Case USA103: Why a Smart Building Program Equated IoT Sensor Networks with Enterprise Architecture Coherence

Sunil Dutt Jha
Aug 19
2 min read

Updated: 4 days ago

Overview:

This case is part of a 120-diagnostic series revealing how property development and facilities management initiatives have mislabeled technology deployments as “Enterprise Architecture progress.”

In smart building programs, a recurring pattern is treating the installation of IoT sensor networks for energy, occupancy, and environmental monitoring as proof of architectural maturity.

Real-time data dashboards improved visibility, automated controls cut costs, and sustainability scores improved — yet the enterprise structure linking building systems, tenant services, asset management, safety compliance, and financial planning was never modeled.

P1–P6 Insight Preview:

These six perspectives define how an enterprise connects intent to execution

— P1: Strategy, P2: Business Processes, P3: System Behaviors, P4: Component Governance, P5: Implementation, P6: Business & Technology Operations.

P1 (Strategy): Orchestration was marketed as enabling “digital telco” ambitions, but no architecture-led roadmap tied it to monetization, SLA compliance, or ecosystem readiness.

P2 (Process): Provisioning workflows improved, but change management, service assurance, and decommissioning processes lacked cohesion.

P3 (System): Orchestrators weren’t behaviorally integrated with billing, policy, and analytics platforms for end-to-end control.

P4 (Component): Catalogs, policy engines, and inventory systems were governed per domain, creating inconsistent rule enforcement.

P5 (Implementation): Platform deployment succeeded technically, but integration into cross-domain operational processes was delayed.

P6 (Operations): Business ops could launch services faster, but tech ops manually coordinated between OSS/BSS and network domains for full lifecycle management.

Stakeholder Impact Summary:

CEO/Telecom Group CEO – accountable for market share and profitability: Limited by weak P1 Strategy — orchestration speeds activation but doesn’t ensure profitability or partner readiness.
CIO/CTIO – manages IT, network systems, and integration: Impacted by P3 System Behaviors and P4 Component Governance — operational inconsistency across domains raises complexity and costs.
Sales Head (Enterprise & Wholesale) – drives product sales to large clients and partners: Affected by P2 Processes and P5 Implementation — can sell faster launches but can’t guarantee consistent service assurance.
Chief Enterprise Architect – ensures the telco operating model supports the 5G product portfolio: Confronts P1–P6 issues — orchestration is a platform capability without an integrated business-operations thread.
Head of Service Operations – oversees end-to-end service delivery and assurance: Feels P2, P3, & P6 — must coordinate multiple teams and systems to deliver a seamless customer experience.