Case USA111: How an Agriculture Technology Program Mistook Precision Farming Dashboards for Enterprise Architecture Integration

Sunil Dutt Jha
Aug 20
2 min read

Updated: 4 days ago

Overview:

This case is part of a 120-diagnostic series revealing how agriculture technology initiatives have mislabeled analytics visibility as “Enterprise Architecture progress.”

In precision farming programs, a recurring pattern is treating real-time dashboards for soil, crop health, and yield forecasting as proof of enterprise integration.

Farmers and cooperatives could see detailed field data, adjust inputs, and optimize planting — yet the enterprise structure linking data capture, subsidy programs, supply chain logistics, quality assurance, and regulatory reporting 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): Dashboards were presented as innovation, but no architecture-led plan tied them to broader food security, sustainability, or market competitiveness objectives.

P2 (Process): Field monitoring processes improved, but integration with subsidy eligibility, procurement planning, and distribution was missing.

P3 (System): IoT and analytics platforms weren’t behaviorally integrated with ERP, logistics, or compliance systems.

P4 (Component): Sensors, drones, analytics models, and data warehouses were governed separately, causing fragmentation.

P5 (Implementation): Development focused on adding agronomic features, delaying integration with financial and regulatory systems.

P6 (Operations): Business ops could make better field-level decisions, but tech ops manually aligned agronomic data with supply chain and compliance workflows.

Stakeholder Impact Summary:

CEO/Program Director – accountable for agricultural outcomes and policy impact: Limited by weak P1 Strategy — data visibility doesn’t ensure yield improvement or policy goal achievement.
CIO – responsible for technology platforms and integration: Impacted by P3 System Behaviors and P4 Component Governance — data silos hinder enterprise-wide insights and action.
Sales Head (Farmer & Partner Engagement) – manages cooperative and partner relationships: Affected by P2 Processes and P5 Implementation — can promote analytics capabilities but can’t guarantee downstream benefits.
Chief Enterprise Architect – ensures farming technology aligns with end-to-end agriculture operations: Confronts P1–P6 issues — dashboards are a functional success but lack enterprise integration.