DoD Enterprise Architecture: GAO Compliance, Modernization & NDAA

This report examines the Department of Defense's (DoD) enterprise architecture in relation to compliance with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It identifies that while the DoD has implemented some of the GAO recommendations, significant work remains to achieve full compliance. The report uses a Goal Map to outline the desired objectives, a Current Reality Tree (CRT) to depict the challenges and root causes hindering progress, and Goldratt's Evaporating Cloud to analyze conflicts and identify potential solutions for more effective business process re-engineering and system modernization. The analysis reveals that the current enterprise architecture has not achieved the desired effectiveness, usability, and value, particularly in meeting the outcomes set forth by the NDAA, and identifies key areas for improvement, including compliance tool usability, training, and guidance.

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE 1
Enterprise Architecture
Name
Date

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE 2
Goal Map
The Goal Mapping framework is an attempted, tried, demonstrated and prevalent technique for
defining and accomplishing objectives in any everyday issue, and in any undertaking (Kiresuk,
Smith and Cardillo, 2014). It utilizes symbolism and the dialect of the subliminal (Daft and Marcic,
2014). The desired goal map of the DOD is depicted below which summarizes the requirements that
it must comply with, including all the 16 requirements of the NDAA and having in place a
transparent and accurate accounting systems in place . The DoD also has a goal of complying with
all the requirements of the NDAA as well as the recommendations of the GAO. These should result
in improved acquisition processes especially for large projects and ensure greater transparency in
the departments’ operations. The business enterprise architecture needs re-engineering to reflect the
present needs and meets the requirements that will make it more productive

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE 3
Current Reality Tree
As relates the sixteen GAO recommendations that the DoD is required to implement and
have in place, the DoD has so far fully implemented five of those required systems and processes in
place; however, there has only been a partial implementation of the remaining eleven requirements
and so it implies there is still much to be done to become fully compliant with the GAO
requirements. The current reality tree refers to a logical thinking process tool that is used in
depicting the current reality of a situation using a series of cause -effect relationships that are
developed logically. The development of the current reality tree (CRT) starts with the undesirable
effect and then progressively moves downwards until the critical root causes are identified. With the
CRT, the negative outcomes that prevent the main goal being achieved are identified and this then
provides a framework by which the problems can be resolved.

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE 4
A CRT is an announcement of a basic center issue and the side effects that emerge from it. It
maps out a grouping of circumstances and end results from the center issue to the indications
(Hohmann, 2018). A large portion of the side effects will emerge from the one center issue or a
center clash. Expelling the center issue may well prompt evacuating every one of the side effects
also. Operationally working in reverse from the clear unfortunate impacts or side effects to uncover
or find the hidden center reason. At the DoD, one of the enduring issues in the implementation of
the DoD enterprise architecture system is that the system gas not achieved the desired effectiveness
and usefulness. During a survey, the Portfolio managers report that while there is business
enterprise architecture in place, it has generated little value, especially in the department meeting
other outcomes set forth by the NDAA for 2015. This is despite the fact that the architecture was
effective in complying with the conditions of all the applicable laws. As such, the managers
reported in a survey that they faced several challenges in attaining the intended business enterprise
architecture outcomes for the DoD and their respective departments. Despite efforts by the office of
the Deputy Chief Management to improve the business enterprise architecture and its content, more
still need to be done to attain other objectives as well as comply with all regulations. The key areas
where improvements are needed urgently include provision of improved compliance tools usability,
additional training to be provided, and early start of processes in system’s life cycles, improved
guidance, establishment of priorities, and improvement in content. The re-engineering efforts of the
DoD have moderately helped in streamlining business processes, realizing some efficiencies but
more needs to be done for the intended outcomes to be achieved as the current architecture has
numerous challenges in the business process re-engineering efforts. In the above CRT diagram, the
orange square boxes show the conditions/ conditionalities required
The Goldratt Cloud

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE 5
The inability of the DoD to meet the enterprise and system architecture changes that should
enable it meet the 16 GAO recommendations and requirements are caused by a number of factors.
To establish the root causes or the conflicts that hinder the attainment of the desired objectives, the
use of an evaporating cloud can help. This is a thinking process approach in which is based on the
theory of constraints in which a logical diagram is developed to represent a problem that lacks a
satisfactory or even an obvious solution. Based on the survey done at the DoD, the enterprise
architecture and system in place has not met its objective, it still remains less effective and less
useful in meeting the sixteen recommendations of the GAO. There have been identified challenges
that are hurdles to undertaking an effective business process re-engineering. Efforts to improve the
business processes are not nearly adequate and more needs to be done. The root problem is the
approach that the DoD has taken in modernizing its enterprise architecture and business systems
processes.
Goldratt's cloud gives a precise way to deal with distinguishing the competing needs or
interests of an organization to a contention, and a procedure for making unequivocal the
presumptions fundamental the contention and testing their legitimacy, prompting win-win answers
for challenges in the operating environment (Gupta, Boyd and Kuzmits, 2011). The dissipating
cloud consolidates well-accepted standards of accomplishing win‐win arrangements and
supplements existing methodologies. Despite the fact that there is a developing network of clients
of the vanishing cloud, it is as yet a moderately new methodology. Albeit narrative precedents of
uses of the cloud have been distributed in exchange diaries, sites and meeting procedures, extra
exact research ought to be done to assess the convenience of the cloud in settling working
environment clashes once a minimum amount of clients exists (Eskin, 2013). The vanishing cloud is
a commonsense and instinctive device that can be utilized by representatives at all levels of an
association to comprehend and resolve clashes. The evaporating cloud has thus been developed
based on the analysis to reach the root causes of the problem and possibly be able to develop a more
effective system

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE 6

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE 7
References
Daft, R. and Marcic, D. (2014). Building management skills. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage
Learning.
Eskin, M. (2013). Problem solving therapy in the clinical practice. London: Elsevier.
Gupta, M., Boyd, L. and Kuzmits, F. (2011). The evaporating cloud: a tool for resolving workplace
conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 22(4), pp.394-412.
Hohmann, C. (2018). Thinking Processes – Current Reality Tree. [online] Chris Hohmann.
Available at: https://hohmannchris.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/thinking-processes-current-
reality-tree/ [Accessed 14 Oct. 2018].
Kiresuk, T., Smith, A. and Cardillo, J. (2014). Goal Attainment Scaling. Hoboken: Taylor and
Francis.