FEDERAL Enterprise Performance Management

©2003-2010HeadstrongCorporation.Allrightsreserved.
FederalEPM:MaximizingtheReturnonITInvestmentsacrosstheEnterprise
Does your Federal organization have
the right framework in place to help you
plan, manage, and maximize the business
value you get from your IT programs and
projects?
Do you have the right IT strategy; does it
support your agency’s business strategy;
and is it aligned with your Enterprise
Architecture?
Do you have a reliable framework in place
to implement your strategy through
proper selection, control, measurement, and evaluation of your
IT investments?
Do you have a solid IT delivery foundation in order to deliver
reliable results and report credible information on progress
and outcomes?
Federal Enterprise Performance Management (Fed-EPM) is the
strategic management of business and IT priorities, investments,
and projects across a Federal enterprise. The objective of
Fed-EPM is to take full advantage of the synergies across your
Enterprise Architecture, Portfolio Management, and Program
Management Office disciplines to get maximum strategic value
and return on project investments.
Federal EPM – The Headstrong Way
The Fed-EPM is the realization of OMB’s guidelines that
“Enterprise architecture is one of several practice areas that
must be executed effectively to achieve improvements in agency
mission performance and other measurement areas”.2
The
Headstrong approach to Federal EPM identifies three key areas
(see Figure 1 – Federal Enterprise Performance Management)
that are vital to the successful execution of an enterprise-
wide investment strategy. These key areas are: Enterprise
Architecture (EA), Portfolio Management (PfM), and Program
Management Office (PMO).
Enterprise Architecture is an actionable,
organization-wide business context for
managing change in the enterprise.
Based on your agency’s business vision
and strategy, baseline resources and
capabilities, and targeted performance
gaps, the EA can provide managed
direction for aligning your business and
IT strategies.
Portfolio Management manages
and controls the strategy including
consideration of the range of possible
changes in IT project investments that can better enable the
enterprise to achieve its goals.
Program Management Office is then responsible for executing
the strategy and changes specified and for reporting back
accurate status, information, and results.
A significant amount of legislation and guidance has been
issued over the past fifteen years by the U.S. Congress, Office
Federal EPM: Maximizing the Return on
IT Investments across the Enterprise
Strategic Value and Return on Investment Depends on Three Key Areas
To help build a new foundation
for the 21st century, we need to
reform our government so that it is
more efficient, more transparent,
and more creative.1
President Barack H. Obama
1
By Craig Prindle and Timothy Pavlo, Headstrong Public Sector
Figure 1: Federal Enterprise Performance Management (Fed-
EPM)
1
President’s remarks during “Your Weekly Address”, April 25, 2009.
2
FEA Practice Guidance, Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management
Office, OMB, November 2007, page 2.
1 2
3
Portfolio
Management
(PfM)
Enterprise
Architecture
(EA)
Program
Management
Office
(PMO)
Federal
Enterprise
Performance
Management
(EPM)

2
of Management and Budget (OMB), General Accounting
Office (GAO), and Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO)
Council related to strategic planning (annual performance
plans), enterprise architecture, and portfolio management (IT
Investment Management; Capital Planning and Investment
Control; Performance and Results Measurement). Federal
organizations are struggling to implement this guidance due to
the scope and complexity of these frameworks. There is also
questionable value being delivered without solid PMO and IT
delivery foundations in place to reliably execute projects and
credibly report results. Organizations that can successfully
implement and operate these key areas (EA, PfM, and PMO) in
concert will maximize the value and benefits achievable and
demonstrable from their IT investments.
Each of these three areas carries significant importance in order
to fully realize the benefits of federal IT investments, currently
at $71 billion in 2009 up from $26 billion in 1996. EA aligns
business strategy and planning with IT strategy and planning.
EA defines the portfolio of projects that should then be properly
managed as IT investments. PfM then manages the portfolio of
investments to maximize their value and return on investment.
The PfM function facilitates implementation and adjustment
of the business and IT strategy for the organization based on
information communicated and received. PMO then serves as
a critical capability to ensure successful delivery of the projects
and investments required to implement the strategy. PMO also
provides for reliable reporting of status and information needed
Figure 2: Headstrong Enterprise Architecture (EA) Framework
by the PfM function. Absent the proper emphasis in any one of
these three areas (EA, PfM, PMO), the value derived from the
other two areas may be greatly inhibited.
Area 1: Enterprise Architecture
Enterprise Architecture (EA) is the master plan linking business
strategies and the operations of the enterprise. It is a blueprint
that is developed, implemented, and maintained as a planning
tool to guide and communicate the existing state of the
enterprise, as well as a mechanism to define and control change
within the enterprise.
EA is both a conceptual model and an actionable process for
managing change across the enterprise. It is a conceptual
model outlining the linkages amongst the business mission,
functional processes, organizations, data, systems, and the
supporting technology infrastructure. It is an actionable process
for driving architecture-based decisions. This ensures that
technology investment decisions are in line with the agency’s
business goals, strategies and priorities as well as with current
standards and target infrastructure. This requires that capital
investments be prioritized against their ability to meet actual
business outcomes. And this also provides for one common
framework to effectively bridge the communication and
capability gap between your business community’s needs and
your technologists’ capacity to deliver.
Figure 2 (Headstrong EA Framework) illustrates the Headstrong
EA service line’s major components and processes for
development and maintenance of an organization’s Enterprise
Architecture. Headstrong’s EA framework is consistent with
the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) 3
and the
Federal Segment Architecture Methodology (FSAM) 4
.
The nature of Enterprise Architecture is one of iteration.
The Headstrong EA Framework supports iterative FSAM
tasks and techniques and promotes successful outcomes for
the three segment architecture-types: Core Mission Area,
Business Services, and Enterprise Services5
. New business
needs and technical advances drive change in the fabric of
the enterprise. The enterprise responds to these by adapting
its business processes, information, and technologies to meet
the new demands. The use of automated EA tools provide for
efficient and effective maintenance of the architecture and the
integration of its components.
3
A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, v 1.0, Federal Chief
Information Officer’s (CIO) Council, February 2001.
4
Federal Segment Architecture Methodology (FSAM), Federal Segment Archi-
tecture Working Group (FSAWG), December 15, 2008.
5
About Federal Segment Architecture Methodology (FSAM), Retrieved
01/04/2010 at http://www.fsam.gov/federal-segment-architecture-methodol-
ogy-toolkit/overview.php
Program
Management
Office
(PMO)
1
23
Portfolio
Management
(PfM)
Enterprise
Architecture
(EA)
Federal Enterprise
Performance
Management
(Fed-EPM)
ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE
. EA Direction
. EA Development
. EA Evolution
. EA Tools and Training
Headstrong Enterprise Architecture Framework
Community
Architecture
Business
Architecture
Information
Mission/
Business
Solution Area
Architectures
Service
Components
Technology
As-Is Baseline
Performance
Security
Community
Architecture
Business
Information
Mission/
Business
Solution Area
Architectures
Service
Components
Technology
Target Blueprint
Security
Gap - Opportunity
EA Performance
Baseline
Gap &
Opportunity
Description
Business
Transition
Plan
Sequencing
Plan
ManagementDrivers
Scope &
Direction
TemporalDrivers
Opportunity &
Constraints
EA Drivers
Performance
Asset Portfolio
Management
Link

3
The Enterprise Architecture provides the roadmap to guide
your enterprise through the coordinated and simultaneous
management of business (process), strategic (management),
organizational, and technical changes.
This facilitates more rapid responses to
changing business needs by providing
assets to vet, test, and then integrate.
EA integrates with Area 2 (Portfolio
Management) by providing the strategic
transition planning that aligns business
goals with IT enablers in order to define
and help maintain the portfolio of IT
investments and projects. The resulting
transformation changes can then
subsequently be measured for results
that directly support the prioritized needs
of the business.
Area 2: Portfolio Management
Portfolio Management (PfM) is the strategic management of the
enterprise’s investments and projects to blend IT investments
with related business initiatives. Portfolio Management
recognizes that the value of each project changes over time.
The benefits to be realized from a program will change in relative
value to other programs in the portfolio as each program is
better understood and as internal and external factors tend to
change. These changes are better understood and achieved
through the use of your agency’s Enterprise Architecture to
identify and map the internal and external factors of change,
performance gaps, and fluctuations in business strategies.
Organizations are encouraged to manage their program
investments like a stock portfolio. This involves determining
the desired mix of investments, and monitoring the investments
based on changing returns and ‘market’ conditions7
.
Figure 3 (Federal Portfolio Management Framework) illustrates
Headstrong’s view of the major components for establishment
and maintenance of a Federal enterprise’s IT investment
management portfolio. The framework is based on OMB and
GAO guidance8
.
Performance and Results Measurement integrates Capital
Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) with strategic planning
and the Enterprise Architecture. It involves using and refining
the performance measures from strategic
planning and EA in such a way that
measurements and results can be applied
in order to validate and make adjustments
to the strategy of the enterprise. There
are several methods of implementing
performance and results measurement
including the Balanced Scorecard method
first introduced by Kaplan and Norton at
Harvard University in the early 1990’s9
.
Balanced Scorecard is an approach
to setting, measuring, and evaluating
project priorities and performance. A
balanced scorecard provides a measuring tool that clarifies the
enterprise’s vision through measurable goals and outcomes.
This enables the vision to drive the projects that take place
within the enterprise, aligns them to the enterprise’s overarching
business strategy, and correlates their outcomes.
Figure 3: Federal Portfolio Management Framework
Federal executive agencies
face significant management
and technical challenges when
measuring the contribution of IT
investments to mission results as
required by Clinger-Cohen.
Federal Chief Information Officers Council6
6
Information Technology Performance Management, Measuring IT’s
Contribution to Mission Results, Federal Chief Information Officer’s (CIO)
Council, IT Performance Management Subcommittee for the Capital Planning
and IT Management Committee, September 2001, page 1.
7
The Information Paradox – Realizing Business Benefits of Information
Technology, John Thorp and DMR’s Center for Strategic Leadership, McGraw-
Hill, ©1998, pps 40-44.
8
Information Technology Investment Management, A Framework for Assessing
and Improving Process Maturity, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO/AIMD-
10.1.23, May 2000), page 1.
9
The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, Drs Robert Kaplan
and David Norton, Harvard Business School Press, 1996.
Program
Management
Office
(PMO)1 3
Enterprise
Architecture
(EA)
Federal Enterprise
Performance
Management
(DoD-EPM)
2Portfolio
Management
(PfM)
Select
Control
Evaluate
Capital Planning
and Investment
Control
(CPIC)
Performance and
Results Measurement
(e.g. Balanced Scorecard)
IT Investment
Management (ITIM)
Process and Maturity Framework
Guidance/
Measures
Results/
Measurements
Guidance/
Evaluation
Results/
Needs
PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT
. Methods
. Tools
. Training
. Implementation

4
schedule, and benefits) against expected results and facilitate
management decision-making and action for adjustments.
CPIC further stipulates that the outcome of investments will
be evaluated in a post mortem fashion as input to future
selection processes.
Supporting CPIC is an IT Investment Management Framework
defined by GAO12
as a way to establish, evolve, and evaluate
CPIC in an enterprise. A maturity framework is defined with
5 levels representing a shift from project-centric to portfolio-
centric management. Each level has standard processes
and capabilities that can both be used as guidance and as an
evaluation tool.
Area 3: Program Management Office (PMO)
The responsibilities of a Program Management Office
(PMO) are varied and evolving. A PMO generally provides
centralized processes, tools, and tracking for a set of IT
projects. This generally helps with status monitoring,
prioritization, resource management, support, control, and
evaluation of these projects. PMOs also help to facilitate
and ensure success of programs and projects. There has
not been much Federal guidance on the implementation of
PMO organizations.
As reported in Computerworld13
, “poor project planning and
management are to blame for (organizations) scrapping
almost a third of new software projects for a loss of $80 billion
annually. One out of two projects run more than 180% over
budget for another $59 billion in losses, according to META
Group, Inc.” The article goes on to say that the solution to
Figure 5: PMO Core Competencies
Besides the usual schedule, quality, and budget perspective,
the balanced scorecard looks at four key business perspectives
that reflect how valuable these projects (investments) are
to the enterprise: Financial; Customer; Internal Business
Processes (Core Competencies); and Learning and Innovation.
Figure 4 (Balanced Scorecard Candidates) identifies candidate
perspectives and examples to be included on scorecard
design for each of these four perspectives including project
performance10
.
Federal IT portfolio management is centered on the CPIC
process defined by legislation and supported by OMB and GAO
Federal guidance11
for IT capital planning and IT investment
management. CPIC involves selection of those projects
which will best support mission needs. CPIC also stipulates
control mechanisms which evaluate actual results (costs,
10
Balanced Scorecard for Projects, Project Management Journal, Wendy E.
Stewart, March 2001, pps 38-39, 45.
11
Assessing Risks and Returns: A Guide for Evaluating Federal Agencies’ IT
Investment Decision-Making, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO/AIMD-
10.1.13, February 1997).
12
Same as (8).
13
Computerworld, September 22, 1997, pg. 6.
Federal EPM
Governance
(Processes & Training)
Program
Management
Office
(PMO)
Program and
Project Management
(Methods, Tools & Training)
SDLC and Acquisition
Methods (Customization,
Tools & Training)
3.1
3.2 3.3
Figure 4: Balanced Scorecard Candidates
Project
Performance
Financial
Perspective
Learning
Innovation
Perspective
Customer
Perspective
Core
Perspective
. On Time
. On Budget
. Team/Partner Satisfaction Index
. Achievement of Corporate Objectives
. Net Present Value
. Earned Value
. Payback Period
. Customer Satisfaction Index:
- Timeliness
- Quality
. Team Learning Experience
& Skill Growth
. Staff Training Metrics
. New Best Practices being
Created & Shated
. Within Scope
. With Quality Performance
. Nine PMBOK* Management Areas:
Procurement, Scope, Time, Cost,
Quality, Human Resource,
Communications, Risk, Integration
. Return on Investment
. Internal Rate of Return
. Information Economics:
- Providing Better Customer
Service
- Providing Increased
Competitiveness
. Confidence in Team
. Empathy from Team
* Project Management Institute's (PMI) Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) Guide
BALANCED SCORECARD
PERSPECTIVES
Project Performance
Core Competencies
Financial
Customer
Learning & Innovation
CANDIDATE BALANCED
SCORECARD FACTORS
- Relationships
. Reliability
. Responsiveness

5
Figure 6: Headstrong PMO Framework
the problem is to have a central program management office
staffed with experts who have proven methods, tools, and
experience. This article is a good description of the typical
business case and business drivers to establish PMO support
in an organization.
Further reinforcing the preceding assessment, for the Federal
sector, a May 2006 CIO Magazine article on Federal IT
Performance states that “Federal IT Projects run over budget,
fall behind schedule, and collapse with depressing regularity.”
The article goes on to recommend the establishment of “project
management offices – the absence of which increases chances
of project failure.” 14
As illustrated in Figure 5 (PMO Core Competencies), the
Headstrong PMO service line is based on methods, tools, and
training for Governance, Program/Project Management, System
Development Lifecycles (SDLC), and Acquisition.
PMO’s can be categorized into four primary types as listed in
Figure 6 (Headstrong PMO Framework).
Each type generally involves a different scope and requires a
different approach and set of strategies. The four types are:
1. enterprise program management office (epmo): one
office overseeing an entire enterprise’s program/project
portfolio, standardizing Project Management processes
and templates, providing Project Management training
and support, monitoring and measuring project
performance, and supporting or directly facilitating the
delivery of projects on-time, within budget, and with
expected quality and results.
2. program office: one office overseeing two or more
closely related projects (e.g. an office overseeing all
of an organization’s Portal Development or Citizen
Relationship Management (CRM) projects; or an office
focused on the management of a major program
area for the organization, such as their Enterprise
Architecture).
3. program management team (pmt): one office overseeing a
single, very large program/project (e.g. implementation
of a new enterprise-wide financial management
system).
4. project office: the project and process management
experts and tools for an entire organization (e.g. project
scheduling tools; process management toolsets; or
Portfolio
Management
(PfM)
3
1 2
Enterprise
Architecture
(EA)
Program
Management
Office
(PMO)
Federal Enterprise
Performance
Management
(Fed-EPM)
Federal EPM
Governance
(Processes &
Training)
Program Management Team
(one very large project or program)
Program and
Project Management
(Methods, Tools & Training)
SDLC and Acquisition
Methods (Customization,
Tools & Training)
Project Office
(general support for project methods, tools & training)
Program Office
(2 or more closely related
projects; or special purpose)
Enterprise
PMO
(All projects)
4 Primary
Types of
PMO
3.1
3.2 3.3
14
CIO Magazine, May 2006.
SDLC methods such as those available from the process
management toolset vendors and Gantthead.com).
A “Program Office” or “PMO” can also be a mixture of these
types (e.g. usually some aspect of the fourth type is needed
and/or included). Often it is not clear exactly what type, scope,
and extent is expected for the PMO until an assessment is
made and a Program (or PMO) Management Plan is agreed
upon.
For each type of PMO, Headstrong has approaches or techniques
to assess needs, and tools available for reuse, as shown in the
table in Figure 7 (Summary of Headstrong PMO Assessment
Approaches and Tools).
The Headstrong PMO service line leverages Headstrong’s
heritage (formerly James Martin + Co.) and depth in methods,

tools, and program/project management experience. There
has been minimal Federal guidance on the design and
implementation of PMOs that proactively facilitate the
planning, management, and success of
projects in the enterprise. Therefore,
effective PMO teams may be a vital
missing piece in effective enterprise
project management for many Federal
enterprises.
Federal EPM Interrelationships
Each of the three Fed-EPM areas
has important dependencies as
shown in Figure 8 (Federal EPM Key
Interrelationships).
The Business Strategy from the senior
executive suite provides the business
drivers for the development and the
use of the Enterprise Architecture
for IT transition planning, as well as
the implementation of the Portfolio
Management strategy, the selection
of projects and investments, and the design of the period’s
6
If managed wisely, investments
in IT can enrich people’s lives
and improve organizational
performance. However … IT
projects can become risky, costly,
unproductive mistakes. As we
have described in numerous
reports and testimonies, federal
IT projects too frequently incur
cost overruns and schedule
slippages while contributing little
to mission-related outcomes.
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)15
performance management and measurement mechanisms
(e.g. balanced scorecards). Portfolio Management essentially
implements the project-based business and IT strategies for the
organization. Feedback and adjustments
are made to these strategies based on
program and project performance.
The Program Management Office
function is organized to control, support,
and evaluate the programs/projects
that are implementing the strategies
and priorities for the organization.
The PMO also collects the metrics
(at the project level) that roll-up to
the department or program-level
performance measurement mechanisms
(e.g. balanced scorecards). The PMO
facilitates the success and accurate
reporting of project results.
Summary
The Federal EPM framework provides
a basis for successfully managing and
maximizing the value an enterprise achieves from its project
investments. It is a strategic framework which simplifies
and better enables compliance with Federal legislation and15
Same as (8).
Figure 7: Summary of Assessment Approaches and Tools
PMO Type
All
Enterprise PMO
Program Office
Program
Management
Team (PMT)
Project Office
Implementation Approaches Or Processes
. Portfolio Health Check: quick, detailed
assessment that includes determination
of which type of PMO is needed
. PMO Assessment Process: upfront,
detailed assessment when it is already
known that an Enterprise PMO is needed
. Program Office Assessment Approach:
upfront, detailed assessment when it is
already known that a Program Office
PMO is needed
. Program Management Team (PMT)
Approach: Program Management
strategies, processes, and techniques
used as basis for development of a
Program Management Plan for a PMT
. Methods Implementation Roadmap
Process: repeatable process for the
planning and rollout of SDLC methods
and tools
Tools Available For Reuse
. Project Management Methods Maturity Evaluator
. Project Review Checklists
. Surveys
. Web-Enabled PMO/Project Management
Application and Dashboard
. COTS Project Portfolio Management (PPM)
Toolsets (e.g. Clarity)
. Web-Enabled Program Office Dashboard
. Risk Management Database
. Issue Management Database
. Automated Toolsets
. User Acceptance Testing Database
. Communications Plan and Media
. Program Office Tools listed above
. Customized SDLC Methods, WBS, metrics, reports
on Intranet (e.g. Gantthead)
. Enforced (standard) workflow, processes,
templates, etc. (e.g. PPM such as Clarity)

Enterprise Architecture
Enterprise
Architectures
Alignment/Planning
. Business/IT Alignment
. Gap Analysis
. Transition Plan
Portfolio Management
(Strategy Implementation)
Performance
Information/
Better Success
with Projects
Selected Projects/
Investments
Feedback on
Performance
and Needs
Annual
Performance Plans
Transition Plan
(Portfolio Definition)
Adjustments/
Priorities
Select
Control
Evaluate
Capital Planning
and Investment
Control
(CPIC)
Program Management Office
. Leadership and/or Facilitation for Program or
Project Success
. Methods and Best Practices
. Project Management Experts, Automated Tools,
and Training
. Standard Strategies and Techniques:
. Project Planning
. Risk Management
. Scope Management
. Schedule Management
. Budget Management
. Earned Value Management
System (EVMS)
. Communications
. Issue Management
. Resource Management and Collaboration
. Technical Guidance and Subject Matter Experts
. Quality Management
. Organizational Change
Management
. Requirements
Definition
. Acquisition Planning
and Management
. System Development
Life Cycles (SDLC)
Strategic Planning
. Missions/Goals
. Performance Measures
. Funding
Performance and
Results Measurement
(e.g. Balanced Scorecard)
IT Investment
Management (ITIM)
Process and Maturity
Framework
Guidance/
Measures
Results/
Measurements
Guidance/
Evaluation
Results/
Needs
Feedback on
Target
Alignment
Figure 8: Federal EPM Key Interrelationships
7
guidance on strategic planning, EA, IT capital planning,
and IT investment management. In particular, the Federal
EPM framework supports integration of the critical areas of
strategic planning, portfolio management, and the accurate
measurement of results.
The Federal EPM framework provides for strategic IT delivery
capabilities. This includes PMO capabilities to support
better planning, management, and delivery of projects. It
also includes PMO capabilities to better provide credible
information to the portfolio management function which is
critical for strategy implementation. These linkages enable
the enterprise to successfully select and implement the right
projects with mitigated risk, improved schedule and cost
performance, and a clearer view of the quality, value, and
return on investments.

8
© 2003-2010 Headstrong Corporation. “Headstrong”, logo and designs are registered trademarks of
HeadstrongCorporation.Allothernamesandlogosmaybetrademarksofothercompanies.Allrightsreserved.
This paper was originally published at http://www.headstrong.com
About Headstrong
Headstrong is a global consultancy focused on helping clients achieve measurable results with their business and
systems integration efforts. We help our clients align technology initiatives with business goals while integrating their
business with their customers, suppliers and employees to improve enterprise value. We have extensive experience
delivering EA, PMO, and Portfolio Management solutions for our government and commercial customers. We also offer
a full range of integration services, including opportunity assessment, design and implementation, post implementa-
tion optimization and application/solution maintenance. With a 27-year track record of proven results, our client base
includes many of the world’s most respected companies. Headstrong is headquartered near Washington DC, with a
global presence across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. For more information, visit www.headstrong.com.
About the Authors
Craig Prindle is a Principal with Headstrong Public Sector and provides thought leadership for Headstrong’s Enterprise
Performance Management (EPM) and Project Management Office (PMO) service lines. He has over twenty-five years
of management and technical experience implementing business systems and EPM-type solutions for government and
commercial clients including nineteen years with Headstrong. Previous experience includes work at the Department
of Defense and American Management Systems. He received his undergraduate degree from Bucknell University in
Lewisburg, PA, and an MBA degree from Purdue University in W. Lafayette, IN. He is a certified Project Management
Professional with the Project Management Institute.
Timothy Pavlo is a Managing Consultant with Headstrong Public Sector and leads the Enterprise Architecture
practice area. As an EA SME, he has over 15 years experience in creating and sustaining enterprise architectures
with both corporate and federal clients. He has extensive experience in the methods and techniques in business
process analysis, business information analysis, related process and data modeling, team facilitation and consensus
building, methodology development, and stand-up training. He promotes business-value by engaging the business
community to collaborate on the analysis and to validate the findings. He has spoken at national conferences and
universities. He holds Professional Certification in Enterprise Architectures and Greenbelt Certification in Business
Process Improvement.
When can we talk?
www.headstrong.com
WP-200605-050-3-FEDERAL EMP
Craig Prindle
Headstrong Public Sector
Principal
703-272-6735
craig.prindle@headstrong.com
Atul Sharma
Headstrong Public Sector
Client Relationship Manager
703-272-6707
atul.sharma@headstrong.com

FEDERAL Enterprise Performance Management

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to FEDERAL Enterprise Performance Management

FEDERAL Enterprise Performance Management