Enterprise Architecture in the Singapore Government

129

Chapter VIIEnterprise Architecture in the

Singapore GovernmentTan Eng Pheng

Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore, Singapore

Gan Wei BoonInfocomm Development Authority of Singapore, Singapore

Copyright © 2007, Idea Group Inc., distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI is prohibited.

INTRODUCTION

The Singapore government enterprise architecture is a blueprint that will provide a holistic view of business functions, supporting data standards, and information technology (IT) systems and services, regardless of the organisational structure

and ownership of these functions and systems. It comprises four elements and reference models for the business, information, solution, and technical architectures. Of the four elements, the technical architecture has been developed in 2002 while the other three are currently being developed.

ABSTRACT

The Singapore government enterprise architecture is a blueprint that will provide a holistic view of business functions, supporting data standards, and IT systems and services, regardless of the organisa-tional structure and ownership of these functions and systems. The blueprint will also enable analysis of IT investments and their alignment to business functions, as well as facilitate collaboration among government agencies. When implemented, the Singapore government enterprise architecture will help bring about transformation in public sector by yielding optimised end-to-end business processes and system capabilities in alignment with government enterprise needs and missions.This chapter presents the considerations and approach taken to develop the Singapore government enterprise architecture. It examines the linkages of enterprise architecture with other initiatives such as the e-government action plans, policies, and processes related to IT governance, as well as summaries of lessons learned.

130

Enterprise Architecture in the Singapore Government

The Singapore government enterprise ar-chitecture is to support e-government, and in particular, realise the outcomes of networked government where many agencies integrate across organisational boundaries to provide citizen-centric services.

SINGAPORE E-GOVERNMENT

E-government is about enabling our government to harness info-communications technology (ICT) to better serve our citizens and businesses, and to deliver public services with greater convenience, effectiveness, and efficiency. For the Singapore public service, our e-government journey started in 1980 with the launch of the Civil Service Com-puterisation Programme.

1980-1999: Civil Service Computerisation Programme (CSCP)

The Civil Service Computerisation Programme (CSCP) was conceived with a clear direction of turning the Singapore government into a world-class exploiter of IT. It marked the beginning of computerisation in the Singapore public sector that focused on improving internal operational efficiencies through the automation of traditional work functions and reducing paperwork. In the 20-year period, we evolved from using IT as a tool to improve productivity to leveraging the Internet to deliver 24×7 electronic services to our custom-ers. By the late 1990s, the convergence of IT and telecommunications transformed the concept of service delivery. This required a paradigm shift in the way government services were delivered and the first e-government action plan was born.

2000-2003: E-Government Action Plan I (eGAP I)

The e-government action plan (eGAP) is the primary vehicle for a strategic transformation of

the public sector in the delivery of public services by harnessing ICT technology. Launched in June 2000, the vision of the first eGAP was to be a leading e-government to better serve Singapore and Singaporeans in the new knowledge-based economy. The objective was to foster a shared vision of a leading e-government in the new millennium, develop a public sector that could contribute positively and work actively at propel-ling Singapore forward in the new economy, and provide a framework for informed, coordinated, and flexible ICT deployment. To move businesses, citizens, public officers, and the government toward the e-government vision, the first eGAP prescribed the broad directions of ICT deployment with five strategic thrusts and six programmes.

The five strategic thrusts of the first eGAP were:

1. Re-inventing government in the digital economy.

2. Delivering integrated electronic service delivery.

3. Being proactive and responsive.4. Using infocomm technologies to build new

capabilities and capacities.5. Innovating with infocomm technologies.

The six programmes identified to drive the strategic thrusts in the first eGAP include:

1. Knowledge-based workplace.2. Electronic services delivery.3. Technology experimentation.4. Operational efficiency improvement.5. Adaptive and robust infocomm infrastruc-

ture.6. Infocomm education.

The key focus of the first eGAP was transform-ing the way the public sector interacts with its customers. Primarily, all public services deemed feasible for electronic delivery were designated for this transformation. The public sector would

131


need to better understand the impact of ICT, continually innovating and adapting business and operational processes to re-engineer, and totally transform the way things were done. In line with Singapore’s vision for service excellence, this plan would see an increase in the number of electronic services or e-service provisions to customers in three fronts—citizens, businesses, and within the public service.

The first eGAP covered the period 2000 to 2003. By the time it concluded in 2003, its achieve-ments and accolades include the following:

1. One of the most advanced e-governments in the world as reflected in international benchmark studies by third parties. Sin-gapore was ranked among the top leading e-governments by both accenture and the world economic forum, and also won several international e-government awards.

2. Over 1,600 public e-services have been implemented. In a study of e-governments

worldwide, Singapore was ranked second by Brown University at putting public services and information online.

3. Our citizens are generally satisfied with e-government and with the quality of our e-services.

While the first eGAP had provided the common vision for agencies in their ICT deployment, it was important to continue to engage all agencies in the conceptualisation and implementation of common systems, especially with gradual decentralisation of budgets as well as ICT deployment decisions to these agencies. Continual efforts would have to be put in to encourage and ensure that agencies pool their resources in the development of ICT applications with similar functionalities. Such engagement and customer-centric approach to delivering public services from the foundation laid by first eGAP would continue into the sec-ond eGAP.

Figure 1. E-government action plan II (2002-2006) outcomes

Delighted Customerse-Services Advantage

Increasing awareness of et convenient access to e-services

Improving the e-service experience

Connected CitizensSupporting Active Citzenry

Engaging Citizens through Active Consultation et Virtual Communities

Networked GovernmentFostering Inter-Agency Collaboration

E-Government Strategic FrameworkStrategies To Realise The Vision et Outcomes

132


2003-2006: E-Government Action Plan II (eGAP II)

The focus of the e-government action plan II (GAP II) covering 2003 to 2006 was to transform the public service into a networked government that delivers accessible, integrated, and value-adding e-services to our customers and helps bring citi-zens closer together. The eGAP II was to achieve three distinct outcomes: (1) Delighted customers, (2) Connected citizens, and (3) Networked govern-ment as shown in Figure 1.

To enable the two desired outcomes of “de-lighted customers” and “connected citizens” in e-GAP II, the “networked government” outcome must first be realised. A networked government is one where our many agencies move beyond see-ing themselves as separate and distinct entities to “one government.” That is, one that collaborates, shares information, and leverages on its collective knowledge enabled by infocomm, to serve the public seamlessly and effectively.

E-government’s contribution toward building a networked government is in the interconnection of our government agencies through common infra-structure, information management, and technical standards, as well as collaborative undertakings to deliver citizen-centric services.

At the close of eGAP II in 2006, at least 10 new cross-agency integrated e-services were implemented, and improvements were made to customer’s e-service experience and their ease-of-use. Some of the significant initiatives were: (1) an enhanced My.eCitizen personalised front-end for the eCitizen portal, (2) the TrustSg accreditation scheme for government Web sites to help instil customer confidence in online transactions, (3) the installation of over 1,200 self-service internet terminals across 150 public service locations so as to increase accessibility, and (4) the public-ity campaigns to raise awareness and reward citizens who transacted electronically with the government.

Our efforts in implementing e-services have been recognised internationally as well. Notably, we received the United Nations Public Service Award 2005 for the Online Business Licensing Service (www.business.gov.sg), an integrated e-service, which offers businesses a total of 69 licenses from 19 government agencies and allows 80% of all start-ups in Singapore to apply online for the licenses needed to start their businesses. The award was given to recognise the government’s efforts to streamline, simplify, and integrate the application of licences from various agencies to save time and costs for enterprises.

Overall, we have continued to do reasonably well for eGAP II and our achievements have ensured that Singapore continues to be ranked amongst the leading e-governments by interna-tional benchmarking studies conducted by the World Economic Forum, Accenture, and United Nations e-government survey.

TECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE—EARLY ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE

When the Singapore government embarked on eGAP, it became apparent that we needed a well-designed, reliable, and scalable infrastructure to support our e-government initiatives. In addition, the public sector needed a coherent collection of policies, standards, and guidelines to guide government agencies in the design, acquisition, implementation, and management of ICT. This was particularly so at a time when the rapid con-vergence of telecommunications, broadcasting, and information technology had opened up pos-sibilities for a networked government. Until then, architecture development had only been done at intra-agency level at some agencies.

With the push toward the delivery of e-ser-vices for citizens and businesses and emergence of cross-agency integrated e-services, systems interoperability and the bridging of systems

133


platforms across agencies became paramount. Moreover, cost benefits could be realised through the use of common systems and platforms for the deployment of e-services, and demand aggrega-tion for the procurement of compatible technology products. Hence, a practical approach by way of a public sector service-wide technology standard for agencies was necessary.

This technology standard blueprint called the service-wide technical architecture (SWTA) was developed to provide a consistent framework for the effective management and protection of the public sector’s IT assets that were implemented across the agencies.

According to META Group (1999b), the devel-opment of such a technical architecture still offered “the greatest opportunity for IT organisations to deliver prompt value to their business.”

The SWTA, which was one of the key initia-tives under the first eGAP, helped to create a better environment for interoperability and information sharing within the public service. The first five domain architectures in SWTA were published in October 2002. By April 2003, a total of nine domain architectures, as shown in Figure 2, were developed and published.

REVIEWS ON GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE

Achieving a networked government does not stop at just putting in place one of the techni-cal enablers—viz technical architecture. The next step of development for ICT standards and

Figure 2. Architecture domains in service-wide technical architecture (SWTA)

Collaboration& Workflow

Distributed Environment

Management

Internet&

Intranet

(Client)

Platform (Server)

Application

Middleware

DataManagement

Security

134


architectures was to explore the development of enterprise architecture.

This programme, identified in eGAP II, would increase cross-agency collaboration and systems integration, enable more innovative and business-transforming projects to be initiated and completed, and improve the public service’s ability to anticipate and respond to rapid changes in the technology landscape when successfully executed.

Reviews were conducted to glean insights into enterprise architecture practices, their imple-mentation at a government-wide level, and the approaches taken by other e-governments. Some of the key findings are summarised next starting from enterprise architecture components and concepts, and expanding into their implementa-tions in other countries.

1. Enterprise architecture would comprise four elements, namely the business, information or data, solution or application, and technical architectures according to META Group (1999a, 1999b), U.S. CIO Council (1999) and the Open Group (2002).

2. An architectural framework provided a logical structure for classification and organisation of the four architecture ele-ments, as well as guidance for developing architecture and systems implementation. TOGAF and Zachman were some of the frameworks reviewed. The open group ar-chitectural framework or TOGAF, originally used for developing technical architectures, was enhanced in the current version to develop other enterprise architectures ele-ments as well. TOGAF’s strength would be its architecture development method, a generic process consisting of eight phases for developing architecture (Open Group, 2002). The Zachman framework consisted of a two-dimensional matrix classification scheme in six columns (by what, how, where, who, when, and why) and five rows (by plan-

ner, owner, designer, builder, and contractor perspectives) for describing an enterprise appears comprehensive (Zachman, 1997). However, the Zachman framework did not have a process for developing an enterprise architecture, and the completion of such a matrix, either partially or full, for the whole-of-government seemed daunting.

3. In a government environment, enterprise architecture was deemed to be applicable at both government-wide and agency lev-els. Although both enterprise architecture implementations were conceptually simi-lar, the construct was more complex in a government-wide context due to the scale and range of functions and diversity of the environment.

4. Government-wide enterprise architecture provides a service-wide perspective of busi-ness functions and their IT initiatives. In this context, the Canadian and U.S. Federal Gov-ernments have published reference models. The enterprise architecture effort in Canada comprises the business transformation en-ablement program and the governments of Canada strategic reference models, which had evolved over the last 15 years from the municipal level governments’ reference model called the public service reference model to the provincial level government 10 years ago (Canada Treasury Board Sec-retariat, 2004). In the United States, the federal enterprise architecture reference model framework comprised the perfor-mance, business, service component, data, and technical reference models. These five reference models provided a classification scheme for government business operations and IT assets, and enabled the U.S. Federal Government’s identification of collaboration opportunities and initiatives within five lines of business. In addition, it also facilitated the analysis of IT budgets and investments (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2004;

135


U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2005).

5. It was also noted that the deliverables, docu-mentation, and approaches for enterprise architecture were varied. Carbone (2004) had described that existing enterprise ar-chitecture approaches were too complex and theoretical and had proposed a simpler and improvised approach, such as the use of the Gane/Sarson methodology for diagram-ming. Whittle and Myrick (2005) asserted that formal models and architectures were “virtually nonexistent for business enter-prises” and highlighted several models to describe a business architecture enterprise. Lastly, Perks and Beveridge (2002) had

articulated the well-established process-centric TOGAF phases with clearer descrip-tions and details for practitioners use. These reviews from authors-practitioners showed that enterprise architecture deliverables and approaches needed to be “fit for purpose intended” and required customisation.

Hence, the Singapore government would adopt a federated architecture approach similar to the United States government. Reference models would need to be developed to serve as the whole-of-government enterprise architecture framework, with a suitable methodology and/or process as part of the framework to provide the guidance for architectural development. These reference models would enable new initiatives and projects

Figure 3. Elements of Singapore government enterprise architecture

136


on common business functions and IT assets to be identified. The architectural documentation requirements would require continual research and localisation.

SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE

Elements of Singapore Government Enterprise Architecture

The Singapore government enterprise architecture (SGEA) programme was established to support and enable the business strategies, objectives, and vision of a “networked government.” Under this programme, a set of blueprints would be devel-oped to provide a government-wide perspective of business functions, supporting data standards and ICT systems and services, regardless of the organisational structure and ownership of these functions and systems as shown in Figure 3 and descriptions next.

1. Business architecture: A holistic view of the organisation’s key strategies and their impact on business. The contents define the lines of business and business functions per-formed by Singapore government agencies, as well as the grouping of common business processes.

2. Information architecture: A set of data models that examine the key information as-sets of Singapore government agencies with the aim of providing a shared, distributed, and consistent data resource. It also identi-fies individual responsibilities for managing information.

3. Solution architecture: A portfolio of in-tegrated application systems required to satisfy business information needs and solu-tions, which facilitate rapid development and

delivery in a systematic and well-disciplined manner.

4. Technical architecture: This element de-tails the organisation’s technology strategies, its extended technology linkages, and their impact on business initiatives.

Our Approach

Out of the four elements in SGEA, only the busi-ness, information, and solution architectures would need to be developed as the technical ar-chitecture element was already addressed by the SWTA. The development of these EA elements would require substantial time and resource, and the same for its maintenance as well. Some of the key considerations underpinning the formulation of the strategy for the SGEA programme are as follows:

• The implementation of a government-wide EA would enable the identification of com-mon business processes to be streamlined, duplicative systems to be consolidated, and common systems to be implemented, leading to overall efficiency and effectiveness.

• The Singapore government had previously implemented several service-wide initia-tives, which effectively constitute com-ponents of an EA. In developing the three remaining elements in SGEA, the strategy would be to leverage on these existing initia-tives rather than start from scratch.

• There was a need for early results to dem-onstrate value and relevance of enterprise architecture to all stakeholders. Hence, the EA deliverables were intended to be pur-pose-driven, focusing on usefulness and relevance rather than comprehensiveness.

• Lastly, the implementation of SGEA would be a means to effect business transformation in the Singapore public sector.

137


Government Business Architecture

The government business architecture (BA) was the first amongst three elements that we embarked on in the development of SGEA. The government BA was the key element in the SGEA, as it influ-enced the development of the other EA elements. The government BA, however, was also the most complex element.

First, unlike most organisations whose core businesses were clearer and more instinctive, there was voluminous information to be analysed due to the diversity of government business and absence of a singular set of overarching whole-of-government business objectives and performance measures. Second, there was no government-wide view of the lines of business and business func-tions. It was not practical to achieve a business architecture, which encompasses all business processes across the government either.

The government BA to be developed would be comprised of a high-level representation of

government-wide lines of businesses and business functions. This would be sufficient to methodi-cally identify agency collaboration opportunities or determine the need for common service-wide initiatives.

A top-down whole-of-government and busi-ness-driven approach was preferred for the development of government BA. Executive sponsorship and strong participation of business personnel was key to the success of the govern-ment BA effort. The stakeholders included chief information officers and corporate planning and strategic planning directors who were engaged for their directions throughout the BA develop-ment process. Their inputs and information on the business functions and agency level priorities were analysed and integrated into the government BA. This enabled government leaders to focus on priority areas instead of being overwhelmed by the voluminous information available.

The information for government BA was com-piled into a structured format called the Singapore

Figure 4. Singapore government business reference model

Fam

ily D

evel

opm

ent

Com

mun

ity D

evel

opm

ent

Nat

iona

l Def

ense

Hom

elan

d Se

curit

y

Emer

genc

y &

Cris

isM

anag

emen

t

Crim

e Pr

even

tion

&

Prot

ectio

n

Lega

l & Ju

dici

al A

ctiv

ities

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Mon

etar

y C

ontro

ls &

Pu

blic

Fun

ds M

anag

emen

t

Inte

rnat

iona

l & T

rade

R

elat

ions

Educ

atio

n

Hea

lth

Ener

gy M

anag

emen

t

Envi

ronm

enta

l M

ange

men

t

Urb

an P

lann

ing,

Intra

Dev

,Pu

blic

Fac

ilitie

s & H

ousi

ng

Cul

ture

&R

ecre

atio

n

Tran

spor

tatio

n

Regulary Compliance &Enforcement

Financial Assistance

Information Mangement& Consulting

Research &Development

Monetary Collection Workforce Management

Asset Management

Public CommunicationsInformation TechnologyManagement

Human ResourceFinance

Corporate Planning &Development

Professional Services

Administrative Services

Policy Development,Planning & Management

Project & LogisticsManagement

138


government business reference model, which defined the business operations of the government using terminologies that were common across all government agencies as shown in Figure 4 diagram and described next.

1. The business reference model in Figure 4 has two broad categories of lines of businesses. Under the “services to public” category are 24 lines of businesses, which are external facing services that the Singapore govern-ment provides to citizens, businesses, and external stakeholders. Examples of these include the “family development,” “public transportation,” and “revenue collection” lines of businesses.

2. Under the “corporate & supporting ser-vices” category are nine lines of businesses representing all activities that support the delivery of services provided by the Sin-gapore government to the public and all activities to operate the government effec-tively. Examples of these include “project & logistics management,” “human resources,” “finance” etc.

3. Within each line of business are a set of related business functions and descriptions. For instance, “continuing education & train-ing” and “primary and secondary educa-tion” are two business functions under the “education” line of business. In addition, the business reference model would also include a set of cross-functional matrix of business functions performed by government agen-cies.

The Singapore government business reference model will be used to identify business functions that: (a) are resource-intensive or (b) are potential candidates for inter-agency collaboration. Each common business function within could comprise business processes with the potential for stream-lining. The identification of such common busi-ness processes would facilitate optimisation and

streamlining opportunities, resulting in generic business processes for use across the govern-ment or within a sector. The generic business processes and related information will then be incorporated as part of the desired future state (i.e., target architectures).

Government Information Architecture

The government information architecture (IA)—the second element to be developed in SGEA—focuses on the effective and efficient sharing of information among agencies and supports the business functions identified in the government BA.

Essentially, service-wide data standards would be developed to form a data reference model (Gart-ner, 2005). These efforts would be accompanied by the development of relevant data administra-tion policy to establish proper accountability for the data as this would especially be crucial to address the privacy issue and protection of sensitive data.

To facilitate seamless sharing of data across the public sector, an information exchange framework to standardise data definitions of commonly used structured data across government would be de-veloped and would leverage on existing initiatives such as the data hubs. Additional data definitions would be added into the information exchange framework from new initiatives identified in the government BA exercise.

In the development of DRM, the guiding prin-ciples used in defining data elements covered the following: (a) national and international standards, (b) data definitions in the existing data hubs, and (c) other standardised data definitions.

When completed, the DRM content would consist of at least the data definition as follows:

1. Data element name;2. Description;3. Format;4. Allowed values or validation rules;

139


5. Special values;6. Data element owner; and7. Usage guidelines.

At the point of writing, the focus for the DRM was on the data elements in the existing three data hubs—people hub, business hub, and land hub. At present, the three data hubs have mechanisms established to facilitate the sharing of commonly used people, land, and businesses-related data. The people hub is a centralized database on common non-sensitive people data (e.g., contains unique identification number (UIN) for all Singapore citizens and residents). The land hub is a one-stop resource centre for comprehensive and accurate digitised land data in map and textual forms. The fundamental land base information includes buildings, roads, and cadastral data, which are the basic land information that are required in the development of most map-based systems. The business hub is a centralized database containing a comprehensive range of information pertaining

to businesses in Singapore. The types of business data captured include company/business identifi-cation number and particulars, company/business profile, name history, capital, and shareholder’s share details.

The initial DRM is planned for release in 2006. The envisioned seamless information exchange between data owners, government agencies, and the public resulting from the use of the DRM and implementation of government IA is depicted in Figure 5.

Government Solution Architecture

The third element that needs to be developed is the government solution architecture (SA), which focuses on the ICT solutions and the systems and services required to address the needs of the government BA and IA.

The core deliverables for government SA would be a portfolio of service-wide and/or sector-wide systems and services. These will be shared

Figure 5. Implementation of government IA

GovernmentAgencies

Data Owners

Industry &Business

Individual

E-Services

Data Source

Systems

MetaDataRegistry

140


systems and services identified from collaboration opportunities and common business processes drawn from the government BA and existing ICT systems consolidated and implemented as shared components, which are reusable by agencies. Cost savings can then be better realised through such consolidation and standardization efforts.

At the point of writing, the government SA was at the stage of development. The government SA is targeted for implementation from 2007-2010 and would cover several public facing services as well as corporate and supporting services.

Government Technical Architecture

The service-wide technical architecture (SWTA) implemented in 2002 fulfils the role of a govern-ment technical architecture (TA). It has achieved inter-operability for systems in the government and was implemented for very practical rea-sons.

The SWTA is a logically consistent set of principles, standards, and guidelines that guide the public sector agencies in the design, acquisi-tion, implementation, and management of ICT. This common set of principles and standards

provides a semantic framework for information sharing and interoperability of systems amongst all agencies. A review process is carried out every half-yearly with agencies to ensure the currency of SWTA and its relevance to enterprise architecture development.

The SWTA architectural principles are high-level statements that describe preferred practices followed in the design and deployment of ICT in the public sector. The principles covered the following: (a) infrastructure reuse, (b) modular architecture, (c) open standards, (d) robustness, scalability, adaptiveness, and performance.

The SWTA framework consists of domain architectures, which are logical groups of related technologies. The content of each domain archi-tecture includes:

1. Technology components: Description of relevant technology components.

2. Technology standards: International and industry standards that apply to the technol-ogy components selected and their status in terms of technology maturity.

3. Products: These are specific products in this domain.

Figure 6. SWTA domain architecture and technology components

141


4. Interoperability standards: The standards and requirements that are mandatory for inter-agency interoperability.

5. Central services: Government-wide ser-vices that have been implemented and may be leveraged in this domain.

6. Best practices: Guidelines or practical ad-vice based on the experience and research of project teams for implementing specific domain technology components or prod-ucts.

7. Technology watch: Promising technologies that warrant further research and analysis for purpose of the domain.

There are nine domain architectures and these include: (a) application, (b) collaboration and workflow, (c) data management, (d) distributed environment management, (e) internet/intranet,

(f) middleware, (g) platform, (h) network, and (i) security. A diagram showing the nine SWTA do-main architectures within is given in Figure 6.

Key Learning Points

Some of the key learning points over the last 12 months of our enterprise architecture journey are:

• EA development takes time and money. The first step is to get stakeholder buy-in, and senior leadership support is critical. There is a need to communicate to stakeholders the value of EA, particularly in relation to organisational goals and strategies.

• Effective communication means communi-cation of outcome. For senior management and business owners, visual models should

Figure 7. ICT governance framework in the Singapore government

Process

Change

and IT

Planning

Methodology

IM 8

Total Valu

e

Study

IM 3

GCIO

QMS PM

Key

ProcessCMMIITIL

Project Reviews

Frameworks

COBITAUDITING

SYSTEMS

CONTINUITY

ASSESSMENT

PROJECT

REVIEWING

CHANGE

MANAGEM

ENT

SERVICE SU

PPORT

/DEV

LIVERY

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

APPLIC

ATION

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

INFR

ASTR

UC

TUR

E

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

PROJECT

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

CONTRACT

MANAGEM

ENT

PROCUREMENT/BESTSOURCINGMANAGEMENT

TOTAL VALUE

EVALUATION

STRATEGIC

PLANNING

RESOU

RCE

PLAN

NIN

G

BU

SINESS R

ISK

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

(BC

P, DR

P)

SECURITYM

ANAGEMENT

142


be used to help them understand EA better and focus on showing the outcome. It is necessary to leave the technical blueprints in the boiler room.

• Work on some “easier” areas that will meet less resistance from business owners to demonstrate quick wins and successes.

• EA is developed iteratively and evolves over time. Look at common areas and pick out three priority areas to focus on.

• Good governance is critical to the EA pro-gramme. The governance structure of an EA programme typically involves many stakeholder and working level commit-tees. Leverage on existing committees and structures, where possible. Integrate EA into established forums for IT Governance within the organisation, if possible.

GOVERNANCE FOR ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE

Over the past few years, the Singapore public sector has been actively seeking improvements in IT governance. The Singapore government instruction manual on information technology or IM8, a comprehensive set of guiding policies that spells out the requirements for agency compliance on IT matters, is in place.

The Singapore government recognises that the public sector will need to continue to work collectively to ensure investment in IT generates the best possible benefits. As one of the largest spenders on IT in Singapore, the public sector will need to invest wisely to deliver optimal results from public funds. It is important to enhance IT management and governance capabilities service-wide and leverage on common architectures and shared infrastructures to promote cross-agency collaboration and optimise resource allocation.

The integrated ICT Governance framework in the pipeline is to provide a logical and holistic overview of the work involved in the public sector’s

ICT deployment, and describes the positioning of the governance pieces as shown in Figure 7.

The framework adopts a lifecycle approach positioning IT governance needs and concerns around the agency’s long term IT vision. The tools, policies, and methodologies are also positioned in the overview so that agencies can understand how these aids can help them.

It is structured as a three concentric-layered “onion” with the IT vision of the agency in the centre:

1. The first layer consists of the four-lifecycle stages of plan, invest, deploy, and control.

2. The second layer breaks this down into processes that an agency should consider for each stage.

3. The third layer identifies the policies, methodologies, and tools that best serve the agency in addressing the processes.

This framework helps chief information of-ficers and IT managers to first understand the considerations necessary to achieve IT effec-tiveness. It then directs their attention toward the tools and policies that address the individual considerations.

The agency starts in the plan stage of the framework and examines and establishes the alignment of ICT and business goals through strategic planning and other processes including enterprise architecture. All of these processes require long-term mapping and need to be done at the beginning stage of the lifecycle. With the plan for the next few years in place, the agency then moves to the invest, deploy, and control stages for its IT investments where there are other tools like IT portfolio management and risk management methodology to provide guidance.

The positioning of enterprise architecture within this framework, which according to Sloan-MIT Research, form part of the IT governance equation (Weill & Ross, 2004). This will help agencies to better align IT assets and to “do more

143


with less” by identifying and re-using components for shared systems and services, and will eventu-ally articulate the real benefits of doing enterprise architecture.

CONCLUSION

Over the years, the ICT goals and priorities of the Singapore government had evolved. Starting from one focussing on productivity and operational ef-ficiency in the eighties, to one emphasising “one-stop, non-stop” services in the nineties, and now on cross-agency, integrated public service online, we have come a long way. Architecting IT systems, whether at the agency or public service level, has always been seen as a means to the larger end of supporting the prevailing ICT goals and priorities. The establishment of data hubs to enable multi-lateral data sharing in 90s, and the implementa-tion of the service-wide technical architecture in 2002 to facilitate systems interoperability were in practice early enterprise architecture efforts, though never labelled nor positioned as such. The formulation of the Singapore government business reference model, identification of com-mon business functions and processes and their prioritisation to guide subsequent development of information exchange framework and data refer-ence model, as well as the eventual deployment of solution architectures are all but examples of our pragmatic approach toward architecture de-velopment. The focus on meeting business needs and the principle of pragmatism will continue to guide us in the future work of developing and maintaining the Singapore government enterprise architecture.

REFERENCES

Canada Treasury Board Secretariat. (2004). Business transformation enablement program. Retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/index_e.asp

Carbone, J. A. (2004). IT architecture toolkit. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gartner Inc. (2005, February). Takes steps to improve government data sharing and reuse (ID Number: G00125749). Stamford, CT.

META Group. (1999a). Enterprise architecture strategies process model—Evolution 1999. Stamford, CT.

META Group (1999b). Holistic enterprise archi-tecture: Beyond EWTA. Stamford, CT.

Perks, C., & Beveridge, T. (2002). Guide to enter-prise IT architecture. New York: Springer.

The Open Group (2002). TOGAF, Version 8 Enterprise Edition. Retrieved from http://www.theopengroup.org/

U.S. CIO Council. (1999). Federal enterprise architecture framework version 1.1. Retrieved from http://www.cio.gov

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004). The federal enterprise architecture and agen-cies enterprise architecture are still maturing. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2005). Federal enterprise architecture. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/a-1-fea.html

Weill, P., & Ross, J. W. (2004). IT governance on one page (CISR WP No. 349 and Sloan WP No. 4516-04). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Whittle, R., & Myrick, C. B. (2005). Enterprise business architecture: The formal link between strategy and results. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications.

Zachman J. (1997). Zachman framework for en-terprise architecture. Retrieved from http://www.zifa.com

Documents

Enterprise Architecture in the Singapore Government