18
MODEL: APPROACHES
19
Performance spans all of the Reference Models of the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) 20
guidance. The GIRA Chapters includes a Performance Guide Table for each of the three (3) 21
stakeholders (e.g., Executive Leadership, Program Managers, and Solution Architects). These 22
tables are combined within Appendix G as a consolidate geospatial investment performance 23
indicators, but only serve as a starting point for consideration. 24
The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture180 uses the performance reference
25
model to show the linkage between internal business components and the achievement of 26
business and customer-centric outputs and outcomes. Performance measures help support 27
179Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2, January 29, 2013, available at
http://69.89.31.228/~mkerncom/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Federal-Enterprise-Architecture-Framework-v2-as-of-Jan-29- 2013.pdf.
180 Office of Management and Budget, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 12, 2012, available at
planning and decision-making based upon comparative determinations of which programs and 1
services are more efficient and effective. The Performance Reference Model focuses on three 2
main objectives: 3
• Produce enhanced performance information to improve strategic and daily 4
decision-making. 5
• Improve the alignment and better articulate the contribution of inputs to outputs, 6
thereby creating a clear “line of sight” to desired results. 7
• Identify performance improvement opportunities that span traditional 8
organizational structures and boundaries. 9
One of the most visible uses of the Performance Reference Model is for the OMB reporting as 10
part of Exhibit 300 investment proposals. Federal agencies are required to:181
11
• Describe the relationship between investment and agency strategic goals. A 12
narrative explanation of the investment’s specific contribution to mission delivery 13
and management support functions is required in Section B for the Exhibit 300A. 14
Investment owners must identify how the investment contributes to the agency 15
target architecture and links to performance objectives in the published agency 16
strategic plan. 17
• Provide investment-specific performance measures that quantify the intended 18
performance benefits. Each measure must be categorized using a FEA Performance 19
Measurement Category, and investment owners must ensure that the measures are 20
balanced and drawn from multiple measurement categories. Performance metrics 21
will be reported on the IT Dashboard. 22
• Report on investment results using these measures monthly, quarterly, semi- 23
annually and annually. 24
Reporting on investment results, using the Governance processes established through the 25
Executive Steering Committee (see Chapter 2), provides an opportunity to validate success and 26
make course corrections to meet changing stakeholder requirements (see Section 3.3). The 27
Federal Shared Services Implementation Guide182 recommends when developing their
28
organization’s strategic plans and performance goals, Executive Leadership and Program 29
Managers should evaluate the prior performance of their investments. This presents an 30
opportunity to question and assess the following: 31
• What is the performance of existing processes and services? 32
• What existing capabilities can be improved? 33
181
Office of Management and Budget, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 2, January 29, 2013.
• What is the cost structure of current capabilities? 1
• How efficient is service delivery? 2
• What new capabilities are needed and funded by the organization? 3
The Shared Services Implementation Guide also recommends that the Agencies should objectively 4
and continuously assess their IT investment portfolios throughout the investment lifecycle as part 5
of Capital Planning and Portfolio Management oversight. Each checkpoint should be considered 6
an opportunity to re-evaluate whether an investment is still performing as desired and continues 7
to deliver the level of business value and capabilities required by end users and key stakeholders. 8
For this reason, capital planning, business, and IT Program Managers should discuss whether 9
there is an opportunity to leverage an existing shared service before embarking on development 10
of a new initiative that will incur significant costs, as well as risks. 11
The Segment Architecture Analysis of the Geospatial Platform, Version 1.0183 describes
12
performance architecture as a means to align strategic goals and objectives with specific metrics 13
that can be applied to processes, systems, and technology in order to evaluate success against 14
those goals. The performance metrics creates a reporting framework to measure the geospatial 15
activities and investments across the enterprise. Improved performance is realized through 16
greater focus on mission, agreement on goals and objectives, and timely reporting of results. The 17
Segment Architecture Analysis also outlines the ways in which these performance metrics should 18
evolve in order to align geospatial initiatives across an enterprise’s stovepipes and incorporate 19
additional considerations critical to geospatial functionality. The document concludes by 20
providing high-level recommendations for the development of a “Geospatial Transition Roadmap 21
and Milestones” for the federal geospatial community to consider; including nine (9) government- 22
wide level governance initiatives. 23
The Geospatial Profile of the Federal Enterprise Architecture,Version 2.0184 notes that “the PRM is
24
of particular use to the development of fledgling geospatial programs across government because 25
it provides a structure for analyzing both means and ends. Using performance measures allow 26
agencies to define how much more effective their business processes are by incorporating 27
geospatial resources, approaches, or methods. 28
All activities of an agency’s geospatial program—developing policies and using standards, 29
implementing geospatial services and geo-enabling functions within the organization, and 30
implementing and providing geospatial data services both inside and outside the agency—can 31
benefit by evaluating performance. There are two primary measures for evaluating performance: 32
183
http://www.fgdc.gov/geospatial-lob/draft-segment-architecture-review/Segment-Architecture-Analysis-of-the/view
• Measures of the performance of business processes incorporating geospatial 1
resources and investments (how much does the business process save by using 2
geospatial technology and data, how many users does it support). 3
• Measures of the maturity of a geospatial program responsible for developing an 4
agency’s geospatial architecture (is the program progressing towards offering 5
better services to more customers and does its geospatial data meet quality 6
standards).” 7