Case USA72: How a Federal Science Consortium Substituted Data Sharing Protocols for Enterprise Architecture Design

Sunil Dutt Jha
Jul 22
1 min read

Updated: Nov 3

Overview:

This case is part of a 100-diagnostic series revealing how US research collaborations have mislabeled technical standards work as “Enterprise Architecture progress.”

In a national science consortium, a recurring pattern is treating data sharing protocols as proof of enterprise architecture.

APIs allowed labs to exchange datasets, and metadata standards improved — yet the enterprise structure linking research goals, infrastructure planning, compliance, and funding accountability was never modeled

P1–P6 Insight Preview:

P1 (Strategy): Protocol rollout was justified as “accelerating collaboration,” but wasn’t linked to long-term research priorities or shared investment planning.

P2 (Process): Data exchange workflows were defined, but integration into peer review, IP management, and joint project delivery was missing.

P3 (System): Repositories and compute platforms lacked a unified behavior model for access, security, and version control.

P4 (Component): Data catalogs, API gateways, and repository connectors were governed separately.

P5 (Implementation): Delivery was driven by available grant cycles, not an enterprise roadmap.

P6 (Operations): Business ops could share datasets faster, but tech ops spent more time resolving incompatibilities and access issues.

Stakeholder Impact Summary:

CEO/Consortium Director: Sees cross-lab sharing improve (P1), but research outcomes remain fragmented.
CIO: Manages protocol compliance (P3 & P4), but integration debt grows each year.
Sales Head (Partnerships): Markets collaboration speed (P2 & P5), but can’t demonstrate efficiency in delivering joint research.
Chief EA: Identifies absence of a unifying architecture across programs (P1–P6).
Head of Data Infrastructure: Balances growing demands with no central governance for resources (P3, P4, & P6).