The Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework (EAAF) is created by the US Federal government Office of Management and Budget to allow federal agencies to assess and report their enterprise architecture activity and maturity.[1]
Version 2.2 was released in October 2007.[2] And Version 3.1 is released June 2009.
Contents |
The OMB Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework (hereafter called the Framework) helps OMB and the agencies assess the capability of EA[3] programs to guide and inform strategic IT investments. It also helps to better understand the current state of an agency’s EA, and assists agencies in integrating their EA into their decision-making processes. By applying the assessment themselves, agencies are able to identify strengths and weaknesses within their EA programs and adjust them accordingly. As a result, the agency’s enterprise architecture will help improve the performance of Information Resource Management (IRM) and Information Technology (IT) investment decision-making.
Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework (EAAF) version 3.1 identifies the measurement areas and criteria by which agencies are expected to use the EA to drive performance improvements that result in the following outcomes[1]:
While agencies have clearly demonstrated a degree of maturity and competency in developing and using their EAs, EAAF seeks to advance the practice of EA, particularly through the development and use of agency segment architectures, aimed at driving the kinds of government-wide outcomes described above.[4]
Government agencies are continually assessing current performance, identifying opportunities for performance improvement, and translating opportunities into specific actions. Enterprise architecture is an integrated management practice that maximizes the contribution of an agency’s resources to achieve performance goals. Architecture describes clear line-of-sight from strategic goals and objectives, through investments, to measurable performance improvements for the entire enterprise or a portion (segment) of the enterprise.[4]
Continuous performance improvement is the principal driver connecting EA program staff with key business stakeholders across each phase of the Performance Improvement Lifecycle. Agency Chief Architects and EA program staff play important roles supporting business stakeholders during each phase of the Performance Improvement Lifecycle to:[4]
Opportunities to improve mission performance are prioritized in terms of their relative value to the agency’s strategic goals and objectives in the enterprise transition plan (ETP) and segment architecture.[4]
Enterprise architecture describes the current (baseline) and future (target) states of the agency, and the plan to transition from the current to the future state, with a focus on agency strategy, program performance improvements and information technology investments. Agency EAs are organized by segments – core mission areas (e.g., homeland security, health), business service (e.g., financial management, human resources), and enterprise services (e.g., Information Sharing). Segments are defined using the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) reference models, described in subsequent chapters.[4]
Performance improvement opportunities identified during the “Architect” process are ideally addressed through an agency portfolio of IT investments5. This step defines the implementation and funding strategy for individual initiatives identified in the Enterprise Transition Plan (ETP) and described in the segment architectures. Program management plans are created to implement the individual solutions identified in the implementation and funding strategy.[4]
Projects are executed and tracked throughout the system development life cycle (SDLC). Achievement of the program / project plan within acceptable variance for schedule and budget is measured and reported through Earned Value Management (EVM) process.[4]
Information and information technology, as critical enablers of program performance improvements, must be assessed and evaluated in the context of agency missions and outcome-oriented results defined in the enterprise-wide performance architecture.[4]
Performance improvement plans and priorities, including those previously gathered under the PART and Performance Assessment Report (PAR) programs, should be reflected in the agency EA, particularly the performance architecture and ETP. Performance metrics previously gathered under the PART Program are used to evaluate agency program performance and results in agency performance improvement plans, identifying a program’s strengths and weaknesses and addressing ways to improve the program performance.[4]
OMB collects a significant amount of IT investment data and other related data from executive agencies during each phase of Performance Improvement Lifecycle. OMB officials use this information to guide the development of an efficient and effective IT investment portfolio as a part of the President’s budget request to Congress.[4]
| Book: Enterprise Architecture | |
| Wikipedia books are collections of articles that can be downloaded or ordered in print. | |