Case USA38: Why a State Public Health System Equated Data Collection Efficiency with Enterprise Architecture Progress

Overview:

This case is part of a 100-diagnostic series revealing how US public agencies have mislabeled operational improvements as “Enterprise Architecture reform.”

In state-level public health, a recurring pattern is treating faster data collection as proof of architectural maturity.

Surveillance systems captured more data in less time, dashboards refreshed rapidly, and reporting cycles shortened — yet the enterprise structure linking policy action, inter-agency coordination, and community-level interventions was never modeled.

P1–P6 Insight Preview: 

Improved data pipelines enhanced components (P4) and operational monitoring (P6 tech), but lacked strategy-to-health outcome alignment (P1) and process architecture for outbreak management (P2).

System behavior (P3) across agencies remained uncoordinated; business ops (P6) still relied on manual escalation when thresholds were breached.

Role Disconnects:

1. CEO/Health Commissioner: “We’re capturing more data than ever” — but it doesn’t drive faster, coordinated action.
   

2. CIO: “Our reporting platform is best-in-class” — yet it doesn’t integrate policy workflows.
   

3. Sales Head (Programs): “We deliver faster insights to stakeholders” — but response timelines remain the same.
   

4. Chief EA: “We sped up intake, not the enterprise response model.”
   

5. Head of Epidemiology: I see the numbers instantly — but I still have to call three departments before action starts.

Want to read more?

Subscribe to architecturerating.com to keep reading this exclusive post.

Subscribe Now