As of March 30th 2010. This keeps changing, they have quarterly refresh.
Only “major” investments reported to OMB. From the reported data it is evident that 50% of the investment categorized under “minor” goes unreported. This means nearly 50 % of the total IT Budget of $74.2 Billion for some reason does not qualify to be reported promoting transparency.
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.