Case USA92: Why a National Sports Authority Mistook Athlete Performance Dashboards for Enterprise Architecture Readiness

Sunil Dutt Jha
Aug 5
2 min read

Updated: 4 days ago

Overview:

This case is part of a 100-diagnostic series revealing how US sports governing bodies have mislabeled analytics tools as “Enterprise Architecture progress.”

A recurring pattern is treating athlete performance dashboards as proof of architectural maturity.

Real-time metrics on speed, endurance, and recovery were available to coaches and administrators, boosting engagement and media appeal — yet the enterprise structure linking athlete development, competition scheduling, medical care, anti-doping compliance, and funding allocation 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 presented as a performance innovation, but there was no architecture-led plan connecting them to medal targets, injury prevention, or resource optimization.

P2 (Process): Data capture and analysis workflows were refined, but integration with training schedules, medical protocols, and competition planning remained weak.

P3 (System): Performance tracking systems weren’t behaviorally integrated with athlete medical records, scheduling systems, or compliance databases.

P4 (Component): Wearables, analytics platforms, and reporting tools were managed under separate vendor and governance structures.

P5 (Implementation): Development focused on visualization features rather than embedding analytics into daily operational decision-making.

P6 (Operations): Business ops could display athlete stats instantly, but tech ops still manually reconciled data from multiple systems before making critical decisions.

Stakeholder Impact Summary:

CEO/Sports Authority Director – accountable for competitive success and national sports objectives: Limited by weak P1 Strategy — performance data looks impressive but isn’t tied to outcomes like podium finishes or injury reduction.
CIO – responsible for systems integration and data governance: Impacted by P3 System Behaviors and P4 Component Governance — platforms are fragmented, increasing integration costs and reducing data reliability.
Sales Head (Sponsorship & Partnerships) – manages sponsor relationships and promotional programs: Affected by P2 Processes and P5 Implementation — can present compelling metrics to sponsors, but can’t ensure those insights translate into better athlete performance.
Chief Enterprise Architect – ensures alignment between sports strategy, operations, and systems: Confronts P1–P6 issues — analytics is treated as a standalone tool rather than part of an integrated sports performance ecosystem.
Head of Athlete Development – oversees training, health, and competition readiness: Feels P2, P3, & P6 — must manually bridge gaps between performance data, medical updates, and competition schedules.