Case USA88: How a National Climate Action Program Used KPI Dashboards to Mask Enterprise Architecture Gaps

Sunil Dutt Jha
Jul 23
2 min read

Updated: Nov 3

Overview:

This case is part of a 100-diagnostic series revealing how US environmental initiatives have mislabeled performance reporting as “Enterprise Architecture progress.”

In national climate action programs, a recurring pattern is treating KPI dashboards as proof of enterprise readiness.

Emissions trends were visualized, renewable energy adoption rates were tracked, and program reach was easy to monitor — yet the enterprise structure linking policy enforcement, project funding, operational execution, and inter-agency collaboration 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): Dashboards were framed as a transparency win, but no architecture-led plan tied them to accelerating decarbonization or resilience outcomes.

P2 (Process): Data collection and aggregation improved, but project delivery, enforcement actions, and stakeholder engagement remained inconsistent.

P3 (System): Reporting tools weren’t behaviorally integrated with project management, grant tracking, or regulatory systems.

P4 (Component): Data feeds, visualization tools, and analytical models operated without common governance standards.

P5 (Implementation): Rollouts prioritized public visibility, while structural integration and workflow redesign were delayed.

P6 (Operations): Business ops could report performance indicators, but tech ops still relied on manual coordination to connect data with real-world actions.

Stakeholder Impact Summary:

CEO/Program Director – accountable for climate targets and program credibility: Limited by weak P1 Strategy — dashboards show numbers but don’t drive accelerated progress toward emission reduction.
CIO – responsible for systems integration and data quality: Impacted by P3 System Behaviors and P4 Component Governance — fragmented systems reduce the accuracy and utility of reported metrics.
Sales Head (Stakeholder & Funding Lead) – manages donor, government, and partner relationships: Affected by P2 Processes and P5 Implementation — can showcase transparency but struggles to link it to impact.
Chief Enterprise Architect – ensures climate goals are supported by coherent systems and processes: Confronts P1–P6 issues — KPI tracking is disconnected from the operational machinery that delivers results.
Head of Project Delivery – oversees on-the-ground climate action initiatives: Feels P2, P3, & P6 — must manually connect reported outcomes to actual project progress.