 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Enterprise Architecture: Roadmap for Modernization Rick Tucker and Dennis Debrosse Every year, federal and state governments spend billions of dollars building roads. The majority fulfill the mission for which they were designed: offering drivers a better way to get from point A to point B. Every year these governments also spend billions of dollars (or more) on modernizing information technology (IT) and services. Unfortunately, the final result of those purchases isn't always as smooth as the newly opened roads. While it's hard to build a road without a lot of cooperation and coordination, it's not very difficult to buy software and hardware that fulfill the needs of a single division without considering the needs of the entire organization. If each division of an organization develops its own business processes and IT infrastructure, the end result may be lack of interoperability, duplicated components, functional gaps, and inability to share information. To avoid these problems, the federal government now mandates the use of enterprise architectures (EAs) by federal agencies seeking to obtain funding for any significant IT investment. Enterprise architectures act as a kind of roadmap for the design, development, and acquisition of complex, mission-oriented information systems. The goals of the planned capability might be general, such as achieving system-wide interoperability for daily operations, or specific, such as gathering and disseminating the intricate information needed to launch a surgically precise military strike. The key concept now is the mission, whereas in the past the focus was on technologies, in general, or specific systems, often within a single business unit in the overall organization. An EA should describe all aspects of an organization—its mission, organizational structure, business processes, information exchanges, software applications, and underlying technical infrastructure—as well as the overarching need for information security. A change in one of these dimensions may impact the other enterprise dimensions. The ultimate EA, in conjunction with enterprise life cycle processes and enterprise engineering methods, should allow an organization to evolve and achieve near-term and long-term strategic business goals—while continuing to function efficiently day to day. One driver behind the government's requirement for EAs—codified in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Circular A-130—is the recognition that federal agencies should operate more like commercial corporations. Market forces dictate that for-profit companies make choices, particularly IT and enterprise management decisions, that are based on improving productivity, performance, and efficiency—and, ultimately, the bottom line. Many of the e-government initiatives coming out of the OMB are compelling agencies to adopt programs similar to those of private companies to become more efficient and customer-focused. Standard Roadsigns EAs focus on identifying and selecting components that can be assembled into solutions to support business functions—and on the interactions among these various components. Individual elements will change over time (and should, based on improvements in technology, as well as other change drivers). But consideration of how changes in each of the various enterprise dimensions affect the other dimensions, including the overall mission, must remain paramount in order to manage change successfully. Many government agencies and other organizations have spent millions of dollars on massive IT infrastructure purchases or projects, only to find in the end that the new purchases or systems don't support their business needs or are not accepted within the organization. Such projects sometimes fail because they promote a narrow point of view; their designers and developers haven't considered the impact on the overall enterprise. Each EA is different, reflecting the unique characteristics of the organization and its goals. But according to OMB's definition, all EAs should have three major components: the "As-Is," or baseline, architecture, which captures the organization's current architecture; the "To-Be," or target, architecture, which describes the organization's desired architecture as designed to achieve strategic goals; and a transition plan, which uses a phased approach to get from "As-Is" to "To-Be." An organization must also have a structured process for managing change to its EA, which needs to change as the organization changes—in a continuous process. Most EAs are documented in the form of "work products," such as models, graphics, and other descriptions of the enterprise's environment and design. To enforce some level of consistency among architecture description content and format, EAs are based on templates called "frameworks," which specify models for describing and documenting the individual architectures. Critical Intersections MITRE has worked with a variety of government customers to help them build their EAs and establish EA programs, most often in the context of supporting their overall enterprise modernization or transformation programs. A key skill that MITRE staff bring to the world of enterprise modernization is an understanding of the intersection among business needs, information technology, and people—the point where EAs become central to enterprise modernization. We also bring world-class capabilities in strategic planning, enterprise engineering, investment management, program acquisition, and program management to help our sponsors effectively use their EAs to achieve their modernization goals. MITRE is now involved in EA development for the IRS, Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Treasury, Department of Defense (DOD), Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Peace Corps. We are the guiding force behind the Air Force's overall EA program and have leveraged this experience to help the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy with their EAs and modernization programs. MITRE's Center for Enterprise Modernization (CEM) is currently conducting research into the complex problem of multi-agency enterprise architecture, i.e., how can different government entities share their business processes, information stores, technical systems, and human resources in a cohesive, secure way to accomplish a common mission? In a post-9/11 world, this type of EA has grown in importance. For example, DHS is a very prominent driver for establishing multi-agency missions and architectures. MITRE has also conducted many pivotal EA-related studies, providing timely recommendations that help federal agencies make crucial decisions on the road to modernization. In recognition of our groundbreaking efforts developing both foundational EA frameworks and specific architectures, the Federal CIO Council chose MITRE to coordinate, edit, and produce the seminal work, A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, in 2001 (available for download at www.cio.gov). The book gives a thorough overview of the steps required to develop an EA and describes the most commonly used frameworks. 
Creating an enterprise architecture requires participation from many areas of the organization and a great deal of communication to plan and implement each stage of the process. The result is a roadmap that guides an organization through the modernization process and enables it to achieve its goals. Air Force All branches of the U.S. military have undertaken the overarching mission of modernization and transformation: fielding 21st century forces using the latest technologies. Central to the DOD's transformation is the development of EAs. Our longstanding relationship with the Air Force's Electronic Systems Center (ESC)—first as chief engineer and now also as chief architect—made us a natural choice to assist in the creation of the Air Force's Chief Architect's Office, or CAO. ESC's Architecture Councils have been the guiding force behind the evolution of an EA for the infrastructure and mission applications that make up the Air Force Command and Control Constellation. The stakes are high: the CAO, in conjunction with the Air Force's chief information officer, is committed not only to establishing and overseeing Air Force architecture policy, guidance, standards, and products, but also to making sure the EA works to enhance warfighter IT-based capabilities. Moreover, those capabilities must function in a joint environment with other service branches—and often in a coalition environment with other countries or organizations such as NATO. Working through the CAO, our staff is helping the Air Force move toward several EA goals, such as building architectural processes through collaborative models, integrating the architecture with core Air Force processes, and aligning the architectural responsibilities with assigned Air Force roles. Some of our other objectives in supporting DOD transformation include creating a set of IT standards that leverage commercial-off-the-shelf products as much as possible and developing a multi-level architecture training program for Air Force stakeholders. Coast Guard Today, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) faces perhaps its greatest period of change since its creation more than 200 years ago. Besides undertaking two long-term modernization programs, Deepwater and Rescue 21, the entire service has moved under the jurisdiction of the newly founded DHS. In June 2002, the USCG initiated an EA program. The initial focus has been on command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, with four basic objectives: provide guidance for coordinating modernization, identify enterprise-wide standards to enhance interoperability, support the capital planning and investment processes, and comply with federal requirements for EAs. A CEM team has undertaken a central role in developing the Coast Guard's EA. For example, we functioned as integrator across the plans and architectures generated by various groups and contractors documenting USCG capabilities and needs, while also coordinating requirements from the DOD and DHS. The most important result of our efforts is the Coast Guard's Enterprise Transition Plan. As primary author, one of our main responsibilities is to examine the pathway from "As-Is" to "To-Be" and identify any gaps, overlaps, omissions, and incompatibilities. The first increment of the target architecture is focused on capabilities to be deployed in 2005. The MITRE team, which supports the needs of the capital investment cycle, has already learned valuable lessons. For example, the EA process must be integrated with the USCG's budget planning cycle to support the decision-making needs of the leadership and enable buy-in from across the organization. In addition, it is vital to facilitate enterprise change management early on by identifying stakeholders and communicating the details of the architecture process, products, usage, and impact. |
|||||
| For more information, please contact Rick Tucker or Dennis Debrosse using the employee directory. Page last updated: November 12, 2003 | Top of page |
|||||
Solutions That Make a Difference.® |
|
|
Download this issue [617KB]