Joint Financial Management Improvement Program

Forum Highlights: Keys to Successful Integration/Interoperability of
Business Management Systems

May 27, 2004

## Key Points

The Private Sector Council, the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Council
Systems/E-Government Committee, and the Joint Financial Management
Improvement Program (JFMIP) sponsored this forum to surface
interoperability challenges, concerns from management, and perspectives
of stakeholders. "Interoperability" is a multi-dimensional aspect of
system engineering. Sound business and financial practice requires
standardized financial management applications that support integrated
business processes operating efficiently on common data.

Participants included key stakeholders from the Office of Management and
Budget, the CFO Council, the Federal Acquisition Council (former
Procurement Executive Council), and invited representatives from the
vendor community. The Private Sector Council brought the key leaders
from Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, IBM
Business Consulting Services, Lockheed Martin, and the Council for
Excellence in Government. (Attachment 1)

Forum participants noted that the business and financial management
challenge is to optimize the promise of integrated systems with
integrated web and information system exchanges. However, achieving the
promise is difficult in an environment where a high degree of
information standards is essential. However, systems, processes, data
governance and accountability are distributed, and changes may occur
through external directives, vertical functional decisions, and
horizontal functional decisions. Under current policy, business case and
program management focus are on costs, schedules, and functionality of
the defined project. The impact outside the specific project scope may
not be defined, anticipated, or funded. Also, federal financial
management increasingly relies on commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
components, services, and systems acquired through procurement
processes. The market evolves over time, in some cases closing
functional or operating gaps and in other cases causing them.

Organizational and management challenges expand as the result of
integrating multiple business management systems. As systems become more
complex, interoperability issues increase. As operations become more
agile, systems must become dynamically reconfigurable. Financial
management performance requires high levels of information integrity,
standardization and interdependent processes, but it increasingly relies
on "a system of systems" over which there is no single controlling
authority. Moreover, the scope and complexity is expanding. This is a
classic interoperability (in the broad sense) conundrum.

Participants identified the following key issues:

-   The inherent challenge of integration/interoperability of business
    management systems needs to be recognized and understood. Problems
    exist in governance/accountability, organization, funding,
    communications, system management, technical areas, and data
    integrity with business rules. The failure to recognize this results
    in unmet performance expectations, increased cost to integrate
    systems, and unanticipated risk.

-   Governance and accountability issues need to be defined. Governance
    and accountability need to be changed to meet this challenge.
    Statutory responsibility for interoperability across agencies is not
    assigned and relies on collaboration. These collaborative efforts
    may not be up to the challenge or well supported. What is OMB's
    role? Where does ownership reside? What is the agency's role---how
    are the CIOs and Procurement Executives involved? What is the
    appropriate role of the vendor community? What is JFMIP's role?

-   Funding mechanisms are a concern. Achieving interoperability of
    business processes is a complex undertaking, and not well supported
    by current government funding and accountability structure.

-   Confusion exists about data and business rules. Which rules must
    apply to all agencies? Which ones are system- specific? Data
    standardization and compatibility are not addressed. Who owns and
    manages the data in systems?

-   Communication remains a challenge. There is a lack of precision in
    the process. Vendor representatives stressed that interoperability
    is a spiral rather than linear development---systems must be defined
    to deal with ambiguity and change because it is impossible to
    identify all requirements and circumstances upfront. Hardwired
    systems, however, are not designed to deal with ambiguities.
    Interoperability is an iterative process; assumptions cannot be cast
    in stone and changes create interdependencies which must be
    communicated to all stakeholders.

-   Project management needs to take into account the spiral nature of
    the interoperability process and not allow the "schedule" to drive
    events. When there is a schedule or funding problem for system
    implementation, agencies tend to drop interoperability. Agencies
    must find the balance between ambiguity and iterative development.

-   Changing requirements must be managed with more realism. Realistic
    deadlines to implement system changes and better understanding of
    the impact of changes throughout the broader environment are
    necessary for success.

-   Ensuring efficient and effective mission support of agency programs
    must be the primary consideration for managing "system of systems"
    tradeoffs.

## Opening Remarks

Karen Cleary Alderman, Executive Director, JFMIP, opened the session and
thanked everyone for attending. She noted that presenters would focus on
interoperability issues and keys to successful integration, and
acknowledged that forum participants represented the full spectrum of
the community responsible for achieving successful systems integration.
She introduced the panel participants.

Mark Carney, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Department of Education,
and Chair, Systems and E-Government Committee, CFO Council, thanked
Linda Springer, Karen Evans, and Karen Alderman for helping to organize
this meeting, noting that the rollout of the E-government initiative
made the timing even more opportune. He reminded the audience that they
are the ones who have to make it work. "We've been told what to do, but
not how to do it." A lot of concern has been expressed about deadlines
set by OMB, and agencies are expected to make their systems work with
various e-government initiatives. Technology is available to help
agencies do things better; but the government is not organized to
facilitate making technology work better.

The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) requires that
agency systems produce financial statements and that agencies maintain
integrated financial systems that comply with Federal accounting
standards, JFMIP system requirements, U.S. Standard General Ledger, and
other federal requirements. Agencies have done a lot of things right,
but have not focused on everything needed to meet all the requirements.
He noted that requirements are clearer and testing is more transparent
for JFMIP core financial system qualification testing. Agencies are
increasingly implementing systems without having to customize the code.
However, the systems are not "plug and play." Agencies are complex
organizations. The Department of Education (ED) organizations
implemented two systems independently and they are limited in talking to
one another through an interface. He noted the challenge of pulling
things together with the line of business effort. He concluded by
thanking partners in the vendor community for working with the agencies
on interoperability/integration issues.

Wayne Leiss, OMB, stated that he did not like the word
"interoperability" -- the problem is better communicated by focusing on
business process integration in a truly distributed processing
environment. OMB's role is to provide leadership for this effort. The
government needs to learn from the successes of industry, particularly
in how companies have integrated different brands of COTS in areas such
as human resources, financial system, and e-travel. This kind of
integration is required for the e-Gov efforts to produce significant
business process savings. E-travel is an example of an opportunity
missed by OMB\--it will be a batch process to get the obligations booked
into the financial system. With effective coordination, travel
transactions could be budget-checked and recorded on-the-fly. OMB will
provide the leadership, but will depend on JFMIP as a resource. JFMIP
does a great job and may need to expand its efforts. JFMIP is well
respected and is a appropriate body for setting interoperability
standards for financial data. He expressed concern about fragmenting
responsibilities for standardization among additional or new
organizations.

Pete Smith, Private Sector Council (PSC), offered his outside
perspective. He noted enormous difficulties in trying to integrate
things both within and across departments. The entity needs a direct
line of accountability to someone who cares and has time to be concerned
about operations. This is a luxury of the private sector; it is not
present in government. He is encouraged that the government has meetings
such as this forum, and praised the collegiality between agencies and
the coordination by OMB and JFMIP. He concluded by reminding the
audience that the topics were far reaching and they had a full agenda,
so he wanted everyone to help ensure a good discussion on each topic.

## Key Points from the Private Sector 

Following Pete Smith's remarks, a panel of representatives from the
private sector provided introductory comments and thoughts on keys to
successful integration/interoperability of business management systems.

Jim Smith, Software Engineering Institute (SEI), noted that problems of
interoperability were being addressed by SEI. Line of business is a
common thread. Trying to understand the dimensions of interoperability
is difficult because of the size and complexity of the issue. If an
entity only attempts to standardize interfaces, then something will be
missing. He identified several models of interoperability. More
information can be found on the SEI website (Attachment 3).

Hans Polzer, Lockheed Martin, presented his perspectives on
interoperability drawing on information from his slide presentation
(Attachment 3). There are 15 dimensions in his model, many of which
measure business functionality attributes rather than just technical
issues. While it is easy to understand that tight integration at the
enterprise level is desirable, there may be a problem because of the
need for the ability to adapt and interact with other enterprises

Mr. Polzer addressed the ad hoc nature of virtual enterprises and the
question of balance this creates with interoperability between
enterprises. It is easy to decree standards and dictate integration; but
enterprises are not hierarchical with respect to each other and all the
enterprises/entities must work together to accomplish real world goals.
System design decisions tend to be made locally rather than
enterprise-wide, and interoperability with other systems and other
enterprises must be considered. He favors the single budget, single
sponsorship concept when achievable, but this is often not the case.
Systems operate among multiple virtual enterprises that come and go. He
sees an ongoing evolution of systems with ad hoc connections to other
systems. Agencies need to work on building systems to be more conscious
of that larger variability, many of which cannot be predicted today. It
is important to design systems with that kind of flexibility.

Agencies tend to impose enterprise scope boundaries that limit system of
systems interoperability. Interfaces tend to be hardwired to other
systems; agencies know which internal system they should talk to in
order to get certain information---that is a reasonable expectation.
However, agencies do not have universal agreement as to what systems
contain what information. Representing the operational context in the
system interface itself is the challenge. Another need is naming
conventions/identifiers and naming authorities. Providing
cross-enterprise naming services would greatly facilitate systems
interoperability. In summary, he offered three key points that must be
considered: the dynamic and ad hoc nature of enterprise; specifying
interfaces, which provide information that are discoverable and provide
explicit context; and cross-enterprise naming services.

Jim Cook, IBM Business Consulting Services, viewed
interoperability/integration from a business perspective. The focus on
technology management is misleading. Success can be defined as achieving
the following: functional integration, end-to-end process, data, and
governance of plan. Both end-to-end process and data are well
understood, while governance of plan is good. Managers need to
understand process at the operational level and implications to its
strategy, then quantify gaps and implement a transition plan to get the
agency where it wants to be. The right level of process analysis upfront
and knowing the intersection points are keys to success. The technology
exists to do this, so why is this so hard? Governance, business process
change, and data considerations need to be addressed.

David McClure, Council for Excellence in Government, stated that there
is no holy grail to address the multi-dimensional nature of this task.
There is a consensus on financial management transactions, but the issue
of integrating the systems into the programmatic areas needs to be
addressed. There is a need to divide these tasks and get people to focus
on short-term, midterm and long-term efforts. The next issue concerns
using the enterprise architecture as a framework to define common
business requirements. Federal enterprise architecture tools that are
provided can help agencies deal with these issues. In the area of
financial line of business, each agency has its own enterprise resource
planning (ERP) system or a hybrid and this is a factor in the common
systems being built across the government. He stated that
interoperability is a means, not an end. "If you get caught up on the
means and not the end, success has to be measured on how it is improving
management and integrating with the core mission and functions of the
agency." He noted that getting consensus on those measures is important.

## Facilitated Discussion

After the presentations, the audience and the panelists participated in
a wide-ranging, free-flowing discussion. The questions that were
addressed can be found in Attachment 2. The consensus expressed on the
major topics is described below.

Recognize the Problem

Participants concurred that the inherent challenge of
integration/interoperability of business management systems needs to be
recognized and understood. Failure to recognize the problems in many
areas resulted in unmet performance expectations, increased cost to
integrate systems and unanticipated risk.

Governance and Accountability

Participants agreed strongly that leadership must come from OMB. The
government should act as one corporate structure, headquartered at OMB.
OMB and Congress will continue to set the policy, and JFMIP will
continue to develop system requirements. There was strong consensus that
everyone needs to work together; this issue cannot be the sole domain of
CFO or CIO, because it is too big.

Agencies need to look at issues of governance, including the sources of
funding and who is in charge. Schedules, budgets, and technical
performance need to be managed. When agencies involved in interagency
collaborations examined interoperability, the problem of ownership of
the middle ground was a common theme. There is no organization to
"manage the middle" other than OMB.

The participants endorsed the concept of an institutionalized,
crosscutting organization that acts as an advisory committee to OMB.
This committee needs to address level of control and governing
authorities. Agencies want to participate, but they do not want to join
in haphazardly. Agencies need to know where they are going. OMB needs to
consider the impact of requirements on the agencies.

The government makes decisions sometimes with unintended consequences or
impacts that were not anticipated. Systems do not have doorways to pass
the information on; they may have interfaces in, but not interfaces back
out.

Participants agreed that the government is still the most complex
enterprise in the world. ERP standards are a good thing. Agencies do not
look across their enterprises. They need to focus on the human capital
component and develop future project managers.

There was a sense that the federal government was not doing a good job
communicating the interoperability needed to the vendors.

Funding Concerns

Achieving interoperability is a complex undertaking that is not
supported by the current funding and accountability structure. Agencies
commented that the government does not budget well for technology
change. OMB requests funding for governmentwide initiatives from all of
the agencies, but each agency is closely guarded by Hill committees and
does not have extra money to give even if something is a good idea. One
example is the funding for e-government initiatives, administratively
supported by the General Services Administration. However, Congress
recently has not supported the funding. Passing the hat among government
agencies has problems.

"A vision without resources is an hallucination." "We're going to
continue to limp along until the funding issue is resolved."

System Management and Technical Considerations

Interoperability only can be defined by including all stakeholders.
Confusion exists about the data and business rules. Which rules apply to
all agencies, and which ones are system-specific? Data standardization
and compatibility issues need to be addressed. Who owns and manages the
data in systems?

Not everyone agrees with the definition of interoperability. Several
participants noted that until interoperability is understood at the
lower level, agencies do not understand the implications until it is too
late. Interoperability cannot be achieved outside the context of
enterprise architecture; it must be as a framework to define common
business requirements. The federal enterprise architecture tools can
help with some of these issues. It is important to look at financial
management as a line of business in the government. Each agency has its
own ERP system or a hybrid and is a factor in the common systems being
built across government. Interoperability is a means, not an end.

There was a sense that, while enterprise architectures are useful
things, today there are too many of them. Agencies tend to focus on
their primary enterprise, but they really are part of someone else's
enterprise as well. Enterprise architecture does not address
interoperability outside its scope. Agencies need to design systems that
are cognizant of their role with others. Government has relationships
with state governments, who have relationships with each other. Agencies
should be explicit with any information system transactions they are
providing and not assume they are talking only to each other. Systems do
not identify that they are the U.S. government; the individual providing
the information tells the receiver that it is from the government.

Everyone agreed that interoperability is broader than a technical
problem. It is a business-modeling problem. The interdependent business
process and associated data must be transparent in order to define
required information exchange. Government can define the informational
need. There is a need for a parallel discussion on the policy issues to
achieve technology necessary to support information flow. The lack of
common name protocols, for example, is a management problem when no one
is assigned responsibility to address the problem. Which part of
government should act as a broker?

It is an engineering problem as well. The common thread of success is a
spiral, iterative approach. A fixed schedule is a key to failure.

Government information models are not structured to deal with the
evolution and how agencies represent their businesses in the systems.
Adding flexibility adds cost to the system, but everything does not have
to be implemented upfront. Agencies can build the interface they need
for now, and add change later. They should ask: Where is this going?
With what other enterprises will the agency interact? How will that
impact the agency's information model?

Communications Challenges Faced by Agencies

People are committed to doing the right thing, but are having trouble
doing it.

Agencies noted that they had systems in place to handle internal
business, and common components of systems are being mandated. Now these
include the use of a central vendor file, and the use of e-travel
vendors, travel, grants, and financial management systems. Agencies are
concerned because they are not receiving money and help/advice on how to
make these changes. If agencies do not deal with technical and
governance issues, they have a hard time complying with requirements.

Private sector representatives noted that agencies need a longer period
of time to migrate to these changes. They pointed out the difficulty of
what the government has to accomplish in its financial system. The rules
are complex, but are they are serving a real government purpose? Upward
and downward adjustments to obligations were offered as an example of a
highly complex federal requirement that adds to system complexity.

The line of business effort was created to save money to use towards an
agency's core mission and thus provide the best use of taxpayer
resources. Assumptions are that agencies are not unique and can use
providers that administer payroll and travel in the same way. Agencies
need to commit to a common purpose and collaborate. Some agencies
commented that their costs would increase because they have to
disassemble their current systems to go to what they perceive as
inferior, but more expensive systems. Does everything have to be
integrated? The sense was agencies should do what they have to do, and
stop at that, rather than to have everything integrated.

Two reasons to resist change: you hate it, and it doesn't make sense. In
many cases the cost of reintegration far outweighs benefits of change in
the near term. What is the purpose of the integration and
interoperability? Where must it be enforced? Sometimes agencies assume
they have to be on the same system when they do not. Agencies must
determine upfront what they are trying to achieve. Those agencies that
spent the most integrating their own little world will be most resistant
to adopting government-wide integration efforts. Agencies need to think
broader when planning these efforts and provide generality at the system
interface level.

Project Management

Project management needs to take into account the spiral nature of the
interoperability process and not allow the "schedule" to drive events.
When there is a schedule or funding problem for system implementation,
agencies tend to drop interoperability. Agencies must find the balance
between ambiguity and iterative development.

Agencies are losing experienced people for a variety of reasons.
Organizations are relying excessively on outside contractors because
they have no other choice. Internally the staff does not have the
technical expertise. Concern was expressed that agencies overseeing
implementation have all the expertise on the general requirements, but
that vendors and integrators have little expertise. This is extremely
high risk and costly, and greater oversight and close management of
contractors is needed.

Other Issues

Participants expressed strong support for JFMIP. There was general
agreement that the role of JFMIP should be expanded to look at feeder
systems to ensure that they are integrated successfully. With JFMIP
requirements, agencies always have a baseline. Agencies do not have
baseline requirements for human resources and procurement, but they
should have a baseline that addresses what to do, but not how to do it.

The JFMIP Steering Committee is a good vehicle to get things done. It
agreed that for the next set of requirements it does not want to limit
to lowest common denominator. The requirements need to serve more
sophisticated needs. Agencies have to pay a higher cost for the greater
good sometimes, but not usually. Line of business and e-travel are
examples where everyone should benefit. OMB's approach is to determine
the right time in an agency's system lifecycle to migrate to the new
system.

Maintaining integration and data standardization are important factors
to consider. The driving principle is to increase standardization unless
there is a business reason not to. OMB sees JFMIP as the way to
standardization and implementation. Most business systems are either
financial systems or mixed financial systems, and the JFMIP should set
the standards for all of their interactions.

JFMIP's new test received praise. It does not give the agencies the
least common denominator, but allows small agencies get the best
package. JFMIP included both the agencies and the vendors in the test
development process. It provided vendors with understanding of what is
unique and what is not. It was a collaborative effort to set baseline
standards with good examples, and this should be encouraged.

Participants were interested especially in some kind of
institutionalized forum to discuss systems issues. Agencies are not
doing a good job of addressing instantaneous transactional information
and measuring performance and how to do both. This effort needs all of
the right people involved with all of the elements of business
management. Participants were invited to send agenda ideas to Karen
Alderman or Mark Carney. It is important that the group has a very clear
charter and relationship to the other groups.

A good example where JFMIP was able to get the definition clarified was
on the Treasury payment format. Any efforts like this are beneficial to
the government and software providers. Also, when looking to expand, let
the vendors be part of the dialogue. There may be subtleties that they
identify that might not have been identified by government upfront.

Some final thoughts from industry representatives are as follows.

Hans Polzer, Lockheed Martin, will provide the dimensions in the model.
His slides are posted at
http://www.jfmip.gov/jfmip/data/LISI_like_levels7.PPT

Jim Cook, IBM Business Consulting Services, stated that looking at
interoperability is a means to an end---it is not an end itself. He
emphasized the need to improve the performance of government.

David McClure, Council for Excellence in Government, stated that the
definition of interoperability should go beyond the people in this room.
We need talk to all of the stakeholders and empower them to define what
needs to be focused on and the ability to move things forward.

Jim Smith, SEI, said that the grand solution does not work. Some pilot
efforts are needed to demonstrate this fact. Interoperability is only
meaningful in a certain context. What are the legislative and regulatory
impediments?

## Concluding Remarks 

Mark Carney, ED, summarized that the Federal agencies have to have
integrated systems and processes that work together. He did not have an
issue with the greater good, but it makes it harder to justify if the
agency is constantly trying to "plug things into it".

By prioritizing things, we get them done. Wherever interoperability sits
in the spectrum of importance, we need to get it to a higher level of
importance. The road we are currently going down needs to be changed. He
noted that this discussion was a good first step..

Karen Alderman, JFMIP, thanked Pete Smith, Private Sector Council and
Mark Carney, CFO Council Systems/E-Government Committee, for sponsoring
this forum and advised participants that forum highlights will be
developed and posted on the JFMIP website.

## Attachment 1. Forum Participants

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table 1. Forum Participants    
  ------------------------------ ----------------------------------------
  Participant                    Organization

  **Public Sector Sponsors**     

  Wayne Leiss                    Chief, Financial Systems Branch, Office
                                 of Management and Budget, and JFMIP
                                 Steering Committee member

  Karen Cleary Alderman          Executive Director, Joint Financial
                                 Management Improvement Program

  Mark Carney                    Deputy Chief Financial Officer,
                                 Department of Education, and Chair,
                                 Systems and E-Government Committee, CFO
                                 Council

  **Private Sector**             

  A. W. "Pete" Smith             President, Private Sector Council

  James Cook                     Partner, IBM Consulting Services

  David McClure                  Vice President for
                                 E-Government/Technology Programs,
                                 Council for Excellence in Government

  Hans W. Polzer                 Senior Manager, System of System
                                 Engineering, Lockheed Martin Integrated
                                 Systems & Solutions

  Jim Smith                      Senior Member of Technical Team,
                                 Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie
                                 Mellon University

  **Forum Participants**         

  Julie Basile                   Office of Federal Procurement Policy,
                                 OMB

  Patricia Bennett               Digital Systems Group, Inc.

  Wayne Bobby                    Oracle

  Mark Brenneman                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

  William Campbell               CFO, Department of Veterans Affairs

  Paul Corts                     Assistant Attorney General for
                                 Administration and CFO, Department of
                                 Justice

  Kay Daly                       Assistant Director, Government
                                 Accountability Office[^1]

  Anthony DiNoto                 Deputy CFO, Social Security
                                 Administration

  Lisa Fiely                     CFO, Agency for International
                                 Development

  Barry Hudson                   Deputy CFO, Department of the Treasury

  Mary Kohlmeier                 Department of Housing and Urban
                                 Development

  Ken Klaus                      Department of Justice

  Janet Krell                    Assistant Director, Government
                                 Accountability Office^1^

  John Makepeace                 Department of Homeland Security

  Carlos Otal                    PeopleSoft

  Glenn Perry                    Department of Education, representative
                                 from Acquisition Executive Council

  Robert Reid                    Deputy Assistant Secretary for
                                 Accounting Policy, Department of the
                                 Treasury

  Christopher Simpson            Department of Energy

  Leslie Stevens                 SAP

  George Strader                 Deputy CFO, Department of Health and
                                 Human Services

  Sally Thompson                 Director, Government Accountability
                                 Office[^2]

  Paul Tibbits                   Department of Defense

  Bill Topolewski                AMS

  Martin Wagner                  Associate Administrator, Office of
                                 Governmentwide Policy, General Services
                                 Administration

  **Staff**                      

  Sterling Adlakha               U.S. Coast Guard/JFMIP

  Steve Balsam                   JFMIP

  Chuck Calhoun                  NASA/JFMIP

  Doris Chew                     JFMIP

  Susan Johnson                  Logistics Management Institute

  Bruce Turner                   JFMIP
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

## Attachment 2. Questions At Forum

## Policy -- How the current law/policy address the integration/interoperability challenge?

-   Factors

-   Opportunities

-   Risk Factors

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Governance and Ownership - What governance options would improve
    performance outcomes or reduce risk?

    -   What organization should have the controlling authority or
        ownership?

    -   Is there a strong leader who is responsible? Are there adequate
        resources to successful complete the integration?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Standards -- How are standards integrated throughout the system of
    systems?

These include business rules, data, applications, and technology.

-   What are some of the management issues, i.e., configuration
    management and how are they being resolved?

-   What are the success factors for integrating business management
    systems?

-   How should success be measured?

    -   Interoperability must be quantifiable to be achievable

    -   Interoperability must be sustainable and sustained

-   One of the goals is to meet business informational needs of program
    (line) managers. What is the best approach to do this?

-   Integration/Interoperability Attribute Issues

    -   Communications -- Currency of data. Timeliness of data. Rate of
        data exchange.

    -   Data Management -- The storage, distribution and synchronization
        of data

    -   Dynamism -- How capabilities or services are made available,
        identified and located, and composed into composite systems
        on-the-fly or at runtime

    -   Evolution -- Expected changes of whole and its parts. Rates of
        change and their consistency. Expected change of the technology
        itself.

    -   Planning -- What is understood about systems and the composite
        system of systems at the point of their construction. Includes
        boundedness and autonomy.

    -   Semantic Consistency -- The meaning of data, functionality,
        transformation

    -   Ownership -- Controlling authorities are for the systems and
        processes.

    -   Usage Patterns -- The expected pattern of use for systems and
        composite systems.

-   How does outsourcing impact governance and system integration?

## Attachment 3. References

1.  Slide presentation on "Perspectives on Interoperability", dated
    March 2004 by Hans Polzer.
    (http://www.jfmip.gov/jfmip/data/LISI_like_levels7.PPT )

2.  Software Engineering Institute,
    [http://www.sei.cmu.edu](http://www.sei.cmu.edu/)

[^1]: GAO's role with respect to requirements and testing is limited to
    that of providing technical advice.

[^2]: GAO's role with respect to requirements and testing is limited to
    that of technical advice.