USA40: Why a National Intelligence Program Mistook Vendor Ecosystem Integration for Enterprise Architecture
- Sunil Dutt Jha
- Aug 4
- 1 min read
Updated: Oct 29
Overview:
This case is part of a 100-diagnostic series revealing how US government programs have mislabeled vendor-driven technology integrations as “Enterprise Architecture progress.”
In national intelligence, a recurring pattern is treating the stitching together of multiple vendor systems as enterprise architecture.
Surveillance, analytics, and case management platforms were connected to exchange data — yet the enterprise structure defining shared logic, governance, and cross-agency workflows was never modeled.
P1–P6 Insight Preview:
Vendor integration improved system interoperability (P3) and accelerated component delivery (P4–P5), but lacked alignment to national intelligence strategy (P1) and process architecture for mission execution (P2).
Business operations (P6) still required manual coordination across agencies; tech operations (P6) managed fragile, vendor-specific connectors.
Role Disconnects:
CEO/Program Director: “We have full inter-agency integration” — but it’s just vendor handshakes, not enterprise design.
CIO: “The systems exchange data seamlessly” — until a policy change or vendor update breaks the link.
Sales Head (Stakeholder Engagement): “Our partners see us as technologically advanced” — but collaboration is still slow.
Chief EA: We integrated tools, not the enterprise.
Head of Mission Operations: I can get intel from other systems — but acting on it still takes too many steps and approvals.
Want to read more?
Subscribe to architecturerating.com to keep reading this exclusive post.
