Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) and Performance

“Make It So” The Need to Link Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) to the Performance

I believe that OMB Circular Number A-11, Part 6 entitled “Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, Performance Reviews, and Annual Program Performance Reports” is a framework that can be refined and incorporated into the Performance Reference Model (PRM) and the Business Reference Model (BRM) within the FEA framework:

But trying to understand the relationships between Mission, Goals, Objectives, Priorities and Indicators requires a double espresso — in order to keep your team engaged:

I propose refining the current model in a similar way that we did in the State of Oregon. We utilized benchmarking (see “Benchmarking to Become Best in Class”, Anthony Rainey, Government Finance Review, February 1997) to decompose performance data for the different levels of an agency:

• Strategic Benchmarks through the Oregon Progress Board that established Oregon Shines, a strategic plan consisting of goals and recommendations on their implementation and the creation of the Oregon Progress Board to keep Oregonians’ attention on the intermediate and long term state goals that state agencies would link and align their strategies to. The Oregon Progress Board issued biennial reports on progress and performed periodic updates to the plan for the Governor to align the proposed budget. AUDIENCE – Executive Management
• Performance Benchmarks through the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEAs) enabling the conversion of Inputs (resources, service requests or demands) into Outputs and Outcomes. Many local jurisdictions in the State of Washington utilize SEAs as part of their assessment of performance.AUDIENCE – Middle Management
• Performance Benchmarks through the American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC) Process Classification Framework for City Government that enabled cities to compare their performance to other municipalities to find who was “best in class” as well as what “best practices” they utilized. AUDIENCE – Agency Personnel, Customers, Clients, Suppliers

1 – THE REFINED PERFORMANCE MODEL

I believe that tweaking the old but basic framework for government performance models can be easily undertaken as State and Local Governments did 10, 20, to 30 years ago:

For the Federal Government, employee performance reviews would have specific “Performance Elements” linked to efforts and accomplishments measures as upper management communicates how an employee’s work is linked to these that support s specific Goal, Objective and Strategy.

2 – FEDERAL AGENCIES MUST INTEGRATE THEIR RESPECTIVE BUSINESS REFERENCE MODEL (BRM) OF THEIR AGENCY’S FEDERAL ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE (FEA) INTO THEIR PERFORMANCE MODEL

FEA has a reference model for functions, processes and activities that a “Line of Business” undertakes to support a Goal, Objective and Strategy. This must be incorporated into the Performance Model.

3 – FEDERAL AGENCIES MUST INTEGRATE THEIR RESPECTIVE PERFORMANCE REFERENCE MODEL (PRM) OF THEIR AGENCY’S FEDERAL ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE (FEA) INTO THEIR PERFORMANCE MODEL

It comes as no surprise to those of us who know performance and enterprise architecture that the Performance Reference Model is an under-utilized performance measurement and performance management tool.

Even the Australian Government’s Department of Finance utilizes a “Performance Reference Model (PRM) Classification Framework”  premised on INPUTS->WORK->OUTPUTS->USAGE->OUTCOMES. Do Government Agencies “see” these performance reference model relationships?

4 – MAKE IT SO!

It is time for the recognition of the supporting Enterprise Architecture techniques and tools in Federal Strategic Planning, Performance Measurement, and Performance Management. Enterprise Architecture staff should be ready and available to support the efforts that lead to accomplishments of Federal Agencies, Agency Management, Agency Staff, suppliers, consultants, customers and clients. The pictures above clearly show the vital inter-relationship of Enterprise Architecture and performance. As Jean-Luc Picard used to say at the helm of the USS Enterprise – “Make it so.”