Case USA103: Why a Smart Building Program Equated IoT Sensor Networks with Enterprise Architecture Coherence
- Sunil Dutt Jha
- Aug 19
- 2 min read
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.
Want to read more?
Subscribe to architecturerating.com to keep reading this exclusive post.