INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY 

OMB Leadership 

Critical to Making 

Needed Enterprise 

Architecture and E–

government Progress 

Statement of Randolph C. Hite 

Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues 

and 

David L. McClure 

Director, Information Technology Management Issues 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement 

Policy, Committee on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 

2 p.m. EST 

Thursday, 

March 21, 2002 

GAO-02-389T 
Page 1 GAO-02-389T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here today to discuss the status and 

relationship of two critically important components of the federal 

government’s efforts to improve performance and accountability 

through information technology (IT)—enterprise architectures 

and electronic (e-) government. 

Enterprise architectures are high-level blueprints for transforming 

how a given entity, whether it be a federal agency or a federal 

function that cuts across agencies, operates. Without enterprise 

architectures to guide and constrain IT investments, such as egovernment initiatives, stovepipe operations and systems can 

emerge, which in turn can lead to needless duplication, 

incompatibilities, and additional costs. E-government refers to a 

mode of operations (using people, process, and technology—

particularly Web-based Internet technology) to enhance access to 

and delivery of government information and service to citizens, 

business partners, employees, other agencies, and other levels of 

government. It has the potential to help build better relationships 

between the government and its customer bases by making 

interaction smoother, easier, and more efficient. Together, 

enterprise architectures provide a vital means to a desired end—

successful delivery of e-government applications, which in turn 

promise improved government performance and accountability. 

This hearing on enterprise architectures and e-government is 

timely for two reasons. First, the president has made expanding egovernment integral to his recent five-part management agenda for 

making the federal government more focused on citizens and 

results. Under the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) 

leadership, the president’s fiscal year 2003 budget proposes 24 egovernment initiatives, most involving multiple agencies. These 

initiatives have laudable goals, including elimination of redundant, 

nonintegrated business operations and systems that, according to 

OMB, could produce several billions of dollars in savings from 

improved operational efficiency and, perhaps even more 

important, improved service to citizens, private-sector businesses, 

and state and local governments. 

At the same time, these initiatives face various challenges, one of 

which is the second reason for the timeliness of this hearing. That 

is, the success of these initiatives hinges in large part on whether 
Page 2 GAO-02-389T 

they are pursued within the context of enterprise architectures. 

Currently, approved architectures for most of these initiatives do 

not yet exist. Overcoming this obstacle would be a formidable 

undertaking even if federal agencies were now successfully using 

enterprise architectures to manage their respective operational 

and technological environments. Unfortunately, this is not the 

case, as our recent report for this subcommittee and others 

shows.1

 

Our testimony today will address 

 our framework for advancing and measuring enterprise 

architecture management maturity, 

 a snapshot of the state of enterprise architecture management 

maturity across the federal government, 

 the role of enterprise architectures in the successful 

implementation of e-government initiatives, and 

 the need for strong OMB leadership in helping the maturity of 

enterprise architecture management for both individual 

agencies and federal e-government initiatives. 

Hierarchical in nature, our initial version of a management 

framework for enterprise architecture management maturity2

defines five distinct stages. Associated with each are practices that 

constitute the core elements of effectively managing any 

endeavor—namely, practices that (1) demonstrate an enterprise 

architecture commitment, (2) provide the capability to meet this 

commitment, (3) demonstrate satisfaction of the commitment, and 

(4) verify satisfaction of the commitment. 

 

1

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

across the Federal Government Can Be Improved, GAO-02-6 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 19, 

2002). This report was addressed to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the 

full House Committee on Government Reform, as well as this subcommittee. 

2

 Our framework is based on the core elements found in A Practical Guide to Federal 

Enterprise Architecture (version 1.0), published by the federal Chief Information Officers 

Council in February 2001, and developed in collaboration with us and others. 
Page 3 GAO-02-389T 

Employing this framework, we analyzed 116 agencies’ selfreported architecture management information, and produced a 

snapshot in time of the federal government’s state of affairs. This 

snapshot shows that architecture use in the federal government is 

largely a work in progress, with much left to be accomplished. 

Nevertheless, there are reasons for optimism, and our recent work 

at selected agencies shows at least pockets of progress. One factor 

accounting for the overall immature state of affairs has been that 

agency leaders have not traditionally understood the purpose and 

value of enterprise architectures, thus not giving them the priority 

attention they deserve and require. 

E-government applications have already been introduced in 

federal agencies. As these applications evolve and become more 

sophisticated, resulting in fundamental business process 

transformation in federal agencies, and as they extend beyond a 

single federal agency, their success will become more dependent 

on whether they are defined and introduced within the context of 

enterprise architectures. 

OMB has been a proponent of enterprise architectures, and has 

recently devoted increased attention to them; in moving forward, 

however, it can and should play a larger role. We believe that the 

tools presented in our report—the maturity framework itself and 

benchmark data about 116 departments, component agencies, and 

independent agencies—provide important baseline information 

against which targeted improvement across the government can 

be defined and measured. Accordingly, we have made 

recommendation to OMB for adopting and employing them. OMB 

has agreed to consider our recommendations. We believe that it 

should move quickly in implementing them, not only because of 

their importance to attaining more architecture-centric 

decisionmaking within individual agencies, but also because they 

will contribute to OMB’s ability to effectively establish the 

architectural context needed to successfully pursue the 

president’s e-government initiatives. 
Page 4 GAO-02-389T 

Enterprise architecture development, implementation, and 

maintenance is a basic tenet of effective IT management. Used in 

concert with other IT management controls, they can greatly 

increase the chances for optimal mission performance. We have 

found that attempting to modernize operations and systems 

without an architecture leads to operational and systems 

duplication, lack of integration, and unnecessary expense. Our 

best practices research of successful public and private-sector 

organizations has similarly identified enterprise architectures as 

essential to effective business and technology transformation.3

Expanded use of e-government, which involves people, processes, 

and technology, is one avenue that the federal government is 

pursuing to transform how it does business internally and 

externally with citizens, private-sector businesses, and state and 

local governments. In fact, the president made e-government 

expansion one of the five key elements in his management and 

performance plan for making government citizen-centered, 

results-oriented, and market-based. 

In simplest terms, an enterprise is any purposeful activity, and an 

architecture is the structure (or structural description) of 

anything; thus simply making an enterprise architecture a way to 

describe the structural composition of such activities as a federal 

agency or a government function that transcends more than one 

agency (e.g., grants management). Building on this, enterprise 

architectures consist of models, diagrams, tables, and narrative, 

which together translate the complexities of a given entity into 

simplified yet meaningful representations of how the entity 

operates (and intends to operate). Such operations are described 

in logical terms (e.g., business processes, rules, information needs 

and flows, users, locations) and technical terms (e.g., hardware, 

software, data, communications, and security standards and 

 

3

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance 

through Strategic Information Management and Technology, GAO/AIMD-94-115 

(Washington, D.C.: May 1994). 

Background 

What is an Enterprise 

Architecture? 
Page 5 GAO-02-389T 

protocols). These windows into the entity’s operations are 

provided for the current, or “as is,” environment, as well as for the 

target, or “to be,” environment. A third element is a transition plan 

that charts the journey between the two. 

The concept of enterprise architectures in the federal government 

can be traced back to the late 1980s, when the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology issued architectural guidance.4

 Shortly 

thereafter, our research of public and private-sector organizations 

identified these architectures as instrumental to organizational 

success in effectively leveraging IT in meeting mission goals.5

 We 

subsequently issued architecture guidance,6

 as did other federal 

entities. 

The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996,7

 which directs the chief 

information officers (CIOs) of major departments and agencies to 

develop, maintain, and facilitate the implementation of 

information technology architectures as a means of integrating 

agency goals and business processes with IT, served as an 

important catalyst in promoting greater awareness and use of 

architectures in the federal government. In response to the act, 

OMB, in collaboration with us, issued architecture development 

and implementation guidance.8

 OMB recently issued more 

stringent guidance directing that agency investments in IT be 

based on agency architectures.9

 Similarly, the CIO Council 

recently collaborated with us in issuing two additional guidance 

documents describing, respectively, assessment of whether 

 

4

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

Integration Challenge, Special Publication 500-167 (Gaithersburg, Md.: September 1989). 

5

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Meeting the Government’s Technology Challenge: Results 

of a GAO Symposium, GAO/IMTEC-90-23 (Washington, D.C.: February 1990). 

6

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

and Developing System Architectures, GAO/IMTEC-92-51 (Washington, D.C.: June 1992). 

7

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

8

 Office of Management and Budget, Information Technology Architectures, Memorandum 

M-97-16 (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 1997), rescinded with the update of OMB Circular No. 

A-130, Nov. 30, 2000. 

9

 Office of Management and Budget, Management of Federal Information Resources, 

Circular No. A-130 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2000). 

Federal Enterprise 

Architecture Activities and 

Our Past Findings: A Brief 

History 
Page 6 GAO-02-389T 

agency-proposed IT investments are compliant with its enterprise 

architecture;10 and an end-to-end set of steps for managing the 

development, implementation, and maintenance of enterprise 

architectures.11

 

We have been reviewing federal agencies’ use of architectures 

since 1994, focusing initially on those agencies that were pursuing 

major systems modernization programs that were high-risk. These 

included the National Weather Service modernization,12 the 

Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control modernization,13

and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax systems 

modernization.14 We reported that these agencies’ did not have 

complete architectures, and we made detailed recommendations 

to assist the agencies in developing, maintaining, and 

implementing them. 

Since then, we have tracked the progress of these agencies and 

reviewed architecture management at other agencies, including 

the Department of Education,15 the U.S. Customs Service,16 and the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service.17 We have also reviewed 

 

10 Chief Information Officers Council, Architecture Alignment and Assessment Guide 

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

11 A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0. 

12 U.S. General Accounting Office, Weather Forecasting: Systems Architecture Needed for 

National Weather Service Modernization, GAO/AIMD-94-28 (Washington, D.C.: March 11, 

1994). 

13 U.S. General Accounting Office, Air Traffic Control: Complete and Enforced Architecture 

Needed for FAA Systems Modernization, GAO/AIMD-97-30 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 1997). 

14 U.S. General Accounting Office, Tax Systems Modernization: Blueprint Is a Good Start 

but Not Yet Sufficiently Complete to Build or Acquire Systems, GAO/AIMD/GGD-98-54 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 1998). 

15 U.S. General Accounting Office, Student Financial Aid Information: Systems Architecture 

Needed to Improve Programs’ Efficiency, GAO/AIMD-97-122 (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 

1997). 

16 U.S. General Accounting Office, Customs Service Modernization: Architecture Must Be 

Complete and Enforced to Effectively Build and Maintain Systems, GAO/AIMD-98-70 

(Washington, D.C.: May 5, 1998). 

17 U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: INS Needs to Better Manage the 

Development of Its Enterprise Architecture, GAO/AIMD-00-212 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1, 

2000). 
Page 7 GAO-02-389T 

the use of architectures for certain agency functional areas, such 

as Department of Defense financial management18 and combat 

identification systems.19 These reviews have continued to identify 

the absence of complete and enforced architectures as a 

fundamental IT management weakness, leading to agency 

business operations, systems, and data that are incompatible, and 

forcing agencies either not to share data or to depend on 

expensive, custom-developed interface systems to do so. In 

response to our recommendations, some agencies have made 

progress. But this progress has taken a long time, and other 

agencies have yet to make similar strides. 

As we testified in July 2001,20 advances in the use of IT and the 

Internet are continuing to change the way all levels of government 

communicate, use and disseminate information, deliver services, 

and conduct business. These advances offer great potential in 

helping build better relationships between government and the 

public by facilitating timely and efficient interaction. Accordingly, 

governments are increasingly turning to the Internet to conduct 

paperless acquisitions, provide interactive electronic services to 

the public, and tailor or personalize information. States and 

localities have been in the forefront of using electronic 

government, at least in terms of having Web sites: a survey in the 

fall of 2000 found that about 83 percent of local governments had 

such sites, but that few were providing interactive, on-line service 

delivery (although they planned to do so in the future).21 And the 

public is certainly on board: in a November 2001 poll, over 75 

 

18 U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Architecture Needed to Guide 

Modernization of DOD’s Financial Operations, GAO-01-525 (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 

2001). 

19 U.S. General Accounting Office, Combat Identification Systems: Strengthened 

Management Efforts Needed to Ensure Required Capabilities, GAO-01-632 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 25, 2001). 

20 U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Challenges Must Be Addressed 

With Effective Leadership and Management, GAO-01-959T (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 

2001). 

21 Survey conducted by the International City/County Management Association and Public 

Technology, Inc. 

Brief Overview of Egovernment Efforts 
Page 8 GAO-02-389T 

percent of all Americans reported having used a government Web 

site, and 90 percent favored increased government investment in 

information-sharing initiatives aimed at apprehending and 

prosecuting criminals and terrorists.22

Federal agencies have already implemented an array of egovernment applications, including using the Internet to collect 

and disseminate information and forms, buy and pay for goods 

and services, submit bids and proposals, and apply for licenses, 

grants, and benefits. In fact, a study of 22 countries’ e-government 

efforts showed that the U.S. federal government had developed an 

extensive on-line presence. However, this study also judged the 

U.S. federal government as below average with respect to egovernment delivery mechanisms, such as single point of entry 

and customer-relations management.23

The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)24 promotes 

e-government expansion by requiring that by October 21, 2003, 

federal agencies provide the public, when practicable, the option 

of submitting, maintaining, and disclosing required information 

electronically. The act makes OMB responsible for ensuring that 

agencies meet this implementation deadline. OMB, in turn, 

required each agency, by October 2000, to develop and submit an 

implementation plan and schedule. In testimony last year on 

GPEA implementation, the director of OMB stated that “agency 

progress in going electronic is mixed.”

25 Our own reviews of 

agency GPEA implementation plans found many omissions and 

 

22 Hart-Teeter poll reported in The Council for Excellence in Government: E-Government: 

To Connect, Protect, and Serve Us (February 2002). The nationally representative survey 

polled 961 American adults, including an “oversample” of 155 Internet users; it has a 3.5 

percent margin of error. 

23 Accenture, eGovernment Leadership: Rhetoric vs. Reality–Closing the Gap (April 2001). 

24 Public Law 105-277, Div. C, title XVII, October 1998. 

25 House Committee on Government Reform. Statement of Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., director, 

OMB, 107th Cong., 21 June 2001. 
Page 9 GAO-02-389T 

inconsistencies, which indicates that many agencies may be at risk 

of not meeting GPEA objectives.26

We later testified, in 2001, that federal agencies had implemented 

or were in the process of implementing a wide spectrum of egovernment initiatives. This variety is illustrated by figure 1, which 

depicts the types of federal e-government initiatives reported by 

37 departments and agencies. The category with the greatest 

number of initiatives is “information dissemination”—reported by 

the General Services Administration (GSA) and the federal CIO 

Council to be the least technically complex; it involves 

implementing applications on the Internet that make electronic 

information readily accessible. In the next category—“forms”—

agencies provide downloadable electronic forms. The 

“transaction” category is a more complex implementation of egovernment and includes initiatives such as submitting patent 

applications via the Internet. Finally, in the last category—

“transformation”—the e-government initiative is expected to 

transform the way the government operates. For example, the 

Navy’s Virtual Naval Hospital initiative is to provide a digital 

science library, and is designed to deliver expert medical 

information to providers and patients at the point of care. 

 

26 U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Better Information Needed on 

Agencies’ Implementation of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, GAO-01-1100 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2001) and U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic 

Government: Selected Agency Plans for Implementing the Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act, GAO-01-861T (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2001). 
Page 10 GAO-02-389T 

Figure 1: Numbers of Federal e-government Initiatives, by 

Type, as of January 2001.a 

a Transactions are defined as end-to-end completed electronically. Transformation is 

defined as government’s taking a global focus, government involvement being minimal, and 

citizens not needing to know the government entity to obtain services. 

Source: General Services Administration in cooperation with the Federal CIO Council, An 

Inventory of Federal e-Government Initiatives (Washington, D.C.: January 2001). 

Figure 2 depicts the constituencies targeted by the e-government 

initiatives; the greatest number are aimed directly at the American 

citizen. 

88

460

56

809

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Information

dissemination

Forms only Transactions Transformation
Page 11 GAO-02-389T 

Figure 2: Numbers of Federal e-government Initiatives, by 

Constituent Category, as of January 2001. 

Source: GSA in cooperation with the Federal CIO Council, An Inventory of Federal eGovernment Initiatives (Washington, D.C.: January 2001). 

We also testified at this time that e-government implementation 

faced many challenges. These challenges included, among other 

things, the need for architectures to guide and constrain egovernment investments.27

Subsequently, the OMB director created an e-government task 

force to identify priority actions aimed at improving service to 

individuals, service to businesses, intergovernmental affairs (statefederal), and federal agency-to-agency efficiency and 

 

27 The challenges we identified were (1) sustaining committed executive leadership, (2) 

building an e-government business case, which includes development of an enterprise 

architecture, (3) maintaining a citizen focus, (4) protecting personal privacy, (5) 

implementing appropriate security controls, (6) maintaining electronic records, (7) 

maintaining a robust technical infrastructure, (8) IT workforce management, and (9) 

ensuring uniform service to the public. See GAO-01-959T. 

570

315 356 348

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Government to

citizen

Government to

employee

Government to

government

Government to

business
Page 12 GAO-02-389T 

effectiveness. The task force produced 24 initiatives, which were 

approved by the president’s management council in October 

2001.28 Criteria for settling on the 24 were expected value to 

citizens, potential for improvements in agency operational 

efficiency and savings, and likelihood of deploying within 18-24 

months. According to the task force report, these initiatives could 

generate several billions of dollars in savings by reducing 

operating inefficiencies, redundant spending, and excessive 

paperwork. Further, the report states that the initiatives will 

provide service to citizens in minutes or hours, compared with 

today’s standard of days or weeks, and will make available over $1 

billion in savings from aligning redundant IT investments. Table 1 

provides examples of these initiatives. 

 

28 Twenty-three initiatives were approved last October, with a 24th

, e-Payroll/HR, being 

added later. An additional 25th initiative, called Federal Architecture, is included in OMB’s 

February 2002 E-Government Strategy. It plans to map government processes by line of 

business. 
Page 13 GAO-02-389T 

Table 1: Sample e-government Initiatives. 

Name Function Category 

Proposed 

agency 

managing 

partner 

EZ Tax Filing Make it easier for citizens to file taxes in Web-enabled 

environment 

Government to 

citizen 

Internal Revenue 

Service 

One-Stop Business 

Compliance Information 

Provide information on laws and regulations; offer “wizards” 

and tutorials enabling citizens to determine if rules apply to 

them; permits can be completed, submitted, approved on-line, 

to extent possible 

Government to 

business 

Small Business 

Administration 

Disaster Assistance and 

Crisis Response 

Serve as a single application point for all disaster assistance 

programs 

Government to 

government 

Federal 

Emergency 

Management 

Agency 

Enterprise Human 

Resources Integrations 

Eliminate need for paper employee records, enable strategic 

decisions regarding human capital and financial resources; 

allow electronic transfer of data, better protect employee 

rights and benefits, and improve governmentwide reporting 

and data analysis; enable faster security clearances 

Internal efficiency 

and effectiveness 

Office of 

Personnel 

Management 

Source: E-Government Strategy: Simplified Delivery of Services to Citizens. 

The 24 initiatives form the core of OMB’s strategy for 

accomplishing the president’ e-government expansion agenda--one 

of the five key elements in the president’s management agenda 

and performance plan issued in August 2001. 
Page 14 GAO-02-389T 

As part of our recent report on the state of enterprise architecture 

management in the federal government,29 we developed an initial 

version of a framework for defining and measuring architecture 

management progress. This framework defines five stages of 

maturity, beginning at the bottom with stage 1, Creating EA 

Awareness, and rising ultimately to stage 5, Leveraging EA for 

Managing Change. Figure 3 provides a simplified depiction of the 

framework. 

Figure 3: A Simplified Depiction of our Enterprise 

Architecture Maturity Framework. 

Source: GAO. 

 

29 GAO-02-6. 

A Five Stage 

Framework for 

Enterprise 

Architecture Maturity 
Page 15 GAO-02-389T 

The stages build, from 1 to 5, such that each stage includes all of 

the elements of the prior stage. Each stage in briefly summarized 

below. A more detailed description is in our report. 30

Stage 1, Creating Architecture Awareness, signifies either no 

architecture plans, or plans that do not yet demonstrate awareness 

of the architecture’s value. While some core elements may have 

been initiated, such actions are ad hoc and unstructured, and do 

not provide the needed foundation for successful development. 

Stage 2, Building Architecture Management Foundation, 

focuses on assigning roles and responsibilities and establishing 

plans for developing architecture products; this would include a 

chief architect and a staffed program office. Also required is a 

steering committee—with representatives of both business and 

IT—to oversee development. An architecture framework and 

automated tool should also have been selected. 

Stage 3, Developing Architecture Products, addresses the 

creation of properly scoped components of the architecture. While 

products are not yet complete, plans provide for an architecture 

that characterizes the agency in business, data, applications, and 

technology terms. They also describe the current condition, target 

state, and sequencing plan for making the transition. 

Stage 4, Completing Architecture Products, is just that; CIOapproved, properly scoped products exist for use in selecting and 

controlling IT investments. Further, agency policy requires that IT 

investments comply with the architecture. 

Stage 5, Leveraging the Architecture for Managing Change, 

entails evolving the architecture products according to an 

approved policy for architecture maintenance. The architecture is 

approved by the steering committee, investment review board, or 

agency head. Finally, it is being used for IT investment 

decisionmaking, and metrics about the architecture’s use and 

value are being captured. 

 

30 GAO-02-6. 
Page 16 GAO-02-389T 

As our report details, the state of EA maturity governmentwide is 

not good.31 About half of the 116 agencies surveyed had reached at 

least stage 2, having a management foundation in place. This 

means that half had not, remaining in stage 1. At the other end of 

the spectrum, only 5 of the 116 agencies32 reported that they were 

satisfying the core elements needed to be considered effective 

architecture managers, meaning that they have approved 

architectures that are being used to some extent in selecting and 

controlling IT investments (stage 4 or 5). Figure 4 depicts the 

number of agencies at each stage. 

Figure 4: Number of Agencies at Each Stage of Enterprise 

Architecture Maturity, and Stage Definitions. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

56

42

13

4 1

Number of agencies

Maturity stage

MATURITY FRAMEWORK STAGES

5 Leveraging EA for managing change

4 Completing architecture products

3 Developing architecture products

2 Building EA management foundation

1 Creating EA awareness

Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses.

Despite this immature state of affairs, embedded in the agency 

responses to our survey are signs that near-term progress is 

possible. For example, about 75 percent of the agencies have 

established an enterprise architecture program office, and about 

 

31 GAO-02-6. 

32 The Customs Service, Department of the Army, Internal Revenue Service, Office of 

Personnel Management, and Patent and Trademark Office. 

Federal Enterprise 

Architecture Maturity 

Is Limited, But 

Positive Signs for 

Progress Exist 
Page 17 GAO-02-389T 

75 percent have likewise selected an architecture framework and 

automated tool. 

Further, in several cases, agencies have satisfied some elements of 

a higher stage (say, stage 3), but are still categorized lower (stage 

2) because, in such an example, not all of the stage 3 tasks have 

been satisfied. Over 80 percent of the agencies, in fact, reported 

performing one or more core elements associated with a higher 

stage of maturity. Specifically: 

 Of the 56 agencies in stage 1, 35 are performing core elements 

that meet at least one criterion found in stages 2–5. 

 About half of the 116 agencies must satisfy only one additional 

core element to advance to the next stage. In fact, 8 of the 53 

agencies in this category could jump two stages by satisfying 

just one more element. One agency—the Defense Contract 

Audit Agency—could climb three stages, from stage 2 to stage 

5, by satisfying just one additional core element: placing their 

EA products under configuration management.33 

It is also important to remember that the self-reported agency data 

that we used are as of a specific point in time, a snapshot; 

responses were received by us between June and October 2001. 

Anecdotal evidence suggests that if such a picture were taken 

today, it would reflect a somewhat better situation. For example: 

 The Immigration and Naturalization Service has been working 

to implement our recommendations for correcting its 

enterprise architecture management weaknesses,34 and it has 

made some progress since responding to our survey in July 

2001. Judged at stage 1 on the basis of its responses to us at 

that time, it now reports that it has satisfied the single element 

it was missing in order to be at stage 2--an automated 

architecture tool. Further, INS reports completing the initial 

version of its current, “as is” architecture for data, application, 

 

33 Configuration management is a means for ensuring the integrity and consistency of 

program and project products throughout their life cycles. 

34 GAO/AIMD-00-212. 
Page 18 GAO-02-389T 

and technology. It is currently focusing on developing its 

target (“to be”) architecture, and plans to complete this 

work—along with a transition plan—by October 1, 2002. 

 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, judged as 

being at stage 2 level of maturity because it reported not 

satisfying one stage 3 core element—having the architecture 

products that it was developing under configuration control—

has since addressed this weakness. Accordingly, it would now 

be considered stage 3. 

 Judged as a stage 1 agency based on the information it 

reported, the Department of Veterans Affairs has made 

progress in two important areas necessary to building the 

foundation for effective EA management. Specifically, it now 

has an acting chief architect and is recruiting a permanent one, 

and is in the process of establishing an EA program 

management office. 

Additionally, it is important to recognize that enterprise 

architectures are living documents; to be effective change 

management tools, they must be continuously maintained, 

meaning new versions will be created to reflect shifts in business 

priorities and strategies and emerging technologies. Such revision 

and update also signal agency architecture maturity progression. 

IRS is a case in point. Judged a stage 4 agency on the basis of 

information it submitted last July and remaining so today, IRS has 

nonetheless continued to evolve its architecture, subsequently 

producing updated versions. On the basis of IRS officials’ briefings 

to us, the latest version is more robust and content rich than 

previous versions, including, for example, an enterprisewide 

focus, multiple levels of business decomposition, and a detailed 

logical data model. 

In the absence of enterprise architectures, agency operations and 

systems have been allowed to “morph” over time in isolation from 

one another, thus producing standalone, subagency islands of 

processes and automation. As we have repeatedly reported, the 

result is suboptimization of the whole (the agency) in favor of the 

needs of the parochial parts (agency components). These 

Enterprise Architecture 

Progress: Benefits and 

Challenges 
Page 19 GAO-02-389T 

undesirable consequences of “architecture-free” past practices 

point to the benefits to be realized from having and using 

enterprise architectures. 

Our survey of agency enterprise architecture management efforts 

highlighted these benefits. Specifically, about 40-50 percent of the 

agencies responding cited the following benefits from enterprise 

architectures: (1) lower system-related costs, (2) enhanced 

productivity and improved efficiency, and (3) improved 

organization and change management. Further, about 25 percent 

cited improved systems interoperability as an additional benefit. 

Given these impressive benefits, why has progress across the 

federal government been so meager? When asked about 

challenges and potential barriers to developing and using 

enterprise architectures, the four areas most often cited by 

agencies that responded to our inquiry were lack of funding, 

limited management understanding, parochialism, and shortage of 

skilled staff. Ironically, these are some of the very challenges 

facing OMB in implementing its e-government initiatives. (See 

figure 5.) 

Figure 5: Federal Agencies’ Frequently Identified EA 

Management Challenges. 

50

39 39

32

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Funding Management

understanding

Parochialism Skilled staff

Percentage of agencies

g g

Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses.
Page 20 GAO-02-389T 

As we testified last year,35 opportunities abound for expanded use 

of e-government to provide faster, more convenient, and more 

efficient on-line information access and services to citizens. 

However, many challenges exist, and past mistakes serve to 

remind us that IT solutions carry with them risks as well as 

benefits. If not managed properly, these risks can become 

problems that rob the nation of promised IT investment value. The 

key to success is to proceed in a way that employs proven IT 

management best practices. Metaphorically, these practices are 

the horse that pulls the cart that contains the e-government 

initiatives. In the past, federal agencies have largely allowed the 

cart to get ahead of the horse. For OMB’s e-government initiatives 

to succeed, this pitfall must be avoided. 

One proven best practice is developing, maintaining, and using 

enterprise architectures to guide and constrain IT investments. 

When well developed, maintained, and used, they bring clarity and 

understanding to the interrelationships and interdependencies 

among business operations and the underlying IT infrastructure 

and applications that support the operations. Used in concert with 

other IT management best practices, they can greatly increase the 

chances for optimizing overall mission performance. As noted, 

attempting to modernize operations and systems without 

architectures leads to operational and systems duplication, lack of 

integration, and unnecessary expense. 

OMB’s recently released e-government strategy36 includes an egovernment federal architecture project, a goal of which was to 

develop, by March 15, 2002, certain enterprise architecture 

products for each of the 24 e-government initiatives.37 Another 

goal is to collect and analyze available agency architecture 

information with an eye toward identifying new e-government 

initiatives. A final goal is to develop federal (i.e., governmentwide) 

 

35 GAO-01-959T. 

36 E–Government Strategy: Simplified Delivery of Services to Citizens.

37 See the attachment to this statement for information on all of the initiatives. 

E-government 

Success Depends on 

Effective Use of 

Enterprise 

Architectures 
Page 21 GAO-02-389T 

architecture products in four focus areas: homeland security, 

economic stimulus, social services, and “back office” operations. 

These latter two goals are to be accomplished by April 30, 2002.38

The need for progress in the federal government’s use of 

enterprise architectures is undeniable, and OMB’s central role in 

holding agencies accountable and helping them to progress in this 

area is equally obvious. At stake is not only the ability of federal 

agencies to effectively transform their respective operations and 

supporting systems environments, and thus elevate their 

performance, but also the ability of agencies to effectively work 

together in implementing integrated e-government solutions, 

thereby advancing governmentwide mission effectiveness and 

efficiency. 

To its credit, OMB has taken important steps in the last year to 

promote and oversee agency development and use of enterprise 

architectures. We support these efforts. Nevertheless, OMB’s 

approach has been to focus only on the 24 major departments and 

agencies, and to rely on the unverified, nonstandard status 

reporting of each. Restated, OMB is not using a structured, 

systematic approach to define and measure architecture progress 

and identify associated governmentwide challenges and solutions. 

Also to OMB’s credit, it has committed to developing enterprise 

architectures for its e-government initiatives, and has set 

challenging goals for doing so. Aside from the ambitious time 

frames it has established and the sheer breadth and magnitude of 

these architecture efforts, a challenge facing OMB is overcoming 

the less-than-stellar state of the government’s enterprise 

architecture affairs, as our testimony and recent report show, 

particularly for those agencies that have lead responsibility for the 

initiatives. For example, as table 2 indicates, 2 of the 13 lead 

agencies for the 24 e-government initiatives are at an enterprise 

architecture stage of 1, 8 are at stage 2, 1 is at stage 3, and only 2 

are at stage 4. None have reached stage 5. 

 

38 We have not conducted work to determine OMB’s progress in meeting these goals. 

OMB: The Lead Actor 

in Achieving Enterprise 

Architecture and Egovernment Progress 
Page 22 GAO-02-389T 

Table 2: Enterprise Architecture Stages of the Agencies 

Having “Managing Partner” Status in the 24 OMB egovernment Initiatives. 

Department/Agency EA stage Initiative(s) 

Department of 

Commerce 

3 International Trade Process Streamlining 

Department of 

Education 

2 Online Access for Loans 

Federal Emergency 

Management Agency 

2 Disaster Assistance and Crisis Response 

e-Authentication 

e-Travel 

Federal Asset Sales 

Integrated Acquisition Environment 

GSA 2 

USA Services 

Department of Consolidated Health Informatics 

Health and Human 

Services 

1 

e-Grants 

Department of the Geospatial Information One-Stop 

Interior 

2 

Recreation One-Stop 

IRS 4 Expanding Electronic Tax Products for Business 

EZ Tax Filing 

Department of Labor 2 Eligibility Assistance Online 

National Archives 

and Records 

Administration 

a Electronic Records Management 

Enterprise HR Integrations 

e-Payroll/HR 

e-Training 

Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) 

4 

Recruitment One-Stop 

Small Business 

Administration 

2 One-Stop Business Compliance Information 

Social Security 

Administration 

2 e-Vital 

Department of 

Transportation 

2 Online Rulemaking Management 

Department of the 

Treasury 

1 Wireless Public SAFEty Interoperable 

COMmunications/Project SAFECOM 

a The National Archives and Records Administration was not included in our survey due to 

the size of its budget. 

Source: E-Government Strategy: Simplified Delivery of Services to Citizens. 
Page 23 GAO-02-389T 

Strong OMB leadership is especially pivotal to ensuring that both 

agency-specific investments in IT and governmentwide 

investments in e-government are made within the context of 

enterprise architectures. To do less jeopardizes realizing the full 

potential and benefits of these investments. OMB has thus far 

demonstrated leadership on both fronts, but the importance of 

these investments requires it to go farther. 

Accordingly, we have made recommendations to the director of 

OMB aimed at strengthening its enterprise architecture leadership 

through adoption of the maturity framework we developed, use of 

the baseline agency architecture information that we collected as 

a maturity benchmark, and periodic maturation reporting, all with 

the intent of bringing greater emphasis, and thus meaningful 

progress, to this important area. While these recommendations 

were made in the context of agency-specific architectures and 

investments, they have relevance to the OMB-led e-government 

architecture project and initiatives as well. OMB has agreed to 

consider implementing them. We encourage OMB to move swiftly 

in accepting and implementing these recommendations. 

* * * * * 

In conclusion, federal agencies’ use of enterprise architectures is 

mixed, but overall insufficient to support informed IT investment 

decisionmaking. As a result, most agencies are at risk of investing 

in IT solutions that will not overcome, but rather will perpetuate, 

longstanding incompatibilities and duplication within agency 

operational and systems environments. This risk is amplified for 

investments that involve multiple agencies, such as OMB’s egovernment initiatives, because they too require effectively 

defined and effectively implemented architectures to be 

successful, and the reasons that have stymied agency-specific 

architecture efforts are an order of magnitude greater when more 

than one agency is involved. 

Given that effective use of enterprise architectures is a key 

element to successfully investing in IT solutions, the burden is on 

OMB as the federal government’s IT management leader to ensure 

that agencies meet their enterprise architecture obligations and 

that progress is made across the federal government. To do less 
Page 24 GAO-02-389T 

risks both unwise IT spending and missed opportunities. To assist 

OMB in shouldering this burden, we have provided it with 

important tools for defining, measuring, and promoting enterprise 

architecture maturation across federal agencies. 

 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. We would be pleased 

to answer any questions that you or other members of the 

subcommittee may have at this time. 

Should you have any questions about this testimony, please 

contact us by e-mail at hiter@gao.gov or mcclured@gao.gov, or by 

phone at (202) 512-3439 or (202) 512-6257. Other major 

contributors to this testimony included Mark T. Bird, John A. de 

Ferrari, Michael P. Fruitman, and Pamlutricia Greenleaf. 

Contact and 

Acknowledgments 
Attachment 

E-Government Initiatives 

Page 25 GAO-02-389T 

The following table provides information on each of the 24 OMBsponsored e-government initiatives. 

Name Function Category 

Proposed 

agency 

managing 

partner 

Consolidated Health 

Informatics 

Provides a simplified, unified system for sharing and reusing 

medical record information among agencies and private 

providers and insurers. 

Government to 

business 

Department of 

Health and 

Human Services 

Disaster Assistance and 

Crisis Response 

Serves as a single application point for all disaster assistance 

programs. 

Government to 

government 

Federal 

Emergency 

Management 

Agency 

e-Authentication Builds and enables mutual trust needed for widespread use of 

electronic interactions between the public and government 

and across governments; provides a method for satisfactorily 

establishing identity. 

Addressing Barriers 

to E-Government 

Success 

GSA 

e-Grants Creates an electronic portal for grant recipients and grantmaking agencies that will streamline federal grants 

management. 

Government to 

government 

Department of 

Health and 

Human Services 

Electronic Records 

Management 

Provides tools and guidance agencies need to manage their 

records electronically. 

Internal efficiency 

and effectiveness 

National 

Archives and 

Records 

Administration 

Eligibility Assistance 

Online 

Provides common Internet portal for identifying government 

benefits programs for which citizens may be eligible; targets 

high-need demographic groups. 

Government to 

citizen 

Department of 

Labor 

Enterprise HR Integrations Eliminates need for paper employee records, enables 

strategic decisions regarding human capital and financial 

resources; allows electronic transfer of HR data, better 

protects employee rights and benefits, and improves 

governmentwide reporting and data analysis; enables faster 

security clearances. 

Internal efficiency 

and effectiveness 

OPM 

e-Payroll/HR Simplifies/unifies payroll/human resources elements to 

consolidate and integrate these functions across government. 

Internal efficiency 

and effectiveness 

OPM 

e-Training Provides a repository of government-owned courseware, 

enabling economies of scale pricing and fostering 

development of communities of practice. 

Internal efficiency 

and effectiveness 

OPM 

e-Travel Provides a common travel management system for agency 

use. 

Internal efficiency 

and effectiveness 

GSA 

e-Vital Expands existing vital records on-line data exchange activity 

between the federal and state governments. 

Government to 

government 

Social Security 

Administration 
Attachment 

E-Government Initiatives 

Page 26 GAO-02-389T 

Name Function Category 

Proposed 

agency 

managing 

partner 

Expanding Electronic Tax 

Products for Business 

Reduces number of tax forms that employers must file, and 

provides timely and accurate information and more available 

electronic filing. 

Government to 

Business 

IRS 

EZ Tax Filing Makes it easier for citizens to file taxes in Web-enabled 

environment. 

Government to 

citizen 

IRS 

Federal Asset Sales Provides easier locating of asset sales, irrespective of agency 

involved, and allows bidding and purchasing electronically. 

Government to 

business 

GSA 

Geospatial Information 

One-Stop 

Provides access to the government’s spatial data assets in 

one location, and promotes collaboration with state and local 

governments. 

Government to 

government 

Department of 

the Interior 

Integrated Acquisition 

Environment 

Allows agencies to share information so that procurement and 

other types of decisions can be more informed. 

Internal efficiency 

and effectiveness 

GSA 

International Trade 

Process Streamlining 

Creates a single site where exporters can be assisted 

electronically through entire export process. 

Government to 

business 

Department of 

Commerce 

One-Stop Business 

Compliance Information 

Provides information on laws and regulations; offers “wizards”

and tutorials enabling citizens to determine if rules apply to 

them; permits can be completed, submitted, approved on-line, 

to extent possible. 

Government to 

business 

Small Business 

Administration 

Online Access for Loans Allows citizens and business to find appropriate loan 

programs. 

Government to 

citizen 

Department of 

Education 

Online Rulemaking 

Management 

Provides access to all government rulemaking, anytime, 

anywhere, by expanding an existing e-Docket system that 

permits use by other agency systems through “storefronts.”

Government to 

Business 

Department of 

Transportation 

Recreation One-Stop Provides a one-stop, searchable database of recreational 

areas nationwide; includes on-line campground reservations 

and purchase of recreational passes, maps, and other 

products. 

Government to 

citizen 

Department of 

the Interior 

Recruitment One-Stop Improves federal hiring process by improving automated 

employment information system; provides job-seekers with 

on-line status feedback and provides employees with a 

searchable resume database. 

Internal efficiency 

and effectiveness 

OPM 

USA Services Uses best practices in customer relationships to enable 

citizens to quickly obtain service on-line while improving 

responsiveness and consistency across government 

agencies. 

Government to 

citizen 

GSA 
Attachment 

E-Government Initiatives 

Page 27 GAO-02-389T 

Name Function Category 

Proposed 

agency 

managing 

partner 

Wireless Public SAFEty 

Interoperable 

COMmunications/Project 

SAFECOM 

Helps public safety agencies at all levels of government 

achieve interoperability and eliminate redundant wireless 

communications infrastructures. 

Government to 

government 

Department of 

the Treasury 

And a 25th initiative, just announced last month called Federal Architecture,

managed by OMB, will develop information and data and application interface 

standards to eliminate redundancies and yield improved operating efficiencies 

governmentwide. 

Source: E-Government Strategy: Simplified Delivery of Services to Citizens. 

(310227)