The document proposes establishing a Federal Enterprise Architecture Board (FEAB) to govern major IT investments across the federal government. A FEAB would provide oversight and ensure strategic alignment of projects that cut across agencies according to the Federal Enterprise Architecture. It would assess investments for overlap and consolidation opportunities. The board would be chaired by the Federal Architect and make recommendations to the Federal CIO Council and OMB. Establishing a FEAB could strengthen governance of large, cross-agency IT initiatives and better link enterprise architecture planning to investment control processes.

1. Toward A Federal Enterprise Architecture Board - GovLoop - Social Network for Government 9/17/10 9:40 AM
Search
Search GovLoop - Social Network for Government
Sign Up
Sign In
Main
My Page
Members
Blogs
Groups
Forum
Jobs
Events
Topics
Resources
About
All Blog Posts
My Blog
Add a Blog Post
Toward A Federal Enterprise Architecture Board
Posted by Andy Blumenthal on September 16, 2010 at 9:00am
View Andy Blumenthal's blog
A Federal Enterprise Architecture Board (FEAB) would provide “teeth” to further implementing enterprise
architecture across government.
We have a Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) that provides a government wide framework for
architecture strategy and planning, but we do not have a FEA Board to govern the subsequent IT
investments through capital planning and investment control (CPIC). CPIC is the governance process
whereby we select, control, and evaluate new IT investments.
Interestingly, The Federal CIO Council’s Architecture Alignment and Assessment Guide (October 2000)
http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/toward-a-federal-enterprise?xg_source=activity Page 1 of 6

2. Toward A Federal Enterprise Architecture Board - GovLoop - Social Network for Government 9/17/10 9:40 AM
specifically calls for complementary EA and CPIC functions (see graphics).
In this paradigm, the enterprise architecture (EA) informs, guides, drives the CPIC, and in turn the decisions
from the CPIC governance process updates the EA planning, so that the EA and CPIC processes are seen as
mutually supportive.
In the federal government, we have departmental and agency architectures and boards that serve to plan and
govern IT investments at their respective levels. However, as we seek to build greater standardization,
interoperability, and reuse across government with IT initiatives that cut across traditional government
boundaries driven and guided by the Federal CIO and Federal CIO Council, there is a need for a FEAB to
review new and major changes to IT investments.
There would be many purposes for the FEAB.
• Strategic alignment: One would be to ensure strategic alignment not to any single department or agency
mission, but rather to the greater federal government strategy and policy. Some examples of this would be
data center consolidation, green IT, open government, and more.
• Streamlining of investments: Additionally, the FEAB would assess IT investments to ensure that there is
no overlap or opportunities for consolidation of initiatives. OMB performs some of this function today, but
a FEAB would augment their capability with IT subject matter experts from across the government.
• Other key benefits: Of course, the FEAB would also look at things like return on investment measures, risk
mitigation plans, technical compliance to federal architecture standards and mandates (security, privacy,
records, FOIA, Section 508, etc.).
The FEAB would not be a substitute for the EA Boards that provide oversight functions at the department
and agency levels, but would provide governance for the largest and riskiest IT initiatives and those that cut
across different agencies.
While the OMB currently assesses IT investments using Exhibits 300s and 53s, which include EA
assessment questions, the FEAB would provide a governance board made up of cross-cutting governmental
IT subject matter experts to vet these business cases from an EA perspective thoroughly and provide
recommendations to the Federal CIO Council and the OMB on approval or denial. Therefore, and not
unimportantly, the stand-up of a FEAB would add an important human factor to the Federal Enterprise
Architecture and make it “real.”
Of course, with a portfolio of some 10,000 IT systems, the FEAB would not be able to govern every new
Federal IT investment. Therefore, it would be critical to establish thresholds that would be practical for
implementation.
I would envision the FEAB being chaired by the Federal Architect and the board being a recommendation
body to the Federal CIO Council and the Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the
President.
Critical initiatives by Federal CIO Vivek Kundra to effectively manage (i.e. CPIC control phase) IT
investments through the Federal IT Dashboard and TechStat sessions would be augmented by the FEAB
work to carefully recommend for selection (i.e. CPIC select phase) new federal IT investments.
Together, I see the federal select and control mechanisms of CPIC functioning in harmony to enhance
governments IT planning, investment decision-making, and execution. Essentially, the FEA (architecture)
and FEAB (governance) on the “front-end” will guide new IT investments, and the IT Dashboard and
TechStat sessions on the “back-end” will ensure IT investments are properly progressing for the taxpayer
based on cost, schedule, and performance measures.
In summary, the Federal Enterprise Architecture Board would be the governance arm of the Federal
Enterprise Architecture, and serve as a support to the IT leadership of the Federal CIO, the Federal CIO
Council, and the IT budgetary functions performed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Share Twitter Facebook
< Previous Post
Comment
http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/toward-a-federal-enterprise?xg_source=activity Page 2 of 6