Information Technology
Leadership Remains Key to Agencies Making Progress on Enterprise Architecture Efforts Gao ID: GAO-04-40 November 17, 2003A well-defined enterprise architecture (EA) is a blueprint for institutional modernization and evolution that consists of models describing how an entity operates today and how it intends to operate in the future, along with a plan for how it intends to transition to this future state. Such architectures are essential tools whose effective development and use are recognized hallmarks of successful organizations. Because of the importance of these architectures, GAO was asked to determine (1) what progress federal agencies have made in effectively developing, implementing, and maintaining their EAs and (2) the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) actions to advance the state of EA development and use across the federal government.
Federal agencies' progress toward effective EA management is limited. GAO surveyed federal agencies on their EA programs and compared the results with those of a similar survey that GAO conducted in 2001 (GAO-02-6). To assign a maturity level to agencies, GAO used its EA management maturity framework, which is a five-stage model that defines criteria that govern where an EA program stands in its progression toward being effectively managed (with Stage 1 being ineffective and Stage 5 being highly effective). Comparing the 2001 and 2003 survey results revealed a very similar overall picture, in which slight increases in agencies achieving Stage 3 status were offset by slight increases in agencies being at Stage 1. In addition, when GAO assessed the 2003 survey results against a recent update of the framework (GAO-03-584G), agencies' average maturity was slightly lower. An exception to this is the Executive Office of the President, which is a Stage 5 agency under the latest version of the framework. Part of the reason for this limited progress across the federal government is that agencies continue to face long-standing EA challenges, such as limited executive understanding of EA and a scarcity of skilled architecture staff. Since 2001, more agencies now report these as significant challenges. OMB has undertaken a variety of actions to advance the state of EA use across the federal government, such as collecting and analyzing architectures for major departments and agencies and requiring that major information technology (IT) investments comply with them. Additionally, OMB has developed parts of a governmentwide EA, and by requiring a mapping of agency architectures to this federal EA as part of the budget review process, it has called attention to the need for agencies to further their own architecture efforts. However, despite OMB's actions, the agencies' responses indicate that only about one-half are satisfied with OMB's leadership in addressing long-standing EA challenges. Until these challenges are effectively addressed, agencies' maturity levels as a whole are likely to remain stagnant, limiting their ability to effectively invest in IT.
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-04-40, Information Technology: Leadership Remains Key to Agencies Making Progress on Enterprise Architecture Efforts
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-40
entitled 'Information Technology: Leadership Remains Key to Agencies
Making Progress on Enterprise Architecture Efforts' which was released
on December 18, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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 Congressional Requesters:
November 2003:
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY:
Leadership Remains Key to Agencies Making Progress on Enterprise
Architecture Efforts:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-40] GAO-04-40:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-40, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives, and the Honorable Jim
Turner
Why GAO Did This Study:
A well-defined enterprise architecture (EA) is a blueprint for
institutional modernization and evolution that consists of models
describing how an entity operates today and how it intends to operate
in the future, along with a plan for how it intends to transition to
this future state. Such architectures are essential tools whose
effective development and use are recognized hallmarks of successful
organizations. Because of the importance of these architectures, GAO
was asked to determine (1) what progress federal agencies have made
in effectively developing, implementing, and maintaining their EAs
and (2) the Office of Management and Budget‘s (OMB) actions to advance
the state of EA development and use across the federal government.
What GAO Found:
Federal agencies‘ progress toward effective EA management is limited.
GAO surveyed federal agencies on their EA programs and compared the
results with those of a similar survey that GAO conducted in 2001
(GAO-02-6). To assign a maturity level to agencies, GAO used its EA
management maturity framework, which is a five-stage model that
defines criteria that govern where an EA program stands in its
progression toward being effectively managed (with Stage 1 being
ineffective and Stage 5 being highly effective). Comparing the 2001
and 2003 survey results revealed a very similar overall picture (see
figure), in which slight increases in agencies achieving Stage 3
status were offset by slight increases in agencies being at Stage 1.
In addition, when GAO assessed the 2003 survey results against a
recent update of the framework (GAO-03-584G), agencies‘ average
maturity was slightly lower. An exception to this is the Executive
Office of the President, which is a Stage 5 agency under the latest
version of the framework. Part of the reason for this limited
progress across the federal government is that agencies continue to
face long-standing EA challenges, such as limited executive
understanding of EA and a scarcity of skilled architecture staff.
Since 2001, more agencies now report these as significant challenges.
OMB has undertaken a variety of actions to advance the state of EA
use across the federal government, such as collecting and analyzing
architectures for major departments and agencies and requiring that
major information technology (IT) investments comply with them.
Additionally, OMB has developed parts of a governmentwide EA, and by
requiring a mapping of agency architectures to this federal EA as
part of the budget review process, it has called attention to the need
for agencies to further their own architecture efforts. However,
despite OMB‘s actions, the agencies‘ responses indicate that only
about one-half are satisfied with OMB‘s leadership in addressing long-
standing EA challenges. Until these challenges are effectively
addressed, agencies‘ maturity levels as a whole are likely to remain
stagnant, limiting their ability to effectively invest in IT.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is reiterating open recommendations previously made to the
Director of OMB, and it is making additional recommendations to the
director that are aimed at advancing the state of EA management
maturity across the federal government through improved EA leadership
and oversight. OMB officials stated that they generally agreed with
our recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-40.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Randolph C. Hite at
(202) 512-3439 or hiter@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Agencies Are Making Limited Architecture Management Progress; Most
Programs Remain Immature:
OMB Has Taken Action to Promote Enterprise Architecture, but
Improvements Have Not Occurred and Management Challenges Remain:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Agencies Indicated Architecture Benefits and Experiences
with the Use of Tools, Frameworks, Methodologies, and Contractors:
Agencies Reported Various Architecture Benefits:
Agencies Reported Using a Variety of Enterprise Architecture Tools
with Varying Degrees of Satisfaction:
Agencies Reported Using a Variety of Enterprise Architecture
Frameworks with Varying Levels of Satisfaction:
Less Than Half of Federal Agencies Had Selected an Enterprise
Architecture Methodology:
Most Agencies Reported Using Contractor Support for Developing
Enterprise Architectures:
Appendix II: Cost Data Related to Implementing Enterprise Architectures
Varied, with Personnel Accounting for Most Costs:
Departments' Investment in Architecture Varied More Widely than
Component and Independent Agencies':
Agency and Contractor Personnel Accounted for the Majority of
Architecture Development Costs:
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix IV: Maturity Stages of Departments and Agencies According to
EA Maturity Framework, Versions 1.0 and 1.1:
Appendix V: Detailed Comparison of Individual Department Responses
against Our EA Management Maturity Framework:
Department of Agriculture:
Department of Commerce:
Department of Defense:
Department of Education:
Department of Energy:
Department of Health and Human Services:
Department of Homeland Security:
Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Department of the Interior:
Department of Justice:
Department of Labor:
Department of State:
Department of Transportation:
Department of the Treasury:
Department of Veterans Affairs:
Appendix VI: Detailed Comparison of Individual Component Responses
against Our EA Management Maturity Framework:
Department of Agriculture:
Department of Commerce:
Department of Defense:
Department of Health and Human Services:
Department of Justice:
Department of Transportation:
Department of the Treasury:
Appendix VII: Detailed Comparison of Independent Agency Responses
against Our EA Management Maturity Framework:
Agency for International Development:
Central Intelligence Agency:
Corporation for National and Community Service:
Environmental Protection Agency:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
Executive Office of the President:
Export-Import Bank:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
Federal Reserve System:
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board:
General Services Administration:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
National Credit Union Administration:
National Labor Relations Board:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Office of Personnel Management:
Peace Corps:
Railroad Retirement Board:
Securities and Exchange Commission:
Small Business Administration:
Smithsonian Institution:
Social Security Administration:
U.S. Postal Service:
Appendix VIII: 2003 Survey of Enterprise Architecture Efforts:
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables Tables:
Table 1: FEA Reference Models:
Table 2: Framework Stages for Enterprise Architecture Maturity:
Table 3: Critical Success Attributes of our EAMMF Versions 1.0 and 1.1:
Table 4: Changes in Our EAMMF Version 1.1:
Table 5: Core Elements That Most Frequently Contributed to Maturity
Stage Increases:
Table 6: Core Elements That Most Frequently Contributed to Maturity
Stage Decreases:
Table 7: Agencies That Need to Satisfy 5 or Fewer Elements to Achieve
Stage 5:
Table 8: Service Domains and the Capabilities That They Describe:
Table 9: Summary of Agencies' Responses to FEA-Related Statements:
Table 10: Percentage of Agencies Identifying Particular Enterprise
Architecture Management Challenges:
Table 11: Percentage of Agencies Satisfied with OMB's Efforts to Address
Various Management Challenges:
Table 12: Frequently Identified Enterprise Architecture Benefits by
Federal Agencies:
Table 13: Federal Agencies' Satisfaction with Automated Enterprise
Architecture Tools:
Table 14: Federal Agencies Enterprise Architecture Framework
Satisfaction Levels:
Table 15: Federal Agencies' Use of Contractors in Developing Their
Enterprise Architectures:
Table 16: Cost Data Reported by Agencies:
Table 17: Summary of Differences between 2001 and 2003 Survey
Populations:
Table 18: Twenty-Two Agencies in 2003 Survey Population for Which
Responses Do Not Appear:
Table 19: Additional Survey Responses:
Table 20: Stage 2 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.0:
Table 21: Stage 3 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.0:
Table 22: Stage 4 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.0:
Table 23: Stage 5 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.0:
Table 24: Stage 2 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.1:
Table 25: Stage 3 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.1:
Table 26: Stage 4 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.1:
Table 27: Stage 5 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.1:
Table 28: Agency Maturity Stages According to EAMMF, Versions 1.0 and
1.1:
Table 29: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Agriculture:
Table 30: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Agriculture:
Table 31: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Commerce:
Table 32: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Commerce:
Table 33: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Defense, Global Information
Grid:
Table 34: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Defense, Global Information Grid:
Table 35: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Defense, Business Enterprise
Architecture:
Table 36: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Defense, Business Enterprise Architectur:
Table 37: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Education:
Table 38: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Education:
Table 39: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Energy:
Table 40: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Energy:
Table 41: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Health and Human Services:
Table 42: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Health and Human Services:
Table 43: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Homeland Security:
Table 44: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Homeland Security:
Table 45: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Table 46: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Table 47: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of the Interior:
Table 48: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of the Interior:
Table 49: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Justice:
Table 50: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Justice:
Table 51: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Labor:
Table 52: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Labor:
Table 53: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of State:
Table 54: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of State:
Table 55: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Transportation:
Table 56: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Transportation:
Table 57: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of the Treasury:
Table 58: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of the Treasury:
Table 59: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Veterans Affairs:
Table 60: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Veterans Affairs:
Table 61: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Agricultural Marketing Service:
Table 62: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Agricultural Marketing Service:
Table 63: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Agricultural Research Service:
Table 64: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Agricultural Research Service:
Table 65: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Table 66: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Table 67: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service:
Table 68: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Table 69: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Food and Nutrition Service:
Table 70: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Food and Nutrition Service:
Table 71: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Food Safety and Inspection Service:
Table 72: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Food Safety and Inspection Service:
Table 73: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Foreign Agricultural Service:
Table 74: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Foreign Agricultural Service:
Table 75: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Forest Service:
Table 76: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Forest Service:
Table 77: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Risk Management Agency:
Table 78: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Risk Management Agency:
Table 79: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Service Center Modernization Initiative:
Table 80: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Service Center Modernization Initiative:
Table 81: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Bureau of the Census:
Table 82: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Bureau of the Census:
Table 83: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Economic Development Administration:
Table 84: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Economic Development Administration:
Table 85: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): International Trade Administration:
Table 86: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): International Trade Administration:
Table 87: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration:
Table 88: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
Table 89: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:
Table 90: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:
Table 91: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Ballistic Missile Defense Organization:
Table 92: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Ballistic Missile Defense Organization:
Table 93: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency:
Table 94: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency:
Table 95: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Commissary Agency:
Table 96: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Commissary Agency:
Table 97: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Contract Audit Agency:
Table 98: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Contract Audit Agency:
Table 99: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003 (According
to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Contract Management Agency:
Table 100: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Contract Management Agency:
Table 101: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Information Systems
Agency:
Table 102: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Information Systems Agency:
Table 103: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Intelligence Agency:
Table 104: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Intelligence Agency:
Table 105: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Logistics Agency:
Table 106: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Logistics Agency:
Table 107: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Security Cooperation
Agency:
Table 108: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Security Cooperation Agency:
Table 109: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Security Service:
Table 110: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Security Service:
Table 111: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Threat Reduction Agency:
Table 112: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Threat Reduction Agency:
Table 113: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of the Air Force:
Table 114: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of the Air Force:
Table 115: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of the Army:
Table 116: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of the Army:
Table 117: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of the Navy:
Table 118: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of the Navy:
Table 119: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): National Imagery and Mapping
Agency:
Table 120: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): National Imagery and Mapping Agency:
Table 121: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Administration for Children and
Families:
Table 122: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Administration for Children and Families:
Table 123: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality:
Table 124: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality:
Table 125: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention:
Table 126: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
Table 127: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services:
Table 128: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:
Table 129: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Food and Drug Administration:
Table 130: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Food and Drug Administration:
Table 131: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Health Resources and Services
Administration:
Table 132: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Health Resources and Services Administration:
Table 133: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Indian Health Service:
Table 134: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Indian Health Service:
Table 135: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Program Support Center:
Table 136: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Program Support Center:
Table 137: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives:
Table 138: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives:
Table 139: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Drug Enforcement Administration:
Table 140: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Drug Enforcement Administration:
Table 141: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Table 142: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Table 143: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Bureau of Prisons:
Table 144: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Bureau of Prisons:
Table 145: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): U.S. Marshals Service:
Table 146: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): U.S. Marshals Service:
Table 147: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Aviation Administration:
Table 148: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Aviation Administration:
Table 149: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Highway Administration:
Table 150: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Highway Administration:
Table 151: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration:
Table 152: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
Table 153: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Railroad Administration:
Table 154: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Railroad Administration:
Table 155: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Transit Administration:
Table 156: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Transit Administration:
Table 157: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration:
Table 158: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Table 159: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Bureau of Engraving and Printing
:
Table 160: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Bureau of Engraving and Printing:
Table 161: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Bureau of the Public Debt:
Table 162: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Bureau of the Public Debt:
Table 163: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Comptroller of the Currency:
Table 164: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Comptroller of the Currency:
Table 165: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Financial Management Service:
Table 166: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Financial Management Service:
Table 167: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Internal Revenue Service:
Table 168: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Internal Revenue Service:
Table 169: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Office of Thrift Supervision:
Table 170: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Office of Thrift Supervision:
Table 171: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): U.S. Mint:
Table 172: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): U.S. Mint:
Table 173: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Agency for International
Development:
Table 174: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Agency for International Development:
Table 175: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Central Intelligence Agency:
Table 176: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Central Intelligence Agency:
Table 177: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Corporation for National and
Community Service:
Table 178: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Corporation for National and Community Service:
Table 179: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Environmental Protection Agency:
Table 180: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Environmental Protection Agency:
Table 181: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission:
Table 182: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
Table 183: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Executive Office of the
President:
Table 184: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Executive Office of the President:
Table 185: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Export-Import Bank:
Table 186: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Export-Import Bank:
Table 187: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation:
Table 188: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation:
Table 189: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission:
Table 190: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
Table 191: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Reserve System:
Table 192: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Reserve System:
Table 193: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Retirement Thrift
Investment Board:
Table 194: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board:
Table 195: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): General Services Administration:
Table 196: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): General Services Administration:
Table 197: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
Table 198: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Table 199: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): National Credit Union
Administration:
Table 200: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): National Credit Union Administration:
Table 201: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): National Labor Relations Board:
Table 202: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): National Labor Relations Board:
Table 203: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Table 204: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Table 205: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Office of Personnel Management:
Table 206: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Office of Personnel Management:
Table 207: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Peace Corps:
Table 208: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Peace Corps:
Table 209: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Railroad Retirement Board:
Table 210: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Railroad Retirement Board:
Table 211: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Securities and Exchange
Commission:
Table 212: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Securities and Exchange Commission:
Table 213: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Small Business Administration:
Table 214: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Small Business Administration:
Table 215: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Smithsonian Institution:
Table 216: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Smithsonian Institution:
Table 217: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Social Security Administration:
Table 218: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Social Security Administration:
Table 219: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): U.S. Postal Service:
Table 220: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): U.S. Postal Service:
Figures:
Figure 1: Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework
(Version 1.0):
Figure 2: Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework
(Version 1.1):
Figure 3: Changes in Maturity Stages from 2001 to 2003 (93 agencies),
Based on EAMMF Version 1.0:
Figure 4: Agencies in Each Maturity Stage, According to EAMMF Version
1.0:
Figure 5: Agencies Whose Maturity Stages Improved or Declined from 2001
to 2003 against EAMMF Version 1.0:
Figure 6: Agency Satisfaction of Stage 1 Elements in EAMMF Version 1.0:
2001 versus 2003 Results:
Figure 7: Agency Satisfaction of Stage 2 Elements in EAMMF Version 1.0:
2001 versus 2003 Results:
Figure 8: Agency Satisfaction of Stage 3 Elements in EAMMF Version 1.0:
2001 versus 2003 Results:
Figure 9: Agency Satisfaction of Stage 4 Elements in EAMMF Version 1.0:
2001 versus 2003 Results:
Figure 10: Agency Satisfaction of Stage 5 Elements in EAMMF Version 1.0:
2001 versus 2003 Results:
Figure 11: Agencies in Each Stage, According to EAMMF Version 1.1:
Figure 12: Percentage of Departments, Component Agencies, and
Independent Agencies That Satisfied Stage 2 Core Elements of EAMMF
Version 1.1:
Figure 13: Percentage of Departments, Component Agencies, and
Independent Agencies That Satisfied Stage 3 Core Elements of EAMMF
Version 1.1:
Figure 14: Percentage of Departments, Component Agencies, and
Independent Agencies That Satisfied Stage 4 Core Elements of EAMMF
Version 1.1:
Figure 15: Percentage of Departments, Component Agencies, and
Independent Agencies That Satisfied Stage 5 Core Elements of EAMMF
Version 1.1:
Figure 16: Maturity Level of Departments and Their Component Agencies:
Figure 17: Enterprise Architecture Tools Used by Agencies:
Figure 18: Enterprise Architecture Frameworks Used by Agencies:
Figure 19: Development Costs to Date for Departments:
Figure 20: Development Costs to Date for Component Agencies:
Figure 21: Development Costs to Date for Independent Agencies:
Figure 22: Estimated Completion Costs for Departments:
Figure 23: Estimated Completion Costs for Component Agencies:
Figure 24: Estimated Completion Costs for Independent Agencies:
Figure 25: Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs for Departments:
Figure 26: Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs for Component Agencies:
Figure 27: Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs for Independent Agencies:
Figure 28: Enterprise Architecture Development Costs by Category--All
Respondents:
Abbreviations:
BEA: Business Enterprise Architecture:
CIO: chief information officer:
C4ISR: Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DODAF: Department of Defense Architecture Framework:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
EA: enterprise architecture:
EAMMF: Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
EOP: Executive Office of the President:
FEA: Federal Enterprise Architecture:
FEAF: Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework:
FEAPMO: Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office:
GIG: Global Information Grid:
IT: information technology:
IRS: Internal Revenue Service:
NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
TEAF: Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework:
Letter November 17, 2003:
The Honorable Thomas M. Davis:
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jim Turner:
House of Representatives:
A well-defined enterprise architecture provides a clear and
comprehensive picture of the structure of any enterprise, whether it is
an organization or a functional or mission area. This structure is
defined in models that describe (in both business and technology terms)
how the entity operates today and how it intends to operate in the
future; it also includes a plan for transitioning to this future state.
Such an architecture is an essential tool for leveraging information
technology (IT) in the transformation of business and mission
operations.
As our experience with federal agencies has shown, attempting to
modernize and evolve IT environments without an enterprise architecture
to guide and constrain investments often results in operations and
systems that are duplicative, not well integrated, unnecessarily costly
to maintain and interface, and ineffective in supporting mission goals.
A properly managed enterprise architecture helps to clarify and
optimize the interdependencies and relationships among enterprise
operations and their supporting IT assets, so that agencies can base IT
investment decisions on an explicit and common understanding of both
today's and tomorrow's environments. The development, implementation,
and maintenance of architectures are widely recognized as hallmarks of
successful public and private organizations, and their use is required
by the Clinger-Cohen Act and the implementing guidance, issued by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).[Footnote 1] Further, the E-
Government Act of 2002[Footnote 2] assigns OMB responsibility for
overseeing enterprise architectures.
In light of the importance of these architectures, you requested that
we review the state of their use in the federal government. As agreed,
our objectives were to determine (1) what progress federal agencies
have made in effectively developing, implementing, and maintaining
their enterprise architectures and (2) OMB's actions to advance the
state of enterprise architecture development and use across the federal
government. We also collected a variety of related information on
agency enterprise architecture experiences and practices, which are
described in appendixes I and II of this report.
To accomplish these objectives, we surveyed federal agencies using a
questionnaire that was based on our maturity framework for assessing
and improving enterprise architecture management.[Footnote 3] We then
analyzed agency questionnaire responses and compared them with the
results of a similar analysis that we conducted in 2001.[Footnote 4] To
corroborate certain questionnaire responses, we requested that agencies
provide us with supporting documentation. For agency responses related
to the content of their respective architectures, we relied on agency
responses and did not independently assess the quality of agency
enterprise architecture products. Further details of our objectives,
scope, and methodology are in appendix III.
Results in Brief:
Federal agencies' progress toward effectively managing enterprise
architectures is limited, with much work remaining. Since our 2001
assessment of agencies' enterprise architecture management maturity,
the percentage of agencies that have established at least a foundation
for enterprise architecture management (i.e., they perform management
practices that provide the basis for effectively managing the
development, maintenance, and use of architectures) is virtually
unchanged, decreasing from 53 to 48 percent. Further, the percentage of
agencies performing the full complement of management practices that
are necessary for effective enterprise architecture management is the
same (about 4 percent). In addition, when agencies are assessed against
the recent update of our maturity framework (Version 1.1), the
percentage that have established at least a foundation for enterprise
architecture management drops to 21 percent; only one agency (1
percent), the Executive Office of the President, reported performing
all of the management practices that are indicative of effective
enterprise architecture management. This limited progress can be
attributed in part to long-standing enterprise architecture challenges
that have yet to be addressed. In particular, since 2001, more agencies
now report that agency executive understanding of enterprise
architecture and the scarcity of skilled architecture staff are
significant challenges. Until agencies have and use well-defined
enterprise architectures, their ability to effectively leverage IT in
transforming mission operations will be impaired.
OMB has undertaken a variety of actions to advance the state of
enterprise architecture use across the federal government. These
actions include collecting and analyzing the architectures of major
departments and agencies and requiring that major IT investments comply
with the cognizant department or agency architecture. Additionally, OMB
has developed and continues to evolve governmentwide or federal
enterprise architecture products and has required a mapping of agency
architectures to this federal architecture as part of the budget review
process. However, about one-half of agencies said that they were not
satisfied with OMB's efforts to support enterprise architecture
management, such as obtaining agency top management understanding and
backing and ensuring that the necessary human capital is available for
supporting agency enterprise architecture efforts. Also, as previously
noted, agencies' maturity levels as a whole remain stagnant, despite
OMB's actions. Therefore, additional steps are needed. Accordingly, we
are reiterating our open recommendations and making additional
recommendations to the Director of OMB that are aimed at improving
enterprise architecture leadership and oversight.
In commenting on a draft of this report, officials from OMB's Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs and the Federal Enterprise
Architecture Program Management Office stated that they generally
agreed with our findings and recommendations.
Background:
The concept of an architecture to describe an enterprise first emerged
in the mid-1980s, and over the years, various frameworks[Footnote 5]
for defining the content of enterprise architectures have been
published. Our work in the early 1990s identified architectures as
critical success factors in allowing organizations to effectively apply
IT to meet mission goals. Since then, we have worked with the Congress,
OMB, and the federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council to
promote the importance of architectures and assist agencies in
developing, maintaining, and using them. In our reviews of selected
agency IT management practices and major systems modernization
programs, we have continued to identify the lack of an architecture as
a major management weakness, and we have made recommendations to
address this important area.
Enterprise Architecture: A Brief Description:
In simple terms, an enterprise can be viewed as any purposeful
activity, and an architecture can be characterized as the structure (or
structural description) of any activity. Building on this, we can view
enterprise architectures as systematically derived and captured
structural descriptions--in useful models, diagrams, and narrative--of
the mode of operation for a given enterprise, which can be either a
single organization or a functional or mission area that transcends
more than one organizational boundary (e.g., financial management,
homeland security).
The architecture describes the enterprise's operations in both logical
terms (such as interrelated business processes and business rules,
information needs and flows, and work locations and users) and
technical terms (such as hardware, software, data, communications, and
security attributes and performance standards). It provides these
perspectives both for the enterprise's current (or "as-is") environment
and for its target (or "to-be") environment, as well as a transition
plan for moving from the "as-is" to the "to-be" environment.
Importance of Enterprise Architectures:
The importance of enterprise architectures is a basic tenet of IT
management, and their effective use is a recognized hallmark of
successful public and private organizations. For over a decade, we have
promoted the use of architectures, recognizing them as a crucial means
to a challenging goal: that is, agency operational structures that are
optimally defined, in terms of both business and technology. The
alternative, as our work has shown, is perpetuation of the kinds of
operational environments that saddle most agencies today, in which the
lack of integration among business operations and the IT resources that
support them leads to systems that are duplicative, not well
integrated, and unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface.
Managed properly, an enterprise architecture can clarify and help
optimize the interdependencies and relationships among an
organization's business operations and the underlying IT infrastructure
and applications that support these operations. Employed in concert
with other important IT management controls (such as portfolio-based
capital planning and investment control practices), architectures can
greatly increase the chances that organizations' operational and IT
environments will be configured so as to optimize mission performance.
Enterprise architectures are integral to managing large-scale programs
as well as initiatives that span several agencies, such as those
currently being undertaken to support the electronic government (e-
government) efforts led by OMB.[Footnote 6]
Brief History of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks and Management
Guidance:
During the mid-1980s, John Zachman, widely recognized as a leader in
the field of enterprise architecture, identified the need to use a
logical construction blueprint (i.e., an architecture) for defining and
controlling the integration of systems and their components.[Footnote
7] Accordingly, Zachman developed a structure or framework for defining
and capturing an architecture, which provides for six "windows" from
which to view the enterprise.[Footnote 8] Zachman also proposed six
abstractions or models associated with each of these
perspectives.[Footnote 9] Zachman's framework provides a way to
identify and describe an entity's existing and planned component parts,
and the relationships between those parts, before the entity begins the
costly and time-consuming efforts associated with developing or
transforming itself.
Since Zachman introduced his framework, a number of frameworks have
emerged within the federal government, beginning with the publication
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) framework
in 1989. Since that time, other federal entities have issued enterprise
architecture frameworks, including the Department of Defense (DOD) and
the Department of the Treasury. In September 1999, the federal CIO
Council published the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF),
which was intended to provide federal agencies with a common construct
for their architectures, thereby facilitating the coordination of
common business processes, technology insertion, information flows, and
system investments among federal agencies. The FEAF describes an
approach, including models and definitions, for developing and
documenting architecture descriptions for multiorganizational
functional segments of the federal government.[Footnote 10]
More recently, OMB established the Federal Enterprise Architecture
Program Management Office to develop a Federal Enterprise Architecture
(FEA) according to a collection of five "reference models," which are
intended to facilitate governmentwide improvement through cross-agency
analysis and the identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and
opportunities for collaboration, interoperability, and integration
within and across government agencies. The FEA reference models are
summarized in table 1.
Table 1: FEA Reference Models:
Reference model: Business Reference Model; Description: Describes the
business operations of the federal government independent of the
agencies that perform them, including defining the services provided to
state and local governments; Status: Version 2.0 released in June
2003.
Reference model: Service Component Reference Model; Description:
Identifies and classifies IT service (i.e., application) components
that support federal agencies and promotes the reuse of components
across agencies; Status: Version 1.0 released in June 2003.
Reference model: Technical Reference Model; Description: Describes how
technology is supporting the delivery of service components, including
relevant standards for implementing the technology; Status: Version
1.1 released in August 2003.
Reference model: Performance Reference Model; Description: Provides a
common set of general performance outputs and measures for agencies to
use to achieve business goals and objectives; Status: Version 1.0
released in September 2003.
Reference model: Data and Information Reference Model; Description:
Intended to describe, at an aggregate level, the types of data and
information that support program and business line operations, and the
relationships among these types; Status: Release planned by January
2004.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Although these post-Zachman frameworks differ in their nomenclatures
and modeling approaches, each consistently provides for defining an
enterprise's operations in both logical terms and technical terms,
provides for defining these perspectives for the enterprise's current
and target environments, and calls for a transition plan between the
two.
Several laws and regulations have established requirements and
guidance, respectively, for agencies' management of architectures,
beginning with the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996,[Footnote 11] which
directs the CIOs of major departments and agencies to develop,
maintain, and facilitate the implementation of IT architectures as a
means of integrating agency goals and business processes with IT. OMB
Circular A-130, which implements the Clinger-Cohen Act, requires that
agencies document and submit their initial enterprise architectures to
OMB and that agencies submit updates to OMB when significant changes to
their enterprise architectures occur.The circular also directs the OMB
Director to use various kinds of reviews to evaluate the adequacy and
efficiency of each agency's compliance with the circular.
OMB was given explicit responsibility for overseeing government
enterprise architectures by the E-Government Act of 2002,[Footnote 12]
which established the Office of Electronic Government within OMB. This
act gives OMB the responsibility for facilitating the development of
enterprise architectures within and across agencies and supporting
improvements in government operations through the use of IT.
Prior Work Indicates Opportunities for Improving Enterprise
Architectures:
We began reviewing federal agencies' use of architectures in 1994,
initially focusing on those agencies that were pursuing major systems
modernization programs that were high risk. These included the National
Weather Service systems modernization,[Footnote 13] the Federal
Aviation Administration air traffic control modernization,[Footnote
14] and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax systems
modernization.[Footnote 15] Generally, we reported that these agencies'
enterprise architectures were incomplete, and we made recommendations
that they develop and implement complete enterprise architectures to
guide their modernization efforts.
Since then, we have reviewed architecture management at other federal
agencies, including the Department of Education,[Footnote 16] the
former Customs Service,[Footnote 17] the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service,[Footnote 18] and the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services.[Footnote 19] We have also reviewed the use of
enterprise architectures for critical agency functional areas, such as
the integration and sharing of terrorist watch lists across key federal
departments,[Footnote 20] and the logistics management area within
DOD.[Footnote 21] These reviews have continued to identify the absence
of complete and enforced enterprise architectures, which in turn has
led to agency business operations, systems, and data that are not
integrated ("stovepiped"), duplicative, and incompatible. These
conditions have either prevented agencies from sharing data or forced
them to depend on expensive, custom-developed interface systems to do
so.
Our Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework:
In 2002, we published Version 1.0 of our Enterprise Architecture
Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF) to provide federal agencies with
a common benchmarking tool for planning and measuring their enterprise
architecture efforts, as well as to provide OMB with a means for doing
the same governmentwide.[Footnote 22] This framework is an extension of
A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0,
published by the CIO Council. The framework arranges core elements from
the practical guide into a matrix of five hierarchical stages and four
critical success attributes; that is, each core element appears at a
particular stage of maturity, and it is also associated with one of the
critical success attributes. In April 2003, we published Version 1.1 of
this framework,[Footnote 23] which reflects changes and additions that
are based on comments we received on the initial version.
EAMMF Version 1.0:
The EAMMF is made up of five stages of maturity, each of which includes
an associated set of elements, along with all of the elements of the
previous stages. Table 2 shows these stages, followed by the
description of each as contained in Version 1.0 of our framework.
Table 2: Framework Stages for Enterprise Architecture Maturity:
Stage: 1; Description: Creating EA awareness.
Stage: 2; Description: Building the EA management foundation.
Stage: 3; Description: Developing architecture products.
Stage: 4; Description: Completing EA products.
Stage: 5; Description: Leveraging the EA to manage change.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Legend: EA: enterprise architecture.
* Stage 1: Creating EA awareness. Agencies at this stage are
characterized either by no plans to develop and use an enterprise
architecture, or by plans and actions that do not yet demonstrate an
awareness of the value of having and using one. Although Stage 1
agencies may have initiated some enterprise architecture core elements,
these agencies' efforts are ad hoc and unstructured, and they do not
provide the management foundation that is necessary for successful
enterprise architecture development.
* Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation. The focus at Stage 2
is on assignment of roles and responsibilities and establishment of
plans for developing enterprise architecture products. Specifically, a
Stage 2 agency has designated a chief architect and established and
staffed a program office that is responsible for enterprise
architecture development. Further, a steering committee or group that
has responsibility for directing and overseeing the development has
been established, and the membership of the steering committee includes
business and IT representatives. At Stage 2, the agency either has
plans for developing or has begun development of at least some of the
necessary enterprise architecture products. This stage also requires
the agency to have selected both a framework that will be the basis for
the nature and content of the specific products it plans to develop and
an automated tool to help in the development.
* Stage 3: Developing architecture products. At Stage 3, an agency
focuses on actual development of enterprise architecture products. The
agency has defined the scope of its enterprise architecture as
encompassing the entire enterprise, whether an organization or a
functional area, and it has a written and approved policy demonstrating
institutional commitment. Although the products may not yet be
complete, they are intended to describe the agency in terms of
business, data, applications, and technology. Further, the products are
to describe the current and future states and the sequencing plan for
transitioning from current to future state. As the architecture
products are being developed, they are to be subject to configuration
control.
* Stage 4: Completing EA products. An agency at Stage 4 has complete
and approved enterprise architecture products that it can use to help
select and control its portfolio of IT investments. The complete
products describe the organization in terms of business, data,
applications, and technology. Also, the products are complete in that
they describe the agency's current and future states and the transition
plan for sequencing from the current state to the future state.
Further, the agency's CIO has approved the enterprise architecture, and
the agency has a written policy requiring that IT investments comply
with the enterprise architecture.
* Stage 5: Leveraging the EA to manage change. At Stage 5, an agency is
able to evolve the enterprise architecture products according to a
written and approved policy for maintaining the architecture. Also at
this stage, the steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head approves the enterprise architecture. Finally, the agency has
incorporated the enterprise architecture into its corporate decision
making, and it has established and is using metrics to measure the
effectiveness of its enterprise architecture.
In addition to the maturity stages, each core element is also
associated with attributes that are critical to the successful
performance of any management function (see table 3). The critical
success attributes are identical in Versions 1.0 and 1.1 of our
framework.
Table 3: Critical Success Attributes of our EAMMF Versions 1.0 and 1.1:
Attribute: 1; Description: Demonstrates commitment.
Attribute: 2; Description: Provides capability to meet commitment.
Attribute: 3; Description: Demonstrates satisfaction of commitment.
Attribute: 4; Description: Verifies satisfaction of commitment.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Attribute 1: Demonstrates commitment. Because the enterprise
architecture is a corporate asset for systematically managing
institutional change, the support and sponsorship of the head of the
enterprise are essential to the success of the architecture effort. An
approved enterprise policy statement provides such support and
sponsorship, promoting institutional "buy in" and encouraging resource
commitment from participating components. Equally important in
demonstrating commitment is vesting ownership of the architecture with
an executive body that collectively owns the enterprise.
Attribute 2: Provides capability to meet commitment. The success of the
enterprise architecture effort depends largely on the organization's
capacity to develop, maintain, and implement the enterprise
architecture. Consistent with any large IT project, these capabilities
include providing adequate resources (i.e., people, processes, and
technology); defining clear roles and responsibilities; and defining
and implementing organizational structures and process management
controls that promote accountability and effective project execution.
Attribute 3: Demonstrates satisfaction of commitment. Satisfaction of
the organization's commitment to develop, maintain, and implement an
enterprise architecture is demonstrated by the production of artifacts
(e.g., the plans and products). Such artifacts demonstrate "follow
through"--actual enterprise architecture production. Satisfaction of
commitment is further demonstrated by senior leadership approval of
enterprise architecture documents and artifacts; such approval
communicates institutional endorsement and ownership of the
architecture and the change that it is intended to drive.
Attribute 4: Verifies satisfaction of commitment. This attribute
focuses on measuring and disclosing the extent to which efforts to
develop, maintain, and implement the enterprise architecture have
fulfilled stated goals or commitments. Measuring such performance
allows for tracking progress that has been made toward stated goals,
allows the appropriate actions to be taken when performance deviates
significantly from goals, and creates incentives to influence both
institutional and individual behaviors.
Collectively, these attributes form the basis by which an organization
can institutionalize management of any given function or program, such
as enterprise architecture management. Within each stage, each critical
success attribute includes between one and four core elements, which
are descriptions of a practice or condition that is needed for
effective enterprise architecture management. On the basis of the
implicit dependencies among the core elements, the EAMMF associates
each element with one of five hierarchical management stages, referred
to as maturity stages. Each stage reflects the collection of enterprise
architecture management practices and conditions (i.e., core elements)
that are being undertaken by an enterprise at a given maturity level.
Figure 1 is a summary of Version 1.0 of the framework, showing the key
elements associated with the stages and attributes previously
described.
Figure 1: Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework
(Version 1.0):
[See PDF for image]
Note: Each stage includes all elements of the previous stages.
[End of figure]
EAMMF Version 1.1:
Version 1.1 of this framework was released in April 2003. Like the
initial version, Version 1.1 is based on the CIO Council
guidance[Footnote 24] and augmented by our research experience in
reviewing architecture programs. Changes and additions to the framework
were also based on comments received on the initial version. As a
comparison between the two frameworks shows, a number of new elements
have been added to Version 1.1. Figure 2 shows a summary of the new
framework, Version 1.1.
Figure 2: Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework
(Version 1.1):
[See PDF for image]
Note: Each stage includes all elements of the previous stages.
[End of figure]
The stages and attributes remain the same as with Version 1.0, although
the descriptions of the stages are updated in Version 1.1 to reflect
the new elements in the framework, as follows:
Stage 1: Creating EA awareness. As with Version 1.0, at Stage 1, either
an organization does not have plans to develop and use an architecture,
or it has plans that do not demonstrate an awareness of the value of
having and using an architecture. Although Stage 1 agencies may have
initiated some enterprise architecture activity, these agencies'
efforts are ad hoc and unstructured, lack institutional leadership and
direction, and do not provide the management foundation that is
necessary for successful enterprise architecture development as defined
in Stage 2.
Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation. An organization at
Stage 2 recognizes that the enterprise architecture is a corporate
asset by vesting accountability for it in an executive body that
represents the entire enterprise. At this stage, an organization
assigns enterprise architecture management roles and responsibilities
and establishes plans for developing enterprise architecture products
and for measuring program progress and product quality. An organization
at this stage also commits the necessary resources for developing an
architecture--people, processes, and tools. Specifically, a Stage 2
organization has designated a chief architect and established and
staffed a program office that is responsible for enterprise
architecture development and maintenance. Further, it has established a
committee or group that has responsibility for enterprise architecture
governance (i.e., directing, overseeing, and approving architecture
development and maintenance). This committee or group membership has
enterprisewide representation. At Stage 2, the organization either has
plans for developing or has started developing at least some enterprise
architecture products, and it has fostered an enterprisewide awareness
of the value of enterprise architecture and its intended use in
managing its IT investments. The organization has also selected a
framework and a methodology that will be the basis for developing the
enterprise architecture products and has selected a tool for automating
these activities.
Stage 3: Developing the EA. An organization at Stage 3 focuses on
developing architecture products according to the selected framework,
methodology, tool, and established management plans. Roles and
responsibilities assigned in the previous stage are in place, and
resources are being applied to develop actual enterprise architecture
products. At this stage, the scope of the architecture has been defined
to encompass the entire enterprise, whether an organization or a
functional area. Although the products may not be complete, they are
intended to describe the organization in terms of business,
performance, information/data, service/application, and technology
(including security explicitly in each), as provided for in the
framework, methodology, tool, and management plans. Further, the
products are to describe the current ("as-is") and future ("to-be")
states and the plan for transitioning from the current to the future
state (the sequencing plan). As the products are developed and evolve,
they are subject to configuration management. Further, through the
established enterprise architecture management foundation, the
organization is tracking and measuring its progress against plans;
identifying and addressing variances, as appropriate; and then
reporting on its progress.
Stage 4: Completing the EA. An organization at Stage 4 has completed
its enterprise architecture products, meaning that the products have
been approved by the enterprise architecture steering committee
(established in Stage 2) or an investment review board, and by the CIO.
The completed products collectively describe the enterprise in terms of
business, performance, information/data, service/application, and
technology for both its current and future operating states, and the
products include a sequencing plan for transitioning from the current
to the future state. Further, an independent agent has assessed the
quality (i.e., completeness and accuracy) of the enterprise
architecture products. Additionally, evolution of the approved products
is governed by a written enterprise architecture maintenance policy
that is approved by the head of the organization.
Stage 5: Leveraging the EA to manage change. An organization at Stage 5
has secured senior leadership approval of the enterprise architecture
products and a written institutional policy stating that IT investments
must comply with the architecture, unless granted an explicit
compliance waiver. Further, decision makers are using the architecture
to identify and address ongoing and proposed IT investments that are
conflicting, overlapping, not strategically linked, or redundant. As a
result, Stage 5 entities avoid unwarranted overlap across investments
and ensure maximum systems interoperability, which in turn ensures the
selection and funding of IT investments with manageable risks and
returns. Also, at Stage 5, the organization tracks and measures
enterprise architecture benefits or return on investment, and
adjustments are continuously made to both the enterprise architecture
management process and the enterprise architecture products.
Significant Differences between EAMMF Versions 1.0 and 1.1:
Overall, Version 1.1 is more demanding (i.e., sets a higher standard)
than Version 1.0 because Version 1.1 adds important content, clarifies
existing content, and links the EAMMF framework to related IT
management guidance, such as our IT investment management
framework.[Footnote 25] Key differences in Version 1.1 of the framework
appear first in Stage 2 and affect later stages either explicitly or
implicitly. That is, some planning elements associated with Stage 2 now
propagate explicitly through later stages as plans are executed and
architecture products are developed, completed, and implemented. For
example:
* Version 1.1 includes "performance" among the models that are needed
to describe the "as-is" and "to-be" environments; these models are
introduced into the planning elements in Stage 2 and built upon as
plans are executed: that is, as architecture products are developed and
completed in Stages 3 and 4, respectively.
* Version 1.1 explicitly recognizes the need to address security in the
descriptions of the "as-is" and "to-be" environments; this element is
introduced in Stage 2 and reiterated in Stages 3 and 4.
* Version 1.1 introduces the need to plan for metrics in Stage 2 and to
measure different aspects of enterprise architecture development,
quality, and use in Stages 3, 4, and 5.
Other differences introduced in Version 1.1 affect later stages
implicitly, since each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
For example, in Stage 2, an element has been added that recognizes the
need for adequate resources (people, processes, and technology). This
element appears in Stage 2 explicitly, but it is included in later
stages implicitly. Stage 4 now includes an element requiring that
enterprise architecture products and management processes undergo
independent verification and validation; this element continues in
Stage 5.
In addition, two core elements, both in Stage 2, have been altered from
Version 1.0, as follows:
* Enterprise architecture maintenance, in addition to development, is
now included among the responsibilities of the program office.
* The use of an enterprise architecture methodology is added to the use
of a framework and automated tool in developing the architecture.
Last, the sequence of two elements (the policies on maintenance and on
IT investment compliance with the architecture) is reversed in Version
1.1. That is, maintenance policy is now associated with Stage 4 and
investment compliance with Stage 5. This reordering reflects greater
alignment of these elements with the definitions of their respective
framework stages.
Finally, several new elements were added to Stage 5 that provide for
maximizing the value and use of the enterprise architecture by keeping
it current and using it to manage change (including the existence of a
process to formally manage enterprise architecture change, the
enterprise architecture being an integral component of the IT
investment management process, the periodic updating of enterprise
architecture products, and the compliance of IT investments with the
enterprise architecture). These and the other changes are summarized in
table 4.
Table 4: Changes in Our EAMMF Version 1.1:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; New element or new aspect of
element: (No element specified.); Type of change: --.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; New element or
new aspect of element: The EA program should have adequate resources;
Type of change: New element.
New element or new aspect of element: A maintenance element was added
to EA program office responsibilities; Type of change: Revised
element.
New element or new aspect of element: The EA should be developed using
a methodology; Type of change: Revised element.
New element or new aspect of element: EA plans must call for describing
the "as-is" and "to-be" environments of the enterprise and a sequencing
plan for moving from the "as-is" to the "to-be" environment, instead of
calling for describing only one or more of these elements; Type of
change: Revised element.
New element or new aspect of element: EA plans must address all
descriptions of the "as-is" and "to-be" environments of the enterprise
(e.g., business, information/data), instead of addressing only one or
more of these descriptions; Type of change: Revised element.
New element or new aspect of element: "Performance" is added to the
terms in which the "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described;
Type of change: Revised element.
New element or new aspect of element: EA plans are to call for security
to be explicitly addressed in all descriptions of the enterprise; Type
of change: New element.
New element or new aspect of element: EA plans should call for
developing metrics for measuring EA progress, quality, compliance, and
return on investment; Type of change: New element.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing the EA; New element or new aspect of
element: "Performance" is added to the terms in which the "as-is" and
"to-be" environments are described; Type of change: Revised element.
New element or new aspect of element: EA products are to call for
security to be explicitly addressed in all descriptions of the
enterprise; Type of change: New element.
New element or new aspect of element: Progress against EA plans is
measured and reported; Type of change: New element.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing the EA; New element or new aspect of
element: Written and approved organizational policy exists for EA
maintenance; Type of change: Moved element.
New element or new aspect of element: EA products and management
processes should undergo independent verification and validation; Type
of change: New element.
New element or new aspect of element: "Performance" is added to the
terms in which the "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described;
Type of change: Revised element.
New element or new aspect of element: EA products explicitly address
security in all descriptions of the enterprise; Type of change: New
element.
New element or new aspect of element: Quality of EA products is
measured and reported; Type of change: New element.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA to manage change; New element or new
aspect of element: Written and approved organizational policy exists
for IT investment compliance with EA; Type of change: Moved element.
New element or new aspect of element: Process exists to formally manage
EA change; Type of change: New element.
New element or new aspect of element: EA is integral component of IT
investment management process; Type of change: New element.
New element or new aspect of element: EA products are periodically
updated; Type of change: New element.
New element or new aspect of element: IT investments comply with EA;
Type of change: New element.
New element or new aspect of element: The organization head has
approved the current version of the EA; Type of change: Revised
element.
New element or new aspect of element: Return on EA investment is
measured and reported; Type of change: New element.
New element or new aspect of element: Compliance with EA is measured
and reported; Type of change: New element.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Our 2001 Survey Showed the Immature State of Federal Agency
Architecture Management:
We first surveyed enterprise architecture management maturity across
the federal government in 2001, and we reported in February
2002[Footnote 26] that about 52 percent of federal agencies reported
having at least the management foundation that is needed to begin
successfully developing, implementing, and maintaining an enterprise
architecture, and that about 48 percent of agencies had not yet
advanced to that basic stage of maturity. At the other extreme, about 4
percent of federal agencies' enterprise architecture efforts had
matured to the point that they could be considered effective, with one
agency attaining the highest stage of maturity. This overall state of
affairs was consistent for the three agency types that we surveyed:
cabinet-level departments (e.g., Treasury); department component
agencies (e.g., IRS, which is a component of Treasury); and independent
agencies (e.g., Social Security Administration).
We also reported that the state of architecture management across the
federal government was attributable to four management challenges that
agencies reported facing as they attempt to develop and use
architectures. These challenges were (1) overcoming limited executive
understanding, (2) inadequate funding, (3) insufficient skilled staff,
and (4) organizational parochialism. Additionally, we recognized OMB's
efforts to promote and oversee agencies' enterprise architecture
efforts. Nevertheless, we determined that OMB's leadership and
oversight could be improved by, for example, using a more structured
means of measuring agencies' progress and by addressing the above
management challenges. To this end, our February 2002 report provided
OMB with the necessary baseline data, improvement framework, and
several recommendations. OMB generally agreed with our findings and
conclusions in that report and stated that it would consider our
recommendations.
Agencies Are Making Limited Architecture Management Progress; Most
Programs Remain Immature:
Our 2003 survey results indicate that while some individual agencies
have made progress in improving their enterprise architecture
management maturity, progress for the federal government as a whole has
not occurred. Specifically, while about one-fourth of all agencies
improved their enterprise architecture management maturity stage
relative to Version 1.0 of our framework, about one-fourth of all
agencies decreased in maturity and about one-half of all agencies
remained at the same stage. Furthermore, the more demanding standard
established by our framework Version 1.1 caused a decline in agency
maturity levels, demonstrating that improvements are needed before
agencies' enterprise architecture management practices can be
considered effective. The average maturity stage for the 96 responses
included in our survey was 1.76 when measured against Version 1.0 of
our framework and 1.33 when compared with Version 1.1 of our framework.
Appendix IV provides a list of these individual agencies and their
maturity stages.
Agencies' Architecture Management Progress Is Limited:
Overall, little substantial change was revealed in agencies' overall
enterprise architecture maturity when their efforts were compared with
Version 1.0 of our framework. Of the 93 agencies included in both our
2001 and 2003 surveys, 22 agencies (24 percent) increased their
respective EAMMF maturity stages, 24 agencies (26 percent) decreased
their stages, and 47 agencies (51 percent) remained the same.[Footnote
27] (See fig. 3.):
Figure 3: Changes in Maturity Stages from 2001 to 2003 (93 agencies),
Based on EAMMF Version 1.0:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
At the department level,[Footnote 28] 4 departments increased their
maturity stage, 4 decreased, and 6 stayed at the same stage. The
Department of Homeland Security--which began operations as a department
in March 2003--debuted at Stage 3. Although progress for agencies in
the aggregate continued to be limited, departments as a group made the
most progress: the average maturity for the 14 departments that
responded to both the 2001 and 2003 surveys increased from 1.93 to 2.00
against Version 1.0 of the framework. In contrast, component agencies
showed a slight decline in maturity against Version 1.0. Specifically,
of the component agencies that responded to both surveys, 9 increased
their maturity stage, 15 decreased in maturity, and 31 stayed the same,
with the average maturity stage decreasing from 1.69 to 1.62. For
independent agencies that responded to both surveys, 9 increased their
maturity stage, 5 decreased in maturity, and 10 stayed at the same
stage. On average, independent agencies showed an increase in maturity,
from 1.75 to 1.96 against Version 1.0.
Figure 4 summarizes the maturity status of departments, components,
independent agencies, and all agencies, according to Version 1.0 of our
framework, and compares our 2001 and 2003 survey results.
Figure 4: Agencies in Each Maturity Stage, According to EAMMF Version
1.0:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Most agencies that made progress from 2001 to 2003 moved from a lower
maturity stage to Stage 2 or 3 (as shown in fig. 4, most agencies were
clustered in Stages 1 and 2, so this is not unexpected). In particular,
of the 22 agencies that increased their maturity stage, 6 increased
from Stage 1 to Stage 2, and 12 increased from Stage 1 or 2 to Stage 3.
Most agencies that regressed fell to Stage 1 from Stages 2 and 3.
Specifically, of the 24 agencies that decreased their maturity stage,
16 decreased to Stage 1 from Stage 2 or 3. Figure 5 shows the number of
agencies whose maturity levels improved and declined between 2001 and
2003 as measured against Version 1.0 of our maturity framework.
Figure 5: Agencies Whose Maturity Stages Improved or Declined from 2001
to 2003 against EAMMF Version 1.0:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Agencies' progress since our first survey is similarly limited when we
consider the total number of core elements satisfied. The 93 agencies
that responded to both the 2001 and 2003 surveys satisfied an average
of about 11 of the 19 elements in Version 1.0 in both 2001 and 2003. As
a whole, the 93 agencies satisfied about 57 percent of all possible
framework elements in 2001 and about 60 percent of all possible
framework elements in 2003.
From 2001 to 2003, agencies showed improvements in satisfying certain
core elements, but these improvements were offset by declines in agency
satisfaction of other core elements. Examples of core elements where
agency satisfaction significantly improved are as follows:
* "Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits" (about a 38 percent
increase),
* "Chief architect exists" (about a 23 percent improvement), and:
* "EA products are under configuration management" (about an 18 percent
increase).
Examples of core elements where agency satisfaction significantly
declined are as follows:
* "EA products describe 'as-is' environment, 'to-be' environment, and
sequencing plan" (about a 39 percent decrease);
* "EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it" (about a 36 percent
decrease);
* "Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency
head has approved EA" (about a 25 percent decrease); and:
* "Program office responsible for EA development exists" (about a 23
percent decrease).
Figures 6 to 10 show the number of agencies that satisfied the
framework elements in each stage of Version 1.0 in 2001 and in 2003.
Figure 6: Agency Satisfaction of Stage 1 Elements in EAMMF Version 1.0:
2001 versus 2003 Results:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 7: Agency Satisfaction of Stage 2 Elements in EAMMF Version 1.0:
2001 versus 2003 Results:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 8: Agency Satisfaction of Stage 3 Elements in EAMMF Version 1.0:
2001 versus 2003 Results:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 9: Agency Satisfaction of Stage 4 Elements in EAMMF Version 1.0:
2001 versus 2003 Results:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 10: Agency Satisfaction of Stage 5 Elements in EAMMF Version
1.0: 2001 versus 2003 Results:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Appendixes V, VI, and VII provide detailed tables showing each of the
93 agencies' status regarding the elements of the framework.
For the 22 agencies that advanced one or more maturity stages from 2001
to 2003, fulfillment of no single core element resulted in these
advancements. That is, for the 22 agencies, increases in maturity
stages are attributable to the fulfillment of 7 core elements spanning
three stages of maturity. Table 5 shows those newly satisfied core
elements that accounted for increases in maturity stage.
Table 5: Core Elements That Most Frequently Contributed to Maturity
Stage Increases:
Agencies increasing maturity stage:
12 agencies increased maturity from Stage 1 (6 to Stage 2, 6 to Stage
3):
Core elements whose fulfillment most frequently contributed to
increase: Stage 2 elements: Chief architect exists; Number of agencies
fulfilling element: 6 of 12.
Core elements whose fulfillment most frequently contributed to
increase: Stage 2 elements: Program office responsible for EA
development exists; Number of agencies fulfilling element: 6 of 12.
Core elements whose fulfillment most frequently contributed to
increase: Stage 2 elements: Committee or group representing the
enterprise is responsible for directing, overseeing, or approving EA;
Number of agencies fulfilling element: 6 of 12.
Core elements whose fulfillment most frequently contributed to
increase: Stage 2 elements: EA being developed using framework and
automated tool; Number of agencies fulfilling element: 4 of 12.
8 agencies increased maturity from Stage 2 (6 to Stage 3, 1 to Stage
4, 1 to Stage 5);
Core elements whose fulfillment most frequently contributed to
increase: Stage 2 elements: EA products are under configuration
management; Number of agencies fulfilling element: 7 of 8.
Core elements whose fulfillment most frequently contributed to
increase: Stage 2 elements: Written and approved policy exists for EA
development; Number of agencies fulfilling element: 5 of 8.
2 agencies increased maturity from Stage 4;
Core elements whose fulfillment most frequently contributed to
increase: Stage 2 elements: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits;
Number of agencies fulfilling element: 2 of 2.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
As with increases in agency maturity levels, no single core element
accounted for the decreases in agency maturity between our 2001 and
2003 surveys. However, as shown in table 6, the Stage 2 framework
element requiring a program office was the most significant newly
unsatisfied element for the 24 agencies that decreased maturity levels.
Table 6: Core Elements That Most Frequently Contributed to Maturity
Stage Decreases:
Agencies decreasing maturity stage:
16 agencies decreased maturity to Stage 1 (12 from Stage 2, 4 from
Stage 3);
Core elements whose fulfillment most frequently contributed to
decrease: Stage 2 elements: Program office responsible for EA
development exists; Number of agencies not fulfilling element: 13 of
16.
Core elements whose fulfillment most frequently contributed to
decrease: Stage 2 elements: Chief architect exists; Number of agencies
not fulfilling element: 4 of 16.
Agencies decreasing maturity stage: 7 agencies decreased maturity to
Stage 2 (6 from Stage 3, 1 from Stage 4);
Core elements whose fulfillment most frequently contributed to
decrease: Stage 2 elements: Written and approved policy exists for EA
development; Number of agencies not fulfilling element: 6 of 7.
Core elements whose fulfillment most frequently contributed to
decrease: Stage 2 elements: EA products are under configuration
management; Number of agencies not fulfilling element: 3 of 7.
Agencies decreasing maturity stage: 1 agency decreased maturity to
Stage 3 (from Stage 4);
Core elements whose fulfillment most frequently contributed to
decrease: Stage 2 elements: EA products describe "as-is" environment,
"to-be" environment, and sequencing plan; Number of agencies not
fulfilling element: 1 of 1.
Core elements whose fulfillment most frequently contributed to
decrease: Stage 2 elements: EA products describe enterprise's
business--and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Number of agencies not fulfilling element: 1 of 1.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
One factor accounting for decreases in maturity is improved accuracy in
agencies' responses to our survey. Improved accuracy is a function of
(1) improved agency familiarity with and understanding of enterprise
architecture management and our framework since our last survey and (2)
the requirement in our 2003 survey for documentation to support certain
survey responses.
Current State of Architecture Management across Federal Agencies Is Not
Mature:
When compared with Version 1.1 of our framework, the state of
enterprise architecture management across the federal government is not
mature. In particular, about 21 percent of federal agencies (20 of 96)
have the Stage 2 management foundation that is needed to begin
successfully developing, implementing, and maintaining an enterprise
architecture, and about 79 percent of agencies (76 of 96) have not yet
advanced to this basic stage of maturity. One agency, the Executive
Office of the President, provided responses placing it at a stage of
enterprise architecture management maturity that can be considered
mature and effective. This overall state of federal government maturity
is consistent for each of the three groups that make up the 96 agencies
surveyed: departments, component agencies, and independent agencies.
Figure 11 summarizes the maturity status of departments, component
agencies, independent agencies, and all agencies according to Version
1.1 of our framework.
Figure 11: Agencies in Each Stage, According to EAMMF Version 1.1:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
No single core element that was added to our framework contributed
significantly to this situation, but the "methodology" subelement of
the Stage 2 element "EA is being developed with a framework,
methodology, and automated tool" was the most significant factor
keeping agencies from achieving Stage 2. Specifically, the absence of a
"methodology" kept 7 agencies from attaining Stage 2 status.
Nevertheless, certain core elements of Version 1.1 of our framework
were frequently not satisfied by agencies. Of the 31 core elements in
Version 1.1, 17 were not satisfied by over 50 percent of agencies.
Furthermore, 8 elements associated with maturity Stages 4 and 5 were
not satisfied by over 80 percent of agencies. Figures 12 to 16 show how
departments, component agencies, and independent agencies were rated
against each of the Version 1.1 core elements.
Figure 12: Percentage of Departments, Component Agencies, and
Independent Agencies That Satisfied Stage 2 Core Elements of EAMMF
Version 1.1:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 13: Percentage of Departments, Component Agencies, and
Independent Agencies That Satisfied Stage 3 Core Elements of EAMMF
Version 1.1:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 14: Percentage of Departments, Component Agencies, and
Independent Agencies That Satisfied Stage 4 Core Elements of EAMMF
Version 1.1:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 15: Percentage of Departments, Component Agencies, and
Independent Agencies That Satisfied Stage 5 Core Elements of EAMMF
Version 1.1:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Although significant gaps existed across federal agencies in meeting
the core elements of Version 1.1 of the framework, at least 80 percent
of agencies reported performing 8 core elements that were related to
Stages 2 and 3 of our framework. The most often satisfied elements
included the following Stage 2 elements:
* "EA plans call for describing both the 'as-is' and the 'to-be'
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the 'as-is' to the 'to-be'"(about 94 percent);
* "EA plans call for describing both the 'as-is' and the 'to-be'
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology" (about 90 percent); and:
* "EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security"
(about 86 percent).
The most often satisfied elements also included the Stage 3 element:
* "EA products describe or will describe both the 'as-is' and the 'to-
be' environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the 'as-is' to the 'to-be'" (about 88 percent).
In addition, although only one agency has achieved Stage 5, most
agencies reported satisfying the Stage 5 core elements requiring that
IT investments comply with their enterprise architecture (about 80
percent) and that enterprise architecture is an integral component of
IT investment management process (about 69 percent).
Furthermore, 96 percent of agencies in Stages 1 through 4 are
performing at least 1 core element above their current maturity
stage,[Footnote 29] which means that agencies as a whole are, to
varying degrees, performing above their assigned maturity stages.
Specifically, of the 76 agencies at Stage 1, about 95 percent are
performing at least 1 core element in a higher maturity stage. About 35
percent of agencies need to satisfy only 1 additional core element to
advance to at least the next maturity stage. Two of these agencies,
Commerce and the U.S. Mint, could advance two stages by satisfying just
1 additional core element. Commerce, currently a Stage 1 agency, could
advance to Stage 3 by satisfying the framework element "Program office
responsible for development and maintenance exists." The Mint, also
currently a Stage 1 agency, could advance to Stage 3 by satisfying the
framework element "Adequate resources exist.":
Departments, component agencies, and independent agencies had varying
degrees of success satisfying certain core elements within individual
stages. In general, departments had more success satisfying lower stage
elements than did components and independent agencies. In Stage 2, for
example, while 69 percent of departments reported using a framework,
methodology, and automated tool to develop their enterprise
architecture, only 29 percent of components and 50 percent of
independent agencies reported the same. Additionally, in Stage 3, while
81 percent of departments reported that progress against plans is
measured and reported, only 25 percent of components and 25 percent of
independent agencies reported the same. One possible reason for this
situation, which is discussed later in this report, is that OMB's
oversight of agency enterprise architecture efforts focuses on
departments and major independent agencies--not on component agencies.
Although, as a whole, departments satisfied more lower level framework
elements than did component agencies and independent agencies,
departments generally still need to satisfy several lower level
framework elements to achieve a Stage 3 maturity level. On average,
each department needs to satisfy 2 core elements to satisfy all Stage 2
and 3 framework elements.
The maturity stage of a department generally was not indicative of the
maturity of its component agencies. For example, the Departments of
Health and Human Services and Transportation reached Stage 2, while
their component agencies averaged Stage 1. DOD's Global Information
Grid (GIG) architecture[Footnote 30] was at Stage 3 and its Business
Enterprise Architecture was at Stage 1, while DOD components averaged
slightly over 1. Conversely, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
the Treasury were at Stage 1, with their component agencies averaging
higher maturity levels. Component agencies of Commerce showed a
slightly higher maturity level than did component agencies of other
departments. Although the average maturity level of the 56 department
component agencies we surveyed was 1.23, the five Commerce component
agencies showed an average maturity level of 1.80, largely owing to the
maturity levels for the Bureau of the Census (Stage 3), the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (Stage 2), and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (Stage 2). The Department of Agriculture's
maturity level (Stage 1) was the same as the average maturity level of
its component agencies. Figure 16 summarizes the average maturity level
for departments and their respective component agencies.
Figure 16: Maturity Level of Departments and Their Component Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The Department of Defense's Global Information Grid (GIG)
architecture was assessed at Stage 3. The Business Enterprise
Architecture (BEA) was assessed at Stage 1.
[End of figure]
Eight Agencies Are Either at or Close to Achieving Stage 5 Maturity:
The results of our survey and analysis of survey responses against
Version 1.1 of our maturity framework show that the Executive Office of
the President (EOP) is the sole Stage 5 agency. However, 7 other
agencies are close to becoming models of enterprise architecture
management. For example, the DOD GIG architecture and IRS, both of
which attained Stage 3 of Version 1.1, need to satisfy only 3 more
elements to become Stage 5 agencies. To achieve Stage 5, the GIG
architecture needs to satisfy the Stage 4 element "EA products describe
both the 'as-is' and the 'to-be' environments of the enterprise, as
well as a sequencing plan for transitioning from the 'as-is' to the
'to-be' " and the Stage 5 elements "Return on EA investment is measured
and reported" and "Organization head has approved current version of
EA." IRS could become a Stage 5 agency by satisfying the Stage 4
elements "Business, performance, information/data, application/
service, and technology descriptions address security" and "EA products
and management processes undergo independent verification and
validation" and the Stage 5 element "Return on EA investment is
measured and reported." Table 7 shows the agencies that need to satisfy
5 or fewer elements to achieve Stage 5 under Version 1.1.
Table 7: Agencies That Need to Satisfy 5 or Fewer Elements to Achieve
Stage 5:
Agency: Department of Defense, Global Information Grid; Current
maturity stage: 3; Number of elements remaining to achieve Stage 5: 3.
Agency: Internal Revenue Service; Current maturity stage: 3; Number of
elements remaining to achieve Stage 5: 3.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Current maturity stage: 3;
Number of elements remaining to achieve Stage 5: 4.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Current maturity
stage: 3; Number of elements remaining to achieve Stage 5: 5.
Agency: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Current
maturity stage: 2; Number of elements remaining to achieve Stage 5: 5.
Agency: U.S. Mint; Current maturity stage: 1; Number of elements
remaining to achieve Stage 5: 5.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management; Current maturity stage: 1;
Number of elements remaining to achieve Stage 5: 5.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
OMB Has Taken Action to Promote Enterprise Architecture, but
Improvements Have Not Occurred and Management Challenges Remain:
OMB has taken a number of steps to promote, standardize, and improve
enterprise architecture use across the government. For example, OMB now
requires agencies to submit enterprise architectures for review. It
also leads various CIO Council initiatives to develop the FEA,
including associated models, and to facilitate cross-agency efforts and
major initiatives such as e-government. However, despite OMB's actions,
the same management challenges facing agencies 2 years ago have
increased in prevalence, and agencies report mixed results from OMB's
efforts to address these challenges. The persistence of these
challenges can be attributed, at least in part, to the office not
implementing our prior recommendations aimed at addressing them and
improving its enterprise architecture oversight.
OMB Has Taken Steps to Promote Agency Enterprise Architecture:
OMB recognizes the importance of enterprise architectures and has
supported their use since the passage of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996,
with particular emphasis and attention in the last 2 years. For
example, in collaboration with others and us, OMB issued guidance on
the purpose and use of enterprise architectures shortly after passage
of the act.[Footnote 31] It has also incorporated enterprise
architecture considerations into its oversight processes and issued
guidance directing that agency IT investments be based on agency IT
enterprise architectures.[Footnote 32] More recently, it has launched
efforts to promote the development and use of enterprise architectures
through the budget process and various CIO Council initiatives.
As a means of promoting agencies' enterprise architecture use, OMB has
also included requirements for having and using enterprise
architectures as part of the budget process, which began with the
fiscal year 2002 budget cycle and, according to OMB officials, has
continued through the current cycle (fiscal year 2005). More
specifically:
* For the fiscal year 2002 budget cycle, OMB required agency budget
submissions to provide investment plans in several areas, including
enterprise architectures.[Footnote 33]
* For fiscal year 2003, OMB required departments and major agencies
that are CIO Council members to address how IT investment decision
making incorporated architecture alignment and, for agencies that do
not have architectures, to provide a plan for developing one.[Footnote
34] OMB also assessed the status of major department and agency
architectures against the CIO Council's Practical Guide for Federal
Enterprise Architecture and reported the assessment results in the
President's fiscal year 2003 budget. However, this assessment covered
only 23 of the 96 agencies included in this survey, and assessment
results were not reported in a way to permit a clear understanding of
the agencies' enterprise architecture management status or to
facilitate year-to-year progress determinations. For example, for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the assessment resulted in the
following report: "EPA has the fundamental elements of an EA
documented.":
* As part of the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle, OMB again assessed
major department and agency architectures and reported the assessment
results in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget. However, the scope
of the assessment again was not as comprehensive and meaningful as our
survey results and covered only 22 of the 96 agencies included in this
survey. For example, for the Department of Agriculture, OMB reported,
"USDA's EA is continuing to focus on the business, data, application,
and technology layers of the EA. USDA is also working to integrate the
EA efforts throughout the department." Also for the fiscal year 2004
cycle, the office evaluated major IT investment business cases for
consistency with agency architectures and with the FEA business
reference model.
OMB has also worked through the CIO Council, which is co-chaired by
OMB's Deputy Director of Management, to improve enterprise architecture
management and use. Specifically, the CIO Council established the
Architecture and Infrastructure Committee to, for example, develop
simpler and more consistent enterprise architecture terminology and
facilitate cross-agency enterprise architecture efforts. This
committee has three subcommittees that, since being chartered in
October 2002, have organized, appointed leaders, established
membership, and begun implementing plans. The name and objective of
each subcommittee are provided below.
* The Enterprise Architecture Governance Subcommittee was established
to provide policy guidance and advice and assistance in the definition,
design, and implementation of enterprise architecture discipline and
practice throughout the federal government. It is expected to support
the alignment of the FEA with agency enterprise architectures and to
serve as the core federal group providing advocacy for enterprise
architecture integration of business and technology architectures
across state, local, and international boundaries.
* The Emerging Technology Subcommittee was created to identify
technologies with the potential to improve the value and quality of the
FEA.
* The Component Subcommittee is expected to foster the identification,
maturation, use, and reuse of component-based architectures and
architectural components[Footnote 35] in the federal government.
OMB Is Developing a Federal Enterprise Architecture:
OMB's development of the FEA is intended to facilitate governmentwide
improvement through cross-agency analysis and the identification of
duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration,
interoperability, and integration within and across government
agencies. According to OMB, the result will be a more citizen-centered,
customer-focused government that maximizes technology investments to
better achieve mission outcomes. As previously mentioned, the FEA will
be composed of five reference models:
Business reference model. The business reference model serves as the
foundation for the FEA. It is intended to describe the federal
government's businesses, independent of the agencies that perform them.
The model consists of four business areas: (1) services for citizens,
(2) mode of delivery, (3) support delivery of services, and (4)
management of government resources.
These four business areas are decomposed into 39 lines of business,
which are made up of 153 subfunctions. Examples of lines of business
under the services for citizens business area are homeland security,
law enforcement, and economic development. Each of these lines of
business includes a number of subfunctions. For example, for the
homeland security line of business, a subfunction is border and
transportation security; for law enforcement, a subfunction is citizen
protection; and for economic development, a subfunction is financial
sector oversight.
Version 1.0 of the model was released to agencies in July 2002 and was
used in the fiscal year 2004 budget process. According to OMB, Version
1.0 of the model revealed that many federal agencies were involved in
each line of business, and that agencies' proposed fiscal year 2004 IT
investments offered multibillion-dollar consolidation opportunities.
In June 2003, Version 2.0 was released, which, according to OMB,
reflects changes to align the model with other governmentwide
management frameworks (e.g., budget function codes) and improvement
initiatives (e.g., the President's Budget Performance Integration
Initiative) and addresses comments from agencies. OMB expects agencies
to use the model, as part of their capital planning and investment
control processes, to help identify opportunities to consolidate IT
investments across the federal government.
Service component reference model. The service component reference
model is intended to identify and classify IT service (i.e.,
application) components that support federal agencies and promote the
reuse of components across agencies. The model is organized as a
hierarchy, beginning with seven service domains, as shown in table 8.
Table 8: Service Domains and the Capabilities That They Describe:
Service domain: Customer services; Description: Interaction between the
business and the customer, and customer-driven activities (directly
related to the end customer).
Service domain: Process automation services; Description: Automation of
process and management activities that support managing the business.
Service domain: Business management services; Description: Management
and execution of business functions and organizational activities that
maintain continuity across the business.
Service domain: Digital asset services; Description: Generation,
management, and distribution of intellectual capital and electronic
media across the business.
Service domain: Business analytical services; Description: Extraction,
aggregation, and presentation of information to facilitate decision
analysis and business evaluation.
Service domain: Back office services; Description: Management of
transaction-based functions.
Service domain: Support services; Description: Cross-functional
capabilities that are independent of service domains.
Source: OMB.
[End of table]
These service domains are decomposed into 29 service types, which are
further broken down into 168 components. For example, the customer
services domain is made up of 3 service types: customer relationship
management, customer preferences, and customer-initiated assistance.
Components of the customer relationship management service type include
call center management and customer analytics, components of the
customer preferences service type include personalization and
subscriptions, and components of the customer-initiated assistance
service type include on-line help and on-line tutorials.
Version 1.0 of the service component reference model was released in
June 2003. The model is intended to help agencies and OMB identify,
among other things, agencies that are building or have already built
similar service components that can be reused.
Technical reference model. The technical reference model is intended to
describe the standards, specifications, and technologies that
collectively support the secure delivery, exchange, and construction of
service components. The model is made up of the following four core
service areas:
* Service access and delivery: the collection of standards and
specifications that support external access, exchange, and delivery of
service components.
* Service platform and infrastructure: the delivery platforms and
infrastructure that support the construction, maintenance, and
availability of a service component or capabilities.
* Component framework: the underlying foundation, technologies,
standards, and specifications by which service components are built,
exchanged, and deployed.
* Service interface and integration: the collection of technologies,
methodologies, standards, and specifications that govern how agencies
will interface internally and externally with a service component.
Each of these service areas is made up of service categories, which
identify lower levels of technologies, standards, and specifications;
service standards, which define the standards and technologies that
support the service category; and the service specification, which
details the standard specification or the provider of the
specification. For example, within the first core service area (service
access and delivery), an example of a service category is access
channels, and service standards are Web browsers and wireless personal
digital assistants. Examples of service specifications for the Web
browser service standard are Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator.
Version 1.0 of the technical reference model was released in January
2003, followed by Version 1.1, reflecting minor revisions that were
based, in part, on agencies' reviews, in August 2003. The model is
intended to help agencies in defining their target technical
architectures.
Performance reference model. The performance reference model is
intended to describe a set of performance measures for the federal
government (i.e., outcome and output measures for each line of business
and subfunction identified in the business reference model). Thus, the
model is expected to support the measurement of cross-agency
initiatives. Version 1.0 of the model was released in September 2003.
Data and information reference model. The data and information
reference model is intended to describe the type of data and
information that support program and business line operations and the
relationships among these types. Thus, the model is to help describe
the types of interactions and information exchanges that occur between
the government and its customers. OMB plans to release Version 1.0 of
the model in October 2003.
For the fiscal year 2005 budget cycle, OMB officials told us that they
will use the FEA performance, service component, and technical
reference models to evaluate agencies' major IT investments.
Agency responses to our survey indicated high levels of understanding
and support for OMB's FEA work. For example, about 80 percent of
agencies responded that they understand the goals and objectives of the
FEA (about 8 percent did not) and that they support those goals and
objectives (about 6 percent did not), and about 72 percent of agencies
responded that their agency's architecture is traceable to the FEA
(about 6 percent were not). Additionally, about 67 percent responded
that they understand the approach to developing the FEA (about 13
percent did not), and about 63 percent stated that they support this
approach (about 10 percent did not). About 61 percent of agencies
responded that their enterprise architecture would change as a result
of the FEA (about 8 percent would not). (See table 9.):
Table 9: Summary of Agencies' Responses to FEA-Related Statements:
Statement: My agency understands the goals and objectives of the FEA;
Percentage of agencies that agreed: 80; Percentage of agencies that
disagreed: 8; Percentage of agencies that neither agreed nor disagreed:
12.
Statement: My agency supports the goals and objectives of the FEA;
Percentage of agencies that agreed: 80; Percentage of agencies that
disagreed: 6; Percentage of agencies that neither agreed nor disagreed:
14.
Statement: My agency's EA is traceable to the FEA; Percentage of
agencies that agreed: 72; Percentage of agencies that disagreed: 6;
Percentage of agencies that neither agreed nor disagreed: 22.
Statement: My agency understands OMB's approach to developing the FEA;
Percentage of agencies that agreed: 67; Percentage of agencies that
disagreed: 13; Percentage of agencies that neither agreed nor
disagreed: 20.
Statement: My agency supports OMB's approach to developing the FEA;
Percentage of agencies that agreed: 63; Percentage of agencies that
disagreed: 10; Percentage of agencies that neither agreed nor
disagreed: 27.
Statement: My agency's EA will change as a result of the FEA;
Percentage of agencies that agreed: 61; Percentage of agencies that
disagreed: 8; Percentage of agencies that neither agreed nor disagreed:
31.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Prevalence of Long-standing Enterprise Architecture Management
Challenges Is Growing:
Despite OMB's architecture-related activities, agencies continue to
face the same management challenges that we identified 2 years ago--
that is, obtaining top management support and commitment, overcoming
parochialism, and having the requisite resources (financial and human
capital) to get the job done. Moreover, the percentage of agencies
identifying these management challenges has grown. For example, getting
top management to understand the purpose, content, and value of
architectures was seen as a challenge by about 50 percent of agencies-
-up from 39 percent in our last survey. As our framework recognizes,
obtaining executive understanding and support is essential to having an
effective enterprise architecture program. Without it, agencies will
have increased difficulty in addressing other challenges, such as
overcoming parochialism among organizational components and obtaining
requisite resources (funding and human capital). Our survey results
bear this out--at the same time that the percentage of agencies
identifying top management understanding and support as a challenge
rose, the percentage of agencies identifying these other challenges
almost all rose. For example, the percentage that identified
parochialism as a challenge grew from 39 to 47 percent. Also, while 50
percent of agencies continued to report funding as a significant
challenge, the percentage of agencies that reported obtaining skilled
staff as a challenge grew from 32 to 49 percent. (See table 10.):
Table 10: Percentage of Agencies Identifying Particular Enterprise
Architecture Management Challenges:
Management challenge: Fostering top management understanding;
Percentage of agencies that frequently identified management challenge:
2001 survey: 39; Percentage of agencies that frequently identified
management challenge: 2003 survey: 50.
Management challenge: Overcoming parochialism; Percentage of agencies
that frequently identified management challenge: 2001 survey: 39;
Percentage of agencies that frequently identified management challenge:
2003 survey: 47.
Management challenge: Ensuring adequate funding; Percentage of agencies
that frequently identified management challenge: 2001 survey: 50;
Percentage of agencies that frequently identified management challenge:
2003 survey: 50.
Management challenge: Obtaining skilled staff; Percentage of agencies
that frequently identified management challenge: 2001 survey: 32;
Percentage of agencies that frequently identified management challenge:
2003 survey: 49.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Agencies also reported mixed levels of satisfaction with OMB's efforts
to address these management challenges. Specifically, just over half of
agencies were satisfied with OMB's efforts to foster top management
understanding and to overcome agency component organization
parochialism (58 and 53 percent, respectively). Moreover, fewer than
half of agencies (40 percent) were satisfied with OMB's actions to
address their enterprise architecture funding and staffing challenges.
(See table 11.):
Table 11: Percentage of Agencies Satisfied with OMB's Efforts to
Address Various Management Challenges:
Management challenge: Fostering top management understanding;
Percentage of agencies satisfied: 58[A]; Percentage of agencies
dissatisfied: 14[A]; Percentage of agencies neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied: 27[A].
Management challenge: Overcoming parochialism; Percentage of agencies
satisfied: 53; Percentage of agencies dissatisfied: 10; Percentage of
agencies neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 37.
Management challenge: Ensuring adequate funding; Percentage of agencies
satisfied: 40; Percentage of agencies dissatisfied: 26; Percentage of
agencies neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 34.
Management challenge: Obtaining skilled staff; Percentage of agencies
satisfied: 40; Percentage of agencies dissatisfied: 15; Percentage of
agencies neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 45.
Source: GAO.
[A] Numbers do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
OMB Has Yet to Implement Our Recommendations for Addressing
Architecture Management Challenges and Improving Oversight:
Our February 2002 report concluded that OMB needed to advance the level
of enterprise architecture management maturity by exercising improved
oversight and identifying governmentwide solutions to common enterprise
architecture management challenges facing agencies. Specifically, we
recommended that the OMB Director, in collaboration with the federal
CIO Council, use the maturity framework and agency baseline information
provided in our February 2002 report as the basis for helping agencies
to advance the state of their respective enterprise architecture
development, implementation, and maintenance efforts, and for measuring
agency progress. We further recommended that in doing so, the director
require each of the 116 agencies surveyed in our 2002 report to
(1) submit to OMB an annual update of the agency's satisfaction of each
of the core elements contained in the maturity framework and (2) have
this update verified by the agency's inspector general or comparable
audit function before it is submitted to OMB.
Additionally, we recommended in our 2002 report that the OMB Director,
in collaboration with the CIO Council, develop and implement a plan to
address the governmentwide impediments to greater agency use of
enterprise architectures. We recommended that, at a minimum, this plan
should include the two primary challenges identified in the 2002
report--that is, agency executive management understanding of
enterprise architectures and the availability of enterprise
architecture human capital expertise. Finally, we recommended that the
director report annually to the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform on the results of
OMB's annual update of the state and progress of federal agencies'
enterprise architecture efforts.
OMB officials generally agreed with the findings and conclusions of our
2002 report and stated that they would consider using our framework.
However, after 18 months, office officials told us that they are still
considering using our framework as a basis for evaluating agencies'
progress in developing and implementing their architectures, but had
not committed to doing so because they were still reviewing the options
for evaluating agencies' progress in developing and implementing their
enterprise architectures using our framework and other potential tools.
Additionally, the office did not report any plans to address
governmentwide impediments to greater agency use of architectures.
Further, OMB reported that it has and plans to continue to provide
information to the Congress on the state of agency enterprise
architecture efforts and on progress in implementing the FEA.
Conclusions:
Overall, the federal government's state of enterprise architecture
management remains less than satisfactory, with little progress being
made over the last 2 years. As a result, most federal agencies continue
to run the serious risk of investing in IT solutions that will not
overcome, but rather will perpetuate, long-standing incompatibilities
and duplication within agency operational and systems environments. OMB
has taken steps to promote the development and use of enterprise
architectures; however, these steps have yet to produce desired
results. It is thus important for OMB to take additional actions, such
as those that we have previously recommended and OMB has yet to
implement. To do less risks continued exposure of agency IT investments
to the unnecessary risk of being duplicative, incompatible, and
needlessly costly.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We reiterate the recommendations we made in our February 2002 report on
the governmentwide status of enterprise architecture use, with the
modification that OMB use Version 1.1 of our framework and the baseline
data from our 2003 survey included in this report, rather than Version
1.0 of our framework and our 2001 survey data.
Additionally, we recommend that the OMB Director, in developing and
implementing the plan we previously recommended to address
governmentwide impediments to greater agency use of enterprise
architectures, ensure that the plan provides for identifying agencies
that have effectively overcome enterprise architecture management
challenges and sharing those and other lessons learned and best
practices. Also, we recommend that the director, in annually reporting
to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee
on Government Reform, as we previously recommended, include in the
report what steps have been taken to implement our recommendations,
including reasons for not adopting our maturity framework.
Agency Comments:
In oral comments on a draft of this report, officials from OMB's Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs and the Federal Enterprise
Architecture Program Management Office stated that they generally
agreed with our findings and recommendations. They also stated that
they agreed with the need for agency assessments using Version 1.1 of
our framework, and that these assessments should be independently
verified. They added that fully implementing our recommendations would
require sustained management attention.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to
interested congressional committees, the OMB Director, and agencies
that participated in our survey. We will also provide copies to others
on request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact
me at (202) 512-3439 or by e-mail at [Hyperlink, hiter@gao.gov]
hiter@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
IX.
Randolph C. Hite:
Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues:
Signed by Randolph C. Hite:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Agencies Indicated Architecture Benefits and Experiences
with the Use of Tools, Frameworks, Methodologies, and Contractors:
In response to our 2003 survey, agencies reported additional
information related to the implementation of their enterprise
architectures. This information includes architecture benefits and
architecture tool, framework, methodology, and contractor experiences.
Agencies Reported Various Architecture Benefits:
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) policy, Chief Information Officer
(CIO) Council guidance, and our research and reviews of agencies'
management of information technology (IT) have identified multiple
benefits of effectively using enterprise architectures, including
avoiding duplication between IT systems, promoting integration of
systems, reducing system-related costs, and optimizing agency mission
performance. Agency responses to our 2001 survey affirmed these and
offered additional benefits, such as lower system-related costs and
benefits related to enhanced productivity and improved efficiency.
Agencies responding to our 2003 survey reported similar benefits. For
example, benefits related to improved systems interoperability were
cited by 53 percent of agencies, while improved organization and change
management were cited by 51 percent of agencies. Also, enhanced
productivity and lower system-related costs were cited by 41 percent
and 39 percent, respectively. Table 12 shows the benefits that were
most frequently identified by survey respondents. One new benefit cited
by 56 percent of agencies was the use of "enterprise licenses." Such
licenses take advantage of the economies of scale associated with
purchasing a large number of commercial product licenses.
Table 12: Frequently Identified Enterprise Architecture Benefits by
Federal Agencies:
Benefits: Lower system-related costs; Percentage of agencies that
identified benefits: 2001 survey: 53; Percentage of agencies that
identified benefits: 2003 survey: 39.
Benefits: Enhanced productivity; Percentage of agencies that identified
benefits: 2001 survey: 49; Percentage of agencies that identified
benefits: 2003 survey: 41.
Benefits: Improved organization and change management; Percentage of
agencies that identified benefits: 2001 survey: 41; Percentage of
agencies that identified benefits: 2003 survey: 51.
Benefits: Improved systems interoperability; Percentage of agencies
that identified benefits: 2001 survey: 24; Percentage of agencies that
identified benefits: 2003 survey: 53.
Benefits: Enterprise licenses; Percentage of agencies that identified
benefits: 2001 survey: --; Percentage of agencies that identified
benefits: 2003 survey: 56.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Agencies Reported Using a Variety of Enterprise Architecture Tools with
Varying Degrees of Satisfaction:
An automated enterprise architecture tool serves as the repository of
architecture artifacts, which are work products that are produced and
used to capture and convey architectural information. An agency's
choice of tool should be based on a number of considerations, including
agency needs and the size and complexity of the architecture.[Footnote
36]
Agencies reported using various automated tools to develop and maintain
their enterprise architectures. The most commonly identified
architecture products were Microsoft Office (72 agencies), System
Architect (31 agencies), the Enterprise Architecture Management System
(18 agencies), Rational Rose (17 agencies), Metis (11 agencies), and
Framework (7 agencies). Forty-one agencies reported using "other"
architecture products. Figure 17 indicates the proportion of agencies
that indicated using each architecture tool.
Figure 17: Enterprise Architecture Tools Used by Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Agencies reported different levels of satisfaction with the enterprise
architecture tools they are using. As shown in table 13, about 68
percent of agencies using System Architect were satisfied,[Footnote 37]
about 73 percent of agencies using Metis were satisfied, and about 61
percent of agencies using Microsoft's Office Suite were satisfied. In
contrast, about 17 percent of agencies using the EA Management System
were satisfied (about 67 percent of agencies using EA Management System
responded that it was too early to comment on satisfaction levels), and
about 41 and 43 percent of agencies using Rational Rose and Framework,
respectively, were satisfied. With respect to agencies' dissatisfaction
with their tools, about 3 percent of agencies using System Architect
were dissatisfied, and about 13 percent of agencies using Microsoft's
Office Suite were dissatisfied. Also, about 11 percent of agencies
using the EA Management System were dissatisfied, and about 12 and
about 29 percent of agencies using Rational Rose and Framework,
respectively, were dissatisfied with those tools. No agencies using
Metis were dissatisfied.
Table 13: Federal Agencies' Satisfaction with Automated Enterprise
Architecture Tools:
Name of automated tool: EA Management System; Number of agencies using
tool: 18; Agency response (percent): Very satisfied or satisfied: 17;
Agency response (percent): Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 6;
Agency response (percent): Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 11; Agency
response (percent): Too early to say: 67.
Name of automated tool: Framework (Ptech, Inc.); Number of agencies
using tool: 7; Agency response (percent): Very satisfied or satisfied:
43; Agency response (percent): Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 29;
Agency response (percent): Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 29; Agency
response (percent): Too early to say: --.
Name of automated tool: Metis (Computas NA, Inc.); Number of agencies
using tool: 11; Agency response (percent): Very satisfied or satisfied:
73; Agency response (percent): Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: --;
Agency response (percent): Somewhat or very dissatisfied: --; Agency
response (percent): Too early to say: 27.
Name of automated tool: Office Suite (Microsoft, Inc.); Number of
agencies using tool: 72; Agency response (percent): Very satisfied or
satisfied: 61; Agency response (percent): Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied: 24; Agency response (percent): Somewhat or very
dissatisfied: 13; Agency response (percent): Too early to say: 1.
Name of automated tool: Rational Rose (Rational/IBM); Number of
agencies using tool: 17; Agency response (percent): Very satisfied or
satisfied: 41; Agency response (percent): Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied: 18; Agency response (percent): Somewhat or very
dissatisfied: 12; Agency response (percent): Too early to say: 29.
Name of automated tool: System Architect (Popkin); Number of agencies
using tool: 31; Agency response (percent): Very satisfied or satisfied:
68; Agency response (percent): Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 3;
Agency response (percent): Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 3; Agency
response (percent): Too early to say: 26.
Name of automated tool: Other; Number of agencies using tool: 41;
Agency response (percent): Very satisfied or satisfied: 66; Agency
response (percent): Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 27; Agency
response (percent): Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 2; Agency response
(percent): Too early to say: 5.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Agencies Reported Using a Variety of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks
with Varying Levels of Satisfaction:
An enterprise architecture framework (or model) provides a formal
structure for representing the architecture and serves as the basis for
the nature and content of the specific products that the agency plans
to develop, use, and maintain. As such, a framework helps to ensure the
consistent representation of information from across the organization
and supports orderly capture and maintenance of architecture content.
Agencies reported using various frameworks. The most frequently cited
frameworks in our survey responses were the Federal Enterprise
Architecture Framework (FEAF) (61 agencies), the Federal Enterprise
Architecture Program Management Office (FEAPMO) Reference Models (56
agencies), and the Zachman Framework (36 agencies).[Footnote 38] Figure
18 indicates the proportion of agencies that indicated using each
framework. Other frameworks used included the Treasury Enterprise
Architecture Framework (TEAF); the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Framework (NIST framework); the Command, Control,
Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Framework; and the Department of Defense
Architecture Framework (DoDAF).
Figure 18: Enterprise Architecture Frameworks Used by Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Agencies reported different levels of satisfaction with the enterprise
architecture frameworks they are using, as shown in table 14. The
levels of satisfaction[Footnote 39] ranged from 81 percent, reported by
agencies using the Zachman Framework, to 45 percent, reported by
agencies using the NIST framework. As table 14 shows, few agencies
reported being dissatisfied out of 209 responses.[Footnote 40]
Table 14: Federal Agencies Enterprise Architecture Framework
Satisfaction Levels:
Agency response (percent): Command, Control, Communications,
Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Framework:
Very satisfied or satisfied.
Name of framework: Command, Control, Communications, Computers,
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Framework; Number of
agencies using framework: 15; Agency response (percent): 67; Agency
response (percent): Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 27; Agency
response (percent): Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 7; Agency response
(percent): Too early: to say: --.
Name of framework: Department of Defense Architecture Framework; Number
of agencies using framework: 11; Agency response (percent): 64; Agency
response (percent): Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 18; Agency
response (percent): Somewhat or very dissatisfied: --; Agency response
(percent): Too early: to say: 18.
Name of framework: Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework; Number of
agencies using framework: 61; Agency response (percent): 61; Agency
response (percent): Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 16; Agency
response (percent): Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 10; Agency response
(percent): Too early: to say: 13.
Name of framework: Federal Enterprise Architecture Reference Models;
Number of agencies using framework: 56; Agency response (percent): 48;
Agency response (percent): Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 18;
Agency response (percent): Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 7; Agency
response (percent): Too early: to say: 27.
Name of framework: National Institute of Standards and Technology
Framework; Number of agencies using framework: 11; Agency response
(percent): 45; Agency response (percent): Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied: 27; Agency response (percent): Somewhat or very
dissatisfied: 9; Agency response (percent): Too early: to say: 18.
Name of framework: Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework; Number
of agencies using framework: 9; Agency response (percent): 78; Agency
response (percent): Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 22; Agency
response (percent): Somewhat or very dissatisfied: --; Agency response
(percent): Too early: to say: --.
Name of framework: Zachman Framework; Number of agencies using
framework: 36; Agency response (percent): 81; Agency response
(percent): Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 6; Agency response
(percent): Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 3; Agency response (percent):
Too early: to say: 11.
Name of framework: Other; Number of agencies using framework: 10;
Agency response (percent): 80; Agency response (percent): Neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied: --; Agency response (percent): Somewhat or
very dissatisfied: --; Agency response (percent): Too early: to say: -
-.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Less Than Half of Federal Agencies Had Selected an Enterprise
Architecture Methodology:
An enterprise architecture methodology provides a common set of
procedures for developing architecture products and, if implemented
properly, helps to ensure consistency in the procedures used across the
organization for developing and maintaining the enterprise
architecture. An organization's methodology or methodologies should
govern how the architecture products will be developed, maintained, and
validated. Methodologies need to be documented, understood, and
consistently applied. They should prescribe the standards, steps,
tools, techniques, and measures to be used to provide reasonable
assurance that expected product quality is attained.
Less than half (41 percent) of the federal agencies that we surveyed
had selected a methodology. About 55 percent (23 of 42) of the
methodologies that agencies reported using were Spewak's enterprise
architecture planning methodology[Footnote 41] or a variation. Four of
the remaining 19 methodologies were developed by META Group, and 2 were
developed by Gartner, Inc. Two agencies cited James Martin's
Information Strategy Planning, and 2 agencies cited the Department of
Commerce's Enterprise Architecture Methodology. The remaining 21
percent (9 of 42) were unique methodologies.
Most Agencies Reported Using Contractor Support for Developing
Enterprise Architectures:
Agencies reported heavy use of contractor support for developing their
respective architectures. Most agencies (72 of 92 agencies that
responded to this question--78 percent) stated that their architectures
were developed in-house with contractor support. Ten agencies (11
percent) reported that contractors developed their enterprise
architectures. Ten agencies (11 percent) reported that they developed
their enterprise architectures in-house without any contractor support.
Table 15 describes the level of contractor use, by agency type.
Table 15: Federal Agencies' Use of Contractors in Developing Their
Enterprise Architectures:
Agency type: Department; Developed by contractor(s): 3; Developed in-
house, contractor supported: 12; Developed in-house, exclusively: 1.
Agency type: Component agencies; Developed by contractor(s): 7;
Developed in-house, contractor supported: 41; Developed in-house,
exclusively: 5.
Agency type: Independent agencies; Developed by contractor(s): --;
Developed in-house, contractor supported: 19; Developed in-house,
exclusively: 4.
Agency type: Total; Developed by contractor(s): 10; Developed in-house,
contractor supported: 72; Developed in-house, exclusively: 10.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Cost Data Related to Implementing Enterprise Architectures
Varied, with Personnel Accounting for Most Costs:
Agency-reported data revealed a wide variance in the cost of
developing, completing, and maintaining enterprise architectures.
Agencies generally reported that their architecture development costs
could be allocated to several categories, with the majority of costs
attributable to agency and contractor personnel.
Departments' Investment in Architecture Varied More Widely than
Component and Independent Agencies':
As we have previously reported, the scope and nature of the enterprise
and the extent of enterprise transformation and modernization
envisioned will dictate the depth and detail of the architecture to be
developed and maintained. Restated, the architecture should be tailored
to the individual enterprise and that enterprise's intended use of the
architecture. Accordingly, the level of resources that an agency
invests in its architecture is likely to vary. Agency responses to our
survey showed this to be the case.
Agencies that reported cost data reported $599 million being spent to
date on the development of architectures, with individual agency
development costs to date ranging from $5,000 to $248 million.
Departments' architecture development costs varied more than component
and independent agencies' costs, while component agencies reported
spending the most to date, with independent agencies spending the
least. Agencies reported estimated costs to complete architecture
development ranging from $3,000 to $319 million, and annual estimated
maintenance costs ranging from $1,000 to $36 million. Figures 19
through 27 depict the variability of cost data reported by departments,
component agencies, and independent agencies.
Figure 19: Development Costs to Date for Departments:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 20: Development Costs to Date for Component Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 21: Development Costs to Date for Independent Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 22: Estimated Completion Costs for Departments:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 23: Estimated Completion Costs for Component Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 24: Estimated Completion Costs for Independent Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 25: Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs for Departments:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 26: Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs for Component Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 27: Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs for Independent Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Agency and Contractor Personnel Accounted for the Majority of
Architecture Development Costs:
Of the $599 million reported in architecture development costs,
agencies allocated $511 million to the following seven cost categories
that we identified in our questionnaire: agency personnel, contractor
personnel, tools, methodologies, independent validation and
verification, training, and other.[Footnote 42] For those agencies that
reported and allocated costs, the majority of these costs were for
agency and contractor personnel--$116.7 million (23 percent) were
attributed to agency personnel and $188.9 million (37 percent) were
attributed to contractor personnel. About $193.3 million (38 percent)
were attributed to "other" costs,[Footnote 43] $7.1 million (1 percent)
to architecture tools, and $3.9 million (eight-tenths of 1 percent) to
independent validation and verification contract personnel. Further,
$1.0 million (two-tenths of 1 percent) of costs were attributed to
methodologies and another $1.0 million (two-tenths of 1 percent) to
training. Figure 28 shows the architecture development costs by
category.
Figure 28: Enterprise Architecture Development Costs by Category--All
Respondents:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Table 16 shows enterprise architecture development, completion, and
maintenance costs for each agency that provided cost data.[Footnote 44]
Table 16: Cost Data Reported by Agencies:
Agency: Department of Agriculture; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: $380,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: $2,641,900; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: --.
Agency: Agricultural Marketing Service; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: --; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
--.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 38,200; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
--.
Agency: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 200,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
Reported costs, by category: Development to date: 78,960; Reported
costs, by category: Estimate to complete: --; Reported costs, by
category: Annual maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: Food and Nutrition Service; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 31,200; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
--.
Agency: Food Safety and Inspection Service; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 300,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 600,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: $100,000.
Agency: Foreign Agricultural Service; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 30,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: 330,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 10,000.
Agency: Forest Service; Reported costs, by category: Development to
date: 1,445,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to complete:
5,830,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
590,000.
Agency: Risk Management Agency; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: --; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
--.
Agency: Service Center Modernization Initiative; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: --; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: Department of Commerce; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 450,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: 455,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 340,000.
Agency: Bureau of the Census; Reported costs, by category: Development
to date: 1,297,744; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to complete:
--; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate: 418,467.
Agency: Economic Development Administration; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 25,600; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 76,500; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 64,500.
Agency: International Trade Administration; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 70,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 430,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Reported
costs, by category: Development to date: 16,100,000; Reported costs, by
category: Estimate to complete: 4,500,000; Reported costs, by category:
Annual maintenance estimate: 1,550,000.
Agency: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 2,000,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 2,200,400; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 2,350,000.
Agency: Department of Defense--Business Enterprise Architecture;
Reported costs, by category: Development to date: 73,534,000; Reported
costs, by category: Estimate to complete: --; Reported costs, by
category: Annual maintenance estimate: 29,700,000.
Agency: Department of Defense--Global Information Grid Architecture;
Reported costs, by category: Development to date: 14,480,000; Reported
costs, by category: Estimate to complete: --; Reported costs, by
category: Annual maintenance estimate: 4,750,000.
Agency: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 583,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 728,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 405,000.
Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: --; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: Defense Commissary Agency; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 3,229,832; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 1,747,264.
Agency: Defense Contract Audit Agency; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 498,020; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: 205,840; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 459,120.
Agency: Defense Contract Management Agency; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 119,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 42,500.
Agency: Defense Information Systems Agency; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 290,500; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 1,043,500; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 383,000.
Agency: Defense Intelligence Agency; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 2,160,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 670,000.
Agency: Defense Logistics Agency; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 4,274,055; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 1,940,256; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 1,567,622.
Agency: Defense Security Cooperation Agency; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 30,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 70,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 20,000.
Agency: Defense Security Service; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: --; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
--.
Agency: Defense Threat Reduction Agency; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 1,616,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 6,448,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 1,680,000.
Agency: Department of the Air Force; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 40,000,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 300,000,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 15,000,000.
Agency: Department of the Army; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 247,822,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 318,658,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 35,569,000.
Agency: Department of the Navy; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 19,619,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 5,000,000.
Agency: National Imagery and Mapping Agency; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: --; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: Department of Education; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 8,580,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 27,865,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 4,710,000.
Agency: Department of Energy; Reported costs, by category: Development
to date: 4,190,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to complete:
9,000,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
5,000,000.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 220,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 7,850,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 4,850,000.
Agency: Administration for Children and Families; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 1,620,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 440,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 290,000.
Agency: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 51,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 1,157,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 2,628,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 813,000.
Agency: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 6,044,350; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: Food and Drug Administration; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 1,408,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 4,353,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 403,000.
Agency: Health Resources and Services Administration; Reported costs,
by category: Development to date: 125,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: Indian Health Service; Reported costs, by category: Development
to date: 121,334; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to complete: -
-; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: Program Support Center; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: --; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
--.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 2,250,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 12,475,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 626,750.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 7,100,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 3,900,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 5,800,000.
Agency: Department of the Interior; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 2,800,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 17,300,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 9,000,000.
Agency: Department of Justice; Reported costs, by category: Development
to date: --; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to complete: --;
Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Reported
costs, by category: Development to date: 2,173,000; Reported costs, by
category: Estimate to complete: 1,058,000; Reported costs, by category:
Annual maintenance estimate: 2,429,123.
Agency: Drug Enforcement Administration; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 267,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
--.
Agency: Federal Bureau of Investigation; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: --; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: 1,445,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 520,000.
Agency: Federal Bureau of Prisons; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 280,020; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
9,600.
Agency: U.S. Marshals Service; Reported costs, by category: Development
to date: --; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to complete: --;
Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: Department of Labor; Reported costs, by category: Development
to date: 4,800,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to complete:
1,390,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
954,000.
Agency: Department of State; Reported costs, by category: Development
to date: 4,635,068; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to complete:
3,871,720; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
1,907,110.
Agency: Department of Transportation; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 2,645,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 1,930,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 780,000.
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 28,053,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 13,480,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 2,890,000.
Agency: Federal Highway Administration; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 37,500; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: 37,500; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: --.
Agency: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 2,427,275; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 478,860; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 240,000.
Agency: Federal Railroad Administration; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 178,500; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: 635,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 123,500.
Agency: Federal Transit Administration; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 314,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: 7,250; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 30,720.
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Reported costs,
by category: Development to date: 373,554; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 161,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 340,000.
Agency: Department of the Treasury; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 1,296,500; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 2,700,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 300,000.
Agency: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 1,282,500; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 313,500; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 313,500.
Agency: Bureau of the Public Debt; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 1,238,479; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 1,505,605; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 470,500.
Agency: Comptroller of the Currency; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 245,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: 190,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 270,800.
Agency: Financial Management Service; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 2,010,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 3,032,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 420,000.
Agency: Internal Revenue Service; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 38,800,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 4,190,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 6,030,000.
Agency: Office of Thrift Supervision; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: --; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
--.
Agency: U.S. Mint; Reported costs, by category: Development to date:
1,042,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to complete:
1,340,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
540,000.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 8,717,400; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 14,000,000.
Independent agencies:
Agency: Agency for International Development; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 7,700,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 12,900,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 13,900,000.
Agency: Central Intelligence Agency; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 1,500,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 1,770,000.
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Services; Reported
costs, by category: Development to date: 15,500; Reported costs, by
category: Estimate to complete: 7,500; Reported costs, by category:
Annual maintenance estimate: 3,000.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 4,770,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 7,450,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 4,875,000.
Agency: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 370,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 121,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 58,000.
Agency: Executive Office of the President; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 1,155,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 520,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 750,000.
Agency: Export-Import Bank; Reported costs, by category: Development to
date: 500,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to complete:
390,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
125,000.
Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 591,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: --; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 204,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 82,000.
Agency: Federal Reserve System; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: --; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
350,000.
Agency: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: --; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: General Services Administration; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 4,333,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 2,891,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 55,000.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Reported costs,
by category: Development to date: 650,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 350,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 200,000.
Agency: National Credit Union Administration; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 5,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 1,000.
Agency: National Labor Relations Board; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 631,366; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: 157,842; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 134,152.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 3,627,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 5,368,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 966,000.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: --; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: --; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
1,000,000.
Agency: Peace Corps; Reported costs, by category: Development to date:
755,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to complete: 969,000;
Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate: 463,000.
Agency: Railroad Retirement Board; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 434,018; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: 3,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 379,277.
Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission; Reported costs, by
category: Development to date: 900,000; Reported costs, by category:
Estimate to complete: 3,000,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual
maintenance estimate: 1,450,000.
Agency: Small Business Administration; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 1,330,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 583,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 222,000.
Agency: Smithsonian Institution; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 206,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to
complete: 286,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 78,000.
Agency: Social Security Administration; Reported costs, by category:
Development to date: 2,365,000; Reported costs, by category: Estimate
to complete: 350,000; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance
estimate: 880,000.
Agency: U.S. Postal Service; Reported costs, by category: Development
to date: --; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to complete: --;
Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate: --.
Agency: Total; Reported costs, by category: Development to date:
$599,022,475; Reported costs, by category: Estimate to complete:
$805,284,173; Reported costs, by category: Annual maintenance estimate:
$194,219,505.
Source: GAO.
Note: Dashes indicate that no cost data were provided.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to determine (1) what progress federal agencies
have made in effectively developing, implementing, and maintaining
their enterprise architectures and (2) the actions of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to advance the state of enterprise
architecture development and use across the federal government.
To address our objectives, we obtained and reviewed relevant guidance
on enterprise architectures, such as OMB Circular A-130[Footnote 45]
and guidance published by the federal Chief Information Officers (CIO)
Council, including the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework
Version 1.1[Footnote 46] and the Practical Guide.[Footnote 47] We also
researched our past reports and guidance on the management and use of
enterprise architectures, including the results of our 2001
governmentwide enterprise architecture survey[Footnote 48] and our
enterprise architecture management maturity framework.[Footnote 49]
Next, we used the CIO Council's Practical Guide and our enterprise
architecture management maturity framework to develop two data
collection instruments--one for federal departments and one for
agencies that are either components within a department or are
independent (see app. VIII). We pretested our survey instruments at one
federal department and one component agency.
To ensure consistency and comparability with our 2001 governmentwide
enterprise architecture survey, we based our survey population on the
same 116 agencies, with appropriate additions and deletions. These
agencies consisted of all cabinet-level departments, major component
agencies within departments,[Footnote 50] and other independent
agencies. We modified our 2001 survey population to reflect the federal
government's reorganization of March 1, 2003, in which the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) and its directorates (i.e., component
agencies) became operational, resulting in the addition of 5 agencies.
At the same time, the establishment of DHS resulted in 4 agencies that
were included in our 2001 survey being eliminated from our survey
population because they were absorbed into DHS directorates. We also
eliminated the U.S. Marine Corps as a separate agency within our
population so that the Department of the Navy, at its request, could
provide a single response for the Navy and the Marine Corps. Table 17
lists additions to and deletions from our 2001 survey population and
provides explanations for each change.
Table 17: Summary of Differences between 2001 and 2003 Survey
Populations:
Agency: DHS; Inclusion in survey: In 2003, but not in 2001;
Explanation: Became operational on March 1, 2003.
Agency: DHS, Directorate of Border and Transportation Security;
Inclusion in survey: In 2003, but not in 2001.
Agency: DHS, Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response;
Inclusion in survey: In 2003, but not in 2001.
Agency: DHS, Directorate of Science and Technology; Inclusion in
survey: In 2003, but not in 2001.
Agency: DHS, Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection; Inclusion in survey: In 2003, but not in 2001.
Agency: U.S. Customs Service; Inclusion in survey: In 2001,
but not in 2003; Explanation: Became part of DHS, Directorate of Border
and Transportation Security, effective March 1, 2003.
Agency: Immigration and Naturalization Service; Inclusion in survey:
In 2001, but not in 2003.
Agency: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; Inclusion in survey:
In 2001, but not in 2003.
Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency; Inclusion in
survey: In 2001, but not in 2003; Explanation: Became part of DHS,
Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response, effective March 1,
2003.
Agency: U.S. Marine Corps; Inclusion in survey: In 2001, but
not in 2003; Explanation: Department of the Navy provided a
consolidated response for the Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
For each of the 116 agencies, we identified the CIO or comparable
official and notified them of our work and distributed the appropriate
survey instrument to designated officials via e-mail. We also discussed
the purpose and content of the survey instrument with agency officials
when requested. After receiving our survey, officials from DHS and the
Departments of the Interior and Veterans Affairs told us that their
respective architectures cover their component agencies and, thus, a
single response would be provided. (When departments opted to provide a
departmental response inclusive of component agencies, our analysis
pertains to the department as a whole. Conversely, when departments and
their component agencies reported separately, our departmental analysis
is exclusive of component agencies.) Additionally, officials from the
Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and Rural Utilities Service told us they would
provide a response that reflects the Service Center Modernization
Initiative, which encompasses those three component agencies. We agreed
with these proposed approaches. Both the Department of Defense's
Business Enterprise Architecture and Agriculture's previously
mentioned Service Center Modernization Initiative provided responses
that were not solicited in our survey population, which we included in
our analysis and in this report. Tables 18 and 19 show the
consolidated, omitted, and additional responses that led to the
difference between our survey population of 116 agencies and the 96
respondents included in this report, including an explanation for each
adjustment.
Table 18: Twenty-Two Agencies in 2003 Survey Population for Which
Responses Do Not Appear:
Agency: DHS, Directorate of Border and Transportation Security;
[Empty]; Explanation: Included in DHS departmentwide response.
Agency: DHS, Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response;
[Empty].
Agency: DHS, Directorate of Science and Technology; Explanation:
[Empty].
Agency: DHS, Directorate of Information Analysis and Protection;
[Empty].
Agency: DHS, U.S. Coast Guard; Explanation: [Empty].
Agency: DHS, U.S. Secret Service; Explanation: [Empty].
Agency: Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Explanation: Included in response for Service Center Modernization
Initiative, Department of Agriculture.
Agency: Agriculture, Farm Service Agency; Explanation: [Empty].
Agency: Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service; Explanation: [Empty].
Agency: Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; Explanation:
Included in Department of the Interior departmentwide response.
Agency: Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Explanation: [Empty].
Agency: Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; Explanation: [Empty].
Agency: Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; Explanation: [Empty].
Agency: Interior, Minerals Management Service; Explanation: [Empty].
Agency: Interior, National Park Service; Explanation: [Empty].
Agency: Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement;
[Empty].
Agency: Interior, U.S. Geological Survey; Explanation: [Empty].
Agency: Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration;
Explanation: Included in Department of Veterans Affairs
departmentwide response.
Agency: Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration;
Explanation: [Empty].
Agency: Defense, Defense Legal Services Agency; Explanation:
Included in Department of Defense response.
Agency: National Security Agency; Explanation: Excluded from
analysis and report because response was designated "For Official Use
Only".
Agency: Legal Services Corporation; Explanation: Did not
respond.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Table 19: Additional Survey Responses:
Additional response: Service Center Modernization Initiative,
Department of Agriculture; Reason for addition: The Department of
Agriculture provided one response for this initiative, which includes
the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Farm Service Agency,
and the Rural Utilities Service, as shown in the previous table.
Additional response: Business Enterprise Architecture, Department of
Defense; Reason for addition: The Department of Defense provided
distinct responses for its two departmentwide enterprise architecture
efforts: the Global Information Grid architecture and the Business
Enterprise Architecture.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
The timing of the 96 responses varied, ranging from April 1 to July 9,
2003, and thus the determinations in this report regarding the state of
enterprise architecture development and use and progress at specific
agencies and groups of agencies are linked to particular points in
time. Appendixes V, VI, and VII, which contain the results of our
analysis of each agency's response to our survey, identify the date
that each agency responded. To verify the accuracy of agencies'
responses to our survey regarding enterprise architecture management
policies, organizations, and responsibilities, we required agencies to
submit documentation or additional information for survey questions
related to certain framework criteria. Specifically, we requested
agencies to submit documentation or additional information for
questions 6 to 11, 18, 20 to 24, 26, and 35 to 39. Although our survey
requested that agencies provide data about the status of various
enterprise architecture products, we did not independently verify the
data that agencies provided about the comprehensiveness or completeness
of their architecture products.[Footnote 51] Additionally, we contacted
agency officials when necessary to clarify their responses.
To determine the progress of federal agencies' enterprise architecture
efforts, we analyzed agency survey responses using Version 1.0 of our
maturity framework and compared them with the results of our 2001
survey, which were also based on Version 1.0. We also analyzed survey
responses using Version 1.1 of our maturity framework to establish a
new baseline against which future progress can be measured. When an
agency's response and our subsequent analysis indicated that it did not
meet a core element as defined in the framework, we assigned that
agency to the next lowest stage of framework maturity (i.e., to achieve
a given stage of maturity, an agency must meet all core elements at
that stage). For example, if an agency satisfied all Stage 2 and Stage
4 elements, but did not satisfy one Stage 3 element, that agency is
considered to be a Stage 2 agency.
When determining agency maturity levels, we did not consider whether
agency enterprise architecture plans or products included "performance"
because explicitly including enterprise performance data is a
relatively new concept, and there was a minimal amount of federal
guidance related to enterprise performance data available to agencies
at the time our surveys were distributed.
Tables 20 to 23 show the relationship between the survey questions and
the framework elements for Version 1.0 of the framework, as well as
identify where documentation was required to support answers.
Table 20: Stage 2 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.0:
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, and/or approving the EA; Evaluation
criteria: Agency responded that a committee or group representing the
enterprise is responsible for directing, overseeing, and/or approving
the EA, and provided supporting documentation; Related survey
questions: 8.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that a program office responsible
for EA development exists, and provided supporting documentation;
Related survey questions: 9.
Element: Chief architect exists; Evaluation criteria: Agency responded
that a chief architect exists, and provided supporting documentation;
Related survey questions: 10.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that the EA is being developed
using a framework and automated tool; Related survey questions: 15 and
16.
Element: EA plans call for describing the enterprise in terms of
business, data, applications, or technology; Evaluation criteria:
Agency responded that EA plans call for describing the enterprise in
terms of business, data, applications, or technology; Related survey
questions: 4.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as-is" environment, "to-be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Evaluation criteria: Agency responded
that EA plans call for describing business, data, applications, or
technology in the "as-is" environment or the "to-be" environment, or a
sequencing plan; Related survey questions: 4.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Table 21: Stage 3 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.0:
Element: Written/approved policy exists for EA development; Evaluation
criteria: Agency responded that a written and approved policy exists
for EA development, and provided supporting documentation; Related
survey questions: 7.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Evaluation
criteria: Agency responded that EA products are under configuration
management, and provided supporting documentation; Related survey
questions: 24.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that will support it;
Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that EA products describe or will
describe the enterprise's business, data, applications, and technology
that will support it in both the "as-is" and "to-be" environments;
Related survey questions: 4.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as-is" environment,
"to-be" environment, and sequencing plan; Evaluation criteria: Agency
responded that EA products describe or will describe the enterprise's
business, data, applications, and technology in both the "as-is" and,
"to-be" environments, and a sequencing plan for moving from the "as-is"
to the "to-be" environment; Related survey questions: 4.
Element: EA scope is enterprise focused; Evaluation criteria: Agency
responded that the EA scope is departmentwide or agencywide; Related
survey questions: 3.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Table 22: Stage 4 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.0:
Element: Written/approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA; Evaluation criteria: Agency responded
that a written and approved policy exists for information technology
investment compliance with EA, and provided supporting documentation;
Related survey questions: 26.
Element: EA products describe the enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Evaluation criteria:
Agency responded that EA products describe the enterprise's business,
data, applications, and technology that support it in both the "as-is"
and "to-be" environments; Related survey questions: 4.
Element: EA products describe "as-is" environment, "to-be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that EA
products describe the enterprise's business, data, applications, and
technology in both the "as-is" and "to-be" environments, and a
sequencing plan for moving from the "as-is" to the "to-be"
environment; Related survey questions: 4.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Evaluation
criteria: Agency responded that the agency chief information officer
has approved the EA, and provided supporting documentation; Related
survey questions: 20.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Table 23: Stage 5 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.0:
Element: Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Evaluation
criteria: Agency responded that a written and approved policy exists
for EA maintenance, and provided supporting documentation; Related
survey questions: 7.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Evaluation criteria: Agency responded
that an EA steering committee, investment review board, or agency head
has approved the EA, and provided supporting documentation; Related
survey questions: 20.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Evaluation criteria:
Agency responded that metrics exist to measure return on EA investment
or compliance with the EA is measured and reported, and provided
supporting documentation; Related survey questions: 35 and 38.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Tables 24 to 27 show the relationship between the survey questions and
the framework elements for Version 1.1 of the framework.
Table 24: Stage 2 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.1:
Element: Adequate resources exist; Evaluation criteria: Agency
responded that it (1) plans to develop an EA, (2) is in the process of
developing an EA, or (3) has developed an EA and that either no gap
existed between requested and approved resources for fiscal years 2001,
2002, and 2003, or if a gap did exist, that the gap did not result in a
very adverse or somewhat adverse impact; Related survey questions: 13
and 14.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Evaluation criteria:
Agency responded that a committee or group representing the enterprise
is responsible for directing, overseeing, or approving EA, and provided
supporting documentation; Related survey questions: 8.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that a program office
responsible for EA development and maintenance exists, and provided
supporting documentation; Related survey questions: 9.
Element: Chief architect exists; Evaluation criteria: Agency responded
that a chief architect exists, and provided supporting documentation;
Related survey questions: 10.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that it is using
a framework, methodology, and automated tool to develop its EA.
(Documentation provided for question 18, methodology.); Related survey
questions: 15, 16, and 18.
Element: EA plans call for describing both the "as-is" and the "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Evaluation criteria:
Agency responded that it (1) plans to develop an EA, (2) is in the
process of developing an EA, or (3) has developed an EA; that EA plans
call for describing the "as-is" and the "to-be" environments of the
enterprise in terms of business, information/data, application/
service, or technology; and that EA plans call for developing a
sequencing plan for transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be"
environments; Related survey questions: 1 and 4.
Element: EA plans call for describing both the "as-is" and the "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Evaluation criteria: Agency
responded that it (1) plans to develop an EA, (2) is in the process of
developing an EA, or (3) has developed an EA, and that EA plans call
for describing both the "as-is" and the "to-be" environments in terms
of business, information/data, application/service, and technology;
Related survey questions: 1 and 4.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that it (1) plans to develop an
EA, (2) is in the process of developing an EA, or (3) has developed an
EA, and that EA plans call for business, information/data, application/
service, and technology descriptions to address security in both the
"as-is" and "to-be" environments; Related survey questions: 1 and 4.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Evaluation
criteria: Agency responded that EA plans call for developing metrics
for measuring EA progress, quality, compliance, and return on
investment; Related survey questions: 34.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Table 25: Stage 3 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.1:
Element: Written and approved organization policy exists for EA
development; Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that a written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development, and provided
supporting documentation; Related survey questions: 7.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Evaluation
criteria: Agency responded that EA products are under configuration
management, and provided supporting documentation; Related survey
questions: 24.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both the "as-is" and the
"to-be" environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan
for transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Evaluation
criteria: Agency responded that it either is in the process of
developing an EA or has developed an EA; that the EA either describes
or will describe the "as-is" and the "to-be" environments of the
enterprise in terms of business, information/data, application/
service, or technology; and that the EA includes or will include a
sequencing plan for transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be"
environments; Related survey questions: 1 and 4.
Element: Both the "as-is" and the "to-be" environments are described or
will be described in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Evaluation criteria: Agency
responded that it either is in the process of developing an EA or has
developed an EA, and that both the "as-is" and the "to-be" environments
are described or will be described in terms of business, information/
data, application/service, and technology; Related survey questions: 1
and 4.
Element: Business, performance, information/data, application/service,
and technology descriptions address or will address security;
Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that it either is in the process
of developing an EA or has developed an EA and that business,
information/data, application/service, and technology descriptions
address or will address security in both the "as-is" and "to-be"
environments; Related survey questions: 1 and 4.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that progress against EA plans is
measured and reported, and provided supporting documentation; Related
survey questions: 37.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Table 26: Stage 4 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.1:
Element: Written and approved organization policy exists for EA
maintenance; Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that a written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance, and provided
supporting documentation; Related survey questions: 7.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Evaluation criteria: Agency responded
that EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation, and provided supporting documentation;
Related survey questions: 21 and 22.
Element: EA products describe both the "as-is" and the "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Evaluation criteria:
Agency responded that it has developed an EA; that the EA describes the
"as-is" and the "to-be" environments of the enterprise in terms of
business, information/data, application/service, or technology; and
that the EA includes a sequencing plan for transitioning from the "as-
is" to the "to-be" environments; Related survey questions: 1 and 4.
Element: Both the "as-is" and the "to-be" environments are described in
terms of business, performance, information/data, application/service,
and technology; Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that it has
developed an EA and that both the "as-is" and the "to-be" environments
are described in terms of business, information/data, application/
service, and technology; Related survey questions: 1 and 4.
Element: Business, performance, information/data, application/service,
and technology descriptions address security; Evaluation criteria:
Agency responded that it has developed an EA and that business,
information/data, application/service, and technology descriptions
address or will address security in both the "as-is" and "to-be"
environments; Related survey questions: 1 and 4.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that the organization CIO has
approved the current version of the EA, and provided supporting
documentation; Related survey questions: 20.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA; Evaluation
criteria: Agency responded that a committee or group representing the
enterprise or the investment review board has approved the current
version of the EA, and provided supporting documentation; Related
survey questions: 20.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Evaluation
criteria: Agency responded that the quality of EA products is measured
and reported, and provided supporting documentation; Related survey
questions: 36.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Table 27: Stage 5 Evaluation Criteria for Framework Version 1.1:
Element: Written and approved organization policy exists for IT
investment compliance with EA; Evaluation criteria: Agency responded
that a written and approved organization policy exists for IT
investment compliance with EA, and provided supporting documentation;
Related survey questions: 26.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Evaluation
criteria: Agency responded that a process exists to formally manage EA
change; Related survey questions: 25.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that the EA is integral component
of the IT investment management process; Related survey questions: 28.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Evaluation criteria:
Agency responded that its EA products are periodically updated, and
provided supporting documentation; Related survey questions: 23.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Evaluation criteria: Agency
responded that its IT investments comply with the EA; Related survey
questions: 29.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Evaluation criteria: Agency responded that the organization head has
approved current version of EA, and provided supporting documentation;
Related survey questions: 20.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Evaluation
criteria: Agency responded that return on EA investment is measured and
reported, and provided supporting documentation; Related survey
questions: 35.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Evaluation
criteria: Agency responded that compliance with the EA is measured and
reported and provided supporting documentation; Related survey
questions: 38.
Source: GAO. Legend: IT information technology:
[End of table]
After compiling agency responses and determining agencies' respective
maturity stages, we analyzed responses across different slices of our
respondent population to determine patterns and issues.
Finally, to determine OMB's actions to oversee agency enterprise
architecture management efforts, we analyzed relevant policy and budget
guidance, obtained information about OMB's roles in the CIO Council and
efforts to develop and use the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)
(including OMB's use of the FEA in the budget process), and interviewed
OMB officials about ongoing and planned management actions. We also
analyzed agency responses to survey questions regarding OMB's
enterprise architecture-related oversight and guidance.
We conducted our work in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, from
September 2002 to November 2003, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Maturity Stages of Departments and Agencies According to EA
Maturity Framework, Versions 1.0 and 1.1:
The following table presents three assessments of the maturity stage of
each listed organization on the basis of the following: (1) responses
to our 2001 survey evaluated against Version 1.0 of our
framework,[Footnote 52] (2) responses to our 2003 survey evaluated
against Version 1.0 of our framework, and (3) responses to our 2003
survey evaluated against Version 1.1 of our framework.
Table 28: Agency Maturity Stages According to EAMMF, Versions 1.0 and
1.1:
Agency: Department of Agriculture; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Agricultural Marketing Service; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Maturity
stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
[Empty]; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Food and Nutrition Service; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Food Safety and Inspection Service; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Foreign Agricultural Service; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Forest Service; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 2;
Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.1
(2003): 1.
Agency: Risk Management Agency; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Service Center Modernization Initiative; Maturity
stage: Version 1.0 (2001): N/A; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Department of Commerce; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 3; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Bureau of the Census; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 3.
Agency: Economic Development Administration; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: International Trade Administration; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 3; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2003): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 2.
Agency: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 4; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 2.
Agency: Department of Defense--Global Information Grid Architecture;
[Empty]; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 3; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2003): 3; Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 3.
Agency: Department of Defense--Business Enterprise Architecture;
[Empty]; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2001): N/A; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization; Maturity
stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 3.
Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Maturity
stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Defense Commissary Agency; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Defense Contract Audit Agency; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Defense Contract Management Agency; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Defense Information Systems Agency; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Defense Intelligence Agency; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Defense Logistics Agency; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Defense Security Cooperation Agency; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Defense Security Service; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Defense Threat Reduction Agency; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Department of the Air Force; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 3; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 3.
Agency: Department of the Army; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 4; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Department of the Navy; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: National Imagery and Mapping Agency; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Department of Education; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Department of Energy; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Maturity
stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 2.
Agency: Administration for Children and Families; Maturity
stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Maturity
stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Maturity
stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 3; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Maturity
stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Food and Drug Administration; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Health Resources and Services Administration; Maturity
stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Indian Health Service; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Program Support Center; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): N/A; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 3.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Maturity
stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 3.
Agency: Department of the Interior; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 2.
Agency: Department of Justice; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 3; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;
Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2003): 4; Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 2.
Agency: Drug Enforcement Administration; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Federal Bureau of Investigation; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Federal Bureau of Prisons; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: U.S. Marshals Service; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Department of Labor; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Department of State; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 3; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 2.
Agency: Department of Transportation; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 2.
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 3; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Federal Highway Administration; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; Maturity
stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Federal Railroad Administration; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Federal Transit Administration; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;
Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2003): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Department of the Treasury; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 3.
Agency: Bureau of the Public Debt; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 3; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Comptroller of the Currency; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Financial Management Service; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Internal Revenue Service; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 4; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 5; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 3.
Agency: Office of Thrift Supervision; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: U.S. Mint; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 2;
Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3; Maturity stage: Version 1.1
(2003): 1.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 3.
Independent agencies:
Agency: Agency for International Development; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 3; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Central Intelligence Agency; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service;
Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2003): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 3; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Maturity
stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Executive Office of the President; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 5; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 5.
Agency: Export-Import Bank; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 3; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Federal Reserve System; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board; Maturity
stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1;
Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: General Services Administration; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2003): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: National Credit Union Administration; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: National Labor Relations Board; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 1; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 2.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 4; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 5; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Peace Corps; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2001): 1;
Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.1
(2003): 1.
Agency: Railroad Retirement Board; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 2.
Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 2.
Agency: Small Business Administration; Maturity stage: Version
1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 1; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Smithsonian Institution; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: Social Security Administration; Maturity stage:
Version 1.0 (2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 3; Maturity
stage: Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Agency: U.S. Postal Service; Maturity stage: Version 1.0
(2001): 2; Maturity stage: Version 1.0 (2003): 2; Maturity stage:
Version 1.1 (2003): 1.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Detailed Comparison of Individual Department Responses
against Our EA Management Maturity Framework:
Department of Agriculture:
The Department of Agriculture provided its 2001 survey responses on
July 9, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
Table 29: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Agriculture:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a frame work and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 30: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Agriculture:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Commerce:
The Department of Commerce provided its 2001 survey responses on June
29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 18, 2003.
Table 31: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Commerce:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 3; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 32: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Commerce:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Defense:
:
Global Information Grid:
The Department of Defense provided its 2001 survey responses on July
25, 2001, and its 2003 response for its Global Information Grid on June
5, 2003.
Table 33: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Defense, Global
Information Grid:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 3; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 34: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Defense, Global Information Grid:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Business Enterprise Architecture:
The Department of Defense provided its 2003 response for its Business
Enterprise Architecture on May 30, 2003. The department did not provide
a similar response to our 2001 survey.
Table 35: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Defense, Business
Enterprise Architecture:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
--; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results: -
-; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?:
2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: N/A; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 36: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Defense, Business Enterprise Architectur:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Education:
The Department of Education provided its 2001 survey responses on July
23, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 28, 2003.
Table 37: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Education:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 38: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Education:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Energy:
The Department of Energy provided its 2001 survey responses on June 28,
2001, and its 2003 responses on April 23, 2003.
Table 39: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Energy:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 40: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Energy:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Health and Human Services:
The Department of Health and Human Services provided its 2001 survey
responses on August 14, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
Table 41: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Health and Human
Services:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 42: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Health and Human Services:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Homeland Security:
The Department of Homeland Security was not involved in our 2001 survey
because it was established on March 1, 2003. It provided its 2003
responses on June 10, 2003.
Table 43: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Homeland Security:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
--; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results: -
-; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: N/A; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 44: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Homeland Security:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Housing and Urban Development:
The Department of Housing and Urban Development provided its 2001
survey responses on June 28, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21,
2003.
Table 45: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 46: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of the Interior:
The Department of the Interior provided its 2001 survey responses on
June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
Table 47: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of the Interior:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 48: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of the Interior:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Justice:
The Department of Justice provided its 2001 survey responses on July
10, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 20, 2003.
Table 49: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Justice:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 3; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 50: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Justice:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Labor:
The Department of Labor provided its 2001 survey responses on July 2,
2001, and its 2003 responses on April 17, 2003.
Table 51: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Labor:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: Yes.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 52: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Labor:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of State:
The Department of State provided its 2001 survey responses on July 13,
2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
Table 53: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of State:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 3; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 54: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of State:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Transportation:
The Department of Transportation provided its 2001 survey responses on
June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 24, 2003.
Table 55: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Transportation:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 56: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Transportation:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of the Treasury:
The Department of the Treasury provided its 2001 survey responses on
June 28, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 26, 2003.
Table 57: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of the Treasury:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 58: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of the Treasury:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Veterans Affairs:
The Department of Veterans Affairs provided its 2001 survey responses
on August 17, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
Table 59: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of Veterans Affairs:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 60: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of Veterans Affairs:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Detailed Comparison of Individual Component Responses
against Our EA Management Maturity Framework:
Department of Agriculture:
Agricultural Marketing Service:
The Agricultural Marketing Service provided its 2001 survey responses
on July 9, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 13, 2003.
Table 61: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Agricultural Marketing Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 62: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Agricultural Marketing Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Agricultural Research Service:
The Agricultural Research Service provided its 2001 survey responses on
July 13, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 18, 2003.
Table 63: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Agricultural Research Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 64: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Agricultural Research Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service provided its 2001 survey
responses on June 26, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
Table 65: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 66: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
provided its 2001 survey responses on July 9, 2001, and its 2003
responses on April 16, 2003.
Table 67: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 68: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Food and Nutrition Service:
The Food and Nutrition Service provided its 2001 survey responses on
July 17, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 24, 2003.
Table 69: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Food and Nutrition Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 70: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Food and Nutrition Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Food Safety and Inspection Service:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service provided its 2001 survey
responses on July 9, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 10, 2003.
Table 71: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Food Safety and Inspection
Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 72: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Food Safety and Inspection Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Foreign Agricultural Service:
The Foreign Agricultural Service provided its 2001 survey responses on
July 12, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 5, 2003.
Table 73: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Foreign Agricultural Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 74: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Foreign Agricultural Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Forest Service:
The Forest Service provided its 2001 survey responses on August 3,
2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
Table 75: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Forest Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 76: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Forest Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Risk Management Agency:
The Risk Management Agency provided its 2001 survey responses on July
27, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 6, 2003.
Table 77: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Risk Management Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 78: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Risk Management Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Service Center Modernization Initiative:
The Service Center Modernization Initiative provided its responses on
May 16, 2003.
Table 79: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Service Center Modernization
Initiative:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
--; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results: -
-; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --
; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: --; Satisfied?:
2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: --; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: N/A; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 80: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Service Center Modernization Initiative:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Commerce:
Bureau of the Census:
The Bureau of the Census provided its 2001 survey responses on June 29,
2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
Table 81: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Bureau of the Census:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 82: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Bureau of the Census:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Economic Development Administration:
The Economic Development Administration provided its 2001 survey
responses on July 10, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 28, 2003.
Table 83: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Economic Development
Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 84: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Economic Development Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
International Trade Administration:
The International Trade Administration provided its 2001 survey
responses on June 26, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 29, 2003.
Table 85: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): International Trade
Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 86: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): International Trade Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided its 2001
survey responses on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21,
2003.
Table 87: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 3; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 88: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office provided its 2001 survey responses
on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
Table 89: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 4; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 90: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Defense:
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization:
The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization provided its 2001 survey
responses on July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 10, 2003.
Table 91: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 92: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Ballistic Missile Defense Organization:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency:
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency provided its 2001 survey
responses on July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 7, 2003.
Table 93: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 94: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Defense Commissary Agency:
The Defense Commissary Agency provided its 2001 survey responses on
July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 9, 2003.
Table 95: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Commissary Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: Yes.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 96: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Commissary Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Defense Contract Audit Agency:
The Defense Contract Audit Agency provided its 2001 survey responses on
July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 30, 2003.
Table 97: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Contract Audit Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 98: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Contract Audit Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Defense Contract Management Agency:
The Defense Contract Management Agency provided its 2001 survey
responses on July 3, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 30, 2003.
Table 99: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Contract Management
Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 100: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Contract Management Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Defense Information Systems Agency:
The Defense Information Systems Agency provided its 2001 survey
responses on July 11, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 10, 2003.
Table 101: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Information Systems
Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 102: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Information Systems Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Defense Intelligence Agency:
The Defense Intelligence Agency provided its 2001 survey responses on
July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 20, 2003.
Table 103: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Intelligence Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 104: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Intelligence Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Defense Logistics Agency:
The Defense Logistics Agency provided its 2001 survey responses on July
25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 22, 2003.
Table 105: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Logistics Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 106: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Logistics Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Defense Security Cooperation Agency:
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency provided its 2001 survey
responses on July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 19, 2003.
Table 107: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Security Cooperation
Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 108: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Security Cooperation Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Defense Security Service:
The Defense Security Service provided its 2001 survey responses on July
25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 9, 2003.
Table 109: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Security Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 110: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Security Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Defense Threat Reduction Agency:
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency provided its 2001 survey responses
on July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 29, 2003.
Table 111: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Defense Threat Reduction Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 112: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Defense Threat Reduction Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of the Air Force:
The Department of the Air Force provided its 2001 survey responses on
July 27, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 2, 2003.
Table 113: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of the Air Force:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 3; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 114: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of the Air Force:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of the Army:
The Department of the Army provided its 2001 survey responses on July
25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 2, 2003.
Table 115: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of the Army:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 4; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 116: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of the Army:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of the Navy:
The Department of the Navy provided its 2001 survey responses on July
25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 9, 2003.
Table 117: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Department of the Navy:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 118: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Department of the Navy:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
National Imagery and Mapping Agency:
The National Imagery and Mapping Agency provided its 2001 survey
responses on July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 6, 2003.
Table 119: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): National Imagery and Mapping
Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 120: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): National Imagery and Mapping Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Health and Human Services:
:
Administration for Children and Families:
The Administration for Children and Families provided its 2001 survey
responses on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
Table 121: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Administration for Children and
Families:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 122: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Administration for Children and Families:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality:
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality provided its 2001 survey
responses on July 12, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
Table 123: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 124: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided its 2001 survey
responses on July 23, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
Table 125: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 3; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 126: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provided its 2001 survey
responses on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
Table 127: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 128: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Food and Drug Administration:
The Food and Drug Administration provided its 2001 survey responses on
July 13, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
Table 129: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Food and Drug Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 130: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Food and Drug Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Health Resources and Services Administration:
The Health Resources and Services Administration provided its 2001
survey responses on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12,
2003.
Table 131: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Health Resources and Services
Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 132: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Health Resources and Services Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Indian Health Service:
The Indian Health Service provided its 2001 survey responses on June
29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
Table 133: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Indian Health Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 134: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Indian Health Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Program Support Center:
The Program Support Center provided its 2001 survey responses on June
29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
Table 135: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Program Support Center:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 136: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Program Support Center:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Justice:
:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives provided its
2001 survey responses on July 16, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April
21, 2003.
Table 137: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: Yes.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 4.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 138: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Drug Enforcement Administration:
The Drug Enforcement Administration provided its 2001 survey responses
on July 18, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 20, 2003.
Table 139: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Drug Enforcement Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 140: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Drug Enforcement Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Federal Bureau of Investigation:
The Federal Bureau of Investigation provided its 2001 survey responses
on July 18, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 28, 2003.
Table 141: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 142: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Federal Bureau of Prisons:
The Federal Bureau of Prisons provided its 2001 survey responses on
July 18, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 22, 2003.
Table 143: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Bureau of Prisons:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: Yes.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 144: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Bureau of Prisons:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
U.S. Marshals Service:
The U.S. Marshals Service provided its 2001 survey responses on June
29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 19, 2003.
Table 145: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): U.S. Marshals Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 146: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): U.S. Marshals Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of Transportation:
:
Federal Aviation Administration:
The Federal Aviation Administration provided its 2001 survey responses
on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 29, 2003.
Table 147: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Aviation Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 3; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 148: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Aviation Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Federal Highway Administration:
The Federal Highway Administration provided its 2001 survey responses
on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 1, 2003.
Table 149: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Highway Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 150: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Highway Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration provided its 2001
survey responses on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 24,
2003.
Table 151: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: Yes.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 152: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Federal Railroad Administration:
The Federal Railroad Administration provided its 2001 survey responses
on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 24, 2003.
Table 153: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Railroad Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 154: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Railroad Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Federal Transit Administration:
The Federal Transit Administration provided its 2001 survey responses
on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 24, 2003.
Table 155: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Transit Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 156: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Transit Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provided its 2001
survey responses on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 24,
2003.
Table 157: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 158: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Department of the Treasury:
:
Bureau of Engraving and Printing:
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing provided its 2001 survey responses
on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
Table 159: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Bureau of Engraving and Printing:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 160: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Bureau of Engraving and Printing:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Bureau of the Public Debt:
The Bureau of the Public Debt provided its 2001 survey responses on
July 5, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
Table 161: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Bureau of the Public Debt:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 3; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 162: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Bureau of the Public Debt:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Comptroller of the Currency:
The Comptroller of the Currency provided its 2001 survey responses on
June 28, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 16, 2003.
Table 163: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Comptroller of the Currency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 164: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Comptroller of the Currency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Financial Management Service:
The Financial Management Service provided its 2001 survey responses on
June 28, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 19, 2003.
Table 165: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Financial Management Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 166: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Financial Management Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Internal Revenue Service:
The Internal Revenue Service provided its 2001 survey responses on July
20, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
Table 167: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Internal Revenue Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: Yes.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 4; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 5.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 168: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Internal Revenue Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Office of Thrift Supervision:
The Office of Thrift Supervision provided its 2001 survey responses on
June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 9, 2003.
Table 169: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Office of Thrift Supervision:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 170: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Office of Thrift Supervision:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
U.S. Mint:
The U.S. Mint provided its 2001 survey responses on June 29, 2001, and
its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
Table 171: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): U.S. Mint:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 172: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): U.S. Mint:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Detailed Comparison of Independent Agency Responses
against Our EA Management Maturity Framework:
Agency for International Development:
The Agency for International Development provided its 2001 survey
responses on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 22, 2003.
Table 173: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Agency for International
Development:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 3; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 174: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Agency for International Development:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Central Intelligence Agency:
The Central Intelligence Agency provided its 2001 survey responses on
August 6, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 30, 2003.
Table 175: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Central Intelligence Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 176: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Central Intelligence Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Corporation for National and Community Service:
The Corporation for National and Community Service provided its 2001
survey responses on July 20, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 22,
2003.
Table 177: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Corporation for National and
Community Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 178: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Corporation for National and Community Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Environmental Protection Agency:
The Environmental Protection Agency provided its 2001 survey responses
on June 28, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 15, 2003.
Table 179: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Environmental Protection Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 3; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 180: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Environmental Protection Agency:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provided its 2001 survey
responses on August 1, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 2, 2003.
Table 181: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 182: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Executive Office of the President:
The Executive Office of the President provided its 2001 survey
responses on October 1, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 6, 2003.
Table 183: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Executive Office of the
President:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: Yes.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 5.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 184: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Executive Office of the President:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 5.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Export-Import Bank:
The Export-Import Bank provided its 2001 survey responses on September
20, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 11, 2003.
Table 185: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Export-Import Bank:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 3; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 186: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Export-Import Bank:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation provided its 2001 survey
responses on July 20, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 18, 2003.
Table 187: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 188: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provided its 2001 survey
responses on August 27, 2001, and its 2003 responses on May 12, 2003.
Table 189: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 190: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Federal Reserve System:
The Federal Reserve System provided its 2001 survey responses on August
23, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 23, 2003.
Table 191: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Reserve System:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: ; Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 192: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Reserve System:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board:
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board provided its 2001 survey
responses on July 20, 2001, and its 2003 responses on July 9, 2003.
Table 193: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Federal Retirement Thrift
Investment Board:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 194: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
General Services Administration:
The General Services Administration provided its 2001 survey responses
on July 2, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 23, 2003.
Table 195: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): General Services Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 196: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): General Services Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration provided its 2001
survey responses on July 25, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21,
2003.
Table 197: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 198: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
National Credit Union Administration:
The National Credit Union Administration provided its 2001 survey
responses on July 18, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 10, 2003.
Table 199: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): National Credit Union
Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: Yes.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 200: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): National Credit Union Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
National Labor Relations Board:
The National Labor Relations Board provided its 2001 survey responses
on August 9, 2001, and its 2003 responses on June 9, 2003.
Table 201: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): National Labor Relations Board:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 202: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): National Labor Relations Board:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission provided its 2001 survey responses on
July 23, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
Table 203: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 204: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Office of Personnel Management:
The Office of Personnel Management provided its 2001 survey responses
on June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 28, 2003.
Table 205: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Office of Personnel Management:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: Yes.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 4; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 5.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 206: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Office of Personnel Management:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Peace Corps:
The Peace Corps provided its 2001 survey responses on July 20, 2001,
and its 2003 responses on May 15, 2003.
Table 207: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Peace Corps:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 1; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 208: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Peace Corps:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: No.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Railroad Retirement Board:
The Railroad Retirement Board provided its 2001 survey responses on
July 11, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 18, 2003.
Table 209: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Railroad Retirement Board:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 210: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Railroad Retirement Board:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Securities and Exchange Commission:
The Securities and Exchange Commission provided its 2001 survey
responses on July 19, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 22, 2003.
Table 211: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Securities and Exchange
Commission:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 212: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Securities and Exchange Commission:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Small Business Administration:
The Small Business Administration provided its 2001 survey responses on
June 29, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 22, 2003.
Table 213: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Small Business Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003
results: Yes.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 214: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Small Business Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Smithsonian Institution:
The Smithsonian Institution provided its 2001 survey responses on July
31, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
Table 215: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Smithsonian Institution:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 216: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Smithsonian Institution:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Social Security Administration:
The Social Security Administration provided its 2001 survey responses
on July 3, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
Table 217: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): Social Security Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: Yes.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 3.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 218: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): Social Security Administration:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
U.S. Postal Service:
The U.S. Postal Service provided its 2001 survey responses on August
13, 2001, and its 2003 responses on April 21, 2003.
Table 219: Comparison of Maturity Assessments in 2001 and 2003
(According to Framework Version 1.0): U.S. Postal Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: Agency is aware of EA;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible for
directing, overseeing, and/or approving EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development exists;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA being developed using a framework and automated tool;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing enterprise in terms of business,
data, applications, or technology; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing "as is" environment, "to be"
environment, or sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe enterprise's business--
and the data, applications, and technology that support it;
Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA products describe or will describe "as is" environment, "to
be" environment, and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: Yes;
Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: EA scope is enterprise-focused; Satisfied?: 2001 results:
Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written/
approved policy exists for information technology investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe enterprise's business--and the data,
applications, and technology that support it; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Yes; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Element: EA products describe "as is" environment, "to be" environment,
and sequencing plan; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003
results: No.
Element: Agency chief information officer has approved EA; Satisfied?:
2001 results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element:
Written/approved policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Yes.
Element: Either EA steering committee, investment review board, or
agency head has approved EA; Satisfied?: 2001 results: No; Satisfied?:
2003 results: No.
Element: Metrics exist for measuring EA benefits; Satisfied?: 2001
results: No; Satisfied?: 2003 results: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: 2001
results: Stage 2; Satisfied?: 2003 results: Stage 2.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
Table 220: Maturity Assessment in 2003 (According to Framework Version
1.1): U.S. Postal Service:
Stage: Stage 1: Creating EA awareness; Element: --; Satisfied?: Yes.
Stage: Stage 2: Building the EA management foundation; Element:
Adequate resources exist; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise is responsible
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Program office responsible for EA development and maintenance
exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Chief architect exists; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is being developed using a framework, methodology, and
automated tool; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments of the enterprise, as well as a sequencing plan for
transitioning from the "as-is" to the "to-be."; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for describing both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments in terms of business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for business, performance, information/data,
application/service, and technology descriptions to address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA plans call for developing metrics for measuring EA
progress, quality, compliance, and return on investment; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Stage: Stage 3: Developing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA development; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products are under configuration management; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: EA products describe or will describe both "as-is" and "to-be"
environments, as well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described or will be
described in terms given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: These descriptions address or will address security;
Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Progress against EA plans is measured and reported;
Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Stage 4: Completing architecture products; Element: Written and
approved organization policy exists for EA maintenance; Satisfied?:
Yes.
Element: EA products and management processes undergo independent
verification and validation; Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products describe both "as-is" and "to-be" environments, as
well as a sequencing plan; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Both "as-is" and "to-be" environments are described in terms
given in Stage 2; Satisfied?: No.
Element: These descriptions address security; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Organization CIO has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Committee or group representing the enterprise or the
investment review board has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Quality of EA products is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Stage: Stage 5: Leveraging the EA for managing change; Element: Written
and approved organization policy exists for IT investment compliance
with EA; Satisfied?: No.
Element: Process exists to formally manage EA change; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: EA is integral component of IT investment management process;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: EA products are periodically updated; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: IT investments comply with EA; Satisfied?: Yes.
Element: Organization head has approved current version of EA;
Satisfied?: No.
Element: Return on EA investment is measured and reported; Satisfied?:
No.
Element: Compliance with EA is measured and reported; Satisfied?: No.
Stage: Overall maturity stage; Satisfied?: Stage 1.
Sources: GAO, agency cited.
Note: Each stage includes all elements of previous stages.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: 2003 Survey of Enterprise Architecture Efforts:
To assess agency enterprise architecture management maturity levels, we
developed two similar surveys, one addressed to departments and the
other to component and independent agencies. These two surveys were
largely identical, with the following differences:
* Throughout, questions referred to "departments" in the department
survey and to "agencies" in the agency survey.
* Two questions on the department survey (questions 39 and 40) and
three questions on the agency survey (questions 39 to 41) were
addressed specifically to departments and agencies, respectively.
* The last five questions on the two surveys were numbered differently,
since they followed the department-and agency-specific questions
described above. Questions 41 to 45 on the department survey were
numbered 42 to 46 on the agency survey. (Note, however, that these five
questions were not used in the decision criteria described in app.
III.):
The following reproduced survey combines the two surveys into one
display by using the phrase "agency/department" in places where one or
the other term had been used in the separate surveys. It also displays
both the two department questions and the three agency questions that
were addressed specifically as described above.
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Mark T. Bird, (202) 512-6260:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the person named above, Barbara S. Collier, William B.
Cook, Neal J. Doherty, Michael Holland, Catherine M. Hurley, Stuart M.
Kaufman, Scott Pettis, and David B. Shumate made key contributions to
this report.
:
(310248):
:
:
FOOTNOTES
[1] Office of Management and Budget, Management of Federal Information
Resources, Circular A-130 (Nov. 30, 2000), which implements the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, Public Law 104-106, section 5125, 110 Stat.
684 (1996), 40 U.S.C. 11315.
[2] Public Law 107-347.
[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: A Framework
for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version
1.1), GAO-03-584G (Washington, D.C.: April 2003).
[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Enterprise
Architecture Use across the Federal Government Can Be Improved, GAO-02-
6 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 19, 2002).
[5] A framework can be viewed as a logical structure for classifying
and organizing complex information.
[6] According to OMB, e-government is a mode of operations (using
people, process, and technology--particularly Web-based Internet
technology) to enhance access to and delivery of government information
and service to citizens, business partners, employees, other agencies,
and other levels of government.
[7] J.A. Zachman, "A Framework for Information Systems Architecture,"
IBM Systems Journal, vol. 26, no. 3 (1987).
[8] The windows provide the viewpoints of (1) the strategic planner,
(2) the system user, (3) the system designer, (4) the system developer,
(5) the subcontractor, and (6) the system itself.
[9] The models cover (1) how the entity operates, (2) what the entity
uses to operate, (3) where the entity operates, (4) who operates the
entity, (5) when entity operations occur, and (6) why the entity
operates.
[10] Similar to the Zachman framework, the FEAF's proposed models
describe an entity's business, data necessary to conduct the business,
applications to manage the data, and technology to support the
applications.
[11] Public Law 104-106, 40 U.S.C. 11315.
[12] Public Law 107-347.
[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Weather Forecasting: Systems
Architecture Needed for National Weather Service Modernization, GAO/
AIMD-94-28 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11, 1994).
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Air Traffic Control: Complete and
Enforced Architecture Needed for FAA Systems Modernization, GAO/AIMD-
97-30 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 1997).
[15] U.S. General Accounting Office, Tax Systems Modernization:
Blueprint Is a Good Start but Not Yet Sufficiently Complete to Build or
Acquire Systems, GAO/AIMD/GGD-98-54 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 1998).
[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Student Financial Aid Information:
Systems Architecture Needed to Improve Programs' Efficiency, GAO/AIMD-
97-122 (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 1997).
[17] U.S. General Accounting Office, Customs Service Modernization:
Architecture Must Be Complete and Enforced to Effectively Build and
Maintain Systems, GAO/AIMD-98-70 (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 1998).
[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: INS Needs
to Better Manage the Development of Its Enterprise Architecture, GAO/
AIMD-00-212 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1, 2000).
[19] U.S. General Accounting Office, Medicare: Information Systems
Modernization Needs Stronger Management and Support, GAO-01-824
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2001).
[20] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Terrorist
Watch Lists Should Be Consolidated to Promote Better Integration and
Sharing, GAO-03-322 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15, 2003).
[21] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology:
Architecture Needed to Guide Modernization of DOD's Financial
Operations, GAO-01-525 (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2001); Information
Technology: DLA Should Strengthen Business Systems Modernization
Architecture and Investment Activities, GAO-01-631 (Washington, D.C.:
June 29, 2001); Combat Identification Systems: Strengthened Management
Efforts Needed to Ensure Required Capabilities, GAO-01-632 (Washington,
D.C.: June 25, 2001); DOD Business Systems Modernization: Improvements
to Enterprise Architecture Development and Implementation Efforts
Needed, GAO-03-458 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2003); Information
Technology: Observations on Department of Defense's Draft Enterprise
Architecture, GAO-03-571R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2003); DOD
Business Systems Modernization: Longstanding Management and Oversight
Weaknesses Continue to Put Investments at Risk, GAO-03-553T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2003); and Business Systems Modernization:
Summary of GAO's Assessment of the Department of Defense's Initial
Business Enterprise Architecture, GAO-03-877R (Washington, D.C.: July
7, 2003).
[22] GAO-02-6.
[23] GAO-03-584G.
[24] CIO Council, A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture,
Version 1.0 (February 2001).
[25] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology Investment
Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity,
Exposure Draft, GAO/AIMD-10.1.23 (Washington, D.C.: May 2000).
[26] GAO-02-6.
[27] Numbers do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[28] The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Health and
Human Services, Justice, Transportation, and the Treasury submitted
both a department response and responses for department component
agencies (e.g., the Treasury's Internal Revenue Service). The
Departments of Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban
Development, the Interior, Labor, State, and Veterans Affairs each
submitted a single response that combined the department and department
component responses.
[29] One agency--the Executive Office of the President--is currently
performing at Stage 5 and cannot perform above its current maturity
stage. As a result, it is excluded from this analysis.
[30] The GIG architecture describes the globally interconnected, end-
to-end set of information capabilities, associated processes, and
personnel for collecting, processing, storing, disseminating, and
managing information on demand to war fighters, policy makers, and
support personnel.
[31] OMB, Information Technology Architectures, Memorandum M-97-16
(June 18, 1997).
[32] OMB (Nov. 30, 2000).
[33] OMB, Preparation and Submission of Budget Estimates, Circular A-11
(Nov. 30, 2001).
[34] CIO Council members include the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services,
Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior,
Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans
Affairs. Major agencies that are CIO Council members include the
Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; Environmental Protection
Agency; Federal Emergency Management Agency; Central Intelligence
Agency; Small Business Administration; Social Security Administration;
National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Agency for International
Development; General Services Administration; National Science
Foundation; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and Office of Personnel
Management.
[35] OMB defines a component as a self-contained business process or
service with predetermined functionality that can be accessed through a
technology or business interface.
[36] For a listing of criteria for selecting automated enterprise
architecture tools, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Information
Technology: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise
Architecture Management (Version 1.1), GAO-03-584G (Washington, D.C.:
April 2003), table 1, p. 14.
[37] Agencies reporting either very satisfied or satisfied (see the
columns under the "agency response" heading in table 13).
[38] The total exceeds the 96 survey responses because some agencies
reported using more than one framework.
[39] The percentage of agencies reporting either very satisfied or
satisfied (see the columns under the "agency response" heading in table
14).
[40] The number of responses regarding frameworks is larger than the
number of agencies surveyed because some agencies reported using more
than one framework.
[41] Steven H. Spewak, Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing a
Blueprint for Data, Applications, and Technology, John Wiley and Sons
(September 1993).
[42] The "other" cost category is intended to include costs that cannot
be allocated to the categories we specified.
[43] The Department of the Army allocated its $247.8 million
architecture development costs to two categories: agency personnel
($59.5 million) and other ($188.3 million). The $188.3 million that the
Army categorized as "other" accounts for about 97 percent of the total
amount of costs categorized as "other."
[44] Some agencies did not report any architecture cost data. For
example, the Department of Justice reported that it does not maintain
records on departmentwide spending for enterprise architecture.
[45] Office of Management and Budget, Management of Federal Information
Resources, Circular A-130 (Nov. 30, 2000).
[46] Chief Information Officers Council, Federal Enterprise
Architecture Framework, Version 1.1 (September 1999).
[47] Chief Information Officers Council, A Practical Guide to Federal
Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0 (February 2001).
[48] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Enterprise
Architecture Use across the Federal Government Can Be Improved, GAO-02-
6 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 19, 2002).
[49] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: A
Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture
Management (Version 1.1), GAO-03-584G (Washington, D.C.: April 2003).
[50] We defined "component agencies" as (1) being one organizational
level below their respective cabinet-level department and (2) having a
budget request of $100 million or more.
[51] We adjusted data that the Department of Defense provided for its
Business Enterprise Architecture and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration provided for its enterprise architecture on the basis of
the results of completed GAO reviews. We also adjusted data that the
Department of Veterans Affairs provided for its enterprise architecture
products on the basis of analysis performed in an ongoing GAO review.
Agency officials agreed with these adjustments.
[52] GAO-02-6.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
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. General Accounting 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: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
