ORGANIZATIONAL 

TRANSFORMATION

Enterprise 

Architecture Value 

Needs to Be Measured 

and Reported

Report to Congressional Committees

September 2012

GAO-12-791

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-791, a report to 

congressional committees 

September 2012 

ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION 

Enterprise Architecture Value Needs to Be 

Measured and Reported

Why GAO Did This Study

According to OMB, the federal 

executive branch plans to spend at 

least $75 billion on information 

technology (IT) investments in fiscal 

year 2012. In response to a statute

which mandates that GAO identify 

duplicative activities within federal 

agencies, GAO previously identified 

enterprise architecture as a 

mechanism for reducing duplication 

and overlap in investments. An 

architecture is a “blueprint” that 

describes how an organization 

operates in terms of business 

processes and technology, how it 

intends to operate in the future, and 

how it plans to transition to the future 

state. Knowing whether architecture 

outcomes are being achieved requires 

defining the architecture’s goals, 

establishing a method and metrics to 

measure architecture outcomes, and 

periodically measuring and reporting 

these outcomes. To assess agencies’ 

use of architecture as a mechanism for 

reducing duplication and overlap, GAO 

committed to determine the extent to 

which agencies are measuring and 

reporting architecture outcomes and 

benefits. To do this, GAO reviewed 

relevant documentation from 27 major 

federal agencies, reviewed the results 

of a GAO survey on the benefits of 

using architecture, and interviewed 

agency officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making recommendations to 

the agencies and OMB to improve 

measurement and reporting of 

architecture outcomes. In commenting 

on a draft of this report, OMB and most 

of the agencies generally agreed with 

the findings and recommendations. 

What GAO Found

Among the 27 agencies that GAO studied, all have fully or partially defined goals or 

purposes for their architectures, 11 have fully or partially established a method or

metrics for measuring outcomes resulting from the use of their architectures, while

5 have fully or partially measured and reported outcomes and benefits 

(see table).

Agency

Goals or 

purpose 

defined

Metrics and 

method

established

Outcomes and 

benefits periodically 

measured and 

reported

Agriculture ● ○ ○

Air Force ● ○ ○

Army ● ◐ ○

Commerce ● ◐ ○

Defense—Business Enterprise Architecture 

Defense—Enterprise Architecture 

●

●

○

○

○

○

Education ● ◐ ◐

Energy ● ○ ○

Health and Human Services ● ● ◐

Homeland Security ● ○ ○

Housing and Urban Development ● ● ◐

Interior ● ○ ○

Justice ● ○ ○

Labor ● ○ ○

Navy ● ○ ○

State ● ○ ○

Transportation ● ◐ ○

Treasury ● ◐ ◐

Veterans Affairs ◐ ○ ○

Environmental Protection Agency ● ○ ○

General Services Administration ● ◐ ○

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration ● ○ ○

National Science Foundation ● ○ ○

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ● ◐ ○

Officer of Personnel Management ● ◐ ○

Small Business Administration ● ○ ○

Social Security Administration ● ○ ○

United States Agency for International 

Development ● ● ●

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

Agencies cited a lack of guidance as a key reason why they have not established 

methods and metrics for measuring outcomes and benefits. Although the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued recent enterprise architecture 

guidance to agencies, OMB has not yet provided sufficient details on the method 

and metrics that could be used to measure architecture program outcomes. 

View GAO-12-791. For more information, 

contact Valerie C. Melvin at (202) 512-6304 or 

melvinv@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Letter 1 

Background 3

Almost All Agencies Had Defined the Purpose of Their 

Architectures, but Had Yet to Fully Measure and Report 

Outcomes and Benefits 12

Conclusions 21

Recommendations for Executive Action 22

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 23

Appendix I Objective, Scope, and Methodology 29

Appendix II Detailed Assessments of Individual Departments and 

Agencies against Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework 32

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Labor 63

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of the Treasury 64

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Agriculture 65

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Commerce 67

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Defense 68

Appendix VIII Comments from the Department of Education 70

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix IX Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 72

Appendix X Comments from the Department of the Interior 74

Appendix XI Comments from the Department of State 75

Appendix XII Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs 79

Appendix XIII Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 82

Appendix XIV Comments from the Social Security Administration 84

Appendix XV Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 86

Appendix XVI Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 87

Appendix XVII Comments from the Department of Energy 89

Appendix XVIII Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development 93

Appendix XIX GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 96
Page iii GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Tables

Table 1: Summary of Agencies’ Progress in Measuring and 

Reporting Enterprise Architecture Outcomes and Benefits 

Relative to Elements of GAO’s EAMMF (Version 2.0) 13

Table 2: Agencies Included in our Study 29

Table 3: Department of Agriculture Satisfaction of EAMMF 

Elements 33

Table 4: Department of the Air Force Satisfaction of EAMMF 

Elements 34

Table 5: Department of the Army Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 35

Table 6: Department of Commerce Satisfaction of EAMMF 

Elements 37

Table 7: DOD Business Enterprise Architecture Satisfaction of 

EAMMF Elements 38

Table 8: Department of Defense Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 39

Table 9: Department of Education Satisfaction of GAO EAMMF 

Elements 40

Table 10: Department of Energy Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 41

Table 11: Department of Health and Human Services Satisfaction of 

EAMMF Elements 42

Table 12: Department of Homeland Security Satisfaction of 

EAMMF Elements 43

Table 13: Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 44

Table 14: Department of the Interior Satisfaction of EAMMF 

Elements 46

Table 15: Department of Justice Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 47

Table 16: Department of Labor Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 48

Table 17: Department of the Navy Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 49

Table 18: Department of State Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 50

Table 19: Department of Transportation Satisfaction of EAMMF 

Elements 51

Table 20: Department of the Treasury Satisfaction of EAMMF 

Elements 52

Table 21: Department of Veterans Affairs Satisfaction of EAMMF 

Elements 53

Table 22: Environmental Protection Agency Satisfaction of EAMMF 

Elements 54

Table 23: General Services Administration Satisfaction of EAMMF 

Elements 55

Table 24: National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 56
Page iv GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 25: The National Science Foundation Satisfaction of EAMMF 

Elements 57

Table 26: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Satisfaction of EAMMF 

Elements 58

Table 27: Office of Personnel Management Satisfaction of EAMMF 

Elements 59

Table 28: Small Business Administration Satisfaction of EAMMF 

Elements 60

Table 29: Social Security Administration Satisfaction of EAMMF 

Elements 61

Table 30: U.S. Agency for International Development Satisfaction 

of EAMMF Elements 62
Page v GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Abbreviations

CIO chief information officer

Commerce Department of Commerce

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

EAMMF Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity 

Framework

Education Department of Education

Energy Department of Energy

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

Interior Department of the Interior

IT information technology

Justice Department of Justice

Labor Department of Labor

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NSF National Science Foundation

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

SBA Small Business Administration

SSA Social Security Administration

State Department of State

Transportation Department of Transportation 

Treasury Department of the Treasury 

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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-12-791 Organizational Transformation

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

September 26, 2012

The Honorable Joseph Lieberman

Chairman

The Honorable Susan Collins

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Darrell Issa

Chairman

The Honorable Elijah Cummings

Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on information technology (IT) 

investments each year; according to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), the executive branch plans to spend at least $75 billion in 

fiscal year 2012. We have previously reported that federal expenditures 

on IT could be reduced by, among other things, using enterprise 

architecture as a tool for organizational transformation.1

An enterprise architecture is a blueprint for organizational change defined 

in models that describe (in both business and technology terms) how the 

entity operates today and how it intends to operate in the future; it also 

includes a plan for transitioning to this future state. Effective use of an 

enterprise architecture is a hallmark of successful organizations and can 

be important to achieving operations and technology environments that 

maximize institutional mission performance and outcomes. Among other 

things, this includes realizing cost savings through consolidation and 

reuse of shared services and elimination of antiquated and redundant 

mission operations, enhancing information sharing through data 

standardization and system integration, and optimizing service delivery 

through streamlining and normalization of business processes and 

 

1

GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax 

Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). An 

interactive, web-based version of the report is available at 

http://www.gao.gov/ereport/gao-11-318SP. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

mission operations. Moreover, the use of architectures is required by the 

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and by OMB.2

In our March 2011 report on opportunities to reduce potential duplication 

in government programs,3 we identified enterprise architecture as a 

mechanism for identifying potential overlap and duplication. We noted 

that realizing this potential and knowing whether benefits are in fact being 

achieved from the use of an architecture requires associated measures 

and metrics. Accordingly, under the statutory requirement which 

mandates that GAO identify federal programs, agencies, offices, and 

initiatives with duplicative goals and activities within departments and 

government-wide,4

To address our objective, we analyzed 27 major departments’ and 

agencies’

we committed to study the extent to which federal 

departments and agencies are measuring and reporting enterprise 

architecture outcomes and benefits.

5 documents describing their enterprise architecture goals and 

purposes and their approaches to measuring and reporting architecture 

outcomes and benefits, such as their IT Strategic Plan, Enterprise 

Architecture Program Management Plan, and Enterprise Architecture 

Value Measurement Plan. We compared the agencies’ approaches to 

relevant elements of our Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity 

Framework (EAMMF).6

 

2

40 U.S.C. § 11315; The E-Government Act of 2002 also provided a more detailed 

definition of the concept and elements of enterprise architecture. See 44 U.S.C. §§ 

3601(4) and 3602; OMB Circular A-130 (Nov. 30, 2000); and Chief Information Officers 

Council, A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0 

(February 2001). 

Further, we reviewed outcomes reported to 

agency enterprise architecture oversight officials and analyzed responses 

to a 2011 GAO survey about the benefits associated with agencies’ 

architecture programs. We also discussed our analyses with and obtained 

testimonial evidence from cognizant agency officials. A more detailed 

3

GAO-11-318SP. 

4

Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 29 (2010), 31 U.S.C. § 712 Note. 

5

These 27 major departments and agencies are the 24 Chief Financial Officer Act entities 

identified in 31 U.S.C. § 901(b), as well as the Departments of the Air Force, Army, and 

Navy.

6

GAO, Organizational Transformation: A Framework for Assessing and Improving 

Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 2.0), GAO-10-846G (Washington, D.C.: 

August 2010).
 

Page 3 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

discussion of our objective, scope, and methodology is provided in 

appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 to September 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objective.

An enterprise architecture is a blueprint that describes the current and 

desired states of an organization or functional area in both logical and 

technical terms, as well as a plan for transitioning between the two states. 

An enterprise can be viewed as either a single organization or a 

functional area that transcends more than one organization. An 

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

any activity. Thus, enterprise architectures are systematically derived and 

captured descriptions depicted in models, diagrams, and narratives. More 

specifically, an architecture describes the enterprise in logical terms (such 

as interrelated business processes and business rules, information needs 

and flows, and work locations and users) as well as in technical terms 

(such as hardware, software, data, communications, security attributes, 

and performance standards). It provides these perspectives both for the 

enterprise’s current environment and for its target environment, and it 

provides a transition plan for moving from the current to the target 

environment. Enterprise architectures are a recognized tenet of 

organizational transformation and IT management in public and private 

organizations.

When employed in concert with other institutional management 

disciplines, such as strategic planning, portfolio-based capital planning 

and investment control, and human capital management, an enterprise 

architecture can greatly increase the chances of configuring an 

organization to promote agility and responsiveness, optimize mission 

performance and strategic outcomes, and address new federal initiatives 

like promoting open and participatory government and leveraging cloud 

computing.

Background
 

Page 4 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, among other things, requires federal 

agency chief information officers (CIO) to develop, maintain, and facilitate 

the implementation of IT architectures.7 Subsequent OMB guidance more 

broadly interpreted IT architecture as an enterprise architecture.8 In 

September 1999, the federal CIO Council published the Federal 

Enterprise Architecture Framework,9 which provided federal agencies 

with a common construct for their architectures to facilitate the 

coordination of common business processes, technology insertion, 

information flows, and system investments among federal agencies. The 

framework defined a collection of interrelated models for describing 

multiorganizational functional segments of the federal government.10

Further, in 2000 and 2001, the federal CIO Council developed enterprise 

architecture guidance focused on assessing an IT investment’s 

compliance with an architecture11 as well as guidance that addressed the 

end-to-end steps associated with developing, maintaining, and 

implementing an architecture program.12

OMB is responsible for overseeing the development of enterprise 

architectures within and across federal agencies.13

 

7

40 U.S.C. § 11315. According to GAO’s EAMMF, such architectures provide an important 

means of integrating business processes and agency goals with IT.

In February 2002, it 

8

See for example OMB, Information Technology Architectures, Memorandum M-97-16 

(June 18, 1997), rescinded with the update of OMB Circular A-130 (Nov. 30, 2000) , which 

requires that agencies document and submit their enterprise architecture to OMB. Chief 

Information Officers Council, Architecture Alignment and Assessment Guide (October 

2000). Chief Information Officers Council, A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise 

Architecture, Version 1.0 (February 2001).

9

Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 1.1 (September 1999). 

10The most recent revision to the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (Version 2.0) 

is included in OMB’s Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, which is 

discussed subsequently in this report.

11Chief Information Officers Council, Architecture Alignment and Assessment Guide 

(October 2000). 

12Chief Information Officers Council, A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, 

Version 1.0 (February 2001).

13The E-Government Act of 2002 provided a more detailed definition of the concept and 

elements of enterprise architecture and established the OMB Office of Electronic 

Government and assigned it, among other things, responsibilities for overseeing the 

development of enterprise architectures within and across federal agencies. See 44 

U.S.C. § 3601(4) and 44 U.S.C § 3602(f)(14).

Federal Legislation and 

OMB Guidance Pertaining 

to Establishment of an 

Enterprise Architecture
 

Page 5 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

established the Federal Enterprise Architecture program. According to 

OMB, the program is intended to facilitate government-wide improvement 

through cross-agency analysis and identification of duplicative 

investments, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration, interoperability, 

and integration within and across agency programs. Federal enterprise 

architecture reference models are intended to inform agency efforts to 

develop their agency-specific enterprise architectures and enable 

agencies to ensure that their proposed investments are not duplicative 

with those of other agencies and to pursue, where appropriate, joint 

projects. In 2007, OMB issued the Federal Enterprise Architecture 

Practice Guidance14

According to the latest version of OMB’s Enterprise Architecture 

Assessment Framework (version 3.1, dated June 2009),

to provide high-level overviews of architecture 

concepts, descriptions of the content included in architecture work 

products, and direction on developing and using architectures, including 

measuring enterprise architecture program value.

15

 

14OMB, Federal Enterprise Architecture Practice Guidance (November 2007).

its purpose is 

to provide the measurement areas and criteria for federal agencies to use 

in realizing architecture-driven performance improvements and outcomes 

(e.g., improving mission performance; saving money and avoiding costs; 

enhancing the quality of agency investment portfolios; improving the 

quality, availability, and sharing of data and information; and increasing 

the transparency of government operations). To accomplish this, the 

framework uses key performance indicators to assess architecture 

maturity or effectiveness relative to three capability areas—completion, 

use, and results. Each capability area contains a set of key performance 

indicators and associated outcomes, as well as criteria for gauging 

progress in meeting the outcomes. In particular, according to the 

framework, as part of the results capability area, agencies should 

measure actual results attributed to the architecture, and therefore the 

effectiveness and value of architecture activities. However, to reduce the 

reporting burden on agencies, in August 2009, OMB issued a 

memorandum that stated that agencies were no longer required to 

provide self-assessments of enterprise architecture completion, use, and 

results to OMB.

15OMB, Improving Agency Performance Using Information and Information Technology

(Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework v3.1) (June 2009).
 

Page 6 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

In May 2012, OMB released the Common Approach to Federal Enterprise 

Architecture16 to promote increased levels of mission effectiveness by 

standardizing the development and use of architectures within and 

between federal agencies. The approach stresses that enterprise 

architecture can enable service delivery, functional integration, and 

resource optimization, and can be an authoritative reference for the 

design and documentation of systems and services. According to a 

memorandum accompanying the Common Approach, each agency is to 

submit to OMB by August 31, 2012, an enterprise roadmap that covers 

fiscal years 2012 to 2015, to serve as an authoritative reference for IT 

portfolio reviews.17

As one of the elements intended to ensure that agency enterprise 

architecture programs can be effective in developing solutions that 

support planning and decision making, the guidance begins to lay out a 

Collaborative Planning Methodology. The methodology entails defining 

what benefits will be achieved, when those benefits will be achieved, and 

how those benefits will be measured, as well as measuring performance 

outcomes against identified metrics. The guidance emphasizes the 

importance of measuring the attainment of outcomes, so that the positive 

effects (added value) of the architecture program can be identified. 

Specifically, each agency’s roadmap is to document how the 

effectiveness and efficiency of the program will be measured. The 

guidance discusses the difference between outcome and output 

measures, and notes that while output measures are important for 

indicating an initiative’s progress, outcome measures are needed to 

indicate the attainment of goals. According to the Federal Chief 

The roadmap is to map the organization’s strategic 

goals to business services and integrate technology solutions across the 

agency’s lines of business. It is to discuss the overall architecture and 

identify performance gaps, resource requirements, planned solutions, 

transition plans, and a summary of the current and future architectures. It 

is also to describe the enterprise architecture governance process, 

implementation methodology, and documentation framework.

 

16OMB, The Common Approach To Federal Enterprise Architecture (May 2012).

17OMB, Memorandum for Federal Agency Chief Information Officers, Increasing Shared 

Approaches to Information Technology Services (Washington, D.C., May 2, 2012). 

Agencies will be required to submit an updated enterprise roadmap to OMB by April 1st

each year, beginning April 1, 2013.
 

Page 7 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Enterprise Architect, OMB plans to provide agencies more detailed 

guidance on measuring enterprise architecture value by December 2012.

To assist in developing this guidance, the Architecture Subcommittee of 

the CIO Council’s Strategy and Planning Committee has established a 

working group to develop an approach for measuring enterprise 

architecture value through identifying best practices from the public and 

private sectors.18 The group plans to draw upon research to create a 

value measurement program that aligns with the Collaborative Planning 

Methodology discussed in the Common Approach, and deliver a white 

paper to OMB on value measurement by the end of fiscal year 2012.

According to the Federal Chief Enterprise Architect, the working group’s 

recommendations will be considered for incorporation into the Common 

Approach. 

In August 2010, we issued an Enterprise Architecture Management 

Maturity Framework that provides federal agencies with a common 

benchmarking tool for assessing the management of their enterprise 

architecture efforts and developing improvement plans.19

In particular, core element 41 describes the practice of measuring and

reporting enterprise architecture outcomes. The architecture is a strategic 

asset that represents an investment in the organization’s future and is 

intended to produce strategic mission value (results and outcomes). 

Measuring the extent to which this expected value is actually being 

realized is important to identifying what, if any, enterprise architecture 

The framework 

includes 59 core elements, or building blocks, of enterprise architecture 

management. The core elements represent practices, structures, 

activities, and conditions that, when properly employed based on the 

unique facts and circumstances of each organization and the stated 

purpose of its enterprise architecture program, can permit that 

organization to maximize its chances of realizing an architecture’s 

institutional value. The core elements are categorized into seven 

hierarchical stages of management maturity and four critical success 

attribute representations.

 

18The CIO Council includes CIOs and Deputy CIOs from 28 federal agencies and is 

chaired by the Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director for Management. 

19GAO-10-846G. 

GAO’s Enterprise 

Architecture Management 

Maturity Framework
 

Page 8 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

program changes are warranted. Such value can be derived from 

realizing cost savings through consolidation and reuse of shared services 

and elimination of antiquated and redundant mission operations, 

enhancing information sharing through data standardization and system 

integration, and optimizing service delivery through streamlining and 

normalization of business processes and mission operations.

In addition, core element 58 specifies that enterprise architecture qualityand outcomes-measurement methods should be continuously improved. 

Organizations should periodically reevaluate their methods for assessing 

corporate and subordinate architecture quality and program outcomes 

and address the extent to which program measures and metrics are 

sufficiently measurable, meaningful, repeatable, consistent, actionable, 

and aligned with the architecture program’s strategic goals and intended 

purpose.

In 2002 and 2003, we reported on the status of enterprise architectures 

government-wide.20 We found that some federal agencies had begun to 

establish the management foundation needed to successfully develop, 

implement, and maintain an enterprise architecture, but that executive 

leadership was key to addressing management challenges identified by 

enterprise architecture programs: (1) overcoming limited executive 

understanding, (2) inadequate funding, (3) insufficient number of skilled 

staff, and (4) organizational parochialism. Accordingly, we made 

recommendations to OMB to improve enterprise architecture leadership 

and oversight. OMB responded to these recommendations by 

establishing its Chief Architects Forum to, among other things, share 

enterprise architecture best practices among federal agencies, and by 

developing an assessment tool, which it used to periodically evaluate 

enterprise architecture programs at federal agencies.

 

20GAO, Information Technology: Enterprise Architecture Use across the Federal 

Government Can Be Improved, GAO-02-6 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 19, 2002); Information 

Technology: Leadership Remains Key to Agencies Making Progress on Enterprise 

Architecture Efforts, GAO-04-40 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2003).

Prior GAO Work Has 

Highlighted Federal 

Agency Enterprise 

Architecture Challenges
 

Page 9 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

In 2006, we reviewed enterprise architecture management at 27 major 

federal departments and agencies.21

We have also reported on enterprise architecture management and 

development at several individual departments and agencies, including 

agencies that have demonstrated improvements to their architectures:

Our work showed that the state of 

architecture development and implementation varied considerably across 

departments and agencies, with some having more mature programs 

than others. Overall, most agencies had not reached a sufficient level of 

maturity in their enterprise architecture development, particularly with 

regard to their approaches to assessing each investment’s alignment with 

the architecture and measuring and reporting on architecture results and 

outcomes. Our 2006 report also noted that challenges we identified in our 

earlier reviews continued to present hurdles to effective implementation of 

enterprise architecture.

• In 2009, we reported that recent versions of the Department of 

Homeland Security’s (DHS) enterprise architecture had largely 

addressed our prior recommendations aimed at adding needed 

architectural depth and breadth.22

• Between 2009 and 2012, we conducted several reviews of the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) enterprise 

architecture and made a number of recommendations for 

Nonetheless, we concluded that 

important content, such as prioritized segments and information 

exchanges between critical business processes, was still missing from 

its architecture.

 

21GAO, Enterprise Architecture: Leadership Remains Key to Establishing and Leveraging 

Architectures for Organizational Transformation, GAO-06-831 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 

2006).

22GAO, Homeland Security: Despite Progress, DHS Continues to Be Challenged in 

Managing Its Multi-Billion Dollar Annual Investment in Large-Scale Information 

Technology Systems, GAO-09-1002T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2009).
 

Page 10 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

improvement.23

• In September 2011, we reported on the status of the three military 

departments’ (Air Force, Army, and Navy) architecture programs.

Over the course of these reviews, we found that HUD 

had made progress in establishing its architecture, although as of 

September 2012, the department had not yet finalized its updated

architecture policy, as we had recommended.

24

• In April 2012, we reported that the Social Security Administration 

(SSA) had developed an enterprise architecture for years 2011 

through 2016 that captured certain foundational information about the 

current and target environments to assist in evolving existing 

information systems and developing new systems; however, the 

architecture lacked important content that would allow the agency to 

more effectively plan its investments to reach its vision of modernized 

systems and operations.

We reported that while each of the military departments had longstanding efforts to develop and use enterprise architectures, they had 

much to do before their efforts could be considered mature. 

Accordingly, we recommended that the military departments each 

develop a plan for fully satisfying the elements of our framework. The 

Department of Defense (DOD) and the Army concurred with these 

recommendations, but the Air Force and Navy did not. In this regard, 

DOD stated that the Air Force and Navy did not have a valid business 

case that would justify the implementation of all the elements. 

However, we maintained that the recommendation was warranted. To 

date, none of the military departments have addressed our 

recommendations.

25

 

23GAO, Information Technology: HUD Needs to Strengthen Its Capacity to Manage and 

Modernize Its Environment, 

We recommended that SSA develop an 

GAO-09-675 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2009); Information 

Technology: HUD Needs to Better Define Commitments and Disclose Risk for 

Modernization Projects in Future Expenditure Plans, GAO-11-72 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 

23, 2010); Information Technology: HUD’s Expenditure Plan Satisfies Statutory 

Conditions, and Implementation of Management Controls Is Under Way, GAO-11-762 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2011); and HUD Information Technology: More Work 

Remains to Implement Necessary Management Controls, GAO-12-580T (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 29, 2012).

24GAO, Organizational Transformation: Military Departments Can Improve their Enterprise 

Architecture Programs, GAO-11-902 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2011).

25GAO, Social Security Administration: Improved Planning and Performance Measures 

Are Needed to Help Ensure Successful Technology Modernization, GAO-12-495 

(Washington, D.C: Apr. 26, 2012).
 

Page 11 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

enterprise architecture plan that included certain key elements. The 

agency responded that it would comply with recent direction from the 

Federal Chief Architect to deliver an enterprise architecture roadmap 

that meets OMB standards.

In addition to our evaluation of agency-specific enterprise architectures, we 

have reported on the need for federal agencies to measure and report 

architecture outcomes. Specifically, in March 2011, we reported that while 

some progress had been made in improving the content and use of 

departments’ and agencies’ architectures, more time was needed for 

agencies to fully realize the value of having well-defined and implemented 

architectures.26

In February 2012, we again reviewed the extent to which major federal 

agencies had reported financial benefits from the use of enterprise 

architecture. We found that four agencies (in addition to the Department 

of Interior) had done so. These four agencies were the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), which, facilitated by its architecture 

program, moved to a new telecommunications contract, resulting in a 

savings of about $21 million; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 

which avoided an estimated $1.3 million cost in 2011 by eliminating 

duplicative staff planning systems; DOD, which reported saving $179 

million between fiscal years 2008 and 2010 by streamlining Navy 

business operations, retiring legacy systems, and moving toward a realtime paperless business environment for processing vendor payments; 

and the Department of Agriculture, which reported savings of $27 million 

over 5 years (2011 through 2015) by moving 120,000 e-mail users to a 

cloud-based solution.

We noted that some agencies had reported that they were 

addressing the EAMMF core element associated with measuring and 

reporting enterprise architecture results and outcomes and had realized 

significant financial benefits. For example, we reported that the Department 

of the Interior had demonstrated that it was using its enterprise architecture 

to modernize agency IT operations and avoid costs through enterprise 

software license agreements and hardware procurement consolidation, 

which had resulted in reported financial benefits of at least $80 million. 

However, we concluded that over 50 percent of the departments and 

agencies had yet to fully address this element.

27

 

26

We also noted that 12 agencies had reported 

GAO-11-318SP. 

27Cloud computing is a form of computing that relies on Internet-based services and 

resources to provide computing services to customers.
 

Page 12 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

financial benefits but had not reliably measured them (i.e., they did not 

provide supporting documentation), and an additional 10 agencies had 

not reported financial benefits, although 8 of these agencies reported that 

they had established or expected to establish a process to measure 

benefits in the future.28

Most of the 27 major agencies in our current study had yet to periodically 

(i.e., regularly and repeatedly, such as monthly, quarterly or annually) 

measure and report enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits. Our 

framework29 recognizes that knowing whether architecture outcomes are 

being achieved requires an approach to measuring the value of 

architecture activities that includes defining the architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals; establishing metrics along with a method to 

measure architecture outcomes and benefits; and periodically measuring 

and reporting to the agency’s architecture executive committee 

(executive-level representatives from each line of business, who have the 

authority to commit resources) these outcomes and benefits. While all

agencies had fully or partially defined their architecture’s strategic goals 

or intended purpose, only 3 had fully and 8 had partially established 

metrics and a method to measure outcomes and benefits. Of the 

agencies that fully or partially established a method and metrics, 4 had 

measured and reported outcomes only once, and 1 had periodically (e.g., 

monthly) reported on outcomes and benefits. A summary of the 27 

agencies’ progress in measuring and reporting architecture outcomes and 

benefits is presented in table 1. For detailed assessments of individual 

departments and agencies against relevant elements of our framework, 

see appendix II.

 

28GAO, Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce Duplication, 

Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-453SP 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).

29GAO-10-846G. 

Almost All Agencies 

Had Defined the 

Purpose of Their 

Architectures, but 

Had Yet to Fully 

Measure and Report 

Outcomes and 

Benefits
 

Page 13 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 1: Summary of Agencies’ Progress in Measuring and Reporting Enterprise Architecture Outcomes and Benefits 

Relative to Elements of GAO’s EAMMF (Version 2.0)

Agency

The enterprise 

architecture’s 

strategic goals 

or intended 

purpose are 

defined

Metrics and a method 

have been established to 

measure enterprise 

architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes 

and benefits)

Enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits 

are periodically 

measured and reported 

to the architecture 

executive committee

Department of Agriculture ● ○ ○

Department of the Air Force ● ○ ○

Department of the Army ● ◐ ○

Department of Commerce ● ◐ ○

Department of Defense – Business Enterprise Architecture

Department of Defense - Enterprise Architecturea ●

●

○

○

○

○

Department of Education ● ◐ ◐

Department of Energy ● ○ ○

Department of Health and Human Services ● ● ◐

Department of Homeland Security ● ○ ○

Department of Housing and Urban Development ● ● ◐

Department of the Interior ● ○ ○

Department of Justice ● ○ ○

Department of Labor ● ○ ○

Department of the Navy ● ○ ○

Department of State ● ○ ○

Department of Transportation ● ◐ ○

Department of the Treasury ● ◐ ◐

Department of Veterans Affairs ◐ ○ ○

Environmental Protection Agency ● ○ ○

General Services Administration ● ◐ ○

National Aeronautics and Space Administration ● ○ ○

National Science Foundation ● ○ ○

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ● ◐ ○

Office of Personnel Management ● ◐ ○

Small Business Administration ● ○ ○

Social Security Administration ● ○ ○

US Agency for International Development ● ● ●

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

● Satisfied ◐ Partially Satisfied ○ Not Satisfied 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Note: Agencies fully satisfied the relevant elements of our framework by providing sufficient 

documentation to verify that all aspects of the elements were met. Agencies partially satisfied the 

elements by providing documentation to verify that at least some aspect of the elements was 

satisfied. Elements that were neither fully nor partially satisfied were judged to be not satisfied. 

a

According to DOD, the DOD Enterprise Architecture is a federation of descriptions that provide 

context and rules for accomplishing the mission of the department, and the DOD Business Enterprise 

Architecture is the blueprint to guide and constrain investments as they relate to or impact business 

operations. 

Before an agency knows what outcomes it should measure, it needs to 

define the purpose or expected value (i.e., goals) of its architecture. The 

purpose can include, among other things, consolidating the organization’s 

IT infrastructure, normalizing and integrating its data and promoting 

information sharing, reengineering core business or mission functions and 

processes, modernizing applications and sharing services, modernizing 

the entire IT environment, and transforming how the organization 

operates. Expected value from implementation of enterprise architecture 

can include, for example, reduced operating costs, enhanced ability to 

quickly and less expensively change to meet shifting external 

environment and new business demands or opportunities, or improved 

alignment between operations and strategic goals. Twenty-six of the 

agencies we reviewed had fully defined their architecture goals or 

purposes. The following are examples of the goals or purposes defined 

by these agencies:

• The Department of Energy’s goals include identifying, reusing, and 

leveraging, where possible, existing and planned technology and 

infrastructure components across the department and identifying 

areas, through capital planning and investment control and enterprise 

architecture integration analysis, to reduce costs, identify redundancy, 

and increase system and process effectiveness.

• HHS’s goals include enabling improved mission and business 

outcomes by providing products to support sound decisions, business 

processes, and effective solutions; enabling the optimized use of 

resources; and increasing interoperability and information sharing 

within HHS and between HHS and external stakeholders.

• HUD’s goals include improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the 

department’s programs; simplifying its IT environments by promoting 

standards and sharing and reusing common technologies; improving 

interoperability by establishing enterprise-wide standards; and 

reducing system development and operation and maintenance costs 

Almost All Agencies Had 

Defined the Goals or 

Purposes of Their 

Enterprise Architecture
 

Page 15 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

by eliminating duplicative investments, promoting sharing of common 

services, and establishing department-wide standards.

• The Department of Justice’s purpose includes identifying redundant 

legacy programs to either retire or migrate to an enterprise solution, 

thereby reducing the complexity and cost of the IT environment.

• The Department of Labor’s purpose is to use its enterprise 

architecture process with its capital planning and investment 

management process to ensure that investments support strategic 

goals and are not duplicative of existing business solutions. Using this 

approach, the department plans to identify duplicative resources and 

investments, gaps, and opportunities for internal and external 

collaboration resulting in operational improvements and cost-effective 

solutions to business requirements.

• The Department of Transportation’s goal is to use its architecture as a 

decision-making tool to support business plan development and 

identify areas of duplication and inefficiencies in the department.

• The General Services Administration’s (GSA) goals are to increase 

system interoperability and cost efficiencies, reduce duplication, and 

increase innovation.

• The National Science Foundation’s goals include improving utilization 

of IT resources by eliminating duplicative investments and promoting 

the sharing of common services and standards.

• The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) goals 

include facilitating analysis of the agency’s IT environment, including 

IT hardware, software, and enterprise applications, to promote the 

effective and efficient deployment of IT services.

However, one agency (Department of Veterans Affairs) had only partially 

defined its architecture’s purpose. The Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA) is in the process of developing an architecture program overview 

statement and guiding principles. Specifically, according to draft 

documentation, the department’s architecture is to guide efficient, 

effective, and interoperable implementation of the department’s vision of 

providing seamless delivery of benefits and services to veterans. 

According to department officials, these architecture principles are 

expected to be finalized and formally released by September 30, 2012.
 

Page 16 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Because they had defined the goals or purposes of their architectures, 

almost all of the agencies had taken an important first step toward 

establishing metrics and a method for measuring architecture outcomes 

and benefits.

Measuring the extent to which the expected value is actually being 

realized is important to identifying what, if any, architecture program 

changes are warranted. According to our framework, agencies should 

establish measurable, meaningful, repeatable, consistent, and actionable 

metrics that align with the architecture’s intended purpose or strategic 

goals and document a methodology that provides the steps to be followed 

to consistently and repeatedly measure architecture outcomes and 

benefits. Further, according to OMB guidance, metrics should measure 

outcomes (i.e., results of products and services such as benefits to 

Congress and the American taxpayer), or expected value, rather than 

output (i.e., direct products and services).

Of the federal agencies that we reviewed, three had fully established 

metrics and a method to measure architecture outcomes and benefits, 

while eight had partially done so. Specifically, HHS, HUD, and USAID had 

fully established metrics and a method for measuring and reporting 

enterprise outcomes and benefits.

• HHS had established a metric to measure the extent to which it 

increases the number of services that are reused based on its 

enterprise architecture service component reference model.30

• HUD had established a method and metrics to measure the extent to 

which the department decreases the number of technology products 

that duplicate existing capabilities and the extent to which it has 

decreased the number of obsolete systems in its IT inventory, using 

its enterprise architecture. The department had also established the 

steps to measure results and outcomes, including identifying 

appropriate sources, and determining baseline, target, and actual 

value measurements.

The 

department had also established a method for how the metrics are to 

be measured, including how they are to be calculated, the data 

sources to be used, and targets to be achieved.

 

30A service component reference model identifies and classifies IT service components. 

More than Half of the 

Agencies Had Not Yet 

Established Metrics and a 

Method for Measuring 

Enterprise Architecture 

Value
 

Page 17 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

• USAID had established metrics and guidance for measuring 

enterprise architecture outcomes, including cost savings and 

avoidance due to process efficiency, technology standardization, 

retirement, and consolidation.

Partial steps had been taken by the other eight agencies. Specifically, 

one agency (Army) had established a metric and method—for measuring 

the extent to which it reduces the number of applications within data 

centers— but only for one of its three segment architectures. The other 

seven agencies had established metrics but not a method for measuring 

and reporting architecture outcomes and benefits. The metrics for each of 

the seven agencies are described below.

• Commerce established as a metric the IT cost reduction associated 

with adopting enterprise-wide standards.

• Education established a metric to measure spending on development, 

modernization, and enhancement relative to steady-state spending 

(i.e., the cost to maintain current systems and technologies).

• Transportation established an expected architecture outcome of 

reduced total cost of ownership of IT investments, and planned to 

measure cost savings and/or cost avoidance identified through 

reviews of business processes, data, applications, and technology.

• Treasury established architecture metrics associated with its data 

center consolidation initiative, including the extent to which it 

decreases the number of servers, increases the percentage of 

operating systems that are virtual, and decreases the demand for data 

center square footage.

• GSA established as a metric the extent to which the agency is 

increasing its use of IT standards.

• NRC established a metric to measure progress toward having 

common access controls by measuring the reduction in passwords 

and sign-ons.

• Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has established cost savings 

as a metric to measure architecture outcomes.

The remaining 16 agencies in our study had not established metrics or a 

method for measuring architecture outcomes. While some of these 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

agencies had established metrics that measure output, such as the 

percentage or number of segments and solution architectures or 

architecture artifacts that have been reviewed and approved by the 

enterprise architecture program, these metrics do not measure outcomes 

(i.e., results of enterprise architecture products and services such as 

benefits to Congress and the American taxpayer) of the program.

Without established metrics and a method to measure architecture 

outcomes, agencies cannot ensure that they are able to consistently and 

repeatedly measure outcomes.

Using established metrics and a documented method, architecture 

outcomes should be periodically measured and reported to senior 

executives. We have previously found that executive leadership was key to 

addressing management challenges identified by enterprise architecture 

programs, such as overcoming limited executive understanding and 

inadequate funding. As such, architecture outcomes and benefits should be 

periodically reported to senior agency executives who are responsible for 

making decisions about the architecture program and whether to invest 

additional resources or make changes to the program.

Of the 27 agencies in our review, 1 had consistently and repeatedly 

measured and reported, using established metrics, outcomes of its 

architecture program. Specifically, USAID had reported monthly the 

measured outcomes to its CIO and through an internal agency website 

established for CIO staff. Outcomes reported include cost savings of 

$12.3 million and cost avoidance of $9.5 million as a result of transitioning 

disparate human resource systems to a human resource shared services 

center using enterprise architecture. The agency also reported estimated 

savings of $15.7 million from moving its e-mail service to a cloud-based 

solution, which was recommended by the architecture team to replace 

multiple installations of the current e-mail solution.

Two other agencies had measured and reported outcomes with an 

established method, but did so only once. Specifically,

• HHS determined, based on its enterprise architecture service 

component reference model, and reported to the CIO in November 

2010 that 16 percent of its services were reused. However, the 

department had not measured the metric again and thus did not know 

the extent to which it had increased its reuse of services since 2010.

Five Agencies Had Fully or 

Partially Measured and 

Reported Architecture 

Value
 

Page 19 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

• HUD measured and submitted its architecture value measurement 

report for fiscal year 2011 to a department executive committee in 

August 2012, and highlighted areas, based on measurements, where 

additional focus and improvement are needed. For example, the 

report noted that HUD had not decreased the number of technology 

products in its enterprise architecture technical reference model31

While two additional agencies, as described below, had also measured 

and reported architecture outcomes once, they did so without an 

established method for measuring outcomes, but rather in an ad hoc 

manner.

that 

duplicate existing capabilities. 

• Education reported in its October 2011 Office of the CIO Organization 

Performance Review report that development, modernization, and 

enhancement funding in the IT portfolio increased from 10 percent of 

total IT spending in fiscal year 2011, to 13 percent of total IT spending 

in fiscal year 2012 through use of the department’s architecture 

segment modernization planning process. However, Education had 

not established a method for measuring and reporting architecture 

outcomes and benefits. As a result, it cannot ensure that it will be able 

to consistently and repeatedly measure architecture outcomes over 

time.

• Treasury reported in its E-Government Act Report for fiscal year 2011 

that its enterprise architecture plans focused on reducing duplication 

through its data center consolidation initiative. Accordingly, it reported 

through its CIO to OMB a reduction of 1,283 in the number of servers, 

an increase from 25 percent to 36 percent of operating systems that 

were virtualized, and a reduction in data center square footage of 

15,896 between 2010 and 2011. However, Treasury had not 

established a method for measuring and reporting architecture 

outcomes and benefits. As a result, it cannot ensure that it will be able 

to consistently and repeatedly measure outcomes over time.

The remaining agencies (22) had not yet measured and reported 

architecture outcomes to senior executives. Agencies generally cited two 

reasons why they had not done so. Specifically, agencies had not 

 

31A Technical Reference Model describes the standards, specifications, and technologies 

that support the delivery of service components. 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

determined how to attribute discrete outcomes to enterprise architecture 

when other activities, such as strategic planning, capital planning, and 

project management may have contributed to the outcomes. In addition, 

agencies cited an absence of guidance and best practices for how to 

measure enterprise architecture outcomes. As discussed in the next 

section, OMB has issued recent enterprise architecture guidance to 

agencies, but has not yet provided sufficient details on the method and 

metrics that could be used to measure architecture program outcomes.

Collectively, this means that while efforts are underway, without the use 

of associated measures and metrics by the majority of agencies, the 27 

major departments and agencies are not positioned to know whether 

outcomes and benefits are in fact being achieved. Until agencies 

establish an approach for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes, 

including a documented method (i.e., steps to be followed) and metrics 

that are measurable, meaningful, repeatable, consistent, actionable, and 

aligned with the agency’s enterprise architecture’s strategic goals and 

intended purpose; and measure and report enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits to top agency officials and to OMB, agency senior 

executives are less likely to be sufficiently informed about whether to 

invest additional resources or make changes to the enterprise 

architecture program.

The E-Government Act of 2002 assigned OMB the responsibilities for 

overseeing the development of enterprise architectures within and across 

the federal agencies. Since then, OMB has issued guidance and 

frameworks for developing and using architectures, including a May 2012 

policy and guidance on establishing a common approach to developing 

and using enterprise architectures within and between federal agencies. 

The policy required each federal agency to submit by August 31, 2012, an 

enterprise roadmap that reports, among other things, how architecture 

program effectiveness and efficiency will be measured. However, while 

this guidance begins to describe an approach for collaboratively 

identifying, planning for, achieving, and measuring needed organizational 

outcomes (called the Collaborative Planning Methodology) and discusses 

the difference between outcome and output measures, it does not provide 

sufficient details on the method and metrics that could be used to 

measure architecture program outcomes.

As we noted earlier, according to our framework a methodology should 

provide the steps to be followed to consistently and repeatedly measure 

architecture outcomes and benefits. While OMB’s collaborative planning 

OMB’s Guidance to 

Agencies Lacks Sufficient 

Details on Measuring 

Enterprise Architecture 

Value
 

Page 21 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

methodology emphasizes the importance of measuring benefits and 

describing how they will be measured when planning for and executing 

collaborative projects, it does not call for specific metrics to be used or 

identify steps to be followed to consistently and repeatedly measure 

outcomes and benefits. Further, OMB does not call for agency roadmaps 

to include measurement methods and metrics, and reports on specific 

outcomes and benefits that an agency has achieved or plans to achieve.

In discussing this matter, the Federal Chief Enterprise Architect agreed with 

our assessment but stated that the methodology was not intended to be 

guidance on measuring architecture value and that more detailed guidance 

was being developed. According to the Federal Chief Architect, the detailed 

guidance on measuring enterprise architecture value is expected to be 

provided to agencies by December 2012, in time to facilitate the 

development of their next roadmap submissions, due in April 2013.

With the development of clear and sufficiently detailed guidance on 

measuring outcomes by OMB, agencies may be better positioned to 

develop methods and metrics for measuring and reporting the strategic 

value produced by their enterprise architecture programs. Moreover, with 

reports about architecture outcomes and benefits, agency executives 

could increase their understanding of the architecture programs, such that 

warranted changes could be addressed, or the need for expanded 

architecture development and use may be able to be economically 

justified. An established method and metrics to measure outcomes and 

benefits will enable agencies to repeatedly and consistently measure and 

report the extent to which they are achieving value.

Enterprise architecture value has yet to be measured and reported across 

the majority of the federal agencies. While most of the agencies reviewed 

have defined their architecture’s goals or purpose, the majority had yet to 

establish metrics and a method for measuring and reporting architecture 

value. This means that while efforts are underway, the majority of the 

agencies do not know the extent to which they are realizing benefits that 

they have set out to achieve, such as cost savings or avoidance through 

eliminating duplicative investments. Furthermore, most of the agencies 

had not measured and reported outcomes to stakeholders or agency 

executives. Without measurable, meaningful, repeatable, consistent, and 

actionable metrics that align with the architecture’s strategic goals or 

intended purpose and a documented methodology that provides the steps 

to be followed to consistently and repeatedly measure outcomes and 

benefits, senior agency executives may not have the information needed 

Conclusions
 

Page 22 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

to determine whether to invest additional resources or make changes to 

the program. OMB’s forthcoming guidance is an opportunity to overcome 

the absence of detailed directions to agencies on how they can measure 

and report enterprise architecture strategic value.

To enhance federal agencies’ ability to realize enterprise architecture 

benefits, we recommend the following actions.

We recommend that the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, 

the Air Force, the Army, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, 

Homeland Security, the Interior, Labor, the Navy, State, Transportation, 

the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Attorney General; the 

Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, General Services 

Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and 

Small Business Administration; the Commissioners of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission and Social Security Administration; and the 

Directors of the National Science Foundation and the Office of Personnel 

Management ensure the following two actions are taken:

• fully establish an approach for measuring enterprise architecture 

outcomes, including a documented method (i.e., steps to be followed) 

and metrics that are measurable, meaningful, repeatable, consistent, 

actionable, and aligned with the agency’s enterprise architecture’s 

strategic goals and intended purpose; and

• periodically measure and report enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits to top agency officials (i.e., executives with authority to 

commit resources or make changes to the program) and to OMB.

In addition, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Departments of 

Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development 

ensure that enterprise architecture outcomes are periodically measured 

and reported to top agency officials.

To assist agencies in measuring and reporting outcomes achieved 

through enterprise architecture, we recommend that the Director of OMB 

ensure that the planned December 2012 guidance for enterprise 

architecture value measurement and reporting includes

• sufficient details on the method and metrics that agencies could use 

to measure their architecture program’s value and

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 23 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

• a requirement for agencies to include in their April 2013 enterprise 

roadmap submissions a measurement method (i.e., steps to be 

followed) and metrics, and report on the outcomes and benefits 

achieved through enterprise architecture.

We received comments on a draft of this report from OMB and the 2432

agencies in our study. OMB’s Federal Chief Enterprise Architect stated in 

oral comments and via e-mail that OMB agreed with the report and the 

recommendations. Among the agencies in our study, 5 responded via email that they had no comments on our draft report.33

Among the remaining agencies, 13 agreed with our results. These 

comments are summarized below.

One of these 

agencies—USAID—provided technical comments, which we incorporated 

as appropriate. An additional 2 agencies provided letters stating that they 

had no comments on our draft report. Specifically, Labor’s Assistant

Secretary for Administration and Management stated in a written 

response (reproduced in appendix III) that the department had no 

comments, and Treasury’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information 

Systems and Chief Information Officer stated in a written response 

(reproduced in appendix IV) that the department had no comments on the 

draft report but appreciated GAO’s efforts in its development. 

• USDA’s Acting Chief Information Officer stated in written comments 

that the department concurred with our findings and recommendations

and plans to develop metrics and guidance to comply with OMB 

guidance on measuring enterprise architecture, when it is provided. 

USDA’s written comments are reproduced in appendix V. 

• Commerce’s Acting Secretary stated in written comments that the 

department agreed with the general findings and specific 

recommendations as they relate to the department. Commerce’s 

written comments are reproduced in appendix VI.

• DOD’s Deputy CIO for Information stated in written comments that the 

department concurred with our recommendations and is developing 

 

32 DOD included comments from the departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy.

33Transportation, GSA, NSF, and NRC and USAID.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 24 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

an enterprise architecture management plan that provides high-level 

processes, including to measure architecture outcomes. DOD’s 

written comments are reproduced in appendix VII.

• Education’s CIO stated in written comments that the department 

concurred with our recommendations and described steps the 

department plans to take to address the recommendations. For

example, the department plans to develop, document, and implement 

a measurement and reporting method that will be used to periodically 

monitor its progress toward achieving goals, desired outcomes, and 

benefits. The department also provided technical comments that we 

have incorporated, as appropriate, in the report. Education’s written 

comments are reproduced in appendix VIII. 

• DHS’s Director, Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office, stated in 

written comments that the department concurred with our 

recommendations and described actions it plans to take to address 

them. For example, DHS stated that it plans to brief architecture 

outcomes for the goals and objectives outlined in the strategic plan to 

the CIO by October 31, 2012. DHS’s written comments are 

reproduced in appendix IX.

• Interior’s Assistant Secretary for Policy Management and Budget 

stated in written comments that the department concurred with our 

recommendations. Interior’s written comments are reproduced in 

appendix X. 

• A Management Analyst in Justice’s audit liaison group commented via 

e-mail that the department agreed with our recommendations. The 

official also provided technical comments that we have incorporated, 

as appropriate. 

• State’s Comptroller provided written comments which noted that the 

department concurred with our conclusions and recommendations, 

and described steps being taken or planned to address the 

recommendations. For example, the department plans to implement, 

in fiscal year 2013, a metric to measure reduction in the percentage of 

information exchange elements between critical management 

systems through use of its enterprise architecture. State’s written 

comments are reproduced in appendix XI.

• VA’s Chief of Staff stated in written comments that the department 

generally agreed with our conclusions and concurred with the 

recommendations. The department also described actions it had 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

taken in fiscal year 2012 to re-establish its enterprise architecture 

program and actions it plans to take to continue to mature the 

program in fiscal year 2013 that would begin to address our 

recommendations. VA’s written comments are reproduced in 

appendix XII. 

• NASA’s CIO stated in written comments that the agency concurred 

with the recommendations, and described steps the agency plans to 

take to address them. For example, NASA plans to revise, by June 

2013, its procedural requirements to better align architecture metrics 

and methods to measure outcomes. NASA’s written comments are 

reproduced in appendix XIII.

• SSA’s Deputy Chief of Staff stated in written comments that the 

agency agreed with the recommendations. SSA’s written comments 

are reproduced in appendix XIV. 

• EPA’s Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer stated in 

written comments that the agency agrees with our findings and 

described steps it plans to take to address our recommendations. 

For example, it plans to develop a performance measurement plan, 

which will identify processes to measure enterprise architecture 

outcomes. EPA’s written comments are reproduced in appendix XV.

• HHS’s Assistant Secretary for Legislation in written comments stated 

that the department concurred with our findings and described actions 

it is taking, and plans to take, to improve architecture value 

measurement. HHS’s written comments are reproduced in appendix 

XVI. 

The remaining four agencies provided comments that expressed 

concerns with certain aspects of our results. These comments are 

summarized below.

• Energy’s Chief Architect provided written comments in which the 

department stated that it had established metrics and a method for 

measuring architecture value and that its efforts justify a partiallysatisfied rating. However, our study found that, although the 

department has submitted its Enterprise Modernization Roadmap to 

OMB, the roadmap includes potential architecture program metrics 

that are still being defined and have yet to be finalized and approved. 

The department also stated that it had achieved several 

accomplishments which justified a partially-satisfied rating for 

measuring and reporting architecture outcomes and benefits. In this 
 

Page 26 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

regard, the department highlighted accomplishments such as 

collecting and reporting architecture success stories to a working-sub 

group of its Information Technology Council, which includes seniorlevel IT management from the offices of the Chief Financial Officer 

and the CIO. However, we found that these accomplishments and 

success stories are not based on an established set of metrics and a 

documented, consistently applied methodology for measuring and 

reporting architecture outcomes. As a result, the department cannot 

ensure that it will be able to consistently and repeatedly measure 

outcomes over time. Thus, we stand by our findings. Energy’s written 

comments are reproduced in appendix XVII.

• HUD’s CIO provided written comments on the report stating that the 

department has complied with our recommendation that enterprise 

architecture outcomes be periodically measured and reported to top 

agency officials. Specifically, the department stated the fiscal year 

2011 report on outcomes was submitted to an executive committee in 

August 2012. It also stated that an EA Value Measurement Plan will 

be issued annually and results of the measures in the plan will be 

documented in an annual report for the fiscal year. However, while the 

department has completed and submitted its first report (i.e., for fiscal 

year 2011) to an executive committee, it has yet to measure and 

report on the metrics again, and therefore does not know the extent to 

which it has achieved its target outcomes. In addition, the official 

commented on the statement in the background of our report that the 

department had not yet finalized its architecture policy, as we had 

previously recommended. The official commented that a policy has 

been in place since April 2002. However, as the official stated, its 

updated policy has yet to be approved. As a result, we stand by the 

statement. HUD’s written comments are reproduced in appendix 

XVIII.

• A Senior Analyst, e-mailing on behalf of OPM’s Office of the CIO, 

provided comments in which the agency stated that savings through 

enterprise architecture are being measured and reported. However, it 

provided no evidence to support this statement and stated that more 

information will be available once the department implements a 

revised enterprise architecture roadmap, expected by the end of 

December 2012. As a result, we did not change our finding. 

• A Program Manager in SBA’s Office of Congressional and Legislative 

Affairs provided e-mail comments. Specifically, in comments on our 

finding that stated the agency had not defined its enterprise 

architecture strategic goals or intended purpose, SBA stated that its 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

architecture’s purpose and goals are defined and it provided 

supporting documentation in this regard. In response, we updated the 

finding and recommendation accordingly. In comments on our finding 

that the agency had not established a method or metrics to measure 

outcomes and benefits, SBA provided its Capital Planning and 

Investment Control Policy Guide and its fiscal year 2011 Summary of 

Performance and Financial Information. However, neither of these 

documents demonstrated a method and metrics for measuring 

architecture outcomes. In comments on our finding that the agency is 

not periodically measuring architecture outcomes and benefits, the 

agency stated that outcomes are measured and reported as part of 

the integrated enterprise architecture-capital planning and investment 

control effort through the Business Technology Investment Advisory 

Committee and the Business Technology Investment Council. While 

the agency provided some documentation, it did not provide 

requested examples of reports submitted to the officials. The agency 

also added that outcomes are reported in its annual performance 

report and provided documentation. While we agree that some 

outcomes are documented, the report does not highlight architecturerelated outcomes, and SBA did not provide documentation linking the 

outcomes to its enterprise architecture. Therefore, we did not change 

our findings relative to establishing a method and metrics and 

measuring and reporting architecture outcomes.
 

Page 28 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional 

committees; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the 

Secretaries of Agriculture, the Air Force, the Army, Commerce, Defense, 

Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, 

Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, the Navy, State, 

Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Attorney General; 

the Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, General 

Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

Small Business Administration, and U.S. Agency for International 

Development; the Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

and the Social Security Administration; and the Directors of the National 

Science Foundation and Office of Personnel Management. In addition, 

the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have questions on matters discussed in this report, 

please contact me at (202) 512-6304 or melvinv@gao.gov. Contact points 

for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 

found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix XIX. 

Valerie C. Melvin 

Director

Information Management and 

Technology Resources Issues
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 29 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Our objective was to determine the extent to which federal agencies are 

measuring and reporting enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits. 

To accomplish the objective, we focused on 28 enterprise architecture 

programs relating to 27 major departments and agencies. These 27 

included the 24 departments and agencies identified in the Chief 

Financial Officers Act,

1 as well as the Departments of the Air Force, 

Army, and Navy. At the Department of Defense (DOD), we reviewed two 

department-wide architecture programs—the Business Enterprise 

Architecture and the DOD Enterprise Architecture. Table 2 identifies the 

agencies included in our study. These agencies were also included in our 

2006 review of agencies’ management maturity.2

Table 2: Agencies Included in Our Study

 

Agency

Department of Agriculture

Department of the Air Force

Department of the Army

Department of Commerce

Department of Defense (Business Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Architecture)

Department of Education

Department of Energy

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of the Interior

Department of Justice

Department of Labor

Department of the Navy

Department of State

Department of Transportation

Department of the Treasury

Department of Veterans Affairs

 

1

See 31 U.S.C. § 901(b).

2

GAO, Enterprise Architecture: Leadership Remains Key to Establishing and Leveraging 

Architectures for Organizational Transformation, GAO-06-831 (Washington, D.C.: 

Aug. 14, 2006).

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Agency

Environmental Protection Agency

General Services Administration

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

National Science Foundation

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Personnel Management

Small Business Administration

Social Security Administration

United States Agency for International Development

Source: GAO. 

We reviewed the responses to a survey we administered in May 2011, of 

federal agencies’ efforts to measure and report enterprise architecture 

results and outcomes. The purpose of the survey was to follow up with 

the agencies we reviewed in 2006, about the costs and benefits 

associated with their enterprise architecture programs.3 In addition, we 

requested and reviewed documents describing each agency’s enterprise 

architecture program, focusing on the purpose and goals of the programs 

and the methods and metrics used to measure outcomes, such as IT 

strategic plans, program management plans, enterprise transition plans, 

enterprise modernization roadmaps, and value measurement plans. We 

analyzed the extent to which the documentation satisfied elements 

related to outcomes measurement and reporting in version 2.0 of our 

Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF).4

 

3

Specifically, we assessed agencies against elements of the framework 

related to defining the architecture’s intended purpose or strategic goals, 

establishing a method and metrics to measure architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits), and periodically measuring and 

reporting outcomes and benefits to an architecture executive committee. 

We also reviewed outcomes and benefits reported to agency architecture 

oversight officials, for example, in value measurement reports or 

performance measurement reports. We assessed the reliability of the 

reported outcomes and benefits by discussing with agency officials the 

GAO-06-831. 

4

GAO, Organizational Transformation: A Framework for Assessing and Improving 

Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 2.0), GAO-10-846G (Washington, D.C.: 

August 2010).
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

method and data used to determine them, and by reviewing relevant 

documents, such as business cases and return on investment analyses.

To guide our analysis, we defined detailed evaluation criteria for 

determining whether a given element was fully satisfied, partially satisfied, 

or not satisfied. To fully satisfy an element, sufficient documentation had 

to be provided to permit us to verify that all aspects of the element were 

met. To partially satisfy an element, sufficient documentation had to be 

provided to permit us to verify that at least some aspects of the element 

were met. Elements that were neither fully nor partially satisfied were 

judged to be not satisfied.

Our evaluation included independently analyzing the extent to which each 

agency had satisfied the elements using the survey responses and 

supporting documentation as a starting point. We then corroborated the 

analyses with supporting documentation, sought additional information as 

necessary through interviews with the agencies’ architecture officials, 

obtained and reviewed additional documentation as appropriate, and 

refined our determinations about the degree to which each element was 

satisfied. Finally, we shared with agencies preliminary versions of the 

analyses that appear in this report as appendix II, and made further 

adjustments, as appropriate, based on additional discussions and 

supporting documentation. We also met with the Federal Chief Enterprise 

Architect to discuss current efforts and plans to guide federal agencies’ 

efforts to measure and report enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits.

We conducted our work from November 2011 to September 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objective.
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 32 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

The following sections summarize the extent to which each of the 27 

departments and agencies addressed elements in GAO’s Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF) that pertain to 

measuring and reporting enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits.

The assessments given for each element are defined as follows:

● The agency or department fully satisfied the element.

◐ The agency or department satisfied some, but not all, aspects of the 

element.

○ The agency or department did not satisfy any aspect of the element.

Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of Individual 

Departments and Agencies against Relevant Elements 

of Our Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity 

Framework
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 33 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 3 shows the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) satisfaction of 

relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 3: Department of Agriculture Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● USDA has defined its architecture’s purpose and goals. Specifically, 

according to the department’s IT strategic plan for 2012 through 2016, 

enterprise architecture and portfolio management practices are to be used 

to address mission needs in a cost-effective and efficient manner. In 

addition, according to the plan, the enterprise architecture program is to be 

used as a strategic enabler to drive planning activities, provide insights, 

and identify improvement opportunities for consolidation and reuse. 

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

○ The department has not established a method and metrics for measuring 

enterprise architecture outcomes; however, according to agency officials, 

it plans to do so. In particular, officials said the department is planning to 

integrate the capital planning, budget, and enterprise architecture 

processes and is working with the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) 

in the area of shared services using architecture. In addition, according to 

the department’s IT strategic plan, the department had planned to 

establish and periodically report on enterprise architecture program 

metrics by the end of fiscal year 2012. Officials explained that they now 

expect to complete this effort by the end of fiscal year 2013 because they 

are waiting for the Office of Management and Budget to provide additional 

guidance.

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ The department has not periodically measured and reported enterprise 

architecture outcomes. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of Agriculture
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 34 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 4 shows the Department of the Air Force’s satisfaction of relevant 

framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 4: Department of the Air Force Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● The December 2009 Air Force Architecting Concept of Operations defines 

the vision and goal for the department’s architecture as follows:

• Vision: to enable the delivery of timely, relevant, unambiguous 

information to support informed decision making by Air Force leaders to 

maximize military capabilities while optimizing allocation of resources.

• Goal: to use architecture to unravel the complexity of systems, 

processes, and programs to reveal their interdependent relationships to

decision makers, in an easily understandable format, so they may be 

adequately considered as decisions are made.

Further, according to the Concept of Operations, the architecture is to be 

used as a tool to eliminate redundancy, build efficiency, and maximize 

resource distribution to ultimately increase the combat effectiveness of the 

Air Force. 

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

○ Air Force officials reported that the department has not yet established a 

method or metrics to measure and report enterprise architecture outcomes 

and benefits. Officials stated that they have had a 60 percent architecting 

division personnel turnover rate since June 2011, and have not been able 

to identify industry-recognized enterprise architecture results metrics. 

Nonetheless, officials stated that they anticipate documenting potential 

metrics in October 2013. 

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ The Air Force has yet to measure and report enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of the Air 

Force
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 35 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 5 shows the Department of the Army’s satisfaction of relevant 

framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 5: Department of the Army Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined. 

● Army has defined the purpose and goals for each of its three segment 

architectures. According to Army officials, the collective purpose of the 

segment architectures is to make performance-based and cost-informed 

decisions that lead to the optimization of operations and technical 

environments. The purpose and goals for each of the three segment 

architectures has been defined as follows:

• Generating Force. According to Army’s 2011 Business Transformation 

Plan, the purpose of this architecture is to drive integration across 

functional domains, ensure integration between the Generating and 

Operating Forces, and inform stakeholders on acquisition decisions 

pertaining to the migration of legacy functionality to Army’s Enterprise 

Resource Planning solution. Expected benefits are the streamlining of 

end-to-end business processes aligned to the business enterprise 

architecture and the elimination or reduction of the need to tailor 

commercial-off-the-shelf systems.

• Operating Force. According to Army’s 2004 Architecture Approval and 

Development memorandum, the purpose of this architecture is to assist 

in managing systems that support the current and future Army and to 

become a critical component in prioritizing and synchronizing Armywide efforts. According to Army’s 2011 Network Integration Roles, 

Responsibilities, and Functions memorandum, architecture analysis will 

be used to identify duplicative systems and incompatible 

implementations and to integrate requirements, platforms, and network 

capabilities across program offices, among other things.

• Network. According to Army’s January 2011 Network Enterprise 

Architecture Foundation document, the purpose of this architecture is 

to provide relevant, trusted, affordable, and timely information to 

decision makers that support Army development and transformation, 

and help sustain the Army’s transformation by facilitating an end-to-end 

alignment of capabilities and investments in support of Army planning 

and prioritization documents. Also, according to Army’s 2010 Global 

Network Enterprise Construct Implementation Plan, the network 

architecture program’s strategic initiatives include federating and 

integrating networks, enforcing standards, and aligning Army and 

federal data center consolidation initiative goals and objectives.

Department of the Army
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 36 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Element Satisfied? Summary 

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

◐ Army has established metrics to measure outcomes and benefits of its 

Network segment architecture related to its data center consolidation 

initiative. The metrics measure the extent to which the number of data 

centers are closed each year, and the extent to which the number of 

servers, the amount of floor space, and energy usage and its associated 

costs are reduced. In addition, the Army has established a metric to 

measure the extent to which it reduces the number of applications on data 

servers and within data centers. It has also established, in its January 

2012 Performance Plan for Reducing the Resources Required for Data 

Servers and Centers, a method for measuring the reduction in 

applications, which includes using an automated tool to collect, rationalize, 

and track the migration of its applications.

However, Army has not established a method and metrics to measure 

outcomes and benefits for its Generating Force and Operating Force 

segment architectures. Although officials reported that they are tracking 

the status of architecture artifact development, artifacts are architecture 

program outputs rather than outcomes resulting from the use of an 

architecture.

Army officials reported that the department faces a challenge that directly 

relates to the lack of a centralized enterprise architecture office that can 

provide oversight and guidance for architecture activities. A regulation 

intended to address this challenge, with measures for assessing whether 

the Army architecture is meeting the department’s needs, has been 

drafted but has not been approved. 

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ Although the Network segment has established architecture method and 

metrics related to data center consolidation, it has yet to measure and 

report the outcomes and benefits. According to the Army’s performance 

plan, an annual application reduction report will be provided to the DOD 

CIO starting in fiscal year 2013. With regard to the Generating Force and 

Operating Force segment architectures, the Army has yet to measure and 

report enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 37 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 6 shows the Department of Commerce’s satisfaction of relevant 

framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 6: Department of Commerce Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● Commerce defined goals for its enterprise architecture program in its 

September 2010 Strategic Information Technology Plan for 2011-2015. 

These include using the department’s enterprise architecture to continually 

improve its business processes, align resources with Commerce’s toplevel strategic goals, and identify and support key IT management 

decisions. According to the plan, Commerce plans to leverage its 

architecture to reduce redundancy in its IT portfolio, combine capabilities, 

utilize already-existing resources, and ensure that available IT resources 

are documented and visible for all potential users.

According to the department’s Chief Enterprise Architect, the department 

is reevaluating the goals and objectives of the enterprise architecture 

program to make it more responsive to management requirements and to 

place less emphasis on report and document generation. The department 

established an enterprise architecture objective to adopt enterprise-wide 

standards for enterprise architecture, purchasing, and cost savings in its 

balanced scorecarda

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

for the first quarter of fiscal year 2012.

◐ Commerce has established metrics and associated targets to measure 

achievement of the objective to adopt enterprise-wide standards for 

enterprise architecture, purchasing, and cost savings. These include the 

number of IT product standards adopted (target is two) and IT cost 

reduction (target is $50,000 in annual savings).

However, the department has yet to establish a methodology that provides 

the steps to be followed to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value. According to the Chief Enterprise Architect, the department 

has documented a methodology to be used to demonstrate potential cost 

savings. However, officials did not provide supporting documentation.

According to the Chief Enterprise Architect, measuring and reporting 

enterprise architecture outcomes is a challenge because it is difficult to 

attribute outcomes directly to architecture since outcomes are achieved 

through a larger process that includes strategic and capital planning.

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ According to the Chief Enterprise Architect, the department achieved 

savings in the first quarter of 2012 by switching from a decentralized 

approach to procuring computers, software, and computer services to a 

single, department-wide vehicle. However, Commerce did not provide 

documentation to support the measurement and reporting of these cost 

savings. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

a

The balanced scorecard is a private-sector concept introduced by Robert Kaplan and David Norton 

in 1992 to assess organizational performance and is used by several government agencies. The 

balanced scorecard is a form of performance plan that is used to help measure performance, make 

improvements, and assess how well organizations are positioned to perform in the future. 

Department of Commerce
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 38 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 7 shows the Department of Defense (DOD) Business Enterprise 

Architecture’s (BEA) satisfaction of relevant framework elements in 

version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 7: DOD Business Enterprise Architecture Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s 

intended purpose or strategic goals 

are defined.

● According to DOD’s March 2012 BEA Overview and Summary Information, the 

purpose of the architecture is to (1) serve as a blueprint for business 

transformation that helps to ensure that the right capabilities, resources, and 

materiel are rapidly delivered to warfighters; (2) guide and constrain 

implementation of interoperable defense business system solutions; (3) guide 

information technology investments to align with strategic business capabilities; 

and (4) support portfolio management during the investment review process.

DOD’s September 2011 Strategic Management Plan for fiscal years 2012-2013, 

which establishes management goals for business operations, includes the goal 

to reengineer/use end-to-end business processes to reduce transaction times, 

drive down costs, and improve service. Associated with the goal is an initiative to 

improve business operations through optimal use of defense business systems 

and the BEA.

A method and metrics have been 

established to measure enterprise 

architecture strategic mission value 

(outcomes and benefits).

○ While the department has established metrics for measuring achievement of its 

goal to improve business operations through optimal use of defense business 

systems and the BEA, the metrics do not measure BEA outcomes and benefits. 

Specifically, DOD established metrics in its Strategic Management Plan for fiscal 

years 2012-2013 which include percentage of defense business 

systems/services represented in both the Defense Information Technology 

Portfolio Repository (the department’s authoritative business systems inventory) 

and the BEA, percentage of defense business systems/services represented in 

both the Select and Native Programming Data Input System—Information 

Technology (the department’s system used to prepare its budget submission) 

and the BEA, and percentage of defense business systems/services reporting to 

OMB through the BEA. However, these metrics measure output (i.e., direct 

products and services), rather than outcomes (i.e., results of enterprise 

architecture products and services such as benefits to Congress and the 

American taxpayer) of the enterprise architecture program.

In addition, department officials stated that the department’s process to measure 

and report architecture outcomes includes requiring components to submit 

examples of business system improvement for inclusion in the department’s 

annual report to Congress on Defense Business Operations. These are to be 

substantiated with quantifiable measures that demonstrate desired business 

outcomes and benefits. However, the guidance provided to program offices for 

submitting these examples does not include the steps to be followed and metrics 

for measuring BEA outcomes.

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured 

and reported to the agency’s 

enterprise architecture executive 

committee.

○ DOD has not periodically measured and reported enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits. Specifically, while the March 2012 Congressional Report 

on Defense Business Systems describes enhancements to the BEA related to 

business process modeling and standardizing business data, and reports the 

number of legacy systems that are not part of the target architecture (based on 

DOD IT Portfolio Repository data), the report does not include any additional 

examples.

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of Defense–

Business Enterprise 

Architecture
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 39 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 8 shows DOD’s Enterprise Architecture satisfaction of relevant 

framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 8: Department of Defense Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● DOD has defined goals for its DOD enterprise architecture. Specifically, 

according to the department’s February 2009 Directive on Management of 

the DOD Information Enterprise, the DOD enterprise architecture, which is 

composed of DOD enterprise and component levels, is to be maintained 

and applied to guide investment portfolio strategies and decisions, define 

capability and interoperability requirements, establish and enforce 

standards, guide security and information assurance requirements across 

DOD, and provide a sound basis for transition from the existing 

environment to the future.

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

○ DOD has yet to establish a method and metrics for measuring DOD 

enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits. According to officials, 

DOD’s approach to establishing a method and metrics for measuring DOD 

enterprise architecture strategic mission value (outcomes and benefits) will 

be accomplished through the development and publication of a DOD 

instruction and an enterprise architecture management plan. In particular, 

the draft instruction on enterprise architecture calls for establishing metrics 

for assessing the effectiveness of the enterprise architecture to provide 

information that contributes to mission effectiveness and efficiency. In 

addition, the draft Enterprise Architecture Management Plan calls for the 

development of metrics to assess the use of enterprise architecture, 

provides examples of potential metrics, including reduction in 

redundancies in DOD’s portfolio, and calls for the development of baseline 

and target threshold values for each selected metric. The plan also states 

that the DOD CIO and architecture organization are to determine the final 

set of metrics and threshold values based on the resources available to 

assess such metrics.

However, the department has not yet issued the instruction or the plan or 

determined the specific method or final set of metrics to be used in 

measuring enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits. According to 

officials, the department expects the plan to be approved in December 

2012 and the instruction to be approved in April 2013.

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ DOD has yet to measure and report DOD enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits. According to DOD officials, the implementation of 

the instruction on enterprise architecture and the enterprise architecture 

management plan will allow the benefits of architecture to be measured 

and reported. However, the department has not yet issued the instruction 

or the plan.

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of Defense–

Enterprise Architecture
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 40 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 9 shows the Department of Education’s satisfaction of relevant 

framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 9: Department of Education Satisfaction of GAO EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● Education has defined the purpose of its architecture program. Specifically, 

according to its July 2011 Enterprise Transition Plan, enterprise architecture 

provides for

• a priority-driven approach to planning and executing the activities needed 

to transition from the baseline architecture to the target architecture,

• improved strategic decision-making and communication to achieve the 

enterprise vision for technology at the department,

• increased control mechanisms for technology planning and investment,

• improved responsiveness to the enterprise technology needs of the 

department’s business, and

• the ability to leverage technology to create a more effective and efficient 

department.

A method and metrics have been 

established to measure enterprise 

architecture strategic mission value 

(outcomes and benefits).

◐ The department has established a metric to measure enterprise architecture 

outcomes, but has yet to establish a method. Specifically, according to the 

October 2011 Office of the CIO Organization Performance Review report, a 

key performance indicator for the Office of the CIO is to increase 

development, modernization, and enhancement (DME) spending through use 

of its enterprise architecture segment modernization planning process. To that 

end, the department has established a metric to measure the extent to which 

the ratio of the increase in spending on DME is increased relative to steadystate spending. According to the department’s June 2010 IT Portfolio 

Analysis, increasing spending in DME leads to a decrease in spending to 

maintain current systems and technologies (i.e., steady-state spending). The 

department explained that its architecture program works with line-of-business 

segment owners to develop modernization plans that include achieving 

operational efficiencies.

In June 2012, the department finalized an IT Portfolio Management Value 

Measurement methodology that describes the process for determining the 

value of an investment relative to the department’s IT portfolio. The 

information is to be used to set priorities for funding decisions or selecting 

investments to be included in the department’s IT portfolio. However, the 

process is not a method for measuring architecture strategic mission value. 

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

◐ In October 2011, the department reported the ratio of DME versus steadystate spending increased as a result of its enterprise architecture activities. 

Specifically, according to the department’s October 2011 Office of the CIO 

Organization Performance Review report, DME funding in the IT Portfolio 

increased from 10 percent of total IT spending in fiscal year 2011, to 13 

percent of total IT spending in fiscal year 2012 through use of the 

department’s architecture segment modernization planning process. However, 

this metric has yet to be periodically measured and reported as an 

architecture outcome. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of Education
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 41 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 10 shows the Department of Energy’s satisfaction of relevant 

framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 10: Department of Energy Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● Energy has defined its enterprise architecture goals, which include:

• Maintain alignment between technology solutions and department 

mission and goals.

• Provide enterprise architecture training and outreach opportunities, 

thereby promoting enterprise architecture value and transparency to 

support better business decisions department-wide.

• Work in conjunction with program and staff/support offices to further 

define, elaborate, and identify areas for additional development in line 

with the department’s mission.

• Continue to identify, reuse, and leverage, where possible, existing and 

planned technology and infrastructure components across the 

department.

• Identify areas, through capital planning and investment 

control/enterprise architecture integration analysis, to reduce costs, 

identify redundancy, and increase system and process effectiveness.

• Foster the organization and presentation of enterprise architecture to 

support decision making, program analysis, and efficient achievement 

of mission goals, utilizing an upgraded enterprise architecture data 

repository.

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

○ Energy has not established metrics and a method for measuring 

enterprise architecture strategic mission value. Specifically, although the 

department’s August 2012 Enterprise Modernization Roadmap includes 

potential enterprise architecture program metrics (e.g., cost savings 

through retiring legacy systems and cost avoidance by leveraging existing 

solutions over procuring new ones through the use of enterprise 

architecture), the metrics are still being defined and have yet to be 

finalized and approved. Regarding a methodology, the roadmap states 

that appropriate processes will be developed once the metrics are 

developed and approved. 

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ The department has yet to measure and report enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits.

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of Energy
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 42 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 11 shows the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 

satisfaction of relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s 

EAMMF. 

Table 11: Department of Health and Human Services Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements

Element Satisfied? Summary

The enterprise 

architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic 

goals are defined.

● HHS has established the following enterprise architecture goals and objectives:

• Enable improved mission and business outcomes by providing products to support sound 

decisions, business processes, and effective solutions; providing structured methods and 

guidance; supporting the development of transformation plans for addressing business 

needs and priorities; enabling the optimized use of resources; and increasing 

interoperability and information sharing within HHS and between HHS and external 

stakeholders.

• Provide a consolidated view of HHS’s enterprise by providing a consolidated view of HHS’s 

current and future business, information, and technologies; providing relevant, reliable, and 

timely information analytics capabilities to support sound business decisions; increasing the 

level of enterprise program integration and enterprise data sharing; facilitating the federated 

management and maintenance of enterprise architecture information through the use of a 

common framework; and facilitating the development of a consolidated view of information 

about systems and investments.

• Strengthen the enterprise architecture program foundation by demonstrating the utility of 

enterprise architecture to support program and business needs and priorities, aligning the 

architecture program to HHS and federal enterprise business needs and priorities, and 

fostering effective enterprise architecture practices at the operating division level.

A method and metrics 

have been established to 

measure enterprise 

architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes 

and benefits).

● HHS has established a method and metrics to measure enterprise architecture outcomes. The 

department developed an Enterprise Architecture Value Measurement Plan in December 2009 

which includes measuring the extent to which the department increases the number of service 

components that are reused. Specifically, it includes measuring the extent to which the 

department increases the percentage of applicable service components in its service 

component reference model that are provided by one IT system and used by another. The 

Enterprise Architecture Value Measurement Plan also identifies a method for how the metrics 

are to be measured, including how they are to be calculated, the data sources to be used, and 

targets to be achieved.

In addition, the Enterprise Architecture Value Measurement Plan includes measuring potential 

cost avoidance based on recommendations made by the enterprise architecture program, 

such as for business process reengineering; elimination of redundant IT systems and services; 

and consolidation and reuse of IT systems, services, and data. However, agency officials said 

they have yet to develop a methodology for measuring cost avoidance. The Chief Enterprise 

Architect stated that it is a challenge to capture cost information, which is important to 

establishing a baseline, because investments cut across a number of systems. 

Enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits 

are periodically 

measured and reported 

to the agency’s 

enterprise architecture 

executive committee.

◐ Enterprise architecture results were measured and reported to the Chief Information Officer in 

November 2010. Among other measures, the briefing reported that 16 percent of service 

components were reused. However, the department did not measure the metric again and 

therefore, does not know the extent to which it increased its reuse of service components. 

According to the Chief Enterprise Architect, the department is in the process of establishing 

new IT and enterprise architecture priorities and intends to establish a new enterprise 

architecture results measurement and reporting approach by the end of fiscal year 2012.

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of Health and 

Human Services
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 43 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 12 shows the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) 

satisfaction of relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s 

EAMMF. 

Table 12: Department of Homeland Security Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● The DHS Enterprise Architecture Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-

2016 identifies the vision, mission, goals, and objectives of the 

department’s enterprise architecture:

• Vision: Improving mission and performance, optimizing resources, and 

unifying DHS.

• Mission: To optimize DHS resources and provide a framework for 

strategic improvement and investment decisions.

• Goals: Plan and execute segment architecture, enhance operating 

effectiveness, mature enterprise architecture practices, and strengthen 

enterprise architecture program management.

• Objectives: To achieve each of the four goals, the plan outlines five 

corresponding objectives, including establishing performance metrics to 

drive standardization and accountability and identifying cost savings 

and avoidance through efficient and effective use of resources. 

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

○ DHS has not established metrics and a method for measuring enterprise 

architecture outcomes and benefits. The department identified examples 

of enterprise architecture benefits (e.g., streamlined processes, increased 

tool reuse, cost avoidance, increased sharing, increased process 

improvements, and increased information sharing) and categorized them 

(direct user/customer benefits, operational/mission performance benefits, 

financial benefits, strategic/political benefits, and non-user/public benefits), 

and according to DHS officials, the examples and categories are being 

used to define enterprise architecture metrics. In addition, the department 

has developed a tool for documenting and reporting enterprise 

architecture outcomes. However, it has not finalized metrics and a method 

with detailed steps to ensure that outcomes are consistently and 

repeatedly measured. 

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ The department has yet to measure and report enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits. DHS officials stated that they expect to report 

architecture outcomes to a department executive body by October 1, 

2012. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of Homeland 

Security
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 44 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 13 shows the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 

(HUD) satisfaction of relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of 

GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 13: Department of Housing and Urban Development Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● According to agency documentation, the primary purpose of the enterprise 

architecture is to capture the information required to effectively plan a 

course for achieving HUD’s strategic vision and goals. It is to be one 

element of interrelated planning activities that are to enable HUD 

managers and staff to define a vision, develop strategies and plans for 

achieving the vision, make resource decisions, implement strategies, and 

evaluate performance.

HUD’s enterprise architecture goals are to improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the department’s programs; simplify HUD’s IT 

environment by promoting standards and sharing and reusing common 

technologies; improve interoperability by establishing enterprise-wide 

standards; and reduce system development and operation and 

maintenance costs by eliminating duplicative investments, promoting 

sharing of common services, and establishing department-wide standards. 

The department also defined enterprise architecture goals in its draft 2011 

Enterprise Architecture Value Measurement Plan, including the goal of 

enabling the use of enterprise IT technologies for reuse and to reduce 

infrastructure complexity. Associated with this goal are objectives to 

leverage existing IT technology products to meet business and functional 

requirements, standardize enterprise technologies where it is cost 

effective, and decommission obsolete systems that are no longer in use.

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

● HUD has established a method and metrics to measure its enterprise 

architecture outcomes and benefits. Specifically, the department’s fiscal 

year 2011 draft Enterprise Architecture Value Measurement Plan includes 

measuring the extent to which the department had decreased the number 

of technology products added to its Technical Reference Model (TRM) that 

duplicate existing capabilities, the extent to which it had increased the 

number of standardized enterprise technologies across the department 

that replace legacy products and do not duplicate existing capabilities, and 

the extent to which it had decreased the number of obsolete systems in its 

IT inventory. The plan also included steps to measure results and 

outcomes, including identifying appropriate sources, and determining 

baseline, target, and actual value measures. 

Department of Housing 

and Urban Development
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 45 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Element Satisfied? Summary

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

◐ The department measured and reported enterprise architecture outcomes 

for fiscal year 2011 to a department executive committee in August 2012. 

The December 2011 Enterprise Architecture Value Measurement Report 

highlights areas, based on measurements, where additional focus and 

improvement are needed. For example, according to the report, 12 

technology products were added to its TRM that duplicate existing 

capabilities versus a target of 6; 0 enterprise-licensed technologies 

replaced legacy products versus a target of 3; and 0 obsolete systems 

were decommissioned versus a target of 13. According to officials, the 

department had not been able to retire these systems because their 

maintenance costs were included in fixed-price contracts that included 

systems that were currently being used. However, the department has yet 

to measure and report the metrics again, and therefore, does not know the 

extent to which it met its targets. According to the department, an 

architecture Value Measurement Plan will be issued annually and results 

of the measures in the plan will be documented in an annual report for the 

fiscal year. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 46 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 14 shows the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) satisfaction of 

relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 14: Department of the Interior Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● The Department of the Interior established a purpose and goals for its 

enterprise architecture program in 2009. Specifically, the purpose is to 

develop, maintain, and oversee the implementation of an enterprise 

architecture that helps the department achieve its strategic goals. Goals 

for the enterprise architecture program are to (1) improve the 

implementation of architectural plans and (2) increase the portion of the 

enterprise architected. Department officials stated that an Enterprise 

Modernization Roadmap with an updated enterprise architecture purpose 

and goals is expected to be completed by September 2012. 

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

○ While the department has established metrics for measuring achievement 

of its goals, the metrics do not measure enterprise architecture outcomes 

and benefits. According to the department’s 2009 Enterprise Architecture 

Program Management Plan, the key performance measures for the 

program are the percentage of segments with completed architectures and 

the percentage of development/modernization/enhancement funding 

associated with completed and in-progress segment architectures. 

However, these are not measures of enterprise architecture program 

outcomes, but rather, measures of enterprise architecture development 

and implementation. Officials reported that an assessment of the 

department’s enterprise architecture program was recently conducted and 

a new enterprise architecture program management plan is being 

developed; however, they have not established a time frame for when the 

plan will be completed. 

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ The department is not periodically measuring enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of the Interior
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 47 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 15 shows the Department of Justice’s satisfaction of relevant 

framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 15: Department of Justice Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● Justice has defined its architecture’s intended purpose. Specifically, 

according to its IT Strategic Plan for 2010 through 2015, the Enterprise 

Architecture Program Management Office is to review all IT investments to 

identify enterprise solutions that address the needs of a core mission area 

or multiple components. According to the strategy, enterprise solutions 

help to eliminate redundant IT investments, increase information sharing, 

and make use of shared infrastructure services, thus reducing the cost 

and complexity of managing the department’s IT environment. Also, 

according to the strategy, enterprise architecture analysis is to support 

identifying redundant legacy programs to either retire or migrate to an 

enterprise solution, thereby further reducing the complexity and the cost of 

the IT environment.

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

○ The department has not established a method or metrics to measure 

enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits. According to the 

department’s IT strategy, the enterprise architecture program is to help 

identify and eliminate redundant programs, thus reducing costs. However, 

the department stated that it is difficult to associate these cost savings 

specifically within the department-level enterprise architecture because a 

number of factors and groups contribute to the results. 

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ The department does not measure and report enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits.

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data. 

Department of Justice
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 48 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 16 shows the Department of Labor’s satisfaction of relevant 

framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 16: Department of Labor Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● Labor has defined the purpose of its enterprise architecture program. 

Specifically, according to its April 2011 Enterprise Transition Plan, the 

department uses its enterprise architecture process with its capital 

planning and investment management process to ensure that investments 

support strategic goals and are not duplicative of existing business 

solutions. Through use of this approach, according to the plan, the 

department is able to identify duplicative resources/investments, gaps, and 

opportunities for internal and external collaboration, resulting in 

operational improvements and cost-effective solutions to business 

requirements. In addition, the plan states that the department’s enterprise 

architecture framework promotes interoperability and information sharing 

and provides benefits such as

• enterprise target architecture definitions that support the department’s 

mission objectives and strategic business plans,

• identification of redundancy and consolidation opportunities, and

• realization of cost savings and cost avoidance through improved 

performance. 

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

○ The department has not established a method or metrics to measure its 

enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits. According to the April 2011 

Enterprise Transition Plan, Labor will establish enterprise architecture 

program metrics to evaluate outcomes of the use of enterprise architecture 

in investment decision making. However, department officials reported that 

they have general measures related to capital planning that they use 

across the Office of the Chief Information Officer and they do not 

associate the measures specifically with enterprise architecture because a 

number of factors contribute to the results. 

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ The department does not measure and report enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits.

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of Labor
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 49 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 17 shows the Department of the Navy’s (DON) satisfaction of 

relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 17: Department of the Navy Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined. 

● DON has defined the purpose of its enterprise architecture program. 

According to the program’s 2010 All-View document, which provides an 

overview and summary information of the DON enterprise architecture, the 

purpose is to:

• Guide the department’s investments towards achieving departmental 

goals and objectives.

• Assist DON program managers in the development of their “solution 

architectures”–as mandated by the Joint Capabilities Integration 

Development System and Acquisition processes.

More specifically, the enterprise architecture is to

• promote interoperability;

• delineate existing and future programs and projects;

• establish uniform and standard models for business processes and IT 

systems that are common across DON;

• document all aspects of the enterprise including the functional 

activities, business processes, information, participants, systems, 

applications, and supporting technology infrastructure;

• support oversight and governance of IT investments;

• enable and align business and IT investments through improved 

portfolio management, capital planning and investment control, and 

other acquisition and budgeting processes;

• enable decision makers to identify capability gaps and overlaps; and

• provide insight into Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, 

Leadership, Personnel, and Facilities domains as they relate to the 

business, information, systems, applications, and information 

technology required for decision support at all levels of DON. 

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits). 

○ DON has not established a method or metrics to measure enterprise 

architecture outcomes and benefits. Officials stated that they anticipate 

establishing a method in the second half of 2013. Officials reported that a 

lack of best practices for measuring enterprise architecture value 

continues to inhibit their ability to demonstrate enterprise architecture 

return on investment. 

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee. 

○ DON has yet to measure and report enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of the Navy
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 50 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 18 shows the Department of State’s satisfaction of relevant 

framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 18: Department of State Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● According to State’s IT Strategic and Tactical Plans for fiscal years 2011 

to 2013, the purpose of the enterprise architecture is to focus on 

interoperability and application services. 

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

○ The department has yet to establish a method or metrics for measuring 

enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits. Agency officials stated that 

while their objective is to have good IT investments, it is difficult to 

measure enterprise architecture’s contribution because IT investment 

results are due to many factors, including good project management, and 

adequate funding, as well as enterprise architecture. While, according to 

the agency’s IT Tactical Plan, a key performance indicator for its 

enterprise architecture program is evidence of increased use and value of 

enterprise architecture products and services in providing consistent and 

effective IT solutions, promoting interoperability, information sharing, and 

collaboration, State has yet to establish metrics and a method for 

measuring the value of its enterprise architecture products. Department 

officials reported that they expect to create metrics by December 2012.

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ The department has yet to periodically measure and report enterprise 

architecture outcomes and benefits.

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of State
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 51 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 19 shows Department of Transportation’s satisfaction of relevant 

framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 19: Department of Transportation Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements 

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● The department’s Information Resources Management Strategic Plan for 

fiscal years 2007-2012 includes the goal to establish its enterprise 

architecture as the authoritative decision tool for IT investments. According 

to the plan, enterprise architecture is to be used as a decision-making tool 

to support business plan development, identify areas of duplication and 

inefficiencies in the department, and select top priorities for departmentwide implementation and management.

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

◐ The department has established a metric but not a method to measure 

enterprise architecture strategic mission value. Specifically, according to 

Transportation’s Information Resources Management Strategic Plan, an 

expected enterprise architecture outcome is reduced total cost of 

ownership, indicated by cost savings and/or cost avoidance identified 

through review of business processes, data, applications, and technology, 

and by the number/percentage of eliminated duplicative systems.

In addition, in December 2008, the department developed an enterprise

architecture Performance Measurement Guide, which included an 

enterprise architecture performance objective to support investment 

decisions for approved segment and solution architectures with an 

outcome of solutions that foster transparency, increase mission 

effectiveness, reduce redundancies, and minimize costs. However, a 

method to measure the objective was not established. Specifically, the 

guide included steps to finalize enterprise architecture performance 

measures and indicators, such as conducting outreach with stakeholders 

to disseminate information about performance measures and indicators, 

and capturing baselines and defining targets. In addition, the guide 

included a plan to collect and analyze data and to measure results on a 

quarterly basis, starting the first quarter of calendar year 2009. However, 

performance measures and indicators were never finalized and the guide 

did not include the steps to be followed to collect and analyze the data.

According to the department’s Chief Architect, enterprise architecture was 

a high priority in 2008 and 2009, but in mid-2010 the department shifted 

priorities and limited resources, which has constrained enterprise 

architecture efforts.

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ The department has not measured and reported enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits. Though the department’s 2008 Enterprise 

Architecture Performance Measurement Guide states that the department 

planned to collect and analyze data and to measure and report results on 

a quarterly basis starting the first quarter of calendar year 2009, it has yet 

to do so. In addition, while the department reported in its response to our 

survey on enterprise architecture results and outcomes that its 

architecture program contributed to an estimated $83 million in cost 

savings in fiscal year 2009, it did not provide documentation to support the 

cost savings estimate or evidence that the outcome was reported to 

agency executives.

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of 

Transportation
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 52 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 20 shows the Department of the Treasury’s satisfaction of relevant 

framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 20: Department of the Treasury Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements

Element Satisfied? Summary

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● Treasury has defined its enterprise architecture goals. Specifically, 

according to Treasury’s E-Government Act Report for fiscal year 2011, its 

enterprise architecture plans have focused on reducing duplication 

through its data center consolidation initiative because infrastructure 

reflects the majority of the department’s IT spending. Accordingly, 

Treasury has defined goals related to data center consolidation. 

Specifically, its goals include increased cost efficiency through 

consolidation of facilities and infrastructure, increased economies of scale 

and associated buying power, and reduced overhead associated with 

operating multiple instances of common facilities and services. According 

to officials, the department is in the process of developing broader goals 

that will integrate its capital planning and investment control and 

architecture processes. 

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

◐ Treasury has established metrics for measuring enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits but has yet to document a method. Specifically, the 

department plans to measure a decrease in the number of servers, an 

increase in the percentage of operating systems that are virtual, and a 

decrease in demand for data center square footage. According to the 

department’s September 2011 Data Center Consolidation Plan, reductions 

in physical assets should produce increases in capacity and cost 

efficiencies for management of space and IT services. However, the 

department has not established a methodology for measuring its 

architecture outcomes with detailed steps to be followed (including 

sources of information). Further, the Chief Enterprise Architect stated that 

metrics corresponding to broader goals that integrate capital planning and 

investment control and enterprise architecture are under development. 

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

◐ The department has measured and reported architecture outcomes 

associated with its data center consolidation. Specifically, its September 

2011 Data Center Consolidation Plan, which was approved by the 

department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Systems and 

Chief Information Officer, reported a reduction in the number of servers, 

an increase in the percentage of operating systems that were virtualized, 

and a reduction in data center square footage between 2010 and 2011. 

However, this metric has yet to be periodically measured and reported as 

an architecture outcome. As noted above, going forward, Treasury is 

developing new goals and metrics. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of the 

Treasury
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 53 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 21 shows the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) satisfaction of 

relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 21: Department of Veterans Affairs Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

◐ According to the Chief Architect, VA is in the process of developing an 

enterprise architecture program overview statement and guiding enterprise 

architecture principles. Specifically, according to draft documentation, VA’s 

enterprise architecture is to provide tools, rules, principles, and standards 

to guide efficient, effective, and interoperable implementation of the 

department’s vision of providing seamless delivery of benefits and 

services to veterans. Global Enterprise Architecture principles include that 

all VA solutions are to utilize enterprise-wide standards, services, and 

approaches to deliver seamless capabilities to veterans, facilitate IT 

consolidations through reuse, and simplify the use of VA functions. 

According to department officials, enterprise architecture principles have 

been finalized, but are not planned to be formally released until September 

30, 2012.

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

○ According to the department’s Chief Architect, VA has not established a 

method and metrics for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits because the department’s approach to enterprise architecture and 

enterprise architecture governance is being revised. The Chief Architect 

said that once the approach is updated, an enterprise architecture value 

measurement plan will be developed. However, the official noted that it is 

a challenge to know how much to attribute outcomes to enterprise 

architecture relative to other factors in the decision-making process.

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ VA has not periodically measured and reported enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Department of Veterans 

Affairs
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 54 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 22 shows the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) satisfaction 

of relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 22: Environmental Protection Agency Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements

Element Satisfied? Summary

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● EPA has defined its architecture goals and objectives. Specifically, 

according to the agency’s February 2011 Modernization Blueprint, a major 

goal is to use the architecture to identify segments within the organization 

that could serve as candidates for service sharing and reuse. Additional 

goals and objectives are described in the agency’s Office of Technology 

Operation and Planning Mission Investments Solution Division April 2011 

draft strategic plan for fiscal years 2011 to 2016. These include, among 

other things, providing architecture services to enable stakeholders to 

mature and increase value from their architectures, and developing a 

common standard to be used in evaluating segments and solutions across 

the enterprise.

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

○ The agency has not established a method and metrics for measuring 

enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits. Specifically, agency officials 

reported that the results from an enterprise architecture management 

maturity self-assessment, completed in April 2012, will be analyzed to 

determine areas for improvement and reflected in the agency’s enterprise 

architecture performance measurement plan. According to agency officials, 

the enterprise architecture program performance measurement plan is 

expected to be completed in fiscal year 2013.

The agency has included metrics in its Office of Technology Operation and 

Planning Mission Investments Solution Division draft strategic plan and 

Enterprise Architecture Value Measures project charter approved in May 

2012. These metrics include the percentage of segments and solution 

architectures that have been reviewed by the enterprise architecture 

program, the percentage of investments that identify future use of 

enterprise services, and the percentage of complete mandatory data fields 

in the agency’s enterprise architecture repository. However, these metrics 

measure outputs (i.e., direct products and services) of the program rather 

than outcomes (i.e., results of enterprise architecture products and 

services such as benefits to Congress and the American taxpayer). 

According to officials, the metrics to measure cost savings and efficiencies 

from enterprise architecture will be identified in fiscal years 2013 and 

2014. Officials also added that it has been challenging to measure 

performance because baselines have changed from year to year due to 

changing OMB reporting requirements.

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ The agency is not measuring and reporting architecture outcomes and 

benefits. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Environmental Protection 

Agency
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 55 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 23 shows the General Services Administration’s (GSA) satisfaction 

of relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 23: General Services Administration Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements

Element Satisfied? Summary 

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● According to GSA’s March 2011 briefing to OMB on its enterprise 

architecture modernization plan, its enterprise architecture provides 

services to increase interoperability between systems; increase reuse of 

systems, information, and services; increase agility and flexibility in 

building and operating systems; and facilitate achievement of agency 

goals. Further, according to GSA’s March 2012 Enterprise Modernization 

Roadmap, enterprise architecture is to, among other things, increase 

system interoperability and cost efficiencies, reduce duplication, and 

increase innovation.

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

◐ GSA has established metrics but not a method for measuring enterprise 

architecture outcomes and benefits. Specifically, GSA’s March 2012 

Enterprise Modernization Roadmap includes enterprise architecture 

program work plans and corresponding output and outcome metrics. For 

example, GSA has identified the percentage of applications complying 

with IT standards as a metric for measuring the extent to which the agency 

is increasing its use of IT standards, which is one of its desired outcomes. 

The roadmap also includes a desired outcome of increasing development, 

modernization, and enhancement spending by 25 percent per year 

beginning in fiscal year 2014. According to the agency, the ratio of 

development, modernization, and enhancement to steady-state spending 

allows GSA’s enterprise architecture program to highlight the allocation of 

IT spending and opportunities to reduce operating costs.

However, GSA has not established a method for measuring and reporting 

enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits. According to GSA officials, 

the benefits of architecture are achieved early in system development and 

are difficult to relate to future return on investment measured later in a 

system’s life cycle. Nonetheless, officials said they were beginning to 

develop a method for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes, but did 

not expect the plan to be completed for 2 to 5 years.

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ The agency has not measured and reported enterprise architecture 

outcomes and benefits.

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

General Services 

Administration
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 56 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 24 shows the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s 

(NASA) satisfaction of relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of 

GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 24: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements

Element Satisfied? Summary

The enterprise 

architecture’s 

intended purpose or 

strategic goals are 

defined.

● NASA’s November 2011 Enterprise Architecture Policy identifies the purposes of the agency’s 

enterprise architecture, which include

• being a composition of architectures and set of integrated reference models that map all IT 

initiatives, capabilities, and services to agency needs;

• serving to guide executive decision making, establishing a clear linkage between present 

capabilities and future NASA mission needs, including identifying potential shortfalls and 

redundancies in IT capabilities, the time frame in which the shortfall or redundancy exists, and 

an analysis of industry alternatives and remedial solutions/approaches;

• providing a foundation for further development, modernization or modification, and 

enhancements of integrated architectures;

• identifying mission IT dependencies;

• being used as a tool to integrate strategic planning efforts and to select, guide, manage, 

rationalize, and prioritize agency investments;

• establishing the framework for agency interoperability by providing the standard, rigorous 

construct for horizontal and vertical integration of mission needs and business processes 

through architecture;

• being integral to the budget life cycle, enabling informed and timely procurement decision 

making to influence capital and strategic sourcing investments; and

• promoting transparency and accountability by aligning functions/capabilities, services, 

systems, components, and related standards to agency strategy.

A method and metrics 

have been established 

to measure enterprise 

architecture strategic 

mission value 

(outcomes and 

benefits).

○ NASA has yet to establish a method or metrics for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes. 

However, according to NASA’s Chief Enterprise Architect, an approach for measuring enterprise 

architecture performance is being developed. Specifically, draft enterprise architecture procedural 

requirements include metrics to measure the number of approved architecture artifacts. However, 

these metrics measure output (i.e., direct products and services) of the enterprise architecture 

program, rather than outcomes (i.e., results of enterprise architecture products and services such 

as benefits to Congress and the American taxpayer). Moreover, according to the Chief Architect, 

the agency does not yet have a mature enterprise architecture program and establishing one is a 

challenge because the agency’s IT environment is not structured in a way that readily accepts an 

enterprise-wide architecture. Specifically, the official stated that much of NASA’s funding is 

provided to the agency’s centers, which invest the money to meet their specific needs with little 

regard for the agency’s overall needs or existing capabilities. In July 2012, the NASA Chief 

Enterprise Architect stated that a NASA policy is expected to be issued by 2013, requiring that a 

method and metrics for measuring enterprise architecture value be established.

Enterprise 

architecture outcomes 

and benefits are 

periodically measured 

and reported to the 

agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive 

committee.

○ NASA has yet to measure and report its architecture outcomes and benefits.

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 57 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 25 shows the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) satisfaction of 

relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 25: National Science Foundation Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements

Element Satisfied? Summary

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● NSF has identified enterprise architecture goals in its September 2008 

Information Resource Management Plan. These goals are:

• Improve utilization of IT resources by eliminating duplicative 

investments, and promoting sharing of common services and 

standards.

• Improve program performance by ensuring business functions support 

strategic goals and priorities, data are optimized in support of the 

business, and applications and technology solutions are driven by 

business needs.

• Simplify IT investment decisions by providing a line of sight from 

strategy to business function to technology, which enables decision 

makers to select investments that support NSF’s core mission, and to 

identify duplicative or misaligned initiatives.

• Reduce IT diversity and complexity within NSF by promoting standards 

and the sharing and reuse of common technologies.

• Improve interoperability through the establishment of enterprise-wide 

standards that promote platform and vendor independence, enabling 

greater interoperability across disparate applications, both internal and 

external.

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits).

○ NSF has yet to establish a method and metrics to measure enterprise 

architecture strategic mission value. Specifically, the agency has 

established metrics for measuring the percent of IT investments that 

comply with the agency’s transition strategy, the percent of IT projects that 

comply with the agency’s Enterprise Architecture Modernization Roadmap, 

the percent of IT services associated with an appropriate segment 

architecture, and the percent of approved software and technical 

architectures fulfilling opportunities to reuse shared services and IT 

infrastructure (i.e., ensuring that solution architectures in development 

reuse common infrastructure components or develop components for 

future reuse where possible). However, these metrics measure output 

(i.e., direct products and services) of the enterprise architecture program, 

rather than outcomes (e.g., cost avoidance, improved mission 

performance from reengineered business processes and modernizing 

systems, or benefits to Congress and the American taxpayer).

NSF officials stated that the agency is exploring opportunities to mature its 

process for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes, and plans to 

revise its Enterprise Architecture Program Management Plan to align with 

new OMB enterprise architecture guidance by the end of fiscal year 2012.

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ NSF has yet to measure and report enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits.

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

National Science 

Foundation
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 58 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 26 shows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) satisfaction 

of relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 26: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements

Element Satisfied? Summary

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● NRC has defined the purpose and goals for its architecture. Specifically, 

the purpose is to support IT goals that were established in its IT strategic 

plan for fiscal years 2012 through 2016. These include:

• NRC staff and stakeholders can quickly and easily access the 

information they need.

• IT business solutions are easy to use, cost effective, and strengthen 

agency performance, which according to agency officials, is focused on 

avoiding duplication and cost savings.

• IT infrastructure is available, cost effective, and responsive to agency 

needs.

A method and metrics have been established 

to measure enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and benefits). 

◐ NRC has established a metric for measuring enterprise architecture 

outcomes, but has yet to establish a method. Specifically, for the goal that 

the agency’s IT infrastructure is available, cost effective, and responsive to 

agency business needs, NRC plans to measure progress toward having 

common access controls by measuring the reduction in passwords and/or 

sign-ons. However, a methodology with detailed steps for measuring 

enterprise architecture outcomes has not yet been established. 

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ NRC has not periodically measured and reported enterprise architecture 

outcomes. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 59 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 27 shows the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) 

satisfaction of relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s 

EAMMF. 

Table 27: Office of Personnel Management Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements

Element Satisfied? Summary

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● According to OPM’s IT Strategic Plan for 2010-2013, the agency’s 

enterprise architecture defines IT management principals, goals, and 

objectives and establishes a roadmap to achieve the enterprise 

architecture vision of centralizing and managing OPM’s IT infrastructure 

for the benefits and efficiencies that can be realized through technology. 

The IT strategic plan also includes the objective to utilize the enterprise 

architecture as a management and governance tool to strengthen decision 

making and standard setting, coordinating with OPM business lines to 

ensure technology decisions and implementations for new systems align 

with the agency’s as well as the federal government’s enterprise 

architecture. 

A method and metrics have been 

established to measure enterprise 

architecture strategic mission value 

(outcomes and benefits).

◐ OPM has established cost savings as a metric to measure enterprise 

architecture results and outcomes, and developed an Enterprise 

Architecture Return on Investment Framework. According to the 

framework, return on investment is calculated over a period of time and 

relates the value contributed in dollars to the cost in dollars of the 

enterprise achitecture program. The framework identifies steps the 

enterprise architecture office plans to follow to determine the architecture’s 

role in cost savings or improving mission, including defining enterprise 

architecture’s role (strategic partner, collaborator, change agent etc.) in 

improving business and IT and the percentage to attribute to enterprise 

architecture for each role; collaboratively identifying the role enterprise 

architecture is supposed to play before each major effort; evaluating the 

actual role of enterprise architecture after each major effort; and soliciting 

feedback on how well the role was performed. However, the framework 

does not include steps to determine the cost savings or mission 

improvement to which enterprise architecture contributes or to calculate in 

dollars architecture’s return on investment. According to OPM officials, 

one of the agency’s challenges in developing a method is quantifying 

value based on the contributions of enterprise architecture to 

business/mission improvement.

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ According to OPM officials, the agency has measured enterprise 

architecture cost savings and reported them to the Chief Information 

Officer. However, officials have not provided documentation to support 

that the cost savings have been reliably measured. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Office of Personnel 

Management
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 60 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 28 shows the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) satisfaction of 

relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 28: Small Business Administration Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements

Element Satisfied? Summary

The enterprise architecture’s intended 

purpose or strategic goals are defined.

● According to SBA’s 2009 Capital Planning and Investment Control Policy 

Guide, the agency’s enterprise architecture process is a management 

practice that is to support strategic planning; capital planning and 

investment control; system development; and IT asset management 

activities to optimize the agency’s resources and achieve its performance 

goals. Specifically, according to the guide, decision makers are to 

leverage the agency’s architecture to help ensure that investments

• support the business needs,

• address specific and measurable performance gaps,

• align with the agency’s mission and goals,

• comply with the agency’s standards, and

• reduce or eliminate spending on unneeded, redundant, and/or 

duplicative IT assets.

A method and metrics have been 

established to measure enterprise 

architecture strategic mission value 

(outcomes and benefits).

○ SBA has not established a method or metrics to measure enterprise 

architecture outcomes and benefits. Nonetheless, according to agency 

officials, SBA measures the extent to which proposed IT investments align 

with the enterprise architecture during its capital planning and investment 

control process. However, such a metric measures output (i.e., direct 

products and services) of the program rather than outcomes (i.e., results 

of enterprise architecture products and services such as benefits to 

Congress and the American taxpayer) of the program. Agency officials 

also stated that the architecture program maintained Financial Assistance 

and Disaster Assistance segment architectures, which were used to 

facilitate planning and decision making, and that the agency achieved 

high- level performance goals in fiscal year 2011 associated with the 

segments. However, the agency did not provide documentation showing 

that a method and metrics had been established for measuring 

architecture outcomes, or that the high-level performance outcomes were 

linked to enterprise architecture.

Enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits are periodically measured and 

reported to the agency’s enterprise 

architecture executive committee.

○ SBA is not periodically measuring enterprise architecture outcomes and 

benefits.

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

Small Business 

Administration
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 61 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 29 shows the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) satisfaction of 

relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s EAMMF.

Table 29: Social Security Administration Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements

Element Satisfied? Summary

The enterprise architecture’s 

intended purpose or strategic 

goals are defined.

● SSA has defined its enterprise architecture goals in its 2010 Enterprise Architecture 

Program Plan. Specifically, the architecture is to provide visibility for IT initiatives 

and support alignment with SSA’s strategic business plans; support design and 

configuration management decisions and alignment of IT initiatives with SSA’s 

infrastructure; and support decisions regarding operations, maintenance, and the 

development of IT resources and services. 

In addition, as we previously reported, SSA’s enterprise architecture for years 2011 

through 2016 described a vision that includes eliminating existing stove-piped 

application software, and reusing services to develop service-oriented architecture 

applications to replace aging online and back-office desktop applications.

a

A method and metrics have been 

established to measure 

enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and 

benefits).

According to the SSA’s Enterprise Architecture Transition Strategy, these efforts are 

expected to help reduce costs and increase productivity.

○ SSA has yet to establish a method and metrics to measure enterprise architecture 

outcomes. SSA has established a metric to measure the number of IT projects 

compliant with agency architecture standards. In addition, SSA officials stated that 

they measure the percent of IT investments aligned to the agency’s strategic 

portfolios. However, these metrics measure outputs (i.e., direct products and 

services) of the program, rather than outcomes (e.g., benefits to Congress and the 

American taxpayer). SSA officials stated that they are considering developing 

additional metrics to measure enterprise architecture value, for example, a metric to 

measure the extent to which architecture helps identify opportunities to reuse 

services and related software modules. However, they noted that the lack of 

guidelines and best practices contribute to the difficulty in measuring outcomes. To 

address this challenge, SSA officials said that they will participate in the Enterprise 

Architecture Value Measurement workgroup of the federal CIO Council Strategy and 

Planning Committee’s Architecture Subcommittee. They added that as new metrics 

are identified they will be documented and communicated throughout the agency.

Enterprise architecture outcomes 

and benefits are periodically 

measured and reported to the 

agency’s enterprise architecture 

executive committee.

○ SSA has not periodically measured and reported enterprise architecture outcomes 

and benefits. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

a

GAO, Social Security Administration: Improved Planning and Performance Measures are Needed to 

Help Ensure Successful Technology Modernization, GAO-12-495 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2012). 

Social Security 

Administration
Appendix II: Detailed Assessments of 

Individual Departments and Agencies against 

Relevant Elements of Our Enterprise 

Architecture Management Maturity Framework

Page 62 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Table 30 shows the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) 

satisfaction of relevant framework elements in version 2.0 of GAO’s 

EAMMF. 

Table 30: U.S. Agency for International Development Satisfaction of EAMMF Elements

Element Satisfied? Summary

The enterprise architecture’s 

intended purpose or strategic 

goals are defined.

● USAID has developed architecture goals. Specifically, the agency’s December 2011 

Enterprise Architecture Program Charter identifies the following goals:

• Support improvement of mission-critical business processes through business 

process analysis, and identification and application of enterprise architecture 

standards.

• Guide analytical efforts to locate, validate, and promote the strategic use of agency 

information.

• Facilitate analysis of the agency’s IT environment, including IT hardware, software, 

and enterprise applications, to promote the effective and efficient deployment of IT 

services. 

• Provide governance for USAID technology efforts by designing and supporting the 

implementation of enterprise architecture models and standards.

A method and metrics have been 

established to measure 

enterprise architecture strategic 

mission value (outcomes and 

benefit).

● USAID has established two metrics for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes: 

(1) cost savings and avoidance due to process efficiency, technology standardization, 

retirement, and consolidation; and (2) client satisfaction based on client survey 

responses on architecture’s value to business (such as facilitating decision making on 

technology and processes using enterprise architecture tools). The agency has also 

established guidance for measuring cost savings and avoidance and an approach to 

measure client satisfaction by developing and implementing surveys.

Enterprise architecture outcomes 

and benefits are periodically 

measured and reported to the 

agency’s enterprise architecture 

executive committee.

● The agency has periodically measured enterprise architecture outcomes and, 

according to agency officials, these outcomes are reported to the Deputy CIO and CIO. 

In addition, the agency has established a website for CIO staff, including the Deputy 

CIO and CIO, to review monthly architecture outcomes.

According to its February 2012 Enterprise Architecture Performance Results report, the 

agency achieved $12.3 million in savings and $9.5 million in cost avoidance by 

transitioning disparate human resource systems to a human resource shared services 

center. The Federal Enterprise Architecture and the agency’s enterprise architecture 

were used to select a shared services center.

In addition, the agency reported estimated savings of $15.7 million (not including $4 

million in migration costs) over the next 5 years, beginning in fiscal year 2013, by 

moving its e-mail service to a cloud-based service. According to agency officials, the 

cloud-based solution was recommended by the architecture team because it can 

replace multiple installations of the current e-mail solution. According to the agency’s 

return on investment analysis, this will reduce hardware and software maintenance, 

and labor and other expenses. However, as of September 2012, the new service had 

yet to be approved. Officials explained that delay in approval was causing a reduction 

in the return on investment and that the cost savings were being updated, accordingly.

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.

U.S. Agency for 

International Development
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 63 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Labor
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of the Treasury

Page 64 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of the Treasury
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture

Page 65 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture

Page 66 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 67 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Commerce
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 68 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 69 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 70 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Education
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 71 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 72 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix IX: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 73 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix X: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior

Page 74 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix X: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior
Appendix XI: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 75 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix XI: Comments from the 

Department of State
Appendix XI: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 76 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix XI: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 77 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix XI: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 78 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix XII: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs 

Page 79 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix XII: Comments from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs
Appendix XII: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs 

Page 80 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix XII: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs 

Page 81 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix XIII: Comments from the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration

Page 82 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix XIII: Comments from the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Appendix XIII: Comments from the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Page 83 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix XIV: Comments from the Social 

Security Administration

Page 84 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix XIV: Comments from the Social 

Security Administration
Appendix XIV: Comments from the Social 

Security Administration

Page 85 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix XV: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency

Page 86 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix XV: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency
Appendix XVI: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 87 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix XVI: Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix XVI: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 88 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix XVII: Comments from the 

Department of Energy

Page 89 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix XVII: Comments from the 

Department of Energy
Appendix XVII: Comments from the 

Department of Energy

Page 90 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix XVII: Comments from the 

Department of Energy

Page 91 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix XVII: Comments from the 

Department of Energy

Page 92 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix XVIII: Comments from the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

Page 93 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

Appendix XVIII: Comments from the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 
Appendix XVIII: Comments from the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

Page 94 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix XVIII: Comments from the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

Page 95 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation
Appendix XIX: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 96 GAO-12-791 Organizational Transformation

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

In addition to the contact named above, Neelaxi Lakhmani (Assistant 

Director), Mark Bird (Assistant Director), Virginia Chanley, Kelly Dodson, 

Cheryl Dottermusch, Michael Holland, James Houtz, Catherine Hurley, 

Stuart Kaufman, Lee McCracken, Tyler Mountjoy, Donald Sebers, 

Jennifer Stavros-Turner, and Merry Woo made key contributions to this 

report.

Appendix XIX: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(310964)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.