The architecture should provide a focal point for project definition and clarity. Indeed, ambiguity surrounding this fundamental concept may be a clue that your architecture requires attention. One Commission-reviewed project exhibited a number of inconsistencies in its use of the term "architecture." This led to conflicting expectations when information about the architecture was disseminated among project participants. Upon closer inspection, the Commission found that the architecture required broad realignment with the organization’s strategic plan and budget.

One Commission-reviewed project had negligible high-level involvement on the part of its organizational leadership. It turned out that no single individual was accountable for providing such leadership. Among other things, this explained the absence of a formal planning process and clear business objectives.

The Commission encountered one project which had clearly identified the information needs of key stakeholders, but was having great difficulty prioritizing these needs. The centralized organization running the project simply did not have the resources or the authority to provide an enterprise-wide solution to all of its widely distributed lines of business. Among other recommendations, the Commission noted the need to establish an agency-level CIO who could focus the project architecture on the most critical common needs of the different lines of business.

The Clinger-Cohen Act identifies four core competency areas for CIO’s:

1. Federal Information Resources Management
· Policy and Organizational Knowledge
· Information Resources Strategy and Planning
· IT Acquisition
2. Capital Planning
· IT Performance Assessment
· Capital Planning and Investment Assessment
3. Change Management
4. Managerial/Technical
· Professional Development and Training
· IT Topics
· IT Trends

Project leadership does not simply appear; it must be nurtured. Among all of the projects reviewed by the Commission, those with the greatest chance for success were those which sought to grow and develop leadership competencies over the long run. Though many aspects of project management may be reduced to defined processes, the development of project management leadership competencies remains a difficult but worthwhile challenge.

One Commission-reviewed project exhibited no partnership among functional program leaders, IT managers and contract managers. Significant confusion resulted among both contractor and agency employees as to who made key decisions. In the absence of cooperative leadership, critical analysis of functional requirements was seriously lacking. The Commission recommended that the project not only clarify the respective roles of project team members, but that it reorganize its executive steering committee to make it truly accountable for all final project decisions.

In the majority of reviews it has conducted, the Commission has recommended that organizations immediately establish a process for independent validation and verification and that executives explicitly consider IV&V recommendations when making decisions.

One Commission-reviewed project found a significant shortage of staff on the agency management team. The Commission recommended that the management team take all possible actions to expand its staff, concentrating on the addition of technical expertise in computer software and systems. The Commission also recommended that contract personnel be more effectively used to provide project management support

One Commission-reviewed project revealed a clear need to integrate IT planning across various organizational units involved in the project. A new business concept of operations required that IT processes be realigned to meet evolving demands. The Commission recommended that the organization use experts in BPR and information modeling to facilitate the necessary process analysis and redesign