The contribution why Germany needs an “operating system state” first appeared at the online magazine Basic Thinking. You can start the day well every morning via our newsletter update.
In Germany, digitization of public services is often complicated. Responsible authorities and departments are heavily distributed and fragmented. Different goals, separate budgets and different schedules increase the mess. Why we need an “operating system state” – an assessment.
Anyone who wants to do something in Germany today – found a digitally – a company, apply for a permit, use a digital identity – often LALDET with a large number of responsible public bodies.
This has system: The responsibilities for digital topics are fragmented by the German authorities and scattered over departments. In addition, you have contradictory goals, separate budgets and your own schedules. This is exactly what brakes us visible, measurable, daily.
This fragmentation is not just an administrative detail, but the central structural error of German digital policy. It creates frictional losses, makes projects expensive and slow, weakens security, scares talent and finally lets innovation insist where it is most urgently needed: in administrative practice itself.
Digital state: What exactly is fragmented in the current “operating system”?
Digitization is not a policy field, but rather a cross -sectional task. This means that the consequences of digitization affect many topics and that many ministries have to deal with it. This is exactly what classic structures fail.
Identity and IT security traditionally lie with the Ministry of the Interior, digital infrastructure and network expansion at the Ministry of Transport. Data economy, platform rules and funding programs at the Ministry of Economic Affairs or Research.
FinTech interfaces and tax interfaces lie with the Ministry of Finance. In addition, there are EU requirements, the IT planning council with federal-state tasks and a award practice that forces each project into their own procurement cycles.
The result is multiple work: different data models, incompatible interfaces, parallel project teams that build on similarly sounding but not compatible solutions. What should be interoperable later has to be thought interoperable beforehand. But that doesn’t happen.
What are the causes of this fragmentation
The causes of this fragmentation of digital responsibilities in Germany described are in a mixture of political logic, federal structure and internal routines.
The principle of department, for example, ensures that ministries defend their success instead of submitting competencies – the waiver of power is understood as a weakness, which is why new presentations are better founded than responsibilities are bundled.
This problem is reinforced by federalism, which enables diversity, but leads to expensive and slow patchwork in digital but without binding platform standards.
And household and procurement law also contributes to its part: Instead of long-term product budgets and flexible procurement mechanisms, short-term projects and individual awards dominate that produce pieces rather than stable solutions.
Then there is the structural logic of projects that end after the rollout. This lacks continuous responsibility for maintenance, adaptation and user orientation. Finally, a deeply anchored risk culture blocks progress.
How the current “operating system state” brakes progress and drives costs
Because formal errors are sanctioned harder than functional failures, decisions are often delayed or completely avoided. Together, these factors form a system that slow down innovation and unnecessarily fragmented digital developments.
The consequences are slow, expensive and frustrating processes that also create or promote uncertainties – and have serious consequences: instead of smooth processes, long delays arise because there are no lack of translation errors and emergency solutions that make processes for citizens and administration equally difficult.
At the same time, the costs explode: If each position shops and operates its own solution, the effort and expenses for training, maintenance and operation are multiplying without synergies being used.
Danger for digital security
The security risks are particularly serious, because a fragmented IT landscape with different patch cycles and defense levels is much more susceptible to attacks.
The personnel question is now also pussy: talents who are looking for clarity and effects in the digital world turn away when they are caught in endless votes on skills.
And finally, confusing arises for citizens and companies if other portals, accounts and formats have to be used depending on the department or federal state.
Why a ministry called “Digital” alone is not sufficient
Now it is the case that there is now a ministry in Germany at the federal level that “Digital Ministry“Means. Having” digital “in the name alone is not enough as long as it has no right to go and budget sovereignty regarding elementary core issues.
Identity, payments, data and protocols, messaging, logging and monitoring, basic UI standards: Especially without right-hand rights, every ministry and department remains free to reinvent “its” digitally-and that is exactly the problem. We don’t need a label, we need an “operating system state”.
Fundamentals for an “operating system state”
The basis for a functioning state “operating system” is to finally make permanent “products” from sheer individual projects, ie offers for citizens.
This includes that central digital areas such as identities, payments or corporate portals are no longer reinvented every few years, but how solid “building blocks” of the operating system are treated, which are continuously developed and maintained.
In order for this to work, clear responsibilities are needed and the possibility of stopping projects if they do not meet the common standards. This is the only way to prevent every department or every federal state from going again.
It is also important to have a common technical substructure, a kind of “digital stack” with binding basic elements for identity, data models, secure communication and security. In the future, new software may only be procured if it adheres to these rules and is open enough so that other authorities or countries can also use it.
It should no longer be financed according to long wishes of functions, but according to measurable results, for example shorter processing times or higher use by citizens.
Conclusion: We need fewer chaos in digital policy
Germany certainly does not suffer from a lack of concept papers, but in my opinion from a lack of coherence. The fragmentation of digital fuss is no coincidence, it is a construction error.
A digital ministry, which I think is in principle absolutely essential (see already my claim from 2018), makes no sense without passing out and highness and decision -making powers about budgets.
What we need is a binding digital stack, product-oriented responsibility, result-based budgets and clear veto rights against island solutions. When we implement this, digital policy becomes a delivery discipline from the headline.
Then citizens, citizens or start-ups no longer have to fight themselves through a labyrinth-because there are none. That is exactly what the goal must be.
Also interesting:
- “Here is your dead grandfather”: How Deathbots should digitize grief
- Smart-Contracts: Does Germany miss the next innovation?
- This human ability is most important in dealing with AI
- Intel-Aus: An unexpected opportunity for Magdeburg
The contribution why Germany needs an “operating system state” first appeared on Basic Thinking. Follow us too Google News and Flipboard Or subscribe to our update newsletter.
As a tech industry expert, I believe that Germany needs an “operating system state” in order to effectively navigate the complexities of the digital age. An operating system state would essentially act as the backbone of the country’s digital infrastructure, providing the necessary framework and protocols for various systems and services to operate seamlessly.
In today’s interconnected world, where technology plays a crucial role in almost every aspect of our lives, it is essential for a country like Germany to have a well-defined operating system state. This would not only ensure the efficient functioning of government services, but also facilitate innovation and growth in the tech sector.
Furthermore, an operating system state would help Germany stay ahead of the curve in terms of cybersecurity and data protection. By establishing clear guidelines and standards for data privacy and security, the country can better protect its citizens and businesses from cyber threats.
Overall, a strong operating system state is vital for Germany to remain competitive in the global tech landscape and to harness the full potential of digital technologies for the benefit of its citizens. It is crucial for the government to invest in building and maintaining this infrastructure in order to drive innovation, economic growth, and social progress in the digital age.
Credits