Case USA84: How a National Law Enforcement Program Substituted Crime Analytics for Enterprise Architecture Reform
- Sunil Dutt Jha
- Jul 22
- 2 min read
Overview:
This case is part of a 100-diagnostic series revealing how US law enforcement agencies have mislabeled data analysis projects as “Enterprise Architecture progress.”
A recurring pattern is treating crime analytics dashboards as evidence of enterprise reform.
Hotspot maps became more accurate, crime trend reports were faster, and resource allocation decisions appeared more data-driven — yet the enterprise structure linking investigative workflows, inter-agency coordination, judicial processes, and community programs 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): Analytics were tied to “intelligence-led policing” goals but not linked to enterprise-wide strategies for reducing crime or improving clearance rates.
P2 (Process): Data gathering and reporting workflows were refined, but integration with investigative, prosecutorial, and community prevention processes was missing.
P3 (System): Analytics platforms weren’t behaviorally integrated with case management, evidence handling, or court systems.
P4 (Component): Mapping software, crime databases, and reporting tools operated under separate governance.
P5 (Implementation): Rollouts prioritized dashboard usability without embedding analytics into core operational decision-making.
P6 (Operations): Business ops used insights to shift resources, but tech ops had to manually reconcile data sources and maintain disparate systems.
Stakeholder Impact Summary:
CEO/National Program Director – accountable for public safety outcomes: Limited by weak P1 Strategy — better analytics don’t guarantee reduced crime or improved case closure rates.
CIO – manages law enforcement systems and data infrastructure: Impacted by P3 System Behaviors and P4 Component Governance — critical systems are not interoperable, creating inefficiency and errors.
Sales Head (Community & Stakeholder Relations) – engages with local agencies and civic leaders: Affected by P2 Processes and P5 Implementation — can present data-driven insights but can’t ensure operational change follows.
Chief Enterprise Architect – aligns systems, processes, and strategic objectives: Confronts P1–P6 issues — analytics exist, but the enterprise isn’t structured to act on them consistently.
Head of Investigations – oversees case work and evidence flow: Feels P2, P3, & P6 — must manually connect insights to investigative actions across jurisdictions.
Want to read more?
Subscribe to architecturerating.com to keep reading this exclusive post.