EAAF - Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework v3.1

Improving Agency Performance
Using Information and

Information Technology
(Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework v3.1)
June 2009
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1
2 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT LIFECYCLE......................................................... 3
2.1 ARCHITECT ...........................................................................................................................4
2.2 INVEST .................................................................................................................................5
2.3 IMPLEMENT ...........................................................................................................................6
2.4 MEASURE, ASSESS AND IMPROVE .........................................................................................6
2.5 AGENCY SUBMISSION DATA QUALITY.....................................................................................7
3 FEDERAL ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE OVERVIEW ........................................... 8
3.1 FEA REFERENCE MODELS ....................................................................................................8
3.2 SEGMENT ARCHITECTURE .....................................................................................................9
3.3 FEDERAL TRANSITION FRAMEWORK.....................................................................................10
4 FRAMEWORK STRUCTURE .................................................................................... 12
4.1 CHANGES IN THE 3.1 FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................12
4.2 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA OVERVIEW .....................................................................................12
5 AGENCY EA ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION AND SCORING PROCESS................ 15
5.1 EAAF VERSION 3.1 IMPLEMENTATION TIMING ......................................................................15
5.2 AGENCY EA ASSESSMENT & REVIEW ..................................................................................16
6 ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 3.1 CRITERIA.......................................................... 18
6.1 COMPLETION CAPABILITY AREA ...........................................................................................18
6.1.1 Target Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Transition Plan...............................................................19
6.1.2 Architectural Prioritization.......................................................................................................................21
6.1.3 Scope of Completion..................................................................................................................................22
6.1.4 Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)............................................................................................................24
6.2 USE CAPABILITY AREA ........................................................................................................26
6.2.1 Performance Improvement Integration .....................................................................................................26
6.2.2 CPIC Integration.......................................................................................................................................28
6.2.3 FEA Reference Model and Exhibit 53 Data Quality .................................................................................29
6.2.4 Collaboration and Reuse...........................................................................................................................31
6.2.5 EA Governance, Program Management, Change Management, and Deployment ...................................33
6.3 RESULTS CAPABILITY AREA.................................................................................................36
6.3.1 Mission Performance ................................................................................................................................36
6.3.2 Cost Savings and Cost Avoidance .............................................................................................................37
6.3.3 IT Infrastructure Portfolio Quality............................................................................................................39
6.3.4 Measuring EA Program Value ..................................................................................................................40
APPENDIX A: ARTIFACT DESCRIPTIONS .............................................................. A-1
APPENDIX B: STRATEGY FOR MEASURING DATA QUALITY.............................. B-1
APPENDIX C: AGENCIES INCLUDED IN THE EA ASSESSMENT PROCESS ....... C-1
June 2009
OMB EA Assessment Framework 3.1
1 Introduction
The Federal Government is focused on delivering solutions and achieving results
grounded in the principles of transparency and open government. In the course of
managing the President’s budget, with over $70 billion in annual spending1, there is an
inherent responsibility to manage information technology (IT) investments wisely. This
investment, and in particular the $23.7 billion in Development, Modernization, and
Enhancement (DME, BY2010) funding, represents a key resource for improving agency
performance, closing performance gaps and achieving government-wide transformation.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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:
• Closing agency performance gaps identified via coordinated agency strategic

planning and performance management activities;
• Saving money and avoiding cost through collaboration and reuse, productivity
enhancements, and elimination of redundancy;
• Strengthening the quality of agency investment portfolios by improving security,
inter-operability, reliability, availability, solution development and service delivery
time, and overall end-user performance;
• Improving the quality, availability and sharing of data and information
government-wide; and
• Increasing the transparency of government operations by increasing the capacity
for citizen participation and cross-governmental collaboration.
While agencies have clearly demonstrated a degree of maturity and competency in
developing and using their EAs, EAAF Version 3.1 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.
EAAF Version 3.1 features the use of key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure the
effectiveness of EA relative to the three EA capabilities areas of Completion, Use, and
Results. It also moves agency EA submission to a template-based model aimed at
improving reporting and assessment via an automated process and delivery
mechanism. Artifacts will be posted on the MAX collaboration environment.
EAAF Version 3.1 also changes the assessment and reporting process. Instead of a
single annual assessment, Version 3.1 moves to posting relevant artifacts for the
Completion, Use, and Results capability areas in order to better align the use of EA with
agency planning, investment management, and budget formulation and decision-
making processes relevant to the annual budget cycle.
1
$75,829M total, $23,686M in DME. This represents the IT crosscut across the President’s BY10
Budget. Please see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/vue-it/index.html for more information.
June 2009 1
The EAAF supports policy implementation and assessment when meeting the EA and
related requirements set forth in OMB Circulars A-11 and A-130. EAAF Version 3.1 is
closely aligned with the methodologies, reporting templates, and tools such as the
Federal Transition Framework (FTF), the Federal Segment Architecture Methodology
(FSAM), and OMB’s IT Spending Dashboard.2
Six key success factors for agencies with the EAAF v3.1 will be their ability to:
• Align with agency performance improvement to quantitatively plan for and
support measurable delivery of agency performance improvement.
• Collaborate with other agencies to deliver common architectures for shared cross
boundary mission, business, and technical requirements.
• Contribute to the definition and implementation of the target Federal Enterprise
Architecture.
• Leverage bureau and program architecture activity to build out the agency EA
and ensure that agency-proposed IT spending is well-architected, implementing
the target agency and Federal Enterprise Architecture, and demonstrably driving
agency performance improvement.
• Integrate with agency IT Governance to ensure effective use of the agency EA to
support delivery of agency performance improvement.
• Through the above, establish buy-in with mission and business owners, and
complete the evolution to results-focused architecture.
OMB is committed to working with agencies through the annual assessment and
quarterly reporting process to successfully implement the EAAF v3.1. For more
information on the quarterly reporting process, see Section 5 below.
2
Additional information on these tools and methodologies can be found at www.egov.gov , Note: IT
Spending Dashboard was previously referred to as VUE-IT.
June 2009 2
2 Performance Improvement Lifecycle

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.
The focus of this document, and the discussion in this chapter, is information and IT-
enabled performance improvement.
Agency EA programs are one of several practice areas that must be effectively
executed to achieve improvements in agency mission performance and other
measurement areas.3 EA helps to organize and clarify the relationships among agency
strategic goals, investments, business solutions, and measurable performance
improvements - it is but one link in a chain of integrated practice areas. To achieve
target performance improvements, other practice areas ~ such as strategic planning,
capital planning and investment control (CPIC), and program and project management
~ must be strong and fully integrated with an agency EA practice.
Results-oriented architecture is developed within the context of the Performance

Improvement Lifecycle. The Performance Improvement Lifecycle comprises three
phases: “Architect”, “Invest”, and “Implement”. Each lifecycle phase is comprised of
tightly integrated processes that combine to transform the agency’s top-down strategic
goals and bottom-up system needs into a logical series of work products designed to
help the agency achieve strategic results. Through practice area integration, the
Performance Improvement Lifecycle provides the foundation for sound information and
IT management practices, end-to-end governance of IT investments, and alignment of
IT investments with an agency’s strategic goals.
The Performance Improvement Lifecycle defines a simple value chain linking enterprise
architecture with IT investment management and program and project execution.
Figure 2-1 below illustrates the logical integration and sequencing of key architecture,
investment and implementation activities, as well as feedback from program
assessment and performance measurement.
3
Other stakeholders, many of whom are the actual drivers and owners for program success, include the
Chief Financial Officer and Budget Officers, Chief Performance Officers, Chief Acquisition Officers,
Congress, agency leadership, business owners, program managers, and the public.
June 2009 3
Architect Invest Implement
Prioritize Develop Create

Agency Develop and Allocate Execute Agency
Segments Segment Program
maintain EA Resources Projects
Strategy (ETP) Architecture Management Results
Plan
Measure, Assess, and Improve
Figure 2-1: Information and IT-Enabled Performance Improvement Lifecycle
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:
• identify and prioritize enterprise segments and opportunities to improve mission
performance, linked to agency goals and objectives;
• plan a course of action to close performance gaps, using common or shared
information assets and information technology assets;
• allocate agency resources supporting program management and project
execution;
• measure and assess performance to verify and report results; and
• assess feedback on program performance to enhance architecture, investment
and implementation decisions.
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. Prioritization underscores the importance of
considering cost savings and cost avoidance commitments and delivery in this step, as
well as year-over-year cost and schedule performance of IT investments. In particular,
agencies should utilize feedback from performance measurement mechanisms to
evaluate and adjust their prioritization of enterprise segments.
2.1 ARCHITECT
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.
June 2009 4
The purpose of the target enterprise architecture is to develop a set of blueprints, using
the FEA reference models, that when implemented can effectively achieve the strategic
goals of an agency or agencies, The enterprise transition plan (ETP) identifies a
desired set of business and IT capabilities, and highlights the performance milestones
that need to be met along the path to achieving the target enterprise architecture. It
also defines logical dependencies between major activities (i.e. program/project,
investment) and helps to define the relative priority and sequencing of those activities.
This can be represented at the enterprise level or across segments within the EA.
Agencies should prioritize segments within the EA using performance improvement

opportunities captured in the enterprise-wide performance architecture. The
prioritization process should also consider further opportunities to increase cost-
effectiveness in service delivery, to enhance IT portfolio quality, or to improve the
quality, validity, and timeliness of mission performance and cost accounting metrics.
To achieve the target performance improvements, the agency EA should fully integrate
with the capital planning and investment control (CPIC) step, as well as the agency
system (solution) development life cycle (SDLC). OMB Circular A-130 states:
“Agencies must establish and maintain a capital planning and investment control
process that links mission needs, information, and information technology in an effective
and efficient manner. The process will guide both strategic and operational IRM, IT
planning, and the enterprise architecture by integrating the agency's IRM plans,
strategic and performance plans, financial management plans and the agency's budget
formulation and execution processes…”
The FEA Practice Guidance4, provides more information on techniques and best
practices for EA Practice Integration.
2.2 INVEST
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.
Agency investment proposals captured in the agency’s Exhibit 53 and portfolio of

Exhibit 300s need to be aligned with the agency EA. To show alignment with the
agency EA and transition plan, the Exhibit 300s and Exhibit 53 line items for each
investment are mapped to the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Reference Models
and agency-defined segment architectures. This creates a linkage from agency
strategy to EA to segment architecture to IT investment, thus ensuring resources are
utilized to support the strategic objectives of the organization.
4
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_Practice_Guidance_Nov_2007.pdf
5
It is recognized that, more often than not, funding is provided by Congress in advance of program
design or the development of an architecture.
June 2009 5
During this step of the Performance Improvement Lifecycle, agencies should carefully
evaluate and adjust their prioritization to ensure investments are aligned, via high-
priority segments, to agency strategic goals and objectives. Further, the prioritization
should be refined to reflect additional opportunities for cost savings and avoidance, as
well as other approaches to improve agency performance. Agencies should also
incorporate high priority national objectives identified as part of the FTF within its EA
and investment portfolio.
The FEA Practice Guidance provides more information on techniques and best
practices to align agency enterprise architecture and investments.
2.3 IMPLEMENT
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. Performance is measured to determine how well the implemented
solutions achieve the desired (process) outputs and mission outcomes, and provide
feedback into the enterprise and segment architecture development processes as well
as the cyclical strategic planning process.
2.4 MEASURE, ASSESS AND IMPROVE

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.
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. PAR metrics and measures provide specific
information on agency mission performance, and often monitor and regulate agency
strategy.
The FEA Practice Guidance6 provides more information on techniques and best
practices to align the agency ETP and performance measures and outcomes.
For segment architecture development, the EA Segment Reporting v1.2 guidance

provides an explanation of using performance data from the PAR, PART, and Exhibit
300s to inform segment level performance measures and metrics. Invariably,
transformation at the enterprise level, cannot occur without the measured performance
improvements and outcomes demonstrated within each of the segments.
6
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_Practice_Guidance_Nov_2007.pdf.
June 2009 6
2.5 AGENCY SUBMISSION DATA QUALITY

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.
Within OMB, the Office of E-Government and Information Technology considers a

variety of different data sources and inputs in the analysis of proposed IT investments.
These data sources include but are not limited to:
• Agency EA submissions, plans, and milestones

• Agency-submitted IT investment portfolio (Exhibit 53)
• Investment business cases (Exhibit 300)
• Prior year agency IT budget
• Reports from the General Accounting Office and Inspector General
• Program oversight data including earned-value management and other reports
• Agency management commitments and results
This data helps OMB decision-makers select IT initiatives and investments that promise
to deliver the highest value and performance impact for the Federal Government within
a constrained budgetary environment. In order to make informed decisions, OMB is
dependent upon agencies to provide high-quality data submissions. EAAF Version 3.1
outlines expectations for high quality submissions through transparency on KPIs and
associated algorithms and heuristics.
Appendix B describes OMB’s strategy for using the KPIs defined within the EAAF
Version 3.1 to enforce high standards of data quality for agency EA and IT investment
portfolio submissions.
June 2009 7
3 Federal Enterprise Architecture Overview

The Federal Enterprise Architecture is a business-based framework used by Federal
Chief Information Officers (CIOs) to develop IT investment portfolios aligned to their
agency’s business functions and processes and cross-agency needs. The Federal
Enterprise Architecture provides several discrete artifacts including:
• The FEA Reference Models;
• The Federal Transition Framework (FTF)7; and
• An Assessment Instrument (OMB EA Assessment Framework).
OMB Circular A-118 sections 53 and 300 require Federal agencies to align their IT
investments to the FEA Reference Models and segment architecture. EAAF Version
3.1 is designed to assess agency responses to this policy and gauge the extent
agencies are using their EA and ETP to implement cross-agency initiatives and achieve
measurable performance improvements.
3.1 FEA REFERENCE MODELS

The FEA Reference models include the Performance Reference Model (PRM); the
Business Reference Model (BRM); the Service Component Reference Model (SRM);
the Data Reference Model (DRM); and the Technical Reference Model (TRM).
Together, these models comprise the FEA Consolidated Reference Model (CRM) as
illustrated in Figure 3-1.
Performance Reference Model (PRM)
Component-Based Architecture
• Inputs, outputs, and outcomes
Business-Driven Approach
• Uniquely tailored performance indicators
Business Reference Model (BRM)

• Lines of Business
• Agencies, customers, partners
Service Component Reference Model (SRM)

• Service domains, service types
• Business and service components
Data Reference Model (DRM)

• Business-focused data standardization
• Cross-agency information exchanges
Technical Reference Model (TRM)
• Service component interfaces, interoperability
• Technologies, recommendations
Figure 3-1: FEA Reference Models
7
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fea/
8
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a11/current_year/a11_toc.html
June 2009 8
The Performance Reference Model (PRM) provides a framework to use EA to

measure the success of IT investments and their corresponding impact on strategic
outcomes. This model links internal business components to the achievement of
business and customer-centric outputs.
The Business Reference Model (BRM) provides a comprehensive blueprint of the

federal government around common business models. By focusing on common
business models spanning multiple agencies, it promotes agency collaboration and
facilitates the alignment of business functions with common FEA solutions and E-Gov
strategies.
The Service Component Reference Model (SRM) classifies service components

according to their support for business and performance objectives. This model
improves efficiency by exposing opportunities for the reuse of business components
and services to support business functions across the Federal Government.
The Data Reference Model (DRM) enables information sharing and reuse across the
Federal Government through the standard description and discovery of common data
and the promotion of uniform data management practices. This model provides
guidance on the implementation of consistent processes to enable data sharing through
Federal Government-wide agreements.
The Technical Reference Model (TRM) categorizes standards and technologies to

enable the delivery of service components and capabilities. This model provides a
foundation to advance reuse and technology standardization from a government-wide
perspective. It allows agencies to realize economies of scale by identifying and reusing
the best solutions and technologies to support their mission and business functions.
3.2 SEGMENT ARCHITECTURE

Enterprise segments are subsets of the overall agency enterprise architecture, describing
core mission areas (e.g., homeland security, health), business services (e.g. financial
management), or cross-cutting enterprise services (e.g. Information Sharing). Core mission
and business service segments are aligned with the FEA BRM and enterprise service
segments are aligned with the SRM.
Agency Enterprise Architects define enterprise segments as a component of their EA

planning activities. Segments are classified as one of the three fundamental segment
types (core business, business service, enterprise service). In turn, investments
supporting a given segment reflect the target segment architecture and are aligned with
the agency enterprise architecture.
Agencies should use their strategic goals and objectives, EA and ETP as the basis for
identifying and prioritizing enterprise segments. The process to identify and prioritize
enterprise segments should reflect the following key characteristics:
• Use performance gaps, identified by the agency’s strategic plan, IG or GAO reports,
and/or performance improvement assessments, as the driver for segment
identification and prioritization;
June 2009 9
• Identify new requirements and opportunities within the agency strategic plan and
use these new requirements to expand existing segments or develop new
segments;
• Integrate cross-agency initiatives using the FTF described below; and
• Measure the value of and results from enterprise architecture to stakeholders.
Cross-agency teams, chartered by the Federal CIO Council, are working with OMB to
develop step-by-step step guidance documents serving as a road map for architects
developing segment architecture.
3.3 FEDERAL TRANSITION FRAMEWORK

The Federal Transition Framework (FTF)9 provides agencies with information on how to
align their enterprise architecture and segment architecture to various policy-driven
cross-agency information technology (IT) initiatives using a simple and familiar
structure. The FTF contains a catalog of cross-agency initiatives in a format easily
incorporated and is comprised of sections corresponding to specific cross-agency
initiatives. Each initiative is described using a standard structure including layers
corresponding to the five FEA reference models.
Agencies should use their Enterprise Transition Plan (ETP) and segment architectures
to align and integrate appropriate cross-agency initiatives from the FTF with their
enterprise architecture10. Relevant cross-agency initiatives are reflected in agency IT
investment portfolios (Exhibit 53) and business cases (Exhibit 300s). Segment
architectures provide the integration point between cross-agency initiatives,
performance improvement goals, and agency improvement commitments, as illustrated
below in Figure 3-2. The FEA Practice Guidance and Federal Segment Architecture
Methodology (FSAM) provide additional information on segment architecture and the
ETP.
9
10
The burden of proof lies with the agency whenever that agency includes architectural segments that are
identical OR similar to initiatives that are included in the FTF. For example: Since there is a government-
wide financial management initiative identified in the FTF, any agency that proposes a new financial
management effort that does not reuse, share, or comport with the FTF initiative must provide written
justification on why that agency’s requirements are so divergent from the FTF financial management
initiative as to warrant separate development and funding. For the most part, if a service component
exists within the FTF, agencies are required to consider reuse or share services, and replicate the
architectural segment from the FTF, including the Lines of Business.
June 2009 10
Enterprise Transition Plan Exhibit 53

Major IT Investments (All IT Investments)
Program A
Segment Architecture
Project 1
Line of Business
Project 2
Target EA with Segments

Exhibit 300
Architecture
53 Line Item
Current EA “Baseline”
Project 3
Segment
Baseline
Project 4
Project 5
Program B
Project
Project
6
7 Exhibit 300 53 Line Item
Project 8
Project 9
53 Line Item
Program C
Architecture
Architecture
53 Line Item
Segment
Baseline
Segment
Project 6
Project 7
Project 8
Project 9 53 Line Item
Program D
Exhibit 300 53 Line Item
Architecture
Architecture
Project 10
Segment
Baseline
Segment
Project 11
Project 12
Project 13 53 Line Item
Performance
Improvement Interim Interim Interim
Summary
Target 1 Target 2 Target 3
Program and Project Milestones:

• Performance Improvement
• Cost Savings / Cost Avoidance
Cross-Agency Initiatives (FTF)
Figure 3-2: Enterprise Alignment and Integration
As part of the architectural planning process, architects in conjunction with segment and
investment owners should evaluate opportunities to incorporate FTF initiatives to deliver
measurable performance benefits. Benefits should be quantified in terms of component
reuse, improved collaboration, information sharing, cost savings, cost avoidance, and
mission performance improvements.
In the event an FTF initiative cannot be integrated with the agency enterprise
architecture, architects should provide feedback to the FTF initiative’s Managing Partner
and OMB on the aspects of initiatives not satisfying agency requirements. This
guidance will allow initiative owners and managing partners to effectively reengineer the
scope of FTF initiatives to bridge these gaps and thereby expand the potential audience
and cross-applicability for the initiative.
June 2009 11
4 Framework Structure
EAAF Version 3.1 moves to a template-based submission process – one for each
agency defined segment architecture, identifying enterprise segments and aspects of
the target enterprise architecture.
4.1 CHANGES IN THE 3.1 FRAMEWORK

The template-based submission process is designed to facilitate ease of submitting
agency EA data and improving the assessment, review, and feedback of agency EA, IT
investments, and performance improvements.
Agency artifacts will be posted on the MAX collaboration sites. The MAX environment
is intended to promote information sharing and transparency among agencies,
particularly those with shared mission areas, business services, or enterprise services.
MAX allows agencies to work together to identify, diffuse, and adopt best practices, and
improve the quality and use of agency EAs throughout the year.
The framework continues to reflect “Architecture Principles for the US Government”

located at www.cio.gov11, and provides support for OMB’s focus on cost-effective agency
mission performance.
4.2 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA OVERVIEW

The framework uses assessment criteria to evaluate the performance and effectiveness
of agency enterprise architecture programs. Each criterion consists of five performance
levels, scored from 1-5. Related assessment criteria are grouped into three capability
areas: Completion, Use and Results. A summary outline of each of the three capability
areas is provided below.
Completion addresses the following key performance indicators:
• Target Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Transition Plan – Measures
the degree to which the target EA is positioned to serve as the agency’s blueprint
that describes its future state from a performance, business, service, data, and
technology standpoint. It measures the inclusion of performance goals and
transition milestones within agency segments and the broader EA. The target
enterprise architecture will be the comprehensive set of agency segment
architectures, as well as enterprise/cross-cutting services identified in the
enterprise transition plan. Also, the target EA determines how effectively and
efficiently the transition plan drives reuse of shared services within and across
agencies.
• Architectural Prioritization – Measures the degree to which an agency has in
place the requisite processes and mechanisms in place to prioritize its segments.
11
The complete URL is
http://www.cio.gov/index.cfm?function=showdocs&structure=Information%20Technology&category=Enterprise%20Architecture
June 2009 12
• Scope of Completion – Measures the percentage of the agency enterprise IT

portfolio funding amount covered by performance improvements and completed
segment architectures.
• Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - Internet protocol version 6 (IPv6)
milestones must be incorporated into the agency’s IT infrastructure segment
architecture and related IT investment portfolio. The agency must have concrete
plans to deploy IPv6 enabled mission services and applications in its
environment.
Use addresses the following key performance indicators:
• Performance Improvement Integration – Measures how effectively the agency
has aligned its performance improvement plans with its enterprise transition plan.
Major investments in the agency IT portfolio must be represented in the
enterprise transition plan and align with a performance improvement program
and approved/submitted segment architectures.
• CPIC integration – Measures the alignment between the enterprise transition
plan and the agency Exhibit 53 and portfolio of Exhibit 300s.
• FEA Reference Model and Exhibit 53 Part Mapping – Measures the
completeness and accuracy of the primary FEA reference model mapping and
Exhibit 53 Part (1-6) specification of the IT investments in the agency IT portfolio.
• Collaboration and Reuse –Measures agency progress in migrating their target
applications and shared services portfolio, and creating a services environment
within the agency.
• EA Governance, Program Management, Change Management and
Deployment – Measures the degree to which the agency governs and manages
the implementation and use of EA policies and processes.
Results address the following key performance indicators:

• Mission Performance – Measures the extent to which agencies are using EA to
drive program performance improvement. Agencies must show measurable
improvements in program improvement scores of supported programs.
• Cost Savings and Cost Avoidance - Measures the extent to which agencies
are using EA and IT to control costs. OMB will review earned value management
reports to assess the effectiveness of agencies in controlling costs. In addition,
OMB will analyze steady state spending, which ~ all things being equal ~ should
go down over time as legacy systems are consolidated and retired.
• Measuring EA Program Value – Measures the direct benefits of EA value to
agency decision-makers. EA value measurement tracks architecture
development and use, and monitors the impact of EA products and services on
IT and business investment decisions, collaboration and reuse, standards
compliance, stakeholder satisfaction, and other measurement areas and
indicators.
Examples of representative artifacts are included to assist agencies in demonstrating

their maturity for each assessment criterion. It is important to note, the description of
the artifacts is not intended to be exhaustive or prescriptive. Moreover, agencies may
June 2009 13
decide to develop additional artifacts or elaborate upon them further than described
here. Appendix A provides a description of the artifacts in more detail.
Additionally, for each assessment criterion, a rationale and a mandate are provided.
The rationale explains why OMB considers it important to collect information about each
criterion and the mandate links the assessment criterion to law and/or policy, as
applicable.
The FEA Practice Guidance provides more information on techniques and best
practices for EA Practice Integration. All documents listed as mandates are available
for download from the OMB E-Government website on the following pages:
• Legislation: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/
• OMB Memoranda: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda_default/
• Federal Enterprise Architecture: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fea/
• Federal Transition Framework: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fea/
• IT Spending Dashboard: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/
• Federal Segment Architecture Methodology (FSAM): http://www.fsam.gov
• EA Segment Report: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fea/
June 2009 14
5 Agency EA Assessment Submission and

Scoring Process
The EA assessment submission process for EAAF Version 3.1 has been updated from
a single annual submission and assessment to submissions throughout the year, as
indicated below, for each of the capability areas: Completion, Use and Results. This
change coincides with the quarterly EA Segment Reporting submission requirement.
The change is intended to enable agencies to more effectively focus on using and
demonstrating the results of using the EA at key stages in the annual planning,
investment, and budget cycle.
The submission and scoring process are discussed below. The list of agencies to be
assessed using this Framework is included in Appendix C.
5.1 EAAF VERSION 3.1 IMPLEMENTATION

TIMING
The Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework Version 3.1 features increasing
integration among the EA assessment, capital planning and investment control, and
project/program performance management processes. Accordingly, this level of
integration is accompanied by changes in the EA reporting standards and reporting
schedule.
EAAF Version 3.1 will be phased in over the next two EA budget preparation cycles,
with full implementation and accountability required for the budget year (BY) 2012 cycle
(submissions starting in Q3 FY10). KPI levels are provided in the EAAF v3.1 criteria
portion (Chapter 6) and interim KPI thresholds for the BY 2011 cycle are identified via
footnotes in Chapter 6.
The general schedule for the submission process is:
Submission Submission due to OMB

Completion Last business day of May
Use Last business day of August
Results Last business day of November
Figure 5-1: OMB EA Assessment Schedule
June 2009 15
OMB will provide feedback following the review and assessment of each of the agency
EA submissions. The following diagram depicts the timeline for the EA reporting
activities over a fiscal year:
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
EA Segment
Reporting 9 9 9 9
Agency EA Self
Assessment and EA
9 9 9
Submission Updates Completion Use Results
OMB Review and

Assessment of
Agency EA Snapshots
9 9 9
OMB Feedback to
Agency on EA
Assessment
9 9 9
Figure 5-2: Consolidated Segment Reporting and EA Assessment Schedule
5.2 AGENCY EA ASSESSMENT & REVIEW

The updated assessment process provides for a comprehensive review of the state of
an agency’s enterprise architecture program. As such, the assessment process serves
both as an internal diagnostic for agencies as well as an oversight mechanism for OMB
to monitor agency program progress. Agencies will use the framework to perform a
self-assessment and update their architectures throughout the year. OMB will assess
agency architectures and provide a final assessment rating and feedback. OMB may
request additional artifacts from the agency during the assessment process if further
documents are needed to validate and confirm agency architecture maturity levels.
The assessment focuses on three capability areas of EA:

• Completion of an enterprise architecture;
• Use of EA to drive improved decision-making; and
• Results achieved to improve the agency’s program effectiveness.
Agencies will receive an average assessment score in each capability area, calculated
by summing the score for all criteria within the capability area and dividing by the
number of criteria. Scores will be rounded to the nearest tenth. The results of the
overall EA assessment will be provided to the agency.
June 2009 16
The following table describes how agency EAs will be assessed:
Maturity Completion Use Results

• Average score • Average score • Average score
equal to or equal to or equal to or
greater than 4 in greater than 4 in greater than 4 in
INCREA SING LEVELS
the “Completion” the “Use” the “Results”

capability area capability area capability area
OF MA TURITY
• Score equal to or • Score equal to or • Score equal to or

greater than 3 in greater than 3 in greater than 3 in
the “Completion” the “Use” the “Results”
capability area capability area capability area
• Score less than 3
• Score less than 3 • Score less than 3
in the
in the “Use” in the “Results”
“Completion”
capability area capability area
capability area
June 2009 17
6 Assessment Framework 3.1 Criteria

This section provides a description of the key performance indicators (KPIs) for EAAF
Version 3.1. This includes a definition of each KPI, how the KPI is measured, the
standards for achieving each level, and the specific artifacts and/or data sources used
to measure the KPI. Unless otherwise noted, the scoring and the associated
activities/artifacts for all KPIs are cumulative. For example, to achieve the next
higher level for a given KPI, an agency must meet all requirements of previous levels in
addition to the requirements of the level in question.
6.1 COMPLETION CAPABILITY AREA

• Description: This category measures the completion of an agency’s EA artifacts in
terms of performance, business, data, services, and technology. The agency’s
baseline and target architectures are well-defined, showing traceability through all
architectural layers. Using its enterprise transition plan, the agency is able to
achieve its desired target state.
• Outcomes:
o Identifies specific reporting the agency needs to provide to OMB to support
data-driven analysis and decision-making around EA and IT portfolio
management.
o Describes the future capabilities (via enterprise transition plan and target
segment architectures) to enable the agency to achieve its performance
goals.
o Identifies the magnitude of the gap between the baseline and target
architectures and possible improvement strategies to realize its target state.
o Effectively integrates relevant cross-agency initiatives into the agency’s target
architecture and enterprise transition plan, including all applicable FTF
initiatives.
o Produces segment architectures describing agency lines of business to be
used to assist agency managers in decision-making tasks.
o Identifies duplication and opportunities for consolidation and reuse of
information and technology within and across agencies.
o Provides a framework and a functional view of an agency’s lines of business
(LoBs), including its internal operations/processes.
• Notes:
o The Completion capability area assesses agency maturity in developing
baseline and target architectures in terms of the five FEA reference models:
performance, business, data, service component, and technology. However,
this should not be construed as a requirement for agencies to restructure their
EA frameworks into five corresponding layers or views. OMB does not
require agencies to adopt one specific EA framework, unless specified in
OMB budget guidance. In their submissions to OMB, agencies are simply
June 2009 18
required to demonstrate the availability of the content described in each

assessment criterion within their EA.
o Unless specifically authorized by OMB, agencies must consider and fully
utilize relevant cross-agency initiatives, including shared services and
documented completed segment architectures. Cross-agency initiatives are
not limited to the Federal Transition Framework. Other opportunities include
utilizing GWACs and BPAs for acquisition, where applicable.
6.1.1 Target Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Transition Plan

• Description: The target enterprise architecture (EA) is the agency’s blueprint
describing its desired future state from a performance, business, service, data and
technology standpoint12. Cross-agency initiatives documented in the FTF catalog
provide a model and resource for defining shared services. The target enterprise
architecture will be comprised of a comprehensive set of agency segment
architectures, as well as enterprise/cross-cutting services identified in the enterprise
transition plan. The agency enterprise transition plan describes the agency’s
activities for migrating from its baseline architecture to its target architecture, and is
culled from the segment architecture transition plans. Agencies should submit an
enterprise transition plan, encompassing at a minimum all major IT investments
(organized by segment, where applicable) and non-major investments requesting
DME funding for the BY, with relevant action steps required to achieve performance
goals and milestones across the segments and enterprise.
• Rationale: Agencies are required by OMB Circular A-130 to develop a target
enterprise architecture. The target EA is an essential work product in enabling the
comparison of the desired future state with the current IT portfolio and environment,
identifying gaps, redundancies, and costs. This allows the agency to conduct
efficient and effective transition planning and develop segment architectures and an
IT investment portfolio aligned to the agency's statutory mission and strategic goals
and objectives. The enterprise transition plan defines projects, programs, and
timelines/milestones and is the foundation for modernization and transformation
activities from the baseline to target architecture.
• Mandate: OMB A-11, section 300; GPRA; OMB Circular A-130
Activities:
• The agency must have a target enterprise architecture that is a
consolidated representation of all agency segments.
• The agency must submit their segment architectures as EA Segment
Level 1 Reports.
Practices
• The agency must submit an enterprise transition plan. There is no
indication of reuse.
Artifacts:
• Target EA, Enterprise Transition Plan, EA Segment Report
12
The FEA reference models (PRM, BRM, SRM, DRM, and TRM) are typically used as a "common
language" to articulate target capabilities - although many agencies can and do customize these models
to meet their evolving needs.
June 2009 19
Activities:
• The target enterprise architecture must address all FTF cross-agency
initiative areas within scope for the agency (i.e. comply with all
statutory and policy requirements promulgated by the initiatives).
Level 2 • EA Segment Report transition milestones13 demonstrate reuse,
Practices within the agency.
• EA Segment Report transition milestones are evident in the
Enterprise Transition Plan
Artifacts:
• Target EA, Enterprise Transition Plan, EA Segment Report, Exh. 53
Activities:
• EA Segment Report transition milestones14 demonstrate reuse
and/or information sharing with appropriate initiatives within the FTF
Level 3 catalog.
Practices
• Plans exist to address to mature agency segment architectures.
Artifacts:
Activities:
and/or information sharing with other government agencies.
• EA Segment Report transition milestones clearly demonstrate line-of-
Level 4 sight to Agency performance goals and commitments (as identified in
Practices the EA Segment Report v1.2 - Performance Section.
• The Agency has defined segment architecture for its major mission
areas and cross-cutting services.
Artifacts:
Activities:
• All of the agency’s segment architectures are in-progress or complete
maturity stages.
and/or information sharing among sub-units of the agency and/or
Level 5 other agencies.
Practices
• EA Segment Report transition milestones clearly demonstrate line-of-
sight to Agency performance goals (as identified in the EA Segment
Report v1.2 - Performance Section.
Artifacts:
13
EA Segment Report transition milestones are identified in the EASRv1.2 Segment Transition Planning Section
14
Ibid
15
Ibid
16
Ibid
June 2009 20
6.1.2 Architectural Prioritization

• Description: The agency should prioritize the use of its architecture resources
towards high priority needs (defined by statutory requirements, agency strategic
plan, IRM strategic plan, etc). Agencies should have a structured process for
determining high priority segments and demonstrate initiation of segment
architecture development after final approval. The agency’s prioritization process
should consider input from OMB (via passback, assessment review, and periodic
feedback) to minimize redundant segment architecture development of cross-agency
initiatives and to maximize alignment with agency priorities. All segments will be
submitted using the standard EA segment report template. Submission of a formal
documented/approved segment prioritization process is recommended but not
mandatory.
• Mandate: FTF Catalog, EA Segment Report
Activities:
• The agency must have a process in place to prioritize and initiate the
development of segment architectures.
• The prioritization process contains prioritization criteria including
mission performance and cost efficiency opportunities.
Level 1
• The agency’s prioritization process must yield proposed high priority
Practices
segments approved by the agency CIO.
• The agency registers its segment(s) with OMB.
Artifacts:
• Segment architecture prioritization process, identified high priority
segment approved by CIO, EA Segment Report
Activities:
• The agency’s prioritization process has matured and contains
quantitative prioritization criteria including each segment’s financial
Level 2 spending data, existing performance plans, and performance
Practices assessments such as the Performance and Accountability Report.
Artifacts:
Activities:
• The agency’s prioritization process must include the identification of
mission performance gaps tied to specific segments.
• The agency prioritization process should be factored into segment
prioritization along with the performance and financial spending data
Level 3 available for segments.
Practices • Additionally, the prioritization process should include consideration of
IT security opportunities.
• The agency must show evidence of segment business owner(s)
signoff.
Artifacts:
June 2009 21

Activities:
segments aligned with upstream mission performance improvement
planning and approved by the agency’s CIO.
• These high priority segments should also incorporate OMB input and
be approved by the agency’s Investment Review Board and
respective business owner.
• The agency must demonstrate initiation of segment architecture
Level 4 activities within 3 months after approval.
Practices • The prioritization process must include the identification and review
of mission performance gaps, the prioritization of segments, and the
understanding of how these priorities will impact the IT portfolio.
signoff.
Artifacts:
segments approved by CIO and business owner(s), EA Segment
Report.
Activities:
segments aligned with upstream cross-mission performance
improvement planning and approved by the head of the agency (or
designated chief management officer.
Level 5
Practices
signoff for all submitted segments.
Artifacts:
segments approved by head of the agency, CIO and business
owner(s), EA Segment Report.
6.1.3 Scope of Completion

• Description: This KPI is measured by the percentage of the agency enterprise IT
portfolio funding amount covered by a completed segment architecture. Agency EA
programs should leverage bureau-level EA efforts in the development and
completion of segments in accordance with agency-level standards and governance,
as well as integration of shared cross-agency segments. This KPI also measures
the degree of usage of FTF initiatives in the development of segment architectures.
Finally, this KPI addresses the accuracy and consistency of segment architecture
codes reported on the agency Exhibit 53 portion
Note for future submission cycles: A portion of designated segment codes will be
required to be consistent with segment architecture definitions and scope agreed
upon with OMB and with primary FEA Reference Model mapping, where applicable.
• Mandate: FTF Catalog; OMB Circular A-11 section 53
June 2009 22
Activities:
• All agency IT investments must have one and only one associated
segment architecture identified on the agency Exhibit 53 expect for
limited instances.17
Level 1 • These segment architectures should come from the list of agency
Practices segment architectures provided by the agency to OMB.
• These segments do not have to be fully built out.
Artifacts:
• Exhibit 53, EA Segment Report, and agency provided segment
architecture codes
Activities:
• All of the Agency’s Major IT Investments, and non-majors with DME
spend must be associated with a segment architecture.
• At least 70%18 of agency Exhibit 53 DME spending must be
represented in In-progress or Completed segment architecture, and
represented on the Enterprise Transition Plan.
Level 2
Practices • At least 10%19 of the DME funding amount of the entire agency
Exhibit 53 must be aligned to completed segment architecture(s).
The agency provides a full accounting of the usage status and
rationale for non-use of Federal Transition Framework initiatives for
all segments.
Artifacts:
• EA Segment Report and Exhibit 53
Activities:
• At least 80%20 of agency Exhibit 53 DME spending must be
represented in In-progress or Completed segment architecture, and
represented on the Enterprise Transition Plan.
• At least 40%21 of the DME funding amount of the entire agency
Level 3 Exhibit 53 must be aligned to completed segment architecture(s).
Practices
• The agency can demonstrate the planned usage of at least one
Federal Transition Framework initiative within a segment reported to
OMB.
Artifacts:
Activities:
Level 4 • At least 90%22 of full agency IT Portfolio (Exhibit 53) spending must
Practices be represented in In-progress or Completed segment architecture,
and represented on the Enterprise Transition Plan.
17
The exception to the “one and only one” rule is for investments such as an ERP system which the
investment is the key data system for multiple segments, as stated in the EA Segment Report v1.2. This
should not be used where an investment provides a service that is utilized or consumed by multiple
business areas.
18
For the FY11 submission cycle (due Q3 FY09), the level 2 KPI is 50%.
19
20
21
June 2009 23

• The agency can demonstrate the complete usage of at least one
Federal Transition Framework initiative within a segment reported to
OMB.
Artifacts:
Activities:
• 100%24 of agency Exhibit 53 IT Portfolio funding must be represented
in In-progress or Completed segment architecture, and represented
on the Enterprise Transition Plan.
Level 5
Practices
The agency can demonstrate the complete usage of at least one
Federal Transition Framework initiative within more than one
segment reported to OMB.
Artifacts:
6.1.4 Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)

• Description: The agency’s EA (including enterprise transition plan) must incorporate
Internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) into the agency’s IT infrastructure segment
architecture and IT investment portfolio.
• Mandate: OMB Memorandum M-05-22
Activities:
• The agency has performed a cost and risk impact analysis for
migrating to IPv6.
Level 1
• Agency has also completed a second inventory of IP-aware devices.
Practices
Artifacts:
• IPv6 impact analysis document using guidance in Attachment B of
OMB M-05-22; second IP-aware device inventory (Attachment A)
Activities:
• The agency has met all of its IPv6 transition milestones, and is on
schedule to complete transition per OMB M-05-22.
Level 2 Artifacts:
Practices • IPv6 transition milestones (included in the enterprise transition plan)
through completion date showing projected and actual completion
dates, evidence of milestone completion (agency should determine
the artifact(s) constituting evidence of completion for each milestone),
documentation of successful execution of deployment test criteria
22
23
24
25
June 2009 24
(once transition is complete)

Activities:
• The agency has incorporated IPv6 modernization activities into its IT
Level 3 infrastructure segment architecture.
Practices
Artifacts:
• IT infrastructure segment architecture
Activities:
• The agency has made concrete plans (e.g., stood up an IT
Level 4 investment with an Exhibit 300 business case, etc.) to deploy IPv6
Practices enabled network services in its environment.
Artifacts:
• IT infrastructure segment architecture, Exhibit 53, Exhibit 300s
Activities:
• The agency has made concrete plans (e.g., stood up an IT
Level 5 investment with an Exhibit 300 business case, etc.) to deploy IPv6
Practices enabled mission services and applications in its environment.
Artifacts:
• IT infrastructure segment architecture, Exhibit 53, Exhibit 300s
June 2009 25
6.2 USE CAPABILITY AREA

• Description: The agency has established the necessary management practices,
processes, and policies needed for developing, maintaining and overseeing EA, and
demonstrating the importance of EA awareness and the value of employing EA
practices within the agency. The agency uses its EA to inform strategic planning,
information resources management, IT management, and capital planning and
investment control processes.
• Outcomes:
o Establishes strategic objectives and programs the agency needs to meet
citizens’ needs.
o Demonstrates the relationship between EA, strategic planning, and capital
planning processes.
o Provides the ability to make better management decisions, and as necessary,
the ability to assess and re-assess the path forward.
6.2.1 Performance Improvement Integration

• Description: This KPI measures how effectively the agency has aligned its
performance improvement plans and its enterprise transition plan, in terms of
process and outcomes.
• Mandate: OMB A-11, Exhibit 53, and Exhibit 300; OMB Circular A-130
Activities:
• At least one major IT investment in the agency portfolio should be
aligned to a program that undergoes periodic performance
improvement evaluations.
• This specific IT investment must have an Exhibit 300 business case
Level 1 and must be on the agency's enterprise transition plan.
Practices • Alignment is measured using IT investment/program alignment
information reported in the Exhibit 300, Part I, Section A, question
14b.
Artifacts:
• Enterprise Transition Plan, Exhibit 300s, program improvement
assessment data26
Activities:
• The agency must demonstrate alignment between
approved/submitted segment architectures and at least one program
Level 2 that undergoes periodic performance improvement evaluations per
Practices segment.
• Alignment is measured through IT investment/program alignment
14b, compared to segment alignment reported in the agency Exhibit
26
This report is collected as part of the PART process. OMB will correlate the PART program data with
the EA data and the IT portfolio data
June 2009 26
53 or via equivalent agency processes for business services such as

IT Infrastructure or Financial Management.
Artifacts:
• Enterprise Transition Plan, EA Segment Report, Exhibit 300s,
program improvement assessment data
Activities:
• At least 70%27 of agency DME spending must be aligned to IT
investments to remediate program performance gaps.
• At least 50% of major investments in the agency IT portfolio must be
Level 3 • Alignment is measured through IT investment/program alignment
Practices information reported in the Exhibit 300, Part I, Section A, question
Artifacts:
Activities:
Level 4 • Alignment is measured through IT investment/program alignment
Practices information reported in the Exhibit 300, Part I, Section A, question
Artifacts:
Activities:
Level 5
Practices
• Alignment is measured through IT investment/program alignment
27
28
29
June 2009 27

Artifacts:
• Enterprise Transition Plan, Exhibit 300s, EA Segment Report
6.2.2 CPIC Integration

• Description: This measures the alignment between the enterprise transition plan
and the agency Exhibit 53 and portfolio of Exhibit 300s. It also measures the
accuracy of agency classification of IT investments by investment type on the
agency Exhibit 53.
• Rationale: Investment decisions should be made to achieve a more efficient and
effective target state.
• Mandate: OMB A-11, Exhibit 53, and Exhibit 300
Activities:
• All major IT investments in the agency Exhibit 53 must be
represented on the agency enterprise transition plan.
Level 1 • At least 40% of the IT investments in the agency Exhibit 53 have
Practices been mapped to the most appropriate investment type of the Exhibit
53 using definitions found in OMB Circular A-11, section 53.
Artifacts:
• Enterprise Transition Plan, Exhibit 53, and Exhibit 300s30
Activities:
• All major IT investments and at least 50%31 (in dollars) of non-major
investments in the agency Exhibit 53 must be represented on the
agency enterprise transition plan.
Level 2
• At least 50% of the IT investments in the agency Exhibit 53 have
Practices
been mapped to the most appropriate investment type of the Exhibit
Artifacts:
• Enterprise Transition Plan, Exhibit 53, and Exhibit 300s
Activities:
• All major IT investments and at least 50%32 (in dollars) of non-major
investments with DME spending in the agency Exhibit 53 must be
Level 3 represented on the agency enterprise transition plan.
Practices • There must be at least 50%33 agreement between milestones in the
enterprise transition plan and milestones reported in Part II, Section
C of the Exhibit 300 business cases for major IT investments.
30
This data is collected as part of the OMB Circular A-11 process. OMB will correlate the EA data with
the IT portfolio data
31
32
33
June 2009 28

Artifacts:
Activities:
• All major IT investments, all non-major investments with DME
spending, and at least 50%34 (in dollars) of the remaining non-major
investments in the agency Exhibit 53 must be represented on the
agency transition plan.
• There must be at least 90%35 agreement between milestones in the
Level 4 enterprise transition plan and milestones reported in Part II, Section
Practices C of the Exhibit 300 business cases for major IT investments.
Artifacts:
Activities:
• All major and non-major IT investments in the agency Exhibit 53 must
be represented on the agency enterprise transition plan.
• There must be at least 90%36 agreement between mission
performance gaps and remediation reported in the enterprise
Level 5 transition plan and performance information reported in Part I,
Practices Section D of the Exhibit 300 business cases for major IT investments.
Artifacts:
6.2.3 FEA Reference Model and Exhibit 53 Data Quality

• Description: This KPI measures the completeness and accuracy of the primary FEA
reference model mapping of the IT investments in the agency IT portfolio. This KPI
also measures the completeness and accuracy of the “part” specification of the IT
investments in the agency IT portfolio.
• Rationale: The agency is required to designate a primary FEA reference model
mapping for each IT investment in the agency Exhibit 53. This mapping allows OMB
to identify opportunities for cross-agency collaboration and reuse. Inaccurate
mappings inhibit the ability of OMB to perform quality analysis. The agency is also
required to designate which of the six “parts” of the Exhibit 53 an IT investment
belongs to. IT investments should be placed in the most appropriate part using
definitions found in OMB Circular A-11, section 53.
34
35
36
June 2009 29
• Mandate: OMB Circular A-11, section 53
Activities:
• The agency must map 100% of the IT investments in its IT portfolio to
a BRM sub-function or SRM service component.
Level 1 • At least 75% of the IT investments in the agency Exhibit 53 have
Practices been mapped to the most appropriate “part” of the Exhibit 53 using
Artifact:
• Exhibit 53
Activities:
• The agency must map 100% of the IT investment in its IT portfolio to
• At least 60% of the IT investments must be accurately mapped given
the title and description of the IT investment and the description of
Level 2 the mapped BRM sub-function or SRM service component.
Practices
been mapped to the most appropriate “part” of the Exhibit 53 using
Artifact:
• Exhibit 53
Activities:
Practices
Artifact:
• Exhibit 53
Activities:
Practices
Artifact:
• Exhibit 53
Level 5 Activities:
Practices • The agency must map 100% of the IT investment in its IT portfolio to
June 2009 30

the mapped BRM sub-function or SRM service component.
Artifact:
• Exhibit 53
6.2.4 Collaboration and Reuse

• Description: This measures agency progress in migrating to their target applications
and shared services portfolio, and creating a services environment within the
agency. Measures agency progress in sharing information, with a focus on (re)use.
Measures agency results with SmartBUY and similar arrangements in consolidating
requirements in the procurement process. Measures agency progress in creating a
services environment in order to either produce or consume common data,
infrastructure and component services. This KPI also measures the accuracy of
investment category mappings reported in the agency Exhibit 53, as well as the
accuracy and consistency of SRM service component and TRM service mappings in
the agency Exhibit 300s.
• Rationale: Effective enterprise architectures should identify opportunities for
sharing, reuse, consolidation and standardization resulting in improved financial and
mission performance for the agency. Higher levels of IT spending are justified when
an agency is achieving superior levels of mission performance through these
practices.
• Mandate: OMB Circular A-130
Activities:
• The agency must show evidence of implementation of required
interoperability standards documented in the FTF catalog for cross
agency initiatives.
• This evidence comes in the form of specifications in the TRM table in
Part I, Section F of the Exhibit 300s for IT investments within scope
of the various cross-agency initiatives.
Level 1
• At least 80% of investments reported in agency Exhibit 300s include
Practices
valid UPI codes for reused SRM service components and report
accurate SRM service component funding percentages.
• At least 80% of SRM service components identified in Table 4 of the
agency Exhibit 300s are mapped to an appropriate TRM service
standard and include detailed and accurate service specifications.
Artifacts:
• EA Segment Report, Exhibit 53, and Exhibit 300s
Level 2 Activities:
Practices • The agency must show evidence of compliance with E-Gov initiatives
June 2009 31
and associated OMB budget pass back through avoidance of DME

funding for legacy systems except to migrate to shared solutions.
• At least 85% of investments reported in agency Exhibit 300s include
valid UPI codes for reused SRM service components and report
Artifacts:
Activities:
• The agency must show, for at least one of the approved/submitted
segment architectures, the reuse of SRM service components,
infrastructure, information, or other services within scope of the
segment architecture or an increase in overall service sharing at least
within the segment.
Level 3 • At least 90% of investments reported in agency Exhibit 300s include
Practices valid UPI codes for reused SRM service components and report
Artifacts:
Activities:
• The agency must show the reuse of SRM service components,
infrastructure, information, or other services across the agency
Level 4 architecture or an increase in overall service sharing at least within
Practices the agency.
Artifacts:
Activities:
• The agency must show the reuse of SRM service components,
infrastructure, information, or other services or an increase in overall
service sharing with other agencies.
• In addition, the agency exhibit 300s must show use of consolidated
buying power through reuse of procurement/contract vehicles for
Level 5 acquiring required services.
Practices • This data is obtained from Part I, Section C of the exhibit 300s.
• All investments reported in agency Exhibit 300s include valid UPI
codes for reused SRM service components and report accurate SRM
service component funding percentages.
• All SRM service components identified in Table 4 of the agency
Exhibit 300s are mapped to an appropriate TRM service standard
and include detailed and accurate service specifications.
June 2009 32
Artifacts:
6.2.5 EA Governance, Program Management, Change Management,

and Deployment
• Description: The agency must govern and manage the implementation and use of
EA policies and processes. This includes the appointment of a chief architect (CA),
allocation of resources and the sponsorship of EA at the executive level. The
agency’s EA program management office governs the development, implementation
and maintenance of the EA. The agency should have the ability to effectively
manage changes to EA artifacts, including documents and any EA repositories. The
agency should have the ability to deploy EA content out to their user community,
including the deployment of a repository, communications, and training. The
agencies should provide the required artifacts listed in each of the levels or
justification for not providing the artifacts.
• Rationale: Effective governance and program management assures agency
compliance with EA processes and procedures and facilitates executive support.
Change and configuration management is essential to ensure EA work products and
processes remain current since EA serves as a tool for strategic planning and IT
investing. EA products and processes must be clearly understood by, and available
to, business stakeholders and IT stakeholders.
• Mandate: OMB A-11, section 300, OMB Circular A-130
Activities:
• Agency has developed a vision and strategy for EA.
• The agency has begun to identify EA tasks, and resource
requirements. Agency has appointed a chief architect, has senior-
level sponsorship of its EA program, and has funded an EA program.
Level 1
• The agency has developed an EA policy to ensure agency-wide
Practices
commitment to EA.
• Policy clearly assigns responsibility to develop, implement and
maintain the EA.
Artifacts:
• EA Program Plan, EA Policy
Activities:
• Agency has established an EA governance committee or other group
for directing, overseeing, or approving EA activities.
• Internal and external stakeholders are identified based on their
Level 2 involvement in EA related activities and needed information.
Practices • The agency has selected an EA framework.
• The agency has deployed an EA tool/repository to manage EA
artifacts and models.
• The tool/repository supports the agency's EA framework.
• Useable EA content from the tool/repository is communicated
June 2009 33
through various means and available to EA users.

• EA changes and updates from components/bureaus are reflected in
the department EA repository.
Artifacts:
• EA Governance Committee Charter, EA Change management Plan
Activities:
• The EA governance committee or another group meets regularly and
makes decisions related to directing, overseeing, and approving EA
activities within the agency.
• The committee follows a formal process for holding, conducting and
recording meetings.
• The agency has established an EA baseline serving as the basis for
further development.
Level 3 • The EA baseline and other EA artifacts are updated, versioned and
Practices archived using change control procedures.
through various means and available to EA users and the agency's
CIO community and users are informed of changes, as necessary.
Artifacts:
• EA Governance Plan, EA governance committee meeting minutes,
EA change management reports
Activities:
• The EA governance committee manages and monitors the agency’s
EA using the enterprise transition plan and IT investment project
plans.
• The EA governance committee identifies issues with achieving the
target architecture and develops plans to address them.
• The agency’s CIO has approved the EA governance plan in writing.
• The agency's architecture is communicated to users throughout the
agency (outside of CIO/IT community).
• The agency can demonstrate comprehensive awareness and
Level 4 understanding of EA concepts and processes throughout the agency
Practices (e.g., through training / communications / outreach programs, etc.).
through various means and available to EA users throughout the
agency (including business users) and users are informed of
changes, as necessary.
Artifacts:
• EA Governance Plan, EA Governance committee meeting minutes,
governance plan approval, EA communications plan and training plan
and materials
June 2009 34
Activities:
• The EA governance committee ensures EA compliance throughout
the agency. If non-compliance is identified, the committee is
responsible for developing a plan to resolve the issue.
• Alignment to the EA standards is a common practice throughout the
agency.
• The compliance process is reviewed and updated when deficiencies
or enhancements to the process are identified.
• The agency’s head, or a designated operations executive has
Level 5 approved the EA governance plan in writing.
Practices
• The EA repository and its interfaces are used by participants or
support staff for the CPIC, SDLC, and strategic planning processes.
• Current EA information is readily available to participants in these
processes, as well as the broader agency user community.
• Users are informed of changes, as necessary.
Artifacts:
• EA Governance Pan, EA governance committee meeting minutes,
governance plan approval, EA communications plan and training plan
and materials
June 2009 35
6.3 RESULTS CAPABILITY AREA

• Description: The agency is measuring the effectiveness and value of its EA
activities by assigning performance measurements to its EA and related processes,
and reporting on actual results from the enterprise to demonstrate EA success.
• Outcomes:
o Demonstrates the relationship of IT investments to the agency's ability to
achieve mission and program performance objectives.
o Captures how well the agency or specific processes within an agency are
serving citizens.
o Identifies the relationships between agency inputs and outcomes.
o Demonstrates agency progress towards goals, closing performance gaps,
and achieving critical results.
6.3.1 Mission Performance

• Description: This KPI measures the extent agencies are using EA and IT to drive
program performance improvements.
• Mandate: OMB Circular A-130
Activities:
• The agency is not able to demonstrate EA activities have resulted in
program performance improvements.
Level 1 • Specifically, the average major IT investment in the agency’s portfolio
Practices is either a) not aligned to a mission program, or b) is supporting
mission programs not demonstrating results.
Artifacts:
• Mission program performance data, Exhibit 300s
Activities:
• The agency IT investment portfolio shows strong alignment to
Level 2 mission programs, but the supported mission programs are, on
Practices average, are not demonstrating results or are ineffective.
Artifacts:
Activities:
Level 3 mission programs and the supported mission programs are, on
Practices average, providing adequate results.
Artifacts:
June 2009 36
Activities:
Practices average, providing moderately effective results.
Artifacts:
Activities:
Practices average, providing effective results.
Artifacts:
6.3.2 Cost Savings and Cost Avoidance

• Description: This KPI measures the extent agencies are using EA and IT to control
costs. Cost savings and cost avoidance are best reflected in the steady state spend,
which should go down over time as legacy systems are consolidated and retired.
Evidence of cost savings and cost avoidance may also be identified in earned value
financial analyses. This KPI also measures the accuracy of mappings of previous
year UPI codes to investments in the agency Exhibit 53.
• Mandate: Clinger-Cohen Act, OMB M-06-22
Activities:
• The agency is not able to demonstrate the EA program has resulted
in cost savings or cost avoidance.
• Every investment in the agency Exhibit 53 includes a prior year UPI
code.
Level 1
Practices • At least 80% of the IT investments in the agency Exhibit 53 have
been mapped to an accurate UPI code for the previous year using
Artifacts:
• EA Segment Report, program improvement assessment data, Exhibit
53 and Exhibit 300s
Activities:
• The agency must have a process and report on cost savings and
avoidance.
code.
Level 2
Practices • At least 85% of the IT investments in the agency Exhibit 53 have
Artifacts:
53 and Exhibit 300s
Level 3 Activities:
June 2009 37
Practices • The agency must show year-over-year decrease in IT steady state

spending of at least 1% or the IT steady state spending should be at
least 1% below the federal government average adjusted for the size
of the overall agency budget.
• The year-over-year calculation can be adjusted for inflation and
normalized for new capabilities or solutions entering into their first
year of steady state operation.
• The savings do not need to be harvested, they can be redeployed by
the agency per normal planning, EA, CPIC, budget formulation and
execution processes.
code.
Artifacts:
53 and Exhibit 300s
Activities:
• The agency must show year-over-year decrease in IT steady state
spending of at least 2.5% or the IT steady state spending should be
at least 2.5% below the federal government average adjusted for the
size of the overall agency budget.
Level 4 the agency per normal planning, EA, CPIC, budget formulation and
Practices execution processes.
code.
Artifacts:
53 and Exhibit 300s
Activities:
• The agency must show year-over-year decrease in IT steady state
spending of at least 5% or the IT steady state spending should be at
Level 5 least 5% below the federal government average adjusted for the size
Practices of the overall agency budget.
June 2009 38

the agency per normal planning, EA, CPIC, budget formulation and
execution processes.
code.
• All IT investments in the agency Exhibit 53 have been mapped to an
accurate UPI code for the previous year using definitions found in
OMB Circular A-11, section 53.
Artifacts:
53 and Exhibit 300s
6.3.3 IT Infrastructure Portfolio Quality

• Description: This KPI assesses agency progress toward developing a high-quality
portfolio of infrastructure investments in terms of end user performance, security,
reliability, availability, extensibility, and efficiency of operations and maintenance.
• Mandate: TBD
Activities:
• The agency’s IT infrastructure portfolio is outside the committed
service performance levels or exceeds cost levels by a factor of 10%
Level 1 or more.
Practices
Artifacts:
• IT infrastructure EA Segment Report, Exhibit 5337, IT Infrastructure
agency 5 year plans
Activities:
service performance levels or exceeds cost levels by a factor of less
Level 2 than 10%.
Practices
Artifacts:
agency 5 year plans
Activities:
service performance levels or exceeds cost levels by a factor of less
Level 3 than 5%.
Practices
Artifacts:
agency 5 year plans
Level 4 Activities:
Practices • The agency’s IT infrastructure portfolio exceeds the committed
37
the IT investment portfolio data.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.
June 2009 39
service performance levels and is inside cost levels.

• Agency has defined specific IT infrastructure portfolio quality gaps,
has specific commitments in its target enterprise architecture and
enterprise transition plan to improve, and these commitments are
reflected in its Exhibit 53 and the performance information and
comparison of plan vs. actual performance tables of the 300s.
Artifacts:
agency 5 year plans, Target Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise
Transition Plan
Activities:
• Agency can demonstrate increasing year-over-year results in closing
the IT quality gaps identified above.
Level 5
Practices Artifacts:
agency 5 year plans, Target Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise
Transition Plan
6.3.4 Measuring EA Program Value

• Description: EA value measurement is a continuous, customer-focused process
integrated with each phase of the performance improvement lifecycle. The principal
goals of EA value measurement are to document EA value to agency decision-
makers and to identify opportunities to improve EA products and services. EA value
measurement tracks architecture development and use, and monitors the impact of
EA products and services on IT investment decisions, collaboration and reuse,
standards compliance, stakeholder satisfaction, and other measurement areas and
indicators. For detailed guidance concerning the establishment of an agency EA
program value measurement initiative, please refer to the FEA Practice Guidance at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_Practice_Guidance_Nov_200
7.pdf
• Rationale: Agency EA programs should deliver results-oriented products and
services to inform business decisions and increase the efficiency and effectiveness
of IT investments, program management and agency operations.
• Mandate: OMB A-130
Activities:
• The agency has identified stakeholders and goals for EA value
Level 1 measurement.
Practices
Artifact:
• Agency EA Value Measurement Plan
Level 2 Activities:
Practices • The agency must meet the criteria for the previous level.
40
the IT investment portfolio data.
41
Ibid.
June 2009 40
• In addition, the agency has identified EA value indicators and data

sources, and has created a survey/feedback form to be used for the
value measurement initiative.
Artifact:
Activities:
• The agency must meet the criteria for all previous levels.
Level 3 • In addition, the agency has conducted an EA value measurement
Practices initiative.
Artifact:
Activities:
• In addition, the agency has conducted an EA value measurement
Level 4 initiative and has generated a report summarizing the findings of the
Practices initiative.
Artifacts:
• Agency EA Value Measurement Plan, Agency EA Value
Measurement Summary Report
Activities:
• In addition, the agency is able to demonstrate it has updated the EA
Level 5 program plan based on feedback documented in the EA value
Practices measurement summary report.
Artifacts:
• Agency EA Value Measurement Plan, Agency EA Value
Measurement Summary Report, EA Program Plan
June 2009 41
Appendix A: Artifact Descriptions

This table provides a list of the descriptions of the type of artifacts typically a part of an
agency’s EA planning efforts. These artifacts can be used to demonstrate specific
maturity levels within the EA assessment framework. OMB does not require agencies
to submit all of these artifacts. Agencies should prepare these documents in
conjunction with their EA planning and implementation efforts and should be prepared
to submit these documents in the event they are requested by OMB.
Note: The description of the artifacts is not intended to be exhaustive or prescriptive.

OMB is interested in the content of the artifacts and does not prescribe the format, as
long as the artifact can be reviewed by OMB without requiring the use of proprietary
software products (such as EA modeling tools). Moreover, agencies may well decide to
develop additional artifacts or elaborate upon them further than described here.
Artifact Name Artifact Description

The agency annual performance plan as required by the
Annual
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) (1993),
Performance Plan
section (4)(B).
Minutes from the body responsible for reviewing IT investments
as evidence to demonstrate the EA is ensuring conformance of
Architecture proposed IT investments with agency EA standards and
Review Board guidelines.
Meeting Minutes
Note: The body does not have to be called the “Architecture
Review Board”.
The Business Architecture is a functional perspective of the
overall agency EA providing the information about the agency’s
baseline and target architectures. Examples of elements
include:
• Agency business processes, aligned to business sub-
functions within the FEA BRM;
Business • Internal and external participants (roles) within these
Architecture business processes;
• Linkage between agency business processes and
agency-specific performance measurement indicators;
• Linkage between business processes to agency service
components;
• Agency programs, linked to business processes; and
• Offices and facilities.
The Data Architecture is a perspective of the overall agency EA
providing the information about the agency’s baseline and target
data architectures. Examples of elements include:
• Agency data model describing the key data elements of
Data Architecture
the agency’s business domain, and the relationships
between them. The data model may include data
dictionaries, thesauri, taxonomies, and topic maps;
• An inventory of agency data stores, including the specific
June 2009 A-1


data elements it manages;
• A description of any data and data exchange standards
existing within the agency, including data exchange
packages and messaging formats;
• Linkage between the agency data model and the service
components accessing the data elements;
• Documented data management policies and procedures
for data/information quality; and
• OMB M-05-04 compliant agency websites and search
engines; and/or metadata registries, repositories, and/or
clearinghouse.
An EA Change Management Plan describes the process of how
changes to the agency’s EA artifacts and repository will be
managed. An EA CM plan may include rules for how changes
are to be approved, how artifacts are to be versioned, and any
EA Change relevant technical standards for implementing change
Management Plan management.
Note: if the agency already possesses an overall CM plan the EA
initiative conforms to, there is no need to create a specialized
version for the EA initiative.
To demonstrate effective EA change management processes,
agencies may submit one or more examples of EA change
EA Change management reports from the agency. These might include
Management change logs for EA artifacts, minutes from an agency committee
Reports responsible for overseeing EA change management, or reports
from any change management tool used to manage changes to
EA content.
To demonstrate effective EA communications and training
EA
processes, agencies may submit one or more examples of
Communications
materials. Examples might include training plans, course books,
and Training Plans
presentations, newsletters, workshop materials or other training
and Materials
content.
An EA Framework Document (sometimes called a meta-model)
fundamentally describes three aspects of an enterprise
architecture:
• The types (or classes) of information the EA will concern
itself with;
EA Framework • The acceptable relationships between these types; and
Document • Views of the architecture showing selected elements of
the EA in a meaningful context
Agencies may elect to wholly adopt an existing EA framework
(such as Zachmann or DoDAF, for example), extend an existing
framework, or create an entirely new framework as the needs of
the agency dictate.
EA Governance To demonstrate effective EA governance processes, agencies
Committee Meeting may submit one or more examples of meeting minutes from the
June 2009 A-2


Minutes agency’s EA governance body.
A document describing how the development and evolution of an
agency’s EA is to be governed. Typical elements may include:
• Description of EA governing bodies or individual roles
within the agency;
EA Governance • Responsibilities for each governing body or individual role;
Plan • A description of the governance lifecycle, i.e. the process
by which governance decisions are made; and
• Relationship between the EA governance process and
those for related IT governance bodies, e.g. Capital
Planning, IT Strategy, or others.
A document signed by the appropriate official (CIO or
EA Governance
Department Head, depending on maturity level) indicating formal
Plan Approval
approval of the agency EA Governance Plan.
A document expressing agency commitment to develop and
utilize an enterprise architecture and assigning responsibility for
EA Policy
EA development and management to specific roles and groups
within the agency.
A document describing the goals and objectives of the EA
program and defining the scope of the initiative at least at a high
level. It may identify key stakeholders of the EA program, the
EA Program Plan relationship of the EA to other agency initiatives and
performance objectives for the EA. It is intended to be a non-
technical document validated by the agency business managers,
not just IT personnel.
A document clearly demonstrating the improvements to agency
IT investment performance attributable to the EA program. It
EA Program
explains how the EA program activities resulted in cost savings
Results Analysis
or cost avoidance for the agency. This artifact should be created
in conformance to OMB Memorandum 06-22.
An EA Repository is a mechanism for storing all of the relevant
content within the agency’s EA in a readily retrievable form. The
implementation of a repository may be as simple as a common
EA Repository
shared directory with agency EA artifacts, or it may include
databases, web portals or EA-specific modeling tools and
repositories.
Report submitted to OMB by which agencies document specific
EA Segment
reporting requirements associated with the maturity level of the
Report
segment. A report is submitted quarterly per agency segment.
A step-by-step process to define EA value measurement areas,
EA Value identify measurement sources, and monitor and track value
Measurement Plan measures during each phase of the Performance Improvement
Lifecycle
EA Value
A document showing the outcomes of an agency’s EA Value
Measurement
Measurement process.
Summary Report
June 2009 A-3


A document listing and describing all of the IP-aware hardware
and software in an agency’s network core (aka “backbone”).
Agencies were required to complete this inventory (and submit it
IP Device Inventory
to OMB) by November 15, 2005, per OMB Memorandum M-05-
22. The Memorandum provides a template for documenting the
inventory.
A document describing the cost and risk impact (on the agency)
for the adoption of IPv6 into its network core. This impact
analysis includes a list of all risks, with the following information
for each identified risk:
• Date identified
• Area of Risk
• Description
• Probability of Occurrence
IPv6 Impact • Strategy for Mitigation
Analysis • Current Status
Agencies were encouraged to use OMB Circular A-11, Exhibit

300 – Section I.F (Risk Inventory and Assessment) from 2005 as
a guide for the completion of the risk analysis.
Additionally, agencies were required to provide a cost estimate

for the IPv6 implementation. Agencies were required to complete
this cost and risk impact analysis (and submit it to OMB) by June
30, 2006, per OMB Memorandum M-05-22.
The specific activities (e.g. planning, acquisition, implementation,
testing) involved with IPv6 implementation. Each milestone has
IPv6 Transition
a planned completion (target) date. These milestones are
Milestones
included in the agency IPv6 Transition Plan and the Enterprise
transition plan.
A document describing an agency’s plan for the adoption of IPv6
into its network core. This plan includes, but is not limited to, a
IPv6 Transition detailed project plan (with milestones and target dates) for the
Plan IPv6 effort. Agencies were required to complete a first version of
this plan (and submit it to OMB) by February 28, 2006, per OMB
Memorandum M-05-22.
Minutes from the body responsible for selecting and prioritizing
IT Investment IT investments used as evidence to demonstrate a mature CPIC
Review Board integration process with EA.
Minutes Note: the body does not have to be called the “IT Investment
Review Board”.
The agency Information Resource Management Strategic Plan,
IT Strategic Plan
as required by 44 U.S.C 3506 (b) (2).
The Performance Architecture is a perspective of the overall
Performance
agency EA providing the information about the agency’s baseline
Architecture
and target architectures. Examples of elements include:
June 2009 A-4


• Agency strategic goals and objectives (as per the
agency’s Strategic Plan and IRM Plan) and linkage
between performance indicators and business processes;
• Agency-specific performance measurement indicators,
aligned to the generic measurement indicators described
in the FEA PRM; and
• Linkage between the agency’s strategic goals and
investments.
A System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) guide describes the
agency’s approved policies and methodology for software
development projects. Subjects covered by an SDLC guide may
SDLC Guide include relevant industry or government standards, approved
software development tools and languages, policies on reuse of
existing components, and a methodology or framework for
software development.
Provides detailed results-oriented architecture and a transition
plan for a portion or segment of the enterprise. Segments are
individual building blocks in the enterprise transition plan
describing core mission areas, and common or shared business
services and application services. Segment architecture
comprises a series of work products describing baseline
architecture, target architecture and a transition plan. Work
Segment
products document segment-level change drivers, describe
Architecture
baseline and target performance, business, data, services and
technology architecture, and provide a roadmap to enhance
business operations and achieve measurable performance
improvements.
The FEA Practice Guidance provides further information
regarding the development of segment architecture and is
available at: www.egov.gov.
A document signed by the relevant business owner indicating
Segment formal authorization and use of the segment architecture to drive
Architecture the future direction of the business. This document should
Authorization remain current and reviewed annually (signature by business
owner should be within 3 months of EA submission).
The Service Component Architecture is a perspective of the
include:
Service • Agency service components, aligned to the FEA SRM;
Component • Component interfaces;
Architecture • Linkage between service components and technology
infrastructure, products and standards;
• Linkage between applications and the agency business
processes they automate;
• Linkage between service components and the data
June 2009 A-5


objects accessed by these components; and
• Linkage between service components and facilities where
they are hosted
• It is the high level master plan for the agency’s optimal
state as defined by the business, data, service,
technology and associated performance measures.
Target EA Although it is high level, the target architecture translate
the business strategic plan into architecture planning
which is vital to the overall enterprise IT direction—but is
not the complete solution architecture design blueprint.
The Technology Architecture is a capabilities perspective of the
include:
• Agency technical reference model documenting
technology products in use, aligned to the FEA TRM;
Technology • Agency standards profile documenting applicable agency
Architecture technology standards, aligned to the FEA TRM; and
• Linkage between technology products and standards to
service components.
• High level solution architecture diagram showing the
target technology architecture including all technologies
and technical service components that fulfill the target
agency business and performance architecture objectives
The enterprise transition plan is a critical component of an
effective EA practice. It describes the overall plan for an
organization to achieve its target EA within a specified
timeframe. It clearly links proposed agency investments to the
target architecture. Also, the enterprise transition plan includes a
Enterprise sequencing plan to help define the logical dependencies
Transition Plan between transition activities (programs and projects) and helps
to define the relative priority of these activities (for investment
purposes).
Section 4 of the FEA Practice Guidance (available at:
www.egov.gov) provides further guidance regarding the
development and components of a transition plan.
Enterprise A document signed by the appropriate official (CIO or
Transition Plan Department Head, depending on maturity level) indicating formal
Approval approval of the enterprise transition plan.
June 2009 A-6

Appendix B: Strategy for Measuring Data

Quality
Each year, OMB collects a significant amount of IT portfolio data from executive
agencies. 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. Other desired outcomes include:
• Closing agency performance gaps identified via coordinated agency strategic

planning and performance management activities;
• Saving money and avoiding cost through collaboration and reuse, productivity
enhancements, and elimination of redundancy;
• Strengthening the quality of agency investment portfolios by improving security,
inter-operability, reliability, availability, solution development and service delivery
time, and overall end-user performance;
• Improving the quality, availability and sharing of data and information
government-wide;
• Increasing the transparency of government operations by increasing the capacity
for citizen participation and cross-governmental collaboration.
In a data-driven environment, the quality of the data determines whether the right
decisions are made; poor quality data leads to inadequate decisions. To make the right
decisions, OMB is dependent upon agencies to provide high-quality data submissions.
Quality encompasses both the utility of the information (i.e., the usefulness of the
information to its intended users), the objectivity of that data (i.e., whether the data are
presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner and the accuracy,
reliability, and bias in the underlying data source).
This data quality effort can be viewed within the larger context of OMB’s focus on
information quality for both information disseminated to the public and for information
used internally to make important investment decisions. Furthermore, this effort
embraces the principles upon which the OMB’s Government-wide Information Quality
Guidelines42 are based. Specifically, it recognizes high quality comes at a cost and
agencies should weigh the costs and benefits of higher information quality. The
principle of balancing the investment in quality commensurate with the use is generally
applicable to all data the federal government generates.
Within OMB, the Office of E-Government and Information Technology considers a

variety of different data sources and inputs to help OMB decision makers determine the
most high-value and high-impact IT projects to invest in a constrained budgetary
environment. These data sources/inputs include:
42
67 FR 8452-8460.
June 2009 B-1

• GAO and IG reports describing policy or management issues with a particular IT

program.
• Strategic planning documents providing a high level roadmap of goals,
objectives, performance measures, policies, and initiatives designed to guide
agencies in accomplishing their statutory missions and delivering high quality
services to citizens.
• Enterprise Architecture (EA) submissions and quarterly EA milestone reports.
• IT investment portfolio data reported by agencies to OMB under the provisions of
OMB Circular A-11, sections 53 and 300.
• Performance indicators such as citizen satisfaction scores, PART scores, PAR
results, and cost / schedule performance (e.g., EVM).
• E-Gov implementation plans/reporting.
• Agency FISMA reporting.
One of the roles of the OMB Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework (EAAF)
Version 3.1 is to ensure high quality agency information technology portfolio data
submissions, especially pertaining to data collected via the OMB Circular A-11
processes (e.g., Exhibits 53 and 300). This appendix describes OMB’s strategy for
using the KPIs defined within the EAAF Version 3.1 to enforce high standards of data
quality for agency EA and IT investment portfolio submissions, thereby improving the
quality of downstream analytics performed on these data sets.
Data Quality Focus Areas

The EAAF Version 3.1 KPIs are focused on improving data quality in several particular
areas. These areas have been habitual problem areas from a data quality standpoint
for several years now. These areas include:
• Exhibit 53 Primary FEA Reference Model mappings
• Exhibit 53 segment architecture mappings
• Exhibit 53 Part organization
• Exhibit 53 type of investment
• Exhibit 53 UPI year-over-year mappings
• Exhibit 53 Investment category
• Exhibit 300 PART program data (Part I, Section A, Item 14)
• Exhibit 300 SRM table (Part I, Section F, Item 4)
• Exhibit 300 TRM table (Part I, Section F, Item 5)
Each section below discusses the strategy implemented by this version of the EAAF to
use the EAAF as a tool to help OMB improve data quality for each respective area.
Exhibit 53 Primary FEA Reference Model Mappings

Agencies are required to designate a primary FEA reference model mapping for each IT
investment in the agency Exhibit 53. This reference model mapping can come in the
form of a BRM sub-function or SRM service component. OMB uses these mappings to
June 2009 B-2

create a horizontal (functional) view of the Federal IT investment portfolio. This allows
OMB to identify opportunities for cross-agency collaboration and reuse. In the past,
OMB has used this analytic technique to identify candidates for E-Government
initiatives such as the E-Gov Lines of Business.
When agencies provide inaccurate mappings, this inhibits the ability of OMB to perform
quality analysis. Accordingly, the “FEA Reference Model Mapping” KPI has been
crafted to perform the following quality checks and adjust the agency score accordingly:
• Every IT investment in the portfolio must have a valid primary mapping. For
example, a Mode of Delivery sub-function cannot be a primary mapping for an IT
investment;
• Primary mappings must be consistent with sub-function/service component
definitions found in the Consolidated Reference Model document.43 OMB uses
various analytic techniques for checking this.
• Mappings must be consistent with other reported data. For example, IT
investments reported as financial management systems on an Exhibit 300
business case (Part I, Section A, Item 19) should be aligned to a sub-function in
the Financial Management FEA BRM LOB.
Exhibit 53 Segment Architecture Mappings

Agencies are required to designate a segment architecture mapping for each IT
investment in the agency Exhibit 53. This allows OMB to track, among other things, the
extent to which agency enterprise architecture planning efforts are informing the capital
planning process, per OMB Circular A-130. Much like the FEA reference model
mappings described above, it allows OMB to rapidly construct an architectural view of
an agency IT investment portfolio.
When agencies provide inaccurate mappings, this inhibits the ability of OMB to perform
quality analysis. Accordingly, the “Scope of Completion” KPI has been crafted to
perform the following quality checks and adjust the agency score accordingly:
• Every investment must have a valid segment architecture mapping. In other
words, each investment must have a mapping and this mapping must link to a
segment architecture code provided by the agency to OMB prior to budget
submission. The exception to the rule of mapping to one segment is in the case
of an ERP system which directly supports multiple segments (per EA Segment
Report v1.2).
• Mappings must be consistent with segment architecture definitions and scope
agreed upon with OMB. In other words, the segment to which the investment
belongs should be a good “fit” given the title and description of the investment
(e.g., it makes sense for an accounting system to belong to the financial
management segment).
• Segment architecture mappings should be consistent with primary FEA
Reference Model mapping, where applicable. For example, an investment
43
June 2009 B-3

mapped to the “accounting” FEA BRM sub-function would be a good fit in a

“financial management” segment
Exhibit 53 Part Organization

Agencies are required to designate the “part” of the Exhibit 53 an investment belongs to.
There are six parts to the Exhibit 53:
• Part 1. IT investments for Mission Area Support.
• Part 2. IT investments for Infrastructure, Office Automation, and Telecommunications.
• Part 3. IT investments for Enterprise Architecture and Planning.
• Part 4. IT investments for Grants Management Systems.
• Part 5. Grants to State and Local IT Investments.
• Part 6. National Security Systems IT Investments.
IT investments should be placed in the most appropriate part using definitions found in
OMB Circular A-11, section 53. Investments placed in an inappropriate part have a
detrimental impact on portfolio analysis performed by OMB. For example, an IT
infrastructure investment placed in Part 3 would be an incorrect categorization.
Accordingly, the “Exhibit 53 Part Mapping” KPI has been crafted to perform the following
quality checks and adjust the agency score accordingly
Exhibit 53 Type of Investment

Agencies are required to designate a type of investment for an Exhibit 53 line item.
There are four investment types:
• 01 = Major IT investments
• 02 = Non-major IT investments
• 03 = IT migration investment portion of a larger asset and for which there is an
existing business case for the overall asset
• 04 = Partner agency funding contribution
When IT investments are designated an inappropriate type, this has a detrimental

impact on the ability of OMB to provide oversight of the IT investment portfolio. For
example, one occasionally finds instances where large, complex, high-risk IT
investments are categorized as non-major. Not having an Exhibit 300 business case for
these investments detracts from the ability of OMB to efficiently manage these
investments. Accordingly, the “CPIC Integration” KPI has been crafted to perform the
following quality checks on this area and adjust the agency score accordingly.
Exhibit 53 UPI Year-Over-Year Mappings

Agencies must disclose the previous year’s UPI code for all IT investments in the
Exhibit 53 IT investment portfolio. This provides the ability to perform year-over-year
analysis of IT investment performance. Occasionally, this is not performed accurately,
and OMB must attempt to manually match investments from the budget submission with
investments on the previous year’s portfolio.
June 2009 B-4

Accordingly, the “Cost Savings and Cost Avoidance” KPI has been crafted to perform
the following quality checks and adjust the agency score accordingly. OMB will use
various analytic techniques to check data quality in this area. If OMB finds an inordinate
number of IT investments not accurately disclosing the previous year’s UPI code, this
will negatively impact the agency score on some KPIs.
Exhibit 53 Investment Category

Agencies are required to designate an investment category for an Exhibit 53 line item.
There are five investment categories:
• 00 = Total investment title line
• 04 = Funding source or appropriation
• 07 = High-Risk Project
• 09 = Any subtotal
• 24 = Approved E-Gov initiative
The biggest issue in this area concerns the correct use of the “-24” investment category.
This should be used for approved E-Gov initiatives only. Any misuse of this code will
negatively impact the agency score on the “Collaboration and Reuse” KPI.
Exhibit 300 PART Program Data (Part I, Section A, Item 14)

Agencies are asked to disclose information about Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) programs supported by the IT investment on the Exhibit 300 (Part I, Section A,
Item 14). For effective analysis, this information must exactly match what is in the
PARTWeb database. Specifically, the PARTed program name must match a valid
mission program from PARTWeb, and the program rating must match program rating
data in PARTWeb. This will be measured by the “Performance Improvement
Integration” KPI.
Exhibit 300 SRM Table (Part I, Section F, Item 4)

Agencies are required to provide a listing of SRM service components funded by a
given investment in Exhibit 300 business cases (Part I, Section F, Item 4). This
disclosure allows OMB to determine service component funding levels and reuse within
and across agencies. To help OMB perform effective analysis, agencies should ensure
the following:
• SRM service component funding percentages must not exceed 100
• A valid UPI code must be provided for a reused service component (to ensure
proper identification of the investment provisioning the service)
The score of the “Collaboration and Reuse” KPI will reflect this quality check.
Exhibit 300 TRM Table (Part I, Section F, Item 5)

Agencies are required to provide a listing of TRM service supporting a given investment
in Exhibit 300 business cases (Part I, Section F, Item 5). This disclosure allows OMB to
determine interoperability standards supporting service component implementation, as
well as specific product/standard specifications/profiles within a given agency with a
June 2009 B-5

mind toward reuse (e.g., identifying SmartBUY opportunities). To help OMB perform
effective analysis, agencies should ensure the following:
• Each SRM service component in Table 4 should have an appropriate TRM
service standard associated with it
• To the maximum extent possible, detailed and accurate service specifications
should be provided.
The score of the “Collaboration and Reuse” KPI will reflect this quality check.
June 2009 B-6

Appendix C: Agencies Included in the EA

Assessment Process
All agencies evaluated by OMB will be assessed, namely:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Department of Commerce (DOC)
Department of Defense (DoD)
Department of Education (ED)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Department of Interior (DOI)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Department of State (State) and US Agency for
International Development (USAID) Joint Enterprise
Architecture
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Department of Treasury (Treasury)
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
General Services Administration (GSA)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
Social Security Administration (SSA)
Small Business Administration (SBA)
Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian)
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
June 2009 C-1

EAAF - Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework v3.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EAAF - Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework v3.1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EAAF - Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework v3.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improving Agency Performance

Using Information and

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Enterprise Architecture Assessment

• Closing agency performance gaps identified via coordinated agency strategic

2 Performance Improvement Lifecycle

Results-oriented architecture is developed within the context of the Performance

Architect Invest Implement

Prioritize Develop Create

Measure, Assess, and Improve

Figure 2-1: Information and IT-Enabled Performance Improvement Lifecycle

Continuous performance improvement is the principal driver connecting EA program

Opportunities to improve mission performance are prioritized in terms of their relative

Agencies should prioritize segments within the EA using performance improvement

Agency investment proposals captured in the agency’s Exhibit 53 and portfolio of

2.4 MEASURE, ASSESS AND IMPROVE

Performance improvement plans and priorities, including those previously gathered

For segment architecture development, the EA Segment Reporting v1.2 guidance

2.5 AGENCY SUBMISSION DATA QUALITY

Within OMB, the Office of E-Government and Information Technology considers a

• Agency EA submissions, plans, and milestones

3 Federal Enterprise Architecture Overview

3.1 FEA REFERENCE MODELS

Performance Reference Model (PRM)

• Uniquely tailored performance indicators

Business Reference Model (BRM)

Service Component Reference Model (SRM)

Data Reference Model (DRM)

Figure 3-1: FEA Reference Models

The Performance Reference Model (PRM) provides a framework to use EA to

The Business Reference Model (BRM) provides a comprehensive blueprint of the

The Service Component Reference Model (SRM) classifies service components

The Technical Reference Model (TRM) categorizes standards and technologies to

3.2 SEGMENT ARCHITECTURE

Agency Enterprise Architects define enterprise segments as a component of their EA

3.3 FEDERAL TRANSITION FRAMEWORK

Enterprise Transition Plan Exhibit 53

Target EA with Segments

Program and Project Milestones:

Cross-Agency Initiatives (FTF)

Figure 3-2: Enterprise Alignment and Integration

4.1 CHANGES IN THE 3.1 FRAMEWORK

The framework continues to reflect “Architecture Principles for the US Government”

4.2 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA OVERVIEW

• Scope of Completion – Measures the percentage of the agency enterprise IT

Results address the following key performance indicators:

Examples of representative artifacts are included to assist agencies in demonstrating

5 Agency EA Assessment Submission and

5.1 EAAF VERSION 3.1 IMPLEMENTATION

The general schedule for the submission process is:

Submission Submission due to OMB

OMB Review and

5.2 AGENCY EA ASSESSMENT & REVIEW

The assessment focuses on three capability areas of EA:

The following table describes how agency EAs will be assessed:

Maturity Completion Use Results

the “Completion” the “Use” the “Results”

• Score equal to or • Score equal to or • Score equal to or

6 Assessment Framework 3.1 Criteria

6.1 COMPLETION CAPABILITY AREA

required to demonstrate the availability of the content described in each