Architecture
March 15, 2008
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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
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.
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.
1.1 Governance
Governance2 is about:
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.
• 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.
Note: See the FSIO Governance Charter for detailed information regarding each of
these entities.
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:
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.
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.
FMLoB Reference
Architecture
Service A
Consuming Agency A
Service B
Service C
Service D
Shared Service Provider
Service E
Service G
Service H
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
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
A7
N3 N1 N2
NL1 – Accounting Regulations NL2 – Accounting Regulations
GSA FSIO OMB Treasury FMS
NL4 – Accounting
Standards
NL
N
Re
N4 N5 N6 N7
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
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 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 & 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.
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.
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.
2
1
FEAC Integration and Implementation – Second Assignment
2
1