Case USA79: Why a Federal Compliance Body Mistook Rule Automation Scripts for Enterprise Architecture Design
- Sunil Dutt Jha
- Jul 16
- 2 min read
Overview:
This case is part of a 100-diagnostic series revealing how US regulatory agencies have mislabeled automation initiatives as “Enterprise Architecture progress.”
A recurring pattern is treating the deployment of rule automation scripts as proof of enterprise design. Policy checks were digitized, approval cycles shortened, and compliance reporting was faster — yet the enterprise structure linking policy creation, rule governance, case handling, and enforcement 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 Specs, P5: Implementation, P6: Business & Technology Operations.
P1 (Strategy): Automation was implemented to reduce processing time, but no enterprise plan tied it to broader policy effectiveness or enforcement quality.
P2 (Process): Approval and validation workflows were automated, but exception handling and multi-agency coordination remained manual.
P3 (System): Scripts weren’t behaviorally integrated with case management, investigation, or audit systems.
P4 (Component): Each automation module followed its own logic and standards, creating inconsistencies across compliance areas.
P5 (Implementation): Rollouts were incremental and reactive to policy changes, without aligning with a long-term integration roadmap.
P6 (Operations): Business ops processed standard cases quickly, but tech ops manually reconciled exceptions and maintained duplicate rules across systems.
Stakeholder Impact Summary:
CEO/Agency Head – responsible for policy outcomes and public trust: Limited by weak P1 Strategy — automation speeds tasks but doesn’t improve the effectiveness of compliance enforcement.
CIO – manages regulatory systems and IT infrastructure: Impacted by P3 System Behaviors and P4 Component Governance — disconnected rule sets lead to high maintenance and inconsistent outcomes.
Sales Head (Stakeholder & Partner Engagement) – maintains relationships with regulated entities and partners: Affected by P2 Processes and P5 Implementation — can report faster turnaround but not improved resolution for complex cases.
Chief Enterprise Architect – ensures cohesive structural design: Confronts P1–P6 weaknesses — automation is a patchwork of scripts, not an integrated enterprise framework.
Head of Compliance Operations – oversees daily review and enforcement activities: Feels P2, P3, & P6 — must still manually coordinate exceptions and cross-agency enforcement actions.
Want to read more?
Subscribe to architecturerating.com to keep reading this exclusive post.