The potential benefits of a digital centre for citizens are substantial, but they hinge on proper implementation with robust data infrastructure at its core. When data flows properly between departments, we see much improved service provision and accountability. As we noted in our Industrial Strategy response, data infrastructure underpins productivity, innovation, and public service delivery across all growth-driving sectors. Despite its frequent treatment as merely a horizontal enabler, this framing fails to account for both vertical needs (sector-specific data requirements) and the unique barriers the sector faces, such as scaling interoperable platforms and building public trust.
The digital centre must therefore prioritise:
● Creating transparent governance frameworks that give citizens control over their data while enabling service improvements.
● Ensuring equitable access to services. With around 20% of UK citizens potentially struggling with purely digital services, maintaining alternative access channels remains essential.
● Establishing clear accountability mechanisms for data use and service delivery.
The economic case rests primarily on proper valuation and use of public sector data assets.
The digital centre could help realise this value by:
● Establishing proper frameworks for valuing public sector data assets (including those to be under the guardianship of the National Data Library). This must go beyond simple cost-benefit analysis to consider long-term strategic value, particularly as AI development increases the potential worth of well-maintained public datasets.
● Enabling better cross-departmental data sharing with appropriate safeguards.
● Changing some of the currently fragmented approaches we see across different parts of the public sector across the UK as a whole.
The realisation of these benefits depends upon several critical factors often overlooked in digital transformation efforts:
● Firstly, proper (and adequately funded) data infrastructure. The blueprint's recognition of data as critical national infrastructure marks a welcome shift in government thinking but requires sustained investment and clear governance frameworks.
● Secondly, cross-governmental cooperation. The proposed Digital Inter-Ministerial Group, comprising the DSIT Secretary, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, must maintain sustained engagement across departmental boundaries.
● Thirdly, local government integration. Current proposals for local authority support lack detail and risk creating a two-tier digital public sector. The digital centre must develop specific capability-building programmes and dedicated funding streams for local authorities.
The vision for the digital centre has been articulated through the Blueprint for Modern Digital Government and helpfully recently augmented via the digital inclusion announcement from DSIT, but communication has been limited beyond the immediate audience of digital specialists in government.
There remains a substantial gap between the technical vision and its articulation in terms that resonate with citizens and businesses. More work is needed to translate technical concepts like 'interoperability' and 'data standards' into concrete benefits that the public can understand and support,and the skills that will be needed throughout the public and private sectors to implement its ideas.
● There is a need to address the ‘unfashionable’ topic of the necessary data infrastructure for interoperability and usability.
● Investment is needed in open standards for data access - to overcome the problem of standards being locked down by the owners of proprietary systems.
● An emphasis on high standards of governance and modern security measures is essential.
● Multiple providers are needed to build and maintain the data infrastructure, not just one company.
● We must agree on data discovery, access, and interoperability principles.
Based on our experience working with data across sectors, we believe the digital centre should prioritise:
The digital centre must establish proper frameworks for valuing and governing public sector data assets. The National Data Library proposal represents a promising vehicle for this work, particularly for high-value datasets like NHS records, but requires more developed governance mechanisms.
As noted in our industrial strategy response, the National Data Library should be designed to be AI-ready from the outset. Our research also shows that current government data is not AI-ready - based on testing more than 13,500 pages on data.gov. Making data more Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) through standards like Croissant would enable its use in AI development while ensuring appropriate governance befitting public sector data.
This isn't just a nice-to-have. Our research into the cost of living crisis found significant gaps in available data that could help address policy problems and alleviate hardship while maintaining or upgrading state capacity and the potential for growth in productivity and more generally economic growth. Such gaps can only be addressed through sustained investment in data infrastructure.
The digital centre must address the institutional fragmentation identified in the State of Digital Government Review. Consolidating disparate digital units into a single Government Digital Service is welcome, but supporting mechanisms are required to ensure effective cross-departmental collaboration.
This fragmentation carries real costs. In our research on social prescribing data, we found that patients with long-term health conditions might need to interact with more than 40 different services across nine organisations. Connecting these services through proper data infrastructure could significantly improve patient experiences while reducing costs.
The blueprint's approach to local government collaboration requires substantial development. We’d like to see integration with the work done via MHCLG Local Digital’s to Fix the plumbing and help authorities deliver many frontline services that significantly impact citizens' lives.
A good example of comprehensive and holistic local authority involvement and support can be seen in Camden Council’s Data Charter, made in conjunction with Involve, The Turing Institute and Wellcome Trust – designed and upheld by residents – guides how the council collects, processes and shares data ethically in Camden. This Charter and its participatory design have enabled them to improve citizen experiences while maintaining public confidence. We’d welcome more of this kind of public trust building by local authorities with central government support. Without effective integration, the digital centre risks creating a two-tier system that fails to address the needs of local communities.
We think participation can:
● Empower individuals and communities by actively involving them in data collection and decision-making processes, giving them a voice to shape policies, services, and initiatives that impact their lives.
● Incorporate diverse perspectives and experiences to create inclusive and representative outcomes, promote social equity and mitigate biases.
● Enhance data quality by incorporating contextual knowledge and insights, resulting in more accurate, relevant, reliable data and informed decision-making.
● Increase people’s control over the data that relates to them, giving them a say over data collection, usage, and sharing, while respecting privacy rights and promoting transparency.
● Enable more effective problem-solving to identify local priorities, challenges, and solutions, and to promote community-driven, sustainable resolutions.
● Build trust and collaboration through open and inclusive communication, strengthening partnerships leading to more effective and sustainable interventions.
The mismatch between programme-based public sector funding and the subscription-based models prevalent in the technology industry must be addressed. The digital centre should create sustainable funding for ongoing service maintenance, dedicate resources to legacy remediation, and develop more agile funding processes suitable for digital development.
In our view, three areas stand out as particularly ripe for transformation with data:
The blueprint correctly identifies the fragmentation of services for those with long-term health conditions as a priority area. With individuals potentially accessing 43+ services across nine organisations, this represents a clear opportunity for transformative data integration that could deliver significant public value.
The complexity of this service landscape creates a substantial administrative burden for both patients and healthcare professionals. Data transformation could dramatically improve coordination, reducing duplication and enhancing outcomes through better information sharing. The potential to use privacy-enhancing technologies like Solid could give patients greater control over their data while enabling more effective service delivery.
Local authorities often lack the resources and capabilities for digital transformation despite delivering critical frontline services. The digital centre should prioritise supporting local government digital transformation, particularly for high-volume services like planning, waste management, and social care.
The current fragmentation of local government data systems creates inefficiencies and inconsistent citizen experiences. A coordinated approach that respects local autonomy while establishing common data standards and shared data infrastructure could deliver substantial improvements in service quality and efficiency. A number of councils are leading the way, including Camden Council (with their Open Data Charter) and Manchester Council offering good learning opportunities in this area, as well as the GLA in the London Datastore.
The blueprint's aim to make "the business of running a business less of a chore" represents an important opportunity for economic growth. Streamlining regulatory compliance through integrated digital services could significantly reduce administrative burden on businesses.
Small and medium enterprises particularly suffer from the complexity of regulatory requirements across multiple agencies. A unified approach to business regulation, with consistent data standards and interoperable systems, could reduce compliance costs and free businesses to focus on growth and innovation.
The blueprint identifies five initial initiatives to demonstrate the data centre's approach:
These initiatives represent a reasonable starting point, balancing user-facing improvements with internal capability development. However, several critical data aspects require further attention:
While the GOV.UK App and Wallet could significantly improve citizen experiences, their success hinges on resolving fundamental data infrastructure challenges. Without a robust data architecture that respects user agency and control, these front-end improvements risk creating a veneer of integration without delivering substantive benefits.
The Solid Protocol, of which the Open Data Institute is a steward, offers a potential solution. By implementing Solid's decentralised data model—where personal data is stored in user-controlled Personal Online Datastores (Pods)with standardised HTTP interfaces for reading/writing documents and managing access controls—the Wallet could genuinely put citizens in control of their verified credentials while enabling selective sharing with government services.
This approach would also address the current ambiguity around whether Solid implementations require certification as Holder Services under the Digital Verification Services framework. More importantly, it would establish strong user-centric data governance principles at the heart of the UK's digital government infrastructure.
Second, the focus on long-term health conditions is appropriate given the complexity of this service area, but the blueprint provides limited detail on how cross-organisational data sharing will be enabled. This initiative will require sophisticated data governance frameworks to address privacy concerns while enabling effective integration. This is an area where secure standards could be used. Our stewardship of the Solid Protocol could be useful here in evidence.
Third, the AI initiatives (GOV.UK Chat and the accelerator programme) represent important steps toward harnessing AI capabilities, but should be complemented by stronger frameworks for data quality and AI governance.
Fourth, while the vulnerability scanning service addresses an important security need, it should be part of a more comprehensive approach to data security that includes data protection and sustainable infrastructure funding.
We would recommend adding initiatives focused on:
The data centre should be evaluated through both quantitative and qualitative metrics across three key dimensions:
● Adoption rates of common data standards across departments and local authorities
● Data accessibility and usability measures, including AI-readiness
● Quality metrics for shared data resources
● Implementation of data governance frameworks
● Reduction in time required to establish data sharing agreements
● Demonstrated social and economic benefits from data sharing
● Measurable efficiency gains from reduced duplication, including quantifiable time savings for citizens and public servants
● Evidence of improved service delivery, particularly for complex service areas like health and social care
● Innovation enabled through improved data access
● Economic value generated through the use of public sector data assets
● Public confidence in data governance, measured through regular surveys
● Effectiveness of rights protection mechanisms, including resolution of complaints
● Levels of meaningful public participation in shaping data governance
● Transparency of data use, including compliance with disclosure requirements
● Adoption of privacy-enhancing technologies that give citizens greater control
The evaluation framework should incorporate both short-term operational metrics and longer-term outcome measures, recognising that significant transformation will require sustained effort over multiple years. Regular reporting on these metrics would enhance accountability and provide valuable data to guide ongoing implementation.
Based on over a decade of experience working to build an open, trustworthy data ecosystem, several critical lessons from our work at the Open Data Institute emerge for DSIT:
A recurring problem in digital transformation is finding the right balance between strong governance and fostering innovation. The early success of the UK's Government Digital Service (GDS), established in 2011, stemmed from a mix of centralised authority and relatively light-touch processes.
DSIT needs to ensure that the governance structures of the GDS guide the overall strategy without creating bureaucratic roadblocks or overly prescriptive governance that can hinder delivery teams.
Many digital initiatives suffer from unpredictable funding cycles, leading to inconsistent progress. The 2022-25 roadmap, while making some headway, ultimately fell short of achieving lasting, systemic change.
To counter this, DSIT, in collaboration with HM Treasury, must create funding models that support persistent product teams, not just short-term projects. These models need to incorporate maintenance and operational costs from the start, provide mechanisms for tackling technical debt, and allow for long-term technology investments and greater diffusion, adoption, and build-up of data skills across workforces.
Digital centres often struggle to balance centralised expertise with the need for skills throughout different departments. While the original GDS model created a hub of experts, it struggled to build sustainable capability elsewhere.
More recent initiatives, like the DDaT framework, haven't fully addressed this skills gap (although are a welcome starting point). The blueprint acknowledges the severe lack of digital and data capability in the public sector. Proposed reforms, including reviewing pay and developing talent, are necessary but potentially insufficient.
The Open Data Institute’s Data Skills Framework, as well as training courses for public sector workers, provide some elements of the ability to fix these gaps.
DSIT's efforts to establish the digital centre have demonstrated strategic intent to address long-standing challenges in UK government digitisation. The Blueprint for Modern Digital Government outlines an ambitious vision, though implementation remains in the early stages with significant gaps, particularly regarding data infrastructure and governance.
DSIT has made notable progress in several areas:
● Organisational consolidation: The unification of previously separate digital functions (Government Digital Service, Central Digital and Data Office, and the Incubator for AI) creates a more coherent central capability.
● Cross-government political backing: The establishment of the Digital Inter-Ministerial Group with representation from DSIT, HM Treasury and Cabinet Office secures high-level sponsorship across government, addressing a critical weakness of previous reform attempts.
● Practical initial projects: The five 'kickstarter' initiatives show pragmatism in balancing immediate needs (vulnerability scanning) with more forward-looking work (GOV.UK App and AI accelerator programme), avoiding over-reliance on conceptual transformation plans.
Despite these positive steps, several critical shortcomings undermine the digital centre's potential effectiveness:
● Need for a standalone data strategy: The Blueprint positions data as merely one component rather than the foundation of digital transformation. Data governance frameworks, standards, and quality assurance receive insufficient attention compared to technology initiatives. We believe that a 10-year horizon data strategy exists for the UK government.
● Limited National Data Library (NDL) specification: Despite being presented as a cornerstone initiative, the NDL lacks detailed implementation plans, governance frameworks, operating models, and technical architecture. This contrasts with our recommendations for making the NDL "AI-ready" and treating it as essential public infrastructure.
● Limited data governance frameworks: The blueprints don’t yet articulate comprehensive accountability models for data quality, standards compliance, and ethical data use across government, suggesting a continuation of current fragmentation continues to exist as a risk.
● Underdeveloped local government integration: The Blueprint acknowledges collaboration with local authorities but provides few concrete mechanisms, funding arrangements, or joint governance structures. Given that citizens experience government through multiple tiers, this gap risks perpetuating fragmented service delivery.
● Vague funding reform proposals: The commitment to develop sustainable funding models remains conceptual, with specific proposals deferred to Spending Review Phase 2. Given that the State of Digital Government Review identified funding models as a root cause of digital government failures, this represents a critical weakness.
● Retreat from open data leadership: The Blueprint makes minimal reference to open data principles, representing a notable retreat from the UK's previous position as a global open data leader. This conflicts with the ODI's position that open data provides "the best possible foundation" for public data infrastructure.
Several technical aspects of the digital centre approach require attention:
● Standards before technology: The Blueprint emphasises API standardisation without sufficient focus on the underlying data standards, taxonomies, and quality frameworks needed before APIs can be effective.
● Data governance gaps: There is limited articulation of accountability models for data quality, standards compliance, and ethical data use across government departments.
● Disconnected AI and data strategies: While correctly identifying AI as transformative, the Blueprint inadequately acknowledges that high-quality, well-structured data is a prerequisite for effective AI deployment.
To strengthen the digital centre's approach and effectiveness:
The digital centre represents a significant opportunity to address longstanding challenges in UK digital government. While its establishment demonstrates strategic intent, the current approach contains critical weaknesses in its treatment of data infrastructure and governance. Without addressing these fundamental issues, the digital centre risks developing advanced technologies on inadequate foundations, potentially repeating past transformation failures.
5. What are the barriers to successfully establishing a digital centre of government? How can DSIT address these barriers? What infrastructure and regulation is required to make the government "more digital"?
A fundamental barrier is the absence of comprehensive data infrastructure. The State of Digital Government Review identified "siloed data" as a persistent challenge, with agreements for data sharing "taking months or even years to negotiate." This fragmentation prevents the delivery of joined-up services and undermines the potential for efficiency gains.
The lack of proper frameworks for valuing public sector data assets compounds this challenge. The UK lacks frameworks for understanding and realising the value of its public data assets. This deficiency inhibits strategic investment and limits the potential for public value creation.
Additionally, the Blueprint acknowledges persistent challenges with legacy systems, with "high percentages of services depend[ing] on unsupported, unpatched legacy technology systems." These systems create significant technical debt that constrains innovation and presents ongoing security risks.
The Blueprint outlines ambitious plans for data sharing and integration but provides insufficient detail on governance mechanisms. Without robust frameworks for data protection, ethical oversight, and rights enforcement, the digital centre risks eroding public trust.
Our collective experience with data initiatives demonstrates the critical importance of transparent governance. The proposed external Responsible AI Advisory Panel represents a step toward addressing these concerns but requires careful design to ensure effective oversight.
The digital centre faces significant capability challenges, with the Blueprint acknowledging that "the public sector's digital and data capability is severely lacking." This skills shortage extends from technical specialists to senior leadership, with "most senior leaders [not getting] the training or preparation they need to run digital organisations."
The remuneration gap between public and private sectors creates a vicious cycle of dependency on external suppliers, reducing institutional knowledge and increasing costs.
The Blueprint correctly identifies the mismatch between programme-based public sector funding and the subscription-based models prevalent in the technology industry. This creates significant challenges for maintaining digital services and addressing technical debt.
The State of Digital Government Review found that only one in five respondents felt "the current funding model enabled effective investment in and running of digital services." This systemic barrier requires fundamental reform of public sector financial management.
To address the data infrastructure barrier, DSIT should:
● Implement a clear framework for the National Data Library that balances data accessibility with appropriate safeguards. This should include explicit data quality standards, interoperability requirements, and governance mechanisms.
● Develop sophisticated methodologies for valuing public sector data assets. This would enable strategic investment decisions and demonstrate the economic case for infrastructure development.
● Establish a comprehensive legacy remediation programme with dedicated funding and clear prioritisation frameworks. This should address both immediate security risks and longer-term transformation needs.
● Create standardised approaches to data sharing agreements, reducing the time and effort required for cross-organisational collaboration. These should be supported by clear legal frameworks and technical standards.
To establish adequate governance frameworks, DSIT should:
● Implement rights protection frameworks that give citizens appropriate control over their data while enabling innovation.
● Develop transparent mechanisms for algorithmic accountability, building on existing work such as the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard but extending it to cover broader aspects of data use and decision-making.
● Establish clear ethical frameworks for data use and AI implementation, with specific attention to potential biases and unintended consequences.
The Data (Use and Access) Bill presents both opportunities and challenges for the digital centre. Its provisions for smart data schemes could enable more effective data sharing, potentially addressing some of the fragmentation challenges identified in the State of Digital Government Review.
However, as we've noted in our briefing on the Bill, effective implementation requires:
● Establishing a central authority to develop and manage cross-sector smart data standards, ensuring interoperability and reducing data silos.
● Prioritising AI-ready data standards like Enterprise Knowledge Graphs to enhance data usability and support responsible AI innovation.
● Mandating an automated privacy framework to enable organisations to digitally describe data processing activities in a standardised, machine-readable way.
The National Data Library represents a significant opportunity to enhance public service delivery and enable economic growth through AI-driven innovation. It must be supported by:
● A comprehensive governance framework that balances data accessibility with appropriate safeguards, including clear data quality standards and metadata requirements.
● A value creation strategy that identifies high-value datasets with significant potential for public benefit, such as health, transport, and environmental data.
● A technical architecture that prioritises interoperability with existing systems and standards, reducing barriers to adoption and use.
● An iterative implementation approach that begins with high-value, lower-risk datasets to demonstrate value and build confidence.
Ensuring equitable access requires attention to:
● Inclusive design, with mandatory compliance with accessibility standards and regular testing and verification.
● Comprehensive digital inclusion strategies, including targeted support programmes addressing specific barriers faced by vulnerable people.
● Data-informed approaches to understanding and addressing disparities, with regular monitoring of service usage patterns to identify potential exclusion.
● Participatory governance that includes representatives from diverse communities in decision-making structures.
The recent Digital Inclusion Action Plan represents a positive step, but must be integrated with the digital centre's work to ensure coherent implementation.
Throughout all aspects of implementation, maintaining public trust through transparent governance and meaningful engagement remains essential. The ODI stands ready to support this work, drawing on our decade of experience in building an open, trustworthy data ecosystem.
12 March 2025