DOD Business Systems Modernization
Key Navy Programs' Compliance with DOD's Federated Business Enterprise Architecture Needs to Be Adequately Demonstrated Gao ID: GAO-08-972 August 7, 2008For decades, the Department of Defense (DOD) has been challenged in modernizing its thousands of business systems. Since 1995, GAO has designated the department's business systems modernization efforts as high risk. One key to effectively modernizing DOD's systems environment and satisfying relevant legislative requirements is ensuring that business system investments comply with an enterprisewide strategic blueprint, commonly called an enterprise architecture. For DOD's business systems modernization, it is developing and using a federated Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA), which is a coherent family of parent and subsidiary architectures. GAO was requested to determine whether key Department of the Navy business systems modernization programs comply with DOD's federated BEA. To determine this, GAO examined the BEA compliance assessments, certifications, and approvals for selected Navy programs against relevant guidance.
Key DOD business systems modernization programs do not adequately demonstrate compliance with the department's federated BEA, even though each program largely followed DOD's existing compliance guidance, used its compliance assessment tool, and was certified and approved as being compliant by department investment oversight and decision-making entities. In particular, the programs' BEA compliance assessments did not include all relevant architecture products, such as products that specify the technical standards needed to promote interoperability among related systems; examine overlaps with other business systems, even though a stated goal of the BEA is to identify duplication and thereby promote the use of shared services; and address compliance with the Department of the Navy's enterprise architecture, which is a major BEA federation member. These important steps were not performed for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the department's guidance does not provide for performing them and its assessment tool is not configured to do so. In addition, even though the department's investment oversight and decision-making authorities certified and approved these business system programs as compliant with the BEA, these certification and approval entities did not validate each program's compliance assessment and assertions. According to DOD officials, department policy and guidance do not require these authorities to do so. Instead, they said that this responsibility is assigned to DOD's component organizations, such as the Department of the Navy. However, Department of the Navy oversight and decision-making authorities also did not validate the programs' assessments and assertions. According to department officials from the Office of the Chief Information Officer, this is because these authorities do not have the resources needed to do so and because important aspects of the Department of the Navy enterprise architecture are not yet sufficiently developed to permit a compliance determination. In addition, guidance does not exist that specifies how an assessment should be validated. Because of these limitations, these and other DOD programs are at increased risk of being defined and implemented in a way that does not sufficiently ensure interoperability and avoid duplication and overlap, which are both goals of the BEA and the department's related investment management approach. Unless this changes, DOD and its components will not have a sufficient basis for knowing if its business system programs have been defined to effectively and efficiently support corporate business operations, and DOD's business systems modernization efforts will likely remain on GAO's high-risk list.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-972, DOD Business Systems Modernization: Key Navy Programs' Compliance with DOD's Federated Business Enterprise Architecture Needs to Be Adequately Demonstrated
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-972
entitled 'DOD Business Systems Modernization: Key Navy Programs'
Compliance with DOD's Federated Business Enterprise Architecture Needs
to Be Adequately Demonstrated' which was released on August 7, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
August 2008:
DOD Business Systems Modernization:
Key Navy Programs' Compliance with DOD's Federated Business Enterprise
Architecture Needs to Be Adequately Demonstrated:
GAO-08-972:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-972, a report to the Subcommittee on Readiness and
Management Support, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
For decades, the Department of Defense (DOD) has been challenged in
modernizing its thousands of business systems. Since 1995, GAO has
designated the department‘s business systems modernization efforts as
high risk. One key to effectively modernizing DOD‘s systems environment
and satisfying relevant legislative requirements is ensuring that
business system investments comply with an enterprisewide strategic
blueprint, commonly called an enterprise architecture. For DOD‘s
business systems modernization, it is developing and using a federated
Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA), which is a coherent family of
parent and subsidiary architectures. GAO was requested to determine
whether key Department of the Navy business systems modernization
programs comply with DOD‘s federated BEA. To determine this, GAO
examined the BEA compliance assessments, certifications, and approvals
for selected Navy programs against relevant guidance.
What GAO Found:
Key DOD business systems modernization programs do not adequately
demonstrate compliance with the department‘s federated BEA, even though
each program largely followed DOD‘s existing compliance guidance, used
its compliance assessment tool, and was certified and approved as being
compliant by department investment oversight and decision-making
entities. In particular, the programs‘ BEA compliance assessments did
not:
* include all relevant architecture products, such as products that
specify the technical standards needed to promote interoperability
among related systems;
* examine overlaps with other business systems, even though a stated
goal of the BEA is to identify duplication and thereby promote the use
of shared services; and;
* address compliance with the Department of the Navy‘s enterprise
architecture, which is a major BEA federation member.
These important steps were not performed for a variety of reasons,
including the fact that the department‘s guidance does not provide for
performing them and its assessment tool is not configured to do so.
In addition, even though the department‘s investment oversight and
decision-making authorities certified and approved these business
system programs as compliant with the BEA, these certification and
approval entities did not validate each program‘s compliance assessment
and assertions. According to DOD officials, department policy and
guidance do not require these authorities to do so. Instead, they said
that this responsibility is assigned to DOD‘s component organizations,
such as the Department of the Navy. However, Department of the Navy
oversight and decision-making authorities also did not validate the
programs‘ assessments and assertions. According to department officials
from the Office of the Chief Information Officer, this is because these
authorities do not have the resources needed to do so and because
important aspects of the Department of the Navy enterprise architecture
are not yet sufficiently developed to permit a compliance
determination. In addition, guidance does not exist that specifies how
an assessment should be validated.
Because of these limitations, these and other DOD programs are at
increased risk of being defined and implemented in a way that does not
sufficiently ensure interoperability and avoid duplication and overlap,
which are both goals of the BEA and the department‘s related investment
management approach. Unless this changes, DOD and its components will
not have a sufficient basis for knowing if its business system programs
have been defined to effectively and efficiently support corporate
business operations, and DOD‘s business systems modernization efforts
will likely remain on GAO‘s high-risk list.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making several recommendations aimed at improving DOD‘s
guidance, assessment tool, and related approval processes for ensuring
that business system investments comply with the department‘s federated
BEA. DOD agreed with GAO‘s recommendations and described actions
planned and under way to address them.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
GAO-08-972. For more information, contact Randolph C. Hite at (202) 512-
3439 or hiter@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Briefing Summary:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Briefing to Staff, Subcommittee on Readiness and Management
Support, Senate Committee on Armed Services:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Abbreviations:
ACART: Architecture Compliance and Requirements Traceability:
BEA: business enterprise architecture:
BTA: Business Transformation Agency:
CIO: Chief Information Officer:
DBSMC: Defense Business Systems Management Committee:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DODAF: Department of Defense Architecture Framework:
DON: Department of the Navy:
FAM: functional area manager:
GCSS-MC: Global Combat Support System-Marine Corps:
IRB: Investment Review Board Navy:
ERP: Navy Enterprise Resource Planning:
NDAA: National Defense Authorization Act:
SOAP: simple object access protocol:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 7, 2008:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable John Thune:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
For decades, the Department of Defense (DOD) has been challenged in its
efforts to modernize its thousands of business systems. In 1995, we
first designated DOD's business systems modernization program as a high-
risk program, and we continue to designate it as such today.[Footnote
1] As our research shows, one key ingredient to effectively modernizing
an organization's systems environment is ensuring that system
investments are in compliance with an enterprisewide strategic
blueprint--commonly called an enterprise architecture. Accordingly, we
first recommended DOD's development and implementation of an enterprise
architecture for its business mission area in 2001. In addition, the
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005[Footnote 2] requires DOD to develop and implement a business
enterprise architecture (BEA).
DOD has adopted an incremental, federated[Footnote 3] approach to
developing the operational, system, and technical products that
comprise its BEA.[Footnote 4] We have previously reported that this
approach is consistent with best practices and appropriate given the
department's size and scope of operations.[Footnote 5] According to
DOD, one purpose of the federated BEA is to identify and provide for
sharing common applications and systems across the department and the
components and promote interoperability and data sharing among related
programs. To accomplish this, it is important for programs to ensure
that they are in compliance with the federated BEA throughout their
life cycles. Accordingly, you asked us to determine whether key
Department of the Navy (DON)[Footnote 6] modernization programs comply
with DOD's federated BEA.
To accomplish this objective, we focused on two business systems
modernization programs--the Global Combat Support System-Marine Corps
and Navy Enterprise Resource Planning. We selected these programs
because they involve relatively large amounts of modernization funding;
are reviewed, certified, and approved by different investment review
bodies; and are at different stages in their acquisition life cycles.
For each program, we reviewed its architecture compliance assessments
and system architecture products as well as relevant BEA products. We
also reviewed DOD's architecture compliance guidance and assessment
tool and interviewed DOD and DON officials.
On May 30, 2008, we briefed your staff on the results of our review.
This report transmits those results. The full briefing, including our
objective, scope, and methodology, is reprinted in appendix I.
Briefing Summary:
Key DOD business systems have not adequately demonstrated that they are
in compliance with DOD's BEA, even though they largely followed DOD's
compliance guidance and used its compliance assessment tool.
Specifically:
* The programs did not include all relevant architecture products in
the scope of their compliance assessments. For example, the assessments
did not address compliance with key BEA products that describe
technical standards and system characteristics. They did not address
compliance with these products because DOD guidance does not provide
for doing so and, according to department officials, because some BEA
products (e.g., technical standards profile) are not yet sufficiently
defined. Compliance with these products is important because they
govern how systems physically communicate with other systems, and they
permit the identification of common system components and services that
could potentially be shared.
* The compliance assessments were not used to identify potential areas
of duplication across programs, which DOD has stated is a goal of its
BEA and associated investment review and decision-making processes.
Potential duplication was not assessed because the compliance guidance
does not provide for such analyses to be conducted, and programs have
not been granted access to this functionality in the compliance tool.
As a result, these programs may be investing in duplicative
functionality.
* The compliance assessments did not address compliance with the DON's
enterprise architecture, which is one of the biggest members of the
federated BEA. This is particularly important given that DOD's approach
to fully satisfying the architecture requirements of the Fiscal Year
2005 National Defense Authorization Act is to develop and use a
federated architecture in which component architectures are to provide
the additional business system data and technical content needed to
supplement the thin layer of corporate policies, rules, and standards
included in the corporate BEA. As we have recently reported,[Footnote
7] the DON enterprise architecture is not mature because, among other
things, it is missing a sufficient description of its current and
future environments in terms of business and information/data. However,
certain aspects of an architecture nevertheless exist and, according to
department officials, these aspects will be leveraged in the
department's efforts to develop a complete enterprise architecture.
Therefore, opportunities exist to assess programs in relation to these
architecture products and to understand where its programs are exposed
to risks because products do not exist, are not mature, or are at odds
with other programs. According to DOD officials, compliance with the
DON architecture was not assessed because DOD policy is limited to the
corporate BEA compliance and because aspects of the DON enterprise
architecture have yet to be sufficiently developed.
* The programs' compliance assessments or assertions were not validated
by either DOD or DON investment oversight and decision-making
authorities. According to department officials, relevant department
policy and guidance do not require the DOD oversight authorities to do
so. Instead, they said that the department's investment approach
assigns this responsibility to its component organizations. However,
DON oversight and decision-making authorities did not validate the
assessments and assertions. According to DON officials, this is because
these authorities do not have the resources needed to validate the
assessments, and because aspects of the DON enterprise architecture are
not yet sufficiently developed. In addition, guidance does not exist
that specifies how an assessment should be validated.
Conclusions:
A demonstrated ability to repeatedly ensure that DOD's business system
investments are defined and implemented within the context of the
department's federated BEA is a legislative requirement and a
prerequisite for removal of DOD's business systems modernization
program from our high-risk list. To its credit, DOD has recently taken
steps aimed at demonstrating that its business systems comply with its
BEA, including issuing compliance assessment guidance, providing a
compliance assessment tool, and making the compliance assessment
results part of a program's certification and approval by department
investment decision-making authorities. Nevertheless, the extent to
which the two key programs comply with the federated BEA was not
adequately demonstrated. Moreover, the compliance assertions provided
by these programs were not subject to oversight by either DOD or DON
program investment decision-making authorities. This situation can be
attributed to limitations in existing BEA compliance-related policy and
guidance, the supporting compliance assessment tool, and the federated
BEA, as well as the absence of DON compliance guidance. Accordingly,
these and other DOD programs are at increased risk of being defined and
implemented in a way that does not sufficiently ensure interoperability
and avoid duplication and overlap, which are both goals of the BEA and
related investment management approach. Unless this situation changes,
the department's business systems modernization efforts will likely
remain a high-risk endeavor.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To adequately ensure that DOD business system investments are defined
and implemented within the context of its federated BEA, we recommend
that the Secretary of Defense direct the responsible authorities in the
department to take the following four actions:
* Revise the DOD BEA compliance assessment guidance to (1) include
assessment of all relevant operational, technical, and system
architecture products and (2) provide for the development and use of
key program architecture products in conducting the assessment early
enough in the program's life cycle to permit the results of the
assessments to have a timely impact on the program's definition,
design, and implementation.
* Use the program-specific data in the compliance assessment tool for
identifying and analyzing potential overlap and duplication, and thus
opportunities for reuse and consolidation among programs and provide
programs access rights to use this functionality.
* Amend relevant DOD policy to explicitly require business system
program compliance with the federated BEA, to include both the
corporate BEA and the component enterprise architectures as a condition
for program certification and approval.
* Amend relevant DOD policy to explicitly assign responsibility for
validating program BEA compliance assertions to military departments
and defense agencies and issue guidance that describes the nature,
scope, and methodology for doing so.
Agency Comments:
In written comments on a draft of this report, signed by the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Business Transformation) and reprinted in
appendix II, the department agreed with our recommendations and
described actions under way or planned to address them. It also stated
that as the federated family of BEA parent and subsidiary architectures
mature, it will meet the intent of our recommendations in future
versions of its compliance guidance, policies, and methodologies.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; the
Congressional Budget Office; the Secretary of Defense; and the
Department of Defense Inspector General. We also will make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3439 or at hiter@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 have made significant
contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Randolph C. Hite:
Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Briefing to Staff, Subcommittee on Readiness and Management
Support, Senate Committee on Armed Services:
DOD Business Systems Modernization: Key Navy Programs‘ Compliance with
DOD‘s Federated Business Enterprise Architecture Needs to be Adequately
Demonstrated:
Briefing for staff members of the Subcommittee on Readiness and
Management Support, Senate Armed Services Committee:
May 30, 2008:
Overview:
Introduction:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Results: Federated BEA Compliance:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: DOD‘s Federated Business Enterprise Architecture:
Appendix III: Descriptions of Business Enterprise Architecture
Products:
[End of section]
Introduction:
For decades, the Department of Defense (DOD) has been challenged in
modernizing its thousands of business systems. In 1995, we first
designated DOD‘s business systems modernization program as a high risk
program, and we continue to designate it as such today.[Footnote 8] As
our research shows, one key ingredient to effectively modernizing an
organization‘s systems environment is ensuring that system investments
are in compliance with an enterprise-wide strategic blueprint”commonly
called an enterprise architecture. Accordingly, we first recommended
DOD‘s development and implementation of an enterprise architecture for
its business mission area in 2001. In addition, the Fiscal Year 2005
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requires DOD
to develop and implement a business enterprise architecture (BEA).
DOD has adopted an incremental, federated approach to developing its
BEA.[Footnote 9] We have previously reported that this approach is
consistent with best practices and appropriate given the department‘s
size and scope of operations.[Footnote 10] According to DOD, one
purpose of the federated BEA is to identify and provide for sharing
common applications and systems across the department and the
components and promote interoperability and data sharing among related
programs. To accomplish this, it is important for programs to ensure
that they are in compliance with the BEA throughout their life cycle.
Concurrent with its efforts to develop a BEA, DOD and its components
continue to invest billions of dollars annually in thousands of
business systems. Within the Department of the Navy (DON),[Footnote 11]
two of these systems are the Global Combat Support System”Marine Corps
(GCSS-MC) and Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP).
Because of the importance of developing business systems within the
context of the DOD BEA, you asked us to determine whether key Navy
modernization programs comply with DOD‘s federated BEA.
To accomplish this objective, we performed case studies on two business
system modernization programs”GCSS-MC and Navy ERP. We selected these
programs because they involve relatively large amounts of modernization
funding; are reviewed, certified, and approved by different investment
review bodies; and are at different stages in their acquisition life
cycles. For each program, we reviewed its architecture compliance
assessments and system architecture products as well as relevant BEA
products. We also reviewed DOD‘s architecture compliance guidance and
assessment tool and interviewed DOD and DON officials.
We conducted our work at DOD and DON offices and contractor facilities
in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, in Annapolis, Maryland, and in
Triangle, Virginia, between June 2007 and May 2008, 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. For details on our objective, scope, and
methodology, see appendix I.
Results in Brief:
Key DOD business system modernization programs do not adequately comply
with the department‘s federated BEA, even though each program largely
followed the BEA compliance guidance, used the compliance assessment
tool, and was certified and approved as compliant with the BEA by
investment oversight and decisionmaking entities. In particular, the
programs‘ BEA compliance assessments did not:
* include all relevant architecture products, such as products that
specify the technical standards needed to promote interoperability
among related systems;
* examine overlaps with other business systems, even though a stated
goal of the BEA is to identify duplication and thereby promote the use
of shared services; and;
* address compliance with the DON‘s enterprise architecture, which is a
major component of the federated BEA.
These important steps were not performed for a variety of reasons,
including that the department‘s guidance does not provide for them and
its assessment tool is not configured to do so.
In addition, business system certification and approval authorities did
not validate the programs‘ compliance assessments and assertions.
According to DOD Business Transformation Agency (BTA) officials,
relevant department policy and guidance do not require these
authorities to do so. Instead, they said that the department‘s ’tiered
accountability“ investment approach assigns this responsibility to its
component organizations. However, DON oversight and decisionmaking
authorities did not validate the assessments and assertions. According
to DON Chief Information Officer (CIO) officials, this is because these
authorities do not have the resources needed to validate the
assessments and because the DON enterprise architecture is not yet
sufficiently developed. In addition, guidance does not exist that
specifies how an assessment should be validated.
Because of these limitations, DOD does not have a sufficient basis for
knowing if programs like GCSS-MC and Navy ERP have been defined to
effectively and efficiently support corporate business operations. To
address these limitations, we are recommending that the department (1)
revise the compliance assessment guidance to provide for assessment of
all relevant architecture products; (2) use program-specific compliance
assessment data in the tool for identifying and analyzing potential
overlap and duplication among programs; (3) require business system
program compliance with the federated BEA, including the component
enterprise architectures; and (4) assign responsibility for validating
program BEA compliance assertions to military departments and defense
agencies.
In comments on a draft of this briefing, DOD and DON officials agreed
with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Background:
DOD‘s business system environment includes approximately 3,000 business
system investments, which are supported by billions of dollars in
annual expenditures and are intended to support business functions and
operations, such as financial management and logistics. For fiscal year
2009, the department requested about $15 billion for its business
systems and related IT infrastructure.
DOD‘s business system modernization was added to GAO‘s high-risk list
in 1995. Because the department continues to face longstanding
challenges in delivering promised system capabilities and benefits on
time and within budget, it remains on our high risk list today.
[Footnote 12]
Successful Systems Modernization Depends on Effective Implementation of
a Well-Defined Enterprise Architecture:
As our research on public and private sector organizations shows, one
key to a successful systems modernization program is having and using a
well-defined enterprise architecture. A well-defined enterprise
architecture provides a clear and comprehensive picture of an entity,
whether it is an organization (e.g., a federal department) or a
functional or mission area that cuts across more than one organization
(e.g., personnel management). This picture consists of snapshots of
both the enterprise‘s current or ’As Is“ environment and its target or
’To Be“ environment, as well as a capital investment road map for
transitioning from the current to the target environment. These
snapshots consist of integrated ’views,“ which are one or more
architecture products that describe, for example, the enterprise‘s
business processes and rules; information needs and flows among
functions, supporting systems, services, and applications; and data and
technical standards and structures.
As we have previously reported,[Footnote 13] not having and using such
an architecture produces agency system environments that:
* display little standardization (and thus interoperability);
* have multiple systems performing the same tasks;
* exhibit data duplication and redundancy across multiple systems; and;
* require manual reentry of data into multiple systems.
DOD‘s business operations have long been hampered by such a system
environment, due in large part to decades of investing in business
systems outside the context of an enterprise architecture.
Overview of DOD, GAO, and Congressional Efforts Related to Using a DOD-
wide Architecture for Business Systems Modernization:
To assist DOD in addressing this high risk area, we have made numerous
recommendations for establishing institutional and program-level
modernization management capabilities. Among others, in 2001, we made
recommendations aimed at effectively developing and implementing an
architecture and limiting components‘ systems investments until DOD had
a well-defined architecture and the means to enforce it.[Footnote 14]
Further, we made additional recommendations as to how to accomplish
this goal.
In 2004, Congress passed the Fiscal Year 2005 NDAA,[Footnote 15] which
included provisions consistent with our recommendations, including:
* developing a well-defined departmentwide BEA and;
* certifying business system investment compliance with the BEA.
DOD‘s initial efforts to develop the BEA were focused on developing a
single, monolithic architecture for the entire department. The
department invested about 4 years and about $300 million without
adequately implementing our recommendations addressing the development
and use of the architecture. In July 2005, we reported that the BEA
provided limited utility to guide and constrain the department‘s
ongoing and planned business investments.[Footnote 16] Accordingly, we
made recommendations relative to the content of the BEA, among other
things. Subsequently, DOD adopted an incremental, federated
architecture development approach. As we have previously stated, this
approach is appropriate given DOD‘s size and scope and is consistent
with best practices. One of the purposes of this approach is to
identify and provide for sharing of common applications and systems
across the department and the components. Appendix II provides
additional information about DOD‘s federated BEA.
The latest version of the corporate BEA (version 5.0) was issued on
March 14, 2008. On May 15, 2008, we reported that this version largely
provides the thin layer of DOD-wide architectural policies,
capabilities, rules, and standards for the business mission area
[Footnote 17] and that this layer is essential to a well-defined
federated architecture, but was still missing important content.
[Footnote 18] We also said that the corporate BEA alone does not
provide the total federated family of DOD parent and subsidiary
architectures for the business mission area that are needed to comply
with the legislative requirements in the fiscal year 2005 NDAA.
Specifically, we stated that the latest version had yet to be augmented
by the DOD component organizations‘ subsidiary architectures. Moreover,
we also recently reported that the Departments of the Army, Air Force,
and Navy did not have sufficiently mature enterprise architecture
programs, although the Air Force was considerably further along in
developing its architecture than either the Navy or the Army.[Footnote
19]
We have also recently reported on management weaknesses in a number of
DOD business system programs. Among other things, we reported that
these programs had not been developed in the context of well-defined
DOD and component architectures. Examples of these programs include:
* the Navy‘s Naval Tactical Command Support System and;
* the Army‘s (1) Transportation Coordinators‘ Automated Information for
Movements System II, (2) General Fund Enterprise Business System, (3)
Global Combat Support System-Army, and (4) Logistics Modernization
programs.[Footnote 20]
Overview of DOD Architecture Framework Products:
DOD‘s corporate BEA was developed according to the Department of
Defense Architecture Framework (DODAF),[Footnote 21] which specifies a
set of three ’views“” operational, systems, and technical”each of which
includes various architecture products that apply to DOD, component,
and program-level system architectures.
* Operational view products include the high level, DOD-wide
operational activities and business processes and rules, as well as the
data standards and information flows among these activities and
processes.
* Systems view products include systems capabilities, functions, and
related data exchanges.
* Technical view products describe the set of technology constraints
that will drive the manner of system implementation. Appendix III
describes key DODAF products that are associated with the BEA.
Overview of DOD‘s BEA Compliance Guidance:
In 2006, the Business Transformation Agency (BTA), which is responsible
for leading and coordinating business transformation efforts across
DOD, issued guidance to assist components in assessing their respective
programs‘ compliance with the BEA.[Footnote 22] This guidance:
* defines compliance as adherence to the controls (requirements),
business rules, and standard data elements of those BEA operational
activities that the program being assessed supports;
* identifies the program architecture products to be used for assessing
BEA compliance at various points during a program‘s life cycle; and;
* identifies the BEA products against which program compliance is to be
assessed.
The specific BEA and program DODAF products to be used in assessing
compliance are described below. (See figure 1 for examples of
relationships between BEA products.)
Operational information exchange matrix (OV-3): Describes the
information exchanges associated with operational activities. For
example, after an inventory is complete, information about ’equipment“
and ’property location“ would be exchanged between the activity
’conduct physical inventory“ and the activity ’maintain asset
information.“
Operational activity model (OV-5): Describes the operations conducted
by the business mission area and the relationships (e.g., inputs and
outputs) between operational activities. For example, the activity
’conduct physical inventory“ involves verifying the existence,
location, and quantity of real property. This activity produces
physical asset inventory information that is used by the operational
activity ’maintain asset information.“
Operational rules model (OV-6a): Describes the business rules that
constrain operations. For example, the business rule ’asset unique
identifier 1“ requires real property unique identifiers[Footnote 23] to
be validated and cross-referenced at creation to prevent duplication.
Operational event-trace description (OV-6c): Describes the business
processes needed to execute an operational activity. For example, the
business process ’count assets“ involves physically counting assets to
ensure accountability (existence, quantity, and condition) to enable
accurate valuation of existing assets.
Logical data model (OV-7): Describes data entities and their
attributes. For example, ’property_identifier“ is an attribute of the
data entity[Footnote 24] ’equipment“ that distinguishes one form of
property from another.
Operational activity to systems function traceability matrix (SV-5):
Identifies the relationships between operational activities and system
functions. For example, the ’conduct physical inventory“ activity is
supported by the ’manage asset record“ system function, which is to
ensure that electronic information about the status of assets is
consistent with the actual status of the asset, including the item's
physical, legal, and financial status.
Figure 1: Examples of Relationships Among Selected BEA Products:
This figure is an illustration of the relationships among selected BEA
products, as follows:
Operational Activity (OV-5): Conduct physical inventory;
Output/Input; Physical Asset Inventory Information:
* Information Exchange (OV-3):
- Physical Asset Inventory Information. Includes data about
"equipment," "inspections," and "property location."
* Logical Data Model (OV-7):
- "Property_Indentifier" is an attribute of "equipment" that
distinguishes one form of property from another;
Operational Activity (OV-5): Maintain asset information.
Operational Activity (OV-5): Conduct physical inventory;
Business Process (OV-6c): Count assets;
Business Process (OV-6c): Aggregate asset inventory county results;
Business Process (OV-6c): Review asset inventory count results;
Business Process (OV-6a): The business rule "War Reserve Materiel
Policy" applies to each of the above business processes and states that
DOD must adhere to the War Reserve Materiel Policy, which provides
guidance on war reserve materiel requirements to support immediate
needs of military forces.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of figure]
Table 1 identifies when in the program‘s lifecycle[Footnote 25] program
architecture products are to be used to support BEA compliance
assessments.
Table 1: Investment Life cycle Phases at Which Program Level
Architecture Products Are Used in BEA Compliance Assessment:
Program architecture product: Operational information exchange matrix;
Technology development: [Empty];
System development and demonstration: [Empty];
Production and deployment: [Check].
Program architecture product: Operational activity model;
Technology development: [Check];
System development and demonstration: [Check];
Production and deployment: [Check].
Program architecture product: Operational rules model;
Technology development: [Empty];
System development and demonstration: [Check];
Production and deployment: [Check].
Program architecture product: Operational event-trace description;
Technology development: [Empty];
System development and demonstration: [Check];
Production and deployment: [Check].
Program architecture product: Logical data model;
Technology development: [Empty];
System development and demonstration: [Empty];
Production and deployment: [Check].
Program architecture product: Operational activity to systems function
traceability matrix;
Technology development: [Empty];
System development and demonstration: [Empty];
Production and deployment: [Check].
Source: DOD
According to the guidance, programs are to perform four steps to assess
program compliance with the BEA:
* Identify relevant activities: Identify the operational activities in
the BEA that the program supports.
* Assess activity control compliance: (1) Identify controls (laws,
regulations, and policies) in the BEA that are associated with the
relevant operational activities identified in step 1; and (2) determine
if the program complies with these controls.
* Assess business rule compliance: (1) Identify the business processes
in the BEA that support the operational activities identified in step
1; (2) identify the business rules associated with each of these
processes; and (3) determine if the program complies with these
business rules.
* Assess data compliance: (1) Identify the inputs and outputs
associated with the operational activities identified in step 1; (2)
identify information exchange requirements associated with these inputs
and outputs; (3) identify the data entities that support these
information exchanges; and (4) determine if the program‘s data entity
definitions conform to the BEA data entity definitions.
Overview of DOD Architecture Compliance Tool:
The BTA has developed a tool that DOD component organizations are given
the option of using in assessing compliance with the BEA”the
Architecture Compliance and Requirements Traceability (ACART) tool. DON
requires all of its business programs to use ACART.
ACART is to:
* Identify for the program the BEA products that the program needs to
assess and assert compliance against based on the program‘s self-
identification of relevant BEA operational activities.
* Serve as a repository of all BEA products that the program actually
asserts compliance against.
The program-level compliance assessments form the basis for program
assertions of compliance. These assertions in turn are used by the
cognizant investment and oversight authorities, the Investment Review
Boards (IRB) and the Defense Business Systems Management Committee
(DBSMC) when reviewing, certifying, and/or approving systems as
compliant with the BEA. The roles and responsibilities of those
entities involved in BEA compliance determinations for the two systems
that we reviewed are summarized in figure 2.
Figure 2: BEA Compliance Roles and Responsibilities:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of BEA compliance roles and
responsibilities, as follows:
IRBs: recommend certification for all business system investments
costing more than $1 million that are asserted as compliant with the
BEA;
Principal Staff Assistants/Certification Authorities: Certifies system
as compliant with the BEA and provides the DBSMC with recommendations
for system investment approval;
DBSMC: Approves business system as compliant with BEA;
BTA: Provides support to the DBSMC and the IRBs;
Program Manager: Assesses and asserts compliance with the BEA;
Functional Area Manager: Reviews program-level compliance assertions
before they are submitted to the DON CIO;
DON CIO: Assesses and precertifies BEA compliance and submits for IRB
and DBSMC review if investment is greater than $1 million.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of figure]
Overview of Two Key Business System Programs:
GCSS-MC and Navy ERP are two of DON‘s largest and most costly business
system modernization programs. Together, the two programs have an
estimated life cycle cost of about $3 billion. According to the
requirements of the fiscal year 2005 NDAA, these programs are required
to be certified as compliant with the BEA and to undergo annual review
by DOD‘s business system investment review boards and the Defense
Business Systems Management Committee.
* GCSS-MC was initiated in 2003 to modernize the Marine Corps logistics
systems and to provide the Corps with timely and complete logistics
information to support the warfighter.[Footnote 26] This program
consists of a series of major increments, the first of which has an
expected life cycle cost of approximately $442 million through fiscal
year 2019. It is to be fully deployed in fiscal year 2010.
* Navy ERP was initiated in 2003 to modernize and standardize the
Navy‘s acquisition, financial, program management, maintenance, plant
and wholesale supply, and workforce management business processes. This
program is planned to be deployed in a series of major increments, the
first having an estimated life cycle cost of approximately $2.4 billion
through fiscal year 2023. It is to be fully deployed in fiscal year
2013.
According to program officials, both GCSS-MC and Navy ERP are under the
leadership of DON‘s Program Executive Office for Enterprise Information
Systems, which is responsible for developing, acquiring and deploying
seamless enterprise-wide information technology systems. The Deputy
Program Executive Office stated that one of the goals for the
department would be to determine the extent of integration needed
across all of DON‘s business systems (includes both GCSS-MC and Navy
ERP).
Results: Federated BEA Compliance:
DOD Has Not Adequately Demonstrated that Key Programs Comply with the
Federated BEA:
The GCSS-MC and Navy ERP programs were assessed for compliance with the
BEA and, based on each program‘s assertion of compliance, were
certified by an IRB and approved by the DBMSC as compliant. These
assessments largely followed DOD‘s compliance guidance and used its
compliance tool (ACART). However, the assessments:
* did not include all relevant architecture products;
* did not examine duplication across programs;
* did not address compliance against DON‘s enterprise architecture,
and;
* were not subject to oversight or validation.
Key reasons for this included compliance policy, guidance, and tool
limitations. In addition, officials told us that the DON architecture
was not yet sufficiently developed to support validations of program
compliance assessments. As a result, the DOD does not have a sufficient
basis for knowing if programs, like GCSS-MC and Navy ERP have been
defined to optimize DOD and DON business operations.
Compliance Assessments Did Not Include All Relevant Architecture
Products:
The GCSS-MC and Navy ERP BEA compliance assessments addressed
compliance with some key BEA products, such as those that describe
business rules and standard data elements,[Footnote 27] but they did
not address compliance with other key BEA products, such as those that
describe technical and system standards. GCSS-MC and Navy ERP did not
do this because DOD guidance does not provide for doing so and,
according to BTA officials, because some BEA products (e.g., technical
standards profile) are not sufficiently defined. According to these
officials, BTA plans to continue to define these products as the BEA
evolves.
Technical Products Were Not Included:
* Neither of the programs assessed compliance with the BEA‘s technical
standards profile, which outlines for example, standards governing how
systems physically communicate with other systems and how they secure
data from unauthorized access. This is particularly important because
systems that need to share information with other systems need to
employ common standards to accomplish this effectively and efficiently.
A case in point is the GCSS-MC and the Navy Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) programs.
* Navy ERP has identified 25 technical standards in its program-level
technical standards profile, or TV-1, that are not identified in the
BEA, and GCSS-MC has identified 13. For example, the programs have
identified standards related to networking protocols and information
security that are not included in the BEA. Such differences could limit
information sharing between these and other programs. For example:
- Navy ERP has identified the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1,
[Footnote 28] which is a key standard for facilitating data sharing,
but GCSS-MC has not. Other programs that need information or services
from Navy ERP or that provide information to Navy ERP will also need to
use SOAP to exchange requests.[Footnote 29] By not specifying SOAP as
the messaging protocol, the programs could experience interoperability
problems that may require investment in middleware to ensure the
programs can successfully communicate.
* Areas of noncompliance with technical standards may indicate the need
for the BEA technical standards profile to be expanded, or they may
indicate the need for the programs to refrain from employing a given
standard that the department does not intend to support. Regardless,
because compliance with the BEA technical standards profile was not
assessed, such needs have not been identified and therefore cannot be
assessed.
System Products Were Not Included:
* Neither of the programs assessed compliance with the BEA products
that describe system characteristics. This is important because
creating a body of information about programs permits identification of
common system components and services that could potentially be shared
by the programs, thus avoiding wasteful duplication.
- Both GCSS-MC and Navy ERP program documentation cite system functions
associated with receiving goods, taking physical inventories, and
returning goods. However, because compliance with the BEA system
products (e.g., the Operational Activities to Systems Functions
Traceability Matrix) was not assessed, it is not known to what extent
these functions are common to both programs, potentially duplicative,
and thus candidates for services to be shared by both.
* Neither program assessed compliance with the BEA products describing
data exchanges between systems. As we previously reported, establishing
and using standard system interfaces is a critical enabler to sharing
data.[Footnote 30]
- Both GCSS-MC and Navy ERP are to exchange order and status data with
other systems. System interfaces, which are defined in DODAF‘s SV-6
products, are important for understanding how information is to be
exchanged between systems. However, neither program was assessed for
compliance with these products. In the case of GCSS-MC, its SV-6 was
not fully developed.
Compliance Assessments Did Not Examine Duplication Across Programs:
None of the programs‘ compliance assessments were used to identify and
compare potential areas of duplication across programs, which DOD has
stated as a goal of its BEA and associated investment review and
decisionmaking processes. This is because the compliance guidance does
not provide for such analyses to be conducted and programs have not
been granted access rights to use this functionality. As a result,
these programs may be investing in duplicative functionality. For
example:
* GCSS-MC and Navy ERP support at least 11 of the same operational
activities (e.g., ’manage property and materiel“ and ’perform asset
accountability“) and at least 31 of the same business processes (e.g.
processes associated with assigning and generating unique asset
identifiers and verifying that asset information is correct). Each of
these are potentially duplicative and wasteful.
* Six of these 11 common operational activities are also intended to be
addressed by two Air Force programs (Defense Enterprise Accounting and
Management System - Air Force and the Air Force Expeditionary Combat
Support System).[Footnote 31] Moreover, 3 of these 4 programs[Footnote
32] share 18 operational activities. Given that the federated BEA is
intended to identify and avoid not only duplications within DOD
components, but also between DOD components, it is important that such
commonality be addressed. Examples of shared activities include conduct
physical inventory, deliver property and forces, perform budgeting, and
manage receipt and acceptance.
Compliance Assessments Did Not Address Compliance with the DON
Enterprise Architecture:
Neither of the programs assessed compliance against the DON enterprise
architecture, which is one of the biggest members of the federated BEA.
This is particularly important given that DOD‘s approach to fully
satisfying the architecture requirements of the fiscal year 2005 NDAA
is to develop and use a federated architecture in which component
architectures are to provide the additional business system data and
technical content needed to supplement the thin layer of corporate
policies, rules, and standards included in the corporate BEA.
* As we have recently reported,[Footnote 33] the DON enterprise
architecture is not mature because, among other things, it is missing a
sufficient description of its current and future environments in terms
of business and information/data. However, certain aspects of an
architecture nevertheless exist and, according to department officials,
these aspects will be leveraged in its efforts to develop a complete
enterprise architecture. For example, the FORCEnet architecture
documents Navy‘s technical infrastructure. Therefore, opportunities
exist to assess programs in relation to these architecture products,
and to understand where its programs are exposed to risks because
products do not exist, are not mature, or at odds with other programs.
According to DOD officials, compliance with the DON architecture was
not assessed because DOD compliance policy is limited to the corporate
BEA compliance, and because the DON enterprise architecture has yet to
be sufficiently developed.
Compliance Assessments/Assertions Were Not Subject to Oversight or
Validation:
None of the programs‘ BEA compliance assessments or assertions were
validated by either DOD or DON investment oversight and decisionmaking
authorities for a range of reasons.
* Neither the DOD IRBs, the DBSMC, nor the BTA reviewed the programs‘
assessments and assertions. According to BTA officials, under DOD‘s
tiered approach to investment accountability, the DBSMC, IRBs, and BTA
are not responsible for doing so. Rather, this is a responsibility of
DOD components.
* The DON Office of the CIO, which is responsible for pre-certifying
investments as compliant before they are reviewed by the IRBs, did not
evaluate any of the programs‘ compliance assessments or assertions.
According to CIO officials, they rely on Functional Area Managers
(FAMs) to validate a program‘s BEA assessments and assertions. However,
no DON policy or guidance exists that describes how FAMs should conduct
such validations. Moreover, according to the Navy‘s logistics FAM, who
oversees Navy ERP, no FAM-level guidance has been developed for
validating BEA compliance reviews. Instead, the logistics FAM process
only provides for determining whether a BEA compliance assessment has
been completed. According to CIO officials, this is because these
authorities do not have the resources that they need to validate the
assessments and because the DON enterprise architecture is not yet
sufficiently developed. In addition, guidance does not exist that
specifies how an assessment should be validated.
* Any validation of program assessments and assertions would be
complicated by the absence of information captured in the assessment
tool about what program documentation or other source materials were
used by the program offices in making their compliance determinations.
Specifically, the tool is only configured, and thus was only used, to
capture the results of a program‘s comparison of program architecture
products to BEA products. It was not used to capture the program
products used in making these determinations.
- In addition, the programs did not develop the program-level
architecture products that are needed to support and validate their
respective compliance assessments and assertions. For example, GCSS-MC
did not develop a program level OV-3, which describes information
exchanges between operational activities. According to the compliance
guidance, program-level architecture products, such as those defining
information exchanges (OV-3) and system data requirements (OV-7) are
not required to be used until after the system has been deployed. This
is too late to avoid costly rework to address areas of noncompliance,
and is not consistent with DOD guidance,[Footnote 34] which states that
program-level architecture products that describe important
information, such as information exchanges, should be developed before
a program begins system development.
Conclusions:
A demonstrated ability to repeatedly ensure that DOD's business system
investments are defined and implemented within the context of the
department‘s federated BEA is a legislative requirement and a
prerequisite for removal of DOD's business system modernization program
from our high-risk list. To its credit, DOD has recently taken steps
aimed at demonstrating that its business systems comply with its BEA,
including issuing compliance assessment guidance, providing a
compliance assessment tool, and making the compliance assessment
results part of a program‘s IRB certification and DBSMC approval.
Nevertheless, the extent to which the two key programs comply with the
federated BEA was not adequately demonstrated. Moreover, the compliance
assertions provided by these programs were not subject to oversight by
either DOD or DON program investment decision making authorities. This
situation can be attributed to limitations in existing BEA compliance-
related policy and guidance, the supporting compliance assessment tool,
and the federated BEA, as well as the absence of DON compliance
guidance. Accordingly, these and other DOD programs are at increased
risk of being defined and implemented in a way that does not
sufficiently ensure interoperability and avoid duplication and overlap,
which are both goals of the BEA and related investment management
approach. Unless this changes, the department‘s business system
modernization efforts will likely remain a high-risk endeavor.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To adequately ensure that DOD business system investments are defined
and implemented within the context of its federated BEA, we recommend
that the Secretary of Defense direct the responsible authorities in the
department to:
* Revise the DOD BEA compliance assessment guidance to (1) include
assessment of all relevant operational, technical, and system
architecture products, and (2) provide for the development and use of
key program architecture products in conducting the assessment early
enough in the program's life cycle to permit the results of the
assessments to have a timely impact on the program's definition,
design, and implementation.
* Use the program-specific data in the compliance assessment tool for
identifying and analyzing potential overlap and duplication, and thus
opportunities for reuse and consolidation among programs, and provide
programs access rights to use this functionality.
* Amend relevant DOD policy to explicitly require business system
program compliance with the federated BEA, to include both the
corporate BEA and the component enterprise architectures, as a
condition for program certification and approval.
* Amend relevant DOD policy to explicitly assign responsibility for
validating program BEA compliance assertions to military departments
and defense agencies, and issue guidance that describes the nature,
scope, and methodology for doing so.
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
As requested, the objective of our review was to determine whether key
Navy programs comply with the Department of Defense‘s federated
Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA). To accomplish this objective,
we focused on two Department of Navy systems”Navy Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) and Global Combat Support System-Marine Corps (GCSS-
MC)”because they involve relatively large amounts of modernization
funding; are reviewed, certified, and approved by different investment
review bodies and the Defense Business Systems Management Committee
(DBSMC) according to the requirements of the Fiscal Year 2005 Ronald W.
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act; and are at different
acquisition life cycle stages.[Footnote 35] In doing so, we:
* Analyzed GCSS-MC and Navy ERP's BEA compliance assessments and system
architecture products as well as versions 4.0, 4.1, and 5.0 of the BEA
and compared them to the architecture compliance requirements of the
Fiscal Year 2005 Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) and BEA compliance guidance to determine the extent to which the
compliance assessments addressed all relevant BEA products.
* Reviewed documentation from the GCSS-MC and Navy ERP programs, as
well as the Air Force‘s Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management
System and Air Force Expeditionary Combat Support System programs, such
as the BEA compliance assessments, and compared the documentation
obtained to identify potential redundancies or opportunities for reuse
and determine if the BEA compliance assessments examined duplication
across programs and if the tool that supports these assessments is
being used to identify such duplication.
* Interviewed Department of Navy Office of the Chief Information
Officer and program officials and reviewed recent GAO reports to
determine the extent to which the programs were assessed for compliance
against the Department of Navy enterprise architecture.
* Interviewed program officials and officials from the Business
Transformation Agency and the Department of the Navy, including the
logistics Functional Area Manager, and obtained guidance documentation
and analyses from these officials to determine the extent to which the
compliance assessments were subject to oversight or validation.
We conducted this performance audit at DON and DOD offices and
contractor facilities in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area,
Annapolis, Maryland, and Triangle, Virginia between June 2007 and May
2008, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.
Appendix II: DOD‘s Federated BEA:
The Department of Defense‘s (DOD) federated Business Enterprise
Architecture (BEA) consists of a family of coherent but distinct member
architectures in which subsidiary architectures at the component and
program levels conform to an overarching corporate architectural view
and rule set. Each subsidiary architecture has unique goals and needs
as well as common roles and responsibilities with the levels above and
below it. These more specific architectures are substantially
autonomous but inherit certain rules, policies, procedures, and
services from higher-level architectures (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: Simplified Diagram of DOD‘s Federated BEA:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a simplified diagram of DOD‘s Federated BEA, as follows:
Business Transformation Agency:
* DOD BEA and Enterprise Transition Plan (part of DOD-Enterprise
layer);
* Enterprise Shared Services and System Capabilities (part of DOD-
Enterprise layer);
* Enterprise Rules and Standards for Interoperability (Component
layer);
- Army programs;
- Navy programs;
- Air Force programs;
- Defense Logistics Agency programs;
- Defense Finance and Accounting Service programs;
- United States Transportation Command programs.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of figure]
Appendix III: Descriptions of BEA Products:
As described in this report, the Department of Defense‘s (DOD)
corporate Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) was developed
according to the DOD Architecture Framework (DODAF),[Footnote 36]
which specifies a set of three ’views“”operational, systems, and
technical. Figure 1 provides an overview of the DODAF product types and
their relationships. Table 1 describes these products as they apply to
the BEA.
Figure 1: Overview of DODAF Product Types and Their Relationships:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of DODAF product types and their
relationships, as follows:
Circular relationship:
Operational View:
Identifies what needs to be accomplished and who does it;
Operational requirements and capabilities lead to:
Technical standards view:
Prescribes standards and conventions;
Technical standards criteria governing interoperable
implementation/procurement of the selected system capabilities, leading
to:
System view:
Relates systems and characteristics to operational needs;
Systems that support the activities and information exchanges, leading
to:
Operational View.
Second circular relationship:
Operational View:
Identifies what needs to be accomplished and who does it;
What needs to be done; who does it; information exchange required to
get it done, leading to:
System view:
Relates systems and characteristics to operational needs;
Specific system capabilities required to satisfy information exchange,
leading to:
Technical standards view:
Prescribes standards and conventions;
Basic technology supportability; new technical capabilities, leading
to:
Operational View.
Source: DOD.
[End of figure]
Table 1: BEA Products:
View: Operational;
Product: OV-1;
Description: High-level graphical/textual description of what the
architecture is supposed to do, and how it is supposed to do it.
View: Operational;
Product: OV-2;
Description: Graphic depiction of the operational nodes (or
organizations) with needlines that indicate a need to exchange
information.
View: Operational;
Product: OV-3;
Description: Information exchanged between nodes and the relevant
attributes of that exchange.
View: Operational;
Product: OV-5;
Description: Operational activities (or tasks) that are normally
conducted in the course of achieving a mission or a business goal,
input and output flows between activities.
View: Operational;
Product: OV-6a;
Description: Business rules that constrain operations.
View: Operational;
Product: OV-6c;
Description: Identified actions in a scenario or sequence of events.
View: Operational;
Product: OV-7;
Description: System data requirements and business process rules of the
operational view.
View: System;
Product: SV-1;
Description: Systems nodes, systems, and their interconnections, within
and between nodes.
View: System;
Product: SV-5;
Description: Relationships between the operational activities and the
system functions.
View: System;
Product: SV-6;
Description: Characteristics of the system data exchanged between
systems.
View: Technical;
Product: TV-1;
Description: Standards that apply to systems view elements.
Source: GAO, based on data from the Business Transformation Agency.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Acquisition Technology And Logistics:
3000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-3000:
August 1, 2008:
Mr. Randolph C. Hite:
Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Hite:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report GAO-08-972, "DOD Business Systems Modernization: Key Navy
Programs' Compliance With DOD's Federated Business Enterprise
Architecture Needs to Be Adequately Demonstrated," dated July 3, 2008
(GAO Code 310663). Detailed comments on the report recommendations are
enclosed.
DoD concurred with all of the GAO's report recommendations. As the
Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) and Component architectures
mature, and federation efforts progress, the Department will meet the
intent of the GAO's recommendations in future versions of its
compliance guidance, policies, and methodologies.
We appreciate the GAO's input on the Department's progress with its
business transformation efforts and continue to value our partnership.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Brinkley:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Business Transformation):
Enclosure: As stated:
GAO Draft Report Dated July 3, 2008:
GAO-08-972 (GAO Code 310663):
"DOD Business Systems Modernization: Key Navy Programs' Compliance With
Dod's Federated Business Enterprise Architecture Needs To Be Adequately
Demonstrated"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the responsible authorities in the department to revise the DoD
Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) compliance assessment to: (1)
include assessment of all relevant operational, technical, and system
architecture products, and (2) provide for the development and use of
key program architecture products in conducting the assessment early
enough in the program's life cycle to permit the results of the
assessments to have a timely impact on the program's definition,
design, and implementation. (Page 6/GAO Draft Report)
DOD Response: Concur. Development and use of Architecture is a
continuing educational process. The DoD BEA is a collaborative effort
with the Pre-Certifying Authorities (PCAs) who are fully aware of its
purpose as the Department's "TO-BE" business systems blue print.
1) We are currently working on developing the target compliance
assertion criteria "of all relevant operational, technical, and system
architecture products." The assertion criteria will consist of key
elements from the operational, technical, and system view products. The
BEA Compliance Guidance states "Systems requesting certification should
use the information contained in the specified BEA Department of
Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) products to conduct their BEA
compliance assessments. However, it is the architecture-related
information (BEA Objects) contained in these products, and not the
products themselves, which are most important for assessing a system's
compliance with the BEA." This is consistent with DoDAF 2.0 focus on
the data within the architecture products and not necessarily the
products themselves.
2) DoD Guidance explicitly mandates development of architecture
products for system development. Furthermore, the BEA Compliance
Guidance states "PCAs are expected to assess their systems against the
BEA, their Component architectures, and "other" Component architectures
that serve to fill BEA gaps during investment reviews." Consequently,
the BEA Compliance adheres to this recommendation.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the responsible authorities in the department to: use the
program-specific data in the compliance assessment tool for identifying
and analyzing potential overlap and duplication, and thus opportunities
for reuse and consolidation among programs, and provide programs access
rights to use this functionality.
DOD Response: Concur. The Architecture Compliance and Requirements
Traceability (ACART) tool was developed and made available as a service
to be shared by the entire Business Mission Area (BMA). One of the
current capabilities of the ACART tool is the ability for a portfolio
manager (e.g. PCA) to compare compliance assessment profiles of systems
within their portfolio. Future plans include use of ACART and
complementary services under the Integrated Management Information
Environment (IMIE) to become standards for each of the Investment
Review Boards (IRBs).
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the responsible authorities in the department to amend relevant
DoD policy to explicitly require business system program compliance
with the federated BEA, to include both the corporate BEA and the
component enterprise architectures, as a condition for program
certification and approval. (Page 6/GAO Draft Report)
DOD Response: Concur. The BEA Compliance Guidance reflects the
Department's future intent to revise DoD policy governing certification
requirements to explicitly include program compliance with its
respective Component architecture. Specifically, the guidance states
that "Pre-certification Authorities (PCAs) are expected to assess their
systems against the BEA, their Component architectures, and `other'
Component architectures that serve to fill BEA gaps during investment
reviews" (Page 2, Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) Compliance
Guidance: BEA 5.0, May 2008). The Department will continue to progress
with its federation efforts, to include further definition of
architecture federation rules, and will make the necessary revisions to
DoD policy when practicable.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the responsible authorities in the department to amend relevant
DoD policy to explicitly assign responsibility for validating program
BEA compliance assertions to military departments and defense agencies,
and issue guidance that describes the nature, scope, and methodology
for doing so. (Page 7/GAO Draft Report)
DOD Response: Concur. DOD has specific structures and controls in place
to assess program compliance to the BEA. Specifically, current guidance
states that the Pre-Certification Authority (PCA) is responsible for
the internal Component evaluations of systems in the investment
governance process. This evaluation includes verification that a given
system is in compliance with the DoD BEA. The PCA must assert via
letter (i.e., "PCA Memo"), that the system is in compliance with the
BEA as a part of the standard Investment Review Board Certification
Package. Additional guidance may be issued in the future, and will be
considered on an as needed basis.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Randolph C. Hite at (202) 512-3439 or hiter@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Neela Lakhmani (Assistant
Director), Nabajyoti Barkakati, Neil Doherty, Nancy Glover, Emily
Longcore, Michael Holland, Anh Le, Josh Leiling, Lee McCracken, and
Sushmita Srikanth made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310] (Washington, D.C.:
January 2007).
[2] Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005, Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 332 (2004) (codified at 10 U.S.C. §§ 186
and 2222).
[3] A federated architecture consists of a family of coherent but
distinct member architectures in which subsidiary architectures conform
to an overarching corporate architectural view and rule set.
[4] The BEA's content is governed by DOD's architecture framework,
which describes various architecture products that define different
aspects of an enterprise architecture, such as business or operational
activities and relationships and information exchanges among these
activities.
[5] GAO, DOD Business Systems Modernization: Progress in Establishing
Corporate Management Controls Needs to Be Replicated Within Military
Departments, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-705]
(Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2008).
[6] DON consists of two military services--the Navy and the Marine
Corps.
[7] GAO, DOD Business Systems Modernization: Military Departments Need
to Strengthen Management of Enterprise Architecture Programs,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-519] (Washington,
D.C.: May 12, 2008).
[8] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310] (Washington, D.C.:
January 2007).
[9] A federated architecture consists of a family of coherent but
distinct member architectures in which subsidiary architectures conform
to an overarching corporate architectural view and rule set.
[10] GAO, DOD Business Systems Modernization: Progress in Establishing
Corporate Management Controls Needs to Be Replicated Within Military
Departments, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-705].
(Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2008).
[11] DON consists of two military services”the Navy and the Marine
Corps.
[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310.
[13] GAO, Homeland Security: Efforts Under Way to Develop Enterprise
Architecture, but Much Work Remains, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-04-777] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 6, 2004) and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-731R]; Information Technology:
Architecture Needed to Guide NASA‘s Financial Management Modernization,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-43] (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 21, 2003).
[14] GAO, Information Technology: Architecture Needed to Guide
Modernization of DOD‘s Financial Operations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-525] (Washington, D.C.: May
17, 2001).
[15] Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 332, 118 Stat. 1811, 1851-1856 (Oct.
28, 2004) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2222).
[16] GAO, DOD Business Systems Modernization: Long-standing Weaknesses
in Enterprise Architecture Development Need to Be Addressed,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-702] (Washington,
D.C., July 22, 2005).
[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-705].
[18] For example, we recently reported that the latest version of the
BEA does not describe information flows for all organizational units,
such as information exchanges among the organizations that support the
Human Resources Management enterprise priority area, andcontinues to
lack information flows among DOD corporate and components
organizations.
[19] GAO, DOD Business Systems Modernization: Military Departments Need
to Strengthen Management of Enterprise Architecture Programs,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-519], (Washington,
D.C.: May 12, 2008).
[20] GAO, DOD Business Transformation: Lack of an Integrated Strategy
Puts the Army's Asset Visibility System Investments at Risk,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-860] (Washington,
D.C.: July 27, 2007); DOD Systems Modernization: Planned Investment in
the Naval Tactical Command Support System Needs to Be Reassessed,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-215] (Washington:
D.C.: Dec. 5, 2005), and DOD Systems Modernization: Uncertain Joint Use
and Marginal Expected Value of Military Asset Deployment System Warrant
Reassessment of Planned Investment, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-06-171] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2005).
[21] DODAF is DOD‘s guide for developing architectures. See for example
DOD, Department of Defense Architecture Framework, Version 1.5, Volume
1 (April 2007).
[22] Department of Defense, Business Enterprise Architecture Compliance
Guidance, (April 2006).
[23] Real property unique identifiers are codes that identify specific
assets.
[24] Data entities refer to a thing or event about which information is
kept in a database. For example, ’address“ is an entity in the BEA that
identifies a location at which an ’organization“ or ’person“ may be
contacted. Data attributes refer to properties/characteristics of an
entity, such as ’address street number/name and postal zone.“
[25] The life cycle phases are (1) technology development, which is
between milestones A and B, and is when the program is to determine the
appropriate set of technologies to be integrated into the investment
solution; (2) system development and demonstration, which is between
milestones B and C, and is when the program is developed and tested to
demonstrate that it can function in its target environment; and (3)
production and deployment, which is between milestone C and post-
deployment, and iswhen operational capability, verified through
independent operational test and evaluation, is achieved.
[26] Warfighter refers to a member of the United States armed forces.
[27] For example, if the program selects a business process to which
the business rule ’War Reserve Material Policy“ applies, the program
must assess whether the system enforces or will enforce this business
rule as part of its functionality. As another example, if the program
exchanges information related to asset inventories, it must determine
if the system‘s definition of the data entity’equipment“ conforms to
the corresponding BEA definition for the same data entity.
[28] SOAP describes a standard method for exchanging XML-based
information. XML describes a standard method for sharing structured
data, such as data contained in documents, across different information
systems--particularly via the Internet.
[22] If the other programs use some other middleware, such as CORBA,
MQSeries, Java Messaging Service, Remote Method Invocation, etc., then
additional software will be needed to handle the SOAP messages.
[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-705].
[31] We currently have work underway to evaluate these Air Force
programs, which are in early stages of development.
[32] The four programs are Navy ERP, GCSS-MC, Defense Enterprise
Accounting and Management System-Air Force, and the Air Force
Expeditionary Combat Support System.
[33] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-519].
[34] Department of Defense, Business Transformation Guidance. Version
1.1. (July 2007).
[35] The scope of our review also included the Navy Cash program.
However, we have not included Navy Cash in our findings because our
work showed that the business activities that it supports are neither
reflected in the BEA nor planned by BTA officials to be reflected in
the BEA. Therefore, Navy Cash was certified and approved on the basis
that it does not conflict with the BEA. According to DOD, Navy Cash is
intended to create workload efficiencies and improve the quality of
life for sailors and marines through modern business practices and
smart card technology, including a cashless environment on ships. Navy
has estimated the program‘s total life cycle cost to be about $223
million through fiscal year 2015.
[36] DODAF is DOD‘s guide for developing architectures. See for example
Department of Defense, Department of Defense Architecture Framework,
Version 1.5, Volume 1 (April 2007).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
