Information Technology: Leadership Remains Key to Agencies Making Progress on Enterprise Architecture Efforts
Published: 2003-11-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: A well-defined enterprise architecture (EA) is a blueprint for institutional modernization and evolution that consists of models describing how an entity operates today and how it intends to operate in the future, along with a plan for how it intends to transition to this future state. Such architectures are essential tools whose effective development and use are recognized hallmarks of successful organizations. Because of the importance of these architectures, GAO was asked to determine (1) what progress federal agencies have made in effectively developing, implementing, and maintaining their EAs and (2) the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) actions to advance the state of EA development and use across the federal government.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Federal agencies' progress toward effective EA management is limited. GAO surveyed federal agencies on their EA programs and compared the results with those of a similar survey that GAO conducted in 2001 (GAO-02-6). To assign a maturity level to agencies, GAO used its EA management maturity framework, which is a five-stage model that defines criteria that govern where an EA program stands in its progression toward being effectively managed (with Stage 1 being ineffective and Stage 5 being highly effective). Comparing the 2001 and 2003 survey results revealed a very similar overall picture, in which slight increases in agencies achieving Stage 3 status were offset by slight increases in agencies being at Stage 1. In addition, when GAO assessed the 2003 survey results against a recent update of the framework (GAO-03-584G), agencies' average maturity was slightly lower. An exception to this is the Executive Office of the President, which is a Stage 5 agency under the latest version of the framework. Part of the reason for this limited progress across the federal government is that agencies continue to face long-standing EA challenges, such as limited executive understanding of EA and a scarcity of skilled architecture staff. Since 2001, more agencies now report these as significant challenges. OMB has undertaken a variety of actions to advance the state of EA use across the federal government, such as collecting and analyzing architectures for major departments and agencies and requiring that major information technology (IT) investments comply with them. Additionally, OMB has developed parts of a governmentwide EA, and by requiring a mapping of agency architectures to this federal EA as part of the budget review process, it has called attention to the need for agencies to further their own architecture efforts. However, despite OMB's actions, the agencies' responses indicate that only about one-half are satisfied with OMB's leadership in addressing long-standing EA challenges. Until these challenges are effectively addressed, agencies' maturity levels as a whole are likely to remain stagnant, limiting their ability to effectively invest in IT.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: A well-defined enterprise architecture provides a clear and comprehensive  picture of the structure of any enterprise, whether it is an organization or a  functional or mission area. This structure is 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. Such an architecture is an essential tool  for leveraging information technology (IT) in the transformation of  business and mission operations.
As our experience with federal agencies has shown, attempting to  modernize and evolve IT environments without an enterprise architecture  to guide and constrain investments often results in operations and systems  that are duplicative, not well integrated, unnecessarily costly to maintain  and interface, and ineffective in supporting mission goals. A properly  managed enterprise architecture helps to clarify and optimize the  interdependencies and relationships among enterprise operations and their  supporting IT assets, so that agencies can base IT investment decisions on  an explicit and common understanding of both today’s and tomorrow’s  environments. The development, implementation, and maintenance of  architectures are widely recognized as hallmarks of successful public and  private organizations, and their use is required by the Clinger-Cohen Act  and the implementing guidance, issued by the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB). Further, the E-Government Act of 2002 assigns OMB  responsibility for overseeing enterprise architectures.
In light of the importance of these architectures, you requested that we  review the state of their use in the federal government. As agreed, our  objectives were to determine (1) what progress federal agencies have made  in effectively developing, implementing, and maintaining their enterprise  architectures and (2) OMB’s actions to advance the state of enterprise  architecture development and use across the federal government. We also  collected a variety of related information on agency enterprise architecture  experiences and practices, which are described in appendixes I and II of  this report.
To accomplish these objectives, we surveyed federal agencies using a  questionnaire that was based on our maturity framework for assessing and  improving enterprise architecture management. We then analyzed agency  questionnaire responses and compared them with the results of a similar  analysis that we conducted in 2001. To corroborate certain questionnaire  responses, we requested that agencies provide us with supporting  documentation. For agency responses related to the content of their  respective architectures, we relied on agency responses and did not  independently assess the quality of agency enterprise architecture  products. Further details of our objectives, scope, and methodology are in  appendix III.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The concept of an architecture to describe an enterprise first emerged in  the mid-1980s, and over the years, various frameworks for defining the  content of enterprise architectures have been published. Our work in the  early 1990s identified architectures as critical success factors in allowing  organizations to effectively apply IT to meet mission goals. Since then, we  have worked with the Congress, OMB, and the federal Chief Information  Officers (CIO) Council to promote the importance of architectures and  assist agencies in developing, maintaining, and using them. In our reviews  of selected agency IT management practices and major systems  modernization programs, we have continued to identify the lack of an  architecture as a major management weakness, and we have made  recommendations to address this important area.
subsections: section_title: A Brief Description
paragraphs: In simple terms, an enterprise can be viewed as any purposeful activity, and  an architecture can be characterized as the structure (or structural  description) of any activity. Building on this, we can view enterprise  architectures as systematically derived and captured structural  descriptions—in useful models, diagrams, and narrative—of the mode of  operation for a given enterprise, which can be either a single organization  or a functional or mission area that transcends more than one  organizational boundary (e.g., financial management, homeland security).
The architecture describes the enterprise’s operations in both logical terms  (such as interrelated business processes and business rules, information  needs and flows, and work locations and users) and technical terms (such  as hardware, software, data, communications, and security attributes and  performance standards). It provides these perspectives both for the  enterprise’s current (or “as-is”) environment and for its target (or “to-be”)  environment, as well as a transition plan for moving from the “as-is” to the  “to-be” environment.
section_title: Importance of Enterprise Architectures
paragraphs: The importance of enterprise architectures is a basic tenet of IT  management, and their effective use is a recognized hallmark of successful  public and private organizations. For over a decade, we have promoted the  use of architectures, recognizing them as a crucial means to a challenging  goal: that is, agency operational structures that are optimally defined, in  terms of both business and technology. The alternative, as our work has  shown, is perpetuation of the kinds of operational environments that  saddle most agencies today, in which the lack of integration among  business operations and the IT resources that support them leads to  systems that are duplicative, not well integrated, and unnecessarily costly  to maintain and interface.
Managed properly, an enterprise architecture can clarify and help optimize  the interdependencies and relationships among an organization’s business  operations and the underlying IT infrastructure and applications that  support these operations. Employed in concert with other important IT  management controls (such as portfolio-based capital planning and  investment control practices), architectures can greatly increase the  chances that organizations’ operational and IT environments will be  configured so as to optimize mission performance. Enterprise  architectures are integral to managing large-scale programs as well as  initiatives that span several agencies, such as those currently being  undertaken to support the electronic government (e-government) efforts  led by OMB.
section_title: Brief History of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks and Management Guidance
paragraphs: During the mid-1980s, John Zachman, widely recognized as a leader in the  field of enterprise architecture, identified the need to use a logical  construction blueprint (i.e., an architecture) for defining and controlling  the integration of systems and their components. Accordingly, Zachman  developed a structure or framework for defining and capturing an  architecture, which provides for six “windows” from which to view the  enterprise. Zachman also proposed six abstractions or models associated  with each of these perspectives. Zachman’s framework provides a way to  identify and describe an entity’s existing and planned component parts, and  the relationships between those parts, before the entity begins the costly  and time-consuming efforts associated with developing or transforming  itself.
Since Zachman introduced his framework, a number of frameworks have  emerged within the federal government, beginning with the publication of  the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) framework in  1989. Since that time, other federal entities have issued enterprise  architecture frameworks, including the Department of Defense (DOD) and  the Department of the Treasury. In September 1999, the federal CIO  Council published the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework  (FEAF), which was intended to provide federal agencies with a common  construct for their architectures, thereby facilitating the coordination of  common business processes, technology insertion, information flows, and  system investments among federal agencies. The FEAF describes an  approach, including models and definitions, for developing and  documenting architecture descriptions for multiorganizational functional  segments of the federal government.
More recently, OMB established the Federal Enterprise Architecture  Program Management Office to develop a Federal Enterprise Architecture  (FEA) according to a collection of five “reference models,” which are  intended to facilitate governmentwide improvement through cross-agency  analysis and the identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and  opportunities for collaboration, interoperability, and integration within and  across government agencies. The FEA reference models are summarized in  table 1.
Although these post-Zachman frameworks differ in their nomenclatures  and modeling approaches, each consistently provides for defining an  enterprise’s operations in both logical terms and technical terms, provides  for defining these perspectives for the enterprise’s current and target  environments, and calls for a transition plan between the two.
Several laws and regulations have established requirements and guidance,  respectively, for agencies’ management of architectures, beginning with the  Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996, which directs the CIOs of major departments  and agencies to develop, maintain, and facilitate the implementation of IT  architectures as a means of integrating agency goals and business  processes with IT. OMB Circular A-130, which implements the Clinger- Cohen Act, requires that agencies document and submit their initial  enterprise architectures to OMB and that agencies submit updates to OMB  when significant changes to their enterprise architectures occur. The  circular also directs the OMB Director to use various kinds of reviews to  evaluate the adequacy and efficiency of each agency’s compliance with the  circular.
OMB was given explicit responsibility for overseeing government  enterprise architectures by the E-Government Act of 2002, which  established the Office of Electronic Government within OMB. This act  gives OMB the responsibility for facilitating the development of enterprise  architectures within and across agencies and supporting improvements in  government operations through the use of IT.
section_title: Prior Work Indicates Opportunities for Improving Enterprise Architectures
paragraphs: We began reviewing federal agencies’ use of architectures in 1994, initially  focusing on those agencies that were pursuing major systems  modernization programs that were high risk. These included the National  Weather Service systems modernization, the Federal Aviation  Administration air traffic control modernization, and the Internal Revenue  Service (IRS) tax systems modernization. Generally, we reported that  these agencies’ enterprise architectures were incomplete, and we made  recommendations that they develop and implement complete enterprise  architectures to guide their modernization efforts.
Since then, we have reviewed architecture management at other federal  agencies, including the Department of Education, the former Customs  Service, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the  Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We have also reviewed the  use of enterprise architectures for critical agency functional areas, such as  the integration and sharing of terrorist watch lists across key federal  departments, and the logistics management area within DOD. These  reviews have continued to identify the absence of complete and enforced  enterprise architectures, which in turn has led to agency business  operations, systems, and data that are not integrated (“stovepiped”),  duplicative, and incompatible. These conditions have either prevented  agencies from sharing data or forced them to depend on expensive,  custom-developed interface systems to do so.
section_title: Our Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework
paragraphs: In 2002, we published Version 1.0 of our Enterprise Architecture  Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF) to provide federal agencies  with a common benchmarking tool for planning and measuring their  enterprise architecture efforts, as well as to provide OMB with a means for  doing the same governmentwide. This framework is an extension of A  Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0,  published by the CIO Council. The framework arranges core elements from  the practical guide into a matrix of five hierarchical stages and four critical  success attributes; that is, each core element appears at a particular stage  of maturity, and it is also associated with one of the critical success  attributes. In April 2003, we published Version 1.1 of this framework,  which reflects changes and additions that are based on comments we  received on the initial version.
subsections: section_title: EAMMF Version 1.0
paragraphs: The EAMMF is made up of five stages of maturity, each of which includes  an associated set of elements, along with all of the elements of the previous  stages. Table 2 shows these stages, followed by the description of each as  contained in Version 1.0 of our framework.
Stage 1: Creating EA awareness. Agencies at this stage are  characterized either by no plans to develop and use an enterprise  architecture, or by plans and actions that do not yet demonstrate an  awareness of the value of having and using one. Although Stage 1  agencies may have initiated some enterprise architecture core elements,  these agencies’ efforts are ad hoc and unstructured, and they do not  provide the management foundation that is necessary for successful  enterprise architecture development.
Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation. The focus at  Stage 2 is on assignment of roles and responsibilities and establishment  of plans for developing enterprise architecture products. Specifically, a  Stage 2 agency has designated a chief architect and established and  staffed a program office that is responsible for enterprise architecture  development. Further, a steering committee or group that has  responsibility for directing and overseeing the development has been  established, and the membership of the steering committee includes  business and IT representatives. At Stage 2, the agency either has plans  for developing or has begun development of at least some of the  necessary enterprise architecture products. This stage also requires the  agency to have selected both a framework that will be the basis for the  nature and content of the specific products it plans to develop and an  automated tool to help in the development.
Stage 3: Developing architecture products. At Stage 3, an agency  focuses on actual development of enterprise architecture products. The  agency has defined the scope of its enterprise architecture as  encompassing the entire enterprise, whether an organization or a  functional area, and it has a written and approved policy demonstrating  institutional commitment. Although the products may not yet be  complete, they are intended to describe the agency in terms of business,  data, applications, and technology. Further, the products are to describe  the current and future states and the sequencing plan for transitioning  from current to future state. As the architecture products are being  developed, they are to be subject to configuration control.
Stage 4: Completing EA products. An agency at Stage 4 has  complete and approved enterprise architecture products that it can use  to help select and control its portfolio of IT investments. The complete  products describe the organization in terms of business, data,  applications, and technology. Also, the products are complete in that  they describe the agency’s current and future states and the transition  plan for sequencing from the current state to the future state. Further,  the agency’s CIO has approved the enterprise architecture, and the  agency has a written policy requiring that IT investments comply with  the enterprise architecture.
Stage 5: Leveraging the EA to manage change. At Stage 5, an  agency is able to evolve the enterprise architecture products according  to a written and approved policy for maintaining the architecture. Also  at this stage, the steering committee, investment review board, or  agency head approves the enterprise architecture. Finally, the agency  has incorporated the enterprise architecture into its corporate decision  making, and it has established and is using metrics to measure the  effectiveness of its enterprise architecture.
In addition to the maturity stages, each core element is also associated with  attributes that are critical to the successful performance of any  management function (see table 3). The critical success attributes are  identical in Versions 1.0 and 1.1 of our framework.
Attribute 1: Demonstrates commitment. Because the enterprise  architecture is a corporate asset for systematically managing institutional  change, the support and sponsorship of the head of the enterprise are  essential to the success of the architecture effort. An approved enterprise  policy statement provides such support and sponsorship, promoting  institutional “buy in” and encouraging resource commitment from  participating components. Equally important in demonstrating  commitment is vesting ownership of the architecture with an executive  body that collectively owns the enterprise.
Attribute 2: Provides capability to meet commitment. The success of  the enterprise architecture effort depends largely on the organization’s  capacity to develop, maintain, and implement the enterprise architecture.  Consistent with any large IT project, these capabilities include providing  adequate resources (i.e., people, processes, and technology); defining clear  roles and responsibilities; and defining and implementing organizational  structures and process management controls that promote accountability  and effective project execution.
Attribute 3: Demonstrates satisfaction of commitment. Satisfaction  of the organization’s commitment to develop, maintain, and implement an  enterprise architecture is demonstrated by the production of artifacts (e.g.,  the plans and products). Such artifacts demonstrate “follow through”— actual enterprise architecture production. Satisfaction of commitment is  further demonstrated by senior leadership approval of enterprise  architecture documents and artifacts; such approval communicates  institutional endorsement and ownership of the architecture and the  change that it is intended to drive.
Attribute 4: Verifies satisfaction of commitment. This attribute  focuses on measuring and disclosing the extent to which efforts to develop,  maintain, and implement the enterprise architecture have fulfilled stated  goals or commitments. Measuring such performance allows for tracking  progress that has been made toward stated goals, allows the appropriate  actions to be taken when performance deviates significantly from goals,  and creates incentives to influence both institutional and individual  behaviors.
Collectively, these attributes form the basis by which an organization can  institutionalize management of any given function or program, such as  enterprise architecture management. Within each stage, each critical  success attribute includes between one and four core elements, which are  descriptions of a practice or condition that is needed for effective  enterprise architecture management. On the basis of the implicit  dependencies among the core elements, the EAMMF associates each  element with one of five hierarchical management stages, referred to as  maturity stages. Each stage reflects the collection of enterprise  architecture management practices and conditions (i.e., core elements)  that are being undertaken by an enterprise at a given maturity level.
Figure 1 is a summary of Version 1.0 of the framework, showing the key  elements associated with the stages and attributes previously described.
Version 1.1 of this framework was released in April 2003. Like the initial  version, Version 1.1 is based on the CIO Council guidance and augmented  by our research experience in reviewing architecture programs. Changes  and additions to the framework were also based on comments received on  the initial version. As a comparison between the two frameworks shows, a  number of new elements have been added to Version 1.1. Figure 2 shows a  summary of the new framework, Version 1.1.
The stages and attributes remain the same as with Version 1.0, although the  descriptions of the stages are updated in Version 1.1 to reflect the new  elements in the framework, as follows: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness. As with Version 1.0, at Stage 1, either  an organization does not have plans to develop and use an architecture, or  it has plans that do not demonstrate an awareness of the value of having  and using an architecture. Although Stage 1 agencies may have initiated  some enterprise architecture activity, these agencies’ efforts are ad hoc and  unstructured, lack institutional leadership and direction, and do not  provide the management foundation that is necessary for successful  enterprise architecture development as defined in Stage 2.
Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation. An organization  at Stage 2 recognizes that the enterprise architecture is a corporate asset by  vesting accountability for it in an executive body that represents the entire  enterprise. At this stage, an organization assigns enterprise architecture  management roles and responsibilities and establishes plans for developing  enterprise architecture products and for measuring program progress and  product quality. An organization at this stage also commits the necessary  resources for developing an architecture—people, processes, and tools.  Specifically, a Stage 2 organization has designated a chief architect and  established and staffed a program office that is responsible for enterprise  architecture development and maintenance. Further, it has established a  committee or group that has responsibility for enterprise architecture  governance (i.e., directing, overseeing, and approving architecture  development and maintenance). This committee or group membership has  enterprisewide representation. At Stage 2, the organization either has plans  for developing or has started developing at least some enterprise  architecture products, and it has fostered an enterprisewide awareness of  the value of enterprise architecture and its intended use in managing its IT  investments. The organization has also selected a framework and a  methodology that will be the basis for developing the enterprise  architecture products and has selected a tool for automating these  activities.
Stage 3: Developing the EA. An organization at Stage 3 focuses on  developing architecture products according to the selected framework,  methodology, tool, and established management plans. Roles and  responsibilities assigned in the previous stage are in place, and resources  are being applied to develop actual enterprise architecture products. At  this stage, the scope of the architecture has been defined to encompass the  entire enterprise, whether an organization or a functional area. Although  the products may not be complete, they are intended to describe the  organization in terms of business, performance, information/data,  service/application, and technology (including security explicitly in each),  as provided for in the framework, methodology, tool, and management  plans. Further, the products are to describe the current (“as-is”) and future  (“to-be”) states and the plan for transitioning from the current to the future  state (the sequencing plan). As the products are developed and evolve, they  are subject to configuration management. Further, through the established  enterprise architecture management foundation, the organization is  tracking and measuring its progress against plans; identifying and  addressing variances, as appropriate; and then reporting on its progress.
Stage 4: Completing the EA. An organization at Stage 4 has completed  its enterprise architecture products, meaning that the products have been  approved by the enterprise architecture steering committee (established in  Stage 2) or an investment review board, and by the CIO. The completed  products collectively describe the enterprise in terms of business,  performance, information/data, service/application, and technology for  both its current and future operating states, and the products include a  sequencing plan for transitioning from the current to the future state.  Further, an independent agent has assessed the quality (i.e., completeness  and accuracy) of the enterprise architecture products. Additionally,  evolution of the approved products is governed by a written enterprise  architecture maintenance policy that is approved by the head of the  organization.
Stage 5: Leveraging the EA to manage change. An organization at  Stage 5 has secured senior leadership approval of the enterprise  architecture products and a written institutional policy stating that IT  investments must comply with the architecture, unless granted an explicit  compliance waiver. Further, decision makers are using the architecture to  identify and address ongoing and proposed IT investments that are  conflicting, overlapping, not strategically linked, or redundant. As a result,  Stage 5 entities avoid unwarranted overlap across investments and ensure  maximum systems interoperability, which in turn ensures the selection and  funding of IT investments with manageable risks and returns. Also, at Stage  5, the organization tracks and measures enterprise architecture benefits or  return on investment, and adjustments are continuously made to both the  enterprise architecture management process and the enterprise  architecture products.
section_title: Significant Differences between EAMMF Versions 1.0 and 1.1
paragraphs: Overall, Version 1.1 is more demanding (i.e., sets a higher standard) than  Version 1.0 because Version 1.1 adds important content, clarifies existing  content, and links the EAMMF framework to related IT management  guidance, such as our IT investment management framework. Key  differences in Version 1.1 of the framework appear first in Stage 2 and  affect later stages either explicitly or implicitly. That is, some planning  elements associated with Stage 2 now propagate explicitly through later  stages as plans are executed and architecture products are developed,  completed, and implemented. For example:  Version 1.1 includes “performance” among the models that are needed  to describe the “as-is” and “to-be” environments; these models are  introduced into the planning elements in Stage 2 and built upon as plans  are executed: that is, as architecture products are developed and  completed in Stages 3 and 4, respectively.
Version 1.1 explicitly recognizes the need to address security in the  descriptions of the “as-is” and “to-be” environments; this element is  introduced in Stage 2 and reiterated in Stages 3 and 4.
Version 1.1 introduces the need to plan for metrics in Stage 2 and to  measure different aspects of enterprise architecture development,  quality, and use in Stages 3, 4, and 5.
Other differences introduced in Version 1.1 affect later stages implicitly,  since each stage includes all elements of previous stages. For example, in  Stage 2, an element has been added that recognizes the need for adequate  resources (people, processes, and technology). This element appears in  Stage 2 explicitly, but it is included in later stages implicitly. Stage 4 now  includes an element requiring that enterprise architecture products and  management processes undergo independent verification and validation;  this element continues in Stage 5.
In addition, two core elements, both in Stage 2, have been altered from  Version 1.0, as follows:  Enterprise architecture maintenance, in addition to development, is  now included among the responsibilities of the program office.
The use of an enterprise architecture methodology is added to the use of  a framework and automated tool in developing the architecture.
Last, the sequence of two elements (the policies on maintenance and on IT  investment compliance with the architecture) is reversed in Version 1.1.  That is, maintenance policy is now associated with Stage 4 and investment  compliance with Stage 5. This reordering reflects greater alignment of  these elements with the definitions of their respective framework stages.
Finally, several new elements were added to Stage 5 that provide for  maximizing the value and use of the enterprise architecture by keeping it  current and using it to manage change (including the existence of a process  to formally manage enterprise architecture change, the enterprise  architecture being an integral component of the IT investment management  process, the periodic updating of enterprise architecture products, and the  compliance of IT investments with the enterprise architecture). These and  the other changes are summarized in table 4.
section_title: Our 2001 Survey Showed the Immature State of Federal Agency Architecture Management
paragraphs: We first surveyed enterprise architecture management maturity across the  federal government in 2001, and we reported in February 2002 that about  52 percent of federal agencies reported having at least the management  foundation that is needed to begin successfully developing, implementing,  and maintaining an enterprise architecture, and that about 48 percent of  agencies had not yet advanced to that basic stage of maturity. At the other  extreme, about 4 percent of federal agencies’ enterprise architecture  efforts had matured to the point that they could be considered effective,  with one agency attaining the highest stage of maturity. This overall state of  affairs was consistent for the three agency types that we surveyed: cabinet- level departments (e.g., Treasury); department component agencies (e.g.,  IRS, which is a component of Treasury); and independent agencies (e.g.,  Social Security Administration).
We also reported that the state of architecture management across the  federal government was attributable to four management challenges that  agencies reported facing as they attempt to develop and use architectures.  These challenges were (1) overcoming limited executive understanding,  (2) inadequate funding, (3) insufficient skilled staff, and (4) organizational  parochialism. Additionally, we recognized OMB’s efforts to promote and  oversee agencies’ enterprise architecture efforts. Nevertheless, we  determined that OMB’s leadership and oversight could be improved by, for  example, using a more structured means of measuring agencies’ progress  and by addressing the above management challenges. To this end, our  February 2002 report provided OMB with the necessary baseline data,  improvement framework, and several recommendations. OMB generally  agreed with our findings and conclusions in that report and stated that it  would consider our recommendations.
section_title: Agencies Are Making Limited Architecture Management Progress; Most Programs Remain Immature
paragraphs: Our 2003 survey results indicate that while some individual agencies have  made progress in improving their enterprise architecture management  maturity, progress for the federal government as a whole has not occurred.  Specifically, while about one-fourth of all agencies improved their  enterprise architecture management maturity stage relative to Version 1.0  of our framework, about one-fourth of all agencies decreased in maturity  and about one-half of all agencies remained at the same stage.  Furthermore, the more demanding standard established by our framework  Version 1.1 caused a decline in agency maturity levels, demonstrating that  improvements are needed before agencies’ enterprise architecture  management practices can be considered effective. The average maturity  stage for the 96 responses included in our survey was 1.76 when measured  against Version 1.0 of our framework and 1.33 when compared with Version  1.1 of our framework.
Appendix IV provides a list of these individual agencies and their maturity  stages.
subsections: section_title: Agencies’ Architecture Management Progress Is Limited
paragraphs: Overall, little substantial change was revealed in agencies’ overall  enterprise architecture maturity when their efforts were compared with  Version 1.0 of our framework. Of the 93 agencies included in both our 2001  and 2003 surveys, 22 agencies (24 percent) increased their respective  EAMMF maturity stages, 24 agencies (26 percent) decreased their stages,  and 47 agencies (51 percent) remained the same. (See fig. 3.)
At the department level, 4 departments increased their maturity stage, 4  decreased, and 6 stayed at the same stage. The Department of Homeland  Security—which began operations as a department in March 2003— debuted at Stage 3. Although progress for agencies in the aggregate  continued to be limited, departments as a group made the most progress:  the average maturity for the 14 departments that responded to both the  2001 and 2003 surveys increased from 1.93 to 2.00 against Version 1.0 of the  framework. In contrast, component agencies showed a slight decline in  maturity against Version 1.0. Specifically, of the component agencies that  responded to both surveys, 9 increased their maturity stage, 15 decreased  in maturity, and 31 stayed the same, with the average maturity stage  decreasing from 1.69 to 1.62. For independent agencies that responded to  both surveys, 9 increased their maturity stage, 5 decreased in maturity, and  10 stayed at the same stage. On average, independent agencies showed an  increase in maturity, from 1.75 to 1.96 against Version 1.0.
Figure 4 summarizes the maturity status of departments, components,  independent agencies, and all agencies, according to Version 1.0 of our  framework, and compares our 2001 and 2003 survey results.
Most agencies that made progress from 2001 to 2003 moved from a lower  maturity stage to Stage 2 or 3 (as shown in fig. 4, most agencies were  clustered in Stages 1 and 2, so this is not unexpected). In particular, of the  22 agencies that increased their maturity stage, 6 increased from Stage 1 to  Stage 2, and 12 increased from Stage 1 or 2 to Stage 3. Most agencies that  regressed fell to Stage 1 from Stages 2 and 3. Specifically, of the 24 agencies  that decreased their maturity stage, 16 decreased to Stage 1 from Stage 2 or  3. Figure 5 shows the number of agencies whose maturity levels improved  and declined between 2001 and 2003 as measured against Version 1.0 of our  maturity framework.
Agencies’ progress since our first survey is similarly limited when we  consider the total number of core elements satisfied. The 93 agencies that  responded to both the 2001 and 2003 surveys satisfied an average of about  11 of the 19 elements in Version 1.0 in both 2001 and 2003. As a whole, the  93 agencies satisfied about 57 percent of all possible framework elements  in 2001 and about 60 percent of all possible framework elements in 2003.
From 2001 to 2003, agencies showed improvements in satisfying certain  core elements, but these improvements were offset by declines in agency  satisfaction of other core elements. Examples of core elements where  agency satisfaction significantly improved are as follows:  “Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits” (about a 38 percent increase),   “Chief architect exists” (about a 23 percent improvement), and  “EA products are under configuration management” (about an  18 percent increase).
Examples of core elements where agency satisfaction significantly  declined are as follows:  “EA products describe ‘as-is’ environment, ‘to-be’ environment, and  sequencing plan” (about a 39 percent decrease);  “EA products describe enterprise’s business—and the data,  applications, and technology that support it” (about a 36 percent  decrease);  “Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency  head has approved EA” (about a 25 percent decrease); and   “Program office responsible for EA development exists” (about a 23  percent decrease).
Figures 6 to 10 show the number of agencies that satisfied the framework  elements in each stage of Version 1.0 in 2001 and in 2003.
Appendixes V, VI, and VII provide detailed tables showing each of the 93  agencies’ status regarding the elements of the framework.
For the 22 agencies that advanced one or more maturity stages from 2001  to 2003, fulfillment of no single core element resulted in these  advancements. That is, for the 22 agencies, increases in maturity stages are  attributable to the fulfillment of 7 core elements spanning three stages of  maturity. Table 5 shows those newly satisfied core elements that accounted  for increases in maturity stage.
As with increases in agency maturity levels, no single core element  accounted for the decreases in agency maturity between our 2001 and 2003  surveys. However, as shown in table 6, the Stage 2 framework element  requiring a program office was the most significant newly unsatisfied  element for the 24 agencies that decreased maturity levels.
One factor accounting for decreases in maturity is improved accuracy in  agencies’ responses to our survey. Improved accuracy is a function of   (1) improved agency familiarity with and understanding of enterprise  architecture management and our framework since our last survey and  (2) the requirement in our 2003 survey for documentation to support  certain survey responses.
section_title: Current State of Architecture Management across Federal Agencies Is Not Mature
paragraphs: When compared with Version 1.1 of our framework, the state of enterprise  architecture management across the federal government is not mature. In  particular, about 21 percent of federal agencies (20 of 96) have the Stage 2  management foundation that is needed to begin successfully developing,  implementing, and maintaining an enterprise architecture, and about 79  percent of agencies (76 of 96) have not yet advanced to this basic stage of  maturity. One agency, the Executive Office of the President, provided  responses placing it at a stage of enterprise architecture management  maturity that can be considered mature and effective. This overall state of  federal government maturity is consistent for each of the three groups that  make up the 96 agencies surveyed: departments, component agencies, and  independent agencies. Figure 11 summarizes the maturity status of  departments, component agencies, independent agencies, and all agencies  according to Version 1.1 of our framework.
No single core element that was added to our framework contributed  significantly to this situation, but the “methodology” subelement of the  Stage 2 element “EA is being developed with a framework, methodology,  and automated tool” was the most significant factor keeping agencies from  achieving Stage 2. Specifically, the absence of a “methodology” kept 7  agencies from attaining Stage 2 status.
Nevertheless, certain core elements of Version 1.1 of our framework were  frequently not satisfied by agencies. Of the 31 core elements in Version 1.1,  17 were not satisfied by over 50 percent of agencies. Furthermore, 8  elements associated with maturity Stages 4 and 5 were not satisfied by over  80 percent of agencies. Figures 12 to 16 show how departments,  component agencies, and independent agencies were rated against each of  the Version 1.1 core elements.
Although significant gaps existed across federal agencies in meeting the  core elements of Version 1.1 of the framework, at least 80 percent of  agencies reported performing 8 core elements that were related to Stages 2  and 3 of our framework. The most often satisfied elements included the  following Stage 2 elements:  “EA plans call for describing both the ‘as-is’ and the ‘to-be’ environments  of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for transitioning from the  ‘as-is’ to the ‘to-be’”(about 94 percent);  “EA plans call for describing both the ‘as-is’ and the ‘to-be’ environments  in terms of business, performance, information/data,  application/service, and technology” (about 90 percent); and  “EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,  application/service, and technology descriptions to address security”  (about 86 percent).
The most often satisfied elements also included the Stage 3 element:  “EA products describe or will describe both the ‘as-is’ and the ‘to-be’  environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for  transitioning from the ‘as-is’ to the ‘to-be’” (about 88 percent).
In addition, although only one agency has achieved Stage 5, most agencies  reported satisfying the Stage 5 core elements requiring that IT investments  comply with their enterprise architecture (about 80 percent) and that  enterprise architecture is an integral component of IT investment  management process (about 69 percent).
Furthermore, 96 percent of agencies in Stages 1 through 4 are performing  at least 1 core element above their current maturity stage, which means  that agencies as a whole are, to varying degrees, performing above their  assigned maturity stages. Specifically, of the 76 agencies at Stage 1, about  95 percent are performing at least 1 core element in a higher maturity stage.  About 35 percent of agencies need to satisfy only 1 additional core element  to advance to at least the next maturity stage. Two of these agencies,  Commerce and the U.S. Mint, could advance two stages by satisfying just 1  additional core element. Commerce, currently a Stage 1 agency, could  advance to Stage 3 by satisfying the framework element “Program office  responsible for development and maintenance exists.” The Mint, also  currently a Stage 1 agency, could advance to Stage 3 by satisfying the  framework element “Adequate resources exist.”
Departments, component agencies, and independent agencies had varying  degrees of success satisfying certain core elements within individual  stages. In general, departments had more success satisfying lower stage  elements than did components and independent agencies. In Stage 2, for  example, while 69 percent of departments reported using a framework,  methodology, and automated tool to develop their enterprise architecture,  only 29 percent of components and 50 percent of independent agencies  reported the same. Additionally, in Stage 3, while 81 percent of departments  reported that progress against plans is measured and reported, only 25  percent of components and 25 percent of independent agencies reported  the same. One possible reason for this situation, which is discussed later in  this report, is that OMB’s oversight of agency enterprise architecture  efforts focuses on departments and major independent agencies—not on  component agencies.
Although, as a whole, departments satisfied more lower level framework  elements than did component agencies and independent agencies,  departments generally still need to satisfy several lower level framework  elements to achieve a Stage 3 maturity level. On average, each department  needs to satisfy 2 core elements to satisfy all Stage 2 and 3 framework  elements.
The maturity stage of a department generally was not indicative of the  maturity of its component agencies. For example, the Departments of  Health and Human Services and Transportation reached Stage 2, while  their component agencies averaged Stage 1. DOD’s Global Information Grid  (GIG) architecture was at Stage 3 and its Business Enterprise  Architecture was at Stage 1, while DOD components averaged slightly over  1. Conversely, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and the Treasury  were at Stage 1, with their component agencies averaging higher maturity  levels. Component agencies of Commerce showed a slightly higher  maturity level than did component agencies of other departments.  Although the average maturity level of the 56 department component  agencies we surveyed was 1.23, the five Commerce component agencies  showed an average maturity level of 1.80, largely owing to the maturity  levels for the Bureau of the Census (Stage 3), the U.S. Patent and  Trademark Office (Stage 2), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration (Stage 2). The Department of Agriculture’s maturity level  (Stage 1) was the same as the average maturity level of its component  agencies. Figure 16 summarizes the average maturity level for departments  and their respective component agencies.
section_title: Eight Agencies Are Either at or Close to Achieving Stage 5 Maturity
paragraphs: The results of our survey and analysis of survey responses against Version  1.1 of our maturity framework show that the Executive Office of the  President (EOP) is the sole Stage 5 agency. However, 7 other agencies are  close to becoming models of enterprise architecture management. For  example, the DOD GIG architecture and IRS, both of which attained Stage 3  of Version 1.1, need to satisfy only 3 more elements to become Stage 5  agencies. To achieve Stage 5, the GIG architecture needs to satisfy the  Stage 4 element “EA products describe both the ‘as-is’ and the ‘to-be’  environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for  transitioning from the ‘as-is’ to the ‘to-be’ ” and the Stage 5 elements  “Return on EA investment is measured and reported” and “Organization  head has approved current version of EA.” IRS could become a Stage 5  agency by satisfying the Stage 4 elements “Business, performance,  information/data, application/service, and technology descriptions address  security” and “EA products and management processes undergo  independent verification and validation” and the Stage 5 element “Return  on EA investment is measured and reported.” Table 7 shows the agencies  that need to satisfy 5 or fewer elements to achieve Stage 5 under Version  1.1.
section_title: OMB Has Taken Action to Promote Enterprise Architecture, but Improvements Have Not Occurred and Management Challenges Remain
paragraphs: OMB has taken a number of steps to promote, standardize, and improve  enterprise architecture use across the government. For example, OMB now  requires agencies to submit enterprise architectures for review. It also  leads various CIO Council initiatives to develop the FEA, including  associated models, and to facilitate cross-agency efforts and major  initiatives such as e-government. However, despite OMB’s actions, the  same management challenges facing agencies 2 years ago have increased in  prevalence, and agencies report mixed results from OMB’s efforts to  address these challenges. The persistence of these challenges can be  attributed, at least in part, to the office not implementing our prior  recommendations aimed at addressing them and improving its enterprise  architecture oversight.
subsections: section_title: OMB Has Taken Steps to Promote Agency Enterprise Architecture
paragraphs: OMB recognizes the importance of enterprise architectures and has  supported their use since the passage of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996,  with particular emphasis and attention in the last 2 years. For example, in  collaboration with others and us, OMB issued guidance on the purpose and  use of enterprise architectures shortly after passage of the act. It has also  incorporated enterprise architecture considerations into its oversight  processes and issued guidance directing that agency IT investments be  based on agency IT enterprise architectures. More recently, it has  launched efforts to promote the development and use of enterprise  architectures through the budget process and various CIO Council  initiatives.
As a means of promoting agencies’ enterprise architecture use, OMB has  also included requirements for having and using enterprise architectures as  part of the budget process, which began with the fiscal year 2002 budget  cycle and, according to OMB officials, has continued through the current  cycle (fiscal year 2005). More specifically:  For the fiscal year 2002 budget cycle, OMB required agency budget  submissions to provide investment plans in several areas, including  enterprise architectures.
For fiscal year 2003, OMB required departments and major agencies that  are CIO Council members to address how IT investment decision  making incorporated architecture alignment and, for agencies that do  not have architectures, to provide a plan for developing one. OMB also  assessed the status of major department and agency architectures  against the CIO Council’s Practical Guide for Federal Enterprise  Architecture and reported the assessment results in the President’s  fiscal year 2003 budget. However, this assessment covered only 23 of the  96 agencies included in this survey, and assessment results were not  reported in a way to permit a clear understanding of the agencies’  enterprise architecture management status or to facilitate year-to-year  progress determinations. For example, for the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA), the assessment resulted in the following  report: “EPA has the fundamental elements of an EA documented.”
As part of the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle, OMB again assessed major  department and agency architectures and reported the assessment  results in the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget. However, the scope of  the assessment again was not as comprehensive and meaningful as our  survey results and covered only 22 of the 96 agencies included in this  survey. For example, for the Department of Agriculture, OMB reported,  “USDA’s EA is continuing to focus on the business, data, application, and  technology layers of the EA. USDA is also working to integrate the EA  efforts throughout the department.” Also for the fiscal year 2004 cycle,  the office evaluated major IT investment business cases for consistency  with agency architectures and with the FEA business reference model.
OMB has also worked through the CIO Council, which is co-chaired by  OMB’s Deputy Director of Management, to improve enterprise architecture  management and use. Specifically, the CIO Council established the  Architecture and Infrastructure Committee to, for example, develop  simpler and more consistent enterprise architecture terminology and  facilitate cross-agency enterprise architecture efforts. This committee has  three subcommittees that, since being chartered in October 2002, have  organized, appointed leaders, established membership, and begun  implementing plans. The name and objective of each subcommittee are  provided below.
The Enterprise Architecture Governance Subcommittee was established  to provide policy guidance and advice and assistance in the definition,  design, and implementation of enterprise architecture discipline and  practice throughout the federal government. It is expected to support  the alignment of the FEA with agency enterprise architectures and to  serve as the core federal group providing advocacy for enterprise  architecture integration of business and technology architectures across  state, local, and international boundaries.
The Emerging Technology Subcommittee was created to identify  technologies with the potential to improve the value and quality of the  FEA.
The Component Subcommittee is expected to foster the identification,  maturation, use, and reuse of component-based architectures and  architectural components in the federal government.
section_title: OMB Is Developing a Federal Enterprise Architecture
paragraphs: OMB’s development of the FEA is intended to facilitate governmentwide  improvement through cross-agency analysis and the identification of  duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration,  interoperability, and integration within and across government agencies.  According to OMB, the result will be a more citizen-centered, customer- focused government that maximizes technology investments to better  achieve mission outcomes. As previously mentioned, the FEA will be  composed of five reference models:  Business reference model. The business reference model serves as the  foundation for the FEA. It is intended to describe the federal government’s  businesses, independent of the agencies that perform them. The model  consists of four business areas: (1) services for citizens, (2) mode of  delivery, (3) support delivery of services, and (4) management of  government resources.
These four business areas are decomposed into 39 lines of business, which  are made up of 153 subfunctions. Examples of lines of business under the  services for citizens business area are homeland security, law enforcement,  and economic development. Each of these lines of business includes a  number of subfunctions. For example, for the homeland security line of  business, a subfunction is border and transportation security; for law  enforcement, a subfunction is citizen protection; and for economic  development, a subfunction is financial sector oversight.
Version 1.0 of the model was released to agencies in July 2002 and was used  in the fiscal year 2004 budget process. According to OMB, Version 1.0 of the  model revealed that many federal agencies were involved in each line of  business, and that agencies’ proposed fiscal year 2004 IT investments  offered multibillion-dollar consolidation opportunities. In June 2003,  Version 2.0 was released, which, according to OMB, reflects changes to  align the model with other governmentwide management frameworks (e.g.,  budget function codes) and improvement initiatives (e.g., the President’s  Budget Performance Integration Initiative) and addresses comments from  agencies. OMB expects agencies to use the model, as part of their capital  planning and investment control processes, to help identify opportunities  to consolidate IT investments across the federal government.
Service component reference model. The service component reference  model is intended to identify and classify IT service (i.e., application)  components that support federal agencies and promote the reuse of  components across agencies. The model is organized as a hierarchy,  beginning with seven service domains, as shown in table 8.
These service domains are decomposed into 29 service types, which are  further broken down into 168 components. For example, the customer  services domain is made up of 3 service types: customer relationship  management, customer preferences, and customer-initiated assistance.  Components of the customer relationship management service type  include call center management and customer analytics, components of the  customer preferences service type include personalization and  subscriptions, and components of the customer-initiated assistance service  type include on-line help and on-line tutorials.
Version 1.0 of the service component reference model was released in June  2003. The model is intended to help agencies and OMB identify, among  other things, agencies that are building or have already built similar service  components that can be reused.
Technical reference model. The technical reference model is intended to  describe the standards, specifications, and technologies that collectively  support the secure delivery, exchange, and construction of service  components. The model is made up of the following four core service  areas:   Service access and delivery: the collection of standards and  specifications that support external access, exchange, and delivery of  service components.
Service platform and infrastructure: the delivery platforms and  infrastructure that support the construction, maintenance, and  availability of a service component or capabilities.
Component framework: the underlying foundation, technologies,  standards, and specifications by which service components are built,  exchanged, and deployed.
Service interface and integration: the collection of technologies,  methodologies, standards, and specifications that govern how agencies  will interface internally and externally with a service component.
Each of these service areas is made up of service categories, which identify  lower levels of technologies, standards, and specifications; service  standards, which define the standards and technologies that support the  service category; and the service specification, which details the standard  specification or the provider of the specification. For example, within the  first core service area (service access and delivery), an example of a  service category is access channels, and service standards are Web  browsers and wireless personal digital assistants. Examples of service  specifications for the Web browser service standard are Internet Explorer  and Netscape Navigator.
Version 1.0 of the technical reference model was released in January 2003,  followed by Version 1.1, reflecting minor revisions that were based, in part,  on agencies’ reviews, in August 2003. The model is intended to help  agencies in defining their target technical architectures.
Performance reference model. The performance reference model is  intended to describe a set of performance measures for the federal  government (i.e., outcome and output measures for each line of business  and subfunction identified in the business reference model). Thus, the  model is expected to support the measurement of cross-agency initiatives.  Version 1.0 of the model was released in September 2003.
Data and information reference model. The data and information  reference model is intended to describe the type of data and information  that support program and business line operations and the relationships  among these types. Thus, the model is to help describe the types of  interactions and information exchanges that occur between the  government and its customers. OMB plans to release Version 1.0 of the  model in October 2003.
For the fiscal year 2005 budget cycle, OMB officials told us that they will  use the FEA performance, service component, and technical reference  models to evaluate agencies’ major IT investments.
Agency responses to our survey indicated high levels of understanding and  support for OMB’s FEA work. For example, about 80 percent of agencies  responded that they understand the goals and objectives of the FEA (about  8 percent did not) and that they support those goals and objectives (about 6  percent did not), and about 72 percent of agencies responded that their  agency’s architecture is traceable to the FEA (about 6 percent were not).  Additionally, about 67 percent responded that they understand the  approach to developing the FEA (about 13 percent did not), and about 63  percent stated that they support this approach (about 10 percent did not).  About 61 percent of agencies responded that their enterprise architecture  would change as a result of the FEA (about 8 percent would not). (See  table 9.)
section_title: Prevalence of Long-standing Enterprise Architecture Management Challenges Is Growing
paragraphs: Despite OMB’s architecture-related activities, agencies continue to face the  same management challenges that we identified 2 years ago—that is,  obtaining top management support and commitment, overcoming  parochialism, and having the requisite resources (financial and human  capital) to get the job done. Moreover, the percentage of agencies  identifying these management challenges has grown. For example, getting  top management to understand the purpose, content, and value of  architectures was seen as a challenge by about 50 percent of agencies—up  from 39 percent in our last survey. As our framework recognizes, obtaining  executive understanding and support is essential to having an effective  enterprise architecture program. Without it, agencies will have increased  difficulty in addressing other challenges, such as overcoming parochialism  among organizational components and obtaining requisite resources  (funding and human capital). Our survey results bear this out—at the same  time that the percentage of agencies identifying top management  understanding and support as a challenge rose, the percentage of agencies  identifying these other challenges almost all rose. For example, the  percentage that identified parochialism as a challenge grew from 39 to 47  percent. Also, while 50 percent of agencies continued to report funding as a  significant challenge, the percentage of agencies that reported obtaining  skilled staff as a challenge grew from 32 to 49 percent. (See table 10.)
Agencies also reported mixed levels of satisfaction with OMB’s efforts to  address these management challenges. Specifically, just over half of  agencies were satisfied with OMB’s efforts to foster top management  understanding and to overcome agency component organization  parochialism (58 and 53 percent, respectively). Moreover, fewer than half  of agencies (40 percent) were satisfied with OMB’s actions to address their  enterprise architecture funding and staffing challenges. (See table 11.)
section_title: OMB Has Yet to Implement Our Recommendations for Addressing Architecture Management Challenges and Improving Oversight
paragraphs: Our February 2002 report concluded that OMB needed to advance the level  of enterprise architecture management maturity by exercising improved  oversight and identifying governmentwide solutions to common enterprise  architecture management challenges facing agencies. Specifically, we  recommended that the OMB Director, in collaboration with the federal CIO  Council, use the maturity framework and agency baseline information  provided in our February 2002 report as the basis for helping agencies to  advance the state of their respective enterprise architecture development,  implementation, and maintenance efforts, and for measuring agency  progress. We further recommended that in doing so, the director require  each of the 116 agencies surveyed in our 2002 report to (1) submit to OMB  an annual update of the agency’s satisfaction of each of the core elements  contained in the maturity framework and (2) have this update verified by  the agency’s inspector general or comparable audit function before it is  submitted to OMB.
Additionally, we recommended in our 2002 report that the OMB Director, in  collaboration with the CIO Council, develop and implement a plan to  address the governmentwide impediments to greater agency use of  enterprise architectures. We recommended that, at a minimum, this plan  should include the two primary challenges identified in the 2002 report— that is, agency executive management understanding of enterprise  architectures and the availability of enterprise architecture human capital  expertise. Finally, we recommended that the director report annually to the  Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on  Government Reform on the results of OMB’s annual update of the state and  progress of federal agencies’ enterprise architecture efforts.
OMB officials generally agreed with the findings and conclusions of our  2002 report and stated that they would consider using our framework.  However, after 18 months, office officials told us that they are still  considering using our framework as a basis for evaluating agencies’  progress in developing and implementing their architectures, but had not  committed to doing so because they were still reviewing the options for  evaluating agencies’ progress in developing and implementing their  enterprise architectures using our framework and other potential tools.  Additionally, the office did not report any plans to address governmentwide  impediments to greater agency use of architectures. Further, OMB reported  that it has and plans to continue to provide information to the Congress on  the state of agency enterprise architecture efforts and on progress in  implementing the FEA.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Overall, the federal government’s state of enterprise architecture  management remains less than satisfactory, with little progress being made  over the last 2 years. As a result, most federal agencies continue to run the  serious risk of investing in IT solutions that will not overcome, but rather  will perpetuate, long-standing incompatibilities and duplication within  agency operational and systems environments. OMB has taken steps to  promote the development and use of enterprise architectures; however,  these steps have yet to produce desired results. It is thus important for  OMB to take additional actions, such as those that we have previously  recommended and OMB has yet to implement. To do less risks continued  exposure of agency IT investments to the unnecessary risk of being  duplicative, incompatible, and needlessly costly.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We reiterate the recommendations we made in our February 2002 report on  the governmentwide status of enterprise architecture use, with the  modification that OMB use Version 1.1 of our framework and the baseline  data from our 2003 survey included in this report, rather than Version 1.0 of  our framework and our 2001 survey data.
Additionally, we recommend that the OMB Director, in developing and  implementing the plan we previously recommended to address  governmentwide impediments to greater agency use of enterprise  architectures, ensure that the plan provides for identifying agencies that  have effectively overcome enterprise architecture management challenges  and sharing those and other lessons learned and best practices. Also, we  recommend that the director, in annually reporting to the Senate  Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on  Government Reform, as we previously recommended, include in the report  what steps have been taken to implement our recommendations, including  reasons for not adopting our maturity framework.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: In oral comments on a draft of this report, officials from OMB’s Office of  Information and Regulatory Affairs and the Federal Enterprise  Architecture Program Management Office stated that they generally agreed  with our findings and recommendations. They also stated that they agreed  with the need for agency assessments using Version 1.1 of our framework,  and that these assessments should be independently verified. They added  that fully implementing our recommendations would require sustained  management attention.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the  date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to interested  congressional committees, the OMB Director, and agencies that  participated in our survey. We will also provide copies to others on request.  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions concerning this information,  please contact me at (202) 512-3439 or by e-mail at hiter@gao.gov. Key  contributors to this report are listed in appendix IX.
section_title: Agencies Indicated Architecture Benefits and Experiences with the Use of Tools, Frameworks, Methodologies, and Contractors
paragraphs: In response to our 2003 survey, agencies reported additional information  related to the implementation of their enterprise architectures. This  information includes architecture benefits and architecture tool,  framework, methodology, and contractor experiences.
subsections: section_title: Agencies Reported Various Architecture Benefits
paragraphs: Office of Management and Budget (OMB) policy, Chief Information Officer  (CIO) Council guidance, and our research and reviews of agencies’  management of information technology (IT) have identified multiple  benefits of effectively using enterprise architectures, including avoiding  duplication between IT systems, promoting integration of systems,  reducing system-related costs, and optimizing agency mission  performance. Agency responses to our 2001 survey affirmed these and  offered additional benefits, such as lower system-related costs and benefits  related to enhanced productivity and improved efficiency.
Agencies responding to our 2003 survey reported similar benefits. For  example, benefits related to improved systems interoperability were cited  by 53 percent of agencies, while improved organization and change  management were cited by 51 percent of agencies. Also, enhanced  productivity and lower system-related costs were cited by 41 percent and  39 percent, respectively. Table 12 shows the benefits that were most  frequently identified by survey respondents. One new benefit cited by 56  percent of agencies was the use of “enterprise licenses.” Such licenses take  advantage of the economies of scale associated with purchasing a large  number of commercial product licenses.
section_title: Agencies Reported Using a Variety of Enterprise Architecture Tools with Varying Degrees of Satisfaction
paragraphs: An automated enterprise architecture tool serves as the repository of  architecture artifacts, which are work products that are produced and used  to capture and convey architectural information. An agency’s choice of tool  should be based on a number of considerations, including agency needs  and the size and complexity of the architecture.
Agencies reported using various automated tools to develop and maintain  their enterprise architectures. The most commonly identified architecture  products were Microsoft Office (72 agencies), System Architect (31  agencies), the Enterprise Architecture Management System (18 agencies),  Rational Rose (17 agencies), Metis (11 agencies), and Framework (7  agencies). Forty-one agencies reported using “other” architecture products.  Figure 17 indicates the proportion of agencies that indicated using each  architecture tool.
Agencies reported different levels of satisfaction with the enterprise  architecture tools they are using. As shown in table 13, about 68 percent of  agencies using System Architect were satisfied, about 73 percent of  agencies using Metis were satisfied, and about 61 percent of agencies using  Microsoft’s Office Suite were satisfied. In contrast, about 17 percent of  agencies using the EA Management System were satisfied (about 67  percent of agencies using EA Management System responded that it was  too early to comment on satisfaction levels), and about 41 and 43 percent  of agencies using Rational Rose and Framework, respectively, were  satisfied. With respect to agencies’ dissatisfaction with their tools, about 3  percent of agencies using System Architect were dissatisfied, and about 13  percent of agencies using Microsoft’s Office Suite were dissatisfied. Also,  about 11 percent of agencies using the EA Management System were  dissatisfied, and about 12 and about 29 percent of agencies using Rational  Rose and Framework, respectively, were dissatisfied with those tools. No  agencies using Metis were dissatisfied.
section_title: Agencies Reported Using a Variety of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks with Varying Levels of Satisfaction
paragraphs: An enterprise architecture framework (or model) provides a formal  structure for representing the architecture and serves as the basis for the  nature and content of the specific products that the agency plans to  develop, use, and maintain. As such, a framework helps to ensure the  consistent representation of information from across the organization and  supports orderly capture and maintenance of architecture content.
Agencies reported using various frameworks. The most frequently cited  frameworks in our survey responses were the Federal Enterprise  Architecture Framework (FEAF) (61 agencies), the Federal Enterprise  Architecture Program Management Office (FEAPMO) Reference Models  (56 agencies), and the Zachman Framework (36 agencies). Figure 18  indicates the proportion of agencies that indicated using each framework.  Other frameworks used included the Treasury Enterprise Architecture  Framework (TEAF); the National Institute of Standards and Technology  Framework (NIST framework); the Command, Control, Communications,  Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR)  Framework; and the Department of Defense Architecture Framework  (DoDAF).
Agencies reported different levels of satisfaction with the enterprise  architecture frameworks they are using, as shown in table 14. The levels of  satisfaction ranged from 81 percent, reported by agencies using the  Zachman Framework, to 45 percent, reported by agencies using the NIST  framework. As table 14 shows, few agencies reported being dissatisfied out  of 209 responses.
section_title: Less Than Half of Federal Agencies Had Selected an Enterprise Architecture Methodology
paragraphs: An enterprise architecture methodology provides a common set of  procedures for developing architecture products and, if implemented  properly, helps to ensure consistency in the procedures used across the  organization for developing and maintaining the enterprise architecture. An  organization’s methodology or methodologies should govern how the  architecture products will be developed, maintained, and validated.  Methodologies need to be documented, understood, and consistently  applied. They should prescribe the standards, steps, tools, techniques, and  measures to be used to provide reasonable assurance that expected  product quality is attained.
Less than half (41 percent) of the federal agencies that we surveyed had  selected a methodology. About 55 percent (23 of 42) of the methodologies  that agencies reported using were Spewak’s enterprise architecture  planning methodology or a variation. Four of the remaining 19  methodologies were developed by META Group, and 2 were developed by  Gartner, Inc. Two agencies cited James Martin’s Information Strategy  Planning, and 2 agencies cited the Department of Commerce’s Enterprise  Architecture Methodology. The remaining 21 percent (9 of 42) were unique  methodologies.
section_title: Most Agencies Reported Using Contractor Support for Developing Enterprise Architectures
paragraphs: Agencies reported heavy use of contractor support for developing their  respective architectures. Most agencies (72 of 92 agencies that responded  to this question—78 percent) stated that their architectures were  developed in-house with contractor support. Ten agencies (11 percent)  reported that contractors developed their enterprise architectures. Ten  agencies (11 percent) reported that they developed their enterprise  architectures in-house without any contractor support. Table 15 describes  the level of contractor use, by agency type.
section_title: Cost Data Related to Implementing Enterprise Architectures Varied, with Personnel Accounting for Most Costs
paragraphs: Agency-reported data revealed a wide variance in the cost of developing,  completing, and maintaining enterprise architectures. Agencies generally  reported that their architecture development costs could be allocated to  several categories, with the majority of costs attributable to agency and  contractor personnel.
subsections: section_title: Departments’ Investment in Architecture Varied More Widely than Component and Independent Agencies’
paragraphs: As we have previously reported, the scope and nature of the enterprise and  the extent of enterprise transformation and modernization envisioned will  dictate the depth and detail of the architecture to be developed and  maintained. Restated, the architecture should be tailored to the individual  enterprise and that enterprise’s intended use of the architecture.  Accordingly, the level of resources that an agency invests in its architecture  is likely to vary. Agency responses to our survey showed this to be the case.
Agencies that reported cost data reported $599 million being spent to date  on the development of architectures, with individual agency development  costs to date ranging from $5,000 to $248 million. Departments’  architecture development costs varied more than component and  independent agencies’ costs, while component agencies reported spending  the most to date, with independent agencies spending the least. Agencies  reported estimated costs to complete architecture development ranging  from $3,000 to $319 million, and annual estimated maintenance costs  ranging from $1,000 to $36 million. Figures 19 through 27 depict the  variability of cost data reported by departments, component agencies, and  independent agencies.
section_title: Agency and Contractor Personnel Accounted for the Majority of Architecture Development Costs
paragraphs: Of the $599 million reported in architecture development costs, agencies  allocated $511 million to the following seven cost categories that we  identified in our questionnaire: agency personnel, contractor personnel,  tools, methodologies, independent validation and verification, training, and  other. For those agencies that reported and allocated costs, the majority of  these costs were for agency and contractor personnel—$116.7 million (23  percent) were attributed to agency personnel and $188.9 million (37  percent) were attributed to contractor personnel. About $193.3 million (38  percent) were attributed to “other” costs, $7.1 million (1 percent) to  architecture tools, and $3.9 million (eight-tenths of 1 percent) to  independent validation and verification contract personnel. Further, $1.0  million (two-tenths of 1 percent) of costs were attributed to methodologies  and another $1.0 million (two-tenths of 1 percent) to training. Figure 28  shows the architecture development costs by category.
Table 16 shows enterprise architecture development, completion, and  maintenance costs for each agency that provided cost data.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to determine (1) what progress federal agencies have  made in effectively developing, implementing, and maintaining their  enterprise architectures and (2) the actions of the Office of Management  and Budget (OMB) to advance the state of enterprise architecture  development and use across the federal government.
To address our objectives, we obtained and reviewed relevant guidance on  enterprise architectures, such as OMB Circular A-130 and guidance  published by the federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council,  including the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework Version 1.1  and the Practical Guide. We also researched our past reports and  guidance on the management and use of enterprise architectures, including  the results of our 2001 governmentwide enterprise architecture survey and  our enterprise architecture management maturity framework.
Next, we used the CIO Council’s Practical Guide and our enterprise  architecture management maturity framework to develop two data  collection instruments—one for federal departments and one for agencies  that are either components within a department or are independent (see  app. VIII). We pretested our survey instruments at one federal department  and one component agency.
To ensure consistency and comparability with our 2001 governmentwide  enterprise architecture survey, we based our survey population on the  same 116 agencies, with appropriate additions and deletions. These  agencies consisted of all cabinet-level departments, major component  agencies within departments, and other independent agencies. We  modified our 2001 survey population to reflect the federal government’s  reorganization of March 1, 2003, in which the Department of Homeland  Security (DHS) and its directorates (i.e., component agencies) became  operational, resulting in the addition of 5 agencies. At the same time, the  establishment of DHS resulted in 4 agencies that were included in our 2001  survey being eliminated from our survey population because they were  absorbed into DHS directorates. We also eliminated the U.S. Marine Corps  as a separate agency within our population so that the Department of the  Navy, at its request, could provide a single response for the Navy and the  Marine Corps. Table 17 lists additions to and deletions from our 2001  survey population and provides explanations for each change.
For each of the 116 agencies, we identified the CIO or comparable official  and notified them of our work and distributed the appropriate survey  instrument to designated officials via e-mail. We also discussed the purpose  and content of the survey instrument with agency officials when requested.  After receiving our survey, officials from DHS and the Departments of the  Interior and Veterans Affairs told us that their respective architectures  cover their component agencies and, thus, a single response would be  provided. (When departments opted to provide a departmental response  inclusive of component agencies, our analysis pertains to the department  as a whole. Conversely, when departments and their component agencies  reported separately, our departmental analysis is exclusive of component  agencies.) Additionally, officials from the Department of Agriculture’s Farm  Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Rural  Utilities Service told us they would provide a response that reflects the  Service Center Modernization Initiative, which encompasses those three  component agencies. We agreed with these proposed approaches. Both the  Department of Defense’s Business Enterprise Architecture and  Agriculture’s previously mentioned Service Center Modernization Initiative  provided responses that were not solicited in our survey population, which  we included in our analysis and in this report. Tables 18 and 19 show the  consolidated, omitted, and additional responses that led to the difference  between our survey population of 116 agencies and the 96 respondents  included in this report, including an explanation for each adjustment.
The timing of the 96 responses varied, ranging from April 1 to July 9, 2003,  and thus the determinations in this report regarding the state of enterprise  architecture development and use and progress at specific agencies and  groups of agencies are linked to particular points in time. Appendixes V, VI,  and VII, which contain the results of our analysis of each agency’s response  to our survey, identify the date that each agency responded. To verify the  accuracy of agencies’ responses to our survey regarding enterprise  architecture management policies, organizations, and responsibilities, we  required agencies to submit documentation or additional information for  survey questions related to certain framework criteria. Specifically, we  requested agencies to submit documentation or additional information for  questions 6 to 11, 18, 20 to 24, 26, and 35 to 39. Although our survey  requested that agencies provide data about the status of various enterprise  architecture products, we did not independently verify the data that  agencies provided about the comprehensiveness or completeness of their  architecture products. Additionally, we contacted agency officials when  necessary to clarify their responses.
To determine the progress of federal agencies’ enterprise architecture  efforts, we analyzed agency survey responses using Version 1.0 of our  maturity framework and compared them with the results of our 2001  survey, which were also based on Version 1.0. We also analyzed survey  responses using Version 1.1 of our maturity framework to establish a new  baseline against which future progress can be measured. When an agency’s  response and our subsequent analysis indicated that it did not meet a core  element as defined in the framework, we assigned that agency to the next  lowest stage of framework maturity (i.e., to achieve a given stage of  maturity, an agency must meet all core elements at that stage). For  example, if an agency satisfied all Stage 2 and Stage 4 elements, but did not  satisfy one Stage 3 element, that agency is considered to be a Stage 2  agency.
When determining agency maturity levels, we did not consider whether  agency enterprise architecture plans or products included “performance”  because explicitly including enterprise performance data is a relatively new  concept, and there was a minimal amount of federal guidance related to  enterprise performance data available to agencies at the time our surveys  were distributed.
Tables 20 to 23 show the relationship between the survey questions and the  framework elements for Version 1.0 of the framework, as well as identify  where documentation was required to support answers.
Tables 24 to 27 show the relationship between the survey questions and the  framework elements for Version 1.1 of the framework.
After compiling agency responses and determining agencies’ respective  maturity stages, we analyzed responses across different slices of our  respondent population to determine patterns and issues.
Finally, to determine OMB’s actions to oversee agency enterprise  architecture management efforts, we analyzed relevant policy and budget  guidance, obtained information about OMB’s roles in the CIO Council and  efforts to develop and use the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)  (including OMB’s use of the FEA in the budget process), and interviewed  OMB officials about ongoing and planned management actions. We also  analyzed agency responses to survey questions regarding OMB’s enterprise  architecture-related oversight and guidance.
We conducted our work in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, from  September 2002 to November 2003, in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
section_title: Maturity Stages of Departments and Agencies According to EA Maturity Framework, Versions 1.0 and 1.1
paragraphs: The following table presents three assessments of the maturity stage of  each listed organization on the basis of the following: (1) responses to our  2001 survey evaluated against Version 1.0 of our framework, (2) responses  to our 2003 survey evaluated against Version 1.0 of our framework, and  (3) responses to our 2003 survey evaluated against Version 1.1 of our  framework.
section_title: Detailed Comparison of Individual Department Responses against Our EA Management Maturity Framework
subsections: section_title: Department of Agriculture
paragraphs: The Department of Agriculture provided its 2001 survey responses on  July 9, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
section_title: Department of Commerce
paragraphs: The Department of Commerce provided its 2001 survey responses on June  29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 18, 2003.
section_title: Department of Defense
subsections: section_title: Global Information Grid
paragraphs: The Department of Defense provided its 2001 survey responses on July 25,  2001, and its 2003 response for its Global Information Grid on June 5, 2003.
section_title: Business Enterprise Architecture
paragraphs: The Department of Defense provided its 2003 response for its Business  Enterprise Architecture on May 30, 2003. The department did not provide a  similar response to our 2001 survey.
section_title: Department of Education
paragraphs: The Department of Education provided its 2001 survey responses on July  23, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 28, 2003.
section_title: Department of Energy
paragraphs: The Department of Energy provided its 2001 survey responses on June 28,  2001, and its 2003 responses on April 23, 2003.
section_title: Department of Health and Human Services
paragraphs: The Department of Health and Human Services provided its 2001 survey  responses on August 14, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
section_title: Department of Homeland Security
paragraphs: The Department of Homeland Security was not involved in our 2001 survey  because it was established on March 1, 2003. It provided its 2003 responses  on June 10, 2003.
section_title: Department of Housing and Urban Development
paragraphs: The Department of Housing and Urban Development provided its 2001  survey responses on June 28, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: Department of the Interior
paragraphs: The Department of the Interior provided its 2001 survey responses on June  29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: Department of Justice
paragraphs: The Department of Justice provided its 2001 survey responses on July 10,  2001, and its 2003 responses on May 20, 2003.
section_title: Department of Labor
paragraphs: The Department of Labor provided its 2001 survey responses on July 2,  2001, and its 2003 responses on April 17, 2003.
section_title: Department of State
paragraphs: The Department of State provided its 2001 survey responses on July 13,  2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
section_title: Department of Transportation
paragraphs: The Department of Transportation provided its 2001 survey responses on  June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 24, 2003.
section_title: Department of the Treasury
paragraphs: The Department of the Treasury provided its 2001 survey responses on  June 28, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 26, 2003.
section_title: Department of Veterans Affairs
paragraphs: The Department of Veterans Affairs provided its 2001 survey responses on  August 17, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: Detailed Comparison of Individual Component Responses against Our EA Management Maturity Framework
subsections: section_title: Department of Agriculture
subsections: section_title: Agricultural Marketing Service
paragraphs: The Agricultural Marketing Service provided its 2001 survey responses on  July 9, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 13, 2003.
section_title: Agricultural Research Service
paragraphs: The Agricultural Research Service provided its 2001 survey responses on  July 13, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 18, 2003.
section_title: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
paragraphs: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service provided its 2001 survey  responses on June 26, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
paragraphs: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service  provided its 2001 survey responses on July 9, 2001, and its 2003 responses  on April 16, 2003.
section_title: Food and Nutrition Service
paragraphs: The Food and Nutrition Service provided its 2001 survey responses on July  17, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 24, 2003.
section_title: Food Safety and Inspection Service
paragraphs: The Food Safety and Inspection Service provided its 2001 survey responses  on July 9, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 10, 2003.
July 12, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 5, 2003.
section_title: Forest Service
paragraphs: The Forest Service provided its 2001 survey responses on August 3, 2001,  and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: Risk Management Agency
paragraphs: The Risk Management Agency provided its 2001 survey responses on July  27, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 6, 2003.
section_title: Service Center Modernization Initiative
paragraphs: The Service Center Modernization Initiative provided its responses on May  16, 2003.
section_title: Department of Commerce
subsections: section_title: Bureau of the Census
paragraphs: The Bureau of the Census provided its 2001 survey responses on June 29,  2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: Economic Development Administration
paragraphs: The Economic Development Administration provided its 2001 survey  responses on July 10, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 28, 2003.
section_title: International Trade Administration
paragraphs: The International Trade Administration provided its 2001 survey responses  on June 26, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 29, 2003.
section_title: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
paragraphs: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided its 2001  survey responses on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
paragraphs: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office provided its 2001 survey responses  on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: Department of Defense
subsections: section_title: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
paragraphs: The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization provided its 2001 survey  responses on July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 10, 2003.
section_title: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
paragraphs: The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency provided its 2001 survey  responses on July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 7, 2003.
section_title: Defense Commissary Agency
paragraphs: The Defense Commissary Agency provided its 2001 survey responses on  July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 9, 2003.
section_title: Defense Contract Audit Agency
paragraphs: The Defense Contract Audit Agency provided its 2001 survey responses on  July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 30, 2003.
section_title: Defense Contract Management Agency
paragraphs: The Defense Contract Management Agency provided its 2001 survey  responses on July 3, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 30, 2003.
section_title: Defense Information Systems Agency
paragraphs: The Defense Information Systems Agency provided its 2001 survey  responses on July 11, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 10, 2003.
July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 20, 2003.
section_title: Defense Logistics Agency
paragraphs: The Defense Logistics Agency provided its 2001 survey responses on July  25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 22, 2003.
section_title: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
paragraphs: The Defense Security Cooperation Agency provided its 2001 survey  responses on July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 19, 2003.
section_title: Defense Security Service
paragraphs: The Defense Security Service provided its 2001 survey responses on July  25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 9, 2003.
section_title: Defense Threat Reduction Agency
paragraphs: The Defense Threat Reduction Agency provided its 2001 survey responses  on July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 29, 2003.
July 27, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 2, 2003.
section_title: Department of the Army
paragraphs: The Department of the Army provided its 2001 survey responses on July 25,  2001, and its 2003 responses on June 2, 2003.
section_title: Department of the Navy
paragraphs: The Department of the Navy provided its 2001 survey responses on July 25,  2001, and its 2003 responses on June 9, 2003.
section_title: National Imagery and Mapping Agency
paragraphs: The National Imagery and Mapping Agency provided its 2001 survey  responses on July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 6, 2003.
section_title: Department of Health and Human Services
subsections: section_title: Administration for Children and Families
paragraphs: The Administration for Children and Families provided its 2001 survey  responses on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
section_title: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
paragraphs: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality provided its 2001 survey  responses on July 12, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
section_title: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
paragraphs: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided its 2001 survey  responses on July 23, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
section_title: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
paragraphs: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provided its 2001 survey  responses on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
section_title: Food and Drug Administration
paragraphs: The Food and Drug Administration provided its 2001 survey responses on  July 13, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
section_title: Health Resources and Services Administration
paragraphs: The Health Resources and Services Administration provided its 2001  survey responses on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
section_title: Indian Health Service
paragraphs: The Indian Health Service provided its 2001 survey responses on June 29,  2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
section_title: Program Support Center
paragraphs: The Program Support Center provided its 2001 survey responses on June  29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
section_title: Department of Justice
subsections: section_title: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
paragraphs: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives provided its  2001 survey responses on July 16, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21,  2003.
section_title: Drug Enforcement Administration
paragraphs: The Drug Enforcement Administration provided its 2001 survey responses  on July 18, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 20, 2003.
section_title: Federal Bureau of Investigation
paragraphs: The Federal Bureau of Investigation provided its 2001 survey responses on  July 18, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 28, 2003.
section_title: Federal Bureau of Prisons
paragraphs: The Federal Bureau of Prisons provided its 2001 survey responses on July  18, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 22, 2003.
section_title: U.S. Marshals Service
paragraphs: The U.S. Marshals Service provided its 2001 survey responses on June 29,  2001, and its 2003 responses on May 19, 2003.
section_title: Department of Transportation
subsections: section_title: Federal Aviation Administration
paragraphs: The Federal Aviation Administration provided its 2001 survey responses on  June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 29, 2003.
section_title: Federal Highway Administration
paragraphs: The Federal Highway Administration provided its 2001 survey responses on  June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 1, 2003.
section_title: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
paragraphs: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration provided its 2001 survey  responses on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 24, 2003.
section_title: Federal Railroad Administration
paragraphs: The Federal Railroad Administration provided its 2001 survey responses on  June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 24, 2003.
section_title: Federal Transit Administration
paragraphs: The Federal Transit Administration provided its 2001 survey responses on  June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 24, 2003.
section_title: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
paragraphs: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provided its 2001  survey responses on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 24, 2003.
section_title: Department of the Treasury
subsections: section_title: Bureau of Engraving and Printing
paragraphs: The Bureau of Engraving and Printing provided its 2001 survey responses  on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: Bureau of the Public Debt
paragraphs: The Bureau of the Public Debt provided its 2001 survey responses on July  5, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
June 28, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 16, 2003.
section_title: Financial Management Service
paragraphs: The Financial Management Service provided its 2001 survey responses on  June 28, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 19, 2003.
section_title: Internal Revenue Service
paragraphs: The Internal Revenue Service provided its 2001 survey responses on July  20, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: Office of Thrift Supervision
paragraphs: The Office of Thrift Supervision provided its 2001 survey responses on June  29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 9, 2003.
section_title: U.S. Mint
paragraphs: The U.S. Mint provided its 2001 survey responses on June 29, 2001, and its  2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: Detailed Comparison of Independent Agency Responses against Our EA Management Maturity Framework
subsections: section_title: Agency for International Development
paragraphs: The Agency for International Development provided its 2001 survey  responses on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 22, 2003.
section_title: Central Intelligence Agency
paragraphs: The Central Intelligence Agency provided its 2001 survey responses on  August 6, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 30, 2003.
section_title: Corporation for National and Community Service
paragraphs: The Corporation for National and Community Service provided its 2001  survey responses on July 20, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 22, 2003.
section_title: Environmental Protection Agency
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency provided its 2001 survey responses  on June 28, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 15, 2003.
section_title: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
paragraphs: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provided its 2001 survey  responses on August 1, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 2, 2003.
section_title: Executive Office of the President
paragraphs: The Executive Office of the President provided its 2001 survey responses  on October 1, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 6, 2003.
section_title: Export-Import Bank
paragraphs: The Export-Import Bank provided its 2001 survey responses on September  20, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 11, 2003.
section_title: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
paragraphs: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation provided its 2001 survey  responses on July 20, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 18, 2003.
section_title: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
paragraphs: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provided its 2001 survey  responses on August 27, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
section_title: Federal Reserve System
paragraphs: The Federal Reserve System provided its 2001 survey responses on August  23, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 23, 2003.
section_title: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
paragraphs: The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board provided its 2001 survey  responses on July 20, 2001, and its 2003 responses on July 9, 2003.
section_title: General Services Administration
paragraphs: The General Services Administration provided its 2001 survey responses on  July 2, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 23, 2003.
section_title: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
paragraphs: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration provided its 2001  survey responses on July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: National Credit Union Administration
paragraphs: The National Credit Union Administration provided its 2001 survey  responses on July 18, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 10, 2003.
section_title: National Labor Relations Board
paragraphs: The National Labor Relations Board provided its 2001 survey responses on  August 9, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 9, 2003.
section_title: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
paragraphs: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission provided its 2001 survey responses on  July 23, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: Office of Personnel Management
paragraphs: The Office of Personnel Management provided its 2001 survey responses  on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 28, 2003.
section_title: Peace Corps
paragraphs: The Peace Corps provided its 2001 survey responses on July 20, 2001, and  its 2003 responses on May 15, 2003.
section_title: Railroad Retirement Board
paragraphs: The Railroad Retirement Board provided its 2001 survey responses on July  11, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 18, 2003.
section_title: Securities and Exchange Commission
paragraphs: The Securities and Exchange Commission provided its 2001 survey  responses on July 19, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 22, 2003.
section_title: Small Business Administration
paragraphs: The Small Business Administration provided its 2001 survey responses on  June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 22, 2003. 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: Social Security Administration
paragraphs: The Social Security Administration provided its 2001 survey responses on  July 3, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: U.S. Postal Service
paragraphs: The U.S. Postal Service provided its 2001 survey responses on August 13,  2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
section_title: 2003 Survey of Enterprise Architecture Efforts
paragraphs: To assess agency enterprise architecture management maturity levels, we  developed two similar surveys, one addressed to departments and the  other to component and independent agencies. These two surveys were  largely identical, with the following differences:  Throughout, questions referred to “departments” in the department  survey and to “agencies” in the agency survey.
Two questions on the department survey (questions 39 and 40) and three  questions on the agency survey (questions 39 to 41) were addressed  specifically to departments and agencies, respectively.
The last five questions on the two surveys were numbered differently,  since they followed the department- and agency-specific questions  described above. Questions 41 to 45 on the department survey were  numbered 42 to 46 on the agency survey. (Note, however, that these five  questions were not used in the decision criteria described in app. III.)
The following reproduced survey combines the two surveys into one  display by using the phrase “agency/department” in places where one or the  other term had been used in the separate surveys. It also displays both the  two department questions and the three agency questions that were  addressed specifically as described above.
We are also asking that you provide the name and  government, GAO is conducting a survey of federal  telephone number of a contact for your  departments’ and agencies’ enterprise architecture (EA) agency/department who can answer any questions we  efforts to gauge progress towards meeting Clinger-Cohen  may have about your survey responses.
Act and OMB requirements and to identify successes that  can be shared with other federal agencies. There are two  versions of this survey. One version is being sent to  federal agencies and a different version is being sent to  cabinet-level departments.
Enterprise architectures are well defined and enforced  blueprints (i.e., descriptions) for operational and  technological change. Such architectures provide a clear  (   ) and comprehensive picture of an entity, whether it is an  organization (e.g., federal department, agency, or bureau) (   )
If you have any questions, please contact:  environment; and (3) a capital investment roadmap for  transitioning from the current to the target environment  (i.e. sequencing plan).
We are requesting departments and agencies to provide  information from readily available data. We are not  asking that extensive analyses be performed in order to  respond to these questions. Please complete this survey  and return it to GAO no later than April 21, 2003.
You may return your completed survey and any  supporting materials by E-mail, fax, or Federal Express.
If you return your survey by E-mail, the address is:  pettisb@gao.gov.
If you return your survey by fax, the fax number is:   (202) 512-6450 - Attn: Scott Pettis.
If you return your survey by Federal Express, the address  is: Scott Pettis, Senior IT Analyst, 441 G St. NW,   Rm. 4Y12, Washington, DC 20548.  1.  Which of the following best describes your agency/department’s status with respect to enterprise architecture?   (Check one box.)  1.  We have developed an enterprise architecture  Skip to question 3. 2.  We do not have an enterprise architecture, but are in the process of developing one  Skip to question 3. 3.  We do not have an enterprise architecture, but plan to develop one  Skip to question 3. 4.  We do not plan to develop an enterprise architecture  Answer question 2. 2.  Please explain why your agency/department does not plan to develop an enterprise architecture.   (Enter your response in the box below.)
If you were directed to answer question 2, you have completed the survey.
Please return it as soon as possible. Thank you.
YOU SHOULD ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IF YOUR AGENCY/DEPARTMENT HAS AN  ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE, IS IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING ONE, OR PLANS TO  DEVELOP ONE.  3.  Which of the following best describes the scope of your agency/department’s completed, in-process, or planned  enterprise architecture(s). (Check all that apply and provide additional information if necessary.) 1.  Agency/department wide, organization based (i.e., all mission and business functions)   2.  Agency/department wide, function based (e.g., financial management, logistics management, grant  management, etc.)  3.  Non-agency/department wide organization based  4.  Non-agency/department wide function based   If you checked box 3 or 4 above because your architecture is not agency/department wide,  please list the organizations or functions covered by your enterprise architecture, and   explain the basis for the defined scope. (Enter your response in the box below.)  4.  Does (or will) this particular enterprise architecture include the following?  (Check one box for each row.) (1) (2) (3)
subsections: section_title: An explicit discussion of security in the “as is” business operations,
paragraphs: performance measurement, information/data, services/applications, and  technology descriptions of the agency/department.
A description of the agency/department’s future or “to-be” environment,  An explicit discussion of security in the “to be” business operations,  performance measurement, information/data, services/applications, and  technology descriptions of the agency/department.
A description of the sequencing plan for moving from the “as is” to the  “to be” environment.
If you answered “No” to any of the items in question 4, please explain why. (Enter your response in the box below.)
Is your agency/department’s enterprise architecture published? (Check one box and provide additional information if   necessary.) 1.  Yes  Please provide a list naming each enterprise architecture product/artifact with a brief description of    each product/artifact.  7.  Does your agency/department have a written and approved policy for the development, maintenance, and  use of enterprise architecture? (Check one box for each row. If policy is written but not approved,    please check “No”.) (1) (2)
section_title: Development of the enterprise architecture
paragraphs: Maintenance of the enterprise architecture  Use of the enterprise architecture  If you checked “yes” for development, maintenance, or use, please provide a copy of the written and approved  8.  Has your agency/department established committees or groups that represent the agency/department and have  responsibility for the following? (Check one box for each row.) (1) (2)
section_title: Direction of the enterprise architecture
paragraphs: Oversight of the enterprise architecture  Approval authority for the enterprise architecture  Other aspects of the enterprise architecture (Describe)
If yes, please provide a copy of the charter or comparable documentation.  9.  Has your agency/department established an official program office with responsibility for the following?   (Check one box for each row.) (1) (2)
section_title: Development of the enterprise architecture
paragraphs: Maintenance of the enterprise architecture  If yes, please provide a copy of the charter or comparable documentation.  10.  Does your agency/department have an individual designated as the chief architect? (Check one box and provide  additional information if necessary.)  1.  Yes   Please provide this individual’s name and phone number:  (   )
Does this individual report to the chief information officer?  2.  No  What position does the chief architect report to?
2.  No   Skip to question 12. 11.  Is your agency/department’s chief architect responsible for each of the following? (Check one box for each row.) (1) (2)
section_title: Heading the enterprise architecture program office
paragraphs: Directing development of the enterprise architecture  Directing maintenance of the enterprise architecture  Please provide a position description or comparable document describing the chief architect’s responsibilities.  12.  Please provide the costs of developing and maintaining your enterprise architecture by the following major cost  elements: (If you are in the process of developing your Enterprise Architecture, please enter data in all three  columns.) if any, to Complete  (to date)
Other (describe) $   .   Please quantify your agency/department’s requested and approved enterprise architecture resources.
Personnel (FTEs)
If any gap exists between requested and approved resources for Fiscal Year 2001, 2002, or 2003, please answer  question 14. Otherwise, proceed to question 15.  14. How much of an impact, if any, has the gap between enterprise architecture resources requested and resources finally  approved had on your agency/department’s enterprise architecture program? (Check one and provide additional  information if necessary.) 1.  Very adverse impact   2.  Somewhat adverse impact  3.  Moderate adverse impact  4.  Slight adverse impact  5.  No adverse impact  Please provide any additional details about the impact of any gap noted above. (Enter your response in the box below.) 15.  Which of the following automated tools are being used for this enterprise architecture? For each tool being used,   how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with it? (Check yes or no in each row. If yes, check additional box.)
If tool is being used, are you . . . used? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
section_title: Enterprise Architecture
paragraphs: (EAMS)
Framework by Ptech Inc.
JCAPS by Logicon Inc.
Yes  16.  Which of the following model(s) or framework(s) (i.e., a formal structure for representing the enterprise architecture)  is your agency/department using to develop this enterprise architecture? For each model or framework being used,  how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with it? (Check yes or no in each row. If yes, check additional box.)
If model or framework is being used, are you . . . being used? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
section_title: Command, Control,
paragraphs: (C4ISR)
Framework (DoDAF)
Framework (FEAF)  (NIST)
Framework (TEAF)
Yes  17.  Which of the following best describes how your agency/department’s enterprise architecture was or is   being developed? (Check one box and provide additional information if necessary.)  1.  Developed in-house using contractor(s) support  2.  Developed in-house without any contractor(s) support  3.  Developed by contractor(s)  Please provide the contractor’s name(s):         18.  Is your agency/department using an enterprise architecture development methodology or methodologies (i.e., a  common set of procedures, such as Spewak’s Enterprise Architecture Planning methodology, for developing  enterprise architecture products)? (Check one box and provide additional information if necessary.) 1.  Yes   Provide the following information about the enterprise architecture methodology or        methodologies your agency/department is using:    19.   To what extent was or is your agency/department’s “business” side involved in developing the enterprise  architecture? (Check one.) 1.  Very great extent  4.  Some or little extent  5.  No extent 20.  Was the current version (i.e., latest major release) of your agency/department’s enterprise architecture submitted and approved by the following entities: (Check one box in each row under submitted and approved. If the enterprise  architecture was submitted but not approved, please check “No”. If no, indicate whether action is planned.)
If no, is action planned? information officer?  committee?
Approved by a committee or  enterprise?  investment review board?
Approved by the head of your  agency/department?
Approved by other official or  committee? Please specify: Submitted to OMB?
Please provide documentation for each approval indicated above.  21.  Do your agency/department’s enterprise architecture products undergo independent verification and validation  (IV&V)? (Check one box and provide additional information if necessary.) 1.  Yes  If IV&V is contractor-provided, please provide a copy of the contractor’s statement of work. 22.  Do your agency/department’s enterprise architecture management processes undergo independent verification and  validation (IV&V)? (Check one box and provide additional information if necessary.) 1.  Yes  If IV&V is contractor-provided, please provide a copy of the contractor’s statement of work. 2.  No  23.  Does your agency/department periodically update its enterprise architecture products?  (Check one box and provide additional information if necessary.)  1.  Yes  If yes, please provide  Date of last update:  24.  Is your agency/department’s enterprise architecture under configuration management (i.e., a process for establishing  and maintaining the integrity of work products)? (Check one box and provide additional information if necessary.)  1.  Yes  If yes, please provide  Date of current version:  25.   Does a process exist for formally managing changes to your agency/department’s enterprise architecture? (Check 26. Does your agency/department have a written and approved policy that requires that IT investments comply with the    enterprise architecture? (Check one box and provide additional information if necessary. If policy is written but not    approved, please check “No”.) 1.  Yes  Please provide a copy of the written policy. Continue with question 27 2.  No  Skip to question 28  27.  Does your agency/department permit waivers to its requirement that IT investments comply with the enterprise   architecture? (Check one.) 1.  Yes, only if the request provides a written justification  2.  Yes, a waiver can be granted based on an informal request  3.  No, the agency/department does not provide for waivers to this policy  28.   Is your agency/department’s enterprise architecture an integral component of your agency/department’s IT  investment management  process? (Check one.) 29.   To what extent does your agency/department’s IT investments comply with the enterprise architecture? (Check one.) 1.  Very great extent  4.  Some or little extent  5.  No extent 30.  Was your agency/department’s decision to develop an enterprise architecture based on: 1) a business case that  provided economic justification (i.e., benefits in excess of costs); 2) the need to comply with the   Clinger-Cohen Act and/or OMB requirements; 3) the need to respond to the President’s Management Agenda;  and/or, 4) some other factor(s) that was considered?   (Check all that apply.) 1.  A business case that anticipated a positive return 2.  The need to comply with Clinger-Cohen and/or OMB requirements  3.  The need to respond to the President’s Management Agenda  4.  Other factor(s) - Please specify in the box below: 31.  What benefits, if any, can be attributed to your agency/department’s use of an enterprise architecture? If the benefit  can be attributed to the use of an enterprise architecture, to what extent, if at all, has the benefit been attained thus  (Check yes or no in each row. If yes, indicate extent benefit attained.)
Architecture? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
section_title: Other (describe)
paragraphs: Yes    No  32.  To what extent, if at all, did the following challenges affect the development of your agency/department’s   enterprise architecture? (Check one box in each row.) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
section_title: Top management’s understanding of the importance
paragraphs: From this point, the agency and department surveys differ.
section_title: federal department such as the Department of the
section_title: Treasury or USDA? (Check one.)
paragraphs: bureaus) enterprise architecture development,  maintenance, or use?  (Check one box and provide  1.  Yes  Continue with question 40  additional information if necessary.)
2.  No  Skip to question 42 1.   Yes    Please provide a copy of the  policy or guidance with your response.
section_title: 40. To what extent, if at all, has your agency’s
paragraphs: department provided oversight of your enterprise   architecture efforts? (Check one.)
section_title: 1. Very great extent
paragraphs: (e.g., oversight and approval processes)?
section_title: 2. Great extent
paragraphs: a.
section_title: 4. Some or little extent
paragraphs: b. c.
section_title: 41. Was your agency’s enterprise architecture approved
paragraphs: by your department’s chief information officer?  (Check one.)
From this point, the questions are again the same for each survey, except  for their numbering: on the department survey, each question number was  one less than the numbering shown in the following (the numbering shown  corresponds to that on the agency survey).
Note that none of the questions that follow were used in the decision  criteria that determined the maturity stage assigned to any respondent (see  appendix III for these criteria).
42. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied is your agency/department with OMB’s direction and guidance to your  agency/department regarding development, maintenance, and implementation of your enterprise architecture?  (Question responses will be aggregated and not directly attributable to any agency/department.) (Check one and  provide additional information if necessary.)  3.  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied  If you indicated that your agency/department is other than “Very satisfied” or “Satisfied,” please describe why and  what improvements are needed.   43.  How satisfied is your agency/department with OMB’s efforts to address the following enterprise architecture  management challenges GAO reported in its February 2002 report (GAO-02-6)? (Question responses will be  aggregated and not directly attributable to any agency/department.) (Check one box in each row and provide  additional information if necessary.) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
section_title: Fostering top management understanding
paragraphs: If you indicated that your agency/department is other than “Very satisfied” or “Satisfied,” to any of the above, please    describe why and what improvements are needed.   44. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements as they apply to OMB’s Federal Enterprise Architecture   (FEA)? (Question responses will be aggregated and not directly attributable to any agency/department.) (Check one  box in each row.) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
section_title: My agency/department’s enterprise architecture will
paragraphs: change as a result of the FEA  If you indicated other than “Strongly agree” or “Agree,” to any of the above, please describe why and what  improvements are needed.   45.  In your agency/department’s opinion, what impact has the FEA had (or will the FEA have) on your  agency/department’s enterprise architecture? (Question responses will be aggregated and not directly attributable to  any agency/department.) (Check one.)  1.  Very positive impact  2.  Generally positive impact  3.  Neither positive nor negative impact  4.  Generally negative impact  5.  Very negative impact  6.  No basis to judge  46.  Please provide any additional comments on your agency/department’s enterprise architecture program in the box  Thank you for your assistance.
Please return your survey and any requested supporting materials to   the E-mail address or fax number indicated on page 1.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the person named above, Barbara S. Collier, William B. Cook,  Neal J. Doherty, Michael Holland, Catherine M. Hurley, Stuart M. Kaufman,  Scott Pettis, and David B. Shumate made key contributions to this report.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting 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.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to   e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs