a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Executive Guide

April 2003 INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY

A Framework for 

Assessing and 

Improving Enterprise 

Architecture 

Management

(Version 1.1)

GAO-03-584G
Page i GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Preface 

Effective use of enterprise architectures is a recognized hallmark of successful public and 

private organizations. For over a decade, GAO has promoted the use of architectures, 

recognizing them as a crucial means to a challenging goal: agency operational structures 

that are optimally defined, in both business and technological environments. The 

alternative, as GAO’s work has shown, is perpetuation of the kinds of operational 

environments that saddle most agencies today, in which lack of integration among 

business operations and supporting information technology (IT) resources leads to 

inefficiencies and duplication. 

Why are enterprise architectures so important? Metaphorically, an enterprise architecture 

is to an organization’s operations and systems as a set of blueprints is to a building. That 

is, building blueprints provide those who own, construct, and maintain the building with a 

clear and understandable picture of the building’s uses, features, functions, and 

supporting systems, including relevant building standards. Further, the building 

blueprints capture the relationships among building components and govern the 

construction process. Enterprise architectures do nothing less, providing to people at all 

organizational levels an explicit, common, and meaningful structural frame of reference 

that allows an understanding of (1) what the enterprise does; (2) when, where, how, and 

why it does it; and (3) what it uses to do it. 

Through our research of best IT management practices and our evaluations of agency IT 

management performance, we have identified a set of essential and complementary 

management disciplines. These include 

• IT investment management, 

• software/system development and acquisition management, 

• IT services acquisition management, 

• IT human capital management, 

• information security management, and 

• enterprise architecture management. 

Using the results of this research and evaluation, we have developed various IT 

management frameworks and guides. The federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) 

Council, at times in collaboration with us, has also published such guidance documents. 
Page ii GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

In building on this portfolio of guidance documents, we offer here the first update to our 

maturity framework for enterprise architecture management.1

 Its purpose is to provide 

federal agencies with a common benchmarking tool for planning and measuring their 

efforts to improve enterprise architecture management, as well as to provide the Office of 

Management and Budget with a means for doing the same governmentwide. This update 

is based on comments received on the initial version. Like the initial version, the update 

extends A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0, published by 

the CIO Council, by arranging the core elements in that guide into a matrix of five 

hierarchical stages and four critical success attributes. 

Questions and comments about the framework should be directed to me at (202) 512-

3439. I can also be reached at hiter@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were Naba 

Barkakati, Mark Bird, Barbara Collier, Deborah Davis, Neil Doherty, Tamra Goldstein, 

and Randolph Tekeley. 

Randolph C. Hite 

Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues 

 1

 The first version was introduced in U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Enterprise 

Architecture Use Across the Federal Government Can Be Improved, GAO-02-6 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 

19, 2002). 
 

Page iii GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Contents 

Preface.............................................................................................................................................i

Section 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1

What Is an Enterprise Architecture?............................................................................................... 1 

A Brief History of EA Management Guidance .............................................................................. 3 

Section 2. Description of EAMMF Version 1.1 .......................................................................... 5

Maturity Stages ............................................................................................................................... 7 

Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness.............................................................................................. 7 

Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation ................................................................. 7 

Stage 3: Developing the EA...................................................................................................... 8 

Stage 4: Completing the EA ..................................................................................................... 8 

Stage 5: Leveraging the EA to Manage Change....................................................................... 9 

Critical Success Attributes.............................................................................................................. 9 

Attribute 1: Demonstrates Commitment................................................................................. 10 

Attribute 2: Provides Capability to Meet Commitment.......................................................... 10 

Attribute 3: Demonstrates Satisfaction of Commitment......................................................... 10 

Attribute 4: Verifies Satisfaction of Commitment.................................................................. 11 

Core Elements............................................................................................................................... 11 

Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness............................................................................................ 11 

Elements for Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation.......................................... 11 

Elements Added for Stage 3: Developing EA Products ......................................................... 16 

Elements Added for Stage 4: Completing the EA Products ................................................... 19 

Elements Added for Stage 5: Leveraging the EA to Manage Change.................................... 22 

Overall View of EAMMF Matrix................................................................................................. 26

Section 3. Uses of EAMMF Version 1.1 .................................................................................... 28

Tool for Assessing EA Management Maturity............................................................................. 28 

EA Management Improvement Planning ..................................................................................... 29 

Appendix. Approach to Developing EAMMF Version 1.1...................................................... 31

Figures 

Figure 1: Simplified Three-Dimensional View of EAMMF........................................................... 5 

Figure 2: Transitional View to Two-Dimensional EAMMF Matrix............................................... 6 

Figure 3: Two-Dimensional EAMMF Matrix................................................................................. 6 

Figure 4: EAMMF Matrix with Five Stages of Maturity Identified .............................................. 7 

Figure 5: EAMMF Matrix with Critical Success Attributes Added ............................................ 10 

Figure 6: Summary of EAMMF Version 1.1: Maturity Stages, Critical Success Attributes, and 

Core Elements ............................................................................................................. 27 

Tables 

Table 1. Criteria for Selecting Automated EA Development and Maintenance Tools................. 14 

Table 2. Major Categories of Comments and Suggestions ........................................................... 32 
Page iv GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Abbreviations 

CIO chief information officer 

C4ISR Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, 

Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 

DOD Department of Defense 

EA enterprise architecture 

EAMMF Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework 

FEAF Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework 

IT information technology 

ITIM Information Technology Investment Management 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

TEAF Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework 

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. However, 

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.
Page 1 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Section 1. Introduction 

An enterprise architecture (EA) provides a clear and comprehensive picture of the 

structure of an entity, whether an organization or a functional or mission area. It is an 

essential tool for effectively and efficiently engineering business processes and for 

implementing and evolving supporting systems. The concept of an architecture to 

describe an enterprise first emerged in the mid-1980s, and over the years various 

frameworks2

 for defining the content of EAs have been published. Our work in the early 

1990s identified architectures as a critical success factor allowing organizations to 

effectively apply information technology (IT) to meet mission goals. Since then, we have 

worked with the Congress, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the 

federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council to recognize the importance of 

architectures and assist agencies in developing, maintaining, and using them. In our 

reviews of agency IT management practices and major systems modernization programs, 

we continue to identify the lack of an architecture as a major management weakness, and 

we have made numerous recommendations addressing this important area. 

What Is an Enterprise Architecture? 

In simple terms, an enterprise can be viewed as any purposeful activity, and an 

architecture can be characterized as the structure (or structural description) of any 

activity. Building on this, EAs can be viewed as systematically derived and captured 

structural descriptions—in useful models, diagrams, and narrative—of the mode of 

operation for a given enterprise, which can be (1) a single organization or (2) a functional 

or mission area that transcends more than one organizational boundary (e.g., financial 

management, homeland security). 

The concept of EAs dates back to the mid-1980s. At that time, John Zachman, widely 

recognized as a leader in the field of enterprise architecture, identified the need to use a 

logical construction blueprint (i.e., an architecture) for defining and controlling the 

integration of systems and their components.3Accordingly, Zachman developed a 

structure or “framework” for defining and capturing an architecture. In his work, 

Zachman drew parallels to the field of classical architecture and later to the aircraft 

manufacturing industry, in which different work products (e.g., architect plans, contractor 

plans, shop plans, and bills of lading) represent different views of the planned building or 

aircraft. Similarly, Zachman’s framework identified the kinds of work products needed 

for people to understand and thus build a given system or entity. This framework 

provides for six windows from which to view the enterprise, which Zachman terms 

 2

 A framework can be viewed as a logical structure for classifying and organizing complex information. 

3

 J. A. Zachman, “A Framework for Information Systems Architecture,” IBM Systems Journal 26, no. 3 

(1987). 
Page 2 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

“perspectives” on how a given entity operates: those of (1) the strategic planner, (2) the 

system user, (3) the system designer, (4) the system developer, (5) the subcontractor, and 

(6) the system itself. Zachman also proposed six abstractions or models associated with 

each of these perspectives: these models cover (1) how the entity operates, (2) what the 

entity uses to operate, (3) where the entity operates, (4) who operates the entity, (5) when 

entity operations occur, and (6) why the entity operates. Zachman’s framework provides 

a way to identify and describe an entity’s existing and planned component parts and the 

parts’ relationships before one begins the costly and time-consuming efforts associated 

with developing or transforming the entity. 

Since Zachman introduced his framework, a number of other frameworks have been 

proposed. In September 1999, the federal CIO Council published the Federal Enterprise 

Architecture Framework (FEAF), which is intended to provide federal agencies with a 

common construct for their respective architectures, thereby facilitating the coordination 

of common business processes, technology insertion, information flows, and system 

investments among federal agencies. The FEAF describes an approach, including models 

and definitions, for developing and documenting architecture descriptions for multiorganizational functional segments of the federal government. Similar to the Zachman 

framework, the FEAF’s proposed models describe an entity’s business, data necessary to 

conduct the business, applications to manage the data, and technology to support the 

applications. 

More recently, OMB established the Federal Enterprise Architecture Program 

Management Office to develop a federated enterprise architecture according to a 

collection of five “reference models”: 

• The Business Reference Model is intended to describe the business operations of the 

federal government independent of the agencies that perform them, including defining the 

services provided to state and local governments. 

• The Performance Reference Model is to provide a common set of general performance 

outputs and measures for agencies to use to achieve business goals and objectives. 

• The Data and Information Reference Model is to describe, at an aggregate level, the type 

of data and information that support program and business line operations, and the 

relationships among these types. 

• The Service Component Reference Model is to identify and classify IT service (i.e., 

application) components that support federal agencies and promote the reuse of 

components across agencies. 

• The Technical Reference Model is to describe how technology is supporting the delivery 

of service components, including relevant standards for implementing the technology. 

Together, the reference models are intended to facilitate governmentwide improvement 

through cross-agency analysis and the identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and 

opportunities for collaboration, interoperability, and integration within and across 

government agencies. 

These post-Zachman frameworks differ in their nomenclatures and modeling approach. 

However, the frameworks consistently provide for defining an enterprise’s operations in 
 

Page 3 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

both (1) logical terms, such as interrelated business processes and business rules, 

information needs and flows, and work locations and users, and (2) technical terms, such 

as hardware, software, data, communications, and security attributes and performance 

standards. The frameworks also provide for defining these perspectives both for the 

enterprise’s current or “as-is” environment and for its target or “to-be” environment, as 

well as a transition plan for moving from the “as-is” to the “to-be” environment. 

The importance of developing, implementing, and maintaining an EA is a basic tenet of 

both organizational transformation and IT management. Managed properly, an EA can 

clarify and help optimize the interdependencies and relationships among an 

organization’s business operations and the underlying IT infrastructure and applications 

that support these operations. Employed in concert with other important management 

controls, such as portfolio-based capital planning and investment control practices, 

architectures can greatly increase the chances that organizations’ operational and IT 

environments will be configured so as to optimize mission performance. Our experience 

with federal agencies has shown that investing in IT without defining these investments 

in the context of an architecture often results in systems that are duplicative, not well 

integrated, and unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface.4

A Brief History of EA Management Guidance 

Since the late 1980s, architecture guidance has emerged within the federal government, 

beginning with the publication of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

guidance in 1989.5

 Subsequently, we issued architecture guidance6 and published our 

research on successful public- and private-sector organizations’ IT management 

practices, which identified the use of architectures as a factor critical to these 

organizations’ success.7

 Since that time, other federal entities have issued frameworks for 

defining the content of EAs, including the Department of Defense,8

 Department of the 

Treasury,9

 and the federal CIO Council10 (some of which were described earlier). These 

frameworks are being used today to varying degrees by many federal agencies. 

 4

 See, for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, DOD Business Systems Modernization: Improvements 

to Enterprise Architecture Development and Implementation Efforts Needed, GAO-03-458 (Washington,

D.C.: February 2003); Information Technology: DLA Should Strengthen Business Systems Modernization 

Architecture and Investment Activities, GAO-01-631 (Washington, D.C.: June 2001); and Information

Technology: INS Needs to Better Manage the Development of Its Enterprise Architecture, AIMD-00-212

(Washington, D.C.: August 2000). 

5

 National Institute of Standards and Technology, Information Management Directions: The Integration 

Challenge, Special Publication 500-167 (September 1989). 6

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Strategic Information Planning: Framework for Designing and 

Developing System Architectures, GAO/IMTEC-92-51 (Washington, D.C.: June 1992). 7 U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance through Strategic 

Information Management and Technology, GAO/AIMD-94-115 (Washington, D.C.: May 1994). 8

 DOD C4ISR Architecture Framework, Version 2.0 (Dec. 18, 1997). 

9

 Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 1.0 (July 3, 2000). 

10 Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 1.1 (September 1999). 
Page 4 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

The emergence of federal frameworks and guidance over the last 5 years is largely owing 

to the Congress’s passage of the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996.11 This act, among other 

things, requires the CIOs for major departments and agencies to develop, maintain, and 

facilitate the implementation of architectures as a means of integrating business processes 

and agency goals with IT. In response to the act, OMB, in collaboration with us, issued 

guidance on the development and implementation of EAs.12 More recently, OMB issued 

additional guidance directing that agency investments in IT be based on agency 

architectures.13 

Similarly, the CIO Council, in addition to publishing the FEAF, recently collaborated 

with us in issuing two additional EA guidance documents. The first addresses 

enforcement and describes how an organization should go about assessing whether its 

proposed IT investments are compliant with its EA.14 The second addresses development, 

maintenance, and implementation, describing in practical terms an end-to-end set of steps 

for an EA program.15 These steps include how to get started and organized, what kind of 

management controls are needed, what factors to consider in formulating an EA 

development approach, how to go about defining the current and target architecture and 

the plan for sequencing from the current to the target, how to ensure that the architecture 

is implemented and enforced, and how to systematically refresh and maintain the 

architecture to ensure its currency and relevance. The need for greater federal agency 

awareness and use of EAs was also recognized in the E-Government Act of 2002,16

which established the OMB Office of Electronic Government; this office’s 

responsibilities include overseeing the development of EAs within and across federal 

agencies.17

 11 Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, Public Law 104-106, section 5125, 110 Stat. 684 (1996). 

12 OMB, Information Technology Architectures, Memorandum M-97-16 (June 18, 1997), rescinded with 

the update of OMB Circular A-130 (Nov. 30, 2000). 

13 Office of Management and Budget, Management of Federal Information Resources, Circular No. A-130 

(Nov. 30, 2000). 

14 Chief Information Officers Council, Architecture Alignment and Assessment Guide (October 2000). 15 Chief Information Officers Council, A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0 

(February 2001). 

16 E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347 (Dec. 17, 2002). 

17 The E-Government Act of 2002 states that the Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government 

shall work with the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and with other 

offices within the OMB to oversee, among other things, the development of enterprise architectures. 
 

Page 5 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Section 2. Description of EAMMF Version 1.1 

The ability to effectively manage any activity (e.g., architecture development, 

maintenance, and use) depends upon having meaningful measures of that activity in 

relation to some standard. Such measurement permits managers to assess progress toward 

the desired end and to take corrective action to address unacceptable deviations. In 

February 2002, we issued Version 1.0 of the Enterprise Architecture Management 

Maturity Framework (EAMMF).18 The framework consists of three basic components: 

(1) hierarchical stages of management maturity, (2) categories of attributes that are 

critical to success in managing any endeavor, and (3) elements of EA management that 

form the core of the CIO Council Practical Guide. These three EAMMF components are 

interrelated, as depicted in figure 1, and are described in greater detail below. 

Figure 1: Simplified Three-Dimensional View of EAMMF

Elements, or more specifically core elements, are descriptions of a practice or condition 

that is needed for effective EA management. An example is designating a chief architect. 

The version of our framework presented here (Version 1.1) specifies 31 core elements, 

each of which is derived from the CIO Council Practical Guide. Based on the implicit 

dependencies among these 31 core elements, the EAMMF associates each element to one 

of five hierarchical management stages, referred to as maturity stages. Each stage reflects 

the collection of EA management practices and conditions (i.e., core elements) being 

undertaken by an enterprise at a given maturity level. An example of a stage is building 

the EA management foundation (Stage 2). The EAMMF also associates each element to 

one of four types of management attributes, referred to as critical success attributes. Each 

attribute represents a category or type of management practice and condition (i.e., core 

element) that is needed to effectively discharge any function. An example of a critical 

success attribute is demonstrating the institutional commitment to perform the function. 

 18 The first version was introduced in U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Enterprise 

Architecture Use across the Federal Government Can Be Improved, GAO-02-6 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 

19, 2002). 
Page 6 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Building on figure 1, figure 2 adds the number of core elements, maturity stages, and 

critical success attributes, and provides a transition to the EAMMF matrix19 presented in 

figure 3. 

Figure 2: Transitional View to Two-Dimensional EAMMF Matrix 

Figure 3: Two-Dimensional EAMMF Matrix 

The EAMMF is consistent with other maturity frameworks, such as GAO’s Information 

Technology Investment Management (ITIM) framework,20 in that the EAMMF outlines 

steps toward achieving a stable and mature process for managing the development, 

maintenance, and implementation of EA. As an organization improves its EA 

management capabilities, its EA management maturity increases. By establishing the 

current level of maturity of an organization, managers are able to use the framework to 

determine steps needed to improve architecture management. 

 19 The EAMMF matrix differs from a classical matrix in that each maturity stage includes not only the core 

elements in the column below that stage, but also the core elements of previous, less mature stages. That is, 

the core elements are cumulative: the attainment of a particular stage of maturity does not involve dropping 

any core elements, but rather adding more core elements to the repertoire. 

20 U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for 

Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, Exposure Draft, GAO/AIMD-10.1.23 (May 2000). 
 

Page 7 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Because the EAMMF is derived from the CIO Council Practical Guide, the framework 

should be viewed as an extension of the Practical Guide and thus used in tandem with it. 

Accordingly, the EAMMF is not intended to repeat the level of guidance provided in the 

Practical Guide, but rather to arrange key aspects (i.e., core elements) of the guide into a 

hierarchical model for use either as an evaluation tool or as a roadmap for EA management improvement. To facilitate this use, we have included references in the descriptions 

of the core elements indicating the corresponding sections in the Practical Guide.

Maturity Stages 

The EAMMF is made up of five stages of EA maturity, each of which includes all 

elements of previous stages. Each of the five stages is described below. To the generic 

EAMMF structure of figure 3, figure 4 adds the specific names of the five stages. 

Figure 4: EAMMF Matrix with Five Stages of Maturity Identified (in bold) 

 

 

 

Stage 1: 

Creating EA 

awareness 

Stage 2: 

Building the EA 

management 

foundation 

Stage 3: 

Developing EA 

products 

Stage 4: 

Completing EA 

products 

Stage 5: 

Leveraging the EA 

to manage change

critical success attribute 1 core elements (2) core elements (1) core elements (1) core elements (1) 

critical success attribute 2 core elements (3) core elements (1) core elements (1) core elements (2) 

critical success attribute 3 core elements (3) core elements (3) core elements (5) core elements (3) 

critical success attribute 4 core elements (1) core elements (1) core elements (1) core elements (2) 

maturation 

Source: GAO. 

Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness 

At Stage 1, either an organization does not have plans to develop and use an architecture, 

or it has plans that do not demonstrate an awareness of the value of having and using an 

architecture. While Stage 1 agencies may have initiated some EA activity, these agencies’ 

efforts are ad hoc and unstructured, lack institutional leadership and direction, and do not 

provide the management foundation necessary for successful EA development as defined 

in Stage 2.

Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation 

An organization at Stage 2 recognizes that the EA is a corporate asset by vesting 

accountability for it in an executive body that represents the entire enterprise. At this 

stage, an organization assigns EA management roles and responsibilities and establishes 

plans for developing EA products and for measuring program progress and product 

quality; it also commits the resources necessary for developing an architecture—people, 
Page 8 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

processes, and tools. Specifically, a Stage 2 organization has designated a chief architect 

and established and staffed a program office responsible for EA development and 

maintenance. Further, it has established a committee or group that has responsibility for 

EA governance (i.e., directing, overseeing, and approving architecture development and 

maintenance). This committee or group is often called a steering committee, and its 

membership includes both business and IT representatives (i.e., the committee has 

enterprisewide representation). At Stage 2, the organization either has plans for 

developing or has started developing at least some EA products, and it has developed an 

enterprisewide awareness of the value of EA and its intended use in managing its IT 

investments. The organization has also selected a framework and a methodology that will 

be the basis for developing the EA products and has selected a tool for automating these 

activities. 

Stage 3: Developing the EA 

An organization at Stage 3 focuses on developing architecture products according to the 

selected framework, methodology, tool, and established management plans. Roles and 

responsibilities assigned in the previous stage are in place, and resources are being 

applied to develop actual EA products. Here, the scope of the architecture has been 

defined to encompass the entire enterprise, whether organization-based or function-based. 

Although the products may not be complete, they are intended to describe the 

organization in business, performance, information/data, service/application, and 

technology terms (including security explicitly in each), as provided for in the 

framework, methodology, tool, and management plans. Further, the products are to 

describe the current (“as-is”) and future (“to-be”) states and the plan for transitioning 

from the current to the future state (the sequencing plan). As the products are developed 

and evolve, they are subject to configuration management. Further, through the 

established EA management foundation, the organization is tracking and measuring its 

progress against plans, identifying and addressing variances, as appropriate, and then 

reporting on its progress. 

Stage 4: Completing the EA 

An organization at Stage 4 has completed its EA products, meaning that the products 

have been approved by the EA steering committee (established in Stage 2) or an 

investment review board, and by the CIO. The completed products collectively describe 

the enterprise in terms of business, performance, information/data, service/application, 

and technology for both its current and future operating states, and the products include a 

transition plan for sequencing from the current to the future state. Further, an independent 

agent has assessed the quality (i.e., completeness and accuracy) of the EA products. 

Additionally, evolution of the approved products is governed by a written EA 

maintenance policy approved by the head of the organization. 
 

Page 9 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Stage 5: Leveraging the EA to Manage Change 

An organization at Stage 5 has secured senior leadership approval of the EA products and 

a written institutional policy stating that IT investments must comply with the 

architecture, unless granted an explicit compliance waiver. Further, decision-makers are 

using the architecture to identify and address ongoing and proposed IT investments that 

are conflicting, overlapping, not strategically linked, or redundant. Thus, Stage 5 entities 

are able to avoid unwarranted overlap across investments and ensure maximum systems 

interoperability, which in turn ensures the selection and funding of IT investments with 

manageable risks and returns. Also at Stage 5, the organization tracks and measures EA 

benefits or return on investment, and adjustments are continuously made to both the EA 

management process and the EA products. 

Critical Success Attributes 

Associated with the maturity stages described above are characteristics or attributes that 

are critical to the successful performance of any management function. These critical 

success attributes are 

(1) showing a commitment to perform the function; 

(2) putting in place the capability (people, processes, and technology) needed to perform the 

function; 

(3) demonstrating, via production and results, that the function has been performed; and 

(4) verifying, via quantitative and qualitative measurement, that the function was 

satisfactorily performed. 

Collectively, these attributes form the basis by which an organization can institutionalize 

management of any given function or program, like EA management. Each of the 

EAMMF critical success attributes is described below. Figure 5 presents the four specific 

critical success attributes, building on the previous figures. 
Page 10 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Figure 5: EAMMF Matrix with Critical Success Attributes Added (in bold) 

 

 

 

Stage 1: 

Creating EA 

awareness 

Stage 2: 

Building the EA 

management 

foundation 

Stage 3: 

Developing EA 

products 

Stage 4: 

Completing EA 

products 

Stage 5: 

Leveraging the EA 

to manage change

Attribute 1: 

Demonstrates 

commitment

 core elements (2) core elements (1) core elements (1) core elements (1) 

Attribute 2: 

Provides capability 

to meet commitment

 core elements (3) core elements (1) core elements (1) core elements (2) 

Attribute 3: 

Demonstrates 

satisfaction of 

commitment

 core elements (3) core elements (3) core elements (5) core elements (3) 

Attribute 4: 

Verifies satisfaction 

of commitment

 core elements (1) core elements (1) core elements (1) core elements (2) 

maturation 

Source: GAO. 

Attribute 1: Demonstrates Commitment 

Because the EA is a corporate asset for systematically managing institutional change, the 

support and sponsorship of the head of the enterprise are essential to the success of the 

architecture effort. An approved enterprise policy statement provides such support and 

sponsorship, promoting institutional “buy-in” and encouraging resource commitment 

from participating components. Equally important in demonstrating commitment is 

vesting ownership of the architecture with an executive body that collectively owns the 

enterprise. 

Attribute 2: Provides Capability to Meet Commitment 

The success of the EA effort depends largely on the organization’s capacity to develop, 

maintain, and implement the EA. Consistent with any large IT project, these capabilities 

include providing adequate resources (i.e., people, processes, and technology); defining 

clear roles and responsibilities; and defining and implementing organizational structures 

and process management controls that promote accountability and effective project 

execution. 

Attribute 3: Demonstrates Satisfaction of Commitment 

Demonstrating satisfaction of the organization’s commitment to develop, maintain, and 

implement an EA is evidenced by the production of artifacts (e.g., the plans and 

products). Such artifacts demonstrate “follow through”—actual EA production. 

Satisfaction of commitment is further demonstrated by senior leadership approval of EA 
 

Page 11 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

documents and artifacts; this approval communicates institutional endorsement and 

ownership of the architecture and the change that it is intended to drive. 

Attribute 4: Verifies Satisfaction of Commitment 

This attribute focuses on measuring and disclosing the extent to which efforts to develop, 

maintain, and implement the EA have fulfilled stated goals or commitments. Measuring 

such performance allows for tracking progress that has been made toward stated goals, 

allows appropriate actions to be taken when performance deviates significantly from 

goals, and creates incentives to influence both institutional and individual behaviors. 

Core Elements 

At the core of the EAMMF are the EA management elements (i.e., practices and 

conditions) described in the CIO Council Practical Guide. Each of the core elements is 

briefly described below, along with references to the Practical Guide, where additional 

explanation and guidance can be found. 

Stage 1: Creating EA Awareness 

At Stage 1, organizations are becoming aware of the value of an EA, but have not yet 

established the management foundation needed to develop one. Stage 1 has no core 

elements; by default, an organization that does not satisfy Stage 2 core elements is at 

Stage 1.

Elements for Stage 2: Building the EA Management Foundation 

 Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation 

Stage 1 

Attribute 1: 

Demonstrates 

commitment 

Adequate resources exist. 

Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for directing, overseeing, or 

approving EA. 

Attribute 2: 

Provides capability 

to meet commitment 

Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance exists. 

Chief architect exists. 

EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and automated tool. 

Attribute 3: 

Demonstrates 

satisfaction of 

commitment 

EA plans call for describing both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments of the enterprise, as 

well as a sequencing plan for transitioning from the “as-is” to the “to-be.” 

EA plans call for describing both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments in terms of business, 

performance, information/data, application/service, and technology. 

EA plans call for business, performance, information/data, service, and technology descriptions 

to address security. 

Attribute 4: 

Verifies satisfaction 

of commitment 

EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA progress, quality, compliance, and return 

on investment. 

Source: GAO. 

At Stage 2, organizations move from basic awareness to building the foundation for 

effectively developing, maintaining, and implementing an EA. 
Page 12 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Attribute: Demonstrates commitment 

Element: Adequate resources exist. 

An organization should have the resources (funding, people, tools, and technology) to 

establish and effectively manage its architecture. This includes identifying and securing 

adequate funding to support EA activities; hiring and retaining the right people with the 

proper knowledge, skills, and abilities to plan and execute the EA program; and selecting 

and acquiring the right tools and technology to support EA activities. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 3.1.1: Ensure Agency Head Buy-in and 

Support; Section 3.1.3: Obtain Support from Senior Executives and Business Units; 

Section 3.2: Establish Management Structure and Control; Section 6.1.1: Train 

Personnel 

Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for directing, 

overseeing, or approving EA. 

An organization should assign responsibility for directing, overseeing, and approving the 

architecture not to just one individual, but to a committee or group with representation 

from across the enterprise. Establishing this enterprisewide responsibility and 

accountability is important in demonstrating the organization’s commitment to building 

the management foundation and obtaining buy-in from across the organization. 

Accordingly, this group should include executive-level representatives from each line of 

business, and these representatives should have the authority to commit resources and 

enforce decisions within their respective organizational units. Typically, this group, 

established by the organization head, serves as a “steering committee” and is responsible 

for guiding, directing, and approving EA plans and products, including significant 

changes to either. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 3.2.3: Establish an Executive Steering 

Committee 

Attribute: Provides capability to meet commitment 

Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance exists. 

EA development and maintenance should be managed as a formal program. Accordingly, 

responsibility for EA management should be assigned to an organizational unit and not 

simply an individual. Typically in the form of a program office, this organizational unit 

should be devoted to the EA program and responsible for developing a management plan 

and executing the plan. The plan should include a detailed work breakdown structure, 

resource estimates (e.g., funding, staffing, and training), performance measures, and 

management controls for developing and maintaining the architecture. The program 

office should have qualified staff serving as the core team. Examples of functions 

performed by the EA program office are risk management, configuration management, 

quality assurance, and security management. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 3.2.5: Establish an EA Program Office 
 

Page 13 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Element: Chief architect exists. 

An organization should have a chief architect who is responsible and accountable for the 

EA, and who is supported by the EA program office and overseen by the enterprisewide 

architecture steering committee. Appointed by the CIO and approved by the organization 

head, the chief architect is typically an organization executive whose background and 

qualifications span both the business and technology sides of the organization and who 

also functions as the EA program manager. The chief architect is responsible for ensuring 

the integrity of the EA development process, as well as the content of the EA products. 

The chief architect should be experienced in, among other things, program management, 

capital planning and investment control, and systems engineering. The chief architect (in 

collaboration with the CIO, steering committee, and the organization head) is 

instrumental in obtaining organizational buy-in for EA (including support from the 

business units), as well as in securing resources to support architecture management 

functions, such as risk management, configuration management, quality assurance, and 

security management. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 3.2.4: Appoint Chief Architect 

Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and automated tool. 

To develop the architecture in a consistent and efficient manner, an organization should 

use an EA framework, methodology, and automated tool. Frameworks provide a defined 

structure and nomenclature for representing EA information that may come from 

different parts of the organization. Methodologies, if implemented effectively, define the 

steps necessary to perform the activities associated with capturing the EA in a coherent, 

consistent, accountable, and repeatable manner. Automated tools provide an efficient 

repository for capturing, updating, and disseminating the EA across the organization. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 4: Define an Architecture Process and 

Approach 

Framework. A framework provides a formal structure for representing the EA, serving as 

the basis for the nature and content of the specific products the organization plans to 

develop, use, and maintain. As such, a framework helps to ensure the consistent 

representation of information from across the organization. For federal agencies, 

selecting one of the federal frameworks provides greater interoperability among EAs of 

various federal organizations. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 4.5: Evaluate and Select a Framework 

Methodology. A methodology provides a common set of procedures for developing EA 

products and, if implemented properly, helps to ensure consistency in the procedures used 

across the organization for developing and maintaining the EA. An organization’s 

methodology or methodologies should govern how the EA products will be developed, 

maintained, and validated. Methodologies need to be documented, understood, and 

consistently applied by the EA program team. They should prescribe the standards, steps, 

tools, techniques, and measures to be used to provide reasonable assurance that expected 

product quality is attained. 
Page 14 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Automated tool. An automated tool serves as the repository of architecture artifacts. The 

choice of tool is based on the organization’s needs and the size and complexity of the 

architecture. EA tools are typically selected based on explicit criteria, including but not 

limited to those listed in table 1. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 4.6: Select an EA Toolset 

Table 1. Criteria for Selecting Automated EA Development and Maintenance Tools 

Available platforms 

Configuration management support 

Cost and licensing 

Framework support 

Integrated and consolidated repository 

Interoperability with other tools/repositories 

Model size and complexity 

Modeling methods and techniques support 

Risk management and issue tracking support 

Quality assurance support 

Traceability to requirements and other enterprise engineering artifacts 

Training schedule, cost, and length 

Vendor support 

Source: CIO Council. 

Attribute: Demonstrates satisfaction of commitment 

Element: EA plans call for describing both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments of the 

enterprise as well as a sequencing plan for transitioning from the “as-is” to the “tobe.” 

An organization should have a documented EA program management plan and 

supporting plans (e.g., configuration management plan and quality assurance plan). 

Generally, these plans should describe the steps to be taken and tasks to be performed in 

managing the EA program. They should also provide for development of architectural 

descriptions of how the organization currently operates (the “as-is” environment), how it 

intends to operate in the future (the “to-be” environment), and how it will transition from 

the current “as-is” operating environment to the “to-be” environment. In short, the “as-is” 

and “ to-be” descriptions should be enterprisewide in scope, and they can be developed 

concurrently. Further, it is expected that the “to-be” descriptions will consume the 

majority of the EA program’s resources. The sequencing plan will generally follow after 

development of the “as-is” and “to-be” descriptions, and it should include, for example, 

what system capabilities are to be introduced into the organization, when they are to be 

introduced (based on their relative value and dependencies), and when legacy systems are 

to be phased out. The sequencing plan should eventually form the basis for the 

organization’s annual IT capital investment plan, which is a key component of IT 

investment management. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 3.3.2: Develop an EA Program 

Management Plan 
 

Page 15 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Element: EA plans call for describing both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments in terms 

of business, performance, information/data, application/service, and technology. 

The organization’s documented EA management plans should also provide for defining 

and normalizing21 the current and future architectures in terms relevant to stakeholders 

from varying organization levels and disciplines. These terms are the organization’s 

business operations, performance measures, information and data needs and definitions, 

application and service delivery means, and technology profiles and standards. Moreover, 

these terms or enterprise perspectives should be consistent and aligned with each other. 

(See Section 1 for more information on these terms of reference.) 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 3.3.2: Develop an EA Program 

Management Plan 

Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data, application/service, and 

technology descriptions to address security. 

An organization’s EA program management plans should define how it will address 

security as a distinct area of operational and technology emphasis within the context of 

each of the terms of reference: business, performance, information/data, 

application/service, and technology. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 3.3.2: Develop an EA Program 

Management Plan 

Attribute: Verifies satisfaction of commitment 

Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA progress, quality, 

compliance, and return on investment. 

An organization’s EA management plans should provide for developing metrics and 

should describe how these will be used to measure (1) progress toward EA goals, (2) the 

quality of architecture products and management processes, (3) compliance with the 

architecture, and (4) EA return on investment. 

 21 Normalization is a process for minimizing the number of redundancies among design or architecture 

groupings or entities. Designs or architectures that have normalized groupings or entities are better able to 

accommodate and minimize the impact of future change. 
Page 16 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Elements Added for Stage 3: Developing EA Products 

 Stage 3: Developing EA products 

 Stage 2 

Stage 1 

Attribute 1: 

Demonstrates 

commitment 

 Written and approved organization policy exists for EA development. 

Attribute 2: 

Provides capability 

to meet commitment 

 EA products are under configuration management. 

Attribute 3: 

Demonstrates 

satisfaction of 

commitment 

 EA products describe or will describe both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments 

of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for transitioning from the “as-is” to the 

“to-be.”

Both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments are described or will be described in 

terms of business, performance, information/data, application/service, and 

technology. 

Business, performance, information/data, application/service, and technology 

descriptions address or will address security. 

Attribute 4: 

Verifies satisfaction 

of commitment 

 Progress against EA plans is measured and reported. 

Source: GAO. 

At Stage 3, organizations move from building the EA management foundation to 

developing EA products. Stage 3 also includes all elements in Stage 2. 

Attribute: Demonstrates commitment 

Element: Written and approved organization policy exists for EA development. 

An organization should have a documented policy, approved by the organization head, 

governing the development of the EA. An organization policy is an important means for 

ensuring enterprisewide commitment to developing an EA and for clearly assigning 

responsibility for doing so. The architecture policy should define the scope of the 

architecture as including a description of the baseline (“as-is”) and target (“to-be”) 

architecture, as well as a sequencing plan that supports the move between the two. 

Additionally, the policy should provide for having processes for EA oversight and 

control, and EA review, validation, and refinement. 

Further, the policy should identify the major players in the architecture development 

process, including the chief architect, program office, steering committee, project/system 

development managers, the organization head, and CIO; it should also identify their 

roles, responsibilities, and relationships. The policy should address the purpose and value 

of an EA; its relationship to the organization’s strategic vision and plans; and its 

relationship to capital planning, enterprise engineering, and program management. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 3.1.2: Issue an Executive Enterprise 

Architecture Policy 
 

Page 17 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Attribute: Provides capability to meet commitment 

Element: EA products are under configuration management. 

An organization should ensure the integrity and consistency of the EA products, 

throughout their life cycles, by placing them under configuration management. Effective 

configuration management is important for enabling integration among related EA 

products and for alignment between architecture artifacts. Ensuring that EA products are 

under configuration management is the responsibility of the EA program office. 

Typically, an organization will assign a configuration manager to oversee and control the 

EA product configurations. Through effective configuration management, changes to EA 

products are identified, tracked, monitored, documented, reported, and audited. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 7: Maintain the Enterprise 

Architecture 

Attribute: Demonstrates satisfaction of commitment 

Element: EA products describe or will describe both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments 

of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for transitioning from the “as-is” to 

the “to-be.” 

Consistent with the EA program plans discussed in Stage 2, an organization should 

ensure that the EA products being developed are enterprisewide in scope and describe 

both the current (“as-is”) environment and the future or target (“to-be”) environment, as 

well as a sequencing plan for moving from the current to the target environment. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 5.2: Generate Products and Populate 

EA Repository; Section 5.2.1: Essentials in Building the Baseline Architecture; Section 

5.2.2: Essentials in Building the Target Architecture; Section 5.3: Develop the 

Sequencing Plan 

Element: Both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments are described or will be described in 

terms of business, performance, information/data, application/service, and 

technology. 

While many details of the EA product may not yet have been defined, the products being 

developed/drafted should begin to address each of the given terms of reference, or 

include placeholders for later defining the enterprise in these terms. These terms of 

reference are business operations, performance management, information/data needs and 

definitions, application/service delivery vehicles, and technology profiles and standards. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 5.2.1: Essentials in Building the 

Baseline Architecture; Section 5.2.2: Essentials in Building the Target Architecture 
Page 18 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Element: Business, performance, information/data, application/service, and technology 

descriptions address or will address security. 

An organization should ensure that each of its EA products (including those describing 

the “as-is” and “to-be” environments in terms of business, performance, information/data, 

application/service, and technology) explicitly describe how enterprise security is being 

defined and will be implemented. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 5.2.1: Essentials in Building the 

Baseline Architecture; Section 5.2.2: Essentials in Building the Target Architecture 

Attribute: Verifies satisfaction of commitment 

Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported. 

To assist in attaining stated EA program goals and objectives, an organization should 

understand and disclose its progress against plans. As EA products emerge, their content 

should be assessed against the plans to ensure that expectations are being met. Based on 

this assessment, plans can be updated to reflect experience to date, while products can be 

revised to address plan changes. Deviations from expectations contained in plans should 

be analyzed to determine cause and impact, and appropriate action should be taken to 

address deviations. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 8.2: Identify Where EA Program 

Expectations Are Not Being Met; Section 8.3: Take Appropriate Actions to Address 

Deviations; Section 8.4: Ensure Continuous Improvement 
 

Page 19 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Elements Added for Stage 4: Completing the EA Products 

 Stage 4: Completing EA products

 

Stage 1 

Stage 2 

Stage 3 

Attribute 1: 

Demonstrates 

commitment 

 Written and approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance. 

Attribute 2: 

Provides capability 

to meet commitment 

 EA products and management processes undergo independent verification 

and validation. 

Attribute 3: 

Demonstrates 

satisfaction of 

commitment 

 EA products describe both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments of the 

enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for transitioning from the “as-is” to 

the “to-be.”

Both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments are described in terms of 

business, performance, information/data, application/service, and 

technology. 

Business, performance, information/data, application/service, and 

technology descriptions address security. 

Organization CIO has approved current version of EA. 

Committee or group representing the enterprise or the investment review 

board has approved current version of EA. 

Attribute 4: 

Verifies satisfaction 

of commitment 

 Quality of EA products is measured and reported. 

Source: GAO. 

At Stage 4, organizations move from developing to completing EA products. Stage 4 also 

includes all elements in Stages 3 and 2. 

Attribute: Demonstrates commitment 

Element: Written and approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance. 

Because the architecture is a “living“ entity, influenced continuously by internal and 

external change drivers, it needs to be kept current to be relevant. Accordingly, an 

organization should have a documented policy, approved by the organization head, 

governing the maintenance of the EA. Such a policy promotes enterprisewide 

commitment to keeping the EA up to date by, for example, assigning responsibility and 

accountability for maintenance. The EA policy should provide for establishing a process 

for architecture maintenance, including oversight and control. Additionally, it should 

identify the roles, responsibilities, and relationships of key players in the maintenance 

process, including the chief architect, steering committee, program office, project/system 

development managers, organization head, and CIO. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 3.1.2: Issue an Executive Enterprise 

Architecture Policy 
Page 20 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Attribute: Provides capability to meet commitment 

Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent verification and 

validation. 

An organization should ensure the quality of its architecture by performing independent 

verification and validation of both the EA products and the processes used to develop the 

products. This independent quality determination should be performed by a third party, 

such as the organization’s internal audit function or a contractor not responsible for any 

architecture development activities. The results of these determinations should be shared 

with the program office, and reported directly to the EA steering committee. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 3.2.5.1: Appoint Key Personnel; 

Section 5.2.3: Review, Validate, and Refine Models; Section 8.2: Identify Where EA 

Program Expectations Are Not Being Met 

Attribute: Demonstrates satisfaction of commitment 

Element: EA products describe both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments of the 

enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for transitioning from the “as-is” to the “tobe.” 

An organization should complete its EA products according to plans defined in Stage 2. 

These products should completely and correctly describe both the “as-is” and the “to-be” 

environments of the enterprise and include a sequencing plan for migrating the 

organization between these two environments. EA products exhibiting these 

characteristics and qualities are a logical output of performing the previously discussed 

core elements. This is a consequence of the hierarchical structure of the EAMMF. That 

is, if the EA plans developed in Stage 2 and implemented in Stage 3 do not provide for 

having the “as-is” and “to-be” architectures and a sequencing plan, this core element is 

unlikely to be satisfied in Stage 4. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 5.2: Generate Products and Populate 

EA Repository; Section 5.2.1: Essentials in Building the Baseline Architecture; Section 

5.2.2: Essentials in Building the Target Architecture; Section 5.3: Develop the 

Sequencing Plan 

Element: Both the “as-is” and the “to-be” environments are described in terms of business, 

performance, information/data, application/service, and technology. 

An organization’s EA products are defined and normalized in terms meaningful to a wide 

variety of stakeholders, ranging from the organization’s chief executive officer and 

strategic planners to its technology implementers and operators. Accordingly, the “as-is” 

and the “to-be” architectures need to capture and disclose in meaningful terms business 

operations, performance measures, information and data needs and definitions, 

application and service delivery vehicles, and technology profiles and standards. 

Moreover, these terms set frames of reference that need to be aligned and 
 

Page 21 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

consistent with one another. Again, performance of the core elements in the previous 

stages should result in architecture products that satisfy this core element. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 5.2.1: Essentials in Building the 

Baseline Architecture; Section 5.2.2: Essentials in Building the Target Architecture 

Element: Business, performance, information/data, application/service, and technology 

descriptions address security. 

An organization should explicitly and consistently address security in its business, 

performance, information/data, application/service, and technology EA products. 

Because security permeates every aspect of an organization’s operations, the nature and 

substance of institutionalized security requirements, controls, and standards should be 

captured in the EA products. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 5.2.1: Essentials in Building the 

Baseline Architecture; Section 5.2.2: Essentials in Building the Target Architecture 

Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA. 

The current version of the organization’s completed EA should be approved by the CIO.

This approval is the first in a series of approvals intended to establish the EA as an 

institutionally endorsed change management and transformation tool. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 5.4: Approve, Publish, and 

Disseminate EA Products 

Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the investment review board has 

approved current version of EA. 

The current version of the organization’s completed architecture should also be approved 

either by the EA steering committee (or comparable body) or by the investment review 

board. The approval by one or both of these bodies denotes institutional buy-in and thus 

facilitates the architecture’s acceptance and use at all organizational levels as a change 

management and transformation tool. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 5.4: Approve, Publish, and 

Disseminate EA Products 

Attribute: Verifies satisfaction of commitment 

Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported. 

An organization should ensure that the nature and content of the EA products meet 

defined quality standards. The ability to demonstrate that these products are of high 

quality is critical to gaining CIO and subsequent EA approvals. This core element entails 

developing a set of metrics and assessing the products against those metrics. Such 

measurement and disclosure of the results to decision-makers mean that timely and 

appropriate actions can be taken to address deviations from established goals. This 
Page 22 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

measurement and reporting activity is the responsibility of the EA program, 

supplemented by an independent verification and validation agent. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 3.2.5.1: Appoint Key Personnel; 

Section 5.2.3: Review, Validate, and Refine Models; Section 8.2: Identify Where EA 

Program Expectations Are Not Being Met; Section 8.3: Take Appropriate Actions to 

Address Deviations; Section 8.4: Ensure Continuous Improvement 

Elements Added for Stage 5: Leveraging the EA to Manage Change 

 

 

 

Stage 1 

Stage 2 

Stage 3 

Stage 4 

Stage 5: Leveraging the EA to manage change

Attribute 1: 

Demonstrates 

commitment 

 Written and approved organization policy exists for IT investment 

compliance with EA. 

Attribute 2: 

Provides capability 

to meet commitment 

 Process exists to formally manage EA change. 

EA is integral component of IT investment management process. 

Attribute 3: 

Demonstrates 

satisfaction of 

commitment 

 EA products are periodically updated. 

IT investments comply with EA. 

Organization head has approved current version of EA. 

Attribute 4: 

Verifies satisfaction 

of commitment 

 Return on EA investment is measured and reported. 

Compliance with EA is measured and reported. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: each stage includes all elements of previous stages. 

At Stage 5, organizations use the EA products in a manner to most effectively achieve 

results, such as business and systems modernization and organizational transformation. 

Stage 5 includes all elements in Stages 4, 3, and 2.

Attribute: Demonstrates commitment 

Element: Written and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance with 

EA. 

An organization should have a policy governing the implementation of the architecture 

that is approved by the organization head. Such a policy is important because it is the 

basis for enforcing the architecture. The EA policy should augment architecture 

development and maintenance policies by providing for an institutional EA 

implementation process that is aligned with the organization’s capital planning and 

investment control process. At a minimum, the policy should specify that all IT 

investments must comply with the architecture unless justified and granted a documented 

waiver. The policy should also define the roles and responsibilities of the major players 
 

Page 23 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

in architecture implementation and their relationships. Major players include the 

investment review board, architecture assessment team, CIO, and chief architect. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 3.1.2: Issue an Executive Enterprise 

Architecture Policy; Section 6.1.2: Establish Enforcement Processes and Procedures 

Attribute: Provides capability to meet commitment 

Element: A process exists to formally manage EA change. 

The EA is not a static set of products, but rather a living tool that should change to 

reflect, for example, new technology opportunities and shifts in organizational constraints 

and business drivers. Accordingly, a formal process should be defined and implemented 

for introducing changes to the architecture. This process should recognize both internally 

and externally prompted change, and it should provide for continuous capture and 

analysis of change proposals and informed decision-making about whether to make 

changes. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 7.1.1: Reassess the Enterprise 

Architecture Periodically; Section 7.2: Continue to Consider Proposals for EA 

Modification 

Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process.

An organization should recognize that the EA is a critical frame of reference for making 

IT investment decisions. Using the EA when making investment decisions is important 

because the organization should approve only those investments that move the 

organization toward the target architecture, as defined in the sequencing plan. 

Our ITIM framework also addresses architecture within the context of ITIM’s five stages 

of investment management maturity.22 For example, at ITIM stage 2, an organization’s 

policies and procedures should provide for identifying the business needs (and the 

associated users) of each IT project and for ensuring that each IT project fits within the 

architecture (or be waived from this requirement). The business needs are typically 

contained in the EA business descriptions. 

At ITIM stage 3, an organization’s policies and procedures should provide for 

• specifying the relationship of its architecture to its IT decision-making authority; 

• specifying the link between the EA and IT portfolio selection criteria, which should take 

into account the EA so as to (1) avoid unwarranted overlap across investments and 

(2) maximize systems interoperability; and 

• reconciling differences between the organization’s EA and its IT investment portfolio. 

 22 U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for 

Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, Exposure Draft, GAO/AIMD-10.1.23 (May 2000). 
Page 24 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

At ITIM stage 4, the organization should periodically analyze its IT investment portfolio 

to ensure that its investments of IT resources are aligned with the current version of the 

architecture. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 6.1: Integrate the EA with Capital 

Planning and Investment Control and System Lifecycle Processes 

Attribute: Demonstrates satisfaction of commitment 

Element: EA products are periodically updated. 

Depending on the volume and degree of approved changes to the EA, an organization 

will need to periodically update its EA products. These updates generally reflect an 

accumulation of individually minor changes that (taken as a whole) represent a material 

change in the products. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 7.1.1: Reassess the Enterprise 

Architecture Periodically 

Element: IT investments comply with EA. 

An organization’s IT investments should be aligned and comply with the applicable 

components (e.g., business, information/data, and technical) of the current version of the 

EA, and should not be selected and approved under the organization’s capital planning 

and investment control process unless compliance is documented by the investment 

sponsor and substantiated by the architect assessment team. Moreover, this compliance is 

not a one-time event, but rather an integral part of the investment control process and the 

system life cycle management process. Exceptions to investments being architecturally 

compliant should be made only on the basis of compelling analytical justifications and 

should be documented in a waiver to the architecture. These waivers then form the basis 

for articulating change requests under the formal process for introducing change in the 

EA. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 6.1: Integrate the EA with Capital 

Planning and Investment Control and System Lifecycle Processes 

Element: Organization head has approved current version of the EA. 

The current version of the EA should ultimately be approved by the head of the 

organization. Such approval recognizes and endorses the architecture for what it is 

intended to be—a corporate tool for managing both business and technological change 

and transformation.

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 5.4: Approve, Publish, and 

Disseminate EA Products 
 

Page 25 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Attribute: Verifies satisfaction of commitment 

Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported. 

The EA is a strategic asset and, as such, should be viewed as an investment in the future. 

Like any investment, the EA should produce a return (i.e., a set of benefits), and this 

return on investment should be measured and reported in relation to costs. Measuring 

return on investment is important to ensure that expected benefits from the EA are 

realized and to share this information with executive decision-makers, who can then take 

corrective action to address deviations from expectations. To accomplish this, metrics 

need to be developed (such as costs avoided through elimination of duplicative or 

redundant investments) and processes need to be established to collect and report these 

data. 

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 8.2: Identify Where EA Program 

Expectations Are Not Being Met; Section 8.3: Take Appropriate Actions to Address 

Deviations; Section 8.4: Ensure Continuous Improvement 

Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported. 

Unless the EA is enforced, its value will not be fully realized. Thus, it is not only 

important to have a process in place to ensure compliance (as described in an earlier core 

element), it is also important to measure and report on the extent of compliance. To do so 

effectively, organizations should define metrics, such as number of compliance waivers 

requested and number granted, to track compliance. Through such measurement and 

reporting, relevant trends and anomalies can be identified, and corrective action can be 

taken.

Reference: CIO Council Practical Guide, Section 6.1: Integrate the EA with Capital 

Planning and Investment Control and System Lifecycle Processes 
Page 26 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Overall View of EAMMF Matrix 

Figure 6 depicts all the core elements and relates them to the applicable stages of 

maturity and critical success attributes. 
 

Page 27 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Figure 6: Summary of EAMMF Version 1.1: Maturity Stages, Critical Success Attributes, and Core Elements 

 

 

 

Stage 1: 

Creating 

EA 

awareness 

Stage 2: 

Building the EA 

management foundation 

Stage 3: 

Developing EA products

Stage 4: 

Completing EA products

Stage 5: 

Leveraging the EA 

to manage change

Attribute 1: 

Demonstrates 

commitment 

 Adequate resources exist. 

Committee or group 

representing the enterprise is 

responsible for directing, 

overseeing, or approving EA. 

Written and approved 

organization policy exists 

for EA development. 

Written and approved 

organization policy exists 

for EA maintenance. 

Written and 

approved 

organization policy 

exists for IT 

investment 

compliance with EA. 

Attribute 2: 

Provides 

capability to 

meet 

commitment 

 Program office responsible for 

EA development and 

maintenance exists. 

Chief architect exists. 

EA is being developed using a 

framework, methodology, and 

automated tool. 

EA products are under 

configuration 

management. 

EA products and 

management processes 

undergo independent 

verification and validation. 

Process exists to 

formally manage EA 

change. 

EA is integral 

component of IT 

investment 

management 

process. 

Attribute 3: 

Demonstrates 

satisfaction of 

commitment 

 EA plans call for describing 

both the “as-is” and the “tobe” environments of the 

enterprise, as well as a 

sequencing plan for 

transitioning from the “as-is” 

to the “to-be.” 

EA plans call for describing 

both the “as-is” and the “tobe” environments in terms of 

business, performance, 

information/data, 

application/service, and 

technology. 

EA plans call for business, 

performance, 

information/data, 

application/service, and 

technology descriptions to 

address security. 

EA products describe or 

will describe both the “asis” and the “to-be” 

environments of the 

enterprise, as well as a 

sequencing plan for 

transitioning from the “asis” to the “to-be.” 

Both the “as-is” and the 

“to-be” environments are 

described or will be 

described in terms of 

business, performance, 

information/data, 

application/service, and 

technology. 

Business, performance, 

information/data, 

application/service, and 

technology descriptions 

address or will address 

security. 

EA products describe 

both the “as-is” and the 

“to-be” environments of 

the enterprise, as well as 

a sequencing plan for 

transitioning from the “asis” to the “to-be.” 

Both the “as-is” and the 

“to-be” environments are 

described in terms of 

business, performance, 

information/data, 

application/service, and 

technology. 

Business, performance, 

information/data, 

application/service, and 

technology descriptions 

address security. 

Organization CIO has 

approved current version 

of EA. 

Committee or group 

representing the 

enterprise or the 

investment review board 

has approved current 

version of EA. 

EA products are 

periodically 

updated. 

IT investments 

comply with EA. 

Organization head 

has approved 

current version of 

EA.

Attribute 4: 

Verifies 

satisfaction of 

commitment 

 EA plans call for developing 

metrics for measuring EA 

progress, quality, compliance, 

and return on investment. 

Progress against EA plans 

is measured and reported. 

Quality of EA products is 

measured and reported. 

Return on EA 

investment is 

measured and 

reported. 

Compliance with EA 

is measured and 

reported. 

 maturation 

Source: GAO. 

Note: each stage includes all elements of previous stages. 
Page 28 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Section 3. Uses of EAMMF Version 1.1 

Potential users of the EAMMF include both internal and external stakeholders of a given 

enterprise. For federal agencies, primary internal stakeholders are agency senior 

executives, including the agency head, as well as the CIO and chief architect and their 

staffs. Primary external stakeholders are those with agency oversight responsibilities, 

such as parent departments, OMB, and congressional committees, as well as independent 

audit and evaluation organizations. 

As a model defining ascending levels of EA management maturity, the EAMMF can be 

used by these stakeholders in two principal ways. First, the framework can be used to 

provide a set of benchmarks against which to determine where the enterprise stands in its 

progress toward the ultimate goal: having architecture management capabilities that 

effectively facilitate institutional change (maturity Stage 5). Second, the framework can 

be used as the high-level basis for developing specific architecture management 

improvement plans, as well as for measuring, reporting, and overseeing progress in 

implementing these plans. 

Tool for Assessing EA Management Maturity 

By describing the elements of an effective EA management program, the EAMMF 

provides a benchmarking tool for judging an enterprise’s efforts to manage architecture 

development and use. Moreover, because the core elements of this framework are 

grounded in the CIO Council’s Practical Guide, a tool that has been widely accepted 

across the federal government, some agencies have adopted the EAMMF as a de facto

standard for measuring EA management maturity. 

Using the contents of the EAMMF as criteria, internal and external stakeholders can 

assess and consistently represent a given enterprise’s EA management strengths and 

weaknesses at a single point in time or over a period of time. Moreover, groups of 

enterprises can be assessed, represented, and compared. As a result, the framework 

enables users to identify and understand these strengths and weaknesses in a range of 

contexts: not only specific to a particular enterprise, but also across a group of related 

enterprises, such as a given department’s component agencies, all independent federal 

agencies, or sets of federal agencies, such as those that are of a particular size or that 

share a common mission (e.g., homeland security). 

When using the EAMMF as an assessment benchmarking tool, it is important to 

remember that achieving a given stage of management maturity requires the enterprise to 

satisfy all core elements at that stage, as well as those for each lower stage. The value of 

the EAMMF, however, goes beyond merely grading a given entity as being at a particular 

stage. It also extends to identifying the full range of specific strengths and weaknesses of 
 

Page 29 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

the enterprise’s EA management practices (i.e., which core elements are satisfied and 

which are not). This knowledge allows a given enterprise to build on its collective 

strengths in addressing its recognized weaknesses. 

Additionally, the EAMMF allows its users to assess and understand any enterprise, 

regardless of whether the enterprise is an entire organization (e.g., a federal department) 

or a component organization (e.g., a branch, bureau, or agency). That is, the EAMMF, 

like the CIO Council Practical Guide, is enterprise independent. The key consideration, 

however, is that the unit or scope of assessment needs to be clearly understood and 

defined before an EAMMF-based assessment is conducted. 

The amount and depth of the assessment against the EAMMF can vary, depending on the 

purpose of the assessment and the needs of its users. Accordingly, the EAMMF does not 

include a methodology or approach for applying the framework; for example, it leaves up 

to the users the extent to which they verify and validate that each core element is 

satisfied. 

EA Management Improvement Planning 

The progressive stages of the EAMMF provide a roadmap for incremental improvement 

of architecture management. In using this roadmap for planning, it is important to 

recognize that certain core elements are inherently dependent on others, requiring an 

ordered approach, whereas others do not exhibit such dependencies, so that the timing of 

their implementation is more flexible. 

Generally, lower EAMMF maturity stages provide the foundation for higher maturity 

stages. Some lower stage core elements serve as prerequisites for higher stage core 

elements. For example, EA plans established in Stage 2 serve as a prerequisite for 

measuring progress against those plans in Stage 3. 

However, certain higher stage core elements can be addressed, even though lower stage 

core elements have not been completely addressed. For example, an organization may 

have satisfied the Stage 5 core element of having a written and approved policy for EA 

maintenance without satisfying lower level core elements. Our use of the EAMMF has 

shown that it is not unusual for federal departments and agencies to have satisfied some 

core elements at multiple stages, even though not all have been addressed. 

Additionally, in using the EAMMF for improvement planning, it is important to 

remember that the framework, like the CIO Council Practical Guide, describes what

needs to be done, not how it needs to be done. Thus, when the EAMMF is used for 

management improvement, the framework remains just that: a framework within which to 

plan specific EA management steps, activities, processes, authorities, etc., and to 

subsequently measure, report, and oversee progress on each. To develop an EA 

management improvement plan that can be actually implemented, an enterprise needs to 

augment the framework with more detailed criteria, addressing, for example, the 

appropriate scope of work of an independent verification and validation agent or the 

attributes of an effective process for assessing a given investment’s architectural 

compliance. 
Page 30 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Further, in using the EAMMF for improvement planning, it is also important to 

remember that effective EA management is generally not achieved until an enterprise has 

a completed and approved architecture that is being effectively maintained and is being 

used to leverage organization change and support investment decision-making; having an 

architecture with these characteristics is equivalent to having satisfied many Stage 4 and 

5 core elements. At this point in the organization’s EA management maturation, 

management controls and structures are in place for using an approved architecture to 

guide and constrain its investments in IT. Even if an enterprise is at Stage 4, it is not fully 

exploiting an architecture unless it is also achieving certain Stage 5 core elements, such 

as having processes that use the EA in managing the IT investment portfolio and that 

ensure that IT investments comply with the EA. If these core elements are not in place, 

the EA will not be a tool for managing IT for institutional results. 
 

Page 31 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Appendix. Approach to Developing EAMMF Version 1.1 

Our primary goal in developing EAMMF Version 1.1 was to improve the content and 

usability of Version 1.0. To do this, we solicited comments and suggestions on Version 

1.0 from the 116 federal departments and agencies that participated in our 2001 survey of 

the state of the government’s use of enterprise architectures,23 as well as various other 

internal and external EA stakeholders, such as members of a GAO-sponsored IT 

management advisory group composed of IT executives from private industry, academia, 

and state governments. 

In our 2001 survey of federal departments and agencies, we solicited responses to a 

questionnaire addressing various EA management topics, and we compared these 

responses to EAMMF Version 1.0. This comparison showed that 84 percent of the 

departments and agencies were at maturity stage 1 or 2. Therefore, as a secondary goal in 

developing Version 1.1, we wanted to avoid invalidating the baseline data obtained in the 

2001 survey on the state of EA management in the federal government. Accordingly, in 

soliciting comments and suggestions from the 116 departments and agencies and various 

other EA stakeholders, we were mindful to balance the need to introduce missing core 

elements with the need not to significantly raise the bar for being at Stage 2. To this end, 

we asked that comments and suggestions for adding core elements be focused on Stages 4 

and 5, but we did not restrict any comments and suggestions for the framework. Other 

areas that we sought respondents’ input on were 

• experience with using the framework; 

• strengths and/or weaknesses of the framework; and 

• ways to improve the framework: 

• to make it more useful as a tool to define and measure an organization’s EA 

management maturity, 

• to ensure that the staged structure (and the corresponding core elements) of the 

framework is not unreasonably demanding, and 

• to explain the core elements sufficiently so that they are useful in assessing an 

agency’s enterprise architecture maturity. 

Of the 116 departments and agencies we contacted, 63 responded. Collectively, they 

provided about 300 comments and suggestions that we have incorporated as appropriate 

in Version 1.1. We categorized these comments and suggestions into the eight groups 

shown in table 2. 

 23 U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Enterprise Architecture Use Across the 

Federal Government Can Be Improved, GAO-02-6 (Washington, D.C.: February 2002). 
Page 32 GAO-03-584G Enterprise Architecture Management 

Table 2. Major Categories of Comments and Suggestions 

1. Link core elements to other relevant guidance (e.g., CIO Council Practical Guide, EA 

Frameworks) 

2. Include EA development, maintenance, and implementation 

3. Include EA return on investment 

4. Add core elements for measuring EA progress 

5. Include security 

6. Include maturity half-stages based on number of core elements satisfied (e.g., Stage 

1.5 for satisfying more than half but less than all of the core elements in Stage 2) 

7. Better define EAMMF 

8. Comments requiring no change 

Source: GAO. 

(310240)