Case USA93: How a State Construction Permit System Confused Document Upload Tools with Enterprise Architecture

Sunil Dutt Jha
Aug 4
2 min read

Updated: 4 days ago

Overview:

This case is part of a 100-diagnostic series revealing how US municipal governments have mislabeled front-end convenience features as “Enterprise Architecture progress.”

In state and city construction offices, a recurring pattern is treating online document upload tools as proof of enterprise design.

Builders could submit plans digitally, inspectors could review files remotely, and approval notifications were automated — yet the enterprise structure linking zoning rules, code compliance, inspection scheduling, enforcement actions, and fee management 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): Digitization was marketed as a “smart permitting” milestone, but no architecture-led roadmap tied it to reducing approval times, improving compliance rates, or supporting urban planning goals.

P2 (Process): Document submission was streamlined, but inspection, enforcement, and appeals workflows remained inconsistent across jurisdictions.

P3 (System): Upload tools weren’t behaviorally integrated with GIS, inspection scheduling, or code enforcement systems.

P4 (Component): File storage, review portals, and payment systems were governed separately, creating duplication and inconsistent standards.

P5 (Implementation): Rollouts focused on user-facing functions while back-end orchestration was left for “phase two” indefinitely.

P6 (Operations): Business ops processed applications faster, but tech ops still relied on manual intervention to ensure compliance checks were triggered and followed through.

Stakeholder Impact Summary:

CEO/Planning & Development Director – accountable for urban growth and compliance: Limited by weak P1 Strategy — permitting looks modern but doesn’t reduce violations or accelerate safe builds.
CIO – manages municipal permitting systems and integration: Impacted by P3 System Behaviors and P4 Component Governance — disconnected systems cause data errors and hinder process automation.
Sales Head (Developer & Contractor Engagement) – fosters relationships with the building community: Affected by P2 Processes and P5 Implementation — can promise faster submission but can’t guarantee predictable project timelines.
Chief Enterprise Architect – ensures city permitting aligns with policy, systems, and operational goals: Confronts P1–P6 issues — upload tools are isolated features without an enterprise-wide process backbone.
Head of Inspection Operations – manages inspection scheduling and field reviews: Feels P2, P3, & P6 — must manually confirm inspection triggers and results because workflows aren’t linked end-to-end.