USA76: How a Public Food Distribution System Confused Inventory Apps with Enterprise Architecture Integration

Sunil Dutt Jha
Jul 16
2 min read

Updated: Nov 3

Overview:

This case is part of a 100-diagnostic series revealing how US social service programs have mislabeled operational tools as “Enterprise Architecture progress.”

In public food distribution, a recurring pattern is treating mobile inventory and delivery tracking apps as proof of enterprise integration.

Warehouse staff could see stock levels in real time, drivers received optimized routes, and reporting became faster — yet the enterprise structure linking procurement, eligibility verification, partner agency coordination, and performance reporting 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): Inventory tools were rolled out to improve efficiency, but no roadmap linked them to reducing waste, improving service coverage, or streamlining multi-agency coordination.

P2 (Process): Stock management and route scheduling improved, but beneficiary verification and cross-agency delivery processes remained inconsistent.

P3 (System): Apps were not behaviorally integrated with procurement, eligibility, and reporting systems.

P4 (Component): Barcode scanners, routing software, and reporting dashboards were governed independently, creating duplication of effort.

P5 (Implementation): Delivery favored rapid rollout for logistics teams, but integration with upstream and downstream systems was postponed.

P6 (Operations): Business ops could track inventory in real time, but tech ops had to reconcile data across multiple systems manually.

Stakeholder Impact Summary:

CEO/Program Director – accountable for program reach and efficiency: Limited by weak P1 Strategy — logistics improvements don’t translate into better service equity or transparency.
CIO – responsible for systems and data flow: Impacted by P3 System Behaviors and P4 Component Governance — multiple tools exist, but none share a unified architecture for data exchange.
Sales Head (Partnership & Funding Lead) – manages donor and partner relationships: Affected by P2 Processes and P5 Implementation can present operational gains to funders, but struggles to show measurable impact beyond delivery speed.
Chief Enterprise Architect – ensures cohesive enterprise structure and integration: Sees issues across P1–P6 — tools improve local efficiency but leave enterprise workflows fragmented.
Head of Logistics Operations – manages daily food distribution activities: Feels P2, P3, & P6 — still has to manually verify beneficiary lists and coordinate across agencies despite having real-time inventory data.