The Chasm between FEAF & FASM
Following Questions arises between FEAF and FSAM :-
- Which one is Architecture – FEAF or FEA – Reference Model?
- Are reference models architecture? If not what are they?
- Is FEA – Reference Model designed based on Ontology?
- Is Taxonomy Ontology ? What is the difference between the two and which of them is of architecture significance?
- Why does FEAF exist when FEA Reference Model is recommended by OMB.
- OMB recommends using Federal Reference Models for Planning – that includes Transition Planning / Modernization Roadmaps. Can FEA – Reference Models sufficiently lend into Transition Planning?
- To accomplish Transition Planning – EA – CPIC – PMO Integration is necessary. Does FEA Reference model provide sufficient structure and coherence to adapt it for Capital Planning and also for Program Planning and Management?
- Does FEA – Reference Model render FSAM divisive or decisive?
- To what conclusions does FEA – Reference models lead while conducting EA Assessment?
Does the above questions make Federal Enterprise Architecture a boon or bane?
First of all “Segment” definition seems to be seriously flawed and riddled with “empirical dilemma” because of which it renders itself not anything architectural. It has confusing classification scheme that seems to follow no construct nor order. Schemes like this when applied to investment profiles, they seem more like apparition than anything real meaningful numbers on the Federal IT Dashboard.
Also, it seems that there is unconscious fascism, underpinning the modality of bringing together people (architect ?? ) to define ‘The Federal Segment Architecture Methodology’ (Architecture??). Many times in such scheme of thing certain locational existence gives people “power” not necessarily genuine “purpose”. This provides authority to a certain group of people, who have no real cause nor motivation ‘Serving the Citizens’ in all humility.
The term fascismo is derived from the Italian word fascio, which means “bundle” or group, and from the Latin word fasces; a fasces was a bundle of sticks used symbolically for the power through unity.[21][22] The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods that were tied around an axe, were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrates; they were carried by his Lictors and could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.[22]
Furthermore, the symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.[23] This is a familiar theme throughout different forms of fascism; for example the Falange symbol is a bunch of arrows joined together by a yoke.[24]
Part of the answers seems to lie in a cohesive mechanism that ‘Governance’ should achieve while measuring and achieving the desired performance / outcomes. But this cannot improve unless one begins to deal with things that are architecture in nature and significantly influence design based thinking.
The following extract from the EAAF v.30 makes it obvious that the emphasis is shifting to ‘Governance’ driven EA life-cycle management.
“Looking forward, the evolution of the EAAF is being driven by what agencies are doing to drive to outcome-focused
architecture. In particular, recognizing strategic planning, enterprise architecture (EA),
capital planning and investment control (CPIC), and performance assessment and
management are linked processes. The only way to ensure they work together towards
targeted outcomes is to ensure at each step we understand and measure process
outcomes vs. process compliance.
The scope of EAAF Version 3.0 spans planning, investment, and operations activities
required to work in concert to improve agency performance through the management
and use of information and information technology. EAAF Version 3.0 features
extensive use of key performance indicators (KPIs) measuring outcomes across
strategic planning, EA, CPIC, and performance data. To support automation and
accuracy in producing the KPIs, EAAF Version 3.0 moves agency EA submissions to a
template-based model similar to the current agency budget submission process for the
Exhibit 53 and Exhibit 300.”
