Source: http://www.enterprise-architecture.info/EA_Governance.htm
Timestamp: 2013-05-25 02:37:26
Document Index: 430410315

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1']

Enterprise Architecture Governance, Institute For Enterprise Architecture Developments (IFEAD)
IFEAD is an independent research and information exchange organization working on the future state of Enterprise Architecture. Home US
EA Methods
EA & SOE/SOA
EA & Strategy EA Best Practices
EA Defense
EA Presentations
E2A Approach IFEAD (Extended Enterprise Architecture)
About IFEAD
IFEAD Partners
About the Founder Contact Us
Strategic Governance & Enterprise Architecture
Using Enterprise Architecture for IT and Business Governance Requirements, Part 1
By Clive Finkelstein Governance Responsibilities Imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (also called "Sar-Ox" or "SOX") assigns personal responsibility to senior management of public and non-public organizations in the U.S. and is also being applied in various forms by other countries throughout the world. Of particular concern is Section 404 of the Act, which relates to "Management Assessment of Internal Controls." This section requires an internal control report and states "the responsibility of management for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting."1
Typical examples of the difficulties that face senior management to ensure they support SOX are the following issues related to internal control over financial reporting of public companies and also in relation to judgments and estimates:
"Management is required to document the system of internal control over financial reporting. As required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), section 404 (Management Assessment of Internal Controls), management will be required to assess the effectiveness of these controls. The ASB [Auditing Standards Board] believes that the evidence management uses to support its assertion about the effectiveness of its internal control also should be documented. The ASB believes that a failure to document the system of controls or the evidence used in making the assessment should be considered a weakness in internal control." "Management must recognize that judgments and estimates are subject to second-guessing, and an assessment can change in a subsequent period if new information becomes available. As a result, the system of internal control over estimates is particularly sensitive because the auditor or a regulator might conclude that the internal control system was either not appropriate or not functioning because it allowed an inappropriate estimate to be booked in the first place. This will be true for any account or control where there is a greater degree of subjectivity."2
The internal controls that are required will vary from enterprise to enterprise. They will need to be tailored to the relevant industry (or industries) within which the organization operates; they are also typically unique for each enterprise. They are determined by its business activities and processes as well as its financial controls. They are closely related to the IT systems and databases that the enterprise uses for financial and other reporting.
Read more at the DM-Review site
Clive Finkelstein, the father of information engineering (IE), is an international consultant and an instructor. He is the managing director of Information Engineering Services Pty Ltd (IES) in Australia. You may contact Clive Finkelstein by e-mail at cfink@ies.aust.com.
Using Enterprise Architecture for IT and Business Governance Requirements, Part 2
December 1, 2004 By Clive Finkelstein Part 1 of this column discussed the requirement of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for internal control reporting to senior management. The governance analysis that is required by this Act in the U.S., and by similar governance initiatives in other countries, was discussed in terms of the questions that are addressed by enterprise architecture. Several matrices were used to illustrate typical questions that must be capable of being answered. Part 2 of this column now discusses how these matrices are developed. Both parts of this article are of interest to senior management. Developing Governance Analysis Frameworks for an Enterprise
It is important to note that none of the matrices in Figures 3-6 (found in Part 1 of this column) were manually defined. To create the relevant row and column titles manually for each of these tailored matrices is extremely difficult; to keep them manually updated continually as the enterprise changes over time is even more difficult. Only if all matrices are maintained up-to-date over time can they be relied on for effective internal control. When other matrices also listed in Part 1 are considered, manual definition and maintenance of these matrices for internal control reporting purposes is no longer a practical or realistic option.
Instead, the relevant row and column titles for each matrix in these figures were automatically generated by a modeling tool (discussed later), based on a rigorous governance analysis methodology. Each generated and tailored matrix for an organization provides a GAF to be completed by relevant business and IT experts. When completed, these matrices provide a powerful internal control reporting capability. Furthermore, this automated support enables the matrices to be easily maintained over time. Any relevant changes are automatically applied to all other matrices that are also affected. The methodology, the steps and the modeling tools used to achieve this automatic matrix creation and maintenance are discussed later in this column, in the "Methods and Tools for GAFs" and "Step-by-Step Approach for GAFs" sections.
These matrices are generated from the strategic business plans that are defined and accepted by senior management for the enterprise. Such plans define the strategic directions that the senior management team establishes to manage the enterprise today and provide direction as it moves into the future. These strategic plans provide a catalyst to develop a strategic map as part of a tailored strategic model for the enterprise.
A strategic map is a "picture of the business," similar in concept to the layout of a city. A city map clearly shows the layout of streets ("where") and the access routes that define "how" to get there. It also indicates "what" is located in parts of the city. Given a reason ("why") to take a given route at a certain time ("when"), people ("who") can use the map to navigate through any city.
What is missing in most enterprises is a similar map (or picture) of the business. A city map can be purchased at a store, but no stores sell strategic maps for enterprises. In the absence of a strategic map for your enterprise, it is difficult to answer the same questions (as was discussed in Part 1). As a result, internal control reporting is difficult.
A strategic map that is developed and tailored to an enterprise enables senior managers, as well as middle managers, expert business staff and IT staff to see the data, activities and processes, locations, business units and people, the business events and the business plans that all need to be managed effectively for internal control reporting.
Project Governance and Enterprise Architecture Go Hand
The key to enterprise architecture (EA) effectiveness is governance, and the key to governance is intervention in IT projects. EA effectiveness is thus tied to project governance. Project governance is also key to aligning IT activity to business goals, cost control and providing IT value. EA efforts need to implement processes to maintain awareness of project initiation and to introduce design scrutiny and guidance in a systematic fashion. However, creating multiple non-integrated processes for project governance to serve the various goals will introduce an intolerable level of bureaucracy. Rather, what is needed is an integrated approach to project governance that will encumber project delivery as little as possible while addressing architecture, alignment and cost control requirements. IT organizations that do not implement effective project governance will be unable to achieve high level of architecture compliance and will have no effective means to manage to business goals or to attain a meaningful degree of cost control.
Download this Giga Research Report, December 2003 (pdf 195Kb) Corporate Governance:The New Strategic Imperative
Corporate governance:The new strategic imperativewas written by the Economist Intelligence Unit and sponsored by KPMG International.
The Economist Intelligence Unit bears sole responsibility for the content of the report.The Economist Intelligence Unit s editorial team conducted the interviews and online survey and wrote the report.
Victor Smart was the main author.The findings and views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of KPMG International, which has sponsored this publication in the interests of promoting informed debate.
The research effort for this report comprised a number of key initiatives:
 The Economist Intelligence Unit conducted a special online survey to test the attitudes of senior executives worldwide to corporate governance.One hundred and fifteen international executives participated in the survey,which was conducted in June-July 2002;full survey results are available in an appendix to this report.
 A series of in--depth interviews were held with leading corporate and regulatory figures in July and August 2002.Executives at over 30 different institutions worldwide were interviewed from a diverse range of countries and industries.
 The Economist Intelligence Unit also undertook substantial desk research into corporate governance and transparency practices worldwide.The research effort was co-ordinated by Anthony Ray.
Strategic Governance and Economic Diplomacy in China: The Political
Economy of Government-linked Companies from Singapore
Much of the recent literature on China has focused on the rationale and performance of private economic activities by ethnic Chinese entrepreneurs. In this literature on the so-called Greater China economic linkages, Chinese ethnicity and guanxi networks have occupied a privileged analytical role in explaining the governance of cross-border economic activities by these entrepreneurs from Hong Kong and Taiwan.1 We know relatively little, however, about the nature and governance of other non-private forms of economic activities in mainland China
that originate from other ethnic Chinese societies. In particular, two newly industrialised economies, Taiwan and Singapore, have several commonalties beyond the fact that they both have majority ethnic Chinese population. They also share a common developmental trajectory in which the state plays a very significant role in governing the market.2 Through their respective economic planning agencies and centralised political bureaucracy, the state in both economies is able to charter and govern the strategic orientation of their respective trajectories
of national economic development.
Strategic Governance - Queensland Government Australia
The strategic governance principles outline the higher order governance indicators which relate to strategic management and infrastructure management within the Queensland Government. The principles sit alongside the community outcomes and provide a tool for measuring the Government's performance in governance issues. This influences the Government's ability to deliver effective services to the community.
Treasury's role is to work with agencies to map agencies' outputs to the outcomes, including the governance principles, and also reports performance against the Governance Principles in the annual Priorities in Progress report.
Strategic Governance Principles and Indicators
download (645 K)
Government Priorities, Outcomes
download (75 K
Mapping Outputs to Outcomes Mar 2003
download (60 K) Depreciation Policy Paper
download (60 K) Stratic Governance Principles
Enterprise Architecture Governance Subcommittee (EAG)
The purpose of the US Enterprise Architecture Governance Subcommittee (EAG) is to provide policy guidance, and advice and assistance in the definition, design and implementation of Enterprise Architecture (EA) discipline and practice throughout the Federal Government.
In addition, it serves as the core Federal group providing advocacy for EA integration of business and technology architectures across, state, local and international boundaries. The EAG serves as a focal point for the development and coordination of Federal government-wide policy, guidance, including best practices for EA development and implementation. The EAG establishes common terminology definitions; and frameworks, including the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) and Federal Technical Reference Models and Standards; and practical guidance for use by Federal agencies to effectively implement and sustain EA.
Enterprise Architecture Highlights Real IRM Solutions� Enterprise Architecture Governance
Governance is fundamental in entrenching Enterprise Architecture (essentially a new way of working) into a business. IT Governance, like other governance domains, is the responsibility of executives and shareholders (represented by the board of directors). It is not an isolated discipline; it has an integral role in enterprise governance. It consists of the leadership and organisational structures and processes that ensure that the organisation�s strategies and objectives are sustained and extended by its IT. Without adequate governance, Enterprise Architecture will remain a theoretical concept that will fail to deliver the desired business benefits.
US-GAO defines Enterprise Architecture benchmarks
Responding to agency requests, the General Accounting Office has updated its guide on enterprise architectures with expanded metrics to measure how well an agency succeeds in implementation. The update, "Information Technology: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management," (426Kb pdf) provides benchmarking tools for agencies to plan and measure their efforts in developing enterprise architectures. It also provides guidelines for the Office of Management and Budget to evaluate agency efforts. The report was updated using feedback from the release of the first version, published February 2002 and entitled, �Information Technology: Enterprise Architecture Use Across the Federal Government Can Be Improved.� This update expands the performance measurements identified in the first report. It defines attributes critical for success and offers a matrix to gauge how mature an agency�s architecture is. The report defines an enterprise as any activity that an agency executes. The architecture characterizes how that activity is structured.
bITa Center
bITa Center acts as the focal point and knowledge hub that highlights IT Alignment and Business IT Alignment as sets of relationships among strategies, frameworks and best practices. As a knowledge provider, bITa Center will provide insight into identifying areas that help or hinder implementation of best practices and a business model that the Enterprise and IT should operate within and then examines the effect of cultures on the model to establish best practice for each enterprise�s situation. www.bita-center.com
VA Enterprise Architecture Governance Process
The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Enterprise Architecture strategy was developed and unanimously approved by the VA Enterprise Architecture Innovation Team. Established by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, this team, made up of VA senior management business line and information technology professionals, identified and adopted the Zachman Enterprise Architecture framework to organize VA's Enterprise Architecture, and decided how that architecture will be governed and implemented. The strategy provides for a governance system based on decentralized implementation of information technology and centralized management of Enterprise Architecture in an atmosphere of collaboration, accountability, and oversight. http://www.va.gov/oirm/architecture/EA/strategy/
UNITED NATIONS STATISTICAL COMMISSION and
STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (EUROSTAT)
USE OF ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE TO MANAGE TECHNICAL COMPLEXITY
AT THE U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
EA Governance is a critical component of enterprise architecture and provides for continuous
improvement, migration, and measurement of business systems so that business and technology coalesce to meet the mission of the enterprise. EA governance places the political processes for making and enforcing IT-related business policies into the business realm of the enterprise.
Industry Advisory Councel 'ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE WHITE PAPERS'
White papers developed for the Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office (FEA-PMO) by the Industry Advisory Council (IAC) Enterprise Architecture SIG.
Advancing Enterprise Architecture Maturity (PDF) Business Line Architecture & Integration (PDF) Interoperability Strategy - Concepts, Challenges, and Recommendations (PDF) Succeeding with Component-Based Architecture in e-Government (PDF)
Home | About IFEAD | EA Publications | Partners | News Contact Us | Disclaimer | Copyright � 2001-2011, IFEAD Extended Enterprise Architecture Framework / E2AF & Extended Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model / E2AM are Service Marks (SM) registered by IFEAD