An approach to defining enterprise architecture value ... · PDF fileSubmitted to EA BoK ....
28
Submitted to EA BoK January 4, 2014 Stuart Lesley Neil Efrom An approach to defining enterprise architecture value within an Organization MITRE Approved for Public Release Distribution Unlimited, Case #13-4137 ©2013 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved
Transcript of An approach to defining enterprise architecture value ... · PDF fileSubmitted to EA BoK ....
S u b m i t t e d t o E A B o K J a n u a r y 4 , 2 0 1 4 S t u a r t L e s l e y N e i l E f r o m
An approach to defining enterprise architecture value within an Organization
MITRE Approved for Public Release Distribution Unlimited, Case #13-4137 ©2013 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved
| 2 |
Section 1: Overview
Organizations are facing increasing demands to demonstrate the value of their EA programs in a more data driven way. Due to the enterprise nature of EA programs, it is difficult to gather the appropriate data in a timely manner. Many of the “payoffs” of EA either require years to become apparent or span multiple programs/projects. This presentation provides one approach an organization can use to better measure EA value in a data driven manner and is divided into the following sections: Section 1: This overview Section 2: The proposed approach Section 3: A case study that demonstrates some of the key features of
the approach Section 4: Reference and Backup Material
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This presentation provides an approach for improving the way that organizations demonstrate the value of EA. There are many ways to do this but the difficulty lies in the actual implementation of each approach. By definition, EA spans the entire organization and many of its activities take years (ex: 3 years or more for budgets to go from initial planning to funding, plus the time it takes for the projects that the budgets fund could run the time span to 5 years).
| 3 |
The Challenge
Determining the value of Enterprise Architecture has proven to be difficult. – Output measures are not easily linked to the determination of the value of EA – Links between EA products and actions taken based on those products can
be hard to establish.
Industry trends with respect to measures and measurements of enterprise architecture are moving from output measures to outcome measures.
It is no longer sufficient to only show how EA
affects specific outputs (numbers of reports created, number of processes documented, etc.), but to also show the results that the use of enterprise architecture has on outcomes such as positive differences gained by the end users of government products and services.
Outputs are the direct products of program activities and may include types, levels and targets of services to be delivered by the program. Outcomes are the specific changes in program participants’ behavior, knowledge, skills, status and level of functioning
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The definitions for Output and Outcome are based on the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide, retrieved from http://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundation-logic-model-development-guide 02/20/14.
| 4 |
Roadblocks for Assessing EA Value
Linking outputs to outcomes is not an easy exercise, and in many cases there are more than just EA outputs which would tie into an organization outcome. Establishing output to outcome links may require making changes
to business processes for some organizations… and change can be difficult. There is no one size fits all as each organization has its specific
needs that need to be met and a unique environment.
| 5 |
Why Address EA Value Now?
Sept. 2012, Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) report on Organizational Transformation “Enterprise Architecture Value Needs to Be Measured and Reported” recommends that Agencies: – Fully establish an approach for measuring enterprise architecture
outcomes, including a documented method (i.e., steps to be followed) and metrics that are measurable, meaningful, repeatable, consistent, actionable, and aligned with the agency’s enterprise architecture’s strategic goals and intended purpose; and
– Periodically measure and report enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits to top agency officials (i.e., executives with authority to commit resources or make changes to the program) and to OMB
New OMB Guidance and Reporting Requirements defined in: – Common Approach
– Collaborative Planning Methodology
– Reference Models
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Determining EA Value has been gaining increased attention by at least one type of organization, Federal Agencies. Agencies within the Federal Government report back to the Office of Management and Budget and are audited by the Government Accountability Office with respect to the their enterprise architecture programs. OMB governance to Agencies has been modified over the past couple of years, and has impacts on how they can show the value of the enterprise architecture programs.
| 6 |
The Opportunity
Give the EA customer what they want and need – Position the Enterprise Architecture organization to provide a set of offerings
tailored for the specific needs of the EA program customers and the overall needs of the organization.
Communicate with the customer through meaningful measures – Utilize meaningful measures and measurements for each EA offering
and include identification of expected values of the measurement to say this is good, neutral, or bad.
| 7 |
The Approach Concept
Determine organization horizon – Where is the organization going? What are it’s most pressing issues?
Identify objectives for EA and select relevant measures – Select one or more issues that EA is significantly related to (i.e. one or more
outputs designed to support/mitigate the issue, either “implicitly” or “explicitly”) – Identify which available measures can be applied to those outputs – Set baselines, objectives and minimums
Start tracking – Determine how often to check in order to determine “movement” – Too often = waste of resources / Not often enough = may miss something
important
Adjust EA program – Review which EA offerings are having an impact and change accordingly.
Start with what you have
Many of the tools used by EA organizations can provide a wide variety of measures with little (if any) additional effort on an EA organization to produce them.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This is the overall concept of the approach used in the rest of this presentation. Measuring in and of itself is useless unless you use the information to correct the course of action. See GAO report: Measuring the extent to which the expected value is actually being realized is important to identifying what, if any, architecture program changes are warranted. A decision must be made as to whether changes are warranted. This leads into root cause analysis of the problem and then correction....etc. (per Lean Six Sigma)
| 8 |
Section 2: Proposed Approach
Determine organization horizon – Determine EA program outcomes that support outcomes and identify EA Offerings to
support the EA and organization desired outcomes – illustrated via line of sight or other mechanism that can demonstrate alignment of outputs, offerings and outcomes.
Identify objectives for EA and select relevant measures – Perform stakeholder analysis to identify who in the organization would be interested in
EA offerings (products and services) from the EA program. – Create EA offering agreement with each customer to include: Specific details regarding the product or service Measures and acceptable measurements How the customer organization is using the products and services to impact EA program and
organization desired outcomes.
Start Tracking – Collect and compile EA program outcome and organization outcome measures to
illustrate value of EA program and share via dashboards, reports, and other mechanisms.
Adjust the EA Program – Over time, prioritize the EA Offerings that have the greatest value to the organization
| 9 |
Desired Approach Outcomes
Creation of a service level agreement with customers of the EA program based on defined measures for selected EA offerings and EA program outcomes Efficient, low cost and repeatable approach utilizing:
– Lessons learned from pilots testing the approach at several agencies – Feedback from actual use within the organization
Demonstration and improvement of EA’s value to its customers Establishment of a framework for communication and modification
of existing and new service level agreements as the needs of the organization changes
Presenter
Presentation Notes
These are the desired outcomes from application of this approach. The first and most important is an establishment of a set of service level agreements with each of EA’s customers. The development of a service level agreement often requires a significant change in the conversation. In many cases EA will have to identify more clearly who its customers are. In the past it may have been acceptable to identify key organizations, etc. as customers or users of EA products. EA developed those products based on best practices, OMB guidance and the needs of the organization. Most interactions with customers came about as a result of briefings associated with the announcement of a new version of an existing or a new product. Service level agreements require much more, but the conversations can be much more rewarding (on both sides).
| 10 |
Example Line of Sight
SERVICE OFFERING
Enterprise Technology Standards
Management and Monitoring
OUTPUT Measure
Degree of Completeness
OUTPUT Measure
Level of Currency
OUTPUT Measure
Amount Utilized
Medium Term OUTCOME Measure
Flexibility and Agility Significantly Increased
Long Term OUTCOME Measure
Costs Significantly Reduced
Short Term OUTCOME Measure
Customer Satisfaction Increased
OUTPUT Measure
Customer Satisfaction Rating
OUTPUT
Enterprise Standards Profile (ESP)
OUTPUT
Enterprise Technology Adoption Plan
OUTPUT
Proposal/Project Support Plans
OUTPUT
EA Executive Dashboard
OUTCOMEEA fully incorporates future technology standards
OUTCOMECustomers fully use EA as a strategic and tactical planning device
OUTCOMEQuicker adoption of appropriate new technology standards
OUTCOMEImprove enterprise technology efficiency
OUTPUT Measure
Quantity Reviewed
OUTPUT Measure
Opportunity Exploitation
OUTPUT Measure
Enhancement Cost Reduction
OUTPUT Measure
Alignment to Strategy
Possible Missing Outcome Measure?
*Many Outputs often map to one outcome
Output
Function or Service Offering
Output Measures*
Outcome Measures Outcomes
Line of Sight View Can Reveal New Relationships and Outputs
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This slide shows a line of sight between the desired outcomes of an organization EA program through a function or service offering to the outputs, output measures and outcome measures. This is a circular relationship, and we have chosen to show the EA program outcomes in the first column. The lines on the diagram help illustrate which items impact or relate to which other items on the diagram. The color coding here is arbitrary to show that items in the same column represent the same type of item on the diagram. Orange represents EA Program Outcomes. Green represents a Service Offering, Blue represents the Output and associated Output measures, and Purple represents the Outcome Measures. A high level organization or program within an organization such as Enterprise Architecture will have a set of outcomes. In this diagram there are four outcomes: 1. Quicker adoption of appropriate new technology standards 2. Customers fully use EA as a strategic and tactical planning device 3. EA fully incorporates future technology standards 4. Improve enterprise technology efficiency These outcomes represent a partial set of outcomes for most EA organizations but are sufficient for this example. An organization may use different terms such as objectives or goals for these high level broad requirements One or more of these outcomes should be clearly supported by one or more EA services (or service offerings as a subset of a particular service) or functions. In this case it is the following service offering: Enterprise Technology Standards Management and Monitoring Each EA service or function should have one or more outputs (products, artifacts, etc.): Enterprise Standards Profile (ESP) Enterprise Technology Adoption Plan Proposal/Project Support Plan EA Executive Dashboard Depending on the type of output there will be one or more measures: Customer Satisfaction Rating Degree of Completeness Level of Currency Quantity Reviewed Opportunity Exploitation Amount Utilized Enhancement Cost Reduction Alignment to Strategy And finally there must be Outcome measures that are supported by Output Measures and in turn support one or more Outcomes
| 11 |
Sample EA Offering Measures
Quality Measures – Degree of Completeness – Level of Currency – Timeliness – Accuracy – Consistency
Usefulness Measures – Validity/Effectiveness – Customer Satisfaction – Level of Utilization – Usability
Cost/Quantity Measures – Quantity Produced – Cost of Producing EA Offering
Example EA Offering: “Systems mapped to Business Functions Report” Potential Measures: • Degree of
Completeness • Level of Currency • Accuracy • Customer
Satisfaction
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Here is a sample set of measures that can be used to assess EA Offerings. They are broken down by Quality, Usefulness, and Cost/Quantity measures. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. There may be other measurement categories that would make sense for EA Offerings. Not all measures are relevant to all types of outputs. As an example, a repository or database might use level of currency and degree of completeness measures while models and diagrams may focus more on usefulness measures as opposed to accuracy measures. Other measures could be considered relevant to any output such as customer satisfaction and cost to produce. Many measures require more than one source to be considered including reduction of costs and alignment to strategy.
| 12 |
Sample organization Outcome Measures Cost Reduction
– Reduction in Cost of IT Implementation – Reduction in Cost of IT Operations – Reduction in Cost of IT Maintenance – Reduction in Cost of IT Enhancements – Reduction in Cost of IT Integration
Implementation Time Reduction – Decrease in Time to Implement IT Functionality – Decrease in Time to Implement IT Enhancements
Quality Improvement – Increase in Quality of IT Implementation – Increase in Quality of IT Operations – Increase in Quality of IT Maintenance – Increase in Quality of IT Enhancements – Increase in Quality of IT Integration
Risk Reduction – Risk Reduction
Example: organization Outcome Measures that could be associated with the EA Offering “Systems mapped to Business Functions Report” • Reduction in Cost of
IT Operations • Reduction in Cost of
IT Maintenance • Risk Reduction
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Here is a sample set of measures that can be used to assess Agency Outcomes. They are broken down by Cost Reduction, Implementation Time Reduction, and Quality Improvement. There may be other measures that would make sense for an Agency including: faster time to market, increased market share, increased customer satisfaction, etc. The example shown here identifies some potential Agency Outcome Measures that would be associated with the EA Offering. Risk reduction, for instance, can be measured in a number of ways. From an IT perspective, if the EA Organization can help identify which organizations, people, and processes use a system that will no longer be supported by a vendor, an organization could prioritize the replacement of that unsupported technology, or find alternative mitigation strategies.
| 13 |
EA Offering Agreement Provides Link Between EA Offerings and Organization Outcomes
Offering Agreement Includes: • Details regarding
the product or service
• Measures and acceptable measurements
• How the customer organization is using EA Offering
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The EA Offering Agreement, similar to a service level agreement or SLA, is where everything comes together. There are potentially a very large number of measures and outcomes that could be considered, and the potential number of relationships between them in the line of sight is even larger. It is not feasible or even useful to consider, align, and implement all of them on a given effort. To maximize the value of this approach, define with the customer the most important measures and relationships. By identifying how the customer is using the EA Offering, the EA Program can better identify the value to the organization. For example, if an EA Program provides a list of potentially duplicative systems, and the customer uses that information to retire systems, the cost savings of that system retirement can be partially attributed to the EA Program.
| 14 | Section 3: Case-Study - EA Performance Measures Limited Pilot in a Federal Agency Purpose: Provide an overview of the performance measures
“limited pilot” and obtain feedback on the measures selected – Review suggested measures – Determine if other measures should be considered at this time – Discuss related metrics efforts, possible data sources and level of effort
Presenter
Presentation Notes
MITRE worked with one of its sponsor agencies to perform a limited pilot to validate and refine the approach in a real world situation.
| 15 |
Description of the Pilot
Limited Pilot – Received approval to conduct a pilot to expand and institutionalize this
service offering
MITRE Recommend <Agency> conduct a “limited pilot” to:
› Employ the Performance Measures Process (described in a previous deliverable) for collecting, recording, analyzing, storing and reporting EA Measures
› Refine and complete the definition of the Enterprise Technology Standards Management and Monitoring (ETSM&M) Service Offering
| 16 |
Limited Pilot Benefits
Improved Performance Measures Process for implementing output measures aligned with selected EA goals Validated line of sight approach and a process that is repeatable and
viable – Provides data for determining the government level of effort and possible impact on
the organization
End State is to operationalize a performance measurement framework for the EA Program – Confirms the output measures identified in the deliverable as valid for measuring
services Selected area - Enterprise Standards and Technology Management Functional Area
– Refines the recommended initial EA measures – Defines the Performance Measures Process to collect, record, analyze, store and
report EA measures
| 17 |
A Recommended Process to Initiate EA Program Performance Measures Once each EA measure has been defined and related to the <Agency> service offering, the next step is to design a practical means to collect and establish performance expectations.
© 2013 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
User Query Methods: • E-auto feedback application • Survey tool • Focus groups • Email and manual data
collection options
Measures: • User Awareness • User accessibility • ESP Utility/Usefulness • Degree of User Dependency on ESP
Record Information
Define the Elements of the
EA Measure
Identity and Agree on Each
Performance Measure
Organize, Store,
and Manage Performance
Data
Initiate Effort
Analyze Data
Gain agreement among stakeholders
to initiate data collection
Assess and assign needed resources
Design processes to Collect, analyze,
record, store and report performance data
Establish how EA measures will assist
Program achieve its objectives
Initiate Data Collection
Efforts
Effort: Measure the effectiveness of Standards and Technology Management
| 18 |
Discuss & Validate: Service Offering Output Measures Example: Approved Product and Standard Repository Customer Satisfaction Rating Degree of Profile Completeness Level of Currency of the contents Amount that the contents are utilized Reduction of Enhancement Cost Alignment to Strategy Number of Projects Reviewed Opportunity Exploitation
| 19 |
Output Measure Metrics Notes Customer Satisfaction Rating
• Site ease of use (Process Improvement) • Likelihood of using this site again (Value) • Would you recommend this site to others? (Value) • Overall rating of your experience
• Category: Architecture Outputs
Effectiveness of Artifacts
• Outcome support of artifact • Category: Architecture Outputs
Degree of Completeness
• All in use technologies • Duplicated entries • Obsolete/retired entries archived
• Category: Architecture Processes
Level of Currency • Time since last update/review • Category: Architecture Processes
Reduction of Implementation Costs
• Difference between Planned and Actual Budgets • Category: Cost
Efficiency of Process • Support hours per query • Category: Architecture Processes
Reduction of Integration
• Costs compared to previous year • Category: Cost
Quantity Reviewed • Number of reviews • Category: Flexibility and Agility
Discuss & Validate: Measures and Metrics - ESP Standards & Technologies Profile
Example - Approved Product and Standard Repository
Presenter
Presentation Notes
ESP Standards and Technologies profile lists appropriate standards and technologies that systems (existing and proposed) must comply with.
| 20 |
Preliminary Assessment Overview
The potential of this approach for the development and management of EA measures was demonstrated – The list of candidate measures was eventually narrowed down to 1 measure based
on availability of data and ease of implementation. In this case it was number of unique visits to an intranet web page.
The Pilot implementation has experienced some challenges
– Establishing time in very busy schedules – Access to data
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Guidance from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) states that developing good performance measures begins by establishing a line of sight. The line of sight for an initiative consists of identifying its cause and effect relationship with inputs, then outputs, and then outcomes. This relationship is identified by starting with the desired strategic outcome, then cascading down to outputs and inputs. MITRE uses the line of sight model to bring focus, rigor and structure to our analysis of an organization’s activities and functions. It also helps to support and achieve articulated objectives and goals.
| 21 |
Key Points: Identify EA Program’s Value to an Organization Lessons Learned from the Pilot: Position the Enterprise Architecture program within an Agency to
provide a specific set of offerings tailored for the specific needs of the EA program customers and the overall needs of the Agency. Create a service level agreement for each EA program offering
(product or service) with each customer of that offering. Measures would be at the output level for each EA offering. Identify what the customer is doing with the EA offering, and have
customer specify the value of its use back to the overall Agency desired outcomes. Collect and compile EA program outcome and Agency outcome
measures to illustrate value of Agency EA program and share via dashboards, reports, and other mechanisms.
| 22 |
Section 4: Reference and Backup Material
References: Federal Enterprise Framework version 2 from January 29th,
2013. Listed on OMB MAX. https://max.omb.gov/community/download/attachments/654807556/FEAF+v2.pdf?version=3&modificationDate=1360702682206
DoDAF version 2.02.
http://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/DODAF/DoDAF_v2-02_web.pdf
| 23 |
EA Offerings Sample Listing (Partial)
EA Offering (Product or Service)*
FEA Artifact
DoDAF/Other Artifact Artifact Description
Offering/Service Type
Provided, Hosted, or N/A
Application Interface Diagram A-1 SV-1
The identification of application resource flows and their composition Report Provided
Application Communication Diagram A-2 SvcV-2
The means by which resource flows between applications occur Report Provided
Application Interface Matrix A-3 SV-3 The interface relationships among systems Report Provided
Application Data Exchange Matrix A-4 SV/SvcV-6
The details of resource flows among systems; the activities performed; the resources exchanged; and the attributes (rules and measures) associated with these exchanges Report Hosted
Application Service Matrix A-5 SvcV-3a&b
Interface relationships between services and applications Report Provided
Application Performance Matrix A-6 SV/SvcV-7 The measures (metrics) of applications Report Provided
* List developed from EA Products from the Federal Enterprise Framework version 2 , dated January 29th, 2013, DoDAF version 2.02, FSAM, and other widely accepted practices.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Here is a partial listing of a set of EA Offerings (products or services), the associated Federal Enterprise Architecture artifact as described in the Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, the correlating Department of Defense Architecture Framework or other type of artifact, and the artifact description. The next column shows what type of Offering such as a report, diagram or model. The last column keeps track if the EA program is the source of the information or hosts information developed from another part of the organization.
| 24 |
SLA Sample Template
General Information EA Offering Agreement Title Title of the agreement Customer Organization Name of customer organization Customer Point of Contact Name of contact at customer organization Customer Contact Information Contact information to include email, phone, etc. Start Date Date the agreement starts End Date Date the agreement ends
EA Offering Details EA Offering Description Name of the EA Offering(s) being requested Time Frame Describes the period of time requested for the offering Frequency Identifies the delivery schedule - how often and when the offering is requested by Customer (e.g. -
would like a report available 24x7 on EA's web site) Degree of Completeness Identifies the specific set of information that is needed to be within its scope. Level of Currency Identifies how often the offering needs to be updated (e.g. - would like an updated version based
on information captured as of last month) Response Times Identifies expected turn-around times for acknowledgement of request and then specific requests. Consistency Identifies expected level of consistency Accuracy Identifies expected level of accuracy Granularity The level of detail required for the measure
EA Offering Usage Information List of Business Decisions that use Offering Identifies the specific set of business decisions that the EA Offering supports Customer Satisfaction Identifies the factors that the Customer will use in defining satisfaction with EA Offering (timeliness,
consistency, accuracy, and other factors relevant to the needs of the customer) How Often is the EA Offering Used? Identifies how often the Customer plans on using the EA Offering Agency Desired Outcome(s) Identifies which Agency identified outcomes that this EA Offering is used to support. Agency Desired Outcome(s) Measures Identifies the measures that are used to monitor the Agency Desired Outcome (Could be from the
PAR, IT Spending Dashboard, Internal Agency source, etc.)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This is a sample template which can be used to support a Service Level Agreement (SLA). For the purposes of this approach, the SLA would be an EA Offering Agreement. The agreement could include a section for general information, details about the agreement and any usage information. The intent here is to show a sample. Actual agreement documents may contain more, less, or different categories based on what is relevant to the users of the agreement.
| 25 |
Example Line of Sight (High Level View)
Identify Cost Savings Oppor-tunities
Degree of Completeness
Level of CurrencyMedium Term:
Amount spent on IT Operations and
maintenance Costs (Desired:
Reduce)
Short Term :Customer
Satisfaction (Desired:
Increased)
Customer Satisfaction
RatingApplication Systems to Business Functions
Mapping Report
Application Systems to Functions Analysis
Capabilities to Services Mapping
Report
Reduce IT Maintenance Costs
Reduce number of Application Systems
Quantity Reviewed
Enhancement Cost Reduction
*Many Outputs often map to one outcome
Output Function or
Service Offering Output
Measures* Outcome Measures Outcomes
Line of Sight View Reveals New Relationships and Outputs
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This is similar to the Example Line of Sight slide earlier in the presentation. This version has less items on it, and one path has been highlighted in red to show how to walk through the example of Reduce IT Maintenance Costs. In this example, the “Reduce IT Maintenance Costs” Outcome is mapped to the Function “Identify Cost Savings Opportunities,” which then is associated to the “Application Systems to Business Functions Mapping Report” output, which then in turn is measured by “Degree of Completeness” of the report, the “Level of Currency” of the report, and the ”Enhancement Cost Reduction.” In turn, those Output Measures relate to the Medium Tem outcome of reducing the amount spent on IT Operations and Maintenance.
| 26 |
Additional Details on Selected EA Offering Measures Quality Measures
– Degree of Completeness: Does the artifact contain data on all the technologies currently in use? Is there a single set of entries for each technology? Have all entries for obsolete/retired technologies been archived?
– Level of Currency: Review each specific record (technology?) and determine the last time it was reviewed/updated – Timeliness: Is the artifact provided in a timely manner? Valuable information delivered too late often loses the majority of
its value. Artifacts are delivered on a schedule which can be either regular or Ad Hoc. Usefulness Measures:
– Effectiveness of Artifacts: How effective was the artifact in supporting the desired outcome? Initially this will be a subjective measure based on provision of evidence or observations demonstrating the artifacts effectiveness.
– Customer Satisfaction Rating: The purpose of this measure is to verify that the output met customer expectations. There may be times when meeting requirements alone is not enough.
– Level of Utilization: This measure examines the extent a product impacts the organization. A product that is heavily used by a segment of the organization and/or widely used across the organization can be assumed to be providing value. Products that are not used should be examined for suitability and dropped if possible.
– Impact of Process: results, influence Cost/Quality Measures:
– Quantity Produced: number of artifacts produced – Efficiency of Process: The costs involved in the process being measured must be captured and compared against the
level of productivity achieved in order to establish and maintain process control. Efficiency: A measure of the "bang for the buck" or "unit benefit per dollar." Solutions are efficient if they measurably increase the "bang" or "unit benefit" for the amount of resources required to deliver the capability.
| 27 |
Additional Sample Agency Outcome Measures Complexity Measures: In general, managing complex systems involves greater cost and risk than
managing simpler systems and one of the desired outcomes of an effective EA program is to enable the appropriate systems analysis and identification of areas of opportunity to reduce complexity. – Reduction of Number of Systems: Description (Report Logic, Justification) – Reduction of Redundant Systems: Description (Report Logic, Justification)
Flexibility and Agility Measures: Agencies are faced with a multitude of rapidly changing opportunities and challenges coupled with an increasing level of automation of key business processes. This increases the necessity for an organization to be able to quickly identify and respond to the most important and critical of these opportunities and challenges. – Time to Market: Description (Report Logic, Justification) – Alignment to Strategy: Description (Report Logic, Justification)
Architecture Governance Measures: Ensuring that agencies IT efforts meet the needs of their stakeholders and comply with a wide array of rules and regulations in an efficient way is an important service that the EA program provides. – Quantity Reviewed: The number of reviews involving use of the artifact. – Level of Effort for Review: Time to review projects – Quantity of Recommendations: The count of systems and projects reviewed using the particular
artifact. – Cost Avoidance: Description (Report Logic, Justification) – Opportunity Exploitation: Description (Report Logic, Justification)
| 28 |
Brief Bios:
Neil Efrom – Information Systems Engineer, Principal, The MITRE Corporation – Knowledge Steward of Enterprise Architecture Knowledge area for Enterprise
Business Transformation organization. 20 years of experience in business process re-engineering and Enterprise Architecture.
Stuart Lesley – Information Systems Engineer, Principal, The MITRE Corporation – Senior member of MITRE’s National Infrastructure/Finance Program area. Over 20
years of experience in Systems Engineering, requirements and process engineering and Enterprise Architecture.
