Case USA75: Why a Court Modernization Program Rebranded Document Portals as Enterprise Architecture Reform

Sunil Dutt Jha
Jul 30
2 min read

Updated: Nov 3

Overview:

This case is part of a 100-diagnostic series revealing how US judicial modernization projects have mislabeled front-end tools as “Enterprise Architecture progress.”

A recurring pattern is treating the launch of online document portals as proof of enterprise reform.

Attorneys could file cases digitally, citizens could access court records, and media hailed the digital shift — yet the enterprise structure linking case intake, judicial workflows, evidence management, scheduling, and appeals tracking 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): Portals were framed as a modernization milestone, but no architecture-led roadmap connected them to reduced case resolution times or improved judicial efficiency.

P2 (Process): Filing and document access improved, but evidence handling, scheduling, and appeal processes remained disconnected.

P3 (System): Portals weren’t behaviorally integrated with court management, scheduling, or evidence systems.

P4 (Component): Portal software, case databases, and evidence repositories were governed separately with no shared standards.

P5 (Implementation): Delivery prioritized quick wins for public access, deferring integration work.

P6 (Operations): Business ops improved public access, but tech ops handled constant exceptions, data mismatches, and manual file transfers.

Stakeholder Impact Summary:

CEO/Chief Justice – responsible for judicial outcomes and public trust: Limited by weak P1 Strategy — public access has improved, but trial backlogs and delays remain unchanged.
CIO – manages judicial systems and IT operations: Impacted by P3 System Behaviors and P4 Component Governance — systems remain siloed, making integration costly and time-consuming.
Sales Head (Court Administration/Public Outreach) – oversees community engagement and attorney services: Affected by P2 Processes and P5 Implementation — can promote digital filing, but attorneys still encounter slow case movement.
Chief Enterprise Architect – ensures architecture aligns legal processes, systems, and governance: Confronts P1–P6 issues — the portal is an isolated tool without an enterprise blueprint to integrate judicial workflows.
Head of Case Management – manages day-to-day court operations and scheduling: Feels P2, P3, & P6 — still must coordinate manually between departments to progress cases and handle evidence.