12. This Page Intentionally Left Blank

13. Revision History

14. Version NumberDate Description 1.05/1/2009Initial Draft of Performance, Business and Data Chapters1.15/5/2009Initial Consolidation of all five architecture layer chapters and strategy layer chapter

15. Table of Contents

16. LIST of Tables

17. LIST of Figures

18. Introduction Background and Strategy Concept of Operations

19. Figure : EPA's Target Architecture Line of Sight Audience

20. Target will provide insight into the direction that IT development and service definition and can provide a focus for determining investment and project priority. Table : Enterprise Target Architecture Intended Audience

22. Strategic Goals and Objectives

23. 5 For example, in 2006, the U.S. recycled 32.5% of municipal solid waste, reducing energy demand by 1.3 quadrillion British Thermal Units (BTUs), and avoiding the emission of 182 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents because those recycled materials displaced virgin materials in production processes.

24. 6 Due to the significantly greater surface area of nanoscale iron particles compared to larger-sized granular iron, and a more powerful ability of nanoscale iron to degrade targeted contaminants, injecting nanoscale zero- valent iron particles into areas within aquifers that are sources of chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination may result in faster, more effective cleanups than traditional pump-and-treat methods. Nanoscale zero-valent iron is in use in full-scale projects, with an encouraging degree of success. It has been selected as a final remedy for areas within the Superfund sites at Naval Air Engineering Station in Lakehurst, New Jersey, and at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Florida. It has been tested at other Superfund sites, including Nease Chemical in Ohio, Parris Island in South Carolina, and Phoenix Goodyear in Arizona, and at a BP Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) site in Alaska.

25. 7 Previous efforts were focused primarily on High Production Volume chemicals—those produced at 1 million pounds per year based on 1990/1994 production volume reporting (http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvis/ab outrbd.htm). See ChAMP program website and link to background presentation: http://www.epa.gov/champ/; http://www.epa.gov/champ/pubs/cham pbriefing050808.pdf.

26. 8 Examples include how specific nanomaterial properties influence hazard, how to detect nanomaterials in environmental media, and how nanomaterials move and transform in the environment (http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/). EPA’s Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, initiated in January 2008, is developing crucial new information (http://epa.gov/oppt/nano/stewardship. htm). Increased inter-agency and international coordination is also needed. Examples include the National Nanotechnology Initiative and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) public website on the Working Party for Manufactured Nanomaterials (http://www.oecd.org/department/0,335 5,en_2649_37015404_1_1_1_1_1,00.h tml).

27. 9 For additional information on the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, please see: http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/collaborat ion/strategy.html.

28. Performance Architecture Vision

29. Figure : Federal Enterprise Architecture Performance Reference Model – Factors Influencing the Performance Architecture Performance Architecture Framework

30. Figure : EPA's Performance Architecture Layer The FEA Consolidated Reference Model Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Executive Order 13450 The Agency’s Strategic Plan and Goals EPA’s Annual Performance Plan EPA’s Performance and Accountability Report EPA’s Capital Planning and Investment Control EPA’s Information Access Strategy EPA’s EA Value Measurement Framework and 2007 Performance Review Report – Performance measures at each of these three levels should map directly to EPA’s primary strategic goals and objectives. This will ensure that resources at all levels of the Agency are working towards the mission of protecting human health and the environment. The Agency’s goals are: – Investment-Level Performance Starting at the most granular of levels, each investment included in EPA’s Target Architecture must define performance measures to measure progress/effectiveness of the investment. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and OMB guidance require outcome-oriented or output-based goals for all capital investments. Detailed guidance for investment owners on best practices for developing investment performance measures are detailed in EPA’s Exhibit 300 Guide for CPIC BY2011 Exhibit 300s dated April 9, 2009. In short, investment owners must relate their investment’s performance measures back to the Agency’s strategic mission, goals and annual performance plan. FEA PRM To provide consistency across investments and across the government, each investment is also required to follow the FEA Performance Reference Model (PRM) (available at www.egov.gov). The PRM provides a framework to use EA to measure the success of IT investments and their corresponding impact on strategic outcomes. This model links internal business components to the achievement of business and customer-centric outputs. The PRM leverages performance measurement best practices from the public and private sectors, including the Balanced Scorecard, Baldrige Criteria, Value Measurement Methodology, program logic models, the value chain, and the theory of constraints. The PRM helps agencies produce performance information in a standardized manner so that it can ultimately be used to make key business decisions. In addition, the PRM helps improves communication of program contributions such as technology (input) to outputs and outcomes and helps identify improvement opportunities that span traditional organizational boundaries.www.egov.gov). The PRM provides a framework to use EA to measure the success of IT investments and their corresponding impact on strategic outcomes. This model links internal business components to the achievement of business and customer-centric outputs. The PRM leverages performance measurement best practices from the public and private sectors, including the Balanced Scorecard, Baldrige Criteria, Value Measurement Methodology, program logic models, the value chain, and the theory of constraints. The PRM helps agencies produce performance information in a standardized manner so that it can ultimately be used to make key business decisions. In addition, the PRM helps improves communication of program contributions such as technology (input) to outputs and outcomes and helps identify improvement opportunities that span traditional organizational boundaries. Investment-Level Performance Measurements Given the structure and intent of the PRM, there must be a measure defined for each of the FEA PRM required measurements areas at the investment level: – Segment-Level Performance

31. Figure : OMB Segment Report - Performance Tab – Agency-Level Performance Processes and Activities Measurement Area Human Capital Measurement Area

32. Table : FEA PRM Measurement Areas and Categories As per the FEA PRM, Human Capital Management and Other Fixed Assets are noted and will be incorporated into EPA’s target once guidance has been developed by OMB. On an annual basis, EPA reports its Agency-level performance via the Performance and Accountability Review (PAR). As an input to the PAR, the Agency performance metrics should be presented on at least a quarterly basis for senior management review via the use of a standard scorecard. The scorecard, and subsequently the PAR, will present a summary level view of EPA’s standard performance measures. The scorecard will ultimately help EPA senior management in identifying areas of opportunity and will support management in making critical strategic decisions. Performance Architecture Target Activities – Performance Process The Performance Measurement Process for EPA defines how to craft performance measures and then capture and report on actual performance metrics. It will establish a framework and standards that each investment can leverage to ensure from a portfolio perspective, performance is being measured consistently. The Performance Process also includes a description of the performance measurement tools that support this process, such as an inventory of Agency performance indicators. Additionally, it includes a description of the Agency level performance measures, and the methodology used to identify those performance measures. Finally, the Performance Measurement Process includes a description of the Performance Scorecard, including how the data is collected for the scorecard, how often the scorecard is published and reviewed. This Performance Measurement Process will be championed by the Agency’s Performance Improvement Officer (per Executive Order 13450). This process will be developed by the Performance Improvement Council and in close coordination with the CPIC Review Team and communicated to the major IT investment managers prior to the BY2012 CPIC Review Process. To support the implementation of the Performance Measurement Process, and in accordance with Executive Order 13450, EPA will develop an implementation plan defining the approach and implementation of this process. – Performance Tools

33. Figure : Conceptual EPA Performance Indicators Inventory – Performance Scorecard

34. Business Architecture Introduction Background Creation of a common business framework for planning, budgeting and EA processes. EPA worked closely with representatives from the Capital Planning and Investment Control team to establish process alignmentalign processes and streamline enabling business functions. Integration of EPA’s architecture with the Federal Enterprise Architecture reference models. EPA has mapped our business functions to those of the Federal Business Reference Model. In addition, EPA has defined business segments. – EPA Business Reference Model v.2.1a Development of a business model that ensures a line of sight to overall Agency Strategic Goals and down through all layers of the Target Architecture. This also ensures integration with Agency performance measurement. BExtensive business process modeling throughout the Agency to create a baseline for identifying common business processes. This process allowed us to begin identifying areas of duplication as well as potential opportunities for reuse, sharing, and collaboration. Vision Business Architecture Drivers – Internal Drivers Agency Strategic Goals: EPA’s lines of business and supporting process and functions are in direct alignment with the five Agency strategic goals. Therefore business owners and managers should respond to any changes to those goals or particular focus areas with a review of existing business processes. This will help identify potential gaps or areas of improvementto improve, as well as highlight existing processes that can be leveraged to support revised strategic goals. EPA Administrator’s Priorities: The Administrator’s five priority areas (greenhouse gases, air quality, chemical risk, hazardous waste sites and water) are not new business areas for the Agency, but will receive increased or more focused attention. Therefore, it is critical to maintain an awareness level that promotes responsive and agile processes and functions to meet evolving areas of emphasis within the business. – Jackson, Lisa P. Memo to EPA Employees, January 23, 2009. Regional Priorities: While EPA’s regions align their business activities to overall Agency Strategic goals, the Regions may also have specific interest areas that impact a particular state or region. Knowing these priorities is essential to developing services that are specific enough to meet regional needs. EPA’s Information Access Strategy: The goals and objectives of the Information Access Strategy are important business considerations. Themes including environmental information development, management, and access all have business implications, as does the uses of that information in research, program implementation, and public participation. Performance and Accountability: The progress EPA is making towards meeting Agency’s strategic goals is directly related to the performance of its various business areas. Therefore, accomplishments or challenges identified by the achievement of key performance measures are an important contextual factor that could result in revised approaches to achieve better business results. – External Drivers American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) of 2009: ARRA seeks to spur technological innovation in science and health and to invest in environmental protection and other infrastructure that will benefit our economy. The business activities of various EPA lLines of bBusiness directly support Recovery Act projects in areas such as water, air, and land quality. With the Act’s emphasis on transparency and accountability, particular business processes (e.g., producing quality environmental data) should be prepared to accommodate impacts on business needs. Climate Change: Even though the issue of climate change is not new, changes in direction (based on EPA Administrator, Presidential or legislative priorities) or emphasis on the topic can have impacts on the types of EPA business services offered to government and citizens. At a business and programmatic level, this could impact Agency initiatives, programs, grants, or research areas. It may also influence environmental data collection and reporting functions and the supporting information technology infrastructure. Current and Notable Events: EPA’s business and program areas often need to respond to emerging events and, issues as a result of emergencies such as natural disasters or accidents, as well as research and developments from the scientists, industry, and the international community. While EPA’s business areas strive to be proactive they must also be nimble and adaptable in response to external factors such as current events. This will ensure responsiveness to EPA’s varied range of stakeholders, especially in the area of delivering important environmental information and data. Legislation and Congress: This category of drivers encompasses existing legislative drivers such as the Clinger Cohen Act of 1996 or the Clean Air Act, as well as future Congressional and legislative acts. It is important for EPA’s primary business areas to be aware of existing business processes and to be prepared to modify them in response to new direction and mandates. Government-wide and Cross-Agency Initiatives: Similar to legislation, this category also includes existing and future initiatives, with which that EPA may need to lead, comply with, or respond to. Efforts such as eRulemaking and Data.gov may have ramifications on existing business processes and functions and consequently other layers of the Target Architecture. Technology Trends: Technology advancements are constantly evolving and entering the marketplace. These innovations can offer the opportunity to improve business processes and functions. Maintaining an awareness of trends is an important consideration to ensure EPA’s business functions are as efficient and effective as possible. Key Business Architecture Themes Embrace a Service Oriented Architecture: A service-oriented approach to architecture development not only benefits the efficiency and effectiveness of agency processes, but also ultimately allows EPA to best serve its customers and achieve its mission. This is especially important when reflecting on the discussion of internal and external drivers which by their nature require EPA to be agile, responsive, and collaborative, yet consistent and stable. By embracing this approach as an Agency philosophy, EPA will become a provider of business services that continue to offer the most value to its stakeholders. Align with the Performance Architecture: The Performance Architecture details a framework to ensure a line of sight from Agency Strategic Goals down to the technologies that support it. It also provides an approach to measuring progress that aids business decision-making. The importance of aligning the Business and Performance Architecture is simply to ensure that what the Agency does ultimately serves its goals and objectives. With a consistent approach to performance and common high-level Agency goals, the individual business units have the ability to work collaboratively to identify common processes, functions, and resources that all support the same overarching objectives. Categorize Common Business Functions into Segments: As part of EPA’s strategic effort aimed at embracing a more holistic viewpoint of business, EPA has identified common business functions and categorized them into meaningful lines of business that represent what the Agency does. This effort reinforces EPA’s desire to achieve a focused approach to Agency business and the services, data, and technologies that support it. Segment efforts will revolve around identifying, consolidating, and reusing/sharing common processes, technology, and services. As a result, EPA will reduce duplication and enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness. Use Government-Wide Solutions: Mapping our business areas to the Federal Lines of Business (LoBs) and the Federal Transition Framework (FTF) Initiatives illustrates our continued efforts to use government-wide solutions. The FTF provides a common, organized structure for adopting government- wide initiatives that positively impact the Agency. As a result, EPA’s architecture will allow the agency to remain well-informed and be agile, responsive, and collaborative to best serve Agency and stakeholder needs. Model Agency Business Processes: EPA’s lines of business have already made great strides toward characterizing the critical components and aspects of their primary business functions. This works actsThese models act as a knowledge repository that is available Agency-wide as a resource for additional process improvement. It offersThey offer baseline data to improve business, service, and technology decision-making by emphasizing the tenets of collaboration, reuse, alignment, integration, and responsiveness. Target Business Architecture Define Usable, Business-Driven Segment Architectures: EPA’s Enterprise Architecture Program has already worked to map EPA’s lines of business to the Federal Business Reference Model. In addition, the newly created categorization of business areas into segments further defines this mapping (). The target vision is for sSegments to create a business-driven architecture framework that is actionable and usable, not just theoretical. The segment architectures should mimic the characteristics andfollow the goals of the Agency target architecture while representing the unique processes and functions that comprise each business area. Selected segments are extremely interdependent and have cross-agency implications. Architects should embrace a service oriented approach by leveraging processes and functions that are reusable, shared, and flexible. Ultimately, the business architectures of the individual segments, when taken holistically, will comprise the EPA’s bBusiness aArchitecture. Implement and Sustain a Service-Oriented Approach: Business owners should strive to incorporate the principles of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) into their business models and frameworks as well as core and enabling processes. SOA should not be viewed only as a methodology or buzz word, but should become the way the Agency approaches business. The future vision for business/segment owners is comprehensive implementation of the principles of reuse, reduction of redundancies, cost-savings, shared understanding, standards, and non-IT -centric, business and customer driven operations. Once these principles are implemented, EPA’s business owners need to collaboratively develop a framework to evaluate progress and identify critical success factors and barriers to sustained implementation. Use the Performance Architecture as a Tool: Business units should use the performance architecture as a guide to develop the key performance indicators, milestones, goals and objectives for their core and enabling business processes and functions. The Federal PRM is a framework based on common business tools, such as the Balanced Scorecard, that provide an organized approach to developing performance goals based on stakeholder needs and that leverage the organizational capital (e.g., common business processes) of the Agency. Business owners should review their business model and associated performance measures to ensure alignment with the various levels of Agency objectives (e.g., Strategic, Segment, Investment). In addition, EPA should establish an information sharing mechanism to promote consistency and reuse of common business performance measures. Leverage Existing Process Modeling for Analytics: Existing business process models should be elevated to analysis with an enterprise-level business tool, not merelyrather than be only a program or process artifact. Agency business owners and other relevant stakeholders should begin to use or increase current use of existing process models for analysis. When possible, Agency personnel should engage in collaboration across lines of business or business functions to promote process improvement. Business decisions (and ultimately architectures) should reflect analysis of information contained in process models and adequately weigh future considerations and alternatives against currently available resources. With this target, EPA strives to further reduce duplicative efforts and be agile in the face of internal and external drivers.

35. Services Architecture Service Layer Background and Overview Target Services Approach

37. Figure : Services Layer Diagram Target Services Oriented Architecture Overview

39. Figure : Services Oriented Architecture Overview

40. Figure : OSWER Example – EPA Services Inventory

44. Figure : Business Application Services Inventory Snapshot

45. Figure : Business Application Services Inventory Snapshot (continued)

46. Figure : Common Enabling Services Inventory Snapshot

47. Figure : Common Enabling Services Inventory Snapshot (continued)

48. Figure : Data Web Services Inventory Snapshot

49. Figure : Technology Tools Inventory Snapshot