Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:24, 8 July 2022

Revision as of 16:34, 29 August 2023

Line 4:

}}

[[File:EAAF Maturity levels.jpg|thumb|320px|EAAF Maturity levels]]

The '''Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework''' ('''EAAF''') iswas created by the US Federal government [[Office of Management and Budget]] (OMB) to allow federal agencies to assess and report their [[enterprise architecture]] activity and maturity,<ref name="eaaf">[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/e-gov/eaaf Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework], {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210513010154/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/E-Gov/eaaf |date=2021-05-13 }} [[Office of Management and Budget]], USA.</ref> and to advance the use of [[enterprise architecture]] in the federal government.<ref>Pallab Saha (2009) ''Advances in Government Enterprise Architecture''. Idea Group Inc (IGI). p.133</ref>

The version 2.2 of the framework was released in October 2007,<ref name="eaaf-v22">OMB (July 2007) ''Federal Enterprise Architecture Program EA Assessment Framework 2.2''. (Online copy [https://www.scribd.com/doc/6846223/OMB-EA-Assessment-Framework-22 here])</ref> and version 3.1 in June 2009.

== Overview ==

The OMB Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework (the Framework) helps [[Office of Management and Budget|OMB]] and the [[List of United States federal agencies|agencies]] assess the capability of enterprise architecture programs to guide [[Information technology|IT]] investments.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20170121152604/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/e-gov/FEA Federal Enterprise Architecture],{{dead link|date=February 2017}} Office of Management and Budget, USA.</ref> It also helps to better understand the current state of an agency’s EA, and assists them in integrating it into their decision-making processes. By applying the assessment themselves, agencies can identify strengths and weaknesses within their programs, and adjust them accordingly.

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:<ref name="eaaf"/>

Line 19:

* 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 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.<ref name="OBM09">US OBM (2009). [https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fea_docs/OMB_EA_Assessment_Framework_v3_1_June_2009.pdf Improving Agency Performance Using Information and Information Technology : Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework v3.1] June 2009</ref>

== Performance Improvement Lifecycle ==

Government agencies are continually assessingassess current performance, identifying opportunities for improvement, and translatingtranslate them into specific actions. Enterprise architecture is an integrated management practice that maximizeshelps the use of an agency’s resources to achieve their goals. Architecture describes the pathway from strategic goals and objectives, through investments, to measurable performance improvements for the entire enterprise or a portion.<ref name="OBM09"/>

[[File:Information and IT-Enabled Performance Improvement Lifecycle.jpg|600px|thumb|center|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:<ref name="OBM09"/>

* 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;