Enterprise Architecture

Running head: TEMPLATE FOR NDU ICOLLEGE STUDENT PAPERS 1

Template for NDU iCollege Student Papers

A Student Paper

Submitted for

Enterprise Architecture for Leaders

National Defense University iCollege

Henry Costa

9 August 2013

This paper or presentation is my own work. Any assistance I received in its preparation is acknowledged within the paper or presentation, in accordance with academic practice. If I used data, ideas, words, diagrams, pictures, or other information from any source, I have cited the sources fully and completely in footnotes and bibliography entries. This includes sources that Ihave quoted or that I have paraphrased. Furthermore, I certify that this paper or presentation was prepared by me specifically for this class and has not been submitted, in whole or in part, to any other class in this Universityor elsewhere, or used for any purpose other than satisfying the requirements of this class, except that I am allowed to submit the paper or presentation to

TEMPLATE FOR NDU ICOLLEGE STUDENT PAPERS 2

a professional publication, peer reviewed journal, or professional conference.This is not a draft, and is submitted for grading to satisfy in part the requirements for this course. In typing my name following the word 'Signature', I intend that this certification will have the same authority andauthenticity as a document executed with my hand-written signature.

Signature _________//H.J. Costa//___________________


Summary of the Marine Corps Information Environment

The Marine Corps Information Environment supports the operational

forces preparing and deployed in operations as well as the

supporting establishment in execution of Commandant of the Marine

Corps (CMC) Title 10 activities, see Figure 1.

Figure 1: MCIE Operational View

Figure 1 provides the operational view (OV) for the Marine Corps

Information environment (MCIE), this is the segment that will be

evaluated in this paper. Currently this segment provides

enterprise services that support approximately 300,000 end-users

on about 205 systems and 1,800 discrete applications. These

systems and applications are described in the DoD IT Portfolio

Repository (DITPR) and DoD Application Data Management System


(DADMS) (CMC, Information Technology Portfolio Management (MCO

5230.21 ), 2012).

Currently the Marine Corps Enterprise Network (MCEN) is

transitioning from a Contractor owned and operated (COCO)

environment to a government owned and operated (GOGO) environment

under the MCEN Unification Plan (MCUP) (C4, 2013). One of the

strategic MCEN Unification Plan task is to develop a MCEN

Architecture Management Process.

Summary of the GAO EAMMF 2.0 Model

Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF) 2.0

is the current model developed over the last 14-15 years from the

Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) of 1999 which

provided a flexible framework (GAO, Enterprise Architecture

Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF) 2.0, 2010). This EAMMF

framework was developed along with DODAF version 1.0 of 2003 and

recent 2009 DODAF version 2.0 as well as the business,

performance and data reference models.


At its heart, EAMMF asks the questions of why and how is the

leadership of the organization effecting a culture and method for

the development, management and execution of Enterprise

Architecture (EA) program that includes the key enabling process

of strategic planning, human capital, investment management and

information security management.

The EAMMF methodology conceptually measures the EA framework into

7 maturity stages with 59 core elements on how the organization’s

commitment to EA, to include how they provide and verify

satisfaction of that commitment. Additionally the model looks at

governance, content (documentation), use and measurement of EA in

respect to what is completed, in use and their results. The

methodology considers the original representation of where an

organization is at and how the organization will get to their

destination in respect to capabilities of leadership, people,

management, process and tools to affect a culture of EA (Hite,

2010).


On 25 July I interviewed Mr. Jason Boyd, Enterprise Architecture

Lead for the Marine Corps and Mr. Leonard Darke the Enterprise

Data Architect for the Marine Corps. The following includes an

assessment of each core element for stage 1 maturity as well as

information the researcher has derived from other professional

sources.

Core Element 1 – Written and approved organization policy exists

for EA development, maintenance, and use. – Yes

The Marine Corps has a promulgated a Marine Corps Order (MCO)

policy for their Enterprise Architecture (EA) program (Marine

Corps Order 5230.20) (CMC, Marine Corps Enterprise Architecute

(MCO 5230.20), 2011). This MCO addresses EA policy approved by

the Commandant of the Marine Corps to institutionalize the EA

program and includes Commanders Intent (supporting the as-is; to-

be architecture concept); concept of operations and roles and

responsibilities for the Chief Architect, Chief Operational

Architect, Chief Systems Architect, Chief Business Architect and


the Functional Area Managers under the Enterprise Information

Environment(EIEMA), Business (BMA), Warfighting (WMA) and

Intelligence (DIMA) mission areas. The order also includes the

governance policy and tasking to the institutional management

owners known as Functional Area Mangers (FAMS). These FAM,

Architects and members of the Executive Committee as well as

members of the working groups constitute the key stakeholders of

the Marine Corps EA program.


Core Element 2 - Executive committee representing the enterprise

exists and is responsible and accountable for EA. – Partial

There is a Draft charter for the Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise Steering Group (EA-ESG). The charter addresses

membership, roles and responsibilities to include how the EA-ESG

will contribute to the responsibilities of the Chief Information

Officer as described in the MCO 5400.52 Department of Navy Chief

Information Officer Marine Corps Roles and Responsibilities. The

EA Steering Group (EAESG) as defined in MCO 5230.20 is well

aligned to the Executive Committee and provides the Chief

Architect who sits in the Office of Director C4 to influence EA

on the institution, existent Governance structures is depicted in

Figure 2.


Figure 2 – EA Governance Structure

However, the Marine Corps must design its EA as a

transformational activity and not design the program to

exclusively meet assurance and compliance requirements (Short,

2013). Additionally Gartner cites that successful programs must:

o Identify the targeted business outcomes

o Identify the disrupters or uncertainties that drive

change in business direction


o Identify the risk-adjusted value to the organization

o Leverage the principles of corporate and IT governance

o Consider your organizational culture and maturity

o Determine the governance focus, approach and desired

compliancy that works with your organizational culture

and maturity


Core Element 3 – Executive committee is taking proactive steps to

address EA cultural barriers. – Partial

This core element is at its nexus with the GOGO assumption of the

MCEN and will take strong leadership and governance. Currently

there is a line of effort in the MCUP that address the

development of the MCEN Architecture Management Process.

Specific tasks will include

Establish a process to integrate new approved and validated requirements into the MCEN architecture

Publish an IRM which requires any official architectures to be depicted in DoDAF Format

Publish a resource planning guide for the utilization of funds and resources for projects associated with the MCUP

It will be critical in this development that the Marine Corps is

not trapped by what Gartner identifies and 13 worst EA practices

(Burton, 2011).

Not linked to Business Strategic Planning and Budget Process Confusing IT architecture with EA Lack of Governance Over Standardization Focus on Art and Language of EA rather than Outcomes Strict following of EA frameworks Ivory Tower Approach Lack of Communication and Feedback Limiting the EA team to IT resources Lack of Performance Measures Picking a tool before understanding your Business Needs


Focusing on the Current State First Thinking “We are done”

Additionally, we need to incorporate our Data Management and

align our EA way-ahead with Enterprise based Data Strategy and

build it in a phased approach.

Phase 1 - Collect Authoritative Data Sources (ADS)Phase 2 - Collect ADS Interface Information and associated ADS InformationPhase 3 - Align and rationalize ADS to Business ProcessesCore Element 4 – Executive committee members are trained in EA

principles and concepts. – Partial

The objective here is to build executive level understanding of

EA. The Marine Corps has done much to promulgate its EA Policy

as well as develop the associated process of Business, Strategic

Planning and Budget. However these processes are not holistically

looked at by the Executive Committee and its associated

stakeholders.

Gartner identifies five best practices to increase EA Stakeholder

engagement and support and should be part of training program for

the Marine Corps (Saul Brand, 2013)


Profile Stakeholders based on their Impact on the Future

State of the Business (Make Marines… Win Battles) [Gen.

Charles C. Krulak, USMC (CMC); 5 May 1997].

Create Business- Outcome Driven EA Communication

Presentation

Develop your Business Knowledge and Speak the Language of

the Business

Educate Stakeholders about Disruptive Trends and

Technologies

Cast a Broad Net to Build Collaboration and drive Successful

Business Outcomes

The proposal here is for the Executive Committee, members of the

EAESG and key stakeholders from the associated working groups to

attend a full day session at NDU on Enterprise Architecture for

Leaders from Dr. Stan Boddie that address the above points and

enhances the executive committee and senior leader education on

EA.


Core Element 5 – Chief architect exists. – Partial

Per the MCO the following billets have been assigned

Chief Architect – Mr. Ken Bible Chief Technology Advisor, Office of the Director C4 CIO –Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC)

Chief Operational Architect – Mr. Walter Kuwalakoski, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC)

Chief Systems Architect – Mr. Dave Gossman, Systems Engineering, Interoperability, Architecture and Technology (SIAT) Marine CorpsSystems Command (MCSC)

Chief Business Architect Ms. Sloane Bailey, Marine Corps BusinessOffice (MCBO) HQMC

These individual are FEAC certified and provide a core team of

architects along with the Functional Area Mangers (FAMs) who also

maintain systems architects for their community of interests.

However, the current maturity of this team is not yet fully

realized, Gartner Recommends the following in maximizes the

team’s effectiveness. (Wilson, Define EA Team Roles and

Compentenciew to Maximize the Team's Effectiveness, 2012)

o Clarify common talents, skills and competency levels needed by all EA team members

o Define specific roles for the EA team memberso Map and align existing positions in the organization to

the role and competency levels you’ve defined


o Communicate on these roles and competency level definitions with HR, mangers and staff

The Marine Corps prides itself in what is called a Marine Corps

Task Organized Force. I believe we need to establish the EA Task

Organized force with the above stakeholders and establish a

proposed playbook (Information Resource Manual from MCUP Task) to

provide this task force a Common Operational employment strategy.

We can present this playbook the NDU EA Familiarization day

covered in Core Element 4.

Core Element 6 – EA purpose is clearly stated - Partial

As described, The Marine Corps has begun to storm in respect to

EA across the Enterprise. However, there is still much to do and

the following Figure shows what Gartner recommends will allow the

Enterprise to define the Business outcomes and guide the EA

effort. I believe we need to align these recommended efforts as

specific tasks in the Marine Corps Unification Plan, see Figure

3. (Julie Short, 2013)


Figure 3 - All EA Efforts Must Begin With the Business Outcome

Statement


Core Element 7 – EA framework (s) is adopted. – Partial

The Marine Corps has developed a version of an enterprise

architectural framework. However the framework has yet to define

the complete suite of enterprise architecture products and

artifacts as well as the relationships between them and the

organizations developing them. The MCUP carries a task - Provide

the Marine Corps central architecture repository. In the near

future the Marine Corps will establish the Marine Corps

Enterprise Architecture Portal (MCEAP) with the procurement of

Troux Architect. The MCEAP will help mature the EA posture

across the Marine Corps.

Gartner provides some finding that will help mature this effort

in that: (Blosch, 2012)

Form collaborative relationships

Sharing information, making better decision and optimizing

information end to end


The enterprise architect plays a key role in facilitating

the creation of the collaborative end-to-end model

To do this the enterprise architecture must look beyond the

boundaries of its own domain areas and develop and

architecture that supports the ecosystem (MCIE) view

The operationalization of the MCEAP must be transformed and

available to all Marine Corps Leaders within the Knowledge

Management process to affect our supply chain (Make Marines… Win

Battles) [Gen. Charles C. Krulak, USMC (CMC); 5 May 1997].


Core Element 8 – EA performance and accountability framework is

established. – Partial

This EA performance and accountability framework is yet to be

fully established, but the Marine Corps is working on two

initiative to support this effort. The first is the promulgation

of the MCEN Unification Plan (C4, 2013). Secondly, and

critically tied to that MCUP plan is the Weekly Director C4

working session reviewing the progress of the plan and associated

tasks to include established metrics and alignment to associated

initiatives and strategies like Joint Information Environment

(JIE) and other efficiency efforts within DoD such as Data Center

Consolidation, Defense Enterprise Service Management Framework

(DESMF), Unified Communications (UC) and the Tactical and Cyber

initiatives. These efforts with attention to EA will provide

performance review and accountability


As we develop more mature process for our accountability, the

Marine Corps should focus on what Gartner scores as key elements

of maturity assessments (Wilson, ITScore Overview for Enterprise

Architecture, 2013)

Describe the key indicators that successful EA programs

exhibit

Benchmark against best practices

Identify the key constraints that inhibit architecture

success

Determine the target EA program maturity for the next

iteration of the continuous –improvement cycle

Focus EA program development efforts on the highest-value

activities

Summary

The Marine Corps is fully engaged to improve its EA maturity and

developing as specific line of efforts for EA under the Marine

Corps Unification Plan (MCUP). The Following is a review of

actions that will mature the Marine Corps from a strong Stage 1

EA practitioner to a more solid development of their EA program


1. Linked to Business strategic Planning and Budget Process to

the EA effort within the MCUP, as described in Figure 3

2. Incorporate Data Management Plan and align our EA way-ahead

with Enterprise based Data strategy and build it out in a

phased approach.

3. Coordinate a full day session at NDU on Enterprise

Architecture for Leaders from Dr. Stan Boddie to include all

EAESG, Executive Committee members and Working Group

stakeholders

4. Establish the EA Task Organized force with the above

stakeholders and establish a proposed playbook (IRM from

MCUP Task) to provide this Task Force a Common Operational

employment strategy.

5. Operationalize the MCEAP to transform EA within and

contributors and Marine Corps Leaders .

6. Identify key constraints and opportunities associated with

external initiatives and strategies like Joint Information

Environment (JIE) and other efficiency efforts within DoD

such as Data Center Consolidation, Defense Enterprise

Service Management Framework (DESMF), Unified Communications


(UC) as well as Joint Tactical and Cyber initiatives in

respect to the transformation of the Marine Corps EA

program.

Finally, this assessment provides a good understanding of the

“As-Is” posture of the Marine Corps EA program and tangible

recommendations. With Engaged Leadership and action and program

management of the Marine Corps Unification Plan there will be no

doubt that the EA maturity of the Marine Corps. Additionally,

taking on these recommendations will be better posture the

institution to impact outcomes for the United States Marine Corps

(Make Marines… Win Battles) [Gen. Charles C. Krulak, USMC (CMC);

5 May 1997].


References

American Psychological Association (APA. (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Blosch, M. (2012, March 27). The Enterprise Architect Role in Delivering Business Outcomes for Supply Chain Leaders. Gartner, p. 9.

Burton, B. (2011, August 1). Thirteen Worst EA Practices. Gartner,p. 13.

C4, D. (2013, May). MCEN Unification Plan (MCUP). Washington, DC.

CIO, D. (2012, September). Defense Enterprise Services ManagementFramework (DESMF). Washington, DC.

CMC. (2011, Aug 23). Marine Corps Enterprise Architecute (MCO 5230.20). Washington, DC.

CMC. (2012, Oct 3). Information Technology Portfolio Management (MCO 5230.21 ). Washington, DC.

GAO. (2003, April). Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF) v1. Washington, DC.

GAO. (2010, August). Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework (EAMMF) 2.0. Washington , DC.

Hite, R. (2010, April 22). Preview of GAO's EA Management Maturity Framework v2.0. Retrieved from NDU Blackboard: www.ndu.edu

Julie Short, B. B. (2013, April 30). Define the Buisness Outcome Statement to Guide Enterprise Architecture Efforts. Gartner, p. 8.


Lavelle, E., & Bushrow, K. (2007). Writing approaches of graduatestudents. Educational Psychology, 27, 807-822.

Saul Brand, B. B. (2013, May 15). Use Five Best Practices to Increase EA Stakeholder Engagement and Support. Gartner, p. 9.

Short, J. (2013, March 25). Define EA Governance to Deliver Targeted BUsiness Outcomes. Gartner, p. 14.

U.S. Air Force. (2004, August). The Tongue and Quill. (Air Force Handbook 33-337). Retreived from http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afh33-337.pdf.

Wilson, C. (2012, December 4). Define EA Team Roles and Compentenciew to Maximize the Team's Effectiveness. Gartner, p. 9.

Wilson, C. (2013, June 27). ITScore Overview for Enterprise Architecture. Gartner, p. 10.

Enterprise Architecture

Documents

Transcript of Enterprise Architecture