Search Results for: capital planning

 The next 5 months portend a spectacle of US Congressional battles to be waged ahead of the pending, mandatory “sequester” – automatic, mandatory federal government spending reductions of about $1 Trillion over 9 years, in non-exempt, discretionary appropriations, set to take effect 1/2/2013. Forward-thinking planners in government IT organizations, in large Programs that depend upon IT, and among the Systems Integration (SI) community are likely to dust off Enterprise Architecture skills for analyzing budget cut implications across their IT investment portfolios, and possible cost savings opportunities to offset them. Leveraging a methodical, EA-guided approach to both assess impacts and adjust spending priorities, while illuminating new areas of savings, is a sure route to mitigating serious risks and delays to delivery of critical citizen services.

Whether you’re dusting off the existing EA artifacts, or need to take a very rapid, optimized route to constructing initial enterprise IT models, the driving principle at this time will be rapid, absolute reduction in complexity with a clear line-of-sight to cost savings. “Complexity” here simply refers to an inefficient or needlessly detailed volume of time and resources applied to deliver IT solutions – time spent re-engineering processes, building redundant interfaces and monitors, installing hardware & software in a piecemeal fashion.

Driving complexity, and therefore introducing cost savings, out of engineered systems is the central tenet of “Value Engineering”  – “the optimization of a system’s outputs by crafting a mix of performance (function) and costs”. Essentially, deliver the same capabilities with better value by driving down the cost to build and/or operate. Section 52.248-1 of the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) describes the “Value Engineering Clause” that is inserted into many large Federal IT contracts – enabling the contractor to propose changes to the system being developed (i.e. a “Value Engineering Change Proposal”, or VECP). If the proposal is accepted, the actual or collateral savings derived by the government (through cost modification to the contract) can be shared with the contractor. It’s a win-win opportunity for the government, system beneficiaries and the contractor community to discover and propose engineering changes that will lower costs, yet still deliver the same or better results.

Many VECPs are submitted for technology assets – i.e. contained systems that may work better when newer, less-costly components are substituted…like missile systems or electronic devices. This may be because the contractor typically is the sole source of knowledge and research concerning how to optimize and build the components, the “value” and function of the asset is very clear (i.e. it’s delivered and explodes on target) and constant innovation is a demand of the environment. VECPs are also submitted for IT systems and programs, though it’s much more difficult to identify and propose the specific cost savings or cost avoidance that might result – since IT systems are frequently dependent upon many external or interfaced elements, vendor products and processes.

An EA-centric review of a program or line-of-business IT investment may quickly yield insight that would lead to specific value engineering opportunities, and therefore reductions in IT costs. For example, a particular set of information may be created, shared and recreated across several systems, using different processes, datastores and technologies. An segmented EA approach driving down from the particular business, process and information domains, may quickly illuminate targets of opportunity for database or interface consolidation – and therefore potential consolidation of supporting technologies (i.e. storage, networking, processors). This may lead to optimized technical operations and business process performance, which can be clearly mapped back to the Enterprise Architecture to validate that governance and mission requirements are (still) met, cross-enterprise risks are mitigated, and IT investment portfolios and procurement activities are properly adjusted or re-aligned.

With this kind of information, a VECP could be constructed that very clearly proposes both program-specific and collateral (i.e. across the rest of the enterprise) savings resulting from introduction of state-of-the-art consolidating technologies (for example, pre-integrated, self-contained and consolidated database engineered systems, perhaps cloud-enabled). At the very least, an EA view can help identify and prioritize targets of opportunity for Value Engineering that may become part of an effective and timely sequestration response – both before and after such an event, and in fact as part of the annual capital planning and investment control (CPIC) processes.

Alignment to the FEAF and OMB compliance mandates is long underway across the Federal Departments and Agencies (and visible via tools like PortfolioStat and ITDashboard.gov – but there is still a gap between the top-down compliance directives and enablement programs, and the bottom-up awareness and effective use of EA for either IT investment management or actual mission effectiveness. “EA isn’t getting deep enough penetration into programs, components, sub-agencies, etc.”, verified a panelist at the most recent EA Government Conference in DC.

Newer guidance from OMB may be especially difficult to handle, where bottom-up input can’t be accurately aligned, analyzed and reported via standardized EA discipline at the Agency level – for example in addressing the new (for FY13) Exhibit 53D “Agency IT Reductions and Reinvestments” and the information required for “Cloud Computing Alternatives Evaluation” (supporting the new Exhibit 53C, “Agency Cloud Computing Portfolio”).

Therefore, EA must be “sold” directly to the communities that matter, from a coordinated, proactive messaging perspective that takes BOTH the Program-level value drivers AND the broader Agency mission and IT maturity context into consideration.

Selling EA means persuading others to take additional time and possibly assign additional resources, for a mix of direct and indirect benefits – many of which aren’t likely to be realized in the short-term. This means there’s probably little current, allocated budget to work with; ergo the challenge of trying to sell an “unfunded mandate”.

Also, the concept of “Enterprise” in large Departments like Homeland Security tends to cross all kinds of organizational boundaries – as Richard Spires recently indicated by commenting that “…organizational boundaries still trump functional similarities. Most people understand what we’re trying to do internally, and at a high level they get it. The problem, of course, is when you get down to them and their system and the fact that you’re going to be touching them…there’s always that fear factor,” Spires said.

It is quite clear to the Federal IT Investment community that for EA to meet its objective, understandable, relevant value must be measured and reported using a repeatable method – as described by GAO’s recent report “Enterprise Architecture Value Needs To Be Measured and Reported“.

What’s not clear is the method or guidance to sell this value. In fact, the current GAO “Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 2.0)”, a.k.a. the “EAMMF”, does not include words like “sell”, “persuade”, “market”, etc., except in reference (“within Core Element 19: Organization business owner and CXO representatives are actively engaged in architecture development”) to a brief section in the CIO Council’s 2001 “Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture”, entitled “3.3.1. Develop an EA Marketing Strategy and Communications Plan.” Furthermore, Core Element 19 of the EAMMF is advised to be applied in “Stage 3: Developing Initial EA Versions”. This kind of EA sales campaign truly should start much earlier in the maturity progress, i.e. in Stages 0 or 1.

So, what are the understandable, relevant benefits (or value) to sell, that can find an agreeable, participatory audience, and can pave the way towards success of a longer-term, funded set of EA mechanisms that can be methodically measured and reported? Pragmatic benefits from a useful EA that can help overcome the fear of change? And how should they be sold?

Following is a brief taxonomy (it’s a taxonomy, to help organize SME support) of benefit-related subjects that might make the most sense, in creating the messages and organizing an initial “engagement plan” for evangelizing EA “from within”. An EA “Sales Taxonomy” of sorts. We’re not boiling the ocean here; the subjects that are included are ones that currently appear to be urgently relevant to the current Federal IT Investment landscape.

Note that successful dialogue in these topics is directly usable as input or guidance for actually developing early-stage, “Fit-for-Purpose” (a DoDAF term) Enterprise Architecture artifacts, as prescribed by common methods found in most EA methodologies, including FEAF, TOGAF, DoDAF and our own Oracle Enterprise Architecture Framework (OEAF).

The taxonomy below is organized by (1) Target Community, (2) Benefit or Value, and (3) EA Program Facet – as in:

A working example follows the Taxonomy.

1.1. Budgeted Programs or Portfolios
Communities of Purpose (CoPR)
1.1.1. Program/System Owners (Senior Execs) Creating or Executing Acquisition Plans

1.1.2. Program/System Owners Facing Strategic Change
1.1.2.1. Mandated
1.1.2.2. Expected/Anticipated

1.1.3. Program Managers – Creating Employee Performance Plans
1.1.4. CO/COTRs – Creating Contractor Performance Plans, or evaluating Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECP)

1.2. Governance & Communications
Communities of Practice (CoP)

1.2.1. Policy Owners
1.2.1.1. OCFO
1.2.1.1.1. Budget/Procurement Office
1.2.1.1.2. Strategic Planning

1.2.1.2. OCIO
1.2.1.2.1. IT Management
1.2.1.2.2. IT Operations
1.2.1.2.3. Information Assurance (Cyber Security)
1.2.1.2.4. IT Innovation

1.2.1.3. Information-Sharing/ Process Collaboration (i.e. policies and procedures regarding Partners, Agreements)

1.2.2. Governing IT Council/SME Peers (i.e. an “Architects Council”)
1.2.2.1. Enterprise Architects (assumes others exist; also assumes EA participants aren’t buried solely within the CIO shop)
1.2.2.2. Domain, Enclave, Segment Architects – i.e. the right affinity group for a “shared services” EA structure (per the EAMMF), which may be classified as Federated, Segmented, Service-Oriented, or Extended

1.2.2.3. External Oversight/Constraints
1.2.2.3.1. GAO/OIG & Legal
1.2.2.3.2. Industry Standards
1.2.2.3.3. Official public notification, response

1.2.3. Mission Constituents
Participant & Analyst Community of Interest (CoI)

1.2.3.1. Mission Operators/Users
1.2.3.2. Public Constituents
1.2.3.3. Industry Advisory Groups, Stakeholders
1.2.3.4. Media

2. Benefit/Value
(Note the actual benefits may not be discretely attributable to EA alone; EA is a very collaborative, cross-cutting discipline.)

2.1. Program Costs – EA enables sound decisions regarding…
2.1.1. Cost Avoidance – a TCO theme
2.1.2. Sequencing – alignment of capability delivery
2.1.3. Budget Instability – a Federal reality

2.2. Investment Capital – EA illuminates new investment resources via…
2.2.1. Value Engineering – contractor-driven cost savings on existing budgets, direct or collateral
2.2.2. Reuse – reuse of investments between programs can result in savings, chargeback models; avoiding duplication
2.2.3. License Refactoring – IT license & support models may not reflect actual or intended usage

2.3. Contextual Knowledge – EA enables informed decisions by revealing…
2.3.1. Common Operating Picture (COP) – i.e. cross-program impacts and synergy, relative to context
2.3.2. Expertise & Skill – who truly should be involved in architectural decisions, both business and IT
2.3.3. Influence – the impact of politics and relationships can be examined
2.3.4. Disruptive Technologies – new technologies may reduce costs or mitigate risk in unanticipated ways
2.3.5. What-If Scenarios – can become much more refined, current, verifiable; basis for Target Architectures

2.4. Mission Performance – EA enables beneficial decision results regarding…
2.4.1. IT Performance and Optimization – towards 100% effective, available resource utilization
2.4.2. IT Stability – towards 100%, real-time uptime
2.4.3. Agility – responding to rapid changes in mission
2.4.4. Outcomes –measures of mission success, KPIs – vs. only “Outputs”
2.4.5. Constraints – appropriate response to constraints
2.4.6. Personnel Performance – better line-of-sight through performance plans to mission outcome

2.5. Mission Risk Mitigation – EA mitigates decision risks in terms of…
2.5.1. Compliance – all the right boxes are checked
2.5.2. Dependencies –cross-agency, segment, government
2.5.3. Transparency – risks, impact and resource utilization are illuminated quickly, comprehensively
2.5.4. Threats and Vulnerabilities – current, realistic awareness and profiles

2.5.5. Consequences – realization of risk can be mapped as a series of consequences, from earlier decisions or new decisions required for current issues
2.5.5.1. Unanticipated – illuminating signals of future or non-symmetric risk; helping to “future-proof”
2.5.5.2. Anticipated – discovering the level of impact that matters

3. EA Program Facet
(What parts of the EA can and should be communicated, using business or mission terms?)

3.1. Architecture Models – the visual tools to be created and used
3.1.1. Operating Architecture – the Business Operating Model/Architecture elements of the EA truly drive all other elements, plus expose communication channels

3.1.2. Use Of – how can the EA models be used, and how are they populated, from a reasonable, pragmatic yet compliant perspective? What are the core/minimal models required? What’s the relationship of these models, with existing system models?

3.1.3. Scope – what level of granularity within the models, and what level of abstraction across the models, is likely to be most effective and useful?

3.2. Traceability – the maturity, status, completeness of the tools
3.2.1. Status – what in fact is the degree of maturity across the integrated EA model and other relevant governance models, and who may already be benefiting from it?

3.2.2. Visibility – how does the EA visibly and effectively prove IT investment performance goals are being reached, with positive mission outcome?

3.3. Governance – what’s the interaction, participation method; how are the tools used?
3.3.1. Contributions – how is the EA program informed, accept submissions, collect data? Who are the experts?

3.3.2. Review – how is the EA validated, against what criteria?