Case USA116: How a Public Safety Dispatch Upgrade Mistook Multi-Agency CAD Integration for Enterprise Architecture
- Sunil Dutt Jha
- Jul 23
- 2 min read
Overview:
This case is part of a 120-diagnostic series revealing how public safety agencies have mislabeled system connectivity as “Enterprise Architecture progress.”
In state and regional emergency services, a recurring pattern is treating the integration of multiple Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems across police, fire, and EMS as proof of architectural maturity.
Dispatchers could share incident details faster, units from different agencies could be mobilized simultaneously, and response time averages improved — yet the enterprise structure linking jurisdictional protocols, resource management, training, analytics, and post-incident review 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): CAD integration was positioned as inter-agency cooperation, but no architecture-led roadmap tied it to resilience, readiness, and resource optimization goals.
P2 (Process): Incident dispatch flows improved, but standard operating procedures for cross-jurisdiction events and mutual aid remained inconsistent.
P3 (System): CAD platforms weren’t behaviorally integrated with GIS, records management, training systems, and resource allocation platforms.
P4 (Component): Mapping tools, communication modules, and unit tracking components were governed separately by each agency.
P5 (Implementation): Technical integration was prioritized, while aligning business rules and training was postponed.
P6 (Operations): Business ops achieved faster response notifications, but tech ops manually resolved data mismatches and interoperability issues during live events.
Stakeholder Impact Summary:
CEO/Public Safety Commissioner – accountable for life safety and service outcomes: Limited by weak P1 Strategy — integration improves speed, but not the consistency or quality of multi-agency responses.
CIO – responsible for system interoperability and technical governance: Impacted by P3 System Behaviors and P4 Component Governance — system logic and governance remain fragmented across agencies.
Sales Head (Inter-Agency Liaison) – manages partnerships between agencies and municipalities: Affected by P2 Processes and P5 Implementation — can promote faster alerts but can’t ensure procedural alignment across jurisdictions.
Chief Enterprise Architect – ensures emergency services operate as a coherent enterprise: Confronts P1–P6 issues — CAD integration is a technical link, not an operational architecture.
Head of Dispatch Operations – oversees 911 centers and field coordination: Feels P2, P3, & P6 — must manually adapt workflows during cross-agency calls to fill structural gaps.
Want to read more?
Subscribe to architecturerating.com to keep reading this exclusive post.