for transitioning between the two states. DOD has long sought 
to employ enterprise architectures and has defined an approach for 
doing so that depends in large part on the military departments 
developing architectures of their own. In light of the critical role 
that military department enterprise architectures play in DOD’s 
overall architecture approach, GAO was requested to assess the status 
of the Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy (DON) enterprise 
architecture programs. To do so, GAO obtained and analyzed key 
information about each department’s architecture relative to the 59 
core elements contained in stages 1 through 6 of GAO’s Enterprise 
Architecture Management Maturity Framework. 

What GAO Found: 

While Air Force, Army, and DON each have long-standing efforts to 
develop and use enterprise architectures, they have much to do before 
their efforts can be considered mature. GAO’s enterprise architecture 
management framework provides a flexible benchmark against which to 
plan for and measure architecture program maturity and consists of 59 
core elements arranged into a matrix of seven hierarchical stages. The 
Air Force has fully satisfied 20 percent, partially satisfied 47 
percent, and not satisfied 32 percent of GAO’s framework elements. The 
Army has fully satisfied 12 percent and partially satisfied 42 percent 
of the elements, with the remaining 46 percent not satisfied. Finally, 
DON has satisfied 27 percent, partially satisfied 41 percent, and not 
satisfied 32 percent of the framework elements (see table). 

Table: Military Department Satisfaction of GAO’s Framework Core 
Elements: 

Military department: Air Force; 
Fully satisfied: 20%; 
Partially satisfied: 47%; 
Not satisfied: 32%. 

Military department: Army; 
Fully satisfied: 12%; 
Partially satisfied: 42%; 
Not satisfied: 46%. 

Military department: DON; 
Fully satisfied: 27%; 
Partially satisfied: 41%; 
Not satisfied: 32%. 

Military department: Average; 
Fully satisfied: 20%; 
Partially satisfied: 44%; 
Not satisfied: 37%. 

Source: GAO analysis of military department data. 

Note: Numbers do not always add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

With respect to stages 1 through 6 of GAO’s architecture framework, 
the military departments have generally begun establishing 
institutional commitments to their respective enterprise architecture 
efforts (stage 1), not established the management foundations 
necessary for effective enterprise architecture development and use 
(stage 2), begun developing initial enterprise architecture content 
(stage 3), not completed and used their initial enterprise 
architecture versions to achieve results (stage 4), not expanded and 
evolved the development and use of their respective architectures to 
support institutional transformation (stage 5), and taken limited 
steps to continuously improve their respective architecture programs 
and use their architectures to achieve corporate optimization (stage 
6). 

Officials at the military departments stated that they have been 
limited in their ability to overcome long-standing enterprise 
architecture management challenges, including receiving adequate 
funding and attaining sufficient senior leadership understanding. 
Nevertheless, DOD has been provided with considerable resources for 
its IT systems environment, which consists of 2,324 systems. 
Specifically, DOD receives over $30 billion each year for this 
environment. Without fully developed and effectively managed 
enterprise architectures and a plan, the Air Force, Army, and DON lack 
the necessary road maps for transforming their business processes and 
modernizing their hundreds of supporting systems to minimize overlap 
and maximize interoperability. What this means is that DOD, as a 
whole, is not as well positioned as it should be to realize the 
significant benefits that a well-managed federation of architectures 
can afford its systems modernization efforts, such as eliminating 
system overlap and duplication. Because DOD is provided with over $30 
billion each year for its IT systems environment, the potential for 
identifying and avoiding the costs associated with duplicative 
functionality across its IT investments is significant. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the military departments each develop a plan for 
fully satisfying the elements of GAO’s framework. DOD and Army 
concurred and the Air Force and DON did not. In this regard, DOD 
stated that Air Force and DON do not have a valid business case that 
would justify the implementation of all the elements. However, GAO 
continues to believe its recommendation is warranted. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-902] or key 
components. For more information, contact Valerie C. Melvin at (202) 
512-6304 or melvinv@gao.gov. 

[End of figure] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Military Departments Have Begun to Develop Enterprise Architectures, 
but Management and Use Can Be Improved: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: EAMMF Table: 

Appendix III: Department of the Air Force: 

Appendix IV: Department of the Army: 

Appendix V: Department of the Navy: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Military Department Satisfaction of Core Enterprise 
Architecture Management Elements: 

Table 2: Military Department Satisfaction of Stage 1 Framework 
Elements: 

Table 3: Military Department Satisfaction of Stage 2 Framework 
Elements: 

Table 4: Military Department Satisfaction of Stage 3 Framework 
Elements: 

Table 5: Military Department Satisfaction of Stage 4 Framework 
Elements: 

Table 6: Military Department Satisfaction of Stage 5 Framework 
Elements: 

Table 7: Military Department Satisfaction of Stage 6 Framework 
Elements: 

Table 8: Summary of EAMMF Version 2.0 Core Elements Categorized by 
Stage: 

Table 9: Air Force Satisfaction of Core Elements within Each Stage: 

Table 10: Air Force Satisfaction of EAMMF Core Elements: 

Table 11: Army Satisfaction of Core Elements within Each Stage: 

Table 12: Army Satisfaction of EAMMF Core Elements: 

Table 13: DON Satisfaction of Core Elements within Each Stage: 

Table 14: DON Satisfaction of GAO EAMMF Core Elements: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Simplified View of DOD Organizational Structure: 

Figure 2: Conceptual Representation of DOD's Federated Architecture: 

Figure 3: EAMMF Overview with Seven Stages of Maturity: 

Abbreviations: 

BEA: business enterprise architecture: 

CIO: chief information officer: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DON: Department of the Navy: 

EAMMF: Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework: 

IGB: Information Enterprise Governance Board: 

IT: information technology: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 26, 2011: 

The Honorable Carl Levin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John McCain: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
United States Senate: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) spends billions of dollars each year 
to maintain operational systems and processes intended to support its 
mission. In this regard, the department requested about $38 billion 
for its information technology (IT) investments for fiscal year 2012, 
including about $25 billion in combined investments at the Departments 
of the Air Force, Army, and Navy (DON).[Footnote 1] According to DOD's 
systems inventory, the department's IT environment is composed of 
2,324 systems and includes 338 financial management, 719 human 
resource management, 664 logistics, 250 real property and 
installation, and 300 weapon acquisition management systems.[Footnote 
2] Of the 2,324 systems, there are 470 systems at the Air Force, 744 
at the Army, and 473 at DON. For decades, DOD has been challenged in 
modernizing its systems environment to reduce duplication and increase 
integration between its systems. 

Effective use of a well-defined enterprise architecture[Footnote 3] is 
a basic tenet of successful systems modernization and associated 
organizational transformation efforts, such as the one DOD has long 
been seeking to accomplish. As we have previously reported,[Footnote 
4] without a well-defined enterprise architecture, it is unlikely that 
DOD, including its component organizations, will be able to transform 
business processes and modernize supporting systems to minimize 
overlap and maximize interoperability. Further, DOD's enterprise 
architecture approach relies on each level of its organization (e.g., 
DOD-wide, military departments, and programs) to develop a meaningful 
architecture. Accordingly, the development and use of a military 
department enterprise architecture is critical for organizational 
transformation and systems modernization across DOD and within each 
military department. 

In light of the critical role that military department architectures 
play in DOD's enterprise architecture construct, you asked us to 
assess the status of the Departments of the Air Force, Army, and 
Navy's enterprise architecture programs. To accomplish this, we 
requested key information about each department's architecture 
governance, content, use, and measurement. On the basis of the 
military departments' responses and supporting documentation, we 
analyzed the extent to which each satisfied the 59 core elements in 
our architecture maturity framework.[Footnote 5] 

We conducted this performance audit at DOD and military department 
offices in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area from October 2010 
through September 2011 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 
and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 
our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objective. Details on our objective, scope, and methodology are 
provided in appendix I. 

Background: 

DOD is a massive and complex organization entrusted with more taxpayer 
dollars than any other federal department or agency. Organizationally, 
the department includes the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military departments, numerous defense 
agencies and field activities, and various unified combatant commands 
that are responsible for either specific geographic regions or 
specific functions. (See figure 1 for a simplified depiction of DOD's 
organizational structure.) 

Figure 1: Simplified View of DOD Organizational Structure: 

[Refer to PDF for image: organizational chart] 

Top level: 
* Secretary of Defense/Deputy Secretary of Defense[A]. 

Second level, reporting to Secretary of Defense/Deputy Secretary of 
Defense: 
* Department of the Army; 
* Department of the Navy; 
* Department of the Air Force; 
* Office of the Secretary of Defense: 
- DOD field activities; 
- Defense agencies; 
* Inspector General; 
* Joint Chiefs of Staff; 
* Combatant commands[B]. 

Source: GAO based on DOD documentation. 

[A] The Deputy Secretary of Defense serves as the DOD Chief Management 
Officer, who has responsibilities, under statutes and department 
guidance, related to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of 
business operations. 

[B] The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff serves as the 
spokesperson for the commanders of the combatant commands, 
particularly for the administrative requirements of the commands. 

[End of figure] 

In support of its military operations, the department performs an 
assortment of interrelated and interdependent business functions, such 
as logistics management, weapons systems management, supply chain 
management, procurement, health care management, and financial 
management. For fiscal year 2012, the department requested about $38 
billion for its IT investments, of which about $17 billion is intended 
for its business systems environment and supporting IT infrastructure, 
which includes systems and processes related to the management of 
contracts, finances, the supply chain, support infrastructure, and 
weapons systems acquisition. However, as we have previously 
reported,[Footnote 6] the DOD systems environment that supports these 
business functions is overly complex and error prone, and is 
characterized by (1) little standardization across the department, (2) 
multiple systems performing the same tasks, (3) the same data being 
stored in multiple systems, and (4) the need for data to be entered 
manually into multiple systems. 

DOD currently bears responsibility, in whole or in part, for 14 of the 
30 federal government program areas that we have designated as high 
risk.[Footnote 7] Seven of these areas are specific to DOD[Footnote 8] 
and the department shares responsibility for 7 other governmentwide 
high-risk areas.[Footnote 9] The lack of an effective enterprise 
architecture is a key contributor to its having many of these high-
risk areas. DOD's business systems modernization, which is to be 
guided by the DOD Business Enterprise Architecture, is one of the high-
risk areas, and is an essential component for addressing many of the 
department's other high-risk areas. For example, modernized business 
systems are integral to the department's efforts to address its 
financial, supply chain, and information security management high-risk 
areas. A well-defined and effectively implemented enterprise 
architecture is, in turn, integral to the successful modernization of 
DOD's business systems. 

Enterprise Architecture Is Key to Transforming Business and Mission 
Operations: 

An enterprise architecture is a modernization blueprint that describes 
an organization's (e.g., a federal department or agency) or a 
functional area's (e.g., terrorism information sharing or homeland 
security) current and target state in both logical and technical 
terms, as well as a plan for transitioning between the two states. As 
such, it is a recognized tenet of organizational transformation and IT 
management in public and private organizations. Without an enterprise 
architecture, it is unlikely that an organization will be able to 
transform business processes and modernize supporting systems to 
minimize overlap and maximize interoperability. For more than a 
decade, we have conducted work to help federal agencies improve their 
architecture efforts. To this end, we developed the Enterprise 
Architecture Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF), which provides 
federal agencies with a common benchmarking tool for assessing the 
management of their enterprise architecture efforts and developing 
improvement plans. 

Enterprise Architecture Description and Importance: 

An enterprise can be viewed as either a single organization or a 
functional area that transcends more than one organization. An 
architecture can be viewed as the structure (or structural 
description) of any activity. Thus, enterprise architectures are 
systematically derived and captured descriptions depicted in models, 
diagrams, and narratives. 

More specifically, an architecture describes the enterprise in logical 
terms (such as interrelated business processes and business rules, 
information needs and flows, and work locations and users) as well as 
in technical terms (such as hardware, software, data, communications, 
security attributes, and performance standards). It provides these 
perspectives both for the enterprise's current environment, and for 
its target environment, and it provides a transition plan for moving 
from the current to the target environment. 

Enterprise architectures are a basic tenet of both organizational 
transformation and IT management, and their effective use is a 
recognized hallmark of successful public and private organizations. 
For over a decade, we have promoted the use of architectures, 
recognizing them as a crucial means to a challenging end: optimized 
agency operations and performance. The alternative, as our work has 
shown, is the perpetuation of the kinds of operational environments 
that saddle many agencies today, in which the lack of integration 
among business operations and the IT resources that support them leads 
to systems that are duplicative, not well integrated, and 
unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface.[Footnote 10] Employed 
in concert with other important IT management controls (such as 
portfolio-based capital planning and investment control practices), an 
enterprise architecture can greatly increase the chances that an 
organization's operational and IT environments will be configured to 
optimize mission performance. Moreover, the development of agency 
enterprise architectures is based on statutory requirements and 
federal guidance.[Footnote 11] Further, DOD is required by statute 
[Footnote 12] to develop an enterprise architecture to cover all 
defense business systems, and the business transformation initiatives 
of the military departments are required to develop a well-defined 
enterprisewide business systems architecture.[Footnote 13] 

Enterprise Architecture Approaches: 

There are several approaches to structuring an enterprise 
architecture, depending on the needs of the agency. In general, these 
approaches provide for decomposing an enterprise into its logical 
parts and architecting each of the parts in relation to enterprisewide 
needs and the inherent relationships and dependencies that exist among 
the parts. As such, the approaches are fundamentally aligned and 
consistent with a number of basic enterprise architecture principles, 
such as incremental rather than monolithic architecture development 
and implementation, optimization of the whole rather than optimization 
of the component parts, and maximization of shared data and services 
across the component parts rather than duplication. Moreover, these 
approaches are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, can all be applied 
to some degree for a given enterprise, depending on the 
characteristics and circumstances of that enterprise. The approaches, 
which are briefly described here, are federated, segmented, and 
service-oriented. 

Federated: 

Under a federated approach, the architecture consists of a family of 
coherent but distinct member architectures that conform to an 
overarching corporate (i.e., enterprise-level) or parent architecture. 
This approach recognizes that each federation member has unique goals 
and needs as well as common roles and responsibilities with the 
members above and below it. As such, member architectures (e.g., 
component, subordinate, or subsidiary architectures) are substantially 
autonomous, but they also inherit certain rules, policies, procedures, 
and services from the parent architectures. A federated architecture 
enables component organization autonomy while ensuring enterprise- 
level or enterprisewide linkages and alignment where appropriate. 

Segmented: 

A segmented approach to enterprise architecture development and use, 
like a federated approach, employs a "divide and conquer" methodology 
in which architecture segments are identified, prioritized, developed, 
and implemented. In general, segments can be viewed as logical 
aspects, or "slivers," of the enterprise that can be architected and 
pursued as separate initiatives under the overall enterprise-level 
architecture. As such, the segments serve as a bridge between the 
corporate frame of reference captured in the enterprise architecture 
and individual programs within portfolios of system investments. 

Service-Oriented: 

Under this approach, functions and applications are defined and 
designed as discrete and reusable capabilities or services that may be 
under the control of different organizational entities. As such, the 
capabilities or services need to be, among other things, (1) self- 
contained, meaning that they do not depend on any other functions or 
applications to execute a discrete unit of work; (2) published and 
exposed as self-describing business capabilities that can be accessed 
and used; and (3) subscribed to via well-defined and standardized 
interfaces. This approach is intended to reduce redundancy and 
increase integration, as well as provide the flexibility needed to 
support a quicker response to changing and evolving business 
requirements and emerging conditions. 

DOD Has Adopted a Federated Approach to Its Enterprise Architecture: 

DOD has adopted a federated strategy to develop and implement the many 
and varied architectures across the department. This strategy is to 
provide a comprehensive architectural description of the entire DOD 
enterprise, including the relationships between and among all levels 
of the enterprise (e.g., enterprise-level, mission areas, components, 
and programs). Figure 2 shows a simplified conceptual depiction of 
DOD's federated enterprise architecture. 

Figure 2: Conceptual Representation of DOD's Federated Architecture: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Department Layer: Department of Defense. 

Mission Area Layer (reporting to Department Layer): 

* Warfighting Mission Area: 
- Warfighting Enterprise Architecture; 
* Business Mission Area: 
- Business Enterprise Architecture; 
* Intelligence Mission Area: 
- Intelligence Enterprise Architecture; 
* Enterprise Information Environment Mission Area: 
- Enterprise Information Environment Enterprise Architecture. 

Component Layer (reporting to Mission Area Layer): 
* Military Departments; 
* Defense Agencies; 
* Combatant Commands. 

Program Layer (reporting to Component Layer): 
* Programs. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[End of figure] 

DOD's Enterprise Architecture Federation Strategy describes specific 
roles and responsibilities for each level of its federated 
architecture. These roles and responsibilities are consistent with 
DOD's tiered accountability approach to systems modernization, whereby 
components (e.g., mission areas, military departments, etc.) are 
responsible for defining their respective component architectures and 
transition plans and program managers are responsible for developing 
program-level architectures and transition plans and ensuring 
integration with the architectures and transition plans developed and 
executed at the component and enterprise levels. For example, each 
level of the federation is responsible for developing its respective 
architecture and imposing constraints on the levels below. 
Accordingly, the completeness of the DOD federated enterprise 
architecture depends on each level of the federation developing its 
own respective enterprise architecture. Moreover, since the military 
departments comprise such a large portion of the DOD enterprise, the 
relative importance of their respective enterprise architectures is 
significant. 

GAO's Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework: 

In 2002, we developed version 1.0[Footnote 14] of the EAMMF to provide 
federal agencies with a common benchmarking tool for planning and 
measuring their efforts to improve management of their enterprise 
architectures, as well as to provide OMB with a means for doing the 
same governmentwide. We issued an update to the framework (version 
1.1) in 2003[Footnote 15] and a new version (version 2.0) in 
2010.[Footnote 16] Version 2.0 expands on prior versions based on our 
experience in using them in evaluating governmentwide and agency-
specific enterprise architectures and our solicitation of comments 
from federal agencies and other stakeholders on the usability, 
completeness, and sufficiency of the framework. The latest version 
provides a more current and pragmatic construct for viewing 
architecture development and use. In this regard, it provides a 
flexible benchmark against which to plan for and measure architecture 
program management maturity that permits thoughtful and reasonable 
discretion to be applied in using it. Restated, the framework is not 
intended to be a rigidly applied "one size fits all" checklist, but 
rather a flexible frame of reference that should be applied in a 
manner that makes sense for each organization's unique facts and 
circumstances. Specifically, depending on the size, scope, and 
complexity of the enterprise, not every framework core element may be 
equally applicable, not every assessment has to consider every 
element, and not every assessment has to consider every element in the 
same level of detail. Moreover, the framework is not intended to be 
viewed as the sole benchmarking tool for informing and understanding 
an organization's journey toward architecture maturity. 

Version 2.0 of the framework arranges 59 core elements into a matrix 
of seven hierarchical stages. Figure 3 presents a depiction of the 
seven stages of maturity. 

Figure 3: EAMMF Overview with Seven Stages of Maturity: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Maturity Stage 0: 
No elements. 

Maturity Stage 1: 
Core elements. 

Maturity Stage 2: 
Core elements. 

Maturity Stage 3: 
Core elements. 

Maturity Stage 4: 
Core elements. 

Maturity Stage 5: 
Core elements. 

Maturity Stage 6: 
Core elements. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

EAMMF Stages: 

Each maturity stage includes all the core elements that are resident 
in the previous stages. Each stage is described in detail here. 
Appendix II provides a list of core elements arranged by their 
respective EAMMF stages. 

Stage 0: Creating Enterprise Architecture Awareness: 

At this stage, either an organization does not have plans to develop 
and use an enterprise architecture or it has plans that do not 
demonstrate an awareness of the management discipline needed to 
successfully develop, maintain, and use an enterprise architecture. 
While Stage 0 organizations may have initiated some enterprise 
architecture activity, their efforts are largely ad hoc and 
unstructured and lack the institutional leadership necessary for 
successful development, maintenance, and use as defined in Stage 1. 
Therefore, Stage 0 has no associated core elements. 

Stage 1: Establishing Enterprise Architecture Institutional Commitment 
and Direction: 

At this stage, an organization puts in place the foundational pillars 
for treating its enterprise architecture program as an institution and 
for overcoming traditional barriers to its success. For example, the 
organization grounds enterprise architecture development and 
compliance in policy and recognizes it as a corporate asset by vesting 
ownership of the architecture with top executives (i.e., lines of 
business owners and chief "X" officers).[Footnote 17] As members of a 
chartered architecture executive committee, these individuals are 
provided with the knowledge and understanding of the architecture 
concepts and governance principles needed to lead and direct the 
enterprise architecture effort. Through the enterprise architecture 
executive committee (hereafter referred to as the Executive 
Committee), leadership is demonstrated through the approval of 
enterprise architecture goals and objectives and key aspects of the 
architecture's construct, such as the framework(s) to be used and the 
approach for establishing the hierarchy and structure of organization 
components (e.g., federation members, segments, etc.). Also during 
this stage, the central figure in managing the program, the Chief 
Architect, is appointed and empowered, and the integral and relative 
role of the enterprise architecture vis-à-vis other enterprise-level 
governance disciplines is recognized in enterprise-level policy. 
Organizations that achieve this maturity stage have demonstrated 
enterprise architecture leadership through an institutional commitment 
to developing and using the enterprise architecture as a strategic 
basis for directing its development, maintenance, and use. 

Stage 2: Creating the Management Foundation for Enterprise 
Architecture Development and Use: 

This stage builds on the strategic leadership foundation established 
in Stage 1 by creating the managerial means to the ends--an initial 
version of the enterprise architecture (Stages 3 and 4) and an 
evolving and continuously improving enterprise architecture (Stages 5 
and 6) that can be used to help guide and direct investments and 
achieve the architecture's stated purpose. For example, at this stage 
the organization establishes operational enterprise architecture 
program offices, including an enterprise-level program office that is 
headed by the Chief Architect, who reports to the Executive Committee. 
Also at this stage, the Executive Committee continues to exercise 
leadership by ensuring that the Chief Architect and subordinate 
architects have the funding and human capital needed to "stand up" 
their respective program offices and have acquired the requisite 
architecture tools (development and maintenance methodologies, 
modeling tools, and repository). Organizations that achieve this stage 
have largely established the program management capacity needed to 
develop an initial version of the enterprise architecture. 

Stage 3: Developing Initial Enterprise Architecture Versions: 

At this stage, an organization is focused on strengthening the ability 
of its program office(s) to develop an initial version of the 
enterprise architecture while also actually developing one or more of 
these versions. Among other things, steps are taken to engage 
stakeholders in the process and implement human capital plans, to 
include hiring and training staff and acquiring contractor expertise. 
During this stage, these resources are combined with earlier acquired 
tools (e.g., framework(s), methodologies, modeling tools, and 
repositories) to execute enterprise architecture management plans and 
schedules aimed at delivering an initial enterprise-level version of 
the architecture that includes current and target views of the 
performance, business, data, services, technology, and security 
architectures, as well as an initial version of a plan for 
transitioning from the current to the target views. Also during this 
stage, one or more segment architectures or federation member 
architectures are being developed using available tools and defined 
plans and schedules, and progress in developing initial architecture 
versions is measured by the Chief Architect and reported to the 
Executive Committee. Although an organization at this maturity stage 
does not yet have a version of an enterprise architecture that is 
ready for implementation, it is well on its way to defining an 
enterprise architecture of sufficient scope and content that can be 
used to guide and constrain investments in a way that can produce 
targeted results. 

Stage 4: Completing and Using an Initial Enterprise Architecture 
Version for Targeted Results: 

At this stage, an organization has developed a version of its 
enterprise-level architecture that has been approved by the Executive 
Committee, to include current and target views of the performance, 
business, data, services, technology, and security architectures, as 
well as an initial version of a plan for transitioning from the 
current to the target views. In addition, one or more segment and/or 
federation member architectures have been developed and approved 
according to established priorities. Moreover, the approved enterprise-
level and subordinate architectures are being used to guide and 
constrain capital investment selection and control decisions and 
system life-cycle definition and design decisions. Also during this 
stage, a range of factors are measured and reported to the Executive 
Committee, such as enterprise architecture product quality, investment 
compliance, subordinate architecture alignment, and results and 
outcomes. Organizations that achieve this stage of maturity have a 
foundational set of enterprise-level and subordinate enterprise 
architecture products that provide a meaningful basis for informing 
selected investments and building greater enterprise architecture 
scope, content, use, and results. 

Stage 5: Expanding and Evolving the Enterprise Architecture and Its 
Use for Institutional Transformation: 

At this stage, the enterprise architecture's scope is extended to the 
entire organization, and it is supported by a full complement of 
segment and federation member architectures, all of which include 
current and target views of the performance, business, data, services, 
technology, and security architectures, as well as well-defined plans 
for transitioning from the current to the target views. Moreover, this 
suite of architecture products is governed by a common enterprise 
architecture framework, methodology, and repository, thus permitting 
the products to be appropriately integrated. Also at this stage, the 
architecture products are continuously maintained, and major updates 
of the enterprise-level architecture are approved by the head of the 
organization, while subordinate architecture product updates are 
approved by their corresponding organization heads or segment owners. 
In addition, architecture product quality (i.e., completeness, 
consistency, usability, and utility) as well as enterprise 
architecture management process integrity are assessed by an 
independent agent, and the results are reported to the Chief Architect 
and the Executive Committee. An organization that achieves this level 
of maturity has established a full suite of architecture products that 
can be employed as a featured decision support tool when considering 
and planning large-scale organizational restructuring or 
transformation initiatives. 

Stage 6: Continuously Improving the Enterprise Architecture and Its 
Use to Achieve Corporate Optimization: 

At this stage, an organization is focused on continuously improving 
the quality of its suite of enterprise architecture products and the 
people, processes, and tools used to govern their development, 
maintenance, and use. By achieving this stage of maturity, the 
organization has established a truly enterprisewide blueprint to 
inform both "board room" strategic planning and decision making and 
"on-the-ground" implementation of these changes through a range of 
capital investment and maintenance projects and other enterprise-level 
initiatives. 

Prior Reviews of Federal Department and Agency Enterprise 
Architectures: 

In 2002 and 2003, we reported on the status of enterprise 
architectures governmentwide, including for the Departments of the Air 
Force, Army, and Navy.[Footnote 18] We found that some federal 
agencies had begun to establish the management foundation needed to 
successfully develop, implement, and maintain an enterprise 
architecture, but that executive leadership was key to addressing 
management challenges identified by enterprise architecture programs: 
(1) overcoming limited executive understanding, (2) inadequate 
funding, (3) insufficient number of skilled staff, and (4) 
organizational parochialism. Accordingly, we made recommendations to 
OMB to improve enterprise architecture leadership and 
oversight.[Footnote 19] OMB responded to these recommendations by 
establishing its Chief Architects Forum to, among other things, share 
enterprise architecture best practices among federal agencies and by 
developing an enterprise architecture assessment tool, which it used 
to periodically evaluate enterprise architecture programs at federal 
agencies. 

In 2006, we reviewed[Footnote 20] enterprise architecture management 
at 27 federal agencies and found that management improvements were 
needed. Overall, most agencies had not reached a sufficient level of 
maturity in their enterprise architecture development, particularly 
with regard to their approaches to assessing each investment's 
alignment with the enterprise architecture and measuring and reporting 
on enterprise architecture results and outcomes. In addition, the 
military departments comprised three of the four agencies with the 
lowest overall satisfaction of key enterprise architecture management 
practices. 

Our 2006 report also identified that challenges facing agencies across 
the federal government in developing and using enterprise 
architectures are formidable. Specifically, 93 percent of federal 
departments and agencies reported that they had encountered 
organizational parochialism and cultural resistance to enterprise 
architecture to a significant (very great or great) or moderate 
extent. Other challenges reported were ensuring that the architecture 
program had adequate funding (89 percent), obtaining staff skilled in 
the architecture discipline (86 percent), and having department or 
agency senior leaders that understand the importance and role of the 
enterprise architecture (82 percent). We identified leadership as a 
key to overcoming these management challenges and made specific 
recommendations to individual agencies to address their challenges and 
manage their programs. Since 2006, we have continued to report that 
sustained top management leadership is the key to overcoming these 
challenges and positioning agencies to achieve enterprise architecture-
related benefits such as improved alignment between their business 
operations and the IT that supports these operations and consolidation 
of their IT infrastructure environments. 

Between 2005 and 2008, we reported that DOD had taken steps to comply 
with key requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005[Footnote 21] relative to architecture development; 
[Footnote 22] however, each report also concluded that much remained 
to be accomplished relative to the act's requirements and relevant 
guidance.[Footnote 23] We further reported in May 2008[Footnote 24] 
that the military departments' enterprise architecture programs had 
yet to advance to a level that could be considered fully mature. 
Specifically, we reported that all three departments were at the 
initial stage of maturity as defined in version 1.1 of GAO's 
architecture maturity framework and had yet to fulfill the framework's 
requirements for, among other things, establishing a management 
foundation for developing, maintaining, and using the architecture. We 
reported that DOD, as a whole, was not as well positioned as it should 
be to realize the significant benefits that a well-managed federation 
of architectures can afford its business systems modernization efforts. 

More recently, we reported[Footnote 25] on the need for federal 
agencies to measure and report enterprise architecture results and 
outcomes as key mechanisms for identifying overlap and duplication. 
Specifically, we stated that while some progress has been made in 
improving management, more time is needed for agencies to fully 
realize the value of having well-defined and implemented 
architectures. Such value can be derived from realizing cost savings 
through consolidation and reuse of shared services and elimination of 
antiquated and redundant mission operations, enhancing information 
sharing through data standardization and system integration, and 
optimizing service delivery through streamlining and normalization of 
business processes and mission operations. 

Military Departments Have Begun to Develop Enterprise Architectures, 
but Management and Use Can Be Improved: 

The Air Force, Army, and DON each have long-standing efforts in place 
to develop and use an enterprise architecture, but much remains to be 
accomplished before these efforts can be considered sufficiently 
mature to fully support ongoing organizational transformation and 
corporate optimization efforts. Specifically, the Air Force has fully 
satisfied 20 percent, partially satisfied 47 percent, and not 
satisfied 32 percent of GAO's enterprise architecture framework 
elements.[Footnote 26] The Army has fully satisfied 12 percent and 
partially satisfied 42 percent of elements, with the remaining 46 
percent not satisfied. Finally, DON has satisfied 27 percent, 
partially satisfied 41 percent, and not satisfied 32 percent of 
framework elements. (Table 1 summarizes each military department's 
satisfaction of core enterprise architecture management elements and 
detailed results are presented in appendices III, IV, and V.) 

Table 1: Military Department Satisfaction of Core Enterprise 
Architecture Management Elements: 

Military department: Air Force; 
Fully satisfied: 20%; 
Partially satisfied: 47%; 
Not satisfied: 32%. 

Military department: Army; 
Fully satisfied: 12%; 
Partially satisfied: 42%; 
Not satisfied: 46%. 

Military department: DON; 
Fully satisfied: 27%; 
Partially satisfied: 41%; 
Not satisfied: 32%. 

Military department: Average; 
Fully satisfied: 20%; 
Partially satisfied: 44%; 
Not satisfied: 37%. 

Source: GAO analysis of military department data. 

Note: Numbers do not always add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

More specifically, while the military departments have each 
demonstrated that they are beginning to establish an institutional 
commitment to their respective enterprise architecture by addressing 
many of the elements described in Stage 1 of GAO's enterprise 
architecture management framework and to develop initial enterprise 
architecture content (Stage 3), they have generally not established a 
well-developed enterprise architecture management foundation (Stage 
2). Moreover, the departments have yet to complete and use their 
initial enterprise architecture versions to achieve targeted results 
(Stage 4) or expand and evolve their respective architectures to 
support institutional transformation (Stage 5). Finally, the 
departments have taken limited steps to continuously improve their 
respective architecture programs and use their architectures to 
achieve enterprisewide optimization (Stage 6). Officials at the 
military departments stated that they continue to face long-standing 
enterprise architecture management challenges, such as receiving 
adequate funding, overcoming cultural resistance and attaining 
sufficient senior leadership understanding. Nevertheless, DOD has been 
provided with considerable resources for its IT systems environment. 
Specifically, in recent years, DOD has been provided with over $30 
billion annually for this environment. In addition, for fiscal year 
2012, DOD has requested about $38 billion for its IT investments. 

Without fully developed and effectively managed enterprise 
architectures, the Air Force, Army, and DON do not have a sufficient 
architectural basis for transforming their business processes and 
modernizing their thousands of supporting systems to minimize overlap 
and maximize interoperability. Consequently, DOD as a whole is not 
well positioned to realize the significant benefits that a well-
managed set of architectures can contribute to its ongoing operational 
and IT system modernization efforts, such as eliminating system 
overlap and duplication. Because DOD is provided with over $30 billion 
each year for its IT systems environment, the potential for 
identifying and avoiding the costs associated with duplicative 
functionality across its IT investments is significant. 

Military Departments Have Each Begun to Establish an Institutional 
Commitment to an Enterprise Architecture: 

Stage 1 of GAO's EAMMF describes elements associated with establishing 
the foundational pillars for treating the enterprise architecture as 
an institution and for overcoming barriers to success. Examples of 
these elements include establishing an enterprise architecture policy 
and an executive committee and defining the roles and responsibilities 
of key players and associated metrics to help ensure that their 
respective roles and responsibilities are fulfilled. 

The military departments have demonstrated that they are beginning to 
establish an institutional commitment to their respective enterprise 
architecture by fully satisfying 42 percent, partially satisfying 42 
percent, and not satisfying 17 percent of the Stage 1 elements. Table 
2 describes the extent to which each military department has satisfied 
the Stage 1 elements. 

Table 2: Military Department Satisfaction of Stage 1 Framework 
Elements: 

Military department: Air Force; 
Fully satisfied: 50%; 
Partially satisfied: 38%; 
Not satisfied: 13%. 

Military department: Army; 
Fully satisfied: 25%; 
Partially satisfied: 50%; 
Not satisfied: 25%. 

Military department: DON; 
Fully satisfied: 50%; 
Partially satisfied: 38%; 
Not satisfied: 13%. 

Military department: Average; 
Fully satisfied: 42%; 
Partially satisfied: 42%; 
Not satisfied: 17%. 

Source: GAO analysis of military department data. 

Note: Numbers do not always add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

The following examples describe the military departments' performance 
relative to selected Stage 1 elements. 

Policy: All three of the military departments have fully satisfied the 
element associated with establishing a policy for enterprise 
architecture development, maintenance, and use. Establishing such a 
policy is important for, among other things, confirming an 
organization's institutional commitment to an enterprise architecture 
and defining the entities responsible for architecture development, 
maintenance, and use. 

Executive committee: Air Force and DON have fully satisfied, and Army 
has partially satisfied the element that is associated with 
establishing an executive committee representing the enterprise and 
that is responsible and accountable for the architecture. Although the 
Army has established committees responsible for some segment 
architecture activities, it has not yet established an executive 
committee responsible for an enterprise-level architecture. 
Establishing enterprisewide responsibility and accountability is 
important for demonstrating the organization's institutional 
commitment to enterprise architecture and for obtaining buy-in from 
across the organization. Such an executive committee also helps the 
enterprise architecture effort address issues that might not be 
entirely within the span of control of the organizational Chief 
Architect, such as obtaining adequate funding and sufficient human 
capital resources. 

Performance and accountability framework: None of the military 
departments has fully or partially satisfied the element associated 
with establishing an enterprise architecture performance and 
accountability framework that recognizes the critical roles and 
responsibilities of key stakeholders and provides the metrics and 
means for ensuring that roles and responsibilities are fulfilled. 
Specifically, none of the military departments has defined the metrics 
and means for ensuring that roles and responsibilities are fulfilled. 
Successfully managing any program, including an enterprise 
architecture program, depends in part on establishing clear 
commitments and putting in place the means by which to determine 
progress against these commitments and hold responsible parties 
accountable for the results. 

To their credit, each of the military departments has taken important 
steps to address the Stage 1 core elements, and, as a result, has 
begun to establish key institutional commitments to developing and 
using an enterprise architecture. Establishing such institutional 
commitments is the first step to overcoming long-standing barriers to 
enterprise architecture success, such as top leadership understanding 
and parochialism and cultural resistance. Without such commitments, 
these barriers may continue to limit the ability of an architecture 
program to contribute to efforts to improve the organization, which 
may range from streamlining business processes and IT that supports a 
specific organizational line of business (e.g., a segment) to larger 
and more significant organizationwide improvement efforts. 

Military Departments Lack Well-Developed Management Foundations for 
Enterprise Architecture Development and Use: 

Stage 2 of GAO's EAMMF describes elements that build on the strategic 
leadership commitment established in Stage 1 by creating the 
managerial means to accomplish activities in later stages, including 
developing an initial version of the enterprise architecture (Stages 3 
and 4) and evolving and continuously improving an enterprise 
architecture (Stages 5 and 6) that can be used to help guide and 
direct investments and achieve the architecture's stated purpose. 
Examples of these elements include selecting automated tools, 
establishing an enterprise architecture program management office, 
developing a program management plan, justifying and funding program 
resources, and defining human capital plans. 

The military departments' satisfaction of these Stage 2 core elements 
demonstrates that much remains to be accomplished to establish their 
respective enterprise architecture management foundations. 
Specifically, the military departments have collectively satisfied 
only 17 percent, partially satisfied 47 percent, and not satisfied 37 
percent of these elements. Table 3 describes the extent to which each 
military department has satisfied Stage 2 framework elements. 

Table 3: Military Department Satisfaction of Stage 2 Framework 
Elements: 

Military department: Air Force; 
Fully satisfied: 10%; 
Partially satisfied: 50%; 
Not satisfied: 40%. 

Military department: Army; 
Fully satisfied: 20%; 
Partially satisfied: 40%; 
Not satisfied: 40%. 

Military department: DON; 
Fully satisfied: 20%; 
Partially satisfied: 50%; 
Not satisfied: 30%. 

Military department: Average; 
Fully satisfied: 17%; 
Partially satisfied: 47%; 
Not satisfied: 37%. 

Source: GAO analysis of military department data. 

Note: Numbers do not always add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

The following examples describe the military departments' performance 
relative to selected Stage 2 elements. 

Automated tools: The Air Force, Army, and DON have each fully 
satisfied the element associated with selecting automated enterprise 
architecture tools. Automated tools support the creation of a holistic 
view of the current and target state of the enterprise by assisting in 
the process of extracting, assimilating, relating, and presenting 
critical organizational information (e.g., the relationships between 
business operations and associated performance metrics, information 
exchanges, supporting applications and services, technology standards, 
and security protocols). 

Program office: All three of the military departments have partially 
satisfied the element associated with establishing an enterprise 
architecture program office. Although both Air Force and DON have 
established a small team dedicated to enterprise architecture 
development and use, they do not operate within a formally chartered 
program office. In addition, while Army has established chartered 
program management offices for its three primary segments, it has not 
established an enterprise-level architecture program management 
office. Air Force officials stated that the department does not manage 
its enterprise architecture as a formal program, DON officials stated 
that the department is unable to justify creating a large program 
office in a fiscally constrained environment, and Army officials 
recognized the need to establish an enterprise-level architecture 
program management office in the future. We and the federal Chief 
Information Officers Council have previously reported that enterprise 
architecture development and maintenance should be managed as a formal 
program.[Footnote 27] Doing so helps ensure that the enterprise 
architecture program receives the appropriate attention and sufficient 
funding and human capital resources needed to be successful. In 
addition, establishing such an office would provide accountability for 
achieving its desired results. Accordingly, the program office should 
be responsible to the Executive Committee for ensuring that critical 
activities that are within its span of authority and control, such as 
enterprise architecture program planning and performance monitoring, 
enterprise architecture development and maintenance using supporting 
tools, and enterprise architecture configuration management, are 
performed. 

Program management plan: None of the three military departments has 
fully satisfied the element associated with managing its enterprise 
architecture activities according to an enterprise architecture 
program management plan. To their credit, Army and DON have partially 
satisfied the element. For example, DON has established a governance 
plan that defines enterprise architecture management structures and 
stakeholder roles and responsibilities and Army has established a 
program management plan for its Network segment,[Footnote 28] which 
addresses at least some enterprisewide requirements. However, Army and 
DON have yet to develop comprehensive plans for managing their 
architecture programs. In addition, although Air Force officials 
stated that the department produces an annual roadmap from which goals 
and schedules are developed, Air Force officials did not provide 
evidence to demonstrate that a program management plan exists that 
includes information such as management controls and accountability 
mechanisms. DON officials stated that they are in the process of 
developing a road map that will serve as a program management plan and 
Army officials stated that the department plans to establish a program 
management office that addresses key program management activities. An 
enterprise architecture program management plan would provide the 
range of management structures, controls, disciplines, roles, and 
accountability mechanisms discussed throughout the framework as well 
as descriptions of the major enterprise architecture releases or 
increments to be developed. In this regard, the plan is a critical 
tool for providing a bridge between more conceptual frameworks and 
methodologies to the detailed and actionable work breakdown structures 
and schedules. As such, it is important for the departments to develop 
such a plan to ensure that the enterprise architecture program is 
effectively managed. 

Budgetary needs: Each of the military departments has partially 
satisfied the element associated with justifying and funding 
enterprise architecture budgetary needs. All of the military 
departments agree that sufficient resources to establish and execute 
their respective enterprise architecture programs are not available 
but that the level of current funding has enabled them to continue 
executing certain architectural activities. Nevertheless, DOD has been 
provided with considerable resources for its IT systems environment. 
Specifically, in recent years, DOD has been provided with over $30 
billion annually for this environment. In addition, for fiscal year 
2012, DOD has requested about $38 billion for its IT investments. 
Moreover, architecture budgetary needs have not been identified and 
justified through reliable cost estimating and expected program 
benefits. By funding enterprise architecture as a capital investment, 
an organization's leadership demonstrates its long-term commitment to 
having and using an enterprise architecture to inform investment 
decision making and optimize mission-facing and mission-supporting 
operations. Such funding requests also establish expected enterprise 
architecture program benefits that, in turn, provide justification for 
department and agency enterprise architecture expenditures and 
establish commitments against which enterprise architecture program 
managers and department executives can be held accountable. 

Human capital plans: None of the three departments has fully or 
partially satisfied the element associated with developing human 
capital plans that identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities 
needed for enterprise architecture staff. Army officials recognized 
the need for such a plan and stated that the department's updated 
enterprise architecture regulation will include a requirement for such 
a human capital plan. DON officials stated that a human capital plan 
is not necessary due to their small number of staff and lack of a 
large centralized program office. Air Force officials stated that the 
department does not plan to develop such a plan because enterprise 
architecture is not a formally established career field within the 
federal government. However, having sufficient human capital to 
successfully develop and maintain the enterprise architecture begins 
with identifying human capital needs and developing a plan for 
acquiring, developing, and retaining qualified staff with the 
requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities. The enterprise 
architecture human capital plan is the vehicle for addressing 
enterprise architecture program skill gaps by, for example, training 
existing staff, hiring new staff, using contractor staff, and 
addressing staff retention, development, and recognition and reward. 

Agencies that achieve this stage have largely established the program 
management capability needed to develop an initial architecture 
version. By not satisfying the majority of the elements at this stage, 
which as stated creates the managerial means to the ends, the military 
departments risk not being able to effectively execute higher stage 
core elements. For example, an agency can begin developing initial 
architecture products that describe its current and target 
environment, and a plan for transitioning from its current to its 
target environment (Stage 3); however, without establishing enterprise 
architecture management plans to guide its enterprise architecture 
efforts (Stage 2), it risks not delivering an architecture that can be 
used for achieving target results and institutional transformation 
(Stages 4 and 5). 

Military Departments Have Begun to Develop Initial Enterprise 
Architecture Content: 

Stage 3 of our EAMMF describes elements associated with strengthening 
the ability of a program office to develop initial versions of the 
enterprise architecture by leveraging acquired resources and tools 
(established in Stages 1 and 2) to execute enterprise architecture 
management plans and schedules. Examples of these elements include 
developing subordinate architectures, developing initial enterprise- 
level architecture versions, and using the selected enterprise 
architecture methodology. 

The military departments' satisfaction of these Stage 3 core elements 
demonstrates that they have begun to develop initial enterprise 
architecture content. Specifically, the military departments have 
satisfied 26 percent, partially satisfied 45 percent, and not 
satisfied 29 percent of these elements. Table 4 describes the extent 
to which each department has satisfied Stage 3 framework elements. 

Table 4: Military Department Satisfaction of Stage 3 Framework 
Elements: 

Military department: Air Force; 
Fully satisfied: 29%; 
Partially satisfied: 50%; 
Not satisfied: 21%. 

Military department: Army; 
Fully satisfied: 14%; 
Partially satisfied: 50%; 
Not satisfied: 37%. 

Military department: DON; 
Fully satisfied: 36%; 
Partially satisfied: 36%; 
Not satisfied: 29%. 

Military department: Average; 
Fully satisfied: 26%; 
Partially satisfied: 45%; 
Not satisfied: 29%. 

Source: GAO analysis of military department data. 

Note: Numbers do not always add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

The following examples describe the military departments' performance 
relative to selected Stage 3 elements. 

Subordinate architectures: All of the military departments have 
satisfied the element associated with developing one or more segment 
and/or federation architecture. For example, the Air Force approved 
version 1.0 of its Space Domain architecture in September 2010; the 
Army is developing architectures for its Generating Force and Network 
segments; and DON has developed architecture artifacts for its Net 
Centric segment.[Footnote 29] As we have previously reported,[Footnote 
30] successful enterprise architecture development for large, complex 
federal agencies does not involve an "all-or-nothing" monolithic 
approach. Rather, enterprise architecture development typically 
follows a "divide and conquer" strategy in which the level of 
architectural detail needed to guide and constrain individual 
investments is created for distinct organizational components or 
functional slices of the enterprise. In taking such an approach, the 
level of architectural content that needs to be defined to 
sufficiently inform high-priority, near-term system investments can be 
established relatively quickly, thus allowing the benefits of the 
enterprise architecture to be realized sooner rather than later. 

Developing initial enterprise-level architecture content: All three of 
the military departments have partially satisfied the element 
associated with developing an initial enterprise-level architecture 
that addresses the current and target environment and a sequencing 
plan for transitioning from the current to the target environment. The 
Air Force and DON approaches to developing this enterprise 
architecture content involve establishing enterprise-level 
architecture content that is to be further supported by lower-level 
architectures, while Army has established three architecture segments 
but has not yet established an enterprise-level architecture. 
Consistent with these approaches, the Air Force and DON have begun to 
develop initial enterprise-level architecture content, but this 
content does not include separate views of the current and target 
environments and neither of the two military departments has fully 
established a sequencing plan that describes how the department is to 
transition from its current to the target environment and is based on 
an analysis of the gaps between these environments. Officials from 
these departments stated that they do not plan to distinguish between 
their current and target environments because they are focused on 
establishing enterprise architecture content that is more immediately 
usable (DON) and they have not been asked by executive management to 
establish such a distinction (Air Force). 

As we have previously reported, enterprise architecture development 
typically occurs in an incremental fashion, whereby an initial version 
is developed as the foundation on which to evolve and build 
increasingly more comprehensive, detailed, and complete versions. 
[Footnote 31] In addition, as we have reported,[Footnote 32] 
sequencing plans should be based on an assessment of the differences 
between the current and target architectures (i.e., a gap analysis). 
For example, a performance gap analysis identifies performance 
measures (e.g., effectiveness) of a business process, highlights which 
performance measures are not being met in the current environment, and 
describes performance expectations for these measures in the target 
environment, thereby describing expected performance improvements to 
the business process. This performance gap analysis should also 
identify the business process activities or steps that need to be 
changed to achieve the future performance expectations. As such, these 
gap analyses identify necessary changes or adjustments in the current 
environment to achieve business goals and mission outcomes expected in 
the future environment, thereby serving as the support for related 
investments and activities, and also as a basis for prioritization; 
integration; and synchronization of decisions across the spectrum of 
these investments and activities. 

Using an enterprise architecture methodology: None of the military 
departments has fully satisfied the element associated with developing 
its enterprise architecture products according to a defined 
methodology. The departments have not satisfied this element because, 
among other things, none of them has established a methodology to 
guide enterprise architecture development, maintenance, and use. Air 
Force officials stated that efforts to develop such a methodology have 
been postponed due to budget constraints and DON officials stated that 
the department has not developed a methodology due to its focus on 
other resource-intensive commitments, such as applying the current 
enterprise architecture content. However, as stated previously in this 
report, DOD has been provided with extensive resources for its IT 
systems environment. Army officials stated that the department's draft 
enterprise architecture regulation will call for the development of 
such a methodology. It is important for the departments to develop 
such a methodology, as it would provide architecture staff and 
stakeholders with a shared understanding of the architecture 
development approach, including defined steps, tasks, standards, 
tools, techniques, and measures that are to be used to create the 
specified enterprise architecture products. In addition, such a 
methodology would help to ensure that enterprise architecture products 
are, among other things, consistent, complete, aligned, integrated, 
and usable. 

An agency that achieves this stage is well on its way to defining an 
enterprise architecture of sufficient scope and content that can be 
used to guide and constrain investments in a way that can produce 
targeted results, even though it may not yet have developed a version 
of an enterprise architecture that is ready for implementation. 
However, agencies that develop architectural content in Stage 3 
without first addressing critical Stage 1 and 2 elements risk 
developing enterprise architecture products that are not usable for 
achieving target results (Stage 4). 

Military Departments Have Yet to Complete and Use Initial Enterprise 
Architecture Versions for Targeted Results: 

Stage 4 of our EAMMF describes elements associated with completing 
initial enterprise architecture versions and using the architecture to 
achieve targeted results. Examples of these elements include linking 
architecture to other management disciplines, measuring and reporting 
the quality of enterprise architecture products, and measuring and 
reporting enterprise architecture results and outcomes. 

The military departments' satisfaction of these Stage 4 core elements 
demonstrates that, among other things, they have yet to establish a 
meaningful basis for guiding and constraining capital investment 
selection and control decisions and system life cycle definition and 
design decisions. Specifically, they have satisfied only 15 percent, 
partially satisfied 39 percent, and not satisfied 45 percent of these 
elements. Table 5 describes the extent to which each military 
department has satisfied Stage 4 framework elements. 

Table 5: Military Department Satisfaction of Stage 4 Framework 
Elements: 

Military department: Air Force; 
Fully satisfied: 9%; 
Partially satisfied: 55%; 
Not satisfied: 36%. 

Military department: Army; 
Fully satisfied: 9%; 
Partially satisfied: 27%; 
Not satisfied: 64%. 

Military department: DON; 
Fully satisfied: 27%; 
Partially satisfied: 36%; 
Not satisfied: 36%. 

Military department: Average; 
Fully satisfied: 15%; 
Partially satisfied: 39%; 
Not satisfied: 45%. 

Source: GAO analysis of military department data. 

Note: Numbers do not always add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

The following examples describe the military departments' performance 
relative to selected Stage 4 elements. 

Linking architecture to other management disciplines: All three 
military departments have fully satisfied the element associated with 
making their respective architecture programs integral to the 
execution of other institutional management disciplines. Specifically, 
the Army has demonstrated that its segment architecture efforts are 
linked to the execution of management disciplines associated with 
capability integration, acquisition, and budgeting; the Air Force 
demonstrated integration with its capability integration, acquisition, 
and budgeting disciplines; and DON demonstrated that its architecture 
efforts are linked to the execution of its strategic planning, capital 
planning, and system development efforts. Enterprise architecture is 
one of several interrelated institutional management disciplines that 
collectively provide the means for an organization to be successful in 
meeting its mission goals and target outcomes. It is a contributor to 
many of these disciplines. In particular, it provides the bridge 
between strategic planning and program implementation, it informs 
human capital strategic planning and capital planning and investment 
control decision making, and it provides a critical underpinning to 
institutional performance management. As a result, the enterprise 
architecture should be an integral input into the execution of each of 
these management disciplines. 

Enterprise architecture quality measurement: DON has fully satisfied 
the element associated with measuring and reporting the quality of its 
enterprise architecture products; Air Force has partially satisfied 
this element; and Army has yet to satisfy the element. Specifically, 
the quality of DON enterprise architecture products is assessed by a 
working group in accordance with a set of defined criteria and 
submitted for final approval to an enterprise architecture approval 
board. Air Force demonstrated that both its enterprise-level and 
subordinate architectures are subject to quality reviews that address 
completeness, usability, consistency, and accuracy and are reported to 
the appropriate officials. However, the assessments were not based on 
quality standards defined in an approved enterprise architecture 
methodology. In addition, although Army's Network architecture segment 
documentation states that quality control measures are to be used to 
determine quality, reuse, compliance, and risk, related measurements 
have not yet been defined. Further, according to Army officials, the 
quality of its other segment architecture products is not measured and 
reported. Realizing an enterprise architecture's value depends in 
large part on the quality of the products or artifacts that compose 
it. Accordingly, measuring and reporting the quality of enterprise 
architecture products relative to defined and consistently applied 
quality standards helps ensure that the enterprise architecture 
program will ultimately achieve its intended purpose. 

Enterprise architecture results and outcomes: None of the military 
departments has partially or fully satisfied the element associated 
with measuring and reporting enterprise architecture results and 
outcomes, although all three have reported that they expect to realize 
future benefits from their respective architecture programs. For 
example, Air Force reported that it expects to achieve improved 
alignment between its business operations and IT as well as improved 
data integration within 2 to 5 years, and DON reported that it expects 
increased infrastructure consolidation and increased use of enterprise 
licenses within 2 to 5 years. What this suggests is that the real 
value to the military departments from developing and using enterprise 
architectures has yet to be realized. Our framework recognizes that a 
key to realizing this potential is effectively managing department and 
agency enterprise architecture programs. However, knowing whether 
benefits and results are in fact being achieved requires having 
associated measures and metrics. In this regard, it is important for 
the military departments to measure and report enterprise architecture 
results and outcomes. Examples of results and outcomes to be measured 
include costs avoided by eliminating duplicative investments or by 
reusing common services and applications and improved mission 
performance through re-engineered business processes and modernized 
supporting systems. 

Agencies that achieve maturity Stage 4 have a foundational set of 
enterprise-level and subordinate enterprise architecture products that 
provide a meaningful basis for informing selected investments and 
building greater enterprise architecture scope, content, use, and 
results. In addition, they have begun to demonstrate initial benefits 
associated with using their architecture. However, the military 
departments' limited satisfaction of Stage 4 elements demonstrates 
that, although they have begun to develop some architecture products 
(Stage 3), they have yet to complete initial versions of those 
products and use those products to achieve measurable outcomes. 

Military Departments Have Yet to Expand and Evolve Enterprise 
Architectures and Use Them for Organizational Transformation: 

Stage 5 of our EAMMF describes elements associated with establishing a 
full suite of architecture products that can be employed as a featured 
decision-support tool when considering and planning large-scale 
organizational restructuring or transformation initiatives. Examples 
of these elements include ensuring that integrated repository tools 
and common enterprise architecture framework and methodology are used 
across the enterprise, enterprise-level and subordinate architectures 
are extended to align with external partner architectures, and all 
segment and/or federated architectures exist and are horizontally and 
vertically integrated. 

The military departments' satisfaction of these Stage 5 core elements 
indicates that they have yet to expand and evolve the development and 
use of their respective enterprise architectures to support 
institutional transformation. Specifically, they have satisfied only 7 
percent, partially satisfied 44 percent, and not satisfied 48 percent 
of these elements. Table 6 describes the extent to which each military 
department has satisfied Stage 5 framework elements. 

Table 6: Military Department Satisfaction of Stage 5 Framework 
Elements: 

Military department: Air Force; 
Fully satisfied: 11%; 
Partially satisfied: 44%; 
Not satisfied: 44%. 

Military department: Army; 
Fully satisfied: 0%; 
Partially satisfied: 44%; 
Not satisfied: 56%. 

Military department: DON; 
Fully satisfied: 11%; 
Partially satisfied: 44%; 
Not satisfied: 44%. 

Military department: Average; 
Fully satisfied: 7%; 
Partially satisfied: 44%; 
Not satisfied: 48%. 

Source: GAO analysis of military department data. 

Note: Numbers do not always add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

The following examples describe the military departments' performance 
relative to selected Stage 5 elements. 

Integrated tools and common frameworks and methodologies: Each of the 
military departments has partially satisfied the element associated 
with ensuring that integrated repository tools and a common enterprise 
architecture framework and methodology are used across the enterprise. 
For example, Army demonstrated its use of enterprise architecture 
tools, but has yet to establish a common enterprise architecture 
framework and methodology for use across the enterprise. In addition, 
DON and Air Force have established tools that can serve as a common 
repository for their enterprise architecture products, but they have 
not fully established common enterprise architecture methodologies to 
define how architectural products will be developed. It is important 
for the military departments to adopt and use a common set of tools 
and a common framework and methodology. Doing so helps ensure that 
architecture products are developed and used consistently across the 
enterprise, which in turn further supports efforts to improve 
enterprisewide architecture product quality and achieve results. 

Aligning enterprise architecture to external partner architectures: 
Each of the military departments has partially satisfied the element 
associated with ensuring that enterprise-level and subordinate 
architectures are extended to align with external partner 
architectures. For example, Air Force has demonstrated that it is 
aligned with the DOD Information Enterprise Architecture.[Footnote 33] 
However, it has not provided evidence that its enterprise architecture 
aligns with the Army and DON architectures. In addition, while DON's 
enterprise architecture approach is aligned with the Joint Staff's 
Joint Capability Areas,[Footnote 34] it has not provided evidence that 
its enterprise architecture aligns with those of the Air Force and 
Army. Such alignment is critical for achieving enterprise architecture-
related goals, such as identifying potentially redundant or 
duplicative business processes or IT systems and facilitating reuse of 
existing systems and services. 

Integrating segment and federated architectures: While each of the 
military departments has begun to develop an initial version of 
subordinate architectures, none of them has satisfied the element 
associated with ensuring that all segment and/or federated 
architectures exist and are horizontally and vertically integrated. We 
have previously reported[Footnote 35] that, in large part, achieving 
this core element is a byproduct of having met many of the previously 
discussed core elements related to, for example, adopting one or more 
enterprise architecture approaches (e.g., federation, segmentation, 
etc.) and employing enterprise architecture development, maintenance, 
and management rigor and discipline. However, the military departments 
have not fully satisfied critical foundational elements, such as the 
element associated with establishing an enterprise architecture 
development and maintenance methodology or measuring and reporting 
subordinate architecture alignment with the enterprise-level 
architecture. While development of subordinate architectures, as 
discussed earlier, typically occurs incrementally based on 
institutional needs and priorities, the ultimate goal remains to 
develop each of the subordinate architectures and to ensure that they 
collectively form a coherent family of parent and child architectures 
that are integrated both horizontally and vertically. As with the 
previously-cited example, developing such integrated architecture 
products is important for supporting the organization's ability to use 
these products as tools for organizational transformation by, for 
example, identifying potentially redundant or duplicative business 
processes or IT systems and facilitating reuse of existing systems and 
services. 

While enterprise architecture development and use offers the potential 
to achieve important departmentwide benefits, such as increased use of 
enterprise licenses and improved data integration (Stage 4), 
addressing the EAMMF's Stage 5 elements expands these potential 
benefits to supporting large-scale departmentwide restructuring and 
transformation. Accordingly, addressing Stage 5 elements would better 
position the military departments to support ongoing efforts to 
identify DOD efficiencies and savings[Footnote 36] by informing 
efforts to look across the military departments and identify ways in 
which DOD can improve effectiveness and efficiency while continuing to 
meet mission demands. 

Military Departments Have Taken Limited Steps to Continuously Improve 
Their Respective Enterprise Architecture Programs and Use Enterprise 
Architecture for Corporate Optimization: 

Stage 6 of our EAMMF describes elements that are focused on continuous 
improvement of the quality of the suite of enterprise architecture 
products and the people, processes, and tools used to govern their 
development, maintenance, and use. Examples of these elements include 
continuously improving enterprise architecture program capabilities 
and products as well as enterprise architecture methodologies and 
tools and ensuring that the enterprise architecture informs strategic 
planning and policy formulation. 

The military departments' satisfaction of these Stage 6 core elements 
indicates that they have begun taking steps to improve their 
respective enterprise architecture program and use their respective 
enterprise architectures for enterprise-level optimization, but much 
still remains to be accomplished. Specifically, they have satisfied 10 
percent, partially satisfied 43 percent, and not satisfied 48 percent 
of these elements. Table 7 describes the extent to which each military 
department has satisfied Stage 6 framework elements. 

Table 7: Military Department Satisfaction of Stage 6 Framework 
Elements: 

Military department: Air Force; 
Fully satisfied: 14%; 
Partially satisfied: 43%; 
Not satisfied: 43%. 

Military department: Army; 
Fully satisfied: 0%; 
Partially satisfied: 43%; 
Not satisfied: 57%. 

Military department: DON; 
Fully satisfied: 14%; 
Partially satisfied: 43%; 
Not satisfied: 43%. 

Military department: Average; 
Fully satisfied: 10%; 
Partially satisfied: 43%; 
Not satisfied: 48%. 

Source: GAO analysis of military department data. 

Note: Numbers do not always add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

The following examples describe the military departments' performance 
relative to selected Stage 6 elements. 

Improving program capabilities and products: Air Force and DON have 
each fully satisfied the element associated with ensuring that 
enterprise architecture continuous improvement efforts reflect the 
results of external assessments, while Army has not yet satisfied this 
element. For example, according to DON officials, our 2008 assessment 
of the department's enterprise architecture program has been leveraged 
to make program capability and product improvements, such as 
establishing a formalized enterprise architecture governance 
structure; a policy for enterprise architecture development and 
maintenance; an IT investment process that includes compliance 
assessments with DON's architecture; and a set of criteria for 
measuring the quality of its products. Similarly, Air Force leveraged 
our prior report to make program improvements, such as placing 
enterprise architecture products under configuration management. All 
efforts to continuously improve the enterprise architecture program 
capabilities and products should leverage the results of external 
assessments performed by organizations external to the program, 
including assessments periodically performed by us, OMB, and others to 
demonstrate measurable accomplishments. 

Improving methodologies and tools: Each of the military departments 
has partially satisfied the element associated with continuously 
improving enterprise architecture methodologies and tools. For 
example, each military department has mechanisms in place to improve 
existing enterprise architecture tools. However, none of the military 
departments has fully developed an enterprise architecture development 
and maintenance methodology that can be used as a baseline for 
improvements. Continuously improving enterprise architecture 
methodologies and tools helps to ensure that existing methodologies 
and tools continue to support changing organizational needs. 

Strategic planning and policy formulation: None of the military 
departments has either fully or partially satisfied the element 
associated with ensuring that the enterprise architecture is used by 
executive leadership to inform organization strategic planning and 
policy formulation. The enterprise architecture provides the 
information needed to bridge the gap between an organization's 
strategic plans and the programs it implements. As such, the 
architecture has traditionally been informed and constrained by these 
plans and the institutional policies that govern the plans' 
implementation. As an architecture program fully matures, however, a 
bidirectional relationship should exist whereby it helps to inform the 
same strategic plans and institutional policies to which it is 
integral to implementing. In particular, the enterprise architecture 
can identify the related organizational business process, performance, 
information, service, technology, and security strengths, weaknesses, 
and opportunity gaps that should be considered for inclusion in 
strategic plans and institutional policies. For example, emerging 
technologies that are reflected in the enterprise architecture's 
target view can serve as the catalyst for introducing new, or for 
modifying existing, strategic goals and objectives, and/or the 
timelines for achieving them. 

Agencies that achieve this stage of maturity have established an 
enterprisewide blueprint to inform strategic planning and decision 
making and "on-the-ground" implementation of these changes through a 
range of capital investment and maintenance projects and other 
enterprise-level initiatives. While each of the military departments 
has taken steps to establish and manage its respective enterprise 
architecture program and develop initial enterprise architecture 
content that could eventually be used as input into organizational 
strategic planning and serve as the basis for continuous improvement 
activities, incomplete program management mechanisms and enterprise 
architecture content limit the extent to which either of these ends 
can be achieved. 

Long-Standing Enterprise Architecture Management Challenges Have Not 
Been Fully Addressed: 

As we have previously reported,[Footnote 37] long-standing 
governmentwide enterprise architecture management challenges include 
organizational parochialism and cultural resistance, ensuring adequate 
funding, obtaining staff skilled in the architecture discipline, and 
having department or agency senior leaders that understand the 
importance and role of the enterprise architecture. Military 
department officials indicated that these management challenges 
continue to limit their respective enterprise architecture programs. 
In particular, regarding cultural resistance, a senior Air Force 
architecture official stated that the department's major programs 
resist adapting to enterprisewide approaches to meeting their 
technical needs. With respect to adequacy of funding, Air Force and 
DON representatives provided examples of activities that could not be 
completed due to a lack of funding for enterprise architecture. For 
example, Air Force officials stated that the department has postponed 
the development of an updated enterprise architecture methodology due 
to limited funding. Nevertheless, as stated previously in this report, 
DOD has been provided with considerable resources for its IT systems 
environment and architecture budgetary needs have not been identified 
and justified through reliable cost estimating and expected program 
benefits. Concerning skilled staff, DON and Air Force officials 
identified as a challenge identifying enterprise architecture staff 
who possess both business and technical skills. Lastly, with regard to 
senior leadership understanding, Army architecture officials cited the 
difficulty of getting senior leaders to understand the importance of 
having an enterprise architecture and take a holistic view of the 
entire military department enterprise. 

The continued existence of the management challenges described has 
contributed to the status of the military departments' enterprise 
architecture programs, whereby the majority of EAMMF elements have yet 
to be fully satisfied. Moreover, the long-standing nature of these 
challenges indicates that the departments' leaders have not yet 
committed to effective development and use of enterprise architecture 
as described in our EAMMF. 

Conclusions: 

Although the Air Force, Army, and DON each have long-standing efforts 
to develop enterprise architectures, the military departments have 
much to do before they have enterprise architectures that are fully 
developed and effectively managed. In general, the departments have 
fully satisfied certain elements related to establishing an 
institutional commitment to enterprise architecture and developing 
initial architecture content. However, the departments generally have 
not fully satisfied framework elements that are associated with 
establishing the foundation for architecture management (including the 
development of a plan to manage the architecture program), completing 
and using initial architecture content, expanding and evolving the 
enterprise architecture, and continuously improving their 
architectures. This pattern of core element satisfaction indicates 
that the military departments' respective enterprise architecture 
programs are at risk of achieving only limited benefits. Further, the 
military departments have been limited in their ability to overcome 
long-standing enterprise architecture management challenges, thus 
indicating a lack of organizational commitment to effective enterprise 
architecture development and use. 

Without fully developed and effectively managed enterprise 
architectures and a plan, the Air Force, Army, and DON do not have the 
needed road maps for transforming their business processes and 
modernizing their supporting systems to minimize overlap and maximize 
interoperability. Further, because the military departments do not 
have the robust enterprise architectures that DOD's federated 
architecture approach depends on, the department at large is also 
without a complete road map to effectively guide its transformation. 

Establishing such a road map is critical to DOD transformation. While 
DOD has been provided with considerable resources for its IT systems 
environment, the department is not managing its systems in a 
consistent, repeatable, and effective manner that, among other things, 
maximizes mission performance while minimizing or eliminating system 
overlap and duplication. Because DOD is provided with over $30 billion 
each year for its IT systems environment, the potential for 
identifying and avoiding the costs associated with duplicative 
functionality across its IT investments is significant. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

To ensure that the military departments establish commitments to fully 
develop and effectively manage their enterprise architectures, we 
recommend that the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy each 
expeditiously provide to the congressional defense committees a plan 
that identifies milestones for their respective department's full 
satisfaction of all of our Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity 
Framework elements. In the event that a military department does not 
intend to fully satisfy all elements of our framework, the plan should 
include a rationale for why the department deems any such element(s) 
to be not applicable. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We received written comments on a draft of this report from DOD. In 
the comments, which are reprinted in appendix VI, the department 
partially concurred with our recommendation. Specifically, the DOD and 
Army CIOs concurred with the recommendation, while the Air Force and 
DON CIOs did not concur. 

In this regard, DOD stated that both Air Force and DON believe that 
GAO's EAMMF provides a comprehensive set of elements associated with 
the development and implementation of a robust enterprise architecture 
program for a federal agency or organization. The department added, 
however, that the Air Force and DON do not have a valid business case 
that would justify the implementation of all 59 elements of our 
framework. Instead, according to DOD, in today's fiscally constrained 
environment, Air Force and DON have chosen to gradually implement 
selected elements of the framework which are most useful in 
implementing optimized, secure, and cost effective IT systems and 
capabilities. 

Due to the large and complex nature of the DOD enterprise, we 
determined that all 59 elements of the framework apply to the military 
department enterprise architecture programs. However, our 
recommendation does provide the military departments with the 
flexibility of providing a rationale or business case in their plans 
that would justify why the department(s) deems any of the 59 elements 
to be not applicable. We do not agree that fiscal constraints are a 
valid reason for limiting the Air Force and DON enterprise 
architecture programs to less than full satisfaction of the framework. 
DOD has been provided with over $30 billion annually for its IT 
systems environment, but it is not managing its systems in a 
consistent, repeatable, and effective manner that, among other things, 
maximizes mission performance while minimizing or eliminating system 
overlap and duplication. This, in addition to the large and complex 
nature of the DOD enterprise, provides compelling reasons for them to 
establish commitments to fully satisfy the framework elements. We 
therefore believe our recommendation remains valid as stated. 

DOD also provided technical comments on this report, which have been 
incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 
committees; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; the 
Secretary of the Air Force; Secretary of the Army; and the Secretary 
of the Navy. This report will also be available at no charge on our 
Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions on matters discussed in this 
report, please contact me at (202) 512-6304 or melvinv@gao.gov. 
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who 
made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII. 

Signed by: 

Valerie C. Melvin: 
Director: 
Information Management and Human Capital Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objective was to assess the status of enterprise architecture 
efforts at the Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy. To 
address this objective, we asked each department to identify 
responsible architecture officials and requested that the identified 
officials self-assess their respective department's architecture 
programs relative to the 59 core elements contained in version 2.0 of 
our Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF). 
[Footnote 38] Specifically, we asked the officials to indicate whether 
their respective department architecture programs fully satisfied, 
partially satisfied, or did not satisfy each core element. We also 
asked the officials to provide documentation in support of their self 
assessments. To instruct the officials in preparing their assessments, 
we provided the following guidance: 

To fully satisfy a core element, sufficient documentation must be 
provided to permit us to verify that all applicable aspects of the 
core element are met. To partially satisfy a core element, sufficient 
documentation must be provided to permit us to verify that at least 
some aspects of the core element are met. Core elements that are 
applicable and are neither fully nor partially satisfied will be 
judged to be not satisfied. 

Subsequently, we independently assessed each department's architecture 
program relative to the 59 EAMMF core elements using the self 
assessments and supporting documentation as a starting point. We then 
corroborated the assessment with supporting documentation, sought 
additional information as necessary through interviews with the 
departments' architecture officials, obtained and reviewed additional 
documentation as appropriate, and refined our determinations about the 
degree to which each core element was satisfied. In performing our 
analyses, we used the same criteria for determining whether a given 
core element was fully satisfied, partially satisfied, or not 
satisfied that we had instructed the departments to use. Finally, we 
shared with the military departments the preliminary versions of the 
analyses that appear in this report as appendices III, IV, and V, and 
made further adjustments, as appropriate, based on additional 
discussions and supporting documentation. We also solicited 
information from each department on long-standing challenges to the 
success of enterprise architecture in the areas of funding, cultural 
resistance, senior leadership, and staff skills. The results presented 
in this report reflect the state of department and agency architecture 
programs as of August 1, 2011. 

In performing our analyses, we interviewed officials and supporting 
contractors from the Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy, 
including the Offices of the Chief Information Officer. To gain 
additional insights into the military departments' enterprise 
architecture programs, we also interviewed officials in the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense. 

We conducted our work in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area from 
October 2010 through September 2011, in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that 
we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: EAMMF Table: 

Table 8 summarizes the framework elements in version 2.0 of our 
Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF). 

Table 8: Summary of EAMMF Version 2.0 Core Elements Categorized by 
Stage: 

Stage: Stage 0; 
Core elements: 
No elements. 

Stage: Stage 1: Establishing enterprise architecture institutional 
commitment and direction; 
Core elements: 
Written and approved organization policy exists for enterprise 
architecture development, maintenance, and use; 
Executive committee representing the enterprise exists and is 
responsible and accountable for enterprise architecture; 
Executive committee is taking proactive steps to address enterprise 
architecture cultural barriers; 
Executive committee members are trained in enterprise architecture 
principles and concepts; 
Chief architect exists; 
Enterprise architecture purpose is clearly stated; 
Enterprise architecture framework(s) is adopted; 
Enterprise architecture performance and accountability framework is 
established. 

Stage: Stage 2: Creating the management foundation for enterprise 
architecture development and use; 
Core elements: 
Enterprise architecture budgetary needs are justified and funded; 
Enterprise architecture program office(s) exists; 
Key program office leadership positions are filled; 
Program office human capital plans exist; 
Enterprise architecture development and maintenance methodology exists; 
Automated enterprise architecture tools exist; 
Enterprise architecture program management plan exists and reflects 
relationships with other management disciplines; 
Work breakdown structure and schedule to develop enterprise 
architecture exist; 
Enterprise architecture segments, federation members, and/or extended 
members have been identified and prioritized; 
Program office readiness is measured and reported. 

Stage: Stage 3: Developing initial enterprise architecture versions; 
Core elements: 
Organization business owner and CXO representatives are actively 
engaged in architecture development; 
Enterprise architecture human capital plans are being implemented; 
Program office contractor support needs are being met; 
Program office staff are trained in enterprise architecture framework, 
methodology, and tools; 
Methodologies and tools exist to determine investment compliance with 
corporate and subordinate architectures; 
Methodologies and tools exist to determine subordinate architecture 
alignment with the corporate enterprise architecture; 
Enterprise architecture-related risks are proactively identified, 
reported, and mitigated; 
Initial versions of corporate "as-is" and "to-be" enterprise 
architecture and sequencing plan are being developed; 
Initial version of corporate enterprise architecture describing the 
enterprise in terms of performance, business, data, services, 
technology, and security is being developed; 
One or more segment and/or federation member architectures is being 
developed; 
Architecture products are being developed according to the enterprise 
architecture content framework; 
Architecture products are being developed according to a defined 
enterprise architecture methodology; 
Architecture products are being developed using enterprise 
architecture tools; 
Architecture development progress is measured and reported. 

Stage: Stage 4: Completing and using an initial enterprise 
architecture version for targeted results; 
Core elements: 
Executive committee has approved the initial version of corporate 
enterprise architecture; 
Key stakeholders have approved the current version of subordinate 
architectures; 
Enterprise architecture is integral to the execution of other 
institutional management disciplines; 
Program office human capital needs are met; 
Initial versions of corporate "as-is" and "to-be" enterprise 
architecture and sequencing plan exist; 
Initial version of corporate enterprise architecture captures 
performance, business, data, services, technology, and security views; 
One or more segment and/or federation member architectures exists and 
is being implemented; 
Enterprise architecture product quality is measured and reported; 
Enterprise architecture results and outcomes are measured and reported; 
Investment compliance with corporate and subordinate architectures is 
measured and reported; 
Subordinate architecture alignment with the corporate enterprise 
architecture is measured and reported. 

Stage: Stage 5: Expanding and evolving the enterprise architecture and 
its use for institutional transformation; 
Core elements: 
Organization head has approved current version of the corporate 
enterprise architecture; 
Organization component heads or segment owners have approved current 
version of their respective subordinate architectures; 
Integrated repository tools and common enterprise architecture 
framework and methodology are used across the enterprise; 
Corporate and subordinate architecture program offices operate as a 
single virtual office that shares resources enterprisewide; 
Corporate enterprise architecture and sequencing plan are 
enterprisewide in scope; 
Corporate enterprise architecture and sequencing plan are aligned with 
subordinate architectures; 
All segment and/or federated architectures exist and are horizontally 
and vertically integrated; 
Corporate and subordinate architectures are extended to align with 
external partner architectures; 
Enterprise architecture products and management processes are subject 
to independent assessment. 

Stage: Stage 6: Continuously improving the enterprise architecture and 
its use to achieve corporate optimization; 
Core elements: 
Enterprise architecture is used by executive leadership to inform 
organization strategic planning and policy formulation; 
Enterprise architecture human capital capabilities are continuously 
improved; 
Enterprise architecture methodologies and tools are continuously 
improved; 
Enterprise architecture management processes are continuously improved 
and reflect the results of external assessments; 
Enterprise architecture products are continuously improved and updated; 
Enterprise architecture quality and results measurement methods are 
continuously improved; 
Enterprise architecture continuous improvement efforts reflect the 
results of external assessments. 

Source: GAO-10-846G. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Department of the Air Force: 

The Department of the Air Force fully satisfied 12, partially 
satisfied 28, and did not satisfy 19 of the 59 elements described in 
our EAMMF. Table 9 summarizes the extent to which the Air Force has 
addressed the core elements described in each stage of the EAMMF. 
Table 10 describes the extent to which the department satisfied each 
element. 

Table 9: Air Force Satisfaction of Core Elements within Each Stage: 

Stage: 1; 
Satisfied: 50%; 
Partially satisfied: 38%; 
Not satisfied: 13%. 

Stage: 2; 
Satisfied: 10%; 
Partially satisfied: 50%; 
Not satisfied: 40%. 

Stage: 3; 
Satisfied: 29%; 
Partially satisfied: 50%; 
Not satisfied: 21%. 

Stage: 4; 
Satisfied: 9%; 
Partially satisfied: 55%; 
Not satisfied: 36%. 

Stage: 5; 
Satisfied: 11%; 
Partially satisfied: 44%; 
Not satisfied: 44%. 

Stage: 6; 
Satisfied: 14%; 
Partially satisfied: 43%; 
Not satisfied: 43%. 

Stage: Average; 
Satisfied: 20%; 
Partially satisfied: 47%; 
Not satisfied: 32%. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by Air Force. 

Note: Numbers do not always add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

Table 10: Air Force Satisfaction of EAMMF Core Elements: 

Stage 1: 

Core element: Core element 1: Written and approved organization policy 
exists for enterprise architecture development, maintenance, and use; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Air Force has written policies, approved by the head of 
the Air Force that address enterprise architecture development, 
maintenance, and use. These policies identify the major players 
responsible for the Air Force's enterprise architecture efforts (e.g., 
the Air Force Chief Information Officer (CIO) and heads of the 
department's Major Commands); define what an enterprise architecture 
includes (i.e., a baseline architecture, a target architecture, and a 
sequencing plan); and set direction on the use of enterprise 
architecture (e.g., inform, guide, and support Air Force decision 
making). 

Core element: Core element 2: Executive Committee representing the 
enterprise exists and is responsible and accountable for enterprise 
architecture; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: In June 2011, the department established the Air Force 
CIO Executive Council as the executive-level committee that represents 
the enterprise and is responsible for approving its enterprise 
architecture. The Executive Council is supported by two subordinate 
boards whose responsibilities include overseeing IT capital planning 
and reviewing new versions of the enterprise architecture. 

Core element: Core element 3: Executive Committee is taking proactive 
steps to address enterprise architecture cultural barriers; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: The Air Force Architecting Division has taken steps to 
address enterprise architecture cultural barriers. For example, the 
Architecting Division issued an enterprise architecture communications 
plan to, among other things, improve its efforts to integrate 
architecture into the department's decision-making processes. However, 
Air Force did not provide evidence indicating that the enterprise 
architecture Executive Committee had taken steps to address enterprise 
architecture cultural barriers. 

Core element: Core element 4: Executive Committee members are trained 
in enterprise architecture principles and concepts; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Enterprise architecture training is available to all Air 
Force employees. However, according to Air Force enterprise 
architecture officials, department executives are not required or 
expected to take enterprise architecture training. Instead, they are 
provided with high-level briefings on the purpose and use of 
enterprise architecture from enterprise architecture subject matter 
experts. According to the Enterprise Architecting Division head, 
department executives do not need such training because it is the 
responsibility of department architects to understand enterprise 
architecture principles and concepts. 

Core element: Core element 5: Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: As the Air Force Chief Architect, the Director of 
Policy, Planning, and Resources is responsible for developing and 
maintaining the Air Force enterprise architecture. The Air Force Chief 
Architect also serves as the head of the CIO Group, a subcommittee 
that reports directly to the Air Force's enterprise architecture 
Executive Committee, and has experience in the IT and business sides 
of the organization. 

Core element: Core element 6: Enterprise architecture purpose is 
clearly stated; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force has defined the purpose of its enterprise 
architecture, which is included in information distributed to key 
stakeholders. This purpose is broadly written to support the 
department's goals and objectives. However, this purpose was approved 
by the CIO rather than the Air Force CIO Executive Council. According 
to the recently updated Air Force enterprise architecture Executive 
Committee charter, the committee will approve future versions of the 
department's enterprise architecture, which have previously included 
descriptions of the enterprise architecture's purpose. 

Core element: Core element 7: Enterprise architecture framework(s) is 
adopted; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Air Force has established an enterprise architecture 
framework that documents the suite of enterprise-level enterprise 
architecture artifacts to be developed, used, and maintained. The 
framework also defines the overall structure of the Air Force 
enterprise architecture, such as the conceptual relationships among 
the various levels of architecture (e.g., enterprise-level and segment 
architectures). 

Core element: Core element 8: Enterprise architecture performance and 
accountability framework is established; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: The Air Force instruction 33-401 describes roles and 
responsibilities for key enterprise architecture stakeholders, such as 
the CIO, Chief Architect, and Air Force Major Commands. However, Air 
Force has yet to develop a framework that provides the means and 
metrics for ensuring that these roles and responsibilities are 
fulfilled. 

Stage 2: 

Core element: Core element 9: Enterprise architecture budgetary needs 
are justified and funded; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: According to Air Force officials, its annual budget 
request has enabled them to maintain both government and contractor 
staff. These staff have worked on activities such as creating 
enterprise architecture products and the approval of segment 
architectures. However, they did not provide evidence that funding 
requests are based on reliable cost estimates and justified based on 
expected benefits, and Air Force officials stated that the 
implementation of key enterprise architecture initiatives (e.g., Air 
Force Enterprise Architecture 2015) have been postponed due to limited 
funds. 

Core element: Core element 10: Enterprise architecture program 
office(s) exists; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force has established an Architecting Division 
within its Office of the CIO. This division is responsible for 
performing some activities that are typically associated with a 
program office. For example, the division has issued enterprise 
architecture configuration management guidance and work breakdown 
structures for developing new versions of its enterprise-level 
architecture. However, according to Air Force officials, the 
department does not consider the Architecting Division to be a program 
office and it has not executed program management tasks associated 
with a program office (e.g., establishing a program management plan). 

Core element: Core element 11: Key program office leadership positions 
are filled; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Air Force has recently filled the Enterprise 
Architecting Division Chief position. In addition, according to Air 
Force, Core Function Lead Integrators will be assigned to lead each 
segment architecture. According to Air Force officials, two have been 
assigned; 
however, the department has yet to provide evidence to show that these 
positions have been filled. Moreover, the Architecting Division staff 
are not specifically assigned to key activities such as risk 
management or quality assurance. 

Core element: Core element 12: Program office human capital plans 
exist; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: According to Air Force officials, the department has not 
developed an enterprise architecture human capital plan. Moreover, the 
former Architecting Division head stated that the department does not 
plan to develop such a plan because enterprise architecture is not a 
formally established career field within the federal government. 

Core element: Core element 13: Enterprise architecture development and 
maintenance methodology exists; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Although some elements of a development and maintenance 
methodology can be found in existing enterprise architecture program 
documents, Air Force has not yet developed an enterprise architecture 
development and maintenance methodology that includes defined steps, 
tasks, standards, tools, techniques, and measures that govern how the 
architecture is to be developed and maintained. According to Air Force 
officials, efforts to develop such a methodology have been postponed 
due to budget constraints. 

Core element: Core element 14: Automated enterprise architecture tools 
exist; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Air Force uses various automated enterprise architecture 
tools to capture information described by its enterprise architecture 
framework and enable communication of information contained in its 
architecture products to enterprise architecture stakeholders. For 
example, Air Force uses Troux Architect to document the relationship 
of architecture products in and between each of the five main Air 
Force enterprise architecture reference models. 

Core element: Core element 15: Enterprise architecture program 
management plan exists and reflects relationships with other 
management disciplines; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: According to the Architecting Division, Air Force 
produces an annual road map from which goals and schedules for the 
division are drawn. However, a plan for managing the Air Force's 
enterprise architecture program that defines the management 
structures, controls, disciplines, roles, and accountability 
mechanisms included in our EAMMF does not currently exist. 

Core element: Core element 16: Work breakdown structure and schedule 
to develop enterprise architecture exist; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force provided a work breakdown structure that 
identified high-level tasks, activities, and events needed to develop 
updated versions of its enterprise architecture. Air Force 
Architecting Division officials stated that the work breakdown 
structure, which includes a schedule, is based on prior year work 
breakdown structures. However, the work breakdown structure and 
schedule are not created based on input from an enterprise 
architecture development methodology or program plan, as these 
documents do not exist. 

Core element: Core element 17: Enterprise architecture segments, 
federation members, and/or extended members have been identified and 
prioritized; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force has identified its enterprise architecture 
subordinate architectures (i.e., segments). However, the department 
has not formally prioritized these subordinate architectures. 
According to Air Force, Major Commands are responsible for developing 
their respective subordinate architectures when each Major Command 
determines that such architecture development is needed. 

Core element: Core element 18: Program office readiness is measured 
and reported; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Air Force does not consider its Architecting Division to 
be a formal enterprise architecture program office. In addition, the 
department has yet to measure the extent to which people, processes, 
and tools enablers have been put in place and report this readiness 
information to the enterprise architecture Executive Committee and 
Chief Architect. 

Stage 3: 

Core element: Core element 19: Organization business owner and CXO 
representatives are actively engaged in architecture development; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Representatives of the recently established enterprise 
architecture Executive Committee have been engaged in architecture 
development, and an Air Force policy document requires Major Commands 
and other senior officials to play a lead role in developing 
subordinate architectures and other enterprise architecture products 
for which they are responsible. However, Air Force has not yet 
formally assigned subordinate architectures to specific Major Commands. 

Core element: Core element 20: Enterprise architecture human capital 
plans are being implemented; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Air Force has not developed an enterprise architecture 
human capital plan. Air Force enterprise architecture officials stated 
that such a plan is not applicable because enterprise architecture is 
not a formal career field within the federal government. 

Core element: Core element 21: Program office contractor support needs 
are being met; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: While Air Force has not developed an enterprise 
architecture human capital plan to guide its use of contractors, it 
does leverage contractors to support the development of its enterprise 
architecture and has mechanisms in place to monitor contractor 
performance. 

Core element: Core element 22: Program office staff are trained in 
enterprise architecture framework, methodology, and tools; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: According to an Air Force official, enterprise 
architecture training that includes, among other things, an 
understanding of enterprise architecture basics, such as common 
enterprise architecture views and an introduction to the DOD 
Architecture Framework and Air Force enterprise architecture is 
available to staff in the Office of the Chief Architect. However, 
attendance is not mandatory. 

Core element: Core element 23: Methodologies and tools exist to 
determine investment compliance with corporate and subordinate 
architectures; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force has begun to develop elements of a methodology 
to determine investment compliance with the department's enterprise 
architecture. For example, according to the Air Force Architecting 
Division, for each IT investment, the Architecting Division completes 
a common checklist to ensure its compliance with the Air Force 
enterprise architecture and provides each investment with a score of 
either pass or fail. However, the Air Force's approach does not 
provide for exceptions to architecture compliance on the basis of 
analytical justification that are captured in documented enterprise 
architecture waivers and used to update the enterprise architecture. 

Core element: Core element 24: Methodologies and tools exist to 
determine subordinate architecture alignment with the corporate 
enterprise architecture; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force has begun to develop elements of a methodology 
to determine subordinate architecture alignment with the enterprise-
level architecture. For example, each subordinate architecture is 
assessed using a scorecard that evaluates its compliance with the Air 
Force enterprise architecture and provides each architecture with a 
numerical score. However, Air Force did not provide documentation to 
support that the status of alignment (including risks) among 
architectures needs to be disclosed to, among others, the Executive 
Committee. 

Core element: Core element 25: Enterprise architecture-related risks 
are proactively identified, reported, and mitigated; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: The Air Force's enterprise architecture concept of 
operations identifies categories of risks related to organizational 
use and acceptance of enterprise architecture. However, Air Force did 
not provide evidence that enterprise architecture program risks are 
proactively identified, reported, and mitigated. 

Core element: Core element 26: Initial versions of corporate "as-is" 
and "to-be" enterprise architecture and sequencing plan are being 
developed; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force has developed initial versions of its 
enterprise-level architecture and sequencing plan, including 
architecture products such as its current business reference model. 
However, the department has not developed separate current and target 
enterprise architectures. 

Core element: Core element 27: Initial version of corporate enterprise 
architecture describing the enterprise in terms of performance, 
business, data, services, technology, and security is being developed; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Initial versions of the Air Force enterprise 
architecture include performance, business, data, services, and 
technology reference models. In addition, security is being addressed 
in the technical reference model. 

Core element: Core element 28: One or more segment and/or federation 
member architectures is being developed; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Air Force has developed subordinate architectures. For 
example, version 1.0 of the Space Domain architecture was approved on 
September 20, 2010. 

Core element: Core element 29: Architecture products are being 
developed according to the enterprise architecture content framework; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Initial versions of the enterprise-level and subordinate 
architectures are consistent with Air Force's enterprise architecture 
content framework. 

Core element: Core element 30: Architecture products are being 
developed according to a defined enterprise architecture methodology; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: According to Air Force officials, development of an Air 
Force-unique methodology governing how Air Force architecture products 
at all levels are to be developed, maintained, and validated has been 
put on hold due to budget constraints (see element 13). 

Core element: Core element 31: Architecture products are being 
developed using enterprise architecture tools; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Air Force is developing architecture products using the 
enterprise architecture tools described in element 14. 

Core element: Core element 32: Architecture development progress is 
measured and reported; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: The Air Force Architecting Division measures the state 
of the enterprise-level architecture and reports this information to 
the Chief Architect on a quarterly basis. According to Air Force 
officials, these measurements are based on a planning document 
developed annually to guide the work of the Architecting Division. 
However, this planning document is not based on an enterprise 
architecture program plan. In addition, according to Air Force 
officials, the progress is reported to the Chief Architect and not to 
other enterprise architecture stakeholders, such as the Executive 
Committee. Instead, according to Air Force officials, the Air Force 
has briefed enterprise architecture concepts and status of key 
activities regarding the Air Force enterprise architecture to the 
enterprise architecture Executive Committee. 

Stage 4: 

Core element: Core element 33: Executive Committee has approved the 
initial version of corporate enterprise architecture; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: The Air Force enterprise architecture has been approved 
by the CIO, but not by the Executive Committee. According to officials 
and its recently updated charter, this committee, the CIO Executive 
Council, will approve all subsequent versions of the Air Force 
enterprise architecture. 

Core element: Core element 34: Key stakeholders have approved the 
current version of subordinate architectures; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: According to Air Force officials, the latest versions of 
subordinate architectures (i.e., segment architectures) have been 
approved by the Architecting Division. However, the department did not 
provide evidence to demonstrate that key stakeholders have approved 
the latest versions of subordinate architectures. 

Core element: Core element 35: Enterprise architecture is integral to 
the execution of other institutional management disciplines; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Air Force demonstrated that enterprise architecture is 
integral to the execution of other institutional management 
disciplines, such as the Joint Capabilities Integration Development 
System. 

Core element: Core element 36: Program office human capital needs are 
met; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Air Force has yet to develop a human capital plan that 
would identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to execute 
the department's enterprise architecture program plans and schedules. 
According to Air Force officials, vacancies in the Architecting 
Division are filled on a case-by-case basis, following OMB guidelines 
for civilians and based on Air Force needs. 

Core element: Core element 37: Initial versions of corporate "as-is" 
and "to-be" enterprise architecture and sequencing plan exist; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force has developed initial versions of its 
enterprise-level architecture. However, the department has not 
developed separate enterprise-level current and target enterprise 
architecture products. In addition, the enterprise sequencing plan 
does not include a gap analysis, which is essential to assessing the 
differences between the current and target environments. 

Core element: Core element 38: Initial version of corporate enterprise 
architecture captures performance, business, data, services, 
technology, and security views; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force has developed initial versions of its 
enterprise-level architecture that captures business, performance, 
data, services, technology, and security information. However, the 
department has not developed separate enterprise-level current and 
target enterprise architecture products. 

Core element: Core element 39: One or more segment and/or federation 
member architectures exists and is being implemented; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force has developed Space Domain and Agile Combat 
Support architecture products. However, the department did not provide 
evidence that it has implemented these architectures. 

Core element: Core element 40: Enterprise architecture product quality 
is measured and reported; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force demonstrated that both its enterprise-level 
and subordinate architectures are subject to quality reviews that 
address completeness, usability, consistency, and accuracy and are 
reported to the appropriate officials. However, the assessments are 
not based on an approved enterprise architecture methodology that 
outlines quality expectations. 

Core element: Core element 41: Enterprise architecture results and 
outcomes are measured and reported; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Air Force officials stated that enterprise architecture 
results are measured and reported for the department's business 
mission area. Specifically, the department provided its annual report 
on business mission area IT investments. However, these metrics do not 
demonstrate results and outcomes that measure the strategic mission 
value of the Air Force enterprise architecture. Air Force officials 
stated the department has yet to develop additional metrics that 
demonstrate enterprise architecture results due in part to a lack of 
industry-recognized enterprise architecture results metrics. 

Core element: Core element 42: Investment compliance with corporate 
and subordinate architectures is measured and reported; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force provided evidence showing that investment 
compliance with its enterprise architecture is measured against 
defined criteria. According to Air Force officials, compliance is also 
reported to relevant Investment Review Boards. However, the department 
did not demonstrate that waivers are issued in the event of non-
compliance or that investment compliance with subordinate 
architectures is measured and reported. 

Core element: Core element 43: Subordinate architecture alignment with 
the corporate enterprise architecture is measured and reported; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force provided evidence that subordinate 
architecture alignment with the enterprise-level architecture is 
measured. However, Air Force did not provide documentation to validate 
that the reports are provided to its enterprise architecture Executive 
Committee and the reports do not identify areas at the subordinate 
level that are different from the enterprise-level architecture and 
that may require a waiver. 

Stage 5: 

Core element: Core element 44: Organization head has approved current 
version of the corporate enterprise architecture; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: The department's CIO has approved the latest version of 
the Air Force enterprise architecture. An Air Force instruction, by 
order of the organization head, delegates approval of the enterprise 
architecture to the CIO and Chief Architect. 

Core element: Core element 45: Organization component heads or segment 
owners have approved current version of their respective subordinate 
architectures; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: According to an Air Force policy document, subordinate 
architectures should be approved by designated representatives of 
their architecture owners prior to their certification. In addition, 
according to an official within the Air Force Architecting Division, 
current versions of segment architectures were approved by either the 
Air Force Chief Architect or Deputy Chief Architect. However, Air 
Force officials have yet to provide evidence showing that newly-
created Service Core Function-level architectures have been approved 
by their respective organization component heads or segment owners. 

Core element: Core element 46: Integrated repository tools and common 
enterprise architecture framework and methodology are used across the 
enterprise; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: While Air Force uses an integrated enterprise 
architecture repository and has established a common enterprise 
architecture framework, it does not have a documented methodology 
governing how its architecture products are to be developed. 

Core element: Core element 47: Corporate and subordinate architecture 
program offices operate as a single virtual office that shares 
resources enterprisewide; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Air Force has not established a formal enterprise-level 
architecture program office and, according to Air Force officials, the 
department's architecture offices are not designed to operate as a 
single virtual office. 

Core element: Core element 48: Corporate enterprise architecture and 
sequencing plan are enterprisewide in scope; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: The Air Force enterprise architecture is enterprisewide 
in scope. However, the department has not developed separate 
enterprise-level current and target enterprise architecture products. 
In addition, the Air Force sequencing plan is limited to a sequencing 
of systems and the enterprise architecture does not include gaps at 
the enterprise level. 

Core element: Core element 49: Corporate enterprise architecture and 
sequencing plan are aligned with subordinate architectures; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: While Air Force has criteria intended to determine if a 
subordinate architecture is positioned to be federated with its 
enterprise-level architecture, it has not demonstrated that its 
enterprise-level architecture and sequencing plan are aligned with 
subordinate architectures (see element 43). 

Core element: Core element 50: All segment and/or federated 
architectures exist and are horizontally and vertically integrated; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Air Force did not demonstrate that all segment and/or 
federated architectures exist. For example, all Service Core Function 
architectures have not been fully developed. Accordingly, its 
architectures are not yet horizontally and vertically integrated. 

Core element: Core element 51: Corporate and subordinate architectures 
are extended to align with external partner architectures; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force has begun to demonstrate that its enterprise-
level and subordinate architectures are extended to align with 
external partner architectures. For example, the Air Force enterprise 
architecture has been certified by DOD as meeting the requirements for 
aligning with the DOD Information Enterprise Architecture. However, 
Air Force did not provide evidence that its enterprise architecture 
aligns with other external partner architectures (e.g., Army, DON). 

Core element: Core element 52: Enterprise architecture products and 
management processes are subject to independent assessment; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: The Air Force Audit Agency conducted a review of 
subordinate architectures in 2011. In addition, according to a 
department official, an assessment of the Air Force enterprise 
architecture was performed by the DOD Federated Architecture Council 
to determine whether the Air Force enterprise architecture was "fit 
for federation" at DOD. However, the Air Force Audit Agency review did 
not address the enterprise-level Air Force enterprise architecture. In 
addition, no independent assessments of the enterprise architecture 
and management processes have been performed by entities accountable 
to the Air Force CIO Executive Council. 

Stage 6: 

Core element: Core element 53: Enterprise architecture is used by 
executive leadership to inform organization strategic planning and 
policy formulation; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Air Force enterprise architecture officials have yet to 
provide evidence demonstrating that the enterprise architecture is 
used by executive leadership to inform organization strategic planning 
and policy formulation. 

Core element: Core element 54: Enterprise architecture human capital 
capabilities are continuously improved; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: According to an official in the Architecting Division, 
enterprise architecture human capital needs are managed on an 
individual basis by the development and use of individual development 
plans. However, Air Force did not provide evidence to demonstrate that 
it periodically reevaluates its enterprise-level and subordinate 
existing enterprise architecture human capital capabilities relative 
to its future needs or uses periodic gap analyses to take proactive 
steps to fill knowledge and skill gaps through training, hiring, and 
contracting. 

Core element: Core element 55: Enterprise architecture methodologies 
and tools are continuously improved; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force has mechanisms in place to evaluate its 
enterprise architecture tools. For example, the department conducted 
an enterprise architecture tool assessment survey that requested 
information from staff regarding tool use and performance. However, 
the creation of Air Force's development and maintenance methodology 
has been postponed due to budget concerns. 

Core element: Core element 56: Enterprise architecture management 
processes are continuously improved and reflect the results of 
external assessments; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force officials provided evidence that its 
enterprise-level architecture management processes were evaluated. In 
addition, department officials stated that the subordinate 
architecture certification process has been periodically assessed and 
revised. However, Air Force did not provide evidence to validate that 
it used relevant external benchmarks for either of these assessments. 

Core element: Core element 57: Enterprise architecture products are 
continuously improved and updated; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Air Force officials provided information to demonstrate 
that enterprise architecture products are continuously improved and 
updated. For example, Air Force's configuration management plan 
outlines the process for making changes to the Air Force enterprise 
architecture as well as sample change requests and evidence that the 
requests have been approved and reflected in an updated version of the 
Air Force enterprise architecture. However, the department did not 
demonstrate that it has fully implemented its configuration management 
plan. 

Core element: Core element 58: Enterprise architecture quality and 
results measurement methods are continuously improved; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Air Force did not demonstrate that it periodically 
reevaluates its methods for assessing enterprise-level and subordinate 
architecture quality and program results. 

Core element: Core element 59: Enterprise architecture continuous 
improvement efforts reflect the results of external assessments; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Air Force demonstrated that its enterprise architecture 
continuous improvement efforts reflect the results of external 
assessments. For example, in our 2006 report on enterprise 
architecture management maturity, we reported that Air Force 
enterprise architecture products were not under configuration 
management. However, as described in element 57, the enterprise-level 
Air Force enterprise architecture is currently under configuration 
management. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by Air Force. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Department of the Army: 

The Department of the Army fully satisfied 7, partially satisfied 25, 
and did not satisfy 27 of the 59 elements described in our EAMMF. 
Table 11 summarizes the extent to which Army has addressed the core 
elements described in each stage of the EAMMF. Table 12 describes the 
extent to which the department satisfied each element. 

Table 11: Army Satisfaction of Core Elements within Each Stage: 

Stage: 1; 
Satisfied: 25%; 
Partially satisfied: 50%; 
Not satisfied: 25%. 

Stage: 2; 
Satisfied: 20%; 
Partially satisfied: 40%; 
Not satisfied: 40%. 

Stage: 3; 
Satisfied: 14%; 
Partially satisfied: 50%; 
Not satisfied: 36%. 

Stage: 4; 
Satisfied: 9%; 
Partially satisfied: 27%; 
Not satisfied: 64%. 

Stage: 5; 
Satisfied: 0; 
Partially satisfied: 44%; 
Not satisfied: 56%. 

Stage: 6; 
Satisfied: 0; 
Partially satisfied: 43%; 
Not satisfied: 57%. 

Stage: Average; 
Satisfied: 12%; 
Partially satisfied: 42%; 
Not satisfied: 46%. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by Army. 

[End of table] 

Table 12: Army Satisfaction of EAMMF Core Elements: 

Stage 1: 

Core element: Core element 1: Written and approved organization policy 
exists for enterprise architecture development, maintenance, and use; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Army has written and approved policies that address 
enterprise architecture development, maintenance, and use. These 
policies identify the major players responsible for Army enterprise 
architecture efforts (e.g., the Army Chief Information Officer and the 
Army Chief Architect); define what an enterprise architecture includes 
(i.e., a baseline architecture, a target architecture, and a 
sequencing plan); and set direction on the use of enterprise 
architecture (e.g., eliminate unnecessary or redundant processes and 
reallocate resources). 

Core element: Core element 2: Executive Committee representing the 
enterprise exists and is responsible and accountable for enterprise 
architecture; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Army has committees that are responsible and accountable 
for two of the department's three segment architectures. However, the 
department does not yet have an approved Executive Committee that 
represents the enterprise and is responsible and accountable for a 
departmentwide enterprise architecture. According to Army, a draft 
enterprise architecture policy will establish such a committee. 

Core element: Core element 3: Executive Committee is taking proactive 
steps to address enterprise architecture cultural barriers; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Army has taken initial steps to address enterprise 
architecture cultural barriers by providing enterprise architecture 
overview briefings and plans to provide necessary resources to 
enterprise architecture activities. However, the department has not 
yet encouraged the disclosure and adoption of enterprise architecture 
shared services and promoted and rewarded enterprise architecture-
related collaboration across organizational boundaries. 

Core element: Core element 4: Executive Committee members are trained 
in enterprise architecture principles and concepts; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, there is no formal 
enterprise architecture training that provides a basic understanding 
of enterprise architecture fundamentals and is appropriately tailored 
toward specific Executive Committee members or subordinate 
organizations. 

Core element: Core element 5: Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Army has appointed the Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Operations, Plans, and Training as the Army Chief Architect. The Chief 
Architect is responsible for, among other things, oversight and 
management of all Army architecture efforts. 

Core element: Core element 6: Enterprise architecture purpose is 
clearly stated; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Army's Generating Force, Operating Force, and Network 
segments have defined purpose statements. However, these statements 
were not defined and approved by an enterprise-level Executive 
Committee. 

Core element: Core element 7: Enterprise architecture framework(s) is 
adopted; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Army has adopted the Department of Defense Architecture 
Framework version 1.5 and is adopting version 2.0 as the basis for 
describing its enterprise architecture products. However, the suite of 
enterprise architecture products and artifacts to be developed, used, 
and maintained under the architecture framework version 2.0 has not 
been specified. 

Core element: Core element 8: Enterprise architecture performance and 
accountability framework is established; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: An enterprise architecture performance and 
accountability framework has not been established. Specifically, an 
enterprise-level approach for measuring enterprise architecture 
progress, management capacity, quality, use, and results has not been 
established. Further, although Army has identified the roles and 
responsibilities of key stakeholders, the specific metrics and means 
for ensuring that the roles and responsibilities are fulfilled and any 
deviations from expectations are not documented and disclosed. 

Stage 2: 

Core element: Core element 9: Enterprise architecture budgetary needs 
are justified and funded; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, funding requests for 
enterprise architecture needs are ad hoc and decentralized. While the 
architecture segments have received funding, their budgetary needs 
have not been fully met. 

Core element: Core element 10: Enterprise architecture program 
office(s) exists; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Army has yet to establish a program office with 
responsibility for the department's enterprise architecture 
development and maintenance. According to Army officials, a draft 
regulation is being written and will assign responsibility for 
managing enterprise architecture. Existing subordinate program 
management offices are chartered and have responsibility for the 
Generating Force, Operating Force, and Network segment architectures. 

Core element: Core element 11: Key program office leadership positions 
are filled; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Although Army has designated a Chief Architect, key 
program office leadership positions such as a configuration manager, 
risk manager, and quality assurance manager have not been identified 
and filled. While the Generating Force, Operating Force, and Network 
segment architectures have lead architects, key leadership positions 
for these segment architecture programs have not been filled. 

Core element: Core element 12: Program office human capital plans 
exist; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army does not have an enterprise architecture program 
office human capital plan. Specifically, Army has not identified the 
human capital needs and developed a plan for acquiring, developing, 
and retaining qualified staff with the requisite knowledge, skills, 
and abilities. 

Core element: Core element 13: Enterprise architecture development and 
maintenance methodology exists; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: The Army is drafting a regulation that calls for the 
development of an enterprise architecture methodology. However, the 
department has not yet documented a methodology that includes defined 
steps, tasks, standards, tools, techniques, and measures that govern 
how its enterprise architecture is to be developed, maintained, and 
validated. 

Core element: Core element 14: Automated enterprise architecture tools 
exist; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Army uses various automated tools to assist in capturing 
enterprise architecture information and developing, communicating, 
storing, and maintaining architecture products. For example, the 
department uses System Architect for the development of traditional 
enterprise architecture artifacts and a repository tool. 

Core element: Core element 15: Enterprise architecture program 
management plan exists and reflects relationships with other 
management disciplines; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Army has not developed an enterprise architecture 
program management plan. However, the Network segment has developed a 
program management plan and an approach to developing its architecture 
that includes management structures, controls, and institutional 
management disciplines. 

Core element: Core element 16: Work breakdown structure and schedule 
to develop enterprise architecture exist; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army does not have a work breakdown structure to develop 
its enterprise architecture or architecture segments. Additionally, 
the department does not have a schedule to develop its enterprise 
architecture for two of the three architecture segments. While Army 
provided a high-level schedule for the Network architecture segment, 
the schedule does not define the timing, sequencing, and duration of 
program tasks, activities, and events. 

Core element: Core element 17: Enterprise architecture segments, 
federation members, and/or extended members have been identified and 
prioritized; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Army has identified and prioritized three segment 
architectures: Generating Force, Operating Force, and Network in the 
Army Campaign Plan. Specifically, the first priority is the Operating 
Force segment with some support from the Generating Force and Network 
segments. The second priority is the Generating Force segment with 
some support from the Network segment. The third priority is the 
Network segment. 

Core element: Core element 18: Program office readiness is measured 
and reported; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army does not yet have an enterprise architecture 
program office. Further, the readiness of segment architecture program 
offices is not measured and reported. Specifically, the Army's people, 
processes, and tools elements have not been measured and have not been 
shared with the Executive Committee, Chief Architect, and subordinate 
architects. 

Stage 3: 

Core element: Core element 19: Organization business owner and CXO 
representatives are actively engaged in architecture development; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, organization business 
owners are assigned to segment architecture program offices. For 
example, Army officials stated that their General Officers (or 
equivalent) are actively involved with approving Army architecture 
development priorities and architecture products. However, Army has 
not yet established an enterprise-level architecture program office. 

Core element: Core element 20: Enterprise architecture human capital 
plans are being implemented; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army does not have an enterprise architecture human 
capital plan. Specifically, Army has not identified the human capital 
needs or developed a plan for acquiring, developing, and retaining 
qualified staff with the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities. 

Core element: Core element 21: Program office contractor support needs 
are being met; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, the segment architecture 
program office contractor support needs are not being met. 
Additionally, Army has not yet established an enterprise-level 
architecture office. 

Core element: Core element 22: Program office staff are trained in 
enterprise architecture framework, methodology, and tools; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, enterprise architecture 
staff have attended architecture-related training. However, training 
needs are not identified in a human capital management plan. 

Core element: Core element 23: Methodologies and tools exist to 
determine investment compliance with corporate and subordinate 
architectures; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, a methodology and tool 
exist and are used to determine business system investment compliance 
with its Generating Force segment architecture. However, automated 
tools and methodologies do not yet exist for non-business system 
investment compliance with the Operating Force and Network segment 
architectures. 

Core element: Core element 24: Methodologies and tools exist to 
determine subordinate architecture alignment with the corporate 
enterprise architecture; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army does not have an enterprise-level architecture to 
which a methodology to determine subordinate architecture alignment 
can be applied. 

Core element: Core element 25: Enterprise architecture-related risks 
are proactively identified, reported, and mitigated; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, the department does not 
have a formal set of risk management activities to proactively 
identify, report, and mitigate enterprise architecture-related risks. 
In addition, although the Army's Network segment architecture has a 
methodology that includes a risk management process, this process has 
yet to be implemented. 

Core element: Core element 26: Initial versions of corporate "as-is" 
and "to-be" enterprise architecture and sequencing plan are being 
developed; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: The department is developing segment architecture 
products that can be used to inform the development of an enterprise-
level architecture. However, according to Army officials, enterprise-
level architecture products have not yet been developed. 

Core element: Core element 27: Initial version of corporate enterprise 
architecture describing the enterprise in terms of performance, 
business, data, services, technology, and security is being developed; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Army is developing segment architectures that begin to 
describe the enterprise segments in terms of performance, business, 
data, services, technology, and security. However, it has yet to 
develop an enterprise-level architecture that describes enterprise 
elements such as business rules and outcomes that all Army components 
are expected to adopt. 

Core element: Core element 28: One or more segment and/or federation 
member architectures is being developed; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Army is developing segment architectures. For example, 
the department is developing architectures for its Generating Force 
and Network segments. 

Core element: Core element 29: Architecture products are being 
developed according to the enterprise architecture content framework; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Army's segment architecture products are being developed 
in accordance with guidance such as the DOD architecture framework. 
However, a complete enterprise architecture framework has not yet been 
developed. 

Core element: Core element 30: Architecture products are being 
developed according to a defined enterprise architecture methodology; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army has established strategies for developing segment 
architecture products. However, a defined enterprise architecture 
methodology that includes steps, tasks, standards, tools, techniques, 
and measures to consistently develop enterprise-level architecture 
products has not yet been developed. 

Core element: Core element 31: Architecture products are being 
developed using enterprise architecture tools; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Army is developing architecture products using the 
enterprise architecture tools described in element 14. 

Core element: Core element 32: Architecture development progress is 
measured and reported; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Progress against plans is measured and reported for 
Army's Generating Force segment architecture, but not for Operating 
Force and Network segments. For example, the Office of Business 
Transformation produced a summary report that described the office's 
efforts for fiscal year 2010. 

Stage 4: 

Core element: Core element 33: Executive Committee has approved the 
initial version of corporate enterprise architecture; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army does not have an enterprise-level architecture that 
has been approved by an executive committee. 

Core element: Core element 34: Key stakeholders have approved the 
current version of subordinate architectures; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, key stakeholders, such as 
business owners and executive sponsors, have not approved all major 
releases of the department's subordinate architectures. 

Core element: Core element 35: Enterprise architecture is integral to 
the execution of other institutional management disciplines; 
Satisfied? Yes; 
Our analysis: Segment architectures (Generating Force, Operating 
Force, and Network) are linked to the execution of other institutional 
management disciplines such as the Joint Capability Integration and 
Development System, Defense Acquisition System, and Planning, 
Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System. 

Core element: Core element 36: Program office human capital needs are 
met; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army does not have a basis for meeting the enterprise 
architecture human capital needs because it has not identified 
staffing requirements or gaps. Further, according to Army officials, 
they do not have sufficient staff to support their enterprise 
architecture program. 

Core element: Core element 37: Initial versions of corporate "as-is" 
and "to-be" enterprise architecture and sequencing plan exist; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Army has developed initial versions of segment 
architecture products that can be used to inform the development of an 
enterprise-level architecture. For example, the department has 
developed initial versions of Army architectures for its Generating 
Force and Network segments. However, according to Army officials, 
enterprise-level architecture products have not yet been developed. 

Core element: Core element 38: Initial version of corporate enterprise 
architecture captures performance, business, data, services, 
technology, and security views; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Army has developed initial versions of segment 
architecture products that can be used to inform the development of an 
enterprise-level architecture. For example, the initial version of its 
Network segment architecture begins to document its performance, 
business, data, services, technology, and security views. However, 
according to Army officials, the enterprise-level architecture has yet 
to be developed. 

Core element: Core element 39: One or more segment and/or federation 
member architectures exists and is being implemented; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Army identified three segments, each with sub-segments. 
However, these segments have not been fully developed or implemented 
on a targeted or prioritized basis (see element 17). With respect to 
implementation, the department has used segment architecture artifacts 
to make decisions such as assessing data centers for closure or 
sustainment and consolidating data and enterprise e-mail. 

Core element: Core element 40: Enterprise architecture product quality 
is measured and reported; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army does not measure or report the quality of its 
enterprise architecture products. Although the Network architecture 
segment documentation states that quality control measures are to be 
used to determine quality, reuse, compliance, and risk, related 
measurements have not yet been defined. Further, according to Army 
officials, the quality of Generating Force and Operating Force 
architecture products is not measured and reported. 

Core element: Core element 41: Enterprise architecture results and 
outcomes are measured and reported; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army does not measure and report results and outcomes of 
its enterprise architecture efforts. 

Core element: Core element 42: Investment compliance with corporate 
and subordinate architectures is measured and reported; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Measurement of investment compliance with Army 
enterprise-level architecture products does not occur because such 
products do not yet exist. Army officials did not provide sufficient 
documentation to support their position that investment compliance 
with subordinate architectures is measured and reported. 

Core element: Core element 43: Subordinate architecture alignment with 
the corporate enterprise architecture is measured and reported; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Subordinate architecture alignment with the enterprise-
level architecture is not measured and reported. Further, Army has not 
yet developed an enterprise-level architecture with which its 
subordinate architectures' alignment could be measured and reported. 

Stage 5: 

Core element: Core element 44: Organization head has approved current 
version of the corporate enterprise architecture; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army has not yet developed an enterprise-level 
architecture that would be approved by the Secretary of the Army. 

Core element: Core element 45: Organization component heads or segment 
owners have approved current version of their respective subordinate 
architectures; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: According to Army, organization component heads or 
segment owners have approved the current version of the department's 
subordinate architectures. However, Army officials did not provide 
evidence that these approvals were based on quality measures. 

Core element: Core element 46: Integrated repository tools and common 
enterprise architecture framework and methodology are used across the 
enterprise; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Generating Force architecture products are currently 
stored in a single repository; 
however, this repository does not include all Army architecture 
products. According to Army officials, Army plans to use a single 
repository tool for storing all architecture products. In addition, 
Army strategy calls for a common enterprise architecture framework and 
methodology to be used across the enterprise but this is not yet in 
place. 

Core element: Core element 47: Corporate and subordinate architecture 
program offices operate as a single virtual office that shares 
resources enterprisewide; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army has not yet established an enterprise-level 
architecture office and the department's subordinate architecture 
program offices do not operate as a single virtual office that shares 
resources. 

Core element: Core element 48: Corporate enterprise architecture and 
sequencing plan are enterprisewide in scope; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, Army segments are 
enterprisewide in scope. In addition, Army has established a basis for 
developing enterprise-level architecture, such as the Army Operating 
Concept which describes the Army's mission and future operational 
environment. Further, Army has established a basis for developing an 
enterprise sequencing plan. For example, the Capabilities Set process 
describes concepts for prioritizing, integrating, and synchronizing 
activities across the Army. 

Core element: Core element 49: Corporate enterprise architecture and 
sequencing plan are aligned with subordinate architectures; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army has not developed an initial version of its 
enterprise-level architecture or sequencing plan, which would provide 
the basis for subordinate architecture alignment. 

Core element: Core element 50: All segment and/or federated 
architectures exist and are horizontally and vertically integrated; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army intends to horizontally and vertically integrate 
its architecture products. However, such integration has not yet 
occurred. 

Core element: Core element 51: Corporate and subordinate architectures 
are extended to align with external partner architectures; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: Army has begun to demonstrate that its architectures are 
extended to align with external partner architectures. For example, 
Army has demonstrated that its Generating Force segment is aligned 
with the DOD business enterprise architecture. However, the department 
has not demonstrated alignment with other external partner 
architectures (e.g., DON, Air Force). 

Core element: Core element 52: Enterprise architecture products and 
management processes are subject to independent assessment; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army's enterprise architecture products and management 
processes are not subject to independent assessment. 

Stage 6: 

Core element: Core element 53: Enterprise architecture is used by 
executive leadership to inform organization strategic planning and 
policy formulation; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, the segment architectures 
have been used to inform a key reference handbook for senior Army 
leaders. However, Army officials did not provide sufficient 
documentation to clearly link its architecture products with strategic 
plans and institutional policies. 

Core element: Core element 54: Enterprise architecture human capital 
capabilities are continuously improved; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: Army's enterprise architecture human capital 
capabilities are not continuously improved. 

Core element: Core element 55: Enterprise architecture methodologies 
and tools are continuously improved; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, efforts to improve 
architecture tools are made but have been limited to the segment 
architectures, including the Generating Force and Operating Force 
segments. The officials stated that the department is drafting an 
enterprise architecture policy that will provide further guidance in 
this area. 

Core element: Core element 56: Enterprise architecture management 
processes are continuously improved and reflect the results of 
external assessments; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, the department has not 
subjected its enterprise architecture management processes to periodic 
reassessments by an entity that is external to the enterprise 
architecture program, such as the department's internal audit function 
or a contractor that is not responsible for any architecture 
development, maintenance, or management activities. 

Core element: Core element 57: Enterprise architecture products are 
continuously improved and updated; 
Satisfied? Partial; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, the Generating Force and 
Operating Force segment enterprise architecture products have been 
improved and updated to reflect events such as changes in legal 
requirements. However, Army's Network segment architecture officials 
reported that its enterprise architecture products are not 
continuously improved and updated; 
and the Army does not yet have a formal configuration management 
process for ongoing architecture maintenance. 

Core element: Core element 58: Enterprise architecture quality and 
results measurement methods are continuously improved; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, enterprise architecture 
quality and results measurement methods are not continuously improved. 

Core element: Core element 59: Enterprise architecture continuous 
improvement efforts reflect the results of external assessments; 
Satisfied? No; 
Our analysis: According to Army officials, enterprise architecture 
continuous improvement efforts do not reflect the results of external 
assessments. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by Army. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Department of the Navy: 

The Department of the Navy (DON) fully satisfied 16, partially 
satisfied 24, and did not satisfy 19 of the 59 elements described in 
our EAMMF. Table 13 summarizes the extent to which DON has addressed 
the core elements described in each stage of the EAMMF. Table 14 
describes the extent to which the department satisfied each element. 

Table 13: DON Satisfaction of Core Elements within Each Stage: 

Stage: 1; 
Satisfied: 50%; 
Partially satisfied: 38%; 
Not satisfied: 13%. 

Stage: 2; 
Satisfied: 20%; 
Partially satisfied: 50%; 
Not satisfied: 30%. 

Stage: 3; 
Satisfied: 36%; 
Partially satisfied: 36%; 
Not satisfied: 29%. 

Stage: 4; 
Satisfied: 27%; 
Partially satisfied: 36%; 
Not satisfied: 36%. 

Stage: 5; 
Satisfied: 11%; 
Partially satisfied: 44%; 
Not satisfied: 44%. 

Stage: 6; 
Satisfied: 14%; 
Partially satisfied: 43%; 
Not satisfied: 43%. 

Stage: Average; 
Satisfied: 27%; 
Partially satisfied: 41%; 
Not satisfied: 32%. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by DON. 

[End of table] 

Table 14: DON Satisfaction of GAO EAMMF Core Elements: 

Stage 1: 

Core element: Core element 1: Written and approved organization policy 
exists for enterprise architecture development, maintenance, and use; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: DON has written and approved policies, approved by the 
head of the department that address enterprise architecture 
development, maintenance, and use. These policies identify the major 
players responsible for DON's enterprise architecture efforts, (e.g., 
the DON CIO and DON Chief Architect); define what the enterprise 
architecture must include (i.e., the current architecture, target 
architecture, and a plan to transition to the desired state); and set 
direction on the use of enterprise architecture (e.g., promotion of 
interoperability, public access, and IT security). 

Core element: Core element 2: Executive Committee representing the 
enterprise exists and is responsible and accountable for enterprise 
architecture; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: DON has assigned responsibility and accountability for 
directing, overseeing, and approving its architecture to a formally 
chartered executive committee named the Information Enterprise 
Governance Board (IGB). It includes representatives from across the 
organization's units, such as research, development, and acquisition; 
financial management; energy and the environment; manpower; and cyber 
command. 

Core element: Core element 3: Executive Committee is taking proactive 
steps to address enterprise architecture cultural barriers; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: DON is taking steps to address enterprise architecture 
cultural barriers, as evidenced by the recent establishment of the IGB 
with the intent of increasing participation and support for the 
department's enterprise architecture among senior-level staff; 
the department's plans to provide training to the acquisition 
community on the value of enterprise architecture; 
and plans to develop a road map to address the lack of a common 
understanding among stakeholders on how enterprise architecture 
relates to department plans and goals. 

Core element: Core element 4: Executive Committee members are trained 
in enterprise architecture principles and concepts; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: DON offers training on basic enterprise architecture 
fundamentals, such as DON's enterprise architecture content and 
framework, at various Navy and Marine Corps locations and this 
training is available to IGB members. However, this training is not 
mandatory for members of the IGB. According to officials, members of 
the committee are assumed to have the knowledge and experience needed 
to understand the department's enterprise architecture at an 
appropriate level of granularity without attending training sessions. 

Core element: Core element 5: Chief architect exists; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: As the DON chief architect, the CIO leads the enterprise-
level architecture program and is responsible for enterprise 
architecture development and maintenance. The chief architect is also 
accountable to the IGB and has experience in the IT and business sides 
of the organization. 

Core element: Core element 6: Enterprise architecture purpose is 
clearly stated; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: DON has defined the purpose for its enterprise 
architecture, which is communicated to the stakeholders in key 
documents, such as training packages. In addition, the purpose is 
written to support DON's goals and objectives. However, although the 
purpose was approved by executive-level officials such as the CIO, it 
has not yet been approved by the IGB, which includes representatives 
from across the organization's units. According to officials, the IGB 
will approve future versions of the enterprise architecture purpose. 
However, this responsibility has yet to be formally documented. 

Core element: Core element 7: Enterprise architecture framework(s) is 
adopted; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: DON has developed a version of an enterprise 
architecture framework. However the framework has yet to define the 
complete suite of enterprise architecture products and artifacts to be 
developed or the relationships between them. Further, according to DON 
documentation, the framework is not yet sufficiently flexible to serve 
the needs of a large and diverse organization such as DON. 

Core element: Core element 8: Enterprise architecture performance and 
accountability framework is established; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: Although the March 2011 enterprise architecture 
Executive Committee charter calls for its members to develop metrics 
and feedback measures for evaluating the effectiveness of key 
stakeholders (e.g., DON Deputy CIO (Navy), DON Deputy CIO (Marine 
Corps), and the DON CIO) in achieving IT goals, DON officials stated 
that an enterprisewide enterprise architecture performance and 
accountability framework has yet to be established. 

Stage 2: 

Core element: Core element 9: Enterprise architecture budgetary needs 
are justified and funded; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: According to DON officials, although sufficient 
budgetary resources to establish and execute its enterprise 
architecture program are not available due to the current fiscally 
constrained environment, they have been able to maintain a small team 
of government and contractor staff for the program, which has allowed 
them to achieve several milestones and begin to develop and use some 
architecture artifacts. Officials acknowledged, however, that 
stabilizing and using the current DON enterprise architecture has been 
prioritized over developing additional enterprise architecture content 
since sufficient resources are not available for both activities. 
Officials also stated that the level of funding needed to satisfy 
enterprise architecture budgetary needs has not been identified and 
justified through reliable cost estimating and expected program 
benefits. Rather, architecture activities are funded out of individual 
stakeholder and program budgets, and funding levels are discretionary. 

Core element: Core element 10: Enterprise architecture program 
office(s) exists; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: DON has established a small, dedicated team within the 
CIO's office to perform activities that are typically associated with 
a program office. For example, specific team members are responsible 
for configuration management, program planning, performance 
monitoring, and project status reporting to the department's 
enterprise architecture Executive Committee. However, according to 
officials, the department has no plans to establish a formally 
chartered enterprise-level architecture program management office. 
Officials stated that it is difficult to justify the creation of a 
large enterprise architecture program office in a fiscally constrained 
environment. 

Core element: Core element 11: Key program office leadership positions 
are filled; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: Although DON has not established a formally chartered 
enterprise architecture program office, key enterprise architecture 
leadership roles are being performed such as the enterprise 
architecture Project Manager, Senior Technical Architect, and the 
Release Agent responsible for enterprise architecture configuration 
management. Additionally, key enterprise architecture governance 
groups have been established to support the Chief Architect, such as 
the Enterprise Architecture Working Group, to assist in developing 
enterprise architecture artifacts, the Independent Verification and 
Validation Working Group to assess enterprise architecture artifact 
quality, and the Configuration Control Board to approve changes to 
enterprise architecture artifacts. 

Core element: Core element 12: Program office human capital plans 
exist; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: According to DON officials, enterprise architecture 
program staff are not hired according to a human capital plan that 
would identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities that are needed 
for the enterprise architecture program as well as the approach for 
addressing any gaps in training, developing, and retaining existing 
staff or hiring new staff. 

Core element: Core element 13: Enterprise architecture development and 
maintenance methodology exists; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: Although officials demonstrated that elements of an 
enterprise architecture development and maintenance methodology can be 
found in existing enterprise architecture program documents, they 
acknowledged that a comprehensive methodology that includes defined 
steps, tasks, standards, tools, techniques, and measures that govern 
how the architecture is to be developed, maintained, and validated has 
yet to be developed. Officials indicated that there are no specific 
time frames for when a DON enterprise architecture methodology will be 
developed. According to DON officials, this is due to the department's 
focus on other resource-intensive commitments, such as applying the 
current enterprise architecture content. 

Core element: Core element 14: Automated enterprise architecture tools 
exist; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: DON uses various automated enterprise architecture tools 
to capture information described by its enterprise architecture 
framework and to develop, communicate, store, and maintain 
architecture products. For example, the department uses System 
Architect for the development of traditional enterprise architecture 
artifacts and an IT portfolio registry for assessing architecture 
compliance assertions and waiver requests. 

Core element: Core element 15: Enterprise architecture program 
management plan exists and reflects relationships with other 
management disciplines; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: Although a DON enterprise architecture governance plan 
is in place that defines enterprise architecture management structures 
and the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, a comprehensive 
plan for managing the DON enterprise architecture program that defines 
the major enterprise architecture releases to be developed and 
addresses key enterprise architecture management areas such as human 
capital management, risk management, and information security 
management has yet to be developed. According to officials, an 
overarching road map is in development that will act as the enterprise 
architecture program management plan until a more detailed plan is 
developed. In the absence of a plan, officials stated that enterprise 
architecture activities are informally managed by, for example, 
discussing program priorities with subject matter experts. 

Core element: Core element 16: Work breakdown structure and schedule 
to develop enterprise architecture exist; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: DON does not currently have a work breakdown structure 
that decomposes the specific tasks, activities, and events needed to 
execute the department's enterprise architecture program, and a 
reliable schedule that defines the timing, sequencing, and duration of 
the tasks, activities, and events. According to DON officials, the 
overarching road map in development that will act as the enterprise 
architecture program management plan will also identify enterprise 
architecture program milestones. Officials also stated that detailed 
work breakdown structures are expected to be developed at a future 
date to support the achievement of the milestones. 

Core element: Core element 17: Enterprise architecture segments, 
federation members, and/or extended members have been identified and 
prioritized; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: According to DON officials and draft documentation, nine 
enterprise architecture segment reference architectures have been 
identified, of which three have been prioritized for initial 
development. However, the identification and prioritization of these 
segments have yet to be approved by the Executive Committee. According 
to officials, the identification and prioritization will be discussed 
with the executive committee once the enterprise architecture road map 
is relatively mature. 

Core element: Core element 18: Program office readiness is measured 
and reported; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: DON has not chartered an office to manage its enterprise 
architecture program. Thus, the department has yet to measure the 
extent to which people, processes, and tools enablers have been put in 
place and report this readiness information to the enterprise 
architecture Executive Committee and Chief Architect. 

Stage 3: 

Core element: Core element 19: Organization business owner and CXO 
representatives are actively engaged in architecture development; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: According to documentation, executive-level members, 
such as the DON CIO, Chief Architect, Deputy CIOs for the Navy and 
Marine Corps, and the Deputy Chief Management Officer, are actively 
engaged in developing enterprise architecture products with enterprise 
architecture program staff. 

Core element: Core element 20: Enterprise architecture human capital 
plans are being implemented; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: DON has yet to develop a human capital plan that 
identifies the knowledge, skills, and abilities that are needed for 
the enterprise architecture program as well as the approach for 
addressing any gaps in training, developing, and retaining existing 
staff or hiring new staff. 

Core element: Core element 21: Program office contractor support needs 
are being met; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: According to officials, the enterprise architecture 
program is supported by two full-time contractor support staff. 
Officials noted that they consider this to be reasonable considering 
the current fiscally constrained environment. However, a human capital 
plan is not in place to ensure that the appropriate degrees of 
contractor expertise, skills, and competencies are acquired and 
assimilated into the program office. 

Core element: Core element 22: Program office staff are trained in 
enterprise architecture framework, methodology, and tools; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: According to DON officials, enterprise architecture 
training is targeted to the expected audience and available for 
program staff at conferences or training sessions provided at various 
Navy and Marine Corps locations; 
however, attendance is not mandatory. The enterprise architecture 
training package provides a basic understanding of enterprise 
architecture fundamentals, including enterprise architecture content, 
the enterprise architecture framework, enterprise architecture 
governance, and enterprise architecture compliance assertions and 
review processes. 

Core element: Core element 23: Methodologies and tools exist to 
determine investment compliance with corporate and subordinate 
architectures; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: DON has developed methodologies and tools to determine 
investment compliance with the department's enterprise architecture. 
Specifically, in October 2009, the department released an updated 
version of its Investment Review Process Guidance that describes the 
process for assessing investment compliance with the enterprise-level 
architecture on an annual basis. The methodology provides for 
exceptions to architecture compliance on the basis of analytical 
justifications that are (1) captured in documented enterprise 
architecture waivers and (2) used to update the enterprise 
architecture. In addition, according to the guide and officials, the 
enterprise architecture compliance and waiver processes are fully 
automated in the department's variant of the Department of Defense's 
Information Technology Portfolio Repository tool. 

Core element: Core element 24: Methodologies and tools exist to 
determine subordinate architecture alignment with the corporate 
enterprise architecture; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: According to officials, the results of subordinate 
architecture alignment assessments with the enterprise-level 
architecture can be captured in the Department of Defense's 
Information Technology Portfolio Repository tool; 
however, officials stated that a methodology does not yet exist for 
developing segment reference architectures and will need to be 
developed at some future date. The officials also stated that the 
methodology would include specific processes, procedures, and 
guidelines in order to ensure that subordinate architectures are 
aligned to the enterprise-level architecture and that the verification 
of alignment is expected to be conducted by DON's enterprise 
architecture Independent Verification & Validation Working Group. 

Core element: Core element 25: Enterprise architecture-related risks 
are proactively identified, reported, and mitigated; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: According to officials, enterprise architecture program 
risk management activities are informally conducted and not explicitly 
aligned with a risk management process. DON officials stated that in 
addition to acting as the enterprise architecture program management 
plan, work breakdown structure, and schedule, a road map document is 
being developed to address enterprise architecture risk management 
activities. 

Core element: Core element 26: Initial versions of corporate "as-is" 
and "to-be" enterprise architecture and sequencing plan are being 
developed; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: Initial versions of the enterprise-level architecture 
are being developed. However, the department does not expect to 
document separate current and target architectures. Further, while the 
department has developed a business architecture transition plan, it 
does not intend to develop an enterprisewide transition plan. 

Core element: Core element 27: Initial version of corporate enterprise 
architecture describing the enterprise in terms of performance, 
business, data, services, technology, and security is being developed; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: Initial versions of the enterprise architecture describe 
the enterprise in terms of business, data, services, technology, and 
security. For example, it identifies reference models for business, 
data, services, technology, and security. 

Core element: Core element 28: One or more segment and/or federation 
member architectures is being developed; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: One or more segment and/or federation member 
architectures is being developed. For example, the department has 
developed artifacts for its Net Centric segment architecture. 

Core element: Core element 29: Architecture products are being 
developed according to the enterprise architecture content framework; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: Architecture products are being developed according to 
guidelines. However, the enterprise architecture framework has yet to 
define the complete suite of enterprise architecture products and 
artifacts to be developed or the relationships between them. 

Core element: Core element 30: Architecture products are being 
developed according to a defined enterprise architecture methodology; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: While the department does not currently have a defined 
enterprise architecture methodology, it is developing a road map for 
developing such a methodology. 

Core element: Core element 31: Architecture products are being 
developed using enterprise architecture tools; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: DON is developing architecture products using the 
enterprise architecture tools described in element 14. 

Core element: Core element 32: Architecture development progress is 
measured and reported; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: According to officials, the department does not 
currently have the necessary documents in place for measuring and 
reporting on architecture development progress. Specifically, as 
stated, the department has yet to develop an enterprise architecture 
program plan, work breakdown structure, and schedule, as well as their 
associated costs; 
as a result, the department's progress in executing tasks defined in 
such documents cannot be measured. 

Stage 4: 

Core element: Core element 33: Executive Committee has approved the 
initial version of corporate enterprise architecture; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: The current DON enterprise architecture has been 
approved by the department's Enterprise Architecture Approval Board, 
which is chaired by the department's CIO. However, the enterprise 
architecture has not been approved by the department's enterprise 
architecture executive committee that was established in March 2011. 
While the committee has agreed to approve future versions of the 
enterprise architecture, it has not yet done so. 

Core element: Core element 34: Key stakeholders have approved the 
current version of subordinate architectures; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: According to officials, nine segment reference 
architectures have been identified, of which three have been 
prioritized for initial development. However, the core teams with 
subject matter experts have not yet been formed and key leadership 
positions, including lead architects, have not been designated to 
develop these segments. Officials also stated that the review and 
approval of subordinate architectures will likely follow existing 
procedures, with the IGB providing the final approval. 

Core element: Core element 35: Enterprise architecture is integral to 
the execution of other institutional management disciplines; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: The DON enterprise architecture is linked to the 
execution of the department's strategic planning, capital planning and 
investment control, and system development and acquisition management. 
For example, the enterprise architecture is identified as a mechanism 
for achieving strategic goals and objectives. In addition, assessments 
of enterprise architecture compliance are conducted during annual 
reviews of the department's IT investments and modernization efforts. 

Core element: Core element 36: Program office human capital needs are 
met; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: According to officials and documentation, the department 
has qualified but minimal staff that perform enterprise architecture 
functions. However, officials stated that more staff are needed and 
program resources do not allow for additional hiring. In addition, as 
stated, the department has yet to develop a human capital plan that 
would identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to execute 
the department's enterprise architecture program plans and schedules. 

Core element: Core element 37: Initial versions of corporate "as-is" 
and "to-be" enterprise architecture and sequencing plan exist; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: DON has developed initial versions of enterprise-level 
architecture focused on a small set of artifacts based on existing 
laws, regulations, policy, and guidance. However, the department's 
enterprise architecture does not distinguish between current and 
target products. DON also has developed a business transition plan 
that identifies legacy business systems, migration systems, and core 
systems. However, it has not developed an initial version of an 
enterprise-level sequencing plan. 

Core element: Core element 38: Initial version of corporate enterprise 
architecture captures performance, business, data, services, 
technology, and security views; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: DON's initial version of its enterprise-level 
architecture captures aspects of business, data, services, technology, 
and security. However, it does not address performance. 

Core element: Core element 39: One or more segment and/or federation 
member architectures exists and is being implemented; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: DON has developed segment architecture products. For 
example, the department has developed segment architecture products 
for its Net Centric architecture. However, it has not completed the 
development of any segment architectures. In addition, the department 
did not provide evidence that segment architectures are being 
implemented. 

Core element: Core element 40: Enterprise architecture product quality 
is measured and reported; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: The quality of DON's enterprise architecture products is 
assessed by the Independent Verification and Validation Working Group 
in accordance with a set of criteria and submitted for final approval 
to the DON Enterprise Architecture Approval Board. 

Core element: Core element 41: Enterprise architecture results and 
outcomes are measured and reported; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: DON has yet to measure and report enterprise 
architecture results and outcomes. Officials stated that a lack of 
best practices for measuring the value of enterprise architecture has 
inhibited the department's ability to demonstrate return on investment 
to enterprise-level executives. 

Core element: Core element 42: Investment compliance with corporate 
and subordinate architectures is measured and reported; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: DON provided evidence showing that compliance 
assessments with its enterprise architecture are measured against 
criteria described in the IT investment management process. Final 
approval decisions are made by the DON CIO or Deputy CIOs and placed 
in the system inventory. According to officials, compliance metrics 
are reported to appropriate executive-level staff and available for 
review in the Department of Defense's Information Technology Portfolio 
Repository. 

Core element: Core element 43: Subordinate architecture alignment with 
the corporate enterprise architecture is measured and reported; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: According to officials, core teams will be established 
to develop segment reference architectures. A responsibility of these 
teams will be to produce metrics for measuring segment alignment with 
the enterprise-level architecture. However, officials stated that 
metrics for measuring and reporting alignment are currently not in 
place. 

Stage 5: 

Core element: Core element 44: Organization head has approved current 
version of the corporate enterprise architecture; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: The DON CIO has approved and released the current 
version of the department's enterprise architecture. The CIO was 
delegated responsibility for overseeing the development and 
maintenance of the department's architecture in policy issued by the 
Secretary of the Navy. 

Core element: Core element 45: Organization component heads or segment 
owners have approved current version of their respective subordinate 
architectures; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: According to officials, a small number of segment 
architecture artifacts are currently in place. These artifacts were 
assessed against quality measures, submitted for approval, and 
released in the same manner as the DON enterprise-level architecture. 
However, officials stated that the enterprise architecture program is 
not yet at a level where versions of the segment architectures have 
been developed and approved. 

Core element: Core element 46: Integrated repository tools and common 
enterprise architecture framework and methodology are used across the 
enterprise; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: DON has a portal that serves as a common repository for 
its enterprise architecture products. However, DON has not fully 
established a common enterprise architecture framework or methodology 
to define how architectural products will be developed across the 
enterprise. 

Core element: Core element 47: Corporate and subordinate architecture 
program offices operate as a single virtual office that shares 
resources enterprisewide; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: DON has not established a formal enterprise-level 
architecture program office and subordinate architecture program 
offices; 
therefore, entities are not in place that could operate as a single 
virtual office that shares limited resources and follows common 
policies and procedures. 

Core element: Core element 48: Corporate enterprise architecture and 
sequencing plan are enterprisewide in scope; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: DON's enterprise-level architecture is enterprisewide in 
scope. However, DON has not developed an enterprise-level sequencing 
plan. 

Core element: Core element 49: Corporate enterprise architecture and 
sequencing plan are aligned with subordinate architectures; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: DON has begun to demonstrate that it has aligned its 
enterprise architecture with its segment reference architectures. For 
example, it has aligned subordinate operational activities with its 
enterprise architecture capabilities. However, the department does not 
have subordinate architectures for some segments. In addition, not all 
segment architecture products are aligned with the enterprise-level 
architecture. Moreover, it has yet to develop its enterprise 
sequencing plan. 

Core element: Core element 50: All segment and/or federated 
architectures exist and are horizontally and vertically integrated; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: DON has not developed all segment and/or federated 
architectures. In addition, it has yet to provide evidence that 
segment and/or federated architectures are horizontally and vertically 
integrated. 

Core element: Core element 51: Corporate and subordinate architectures 
are extended to align with external partner architectures; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: DON has begun to demonstrate that its enterprise-level 
and subordinate architectures are extended to align with external 
partner architectures. For example, its enterprise architecture 
approach is aligned with the Joint Staff's Joint Capability Areas. 
However, DON did not provide evidence that its enterprise architecture 
aligns with other external partner architectures (e.g., Army, Air 
Force). 

Core element: Core element 52: Enterprise architecture products and 
management processes are subject to independent assessment; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: While enterprise architecture products have undergone 
verification and validation assessments, they were not conducted by an 
independent body. Moreover, enterprise architecture management 
processes have not been subject to independent verification and 
validation. 

Stage 6: 

Core element: Core element 53: Enterprise architecture is used by 
executive leadership to inform organization strategic planning and 
policy formulation; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: DON officials demonstrated that the enterprise 
architecture is informing an update to a department policy to ensure 
that open source software requirements are adequately addressed. 
Officials stated that the department's strategic plan is being updated 
and will identify the department's enterprise architecture as a 
mechanism for achieving each of the department's goals and objectives. 
However, the updated strategic plan was not available for review in 
order to verify the department's assertions. 

Core element: Core element 54: Enterprise architecture human capital 
capabilities are continuously improved; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: DON does not have a human capital plan in place that 
identifies the enterprise architecture human capital capabilities that 
are needed as well as an approach for addressing capability gaps. 
Thus, the department currently lacks a foundational document that is 
needed for continuous improvement of enterprise architecture human 
capital capabilities. 

Core element: Core element 55: Enterprise architecture methodologies 
and tools are continuously improved; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: DON has automated enterprise architecture tools in place 
but has not established an enterprise architecture development and 
maintenance methodology. According to officials, regular reviews and 
improvements are made to the department's enterprise architecture 
tools that are generally based on lessons learned from using the 
architecture as well as yearly reviews of the department's systems. 

Core element: Core element 56: Enterprise architecture management 
processes are continuously improved and reflect the results of 
external assessments; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: DON has yet to subject its enterprise architecture 
management processes to periodic reassessments against relevant 
benchmarks and guidance and identify the gaps that need to be 
addressed. 

Core element: Core element 57: Enterprise architecture products are 
continuously improved and updated; 
Satisfied: Partial; 
Our analysis: According to officials, the department's enterprise 
architecture products have been improved, updated, and released as new 
versions to reflect events such as changes in legal requirements, 
emerging technologies, and governmentwide priorities. DON has also 
developed a formal configuration management plan that includes a 
change control process; 
however, a process has not been formalized for conducting 
configuration audits and reviews to ensure that only approved changes 
are made to products and to maintain the integrity of the 
configuration baselines. 

Core element: Core element 58: Enterprise architecture quality and 
results measurement methods are continuously improved; 
Satisfied: No; 
Our analysis: According to officials, the department is in the early 
stages of developing metrics to measure enterprise architecture 
quality and results and has yet to measure and report enterprise 
architecture results and outcomes. 

Core element: Core element 59: Enterprise architecture continuous 
improvement efforts reflect the results of external assessments; 
Satisfied: Yes; 
Our analysis: Our 2008 assessment of the department's enterprise 
architecture program has been leveraged to make program capability and 
product improvements. Areas in which DON's improvement efforts reflect 
the results of our assessment include establishing a formalized 
enterprise architecture governance structure, a policy for enterprise 
architecture development and maintenance, an IT investment process 
that includes compliance assessments with DON's architecture, and a 
set of criteria for measuring the quality of its products. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by the DON. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Department Of Defense: 
Chief Information Officer: 
6000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, D.C. 20301-6000: 

September 13, 2011: 

Ms. Valerie C. Melvin: 
Director, Information Management and Human Capital Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Melvin: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft 
Report, GAO-11-902, 'Organizational Transformation: Military 
Departments Can Improve Their Enterprise Architecture Programs,' dated 
August 22, 2011 (GAO Code 310956). 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment. We partially 
concur with GAO recommendation. Ow' rationale for our partial 
concurrence is provided. 

Signed by: 

Teresa M. Takai: 

Attachments: As stated. 

[End of letter] 

GAO Draft Report Dated August 22, 2011: 
GAO-11-902 (GAO Code 310956): 

"Organizational Transformation: Military Departments Can Improve Their 
Enterprise Architecture Programs" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations: 

Recommendation: To ensure that the military departments establish 
commitments to fully develop and effectively manage their enterprise 
architectures, GAO recommends that the Secretaries of the Air Force, 
Army, and Navy each expeditiously provide to the congressional defense 
committees a plan that identifies milestones for their respective 
department's full satisfaction of all of GAO's Enterprise Architecture 
Management Maturity Framework elements. In the event that a military 
department does not intend to fully satisfy all elements of GAO's 
framework, the plan should include a rationale for why the military 
department deems any such element(s) to be not applicable. 

DoD Response: The Department of Defense partially concurs with this 
recommendation. The Department of Defense Chief Information Officer 
and the Department of the Army Chief Information Officer concur with 
the recommendation. The Department of the Air Force (USAF) Chief 
Information Officer and Department of the Navy (DON) Chief Information 
Officer non-concur. Both the USAF and the DON believe that the GAO's 
Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF) provides 
a very comprehensive set of elements associated with the development 
and implementation of a robust enterprise architecture program for a 
Federal Agency or Organization. Both the USAF and the DON, however, do 
not have a valid business case that would justify the implementation 
of all 59 elements of the EAMMF. In today's fiscally constrained 
environment, both have chosen to gradually implement selected elements 
of the EAMMF which are most useful in implementing optimized, secure, 
and cost effective Information Technology systems and capabilities. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Valerie C. Melvin, (202) 512-6304 or melvinv@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Neelaxi Lakhmani and Mark 
Bird, Assistant Directors; Debra Conner; Shaun Byrnes; Elena Epps; 
Nancy Glover; Michael Holland; Anh Le; Lee McCracken; and Donald 
Sebers made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] DON includes both the Navy and the Marine Corps. 

[2] This data reflects the total number of systems (IT and National 
Security Systems) documented in DOD's Defense IT Portfolio Repository 
system as of March 1, 2011. 

[3] An enterprise architecture is a modernization blueprint that 
describes the organization's current and desired state for its 
business operations and supporting IT systems in both logical and 
technical terms, and contains a plan for transitioning between the two 
states. 

[4] GAO, DOD Business Systems Modernization: Military Departments Need 
to Strengthen Management of Enterprise Architecture Programs, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-519] (Washington, D.C.: 
May 2008). 

[5] GAO, Organizational Transformation: A Framework for Assessing and 
Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 2.0), 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-846G] (Washington, 
D.C.: August 2010). 

[6] GAO, Business Systems Modernization: DOD Continues to Improve 
Institutional Approach, but Further Steps Needed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-658] (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 
2006). 

[7] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278] (Washington, D.C.: February 
2011). 

[8] These seven high-risk areas include DOD's overall approach to 
business transformation, business systems modernization, contract 
management, financial management, supply chain management, support 
infrastructure management, and weapon systems acquisition. 

[9] The seven governmentwide high-risk areas include disability 
programs, protecting information systems and critical infrastructure, 
interagency contracting, information systems and critical 
infrastructure, information sharing for homeland security, human 
capital, and real property. 

[10] GAO, Federal Aviation Administration: Stronger Architecture 
Program Needed to Guide Systems Modernization Efforts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-266] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 
2005); Homeland Security: Efforts Under Way to Develop Enterprise 
Architecture, but Much Work Remains, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-777] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 6, 
2004); GAO-04-731R; Information Technology: Architecture Needed to 
Guide NASA's Financial Management Modernization, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-43] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 21, 
2003); [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-1018]; Business 
Systems Modernization: Summary of GAO's Assessment of the Department 
of Defense's Initial Business Enterprise Architecture, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-877R] (Washington,, D.C.; July 7, 
2003); Information Technology: DLA Should Strengthen Business Systems 
Modernization Architecture and Investment Activities, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-631] (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 
2001); and Information Technology: INS Needs to Better Manage the 
Development of Its Enterprise Architecture, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-212] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 
1, 2000). 

[11] Clinger-Cohen Act, 40 U.S.C. § 11315(b)(2); E-Government Act, 44 
U.S.C. § 3602(f)(14); Chief Information Officers Council, A Practical 
Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0 (February 2001); 
OMB, Information Technology Architectures, Memorandum M-97-16 (June 
18, 1997), rescinded with the update of OMB Circular A-130 (Nov. 30, 
2000); Improving Agency Performance Using Information and Information 
Technology (Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework v3.1) (June 
2009). 

[12] 10 U.S.C. § 2222(c)(1). 

[13] Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2009, Pub. L. No. 110-417, § 908(b)(2). 

[14] GAO, Information Technology: Enterprise Architecture Use across 
the Federal Government Can Be Improved, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-6] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 19, 
2002). 

[15] GAO, Information Technology: A Framework for Assessing and 
Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (version 1.1), 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-584G] (Washington, 
D.C.: April 2003). 

[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-846G]. 

[17] Chief "X" officer is a generic term for job titles where "X" 
represents a specific specialized position that serves the entire 
organization, such as the chief information officer, chief financial 
officer, chief human capital officer, chief procurement officer, chief 
performance officer, chief technology officer, chief information 
security officer, or chief management officer. 

[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-6]; GAO, 
Information Technology: Leadership Remains Key to Agencies Making 
Progress on Enterprise Architecture Efforts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-40] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 
2003). 

[19] The E-Government Act of 2002 assigns OMB responsibility for 
overseeing the development of enterprise architectures within and 
across agencies. 

[20] GAO, Enterprise Architecture: Leadership Remains Key to 
Establishing and Leveraging Architectures for Organizational 
Transformation, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-831] 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 2006). 

[21] Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 332, 118 Stat. 1811, 1851-1856 (Oct. 28, 
2004) (codified in part at 10 U.S.C. § 2222). 

[22] The act required DOD to, among other things, develop an 
enterprise architecture to cover all defense business systems and 
their related functions and activities. The act further required that 
the Secretary of Defense submit an annual report to congressional 
defense committees on DOD's compliance with certain requirements of 
the act not later than March 15 of each year. Additionally, the act 
directed us to submit to these congressional committees--within 60 
days of DOD's report submission--an assessment of the department's 
actions to comply with these requirements. 

[23] GAO, DOD Business Systems Modernization: Progress in Establishing 
Corporate Management Controls Needs to Be Replicated Within Military 
Departments, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-705] 
(Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2008); DOD Business Systems Modernization: 
Progress Continues to Be Made in Establishing Corporate Management 
Controls, but Further Steps Are Needed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-733] (Washington, D.C.: May 14, 
2007); [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-658]; and DOD 
Business Systems Modernization: Important Progress Made in 
Establishing Foundational Architecture Products and Investment 
Management Practices, but Much Work Remains, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-219] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 23, 
2005). 

[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-519]. 

[25] GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 
2011). 

[26] Due to the large and complex nature of the DOD enterprise, we 
determined that all 59 elements of the framework apply to the military 
department enterprise architecture programs. 

[27] See, for example, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-846G], [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-831], [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-40], [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-584G], [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-6]; Chief Information Officers 
Council, A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 
1.0 (February 2001). 

[28] According to Army officials, the Network segment defines 
technologies, information sharing, and transport capabilities. 

[29] The Space Domain is to address operational capabilities and 
systems that enable space related system functions and the interaction 
of those systems with corresponding air and ground systems. According 
to Army officials, the Network segment defines technologies, 
information sharing, and transport capabilities and the Generating 
Force segment addresses the business operations needed to train, equip 
and sustain the operational forces. DON's Net Centric segment is to 
address human and technical connectivity and interoperability. 

[30] See, for example, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-846G]. 

[31] See, for example, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-846G]. 

[32] GAO, Department of Defense: Further Actions Needed to 
Institutionalize Key Business System Modernization Management 
Controls, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-684] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2011). 

[33] The Information Enterprise Architecture is to describe the 
information, information resources, assets, and processes required to 
share information across the Department and with mission partners. 

[34] The Joint Capability Areas represent collections of similar DOD 
functions that are intended to support, among other things, investment 
decision making, portfolio management, and capabilities-based planning. 

[35] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-846G]. 

[36] In May 2010, the Secretary of Defense announced the need for DOD 
to reduce overhead costs and subsequently called for a 5-year effort 
to cut $100 billion from the department's budget in order to finance 
sustainment of the current force and modernize its weapons portfolio. 

[37] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-831]. 

[38] GAO, Organizational Transformation: A Framework for Assessing and 
Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 2.0), 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-846G] (Washington, 
D.C.: August 2010). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: