Case USA113: Why a Smart City Control Center Mistook System Aggregation for Enterprise Architecture
- Sunil Dutt Jha
- Aug 5
- 2 min read
Overview:
This case is part of a 120-diagnostic series revealing how urban innovation programs have mislabeled technology consolidation as “Enterprise Architecture progress.”
In smart city initiatives, a recurring pattern is treating the aggregation of feeds from traffic, utilities, and safety systems into a single control center as proof of architectural maturity.
City managers could monitor dashboards in real time, adjust traffic lights, and dispatch services faster — yet the enterprise structure linking urban planning, budget governance, citizen services, inter-agency protocols, and long-term infrastructure goals 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): Control center was presented as a flagship innovation, but no architecture-led plan tied it to measurable citywide outcomes like reduced congestion, lower crime rates, or optimized resource use.
P2 (Process): Event response processes improved, but long-term planning, preventive maintenance, and multi-agency coordination processes were inconsistent.
P3 (System): Aggregated systems weren’t behaviorally integrated — traffic data, utility controls, and public safety alerts didn’t share unified logic for coordinated action.
P4 (Component): Sensors, analytics engines, and dispatch modules were governed under separate departments with inconsistent standards.
P5 (Implementation): Project delivered visible monitoring capabilities, but integration with strategic planning tools and budgeting systems was delayed.
P6 (Operations): Business ops responded to incidents faster, but tech ops manually managed conflicts and redundancies between systems during high-demand events.
Stakeholder Impact Summary:
CEO/Mayor – accountable for public safety, quality of life, and fiscal stewardship: Limited by weak P1 Strategy — operational visibility exists, but systemic improvements in outcomes are missing.
CIO – responsible for technology integration and interoperability: Impacted by P3 System Behaviors and P4 Component Governance — core systems remain domain-bound, making cross-agency workflows cumbersome. Sales Head (Public-Private Partnerships Lead) – manages investment and technology vendor relationships: Affected by P2 Processes and P5 Implementation — can promote innovation to partners but can’t prove return on investment without systemic data.
Chief Enterprise Architect – ensures urban systems work as a single enterprise: Confronts P1–P6 issues — aggregation without integration leaves the city reactive, not proactive.
Head of City Operations – coordinates daily service delivery and emergency response: Feels P2, P3, & P6 — must manually bridge gaps between domains during critical events.
Want to read more?
Subscribe to architecturerating.com to keep reading this exclusive post.