A more socially provocative way to approach this question of curricula is to consider the concept of whether the curricula is "explicit, implicit or null." This question assumes a larger knowledge of the field and curriculum, something else that IDs don't often probe.
What's said? What's not said? What is not even noticed?
Eisner (1985) suggests that schools teach three curricula: the explicit (obvious and stated), implicit (unofficial, hidden, both intentional and inadvertent), and null (non-existing curriculum that is not taught, that is systematically excluded, neglected or not considered. (Joseph, et al., 2000, pp. 3 - 4)
Joseph, P.B., et al. (2000). Cultures of curriculum. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 3-4.
This assumes an analysis and critique of the larger system. There's probably very little professional usability for this type of approach, and there may well be some political risk. However, it's a worthwhile question to ask and to ponder.
And, if reusability issues are brought to the fore in the bureaucratic unit / org., considering such curricula would be helpful as well for a more complete learning object.