Next Generation Governance Viewpoint

7/27/2019 Next Generation Governance Viewpoint

1/12

Enhanced Decisionmaking Through a

Mission-Focused, Data-Driven Approach

Next-Generation Governance

by

Fred [email protected]

Michael [email protected]

Jon [email protected]

Frank [email protected]

April 2011

A white paper prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton:

Center of Excellence for Strategic Technology and Innovation


2/12

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................1

The Evolution of Governance ..............................................................................................1

The Case for ChangeToday ..............................................................................................3

Embracing Next-Generation Governance ..............................................................................4

Setting the FoundationCore Enablers of Next-Generation Governance .................................5

Using Governance to Enable Mission Delivery ......................................................................5

Taking a New Look at Measuring and Mitigating Risk ............................................................6

Decision Agility ...............................................................................................................6

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................7

About the Authors ..............................................................................................................8

About Booz Allen ................................................................................................................9

Principal Offices ...............................................................................................................10


3/12

1 GAO-11-150, Information Technology: Better Informed Decision Making Needed on NavysNext Generation Enterprise Network Acquisition.

1

Executive SummaryThe Administrations recently released 25 Point

Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information

Technology Management highlights what federal program

managers (PM) have long known: Governance processes

for managing information technology (IT) programs

need significant improvement. Governance boards often

lack sufficient data for effective decisionmaking and

measurement of risk; numerous approval gates slow

progress without enhancing oversight; and the overall

decision process often struggles to keep pace with rapidtechnological advancements such as cloud computing,

mobile communications, social networking, and biometric

identification. Adding to the impetus for change are

shrinking budgets, constrained funding models, and

increased scrutiny of federal programs that are aimed

at not only eliminating redundancies and waste but also

ensuring delivery of promised capabilities.

Several recent examples further underscore the

emerging need for improved IT governance. The

Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently

highlighted the impact of constrained decisionmakingon a large technology modernization program in the

Department of Defense,1 citing a lack of thorough

alternatives analysis and performance data in

supporting key milestone decisions. Another study2

of 24 major IT projects across the Government

determined that half of the projects had not even

received a selection review by an oversight board.

Both studies indicated that governance processes

and numerous decision structures were in place

at the organizations; however, leadership at these

agencies had not appropriately factored information

particularly, risk and cost datainto its decisions.

Federal agencies need a Next-Generation

Governance model that streamlines and strengthens

decisionmaking by putting information at the center

of IT governance. This new model harnesses the

capabilities of richer data sets and new, powerful

analytic tools to not only give decisionmakers

transparent insight into program performance but also

enable rapid information sharing and real-time reporting

to support a faster, more agile process. This approach

aligns portfolio investment decisions with mission

objectives to help decisionmakers allocate resources

among programs in a way that reduces mission and

program risks.

Our experience in helping agencies apply the principles

of Next-Generation Governance shows that this new

model can reduce the burdens and cost of governancewhile improving oversight, delivering programs on sched-

ule and within budget, and advancing mission objectives.

The Evolution of GovernanceTechnology governance has significantly evolved since

the Mainframe era of the 1960s. In those early days,

IT decisions aligned closely with other traditional

management functions such as accounting, operations,

and marketing because technology consisted primarily

of hard asset purchases for mainframes that

resided in physical locations at an organization. Askeepers of powerful calculation tools, newly minted IT

organizations centralized decision authority and exerted

strong influence over business units seeking technology

solution for mission delivery. As the Mainframe era

gave way to the personal computer in the 1980s, IT

decision authority spread to business units, each of

which was now procuring new business applications

for its individual needs, driving exponential growth

of tools and systems across organizations. As the

millennium approached and Y2K preparations peaked,

organizations began realizing the extent to which

technology dominated their budgetsdriving new

conversations about how to obtain value through

consolidation and reuse. Exhibit 1 illustrates how these

generational milestones directly affected the scale of

decision authority and complexity across organizations.

Next-Generation GovernanceEnhanced Decisionmaking Through a Mission-Focused, Data-Driven Approach

2 GAO-09-566, Information Technology: Federal Agencies Need to Strengthen InvestmentBoard Oversight of Poorly Planned and Performing Projects.


4/12

2

Exhibit 1 | Evolution of IT Governance

Source: Booz Allen Hamilton

Department-level governance models implemented in

the late 1990s were re-cast around core technology

processes such as systems development, capital

planning, and architecture, further spreading the

scope, complexity, and quantity of decisions tomultiple stakeholders. As we enter a new millennium

in which technology increasingly exists in the cloud

and decisions are based on a collaborative, portfolio-

driven approach, the net compounding effect of these

previous generations of governance has produced a

complicated relic that must be directly addressed by IT

organizations, particularly in the Federal Government.

Federal agencies have taken strides to help address

challenges surrounding the evolution of technologies

and the resulting decision processes. The Clinger-

Cohen Act (formerly, Information TechnologyManagement Reform Act of 1996) provided agencies

with a governance framework by mandating planning

and investment processes to improve the way in which

agencies purchase and use IT assets. Until the Clinger-

Cohen Act was passed, IT spend was reported after

agency and departmental budgets were formulated

and reported. Clinger-Cohen began the process of

examining the return on investment for IT, particularly

around people, processes, and technology. Over the

years, agencies have successfully established varioussteering committees and review boards to oversee

a range of governance activities, such as setting

IT investment priorities and creating standardized

approaches to IT management. As a result of the

Obama Administrations emphasis on transparency

and accountability, agencies have begun documenting

more clearly their IT investment decisions. Similarly,

programs and websites such as the Federal IT

Dashboard, Open Government Initiative, Recovery.

gov, and Data.gov have required agencies to carefully

plan their investment strategies and collect data to

measure the effectiveness of their activities. Theseand other governance mechanisms were designed

to improve decisionmaking by giving federal leaders

the information they would need to allocate scarce IT

resources efficiently.


5/12

Nevertheless, despite these well-intentioned efforts,

effective IT governance remains an elusive goal for

many agencies. According to US Chief Information

Officer (CIO) Vivek Kundras 25-point reform plan

of December 2010, Too often, federal IT projectsrun over budget, behind schedule, or fail to deliver

promised functionality.

Why have governance programs failed to deliver on

their promise of robust program management and

oversight? Discussions with CIOs, PMs, and other

IT executives across federal agencies revealed

a growing consensus that the underpinnings of

current governance philosophies have outlived their

usefulness. In particular, the underlying issues

discussed below hamper the current state of the art:

1. An ever-increasing focus on process and

compliance has made governance processes

burdensome rather than a catalyst for program

success and mission enablement. CIOs and

oversight entities throughout Government are

struggling to find ways to break the stranglehold

that governance processes have on program

efficiency and success. The systems engineering

life cycle (SELC) for one of our clients requires no

less than 140 distinct documents in support of the

various milestones and gate reviews. For another

client, each program is subject to more than20 governance entities, including an enterprise

architecture board, chief information security

officer board, and acquisition review board.

This proliferation of governance requirements is

forcing many federal IT PMs to spend more time

satisfying reporting and compliance mandates than

actually leading the development and deployment

of IT capabilities in support of their agencys

mission. For these PMs, the burden of governance

threatens to outweigh the benefits of strengthened

oversight and mitigation of risk.

2. Current governance techniques and funding

models were devised in a less connected age.

Todays governance models do not take full

advantage of social media, tools, and processes

that allow for the rapid and transparent exchange

of rich information and data within and among

agencies. Consequently, governance processes are

often linear, hierarchical, and comparatively slow.

Communications between PMs and their executives

frequently are conducted in isolation from similar

conversations occurring in related programs,hindering the decisionmakers ability to collaborate

across a portfolio of similar efforts. Adding to this

challenge is the relatively static funding models of

most agencies, many of which were designed for

longer term programs and thus constrain the ability

for IT leaders to collaborate and innovate across

projects and investments.

Over time, governance has become less of a program

aid and more of an exercise in getting approvals and

checking boxesan exercise that focuses on process

rather than outcome. Our support to many federal PMsalso finds that the existing governance approaches

they have observed across the Federal Government are

often viewed as punitive to the PM and the program.

Rather than providing the help and guidance that PMs

need to successfully deliver positive results from their

programs, governance processes present additional

challenges to overcome. Similarly, because programs

are often evaluated in isolation, governance processes

do not provide agency executives with the information

they need for allocating and deploying IT resources in

the most efficient way to support the agencys mission.

The Case for ChangeTodayThese governance challenges are not necessarily new;

federal leaders have recognized the need for reform and

have made changes periodically to improve governance

processes. But a number of ongoing trends have

sparked the needand opportunityfor transformative

change. For example, the economic recession and

sky-rocketing deficits have made reform absolutely

imperative. Most federal agencies are preparing for

the potential for several years of declining budgets;

however, expanding mission sets and citizens eagerfor information and a greater return on their tax dollar

investment will require federal leaders to consider

additional resources to support sharing of information

and key decisions. As such, agencies cannot afford

cumbersome and costly governance processes. The

pace of technology change and insertion also has


6/12

4

become so rapid that legacy governance processes

cannot keep IT projects moving with the required speed

through the various governance gates and checkpoints.

Agencies need governance processes that can help

them swiftly deploy IT systems and capabilitiescapabilities that, coincidentally, are needed to help

Government run more efficiently.

Finally, the past decade has seen exponential growth

in information and data across the public sector. CIO

organizations have been diligently defining information

taxonomies and data sets across their organizations.

After years of information architecture efforts, agencies

now sit atop vast quantities of information about

their programs and systems; if placed in appropriate

analytical models, this information would create an

opportunity for more informed, transparent decisions.The advancement of technologies supporting data

availability and transparency (e.g., cloud computing,

mobile technologies, mashup technologies, dashboards,

social media) further empower agencies to access and

use this data and information efficiently and effectively.

The Office of Management and Budgets (OMB)

25-point reform plan begins to address some of

the governance challenges with new and important

changes. For example, the plan calls for restructuring

agency investment review boards along the lines

of TechStat accountability sessions to spur moreaggressive oversight and faster action to fix troubled

programs. The plan not only advances the role of

agency CIOs and the Federal CIO Council to become

a more active arbiter in key technology initiatives but

also proposes an overhaul of the existing investment

process in favor of a more efficient and accurate

process that provides more effective tools for

monitoring the health of IT programs. The goal of the

improved exhibits is to reduce the reporting burden,

increase data accuracy, and make the exhibits a more

authoritative management tool. While IT projects

throughout the government will always have risks, there

are no excuses for spectacular failures, the 25-point

plan asserts, concluding that with streamlined

governance and experienced program managers,

issues can be caught early and course corrections can

be made without wasting time and money.

OMBs initiatives represent a solid, well-informed start

to reforming governance, but Booz Allen Hamilton

believes that the governance issues facing federal IT

organizations require broader changes to the overall

governance model. Our Next-Generation Governancemodel incorporates the concepts outlined in the

25-point plan into a governance framework that not

only streamlines processes but also supports and

empowers PMs, closely aligns governance decisions

with mission objectives, and leverages the rich

data sets now brimming at agencies to improve

decisionmaking at every step in the process.

Embracing Next-Generation GovernanceNext-Generation Governance provides a framework

to help CIOs and other leaders understand how they

can use available tools and data to not only manageindividual programs but also coordinate program

portfolios within agencies and across the Government.

In particular, the framework can help agencies build

data-driven governance that ensures compatibility,

consistency, and efficiency in federal IT investments.

Booz Allens framework is based on organizations

viewing IT decisionmaking through three key lenses

(see Exhibit 2): mission enablement, risk mitigation,

and decision agility. Because the inefficiencies

and issues being addressed are deep rooted and

interdependent, we have found that addressing

change across these lenses simultaneously is

the key to success. For example, consider an

agency that provides various financial products

and services to citizens. In a time of economic

hardship, the agency may face significant pressure

to meet its mission sooner (mission acceleration),

perhaps using technology tools that are new to

the agencys architecture that introduce broader

risk exposure to citizen identities and data (risk

mitigation). Consequently, the agency must convene

key decisionmakers across the organization morefrequently, with little time for data calls and lengthy

due diligence (decision agility). Traditional governance

models might seek to isolate technology risks from

program or mission risks at this agency, prolonging

decision timelines and hindering mission achievement;

conversely, a next-generation approach aims to


7/12

address these components by leveraging a series of

core enablers to arrive at better, more transparent

decisions in less time and with a deeper understanding

of the risks in play.

Setting the FoundationCore Enablersof Next-Generation GovernanceWhen evaluating governance structures, many

organizations focus immediately on board constitution

or decision criteria as opportunities for change or

improvement. Although these areas are critical to

any governance model, our experience has indicated

that three core elements enable a Next-Generation

Governance approach:

Robust Data. Data is the lifeblood of effective

decisionmaking, and organizations possess an

unprecedented volume of information upon which

they can apply to improve their ability to make better

decisions. The critical success factor, however, is

the ability for agencies to effectively understand

which data can improve decisionmaking througheffective analytics without taxing resources through

data calls and laborious information requests that

prolong the decision process.

Transparent, Portfolio-Driven Approach. Given the

volume and complexity of Federal IT investments, the

ability to distill technology programs and investments

into manageable portfolios that align to mission sets

is essential to effective governance. More broadly,

data.gov and transparency.gov demonstrated

the new paradigm agencies face in publishing

information on their investments. New guidelinesmandating IT investment data be published to public

sites are only the first step in opening up the vault

of data and information that lie within many federal

agenciesand organizations that embrace this new

level of transparency represent the pioneers of Next-

Generation Governance, demonstrating a willingness

to share decisions (and outcomes) with broader

stakeholder communities.

Empowered Program Management. Management

science has long espoused the value of empowered

middle management; however, enabling the growingcadre of PMs to make more key decisions requires

organizations to flatten existing, hierarchical

governance models. Further, transparency breeds

accountability and self-correcting behavior, which

drives a program management culture that views

governance bodies as support entities versus

punitive authorities.

Using Governance to Enable Mission DeliveryFederal IT decisionmakers hold fiduciary responsibility

to the American taxpayer and thus are required to

take steps to ensure that technology investments

are thoroughly reviewed before receiving approval

or funding. Too often, however, agencies implement

elaborate decision structures, committees, and

boards that move knowledge and information farther

away from the true goal or mission being pursued.

Governance models fail to leverage many of the recent

advances in communications and analytics technology,

such as social media and dashboarding tools.

Therefore, IT investments become scattered across

an organization, leading to a dilution of mission focus

through added administration, resource conflicts, andinefficient communications.

In place of this approach, IT decisionmakers should

consider constructing portfolios of investments that

align to a single or small group of mission objectives

that the entire organization can understand clearly.

By collecting programs into areas of common

Exhibit 2 | Booz Allens Next-Generation Governance Framework

Source: Booz Allen Hamilton


8/12

missionregardless of where these programs fall in

the overall organizationthe trade space for program

resource allocation is bounded more properly. By

closely aligning investments to mission, senior

executives can make better, more effective decisionsthat have meaning to all stakeholders. Although this

concept is not new (e.g., organizations for years have

sought to construct IT portfolios that align to strategic

goals and objectives), the advent of robust analytical

tools that eliminate the need for time-consuming data

calls allows even the most junior decisionmakers in an

organization to allocate more time to examining how

their programs directly affect mission success.

Most importantly, by aligning programs against a

cooperative mission set, the question can be asked,

How can these programs work together to navigaterequired governance reviews more efficiently, rather

than act against one another for resources? Although

some programs may not require expedited delivery,

many suffer from ongoing delays attributed simply to

competition from other programs seeking to achieve

similar outcomes. By adapting governance to screen

for opportunities for collaboration (through enterprise

architecture and IT portfolio management), mission

delivery can be accelerated to potentially reduce

program management costs through decreased

oversight and support costs.

Taking a New Look at Measuringand Mitigating RiskAs any PM can attest, risk is difficult to quantify. Risk

can take many formsfrom mission delivery risk to

technology risk to program (cost and schedule). Given

its subjectivity, risk is often relegated to a color-coded

cell in a monthly status report or governance artifact.

However, ineffective risk management remains a top

cause of program failure and a top priority for audit

and assessment organizations when analyzing a

program or portfolio of investments. Simply stated,data on risk (i.e., project risk and mission delivery risk)

is the most precise and reliable measure of expected

program success.

Over the past few years, significant advances have

been made in the ability to monitor, measure, and

anticipate risk. New applications integrate different

data from disparate data silos and offer a new way

to mine data, connect discrete data elements, and

identify trends in ways that could never have been

achieved a few years ago. Furthermore, new methodsfor evaluating risk are going well beyond traditional

approaches of measuring, estimating, and multiplying

threat, vulnerability, and consequence. New simulation

tools help better understand possible outcomes. New

methods have been created for quantifying previously

difficult to measure indicators of risk such as analytical

hierarch processes, which draw on algorithms to better

define risk across projects within a portfolio. Lastly,

the state of the art has advanced dramatically in the

ability to visualize and map risk for mission portfolio

leaders. Consequently, it is now possible to draw

relationships between factors, provide decisionmakersa greater ability to ask what if questions, and view

the analytical consequences in real time.

With this new generation of tools and analytical

structures, risk becomes the optimal vehicle against

which to assess program probability of success and

rebalance the allocation of resources: improving

the ability for Next-Generation Governance teams to

effectively identify, plan, communicate, and execute

risk mitigation strategies.

Decision AgilityMany PMs can tell stories of shopping around

for approval through multiple oversight boards and

committees, each making minor (or significant) tweaks

until by the time the final approval is received, the

PM must return to the first board with a program in

hand that might not resemble the one that the board

had seen earlier. This vertical model of governance is

inherently corrosive to speed and agility, and in todays

connected world, often fails to make use of modern

tools and technologies (e.g., social media) to make

faster and more informed decisions.

Achieving a more agile decision process starts with

the PM. Specifically, the PM must feel comfortable

raising issues in a supportive environment that seeks

to solve the problem and not punish the messenger.

PMs have a secret weapon in the array of modern

data and analytics tools that help frame and visualize

6


9/12

the ramifications of specific decisions or governance

issues. The governance structure in which PMs operate

also must be flexible enough to avoid the need to

shop around decisions to obtain consensus from

large, diverse boards but instead provide targetedadvice and input through smaller, focused entities such

as executive steering committees (ESC) that foster

greater collaboration between PMs and executives

across the organization.

The OMBs introduction of the TechStat session has

served as a governance disrupter by driving agencies

to examine the agility of their decision models and

have frank conversations on program status with senior

federal officials. TechStat is based on the CitiStat

model that leaders and elected officials use in major

urban areas (e.g., Baltimore and Washington, DC) totrack specific data and information that in turn could

lead to more informed decisions and faster results,

often saving cities millions of dollars in waste and

abuse. Although TechStat sessions are an excellent

catalyst for driving change in governance and a keen

example of decision agility, agencies that adopt a true

next-generation approach to governance will seek to

instantiate the TechStat concept for both troubled and

healthy programs as a means to accelerate mission

and mitigate risk.

ConclusionFederal IT leaders face a new paradigm in how their

organizations must approach technology decisions.

Unprecedented pressure to meet mission in shorter

timeframes with fewer resources requires a new way

of thinking about how decisions are made within their

organizations, with particular focus on accelerating

mission, mitigating risk, and designing more agile

governance models. Taken together with the advent of

robust data, a transparent, portfolio-driven approach,

and an empowered team of PMs, Booz Allen sees a

next generation of IT governance emerging across thefederal landscape.

Federal IT leaders can take several steps to help

advance governance efforts at their agencies today and

establish a foundation for Next-Generation Governance:

Examine Workloads. Working with your primary

governance bodies (EA, Capital Planning, SDLC),

consider commissioning a study to examine the

level of effort required for completing the full scope

of governance requirements at your agency. Many

agencies have little insight into the amount of

effort required by PMs of their major investments

to meet data calls and gate reviews. Outputs from

this study can provide significant insight into where

your agency might be able to combine governance

reviews and/or streamline processes.

Conduct Data Due Diligence. Existing governance

boards should have a solid understanding of the

information being presented to them regularly;

furthermore, the information source should be well

known and qualified. Information used to assess

and measure risk should be evaluated carefully to

determine whether additional analyses is needed to

support more robust risk management.

Make Connections. Using insights from EA and

portfolio management practices, begin engaging

IT PMs for investments spanning multiple mission

areas. In particular, consider current methods of

communication and collaboration between these

teams and governance boards, with a focus on

opportunities for improvement.

Booz Allen, working with our federal clients, has seenthe impact that a broad transformation of governance

philosophy can have on program speed, sustainability,

and mission impact. Building on our deep expertise in

program management, risk analysis, and organizational

change and design, our experts have developed an

approach for helping federal agencies achieve Next-

Generation Governance grounded in best practice

and tailored to the unique needs of the 21st century

public sector organization. Our approach starts with

a deconstruction of our clients governance structure

across data, policies, decisions, and boards andexamines how these factors can be optimized within

the Next-Generation Governance concepts outlined in

this paper. The result is a set of focused improvements

that helps agencies tackle tough decisions

collaboratively, transparently, and dynamically.


10/12

About the Authors

8

Fred Knops is a Senior Vice President with Booz Allen

Hamilton and one of the firms officers leading a team

of more than 5,000 IT strategy, systems development,

infrastructure, and acquisition professionals who sup-

port the firms government clients in trade, defense,

and homeland security. During his tenure at the firm,

Mr. Knops has leveraged his deep IT and telecom-munications expertise to serve clients throughout the

United States, Europe, and Latin America in industries

that include telecommunications, financial services,

and energy. His current clients include senior leader-

ship at the Department of Homeland Security.

Michael Isman, a Washington, DC-based Vice

President at Booz Allen Hamilton, leads the firms busi-

ness supporting the central agencies of Government

such as the General Services Administration, Office

of Personnel Management, Executive Office of the

President, Congress, and National Archives andRecords Administration. He also is a senior leader

in the firms Technology business and Strategic

Technology and Innovation Center of Excellence,

leading the IT Strategy and Enterprise Architecture

Communities of Practice. Mr. Isman has collaborated

with clients on the delivery of several critical areas

that have had government-wide implications such as

federal lines of business, human resource services,

IT Governance, IT strategic planning, enterprise trans-

formation, acquisition solutions, investment decision

solutions, records management, and support for fed-

eral policy implementation across various topics.

Jon Judah, a Senior Associate at Booz Allen Hamilton,

has more than 12 years of professional experienceproviding IT strategy and program management sup-

port to various public and private sector organizations.

Mr. Judah currently leads the firms investment in IT

Governance research and has supported multiple cli-

ents in creating oversight boards and governance struc-

tures. Specifically, he has focused on helping large,

federated organizations improve their IT Governance

and portfolio management capabilities and serves

as a senior advisor to clients at the Department of

Homeland Security and Federal Reserve.

Frank Landefeld is a Senior Associate with Booz Allen

Hamiltons Strategic Technology and Innovation Center

of Excellence. Mr. Landefeld has more than 15 years

of experience in engagement management, require-

ments analysis, solution design, systems engineering,

acceptance testing and end-user training of technology

and capability modernization programs working with cli-

ents across the commercial and federal marketplace.


11/12

To learn more about the firm and to download digital versions of this article and other Booz Allen Hamilton

publications, visit www.boozallen.com.

Booz Allen Hamilton has been at the forefront of

strategy and technology consulting for nearly a century.

Today, the firm is a major provider of professional

services primarily to US government agencies in

the defense, intelligence, and civil sectors, as well

as to corporations, institutions, and not-for-profit

organizations. Booz Allen offers clients deep functionalknowledge spanning strategy and organization,

engineering and operations, technology, and

analyticswhich it combines with specialized expertise

in clients mission and domain areas to help solve

their toughest problems.

The firms management consulting heritage is the

basis for its unique collaborative culture and operating

model, enabling Booz Allen to anticipate needs and

opportunities, rapidly deploy talent and resources, and

deliver enduring results. By combining a consultants

problem-solving orientation with deep technical knowl-

edge and strong execution, Booz Allen helps clients

achieve success in their most critical missionsas

evidenced by the firms many client relationships that

span decades. Booz Allen helps shape thinking and

prepare for future developments in areas of national

importance, including cybersecurity, homeland security,healthcare, and information technology.

Booz Allen is headquartered in McLean, Virginia,

employs more than 25,000 people, and has annual

revenues of over $5 billion. Fortune has named Booz

Allen one of its 100 Best Companies to Work For for

seven consecutive years. Working Motherhas ranked

the firm among its 100 Best Companies for Working

Mothers annually since 1999. More information is

available at www.boozallen.com.

About Booz Allen

Contact Information:

Fred Knops Michael Isman Jon Judah Frank Landefeld

Senior Vice President Vice President Senior Associate Senior Associate

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

703/902-7004 202/508-6505 202/508-6500 703/984-1718


12/12

www.boozallen.com 2011 Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

The most complete, recent list of offices and their addresses and telephone numbers can be found on

www.boozallen.com by clicking the Offices link under About Booz Allen.

ALABAMA

Huntsville

CALIFORNIA

Los AngelesSan DiegoSan Francisco

COLORADOColorado SpringsDenver

FLORIDA

PensacolaSarasotaTampa

GEORGIA

Atlanta

HAWAII

Honolulu

ILLINOISOFallon

KANSAS

Leavenworth

MARYLAND

AberdeenAnnapolis JunctionLexington Park

LinthicumRockville

MICHIGAN

Troy

NEBRASKA

Omaha

NEW JERSEY

Eatontown

NEW YORK

Rome

OHIO

Dayton

PENNSYLVANIA

Philadelphia

SOUTH CAROLINA

CharlestonTEXAS

Houston

San Antonio

VIRGINIA

ArlingtonChantillyFalls ChurchHerndonMcLeanNorfolk

Stafford

WASHINGTON, DC

Principal Offices

Documents

Next Generation Governance Viewpoint