Organizational Transformation: Military Departments Can Improve Their Enterprise Architecture Programs
Published: 2011-09-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) spends billions of dollars annually to build and maintain information technology (IT) systems intended to support its mission. For decades, DOD has been challenged in modernizing its systems environment to reduce duplication and increase integration. Such modernizations can be guided by an enterprise architecture--a blueprint that describes an organization's current and target state for its business operations and supporting IT systems and a plan for transitioning between the two states. DOD has long sought to employ enterprise architectures and has defined an approach for doing so that depends in large part on the military departments developing architectures of their own. In light of the critical role that military department enterprise architectures play in DOD's overall architecture approach, GAO was requested to assess the status of the Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy (DON) enterprise architecture programs. To do so, GAO obtained and analyzed key information about each department's architecture relative to the 59 core elements contained in stages 1 through 6 of GAO's Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While Air Force, Army, and DON each have long-standing efforts to develop and use enterprise architectures, they have much to do before their efforts can be considered mature. GAO's enterprise architecture management framework provides a flexible benchmark against which to plan for and measure architecture program maturity and consists of 59 core elements arranged into a matrix of seven hierarchical stages. The Air Force has fully satisfied 20 percent, partially satisfied 47 percent, and not satisfied 32 percent of GAO's framework elements. The Army has fully satisfied 12 percent and partially satisfied 42 percent of the elements, with the remaining 46 percent not satisfied. Finally, DON has satisfied 27 percent, partially satisfied 41 percent, and not satisfied 32 percent of the framework elements. With respect to stages 1 through 6 of GAO's architecture framework, the military departments have generally begun establishing institutional commitments to their respective enterprise architecture efforts (stage 1), not established the management foundations necessary for effective enterprise architecture development and use (stage 2), begun developing initial enterprise architecture content (stage 3), not completed and used their initial enterprise architecture versions to achieve results (stage 4), not expanded and evolved the development and use of their respective architectures to support institutional transformation (stage 5), and taken limited steps to continuously improve their respective architecture programs and use their architectures to achieve corporate optimization (stage 6). Officials at the military departments stated that they have been limited in their ability to overcome long-standing enterprise architecture management challenges, including receiving adequate funding and attaining sufficient senior leadership understanding. Nevertheless, DOD has been provided with considerable resources for its IT systems environment, which consists of 2,324 systems. Specifically, DOD receives over $30 billion each year for this environment. Without fully developed and effectively managed enterprise architectures and a plan, the Air Force, Army, and DON lack the necessary road maps for transforming their business processes and modernizing their hundreds of supporting systems to minimize overlap and maximize interoperability. What this means is that DOD, as a whole, is not as well positioned as it should be to realize the significant benefits that a well-managed federation of architectures can afford its systems modernization efforts, such as eliminating system overlap and duplication. Because DOD is provided with over $30 billion each year for its IT systems environment, the potential for identifying and avoiding the costs associated with duplicative functionality across its IT investments is significant.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the military departments each develop a plan for fully satisfying the elements of GAO's framework. DOD and Army concurred and the Air Force and DON did not. In this regard, DOD stated that Air Force and DON do not have a valid business case that would justify the implementation of all the elements. However, GAO continues to believe its recommendation is warranted.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) spends billions of dollars each year to  maintain operational systems and processes intended to support its  mission. In this regard, the department requested about $38 billion for its  information technology (IT) investments for fiscal year 2012, including  about $25 billion in combined investments at the Departments of the Air  Force, Army, and Navy (DON). According to DOD’s systems inventory,  the department’s IT environment is composed of 2,324 systems and  includes 338 financial management, 719 human resource management,  664 logistics, 250 real property and installation, and 300 weapon  acquisition management systems. Of the 2,324 systems, there are 470  systems at the Air Force, 744 at the Army, and 473 at DON. For decades,  DOD has been challenged in modernizing its systems environment to  reduce duplication and increase integration between its systems.
Effective use of a well-defined enterprise architecture is a basic tenet of  successful systems modernization and associated organizational  transformation efforts, such as the one DOD has long been seeking to  accomplish. As we have previously reported, without a well-defined  enterprise architecture, it is unlikely that DOD, including its component  organizations, will be able to transform business processes and  modernize supporting systems to minimize overlap and maximize  interoperability. Further, DOD’s enterprise architecture approach relies on  each level of its organization (e.g., DOD-wide, military departments, and  programs) to develop a meaningful architecture. Accordingly, the  development and use of a military department enterprise architecture is  critical for organizational transformation and systems modernization  across DOD and within each military department.
In light of the critical role that military department architectures play in  DOD’s enterprise architecture construct, you asked us to assess the  status of the Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy’s enterprise  architecture programs. To accomplish this, we requested key information  about each department’s architecture governance, content, use, and  measurement. On the basis of the military departments’ responses and  supporting documentation, we analyzed the extent to which each satisfied  the 59 core elements in our architecture maturity framework.
We conducted this performance audit at DOD and military department  offices in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area from October 2010  through September 2011 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan  and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide  a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.  Details on our objective, scope, and methodology are provided in  appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DOD is a massive and complex organization entrusted with more  taxpayer dollars than any other federal department or agency.  Organizationally, the department includes the Office of the Secretary of  Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military departments, numerous  defense agencies and field activities, and various unified combatant  commands that are responsible for either specific geographic regions or  specific functions. (See fig. 1 for a simplified depiction of DOD’s  organizational structure.)
In support of its military operations, the department performs an  assortment of interrelated and interdependent business functions, such  as logistics management, weapons systems management, supply chain  management, procurement, health care management, and financial  management. For fiscal year 2012, the department requested about $38  billion for its IT investments, of which about $17 billion is intended for its  business systems environment and supporting IT infrastructure, which  includes systems and processes related to the management of contracts,  finances, the supply chain, support infrastructure, and weapons systems  acquisition. However, as we have previously reported, the DOD systems  environment that supports these business functions is overly complex and  error prone, and is characterized by (1) little standardization across the  department, (2) multiple systems performing the same tasks, (3) the  same data being stored in multiple systems, and (4) the need for data to  be entered manually into multiple systems.
DOD currently bears responsibility, in whole or in part, for 14 of the 30  federal government program areas that we have designated as high risk.  Seven of these areas are specific to DOD and the department shares  responsibility for 7 other governmentwide high-risk areas. The lack of an  effective enterprise architecture is a key contributor to its having many of  these high-risk areas. DOD’s business systems modernization, which is  to be guided by the DOD Business Enterprise Architecture, is one of the  high-risk areas, and is an essential component for addressing many of  the department’s other high-risk areas. For example, modernized  business systems are integral to the department’s efforts to address its  financial, supply chain, and information security management high-risk  areas. A well-defined and effectively implemented enterprise architecture  is, in turn, integral to the successful modernization of DOD’s business  systems.
subsections: section_title: Enterprise Architecture Is Key to Transforming Business and Mission Operations
paragraphs: An enterprise architecture is a modernization blueprint that describes an  organization’s (e.g., a federal department or agency) or a functional  area’s (e.g., terrorism information sharing or homeland security) current  and target state in both logical and technical terms, as well as a plan for  transitioning between the two states. As such, it is a recognized tenet of  organizational transformation and IT management in public and private  organizations. Without an enterprise architecture, it is unlikely that an  organization will be able to transform business processes and modernize  supporting systems to minimize overlap and maximize interoperability.  For more than a decade, we have conducted work to help federal  agencies improve their architecture efforts. To this end, we developed the  Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF),  which provides federal agencies with a common benchmarking tool for  assessing the management of their enterprise architecture efforts and  developing improvement plans.
An enterprise can be viewed as either a single organization or a  functional area that transcends more than one organization. An  architecture can be viewed as the structure (or structural description) of  any activity. Thus, enterprise architectures are systematically derived and  captured descriptions depicted in models, diagrams, and narratives.
More specifically, an architecture describes the enterprise in logical terms  (such as interrelated business processes and business rules, information  needs and flows, and work locations and users) as well as in technical  terms (such as hardware, software, data, communications, security  attributes, and performance standards). It provides these perspectives  both for the enterprise’s current environment, and for its target  environment, and it provides a transition plan for moving from the current  to the target environment.
Enterprise architectures are a basic tenet of both organizational  transformation and 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 end: optimized agency  operations and performance. The alternative, as our work has shown, is  the perpetuation of the kinds of operational environments that saddle  many 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. Employed in concert with other important IT management  controls (such as portfolio-based capital planning and investment control  practices), an enterprise architecture can greatly increase the chances  that an organization’s operational and IT environments will be configured  to optimize mission performance. Moreover, the development of agency  enterprise architectures is based on statutory requirements and federal  guidance. Further, DOD is required by statute to develop an enterprise  architecture to cover all defense business systems, and the business  transformation initiatives of the military departments are required to  develop a well-defined enterprisewide business systems architecture.
There are several approaches to structuring an enterprise architecture,  depending on the needs of the agency. In general, these approaches  provide for decomposing an enterprise into its logical parts and  architecting each of the parts in relation to enterprisewide needs and the  inherent relationships and dependencies that exist among the parts. As  such, the approaches are fundamentally aligned and consistent with a  number of basic enterprise architecture principles, such as incremental  rather than monolithic architecture development and implementation,  optimization of the whole rather than optimization of the component parts,  and maximization of shared data and services across the component  parts rather than duplication. Moreover, these approaches are not  mutually exclusive and, in fact, can all be applied to some degree for a  given enterprise, depending on the characteristics and circumstances of  that enterprise. The approaches, which are briefly described here, are  federated, segmented, and service-oriented.
Under a federated approach, the architecture consists of a family of  coherent but distinct member architectures that conform to an  overarching corporate (i.e., enterprise-level) or parent architecture. This  approach recognizes that each federation member has unique goals and  needs as well as common roles and responsibilities with the members  above and below it. As such, member architectures (e.g., component,  subordinate, or subsidiary architectures) are substantially autonomous,  but they also inherit certain rules, policies, procedures, and services from  the parent architectures. A federated architecture enables component  organization autonomy while ensuring enterprise-level or enterprisewide  linkages and alignment where appropriate.
A segmented approach to enterprise architecture development and use,  like a federated approach, employs a “divide and conquer” methodology  in which architecture segments are identified, prioritized, developed, and  implemented. In general, segments can be viewed as logical aspects, or  “slivers,” of the enterprise that can be architected and pursued as  separate initiatives under the overall enterprise-level architecture. As  such, the segments serve as a bridge between the corporate frame of  reference captured in the enterprise architecture and individual programs  within portfolios of system investments.
Under this approach, functions and applications are defined and designed  as discrete and reusable capabilities or services that may be under the  control of different organizational entities. As such, the capabilities or  services need to be, among other things, (1) self-contained, meaning that  they do not depend on any other functions or applications to execute a  discrete unit of work; (2) published and exposed as self-describing  business capabilities that can be accessed and used; and (3) subscribed  to via well-defined and standardized interfaces. This approach is intended  to reduce redundancy and increase integration, as well as provide the  flexibility needed to support a quicker response to changing and evolving  business requirements and emerging conditions.
section_title: DOD Has Adopted a Federated Approach to Its Enterprise Architecture
paragraphs: DOD has adopted a federated strategy to develop and implement the  many and varied architectures across the department. This strategy is to  provide a comprehensive architectural description of the entire DOD  enterprise, including the relationships between and among all levels of  the enterprise (e.g., enterprise-level, mission areas, components, and  programs). Figure 2 shows a simplified conceptual depiction of DOD’s  federated enterprise architecture.
DOD’s Enterprise Architecture Federation Strategy describes specific  roles and responsibilities for each level of its federated architecture.
These roles and responsibilities are consistent with DOD’s tiered  accountability approach to systems modernization, whereby components  (e.g., mission areas, military departments, etc.) are responsible for  defining their respective component architectures and transition plans and  program managers are responsible for developing program-level  architectures and transition plans and ensuring integration with the  architectures and transition plans developed and executed at the  component and enterprise levels. For example, each level of the  federation is responsible for developing its respective architecture and  imposing constraints on the levels below. Accordingly, the completeness  of the DOD federated enterprise architecture depends on each level of  the federation developing its own respective enterprise architecture.  Moreover, since the military departments comprise such a large portion of  the DOD enterprise, the relative importance of their respective enterprise  architectures is significant.
section_title: GAO’s Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework
paragraphs: In 2002, we developed version 1.0 of the EAMMF to provide federal  agencies with a common benchmarking tool for planning and measuring  their efforts to improve management of their enterprise architectures, as  well as to provide OMB with a means for doing the same  governmentwide. We issued an update to the framework (version 1.1) in  2003 and a new version (version 2.0) in 2010. Version 2.0 expands on  prior versions based on our experience in using them in evaluating  governmentwide and agency-specific enterprise architectures and our  solicitation of comments from federal agencies and other stakeholders on  the usability, completeness, and sufficiency of the framework. The latest  version provides a more current and pragmatic construct for viewing  architecture development and use. In this regard, it provides a flexible  benchmark against which to plan for and measure architecture program  management maturity that permits thoughtful and reasonable discretion to  be applied in using it. Restated, the framework is not intended to be a  rigidly applied “one size fits all” checklist, but rather a flexible frame of  reference that should be applied in a manner that makes sense for each  organization’s unique facts and circumstances. Specifically, depending on  the size, scope, and complexity of the enterprise, not every framework  core element may be equally applicable, not every assessment has to  consider every element, and not every assessment has to consider every  element in the same level of detail. Moreover, the framework is not  intended to be viewed as the sole benchmarking tool for informing and  understanding an organization’s journey toward architecture maturity.
Version 2.0 of the framework arranges 59 core elements into a matrix of  seven hierarchical stages. Figure 3 presents a depiction of the seven  stages of maturity.
Each maturity stage includes all the core elements that are resident in the  previous stages. Each stage is described in detail here. Appendix II  provides a list of core elements arranged by their respective EAMMF  stages.
At this stage, either an organization does not have plans to develop and  use an enterprise architecture or it has plans that do not demonstrate an  awareness of the management discipline needed to successfully develop,  maintain, and use an enterprise architecture. While Stage 0 organizations  may have initiated some enterprise architecture activity, their efforts are  largely ad hoc and unstructured and lack the institutional leadership  necessary for successful development, maintenance, and use as defined  in Stage 1. Therefore, Stage 0 has no associated core elements.
At this stage, an organization puts in place the foundational pillars for  treating its enterprise architecture program as an institution and for  overcoming traditional barriers to its success. For example, the  organization grounds enterprise architecture development and  compliance in policy and recognizes it as a corporate asset by vesting  ownership of the architecture with top executives (i.e., lines of business  owners and chief “X” officers). As members of a chartered architecture  executive committee, these individuals are provided with the knowledge  and understanding of the architecture concepts and governance  principles needed to lead and direct the enterprise architecture effort.  Through the enterprise architecture executive committee (hereafter  referred to as the Executive Committee), leadership is demonstrated  through the approval of enterprise architecture goals and objectives and  key aspects of the architecture’s construct, such as the framework(s) to  be used and the approach for establishing the hierarchy and structure of  organization components (e.g., federation members, segments, etc.).  Also during this stage, the central figure in managing the program, the  Chief Architect, is appointed and empowered, and the integral and  relative role of the enterprise architecture vis-à-vis other enterprise-level  governance disciplines is recognized in enterprise-level policy.  Organizations that achieve this maturity stage have demonstrated  enterprise architecture leadership through an institutional commitment to  developing and using the enterprise architecture as a strategic basis for  directing its development, maintenance, and use.
This stage builds on the strategic leadership foundation established in  Stage 1 by creating the managerial means to the ends—an initial version  of the enterprise architecture (Stages 3 and 4) and an evolving and  continuously improving enterprise architecture (Stages 5 and 6) that can  be used to help guide and direct investments and achieve the  architecture’s stated purpose. For example, at this stage the organization  establishes operational enterprise architecture program offices, including  an enterprise-level program office that is headed by the Chief Architect,  who reports to the Executive Committee. Also at this stage, the Executive  Committee continues to exercise leadership by ensuring that the Chief  Architect and subordinate architects have the funding and human capital  needed to “stand up” their respective program offices and have acquired  the requisite architecture tools (development and maintenance  methodologies, modeling tools, and repository). Organizations that  achieve this stage have largely established the program management  capacity needed to develop an initial version of the enterprise  architecture.
At this stage, an organization is focused on strengthening the ability of its  program office(s) to develop an initial version of the enterprise  architecture while also actually developing one or more of these versions.  Among other things, steps are taken to engage stakeholders in the  process and implement human capital plans, to include hiring and training  staff and acquiring contractor expertise. During this stage, these  resources are combined with earlier acquired tools (e.g., framework(s),  methodologies, modeling tools, and repositories) to execute enterprise  architecture management plans and schedules aimed at delivering an  initial enterprise-level version of the architecture that includes current and  target views of the performance, business, data, services, technology,  and security architectures, as well as an initial version of a plan for  transitioning from the current to the target views. Also during this stage,  one or more segment architectures or federation member architectures  are being developed using available tools and defined plans and  schedules, and progress in developing initial architecture versions is  measured by the Chief Architect and reported to the Executive  Committee. Although an organization at this maturity stage does not yet  have a version of an enterprise architecture that is ready for  implementation, it is well on its way to defining an enterprise architecture  of sufficient scope and content that can be used to guide and constrain  investments in a way that can produce targeted results.
At this stage, an organization has developed a version of its enterprise- level architecture that has been approved by the Executive Committee, to  include current and target views of the performance, business, data,  services, technology, and security architectures, as well as an initial  version of a plan for transitioning from the current to the target views. In  addition, one or more segment and/or federation member architectures  have been developed and approved according to established priorities.  Moreover, the approved enterprise-level and subordinate architectures  are being used to guide and constrain capital investment selection and  control decisions and system life-cycle definition and design decisions.  Also during this stage, a range of factors are measured and reported to  the Executive Committee, such as enterprise architecture product quality,  investment compliance, subordinate architecture alignment, and results  and outcomes. Organizations that achieve this stage of maturity have a  foundational set of enterprise-level and subordinate enterprise  architecture products that provide a meaningful basis for informing  selected investments and building greater enterprise architecture scope,  content, use, and results.
At this stage, the enterprise architecture’s scope is extended to the entire  organization, and it is supported by a full complement of segment and  federation member architectures, all of which include current and target  views of the performance, business, data, services, technology, and  security architectures, as well as well-defined plans for transitioning from  the current to the target views. Moreover, this suite of architecture  products is governed by a common enterprise architecture framework,  methodology, and repository, thus permitting the products to be  appropriately integrated. Also at this stage, the architecture products are  continuously maintained, and major updates of the enterprise-level  architecture are approved by the head of the organization, while  subordinate architecture product updates are approved by their  corresponding organization heads or segment owners. In addition,  architecture product quality (i.e., completeness, consistency, usability,  and utility) as well as enterprise architecture management process  integrity are assessed by an independent agent, and the results are  reported to the Chief Architect and the Executive Committee. An  organization that achieves this level of maturity has established a full  suite of architecture products that can be employed as a featured  decision support tool when considering and planning large-scale  organizational restructuring or transformation initiatives.
At this stage, an organization is focused on continuously improving the  quality of its suite of enterprise architecture products and the people,  processes, and tools used to govern their development, maintenance,  and use. By achieving this stage of maturity, the organization has  established a truly enterprisewide blueprint to inform both “board room”  strategic planning and decision making and “on-the-ground”  implementation of these changes through a range of capital investment  and maintenance projects and other enterprise-level initiatives.
section_title: Prior Reviews of Federal Department and Agency Enterprise Architectures
paragraphs: In 2002 and 2003, we reported on the status of enterprise architectures  governmentwide, including for the Departments of the Air Force, Army,  and Navy. We found that some federal agencies had begun to establish  the management foundation needed to successfully develop, implement,  and maintain an enterprise architecture, but that executive leadership was  key to addressing management challenges identified by enterprise  architecture programs: (1) overcoming limited executive understanding,  (2) inadequate funding, (3) insufficient number of skilled staff, and (4)  organizational parochialism. Accordingly, we made recommendations to  OMB to improve enterprise architecture leadership and oversight. OMB  responded to these recommendations by establishing its Chief Architects  Forum to, among other things, share enterprise architecture best  practices among federal agencies and by developing an enterprise  architecture assessment tool, which it used to periodically evaluate  enterprise architecture programs at federal agencies.
In 2006, we reviewed enterprise architecture management at 27 federal  agencies and found that management improvements were needed.  Overall, most agencies had not reached a sufficient level of maturity in  their enterprise architecture development, particularly with regard to their  approaches to assessing each investment’s alignment with the enterprise  architecture and measuring and reporting on enterprise architecture  results and outcomes. In addition, the military departments comprised  three of the four agencies with the lowest overall satisfaction of key  enterprise architecture management practices.
Our 2006 report also identified that challenges facing agencies across the  federal government in developing and using enterprise architectures are  formidable. Specifically, 93 percent of federal departments and agencies  reported that they had encountered organizational parochialism and  cultural resistance to enterprise architecture to a significant (very great or  great) or moderate extent. Other challenges reported were ensuring that  the architecture program had adequate funding (89 percent), obtaining  staff skilled in the architecture discipline (86 percent), and having  department or agency senior leaders that understand the importance and  role of the enterprise architecture (82 percent). We identified leadership  as a key to overcoming these management challenges and made specific  recommendations to individual agencies to address their challenges and  manage their programs. Since 2006, we have continued to report that  sustained top management leadership is the key to overcoming these  challenges and positioning agencies to achieve enterprise architecture- related benefits such as improved alignment between their business  operations and the IT that supports these operations and consolidation of  their IT infrastructure environments.
Between 2005 and 2008, we reported that DOD had taken steps to  comply with key requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act  for Fiscal Year 2005 relative to architecture development; however,  each report also concluded that much remained to be accomplished  relative to the act’s requirements and relevant guidance. We further  reported in May 2008 that the military departments’ enterprise  architecture programs had yet to advance to a level that could be  considered fully mature. Specifically, we reported that all three  departments were at the initial stage of maturity as defined in version 1.1  of GAO’s architecture maturity framework and had yet to fulfill the  framework’s requirements for, among other things, establishing a  management foundation for developing, maintaining, and using the  architecture. We reported that DOD, as a whole, was not as well  positioned as it should be to realize the significant benefits that a well- managed federation of architectures can afford its business systems  modernization efforts.
More recently, we reported on the need for federal agencies to measure  and report enterprise architecture results and outcomes as key  mechanisms for identifying overlap and duplication. Specifically, we  stated that while some progress has been made in improving  management, more time is needed for agencies to fully realize the value  of having well-defined and implemented architectures. Such value can be  derived from realizing cost savings through consolidation and reuse of  shared services and elimination of antiquated and redundant mission  operations, enhancing information sharing through data standardization  and system integration, and optimizing service delivery through  streamlining and normalization of business processes and mission  operations.
section_title: Military Departments Have Begun to Develop Enterprise Architectures, but Management and Use Can Be Improved
paragraphs: The Air Force, Army, and DON each have long-standing efforts in place  to develop and use an enterprise architecture, but much remains to be  accomplished before these efforts can be considered sufficiently mature  to fully support ongoing organizational transformation and corporate  optimization efforts. Specifically, the Air Force has fully satisfied 20  percent, partially satisfied 47 percent, and not satisfied 32 percent of  GAO’s enterprise architecture framework elements. The Army has fully  satisfied 12 percent and partially satisfied 42 percent of elements, with  the remaining 46 percent not satisfied. Finally, DON has satisfied 27  percent, partially satisfied 41 percent, and not satisfied 32 percent of  framework elements. (Table 1 summarizes each military department’s  satisfaction of core enterprise architecture management elements and  detailed results are presented in appendices III, IV, and V.)
More specifically, while the military departments have each demonstrated  that they are beginning to establish an institutional commitment to their  respective enterprise architecture by addressing many of the elements  described in Stage 1 of GAO’s enterprise architecture management  framework and to develop initial enterprise architecture content (Stage 3),  they have generally not established a well-developed enterprise  architecture management foundation (Stage 2). Moreover, the  departments have yet to complete and use their initial enterprise  architecture versions to achieve targeted results (Stage 4) or expand and  evolve their respective architectures to support institutional transformation  (Stage 5). Finally, the departments have taken limited steps to  continuously improve their respective architecture programs and use their  architectures to achieve enterprisewide optimization (Stage 6). Officials at  the military departments stated that they continue to face long-standing  enterprise architecture management challenges, such as receiving  adequate funding, overcoming cultural resistance and attaining sufficient  senior leadership understanding. Nevertheless, DOD has been provided  with considerable resources for its IT systems environment. Specifically,  in recent years, DOD has been provided with over $30 billion annually for  this environment. In addition, for fiscal year 2012, DOD has requested  about $38 billion for its IT investments.
Without fully developed and effectively managed enterprise architectures,  the Air Force, Army, and DON do not have a sufficient architectural basis  for transforming their business processes and modernizing their  thousands of supporting systems to minimize overlap and maximize  interoperability. Consequently, DOD as a whole is not well positioned to  realize the significant benefits that a well-managed set of architectures  can contribute to its ongoing operational and IT system modernization  efforts, such as eliminating system overlap and duplication. Because  DOD is provided with over $30 billion each year for its IT systems  environment, the potential for identifying and avoiding the costs  associated with duplicative functionality across its IT investments is  significant.
subsections: section_title: Military Departments Have Each Begun to Establish an Institutional Commitment to an Enterprise Architecture
paragraphs: Stage 1 of GAO’s EAMMF describes elements associated with  establishing the foundational pillars for treating the enterprise architecture  as an institution and for overcoming barriers to success. Examples of  these elements include establishing an enterprise architecture policy and  an executive committee and defining the roles and responsibilities of key  players and associated metrics to help ensure that their respective roles  and responsibilities are fulfilled.
The military departments have demonstrated that they are beginning to  establish an institutional commitment to their respective enterprise  architecture by fully satisfying 42 percent, partially satisfying 42 percent,  and not satisfying 17 percent of the Stage 1 elements. Table 2 describes  the extent to which each military department has satisfied the Stage 1  elements.
The following examples describe the military departments’ performance  relative to selected Stage 1 elements.
Policy: All three of the military departments have fully satisfied the  element associated with establishing a policy for enterprise architecture  development, maintenance, and use. Establishing such a policy is  important for, among other things, confirming an organization’s  institutional commitment to an enterprise architecture and defining the  entities responsible for architecture development, maintenance, and use.
Executive committee: Air Force and DON have fully satisfied, and Army  has partially satisfied the element that is associated with establishing an  executive committee representing the enterprise and that is responsible  and accountable for the architecture. Although the Army has established  committees responsible for some segment architecture activities, it has  not yet established an executive committee responsible for an enterprise- level architecture. Establishing enterprisewide responsibility and  accountability is important for demonstrating the organization’s  institutional commitment to enterprise architecture and for obtaining buy- in from across the organization. Such an executive committee also helps  the enterprise architecture effort address issues that might not be entirely  within the span of control of the organizational Chief Architect, such as  obtaining adequate funding and sufficient human capital resources.
Performance and accountability framework: None of the military  departments has fully or partially satisfied the element associated with  establishing an enterprise architecture performance and accountability  framework that recognizes the critical roles and responsibilities of key  stakeholders and provides the metrics and means for ensuring that roles  and responsibilities are fulfilled. Specifically, none of the military  departments has defined the metrics and means for ensuring that roles  and responsibilities are fulfilled. Successfully managing any program,  including an enterprise architecture program, depends in part on  establishing clear commitments and putting in place the means by which  to determine progress against these commitments and hold responsible  parties accountable for the results.
To their credit, each of the military departments has taken important steps  to address the Stage 1 core elements, and, as a result, has begun to  establish key institutional commitments to developing and using an  enterprise architecture. Establishing such institutional commitments is the  first step to overcoming long-standing barriers to enterprise architecture  success, such as top leadership understanding and parochialism and  cultural resistance. Without such commitments, these barriers may  continue to limit the ability of an architecture program to contribute to  efforts to improve the organization, which may range from streamlining  business processes and IT that supports a specific organizational line of  business (e.g., a segment) to larger and more significant  organizationwide improvement efforts.
section_title: Military Departments Lack Well-Developed Management Foundations for Enterprise Architecture Development and Use
paragraphs: Stage 2 of GAO’s EAMMF describes elements that build on the strategic  leadership commitment established in Stage 1 by creating the managerial  means to accomplish activities in later stages, including developing an  initial version of the enterprise architecture (Stages 3 and 4) and evolving  and continuously improving an enterprise architecture (Stages 5 and 6)  that can be used to help guide and direct investments and achieve the  architecture’s stated purpose. Examples of these elements include  selecting automated tools, establishing an enterprise architecture  program management office, developing a program management plan,  justifying and funding program resources, and defining human capital  plans.
The military departments’ satisfaction of these Stage 2 core elements  demonstrates that much remains to be accomplished to establish their  respective enterprise architecture management foundations. Specifically,  the military departments have collectively satisfied only 17 percent,  partially satisfied 47 percent, and not satisfied 37 percent of these  elements. Table 3 describes the extent to which each military department  has satisfied Stage 2 framework elements.
The following examples describe the military departments’ performance  relative to selected Stage 2 elements.
Automated tools: The Air Force, Army, and DON have each fully  satisfied the element associated with selecting automated enterprise  architecture tools. Automated tools support the creation of a holistic view  of the current and target state of the enterprise by assisting in the process  of extracting, assimilating, relating, and presenting critical organizational  information (e.g., the relationships between business operations and  associated performance metrics, information exchanges, supporting  applications and services, technology standards, and security protocols).
Program office: All three of the military departments have partially  satisfied the element associated with establishing an enterprise  architecture program office. Although both Air Force and DON have  established a small team dedicated to enterprise architecture  development and use, they do not operate within a formally chartered  program office. In addition, while Army has established chartered  program management offices for its three primary segments, it has not  established an enterprise-level architecture program management office.  Air Force officials stated that the department does not manage its  enterprise architecture as a formal program, DON officials stated that the  department is unable to justify creating a large program office in a fiscally  constrained environment, and Army officials recognized the need to  establish an enterprise-level architecture program management office in  the future. We and the federal Chief Information Officers Council have  previously reported that enterprise architecture development and  maintenance should be managed as a formal program. Doing so helps  ensure that the enterprise architecture program receives the appropriate  attention and sufficient funding and human capital resources needed to  be successful. In addition, establishing such an office would provide  accountability for achieving its desired results. Accordingly, the program  office should be responsible to the Executive Committee for ensuring that  critical activities that are within its span of authority and control, such as  enterprise architecture program planning and performance monitoring,  enterprise architecture development and maintenance using supporting  tools, and enterprise architecture configuration management, are  performed.
Program management plan: None of the three military departments has  fully satisfied the element associated with managing its enterprise  architecture activities according to an enterprise architecture program  management plan. To their credit, Army and DON have partially satisfied  the element. For example, DON has established a governance plan that  defines enterprise architecture management structures and stakeholder  roles and responsibilities and Army has established a program  management plan for its Network segment, which addresses at least  some enterprisewide requirements. However, Army and DON have yet to  develop comprehensive plans for managing their architecture programs.  In addition, although Air Force officials stated that the department  produces an annual roadmap from which goals and schedules are  developed, Air Force officials did not provide evidence to demonstrate  that a program management plan exists that includes information such as  management controls and accountability mechanisms. DON officials  stated that they are in the process of developing a road map that will  serve as a program management plan and Army officials stated that the  department plans to establish a program management office that  addresses key program management activities. An enterprise architecture  program management plan would provide the range of management  structures, controls, disciplines, roles, and accountability mechanisms  discussed throughout the framework as well as descriptions of the major  enterprise architecture releases or increments to be developed. In this  regard, the plan is a critical tool for providing a bridge between more  conceptual frameworks and methodologies to the detailed and actionable  work breakdown structures and schedules. As such, it is important for the  departments to develop such a plan to ensure that the enterprise  architecture program is effectively managed.
Budgetary needs: Each of the military departments has partially satisfied  the element associated with justifying and funding enterprise architecture  budgetary needs. All of the military departments agree that sufficient  resources to establish and execute their respective enterprise  architecture programs are not available but that the level of current  funding has enabled them to continue executing certain architectural  activities. Nevertheless, DOD has been provided with considerable  resources for its IT systems environment. Specifically, in recent years,  DOD has been provided with over $30 billion annually for this  environment. In addition, for fiscal year 2012, DOD has requested about  $38 billion for its IT investments. Moreover, architecture budgetary needs  have not been identified and justified through reliable cost estimating and  expected program benefits. By funding enterprise architecture as a capital  investment, an organization’s leadership demonstrates its long-term  commitment to having and using an enterprise architecture to inform  investment decision making and optimize mission-facing and mission- supporting operations. Such funding requests also establish expected  enterprise architecture program benefits that, in turn, provide justification  for department and agency enterprise architecture expenditures and  establish commitments against which enterprise architecture program  managers and department executives can be held accountable.
Human capital plans: None of the three departments has fully or  partially satisfied the element associated with developing human capital  plans that identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for  enterprise architecture staff. Army officials recognized the need for such a  plan and stated that the department’s updated enterprise architecture  regulation will include a requirement for such a human capital plan. DON  officials stated that a human capital plan is not necessary due to their  small number of staff and lack of a large centralized program office. Air  Force officials stated that the department does not plan to develop such a  plan because enterprise architecture is not a formally established career  field within the federal government. However, having sufficient human  capital to successfully develop and maintain the enterprise architecture  begins with identifying human capital needs and developing a plan for  acquiring, developing, and retaining qualified staff with the requisite  knowledge, skills, and abilities. The enterprise architecture human capital  plan is the vehicle for addressing enterprise architecture program skill  gaps by, for example, training existing staff, hiring new staff, using  contractor staff, and addressing staff retention, development, and  recognition and reward.
Agencies that achieve this stage have largely established the program  management capability needed to develop an initial architecture version.  By not satisfying the majority of the elements at this stage, which as  stated creates the managerial means to the ends, the military  departments risk not being able to effectively execute higher stage core  elements. For example, an agency can begin developing initial  architecture products that describe its current and target environment,  and a plan for transitioning from its current to its target environment  (Stage 3); however, without establishing enterprise architecture  management plans to guide its enterprise architecture efforts (Stage 2), it  risks not delivering an architecture that can be used for achieving target  results and institutional transformation (Stages 4 and 5).
section_title: Military Departments Have Begun to Develop Initial Enterprise Architecture Content
paragraphs: Stage 3 of our EAMMF describes elements associated with strengthening  the ability of a program office to develop initial versions of the enterprise  architecture by leveraging acquired resources and tools (established in  Stages 1 and 2) to execute enterprise architecture management plans  and schedules. Examples of these elements include developing  subordinate architectures, developing initial enterprise-level architecture  versions, and using the selected enterprise architecture methodology.
The military departments’ satisfaction of these Stage 3 core elements  demonstrates that they have begun to develop initial enterprise  architecture content. Specifically, the military departments have satisfied  26 percent, partially satisfied 45 percent, and not satisfied 29 percent of  these elements. Table 4 describes the extent to which each department  has satisfied Stage 3 framework elements.
The following examples describe the military departments’ performance  relative to selected Stage 3 elements.
Subordinate architectures: All of the military departments have satisfied  the element associated with developing one or more segment and/or  federation architecture. For example, the Air Force approved version 1.0  of its Space Domain architecture in September 2010; the Army is  developing architectures for its Generating Force and Network segments;  and DON has developed architecture artifacts for its Net Centric  segment. As we have previously reported, successful enterprise  architecture development for large, complex federal agencies does not  involve an “all-or-nothing” monolithic approach. Rather, enterprise  architecture development typically follows a “divide and conquer” strategy  in which the level of architectural detail needed to guide and constrain  individual investments is created for distinct organizational components or  functional slices of the enterprise. In taking such an approach, the level of  architectural content that needs to be defined to sufficiently inform high- priority, near-term system investments can be established relatively  quickly, thus allowing the benefits of the enterprise architecture to be  realized sooner rather than later.
Developing initial enterprise-level architecture content: All three of  the military departments have partially satisfied the element associated  with developing an initial enterprise-level architecture that addresses the  current and target environment and a sequencing plan for transitioning  from the current to the target environment. The Air Force and DON  approaches to developing this enterprise architecture content involve  establishing enterprise-level architecture content that is to be further  supported by lower-level architectures, while Army has established three  architecture segments but has not yet established an enterprise-level  architecture. Consistent with these approaches, the Air Force and DON  have begun to develop initial enterprise-level architecture content, but this  content does not include separate views of the current and target  environments and neither of the two military departments has fully  established a sequencing plan that describes how the department is to  transition from its current to the target environment and is based on an  analysis of the gaps between these environments. Officials from these  departments stated that they do not plan to distinguish between their  current and target environments because they are focused on  establishing enterprise architecture content that is more immediately  useable (DON) and they have not been asked by executive management  to establish such a distinction (Air Force).
As we have previously reported, enterprise architecture development  typically occurs in an incremental fashion, whereby an initial version is  developed as the foundation on which to evolve and build increasingly  more comprehensive, detailed, and complete versions. In addition, as  we have reported, sequencing plans should be based on an  assessment of the differences between the current and target  architectures (i.e., a gap analysis). For example, a performance gap  analysis identifies performance measures (e.g., effectiveness) of a  business process, highlights which performance measures are not being  met in the current environment, and describes performance expectations  for these measures in the target environment, thereby describing  expected performance improvements to the business process. This  performance gap analysis should also identify the business process  activities or steps that need to be changed to achieve the future  performance expectations. As such, these gap analyses identify  necessary changes or adjustments in the current environment to achieve  business goals and mission outcomes expected in the future  environment, thereby serving as the support for related investments and  activities, and also as a basis for prioritization; integration; and  synchronization of decisions across the spectrum of these investments  and activities.
Using an enterprise architecture methodology: None of the military  departments has fully satisfied the element associated with developing its  enterprise architecture products according to a defined methodology. The  departments have not satisfied this element because, among other  things, none of them has established a methodology to guide enterprise  architecture development, maintenance, and use. Air Force officials  stated that efforts to develop such a methodology have been postponed  due to budget constraints and DON officials stated that the department  has not developed a methodology due to its focus on other resource- intensive commitments, such as applying the current enterprise  architecture content. However, as stated previously in this report, DOD  has been provided with extensive resources for its IT systems  environment. Army officials stated that the department’s draft enterprise  architecture regulation will call for the development of such a  methodology. It is important for the departments to develop such a  methodology, as it would provide architecture staff and stakeholders with  a shared understanding of the architecture development approach,  including defined steps, tasks, standards, tools, techniques, and  measures that are to be used to create the specified enterprise  architecture products. In addition, such a methodology would help to  ensure that enterprise architecture products are, among other things,  consistent, complete, aligned, integrated, and usable.
An agency that achieves this stage is well on its way to defining an  enterprise architecture of sufficient scope and content that can be used to  guide and constrain investments in a way that can produce targeted  results, even though it may not yet have developed a version of an  enterprise architecture that is ready for implementation. However,  agencies that develop architectural content in Stage 3 without first  addressing critical Stage 1 and 2 elements risk developing enterprise  architecture products that are not usable for achieving target results  (Stage 4).
section_title: Military Departments Have Yet to Complete and Use Initial Enterprise Architecture Versions for Targeted Results
paragraphs: Stage 4 of our EAMMF describes elements associated with completing  initial enterprise architecture versions and using the architecture to  achieve targeted results. Examples of these elements include linking  architecture to other management disciplines, measuring and reporting  the quality of enterprise architecture products, and measuring and  reporting enterprise architecture results and outcomes.
The military departments’ satisfaction of these Stage 4 core elements  demonstrates that, among other things, they have yet to establish a  meaningful basis for guiding and constraining capital investment selection  and control decisions and system life cycle definition and design  decisions. Specifically, they have satisfied only 15 percent, partially  satisfied 39 percent, and not satisfied 45 percent of these elements.  Table 5 describes the extent to which each military department has  satisfied Stage 4 framework elements.
The following examples describe the military departments’ performance  relative to selected Stage 4 elements.
Linking architecture to other management disciplines: All three  military departments have fully satisfied the element associated with  making their respective architecture programs integral to the execution of  other institutional management disciplines. Specifically, the Army has  demonstrated that its segment architecture efforts are linked to the  execution of management disciplines associated with capability  integration, acquisition, and budgeting; the Air Force demonstrated  integration with its capability integration, acquisition, and budgeting  disciplines; and DON demonstrated that its architecture efforts are linked  to the execution of its strategic planning, capital planning, and system  development efforts. Enterprise architecture is one of several interrelated  institutional management disciplines that collectively provide the means  for an organization to be successful in meeting its mission goals and  target outcomes. It is a contributor to many of these disciplines. In  particular, it provides the bridge between strategic planning and program  implementation, it informs human capital strategic planning and capital  planning and investment control decision making, and it provides a critical  underpinning to institutional performance management. As a result, the  enterprise architecture should be an integral input into the execution of  each of these management disciplines.
Enterprise architecture quality measurement: DON has fully satisfied  the element associated with measuring and reporting the quality of its  enterprise architecture products; Air Force has partially satisfied this  element; and Army has yet to satisfy the element. Specifically, the quality  of DON enterprise architecture products is assessed by a working group  in accordance with a set of defined criteria and submitted for final  approval to an enterprise architecture approval board. Air Force  demonstrated that both its enterprise-level and subordinate architectures  are subject to quality reviews that address completeness, usability,  consistency, and accuracy and are reported to the appropriate officials.  However, the assessments were not based on quality standards defined  in an approved enterprise architecture methodology. In addition, although  Army’s Network architecture segment documentation states that quality  control measures are to be used to determine quality, reuse, compliance,  and risk, related measurements have not yet been defined. Further,  according to Army officials, the quality of its other segment architecture  products is not measured and reported. Realizing an enterprise  architecture’s value depends in large part on the quality of the products or  artifacts that compose it. Accordingly, measuring and reporting the quality  of enterprise architecture products relative to defined and consistently  applied quality standards helps ensure that the enterprise architecture  program will ultimately achieve its intended purpose.
Enterprise architecture results and outcomes: None of the military  departments has partially or fully satisfied the element associated with  measuring and reporting enterprise architecture results and outcomes,  although all three have reported that they expect to realize future benefits  from their respective architecture programs. For example, Air Force  reported that it expects to achieve improved alignment between its  business operations and IT as well as improved data integration within 2  to 5 years, and DON reported that it expects increased infrastructure  consolidation and increased use of enterprise licenses within 2 to 5 years.  What this suggests is that the real value to the military departments from  developing and using enterprise architectures has yet to be realized. Our  framework recognizes that a key to realizing this potential is effectively  managing department and agency enterprise architecture programs.  However, knowing whether benefits and results are in fact being achieved  requires having associated measures and metrics. In this regard, it is  important for the military departments to measure and report enterprise  architecture results and outcomes. Examples of results and outcomes to  be measured include costs avoided by eliminating duplicative investments  or by reusing common services and applications and improved mission  performance through re-engineered business processes and modernized  supporting systems.
Agencies that achieve maturity Stage 4 have a foundational set of  enterprise-level and subordinate enterprise architecture products that  provide a meaningful basis for informing selected investments and  building greater enterprise architecture scope, content, use, and results.  In addition, they have begun to demonstrate initial benefits associated  with using their architecture. However, the military departments’ limited  satisfaction of Stage 4 elements demonstrates that, although they have  begun to develop some architecture products (Stage 3), they have yet to  complete initial versions of those products and use those products to  achieve measurable outcomes.
section_title: Military Departments Have Yet to Expand and Evolve Enterprise Architectures and Use Them for Organizational Transformation
paragraphs: Stage 5 of our EAMMF describes elements associated with establishing a  full suite of architecture products that can be employed as a featured  decision-support tool when considering and planning large-scale  organizational restructuring or transformation initiatives. Examples of  these elements include ensuring that integrated repository tools and  common enterprise architecture framework and methodology are used  across the enterprise, enterprise-level and subordinate architectures are  extended to align with external partner architectures, and all segment  and/or federated architectures exist and are horizontally and vertically  integrated.
The military departments’ satisfaction of these Stage 5 core elements  indicates that they have yet to expand and evolve the development and  use of their respective enterprise architectures to support institutional  transformation. Specifically, they have satisfied only 7 percent, partially  satisfied 44 percent, and not satisfied 48 percent of these elements.  Table 6 describes the extent to which each military department has  satisfied Stage 5 framework elements.
The following examples describe the military departments’ performance  relative to selected Stage 5 elements.
Integrated tools and common frameworks and methodologies: Each  of the military departments has partially satisfied the element associated  with ensuring that integrated repository tools and a common enterprise  architecture framework and methodology are used across the enterprise.  For example, Army demonstrated its use of enterprise architecture tools,  but has yet to establish a common enterprise architecture framework and  methodology for use across the enterprise. In addition, DON and Air  Force have established tools that can serve as a common repository for  their enterprise architecture products, but they have not fully established  common enterprise architecture methodologies to define how  architectural products will be developed. It is important for the military  departments to adopt and use a common set of tools and a common  framework and methodology. Doing so helps ensure that architecture  products are developed and used consistently across the enterprise,  which in turn further supports efforts to improve enterprisewide  architecture product quality and achieve results.
Aligning enterprise architecture to external partner architectures:  Each of the military departments has partially satisfied the element  associated with ensuring that enterprise-level and subordinate  architectures are extended to align with external partner architectures.  For example, Air Force has demonstrated that it is aligned with the DOD  Information Enterprise Architecture. However, it has not provided  evidence that its enterprise architecture aligns with the Army and DON  architectures. In addition, while DON’s enterprise architecture approach is  aligned with the Joint Staff’s Joint Capability Areas, it has not provided  evidence that its enterprise architecture aligns with those of the Air Force  and Army. Such alignment is critical for achieving enterprise architecture- related goals, such as identifying potentially redundant or duplicative  business processes or IT systems and facilitating reuse of existing  systems and services.
Integrating segment and federated architectures: While each of the  military departments has begun to develop an initial version of  subordinate architectures, none of them has satisfied the element  associated with ensuring that all segment and/or federated architectures  exist and are horizontally and vertically integrated. We have previously  reported that, in large part, achieving this core element is a byproduct of  having met many of the previously discussed core elements related to, for  example, adopting one or more enterprise architecture approaches (e.g.,  federation, segmentation, etc.) and employing enterprise architecture  development, maintenance, and management rigor and discipline.  However, the military departments have not fully satisfied critical  foundational elements, such as the element associated with establishing  an enterprise architecture development and maintenance methodology or  measuring and reporting subordinate architecture alignment with the  enterprise-level architecture. While development of subordinate  architectures, as discussed earlier, typically occurs incrementally based  on institutional needs and priorities, the ultimate goal remains to develop  each of the subordinate architectures and to ensure that they collectively  form a coherent family of parent and child architectures that are  integrated both horizontally and vertically. As with the previously-cited  example, developing such integrated architecture products is important  for supporting the organization’s ability to use these products as tools for  organizational transformation by, for example, identifying potentially  redundant or duplicative business processes or IT systems and facilitating  reuse of existing systems and services.
While enterprise architecture development and use offers the potential to  achieve important departmentwide benefits, such as increased use of  enterprise licenses and improved data integration (Stage 4), addressing  the EAMMF’s Stage 5 elements expands these potential benefits to  supporting large-scale departmentwide restructuring and transformation.  Accordingly, addressing Stage 5 elements would better position the  military departments to support ongoing efforts to identify DOD  efficiencies and savings by informing efforts to look across the military  departments and identify ways in which DOD can improve effectiveness  and efficiency while continuing to meet mission demands.
section_title: Military Departments Have Taken Limited Steps to Continuously Improve Their Respective Enterprise Architecture Programs and Use Enterprise Architecture for Corporate Optimization
paragraphs: Stage 6 of our EAMMF describes elements that are focused on  continuous improvement of the quality of the suite of enterprise  architecture products and the people, processes, and tools used to  govern their development, maintenance, and use. Examples of these  elements include continuously improving enterprise architecture program  capabilities and products as well as enterprise architecture methodologies  and tools and ensuring that the enterprise architecture informs strategic  planning and policy formulation.
The military departments’ satisfaction of these Stage 6 core elements  indicates that they have begun taking steps to improve their respective  enterprise architecture program and use their respective enterprise  architectures for enterprise-level optimization, but much still remains to be  accomplished. Specifically, they have satisfied 10 percent, partially  satisfied 43 percent, and not satisfied 48 percent of these elements.  Table 7 describes the extent to which each military department has  satisfied Stage 6 framework elements.
The following examples describe the military departments’ performance  relative to selected Stage 6 elements.
Improving program capabilities and products: Air Force and DON  have each fully satisfied the element associated with ensuring that  enterprise architecture continuous improvement efforts reflect the results  of external assessments, while Army has not yet satisfied this element.  For example, according to DON officials, our 2008 assessment of the  department’s enterprise architecture program has been leveraged to  make program capability and product improvements, such as establishing  a formalized enterprise architecture governance structure; a policy for  enterprise architecture development and maintenance; an IT investment  process that includes compliance assessments with DON’s architecture;  and a set of criteria for measuring the quality of its products. Similarly, Air  Force leveraged our prior report to make program improvements, such as  placing enterprise architecture products under configuration  management. All efforts to continuously improve the enterprise  architecture program capabilities and products should leverage the  results of external assessments performed by organizations external to  the program, including assessments periodically performed by us, OMB,  and others to demonstrate measurable accomplishments.
Improving methodologies and tools: Each of the military departments  has partially satisfied the element associated with continuously improving  enterprise architecture methodologies and tools. For example, each  military department has mechanisms in place to improve existing  enterprise architecture tools. However, none of the military departments  has fully developed an enterprise architecture development and  maintenance methodology that can be used as a baseline for  improvements. Continuously improving enterprise architecture  methodologies and tools helps to ensure that existing methodologies and  tools continue to support changing organizational needs.
Strategic planning and policy formulation: None of the military  departments has either fully or partially satisfied the element associated  with ensuring that the enterprise architecture is used by executive  leadership to inform organization strategic planning and policy  formulation. The enterprise architecture provides the information needed  to bridge the gap between an organization’s strategic plans and the  programs it implements. As such, the architecture has traditionally been  informed and constrained by these plans and the institutional policies that  govern the plans’ implementation. As an architecture program fully  matures, however, a bidirectional relationship should exist whereby it  helps to inform the same strategic plans and institutional policies to which  it is integral to implementing. In particular, the enterprise architecture can  identify the related organizational business process, performance,  information, service, technology, and security strengths, weaknesses, and  opportunity gaps that should be considered for inclusion in strategic plans  and institutional policies. For example, emerging technologies that are  reflected in the enterprise architecture’s target view can serve as the  catalyst for introducing new, or for modifying existing, strategic goals and  objectives, and/or the timelines for achieving them.
Agencies that achieve this stage of maturity have established an  enterprisewide blueprint to inform strategic planning and decision making  and “on-the-ground” implementation of these changes through a range of  capital investment and maintenance projects and other enterprise-level  initiatives. While each of the military departments has taken steps to  establish and manage its respective enterprise architecture program and  develop initial enterprise architecture content that could eventually be  used as input into organizational strategic planning and serve as the  basis for continuous improvement activities, incomplete program  management mechanisms and enterprise architecture content limit the  extent to which either of these ends can be achieved.
section_title: Long-Standing Enterprise Architecture Management Challenges Have Not Been Fully Addressed
paragraphs: As we have previously reported, long-standing governmentwide  enterprise architecture management challenges include organizational  parochialism and cultural resistance, ensuring adequate funding,  obtaining staff skilled in the architecture discipline, and having department  or agency senior leaders that understand the importance and role of the  enterprise architecture. Military department officials indicated that these  management challenges continue to limit their respective enterprise  architecture programs. In particular, regarding cultural resistance, a  senior Air Force architecture official stated that the department’s major  programs resist adapting to enterprisewide approaches to meeting their  technical needs. With respect to adequacy of funding, Air Force and DON  representatives provided examples of activities that could not be  completed due to a lack of funding for enterprise architecture. For  example, Air Force officials stated that the department has postponed the  development of an updated enterprise architecture methodology due to  limited funding. Nevertheless, as stated previously in this report, DOD has  been provided with considerable resources for its IT systems environment  and architecture budgetary needs have not been identified and justified  through reliable cost estimating and expected program benefits.  Concerning skilled staff, DON and Air Force officials identified as a  challenge identifying enterprise architecture staff who possess both  business and technical skills. Lastly, with regard to senior leadership  understanding, Army architecture officials cited the difficulty of getting  senior leaders to understand the importance of having an enterprise  architecture and take a holistic view of the entire military department  enterprise.
The continued existence of the management challenges described has  contributed to the status of the military departments’ enterprise  architecture programs, whereby the majority of EAMMF elements have  yet to be fully satisfied. Moreover, the long-standing nature of these  challenges indicates that the departments’ leaders have not yet  committed to effective development and use of enterprise architecture as  described in our EAMMF.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Although the Air Force, Army, and DON each have long-standing efforts  to develop enterprise architectures, the military departments have much  to do before they have enterprise architectures that are fully developed  and effectively managed. In general, the departments have fully satisfied  certain elements related to establishing an institutional commitment to  enterprise architecture and developing initial architecture content.  However, the departments generally have not fully satisfied framework  elements that are associated with establishing the foundation for  architecture management (including the development of a plan to manage  the architecture program), completing and using initial architecture  content, expanding and evolving the enterprise architecture, and  continuously improving their architectures. This pattern of core element  satisfaction indicates that the military departments’ respective enterprise  architecture programs are at risk of achieving only limited benefits.  Further, the military departments have been limited in their ability to  overcome long-standing enterprise architecture management challenges,  thus indicating a lack of organizational commitment to effective enterprise  architecture development and use.
Without fully developed and effectively managed enterprise architectures  and a plan, the Air Force, Army, and DON do not have the needed road  maps for transforming their business processes and modernizing their  supporting systems to minimize overlap and maximize interoperability.  Further, because the military departments do not have the robust  enterprise architectures that DOD’s federated architecture approach  depends on, the department at large is also without a complete road map  to effectively guide its transformation.
Establishing such a road map is critical to DOD transformation. While  DOD has been provided with considerable resources for its IT systems  environment, the department is not managing its systems in a consistent,  repeatable, and effective manner that, among other things, maximizes  mission performance while minimizing or eliminating system overlap and  duplication. Because DOD is provided with over $30 billion each year for  its IT systems environment, the potential for identifying and avoiding the  costs associated with duplicative functionality across its IT investments is  significant.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure that the military departments establish commitments to fully  develop and effectively manage their enterprise architectures, we  recommend that the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy each  expeditiously provide to the congressional defense committees a plan  that identifies milestones for their respective department’s full satisfaction  of all of our Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework  elements. In the event that a military department does not intend to fully  satisfy all elements of our framework, the plan should include a rationale  for why the department deems any such element(s) to be not applicable.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We received written comments on a draft of this report from DOD. In the  comments, which are reprinted in appendix VI, the department partially  concurred with our recommendation. Specifically, the DOD and Army  CIOs concurred with the recommendation, while the Air Force and DON  CIOs did not concur.
In this regard, DOD stated that both Air Force and DON believe that  GAO's EAMMF provides a comprehensive set of elements associated  with the development and implementation of a robust enterprise  architecture program for a federal agency or organization. The  department added, however, that the Air Force and DON do not have a  valid business case that would justify the implementation of all 59  elements of our framework. Instead, according to DOD, in today's fiscally  constrained environment, Air Force and DON have chosen to gradually  implement selected elements of the framework which are most useful in  implementing optimized, secure, and cost effective IT systems and  capabilities.
Due to the large and complex nature of the DOD enterprise, we  determined that all 59 elements of the framework apply to the military  department enterprise architecture programs. However, our  recommendation does provide the military departments with the flexibility  of providing a rationale or business case in their plans that would justify  why the department(s) deems any of the 59 elements to be not  applicable. We do not agree that fiscal constraints are a valid reason for  limiting the Air Force and DON enterprise architecture programs to less  than full satisfaction of the framework. DOD has been provided with over  $30 billion annually for its IT systems environment, but it is not managing  its systems in a consistent, repeatable, and effective manner that, among  other things, maximizes mission performance while minimizing or  eliminating system overlap and duplication. This, in addition to the large  and complex nature of the DOD enterprise, provides compelling reasons  for them to establish commitments to fully satisfy the framework  elements. We therefore believe our recommendation remains valid as  stated.
DOD also provided technical comments on this report, which have been  incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; the  Secretary of the Air Force; Secretary of the Army; and the Secretary of  the Navy. This report will also be available at no charge on our Web site  at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions on matters discussed in this  report, please contact me at (202) 512-6304 or melvinv@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made  major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objective was to assess the status of enterprise architecture efforts at  the Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy. To address this  objective, we asked each department to identify responsible architecture  officials and requested that the identified officials self-assess their  respective department’s architecture programs relative to the 59 core  elements contained in version 2.0 of our Enterprise Architecture  Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF). Specifically, we asked the  officials to indicate whether their respective department architecture  programs fully satisfied, partially satisfied, or did not satisfy each core  element. We also asked the officials to provide documentation in support  of their self assessments. To instruct the officials in preparing their  assessments, we provided the following guidance:  To fully satisfy a core element, sufficient documentation must be provided  to permit us to verify that all applicable aspects of the core element are  met. To partially satisfy a core element, sufficient documentation must be  provided to permit us to verify that at least some aspects of the core  element are met. Core elements that are applicable and are neither fully  nor partially satisfied will be judged to be not satisfied.
Subsequently, we independently assessed each department’s  architecture program relative to the 59 EAMMF core elements using the  self assessments and supporting documentation as a starting point. We  then corroborated the assessment with supporting documentation, sought  additional information as necessary through interviews with the  departments’ architecture officials, obtained and reviewed additional  documentation as appropriate, and refined our determinations about the  degree to which each core element was satisfied. In performing our  analyses, we used the same criteria for determining whether a given core  element was fully satisfied, partially satisfied, or not satisfied that we had  instructed the departments to use. Finally, we shared with the military  departments the preliminary versions of the analyses that appear in this  report as appendices III, IV, and V, and made further adjustments, as  appropriate, based on additional discussions and supporting  documentation. We also solicited information from each department on  long-standing challenges to the success of enterprise architecture in the  areas of funding, cultural resistance, senior leadership, and staff skills.
The results presented in this report reflect the state of department and  agency architecture programs as of August 1, 2011.
In performing our analyses, we interviewed officials and supporting  contractors from the Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy,  including the Offices of the Chief Information Officer. To gain additional  insights into the military departments’ enterprise architecture programs,  we also interviewed officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
We conducted our work in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area from  October 2010 through September 2011, in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that  we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to  provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our  audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a  reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: EAMMF Table
paragraphs: Table 8 summarizes the framework elements in version 2.0 of our  Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF).
section_title: Appendix III: Department of the Air Force
paragraphs: The Department of the Air Force fully satisfied 12, partially satisfied 28,  and did not satisfy 19 of the 59 elements described in our EAMMF. Table  9 summarizes the extent to which the Air Force has addressed the core  elements described in each stage of the EAMMF. Table 10 describes the  extent to which the department satisfied each element.
section_title: Appendix IV: Department of the Army
paragraphs: The Department of the Army fully satisfied 7, partially satisfied 25, and did  not satisfy 27 of the 59 elements described in our EAMMF. Table 11  summarizes the extent to which Army has addressed the core elements  described in each stage of the EAMMF. Table 12 describes the extent to  which the department satisfied each element.
section_title: Appendix V: Department of the Navy
paragraphs: The Department of the Navy (DON) fully satisfied 16, partially satisfied  24, and did not satisfy 19 of the 59 elements described in our EAMMF.  Table 13 summarizes the extent to which DON has addressed the core  elements described in each stage of the EAMMF. Table 14 describes the  extent to which the department satisfied each element.
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Neelaxi Lakhmani and Mark Bird,  Assistant Directors; Debra Conner; Shaun Byrnes; Elena Epps; Nancy  Glover; Michael Holland; Anh Le; Lee McCracken; and Donald Sebers  made key contributions to this report.