FMLoB Enterprise

Architecture
March 15, 2008

This document was initially prepared as part of

the Federal Enterprise Architecture Certification
(FEAC) course by Marion A. Royal of GSA OGP and
Malcolm Harden. It is freely contributed to FSIO
and FMLoB for potential use and further
development.
 Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................3
Background ...............................................................................................................4
Scope .........................................................................................................................5
Stakeholders...............................................................................................................5
Core Financial System................................................................................................7
Financial Management As-Is Architecture...................................................................9
The FMLoB To-Be Architecture..................................................................................10
Future Considerations...............................................................................................12
Transition Strategy...................................................................................................14
1.1 Governance.....................................................................................................14
1.1.1 Governance of the FMLoB.........................................................................14
1.1.2 Governance of the FMLoB FEA..................................................................15
1.2 Reference Enterprise Architecture..................................................................16
1.3 Next steps.......................................................................................................17
Appendix A: Additional Target State Products..........................................................19
1.4 The Activity Model...........................................................................................19
1.5 The Business Node Connectivity Chart............................................................20
1.6 The Information Exchange Matrix....................................................................20
1.7 The Systems Connection Model.......................................................................24
Appendix B – Applicable Source Material..................................................................24

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 2

 ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE FOR ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT (E-GOV)
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT LINE OF BUSINESS (FMLOB)

Introduction

In recent years, the U.S. Government has responded to legislation such as the E-
Gov Act and the Presidents Management Agenda of 2001 in an endeavor to reduce
or eliminate duplicity of major system investments, especially across multiple
agencies. These e-Gov initiatives, some referred to as Lines of Business, represent
cross-agency collaboration, sharing of resources, increase in efficiencies and cost
savings to the tax payer in the United States.

The Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB) is a long term project to

improve the cost, quality, and performance of the financial management systems
by reducing the number of systems in use, refining the business processes, and
standardizing the data exchanged between the major systems

As part of the Federated Enterprise Architecture Certification (FEAC) Institute’s

certification program, The Harden/Royal team has developed a high-level Target
Enterprise Architecture (EA) in support of the FMLoB. The team will provide the
outcome of the work to FMLoB Program Manager in hopes that the work will be
continued and further developed into detailed enterprise architecture.

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 3

Background
The Strategic Objective of the FMLoB is to implement Government-Wide solutions
that yield lower cost and risk results in financial management activities. The
approach is to:

• Standardize financial business processes

• Create government-wide accounting code
• Emphasize use of Stared Service Providers
• Strive for Transparency and Standardization

Figure 1 - FMLoB Vision/Framework1

The General Services Administration (GSA) Office of Technology Strategy serves as

the managing partner of the FMLoB and provides Program Management and overall
coordination between four federal Shared Service Providers (SSPs). The Federal
Systems Integration Office (FSIO) which is housed at GSA provides the focal point
for the implementation of FMLoB.

An immediate need for the FMLoB is a concise high-level enterprise architecture to

document the strategic direction and progress toward the target architecture for a
government-wide financial management solution.
1
FMLoB Presentation to FMS Conference – August 2008

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 4

Scope
The Harden/Royal team did not attempt complete a comprehensive target
architecture for the FMLoB. However, the team realized that it could produce a
high-level view abstracted from the technical implementations and provide the
FMLoB with an example set of EA artifacts which may be used as the foundation for
a more detailed target architecture in the future. The team recognized that the
architecture will evolve as more innovations are identified and as business
processes are streamlined. These artifacts are designed to be incorporated within
the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF).

As shown in Figure 2, the architecture framework initially chosen is the Federal

Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) with views from DODAF and terminology
from the Zachman Framework.

Figure 2 FMLoB FEAF with Segments

*CGAC is Common Govermentwide Accounting Classification

Stakeholders
There are six major stakeholders involved Federal Financial Management
enterprise. While most are governmental, private industry supports government via
the provision of Common Off The Shelf software (COTS) financial systems.

The entities that participate in the Financial Management (FM) process exchange
financial data and policy information in an effort to bolster the ability of government

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 5

to track financials in a complete, uniform and reliable manner. Each entity has a
critical part to play in the FM process.

General Service Administration (GSA) Office of Government-wide Policy,

Financial Systems Integration Office (FSIO) is responsible for identifying and
enforcing base functional standards for COTS financial packages. While FSIO
requirements have historically dealt solely with functional accounting requirements,
the office has been trending towards expressing technological preferences to the
COTS marketplace (e.g., SOA). Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Vendors consult
FSIO specifications to build ERP products and demonstrate their products to FSIO for
testing and certification.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has several different aspects of
involvement. One, as a policy maker and budget management responsibilities and
secondly in their role as Chief Architect across government boundaries.

Private ERP Vendors develop, modernize and enhance enterprise-level financial

management systems designed to support government. These vendors compete to
supply their products and services to Federal Agencies, normally the Agency’s
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO).

Financial Management Shared Services Providers (SSP) are responsible for

the execution of the financial systems that comprise the technology solution. These
SSPs also bear responsibility for correctly interpreting the financial systems
requirements that are distributed from FSIO, and operating a compliant, FSIO-
certified application.

The U.S. Department of Treasury is responsible for the daily intake of payables
information from each Agency. This payables data is used to generate physical
checks to pay debts incurred by each government agency. As the target
architecture emerges, Treasury Finance Management Service (FMS) will be a key
linchpin for connecting to all four Shared Service Providers (SSP). Current focus is
on the Common Government Accounting Classification (CGAC) will provide a data
model encompassing the financial business process outputs from the SSPs. Future
consideration (beyond the scope of this work) is potential alignment with the
Budget Formulation and Execution Line of Business.

Agency CIO offices provide guidance and information to each Agency CFO office,
suggesting policies, practices and guidelines that encourage modern, secure and
reliable computing within the agency.

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 6

 Figure 3 Financial Management LoB Stakeholders

Core Financial System

The creation and management of the FMLoB is the responsibility of the Financial

Tr
Systems Integration Office (FSIO) at General Services Administration. This

Tech
organization was previously known as the Joint Financial Management Integration
Program (JFMIP). The FSIO coordinated with the Office of Federal Financial
Management (OFFM) to complete the Federal Financial Management System

Policy
Requirements (OFFM-NO-0106) in January 2006. This requirement document
defines the minimum requirements for a federal financial management system and
provides the picture of a Core Financial Management System.

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 7

GSA OGP /FSIO

 Figure 4 Core Financial Management System

The core system in figure 2 is a very simplified depiction of a Financial Manage

System (FMS) that may be found at a federal agency or department. The agency
FMS will often be connected to service delivery systems (also known as feeder
systems.) For example, the agency may award grants to organizations or
individuals and expenditures originating in the grant system must be conveyed to
the FMS system. In fact, the requirement document referenced above includes 13
subsidiary financial and mixed systems. While these systems will be important as
we advance the FMLoB architecture, we are going to just focus initially at the high
level. We will consider these mixed systems later on in the transition strategy.

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 8

Financial Management As-Is Architecture
Today, almost every agency or department maintains an independent financial
system. They are required to create reports to send to Treasury and OMB as they
conduct the major functions of financial management. This requires, at minimum
two data flows for every agency.

Figure 5 Financial Management As-IS

Obviously, this leads to inconsistencies, errors, manual data entry from one system
to another and extensive cost investments. Figure 3 illustrates the challenge of
today’s architecture. This complexity is compounded by the fact that many existing
FM systems are running on outdated legacy systems with major customization to

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 9

facilitate integration with service delivery systems. A new Enterprise Architecture
should incorporate all of the individual agency requirements and provide a
migration strategy that will have the least impact on the consumer agencies.

The FMLoB To-Be Architecture

Ideally, the number of federal financial management system is one. However, there
are valid business and economical reasons to reduce this number to four Shared
Service Providers (SSPs). This document will not attempt to convey the background
of this decision, but instead will look at the impact of having four SSPs.

Figure 4 illustrates a simplified architecture for the FMLoB. As shown, we can now
streamline the data flows. And doing so will cause us to standardize the interfaces
and data exchanges. Achieving this degree of standardization will make it much
easier for consumer agencies to connect appropriate front end applications (if
needed) and service delivery systems (such as a grant system).

Figure 6 FMLoB To-Be Architecture

Note that this target architecture does not include the role of the FSIO as it is an
operational model. Later on in section 10, we will depict the role of FSIO in policy
exchanges. There are still many outstanding questions that remain as we begin to
work toward this target architecture. For example, will reports to OMB always go
through the SSP or will the report be retrieved by the consumer agency and then
submitted separately to OMB. The answer that our team has received in our

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 10

interviews with stakeholders is “It depends.” We suspect that many of these types
of questions will be answered as the consuming agency establishes service level
agreements and begins migration to a SSP.

In the meantime, we can begin building the Reference Architecture with distinct
separation for levels of service. For example, one consumer agency may decide to
completely outsource its financial management to the SSP. In this case, the SSP will
potentially provide a dashboard into the SSP system to allow different types of users
to input, edit, and retrieve financial information. A different consumer agency may
wish to run their legacy system in parallel, or with a system-to-system interface.
Still others will require standardized system interface capabilities to their service
delivery systems. The reference architecture needs to be flexible enough to
accommodate these various levels of service.

The Business Concept Graphic (DoDAF artifact OV-1) below is the highest level
representation of the business processes that comprise the Financial Management
Line of Business (FMLoB). Each major stakeholder is depicted as node using an icon
that provides a visual cue to its role in the FMLoB. The information exchanges are
similarly depicted. This is a target state diagram that shows agencies using an SSP
model for FM system.

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 11

 Figure 7 FMLoB To-Be Architecture: Business Concept Graphic

Business Concept
Graphic

Future Considerations
In addition to the Core Financial Management System functionality, we anticipate
and recognize touch points to other Lines of Business, such as the Budget
Formulation and Execution Line of Business. We need to build in the agility to meet
the requirements from other e-Gov initiatives and
FEACLines of Business.
Certification Team :
Marion Royal & Malcolm Harden
Figure 5 shows a potential connection between the FMLoB and the B&ELoB. With
the close financial relationships and overlaps between Financial Management
Systems and the management of the funding allocations and expenditures during
the execution of an agency’s budget, it is only prudent to consider the
commonalities between these lines of business.

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 12

 Figure 8 Future Considerations for FMLoB

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 13

Transition Strategy
The transition strategy for the FMLoB begins with the establishment of a governing
body and the development of the FMLoB Reference Enterprise Architecture. A
proposal for governance is under consideration and this paper includes a
recommendation for the Reference Enterprise Architecture.

1.1 Governance
Governance2 is about:

• Establishing chains of responsibility, authority, and communication to

empower people.

• Establishing measurement, policy, and control mechanisms to enable people

to carry out their roles and responsibilities.

Governance of the FMLoB and for the FMLoB Enterprise Architecture is critical to the
successful deployment and maintenance of the next generation of Federal Financial
Management.

1.1.1 Governance of the FMLoB

The entities3 that are associated with the FMLoB are:

• Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Financial Management

(OFFM) - providing executive sponsorship and policy.

• CFO Council – providing a collaborative forum for agency CFO input and
information distribution.

• FSIO & FMLoB Executive Steering Committee (ESC) – the committed group of
executive level stakeholders providing a direct Governance structure to these
activities.

• FSIO & FMLoB Transformation Team – a body of agency representatives that

provide advice to the FSIO ESC and direct two-way communication with the
FSIO and FMLOB activities when needed.

• FSIO – the Financial System Integration Organization – providing

requirements development and testing for Federal financial systems, and
leading and supporting the FMLoB.

• FMLoB PMO - the Financial Management Line of Business Project

Management Office planning and managing the work activities and FMLoB
work groups with agency representatives and contractors.
2
IBM Redbooks – Building SOA Solutions Using the Rational SDP ibm.com/redbooks
3
FSIO Governance Charter February 2007

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 14

 • FMLoB Working Teams – a group of agency representatives designated to
focus on a narrowly scoped task to develop, review, and upgrade as
appropriate on an as needed basis.

• Shared Service Provider (SSP) Forum – a forum to promote information

sharing, improve communication, and foster collaboration between the key
FMLoB stakeholders and designated SSPs in order to foster improvements in
Federal financial management.

Note: See the FSIO Governance Charter for detailed information regarding each of
these entities.

1.1.2 Governance of the FMLoB FEA

In February, 2008 a proposal was drafted to create a two tiered approach to: 1)
govern high-level segment and Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) efforts, and 2)
address lower-level functionality updates, bug fixes and other common
configuration changes across the core financial management systems of Federal
agencies.

The higher level of the tier in this governance structure is the (Financial)
Architecture Integration Board (AIB). Primary composition of this Board should
consist of representative(s) from OFFM as the chair, the Office of e-Government as
the deputy chair. The Federal Enterprise Program Management Office (FEAPMO),
FSIO, CFO Council, and Treasury FMS should be required participants. Additional
representation from the Joint Financial Improvement Group (JFIG), the Business
Transformation Agency (BTA) and the Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE)
would also be considered.

The second level of the tier would be the FMLoB Configuration Control Board (CCB).
Primary composition of this board should consist of FSIO (chair), OFFM,
representatives from the CFO Act Agencies (consumer agencies), a representation
from the Small Agency Council and a single representative on behalf of the SSPs.
The FMLoB CCB would provide a mechanism for determining such items as where
configuration changes for new functionality, bug fixes, release updates, patches,
etc. are required, how the changes impact agencies, and, once approved, when the
approved changes are made.

Prior to establishment of this governance structure, there are several issues4, both
operational as well as conceptual, that will need to be addressed and resolved.
These issues include:

• Establishing control, particularly of the segment architecture and across

central agencies;
• Managing collaborative efforts between agencies and other segment
architectures and lines of business;
4
Draft CCM Strategy Paper – February 2007

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 15

 • Deciding how to structure a prioritization process, including what
methodologies to use to assess risk, determine cost, and delegate where
appropriate;
• Deciding on the logistics of the component library—where to house (e.g.,
CORE.gov), how to establish ownership, and how to manage the engineering
and management issues related to reusable components;
• Determining which configuration management standards, e.g., ITIL, IEEE, ISO,
are most appropriate.

Finally, once the issues have been resolved, the proposed next steps for formal
establishment of the FMLoB AIB and CCB include development of:

• The formal AIB and CCB charters, including functions and responsibilities,
board composition, voting rights and establishment of quorums, meeting
frequency, and descriptions of links to other Federal governance
organizations;
• A formal intergovernmental governance process and plan;
• Prioritization levels;
• A formal communication plan;
• A risk management plan, including a risk register;
• A business case template, including a detailed cost model;
• SOPs, including intra-board escalation/exchange procedures, review
procedures.

1.2 Reference Enterprise Architecture

Regardless of the governance structure for the FMLoB EA, one of the important
steps is to establish the baseline target architecture. This will become the
Reference Enterprise Architecture (REA) which will be managed by the governance
boards.

Many of these requirements for the FMLoB have already been expressed by the
OFFM Core Financial System requirements document (January 2006). Additionally,
a great deal of excellent work has captured the majority of the business processes.
This work must be leveraged to achieve the next architectural goal of defining
specific usage patterns and interface specifications.

Some agencies may decide to completely outsource their financial management

requirements. The REA will need to include role based dashboard capabilities to
accommodate these users. Other agencies may need system-to-system interfaces
in order to feed financial data from a service delivery system. And there will be
agencies who will want to migrate to the FMLoB EA in a cautious and meticulous
step-by-step manner in which each step is an increment of service levels with well-
defined specifications and agreements. The Reference Enterprise Architecture may

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 16

best be built in a Service-Oriented Architecture Model where services are either
distinct or an encapsulation of services (composite service.) This approach should
not discourage Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems since there will always
be potential for value added features above and beyond the requirements of the
REA. Figure 6 represents a flexible and agile Reference Enterprise Architect that
consumer agencies make select ala carte services.

Figure 10 Agile and Flexible Reference Enterprise Architecture

FMLoB Reference
Architecture

Service A

Consuming Agency A
Service B

Service C

Service D
Shared Service Provider

Service E

Consuming Agency B Service F

Service G

Service H

1.3 Next steps

The FMLoB is well positioned to begin the construction of the FMLoB Reference
Enterprise Architecture. With inputs from the various stakeholders, the
requirements are being understood and the business processes are becoming well
defined. Some Shared Service Providers have already begun serving consumer
agencies. The convergence of all of these activities should now be direct to
enterprise architecture modelers for finite definitions of use case analysis, data flow
charts, interface specifications and service level agreements.

The type of activity is separate from the proposed two-tier governance process
described above. We recommend that an FMLoB REA Launch team be formed and
initially chaired by the Chief Architect of the FMLoB. This group should consist of
representation from each of the stakeholders and ideally have a mixture of business
experts and qualified enterprise architects. This group should exist only as long as
it takes to produce an executable architecture based on the real needs of the

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 17

community. The team should meet at least weekly until the initial deliveries
(charter, milestones, communication plan, schedule, and etc) are completed.

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 18

Appendix A: Additional Target State Products
The following architecture products were developed during the certification course.
They serve as examples of Enterprise Architecture Artifacts to convey the high level
perspective of the target architecture.

1.4 The Activity Model

The Activity Model (OV-5) depicted below shows the main business processes
executed as part of the FMLoB. Because an exhaustive business process study
spanning these disparate agencies has not yet been conducted, this IDEF0 model
was assembled based on what is presently known. This is a current state diagram;
however, we do not anticipate that business processes will be significantly different
in the future state.

Distribute
Regulations IDEF0 Activity Model
Activity Flow Model for Financial Management Lin
A1

Distribute
Standards

A2

Process Financial
Data
Data Entry
A4

Hosted Send
Financial Disbursements
System Data
A6

Execute Bank
Transactions

A3
Send FACTS
Reports
Federal
Bank A8
Accounts

Send Payables
Data
FEAC Certification Team :
Marion Royal & Malcolm Harden A5

Run Queries & T

Agency Need Reports P

A7

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 19

1.5 The Business Node Connectivity Chart
The Business Node Connectivity Diagram (DoDAF artifact OV-2) below depicts each
major stakeholder in the FMLoB EA as an operational node. Information exchanged
between each node is depicted in general, high-level terms as a needline. Other
minor information exchanges are common between the nodes; however, this
example shows most major information needs. This is a target state depiction.

Business Node Connectivity Diagram N8

Activity Flow Model for Financial Management Line of Business External
Banks

NL3 – Bank Transa

N3 N1 N2
NL1 – Accounting Regulations NL2 – Accounting Regulations
GSA FSIO OMB Treasury FMS

NL4 – Accounting
Standards

NL

N
Re

N4 N5 N6 N7

GSA SSP DOI SSP DOT SSP BPD SSP

NL5 Payables Data – To Agency System

1.6 The Information Exchange Matrix

N9
The Information Exchange Matrix (DoDAF Artifact OV-3) below depicts the flow of FEAC Certification
Participating Marion Royal & Malco
communications between the stakeholders within the Financial Management Line of
Agencies
Business Enterprise Architecture (EA). The matrix shows describes the information
flow and provides elaboration regarding the entities communicating and their
purpose for contact. Additional fields are provided to explain the nature of the
communications in more detail.
NL7 – Agency Queries & Reports

3/15/2008 Financial Management Line of Business Enterprise Architecture Page 20

 OV-3 Information
Exchange Matrix

Information Exchange
Information Description Producer Consumer Attributes
Informa
Needli tion Interopera
ne Exchan Lang Sendin Sending Receivin Receivi Triggeri Frequency bility
Identif ge Cont Accur u- g Op Op g Op ng Op ng Timeliness Secu Requirem
ier Name ent Media acy age Name Activity Node Activity Event Throughput rity ents
Accountin
g Distribute (Create Annually; Public
Regulatio Englis Regulation Standards Act of Occasionally Inform Email,
NL 1 ns Law Document 100% h Text OMB s GSA FSIO ) Congress more often ation USMail
Accountin
g Distribute (Regulate Annually; Public
Regulatio Englis Regulation Treasury Disburse Act of Occasionally Inform Email,
NL 2 ns Law Document 100% h Text OMB s FMS ments) Congress more often ation USMail
Real Time, Classif
Execute high volume ied
Bank Data Bank Send As (for interest Encry
Transacti Real Transmissi Treasury Transactio External Payables Necessar considerations ption Dedicated
NL 3 ons Time on 100% ASCII FMS ns Banks Data y ) Level Lines
Accountin
g Process Act of Public
Standard Englis Distribute Financial Congress Annually or Inform Email,
NL 4 s Law Document 100% h Text GSA FSIO Standards GSA SSP Data , GAAP Less ation USMail
Accountin
g Process Act of Public
Standard Englis Distribute Financial Congress Annually or Inform Email,
NL 4 s Law Document 100% h Text GSA FSIO Standards DOI SSP Data , GAAP Less ation USMail
Accountin
g Process Act of Public
Standard Englis Distribute Financial Congress Annually or Inform Email,
NL 4 s Law Document 100% h Text GSA FSIO Standards DOT SSP Data , GAAP Less ation USMail
Accountin
g Process Act of Public
Standard Englis Distribute Financial Congress Annually or Inform Email,
NL 4 s Law Document 100% h Text GSA FSIO Standards BPD SSP Data , GAAP Less ation USMail
Nightly;
Data Send Several
Payables Nightly Transmissi Treasury Payables Hundred Dedicated
NL 5 Data Cycle on 100% ASCII FMS Data GSA SSP Cyclical Thousand VPN Lines
 FEAC Integration and Implementation – Second Assignment

Nightly;
Data Send Several
Payables Nightly Transmissi Treasury Payables Hundred Dedicated
NL 5 Data Cycle on 100% ASCII FMS Data DOI SSP Cyclical Thousand VPN Lines
Nightly;
Data Send Several
Payables Nightly Transmissi Treasury Payables Hundred Dedicated
NL 5 Data Cycle on 100% ASCII FMS Data DOT SSP Cyclical Thousand VPN Lines
Nightly;
Data Send Several
Payables Nightly Transmissi Treasury Payables Hundred Dedicated
NL 5 Data Cycle on 100% ASCII FMS Data BPD SSP Cyclical Thousand VPN Lines
Nightly;
Disburse Data Send Process Several
ments Nightly Transmissi Disbursem Treasury Financial Hundred Dedicated
NL 6 Data Cycle on 100% ASCII GSA SSP ents Data FMS Data Cyclical Thousand VPN Lines
Nightly;
Disburse Data Send Process Several
ments Nightly Transmissi Disbursem Treasury Financial Hundred Dedicated
NL 6 Data Cycle on 100% ASCII DOI SSP ents Data FMS Data Cyclical Thousand VPN Lines
Nightly;
Disburse Data Send Process Several
ments Nightly Transmissi Disbursem Treasury Financial Hundred Dedicated
NL 6 Data Cycle on 100% ASCII DOT SSP ents Data FMS Data Cyclical Thousand VPN Lines
Nightly;
Disburse Data Send Process Several
ments Nightly Transmissi Disbursem Treasury Financial Hundred Dedicated
NL 6 Data Cycle on 100% ASCII BPD SSP ents Data FMS Data Cyclical Thousand VPN Lines
Online within 3
Agency Online Participat Run As seconds or
Queries & Real Transactio ing Queries & Necessar overnight Internet
NL 7 Reports Time n 100% HTML Agencies Reports GSA SSP Various y batch HTTPS Browser
Online within 3
Agency Online Participat Run As seconds or
Queries & Real Transactio ing Queries & Necessar overnight Internet
NL 7 Reports Time n 100% HTML Agencies Reports DOI SSP Various y batch HTTPS Browser
Online within 3
Agency Online Participat Run As seconds or
Queries & Real Transactio ing Queries & Necessar overnight Internet
NL 7 Reports Time n 100% HTML Agencies Reports DOT SSP Various y batch HTTPS Browser
Online within 3
Agency Online Participat Run As seconds or
Queries & Real Transactio ing Queries & Necessar overnight Internet
NL 7 Reports Time n 100% HTML Agencies Reports BPD SSP Various y batch HTTPS Browser
Track
Monthl Data Send Agency
FACTS y Transmissi FACTS Treasury Performan Monthly; Small Dedicated
NL 8 Reports Cycle on 100% ASCII GSA SSP Reports FMS ce Cyclical Volume VPN Lines

2
1
 FEAC Integration and Implementation – Second Assignment

Track
Monthl Data Send Agency
FACTS y Transmissi FACTS Treasury Performan Monthly; Small Dedicated
NL 8 Reports Cycle on 100% ASCII DOI SSP Reports FMS ce Cyclical Volume VPN Lines
Track
Monthl Data Send Agency
FACTS y Transmissi FACTS Treasury Performan Monthly; Small Dedicated
NL 8 Reports Cycle on 100% ASCII DOT SSP Reports FMS ce Cyclical Volume VPN Lines
Track
Monthl Data Send Agency
FACTS y Transmissi FACTS Treasury Performan Monthly; Small Dedicated
NL 8 Reports Cycle on 100% ASCII BPD SSP Reports FMS ce Cyclical Volume VPN Lines

2
1
1.7 The Systems Connection Model

The Systems Connection Model (DoDAF Artifact SV-1) below depicts the system-to-
system connections within each node of the FMLoB EA. The elements of the model
are joined internodally, depicting system-to-system interfaces. Where proprietary or
confidential, the system titles have been generalized.

E
SV-1 Systems Connection Model

Banki
Syste

Publishing OMB D
GSA FSIO Workflow Node 1
Node 3 System
Email Tre
Email
Email Email Email
Servers Servers Servers
Banki
Syste

Secure FTP SAP

Email

GSA SSP BPD SSP

Node 4 DOT SSP Node 7
DOI SSP
Momentum Node 6
Node 5 Oracle
Momentum
SAP Oracle

Web
Browsers
HTTPS Comms HTTPS Comms
Appendix B – Applicable Source Material
Participating
Agencies
The documents below exist presently andNodewill9be used as inputs to this process. As FEAC Ce
Marion Royal
additional documents are identified, this SOW will be amended to provide a
comprehensive list.
 FEAC Integration and Implementation – Second Assignment

FMLoB EA Initiative Charter: GSA FSIO has contracted to have several EA

artifacts constructed as part of an effort to build out the FMLoB. This item was
constructed as part of that initial task order.

FMLoB EA Initiative Future State Business Process Models: GSA FSIO has
contracted to have several EA artifacts constructed as part of an effort to build
out the FMLoB. This item was constructed as part of that initial task order.

FMLoB EA Initiative Future State Data Models: GSA FSIO has contracted to
have several EA artifacts constructed as part of an effort to build out the FMLoB.
This item was constructed as part of that initial task order.

FMLoB EA Initiative Risk Management Plan: GSA FSIO has generated EA

artifacts as part of an effort to build out the FMLoB. This item was constructed as
part of that initial effort.

FMLoB & FSIO Governance Charter: GSA FSIO has generated EA artifacts as
part of an effort to build out the FMLoB. This item was constructed as part of that
initial effort.

FTF Catalog of Cross Agency Initiatives: The team may refer to this
document to get reference information on the full catalog of cross-agency IT-
related efforts.

DoDAF V1.5 Volume II Guidance: The latest version of the DoDAF product
descriptions contains detailed information on each DoDAF product.

Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture: The team may refer to

the CIO council’s guidance on practical uses for Government EA in an effort to
ensure that our artifacts can function under real-world conditions within an
agency, and across multiple agencies.

FEA Practical Guidance, December 2006: The team may refer to OMB’s
practice guidance in an effort to ensure that our artifacts can function under real
world conditions within an agency, and across multiple agencies.

FEA Program EA Assessment Framework 2.2, October 2007: Because the

EA artifacts built by the team will be part of a real-world EA, the team must
validate that the EA artifacts will survive assessment.

Zachman Framework: The team may leverage some elements and vocabulary
used in the Zachman framework.

GSA FSIO FMLOB Website: The website contains miscellaneous guidance and
stakeholders central to the FMLoB project.

OMB FMLOB Website: The website contains miscellaneous guidance and

stakeholders central to the FMLoB project.

2
1
FEAC Integration and Implementation – Second Assignment

2
1