Category: Work (Page 3 of 9)
The OECD Recommendation on the Governance of Digital Identity has been adopted by Ministers. This marks the culmination of several years’ work — for me, a process of close collaboration with Barbara and Cecilia and the OECD’s E-Leaders Working Party of Senior Digital Government Officials. In that time we’ve developed important conceptual foundations with our work in Chile and then captured some excellent global comparative experiences in this compendium for the G20.
In the course of developing this Recommendation I’m particularly proud of how we brought in a wide range of perspectives in the development. We started with an attempt at user research by sitting down with digital identity teams from across the OECD, we workshopped through early iterations of the recommendations, convened an external group of experts and then used the Observatory of Public Sector Innovation’s dedicated consultation platform to open up the earlier draft for public comment.
Honestly it was a bit of a fight to do all of these extra, but value adding, steps (and frustratingly subsequent exercises on these lines have regressed to a PDF and an email address) but this wasn’t cosmetic. The feedback loop with civil society, experts and ordinary citizens mattered. And you can see the difference: between the draft consulted on and the final version endorsed by Ministers, the text gained sharper language on inclusion, stronger recognition of user control, clearer obligations on oversight and redress, and a deeper emphasis on cross-border trust.
This exercise in consultation didn’t just give the Recommendation greater legitimacy, it has made it a better instrument. As usual, a reminder to make things open, because it makes them better.
What’s the TL;DR?
Digital identity is critical public infrastructure.
This Recommendation commits OECD countries to govern digital identity not as a narrow technical scheme but as a core enabler of trust, inclusion and international interoperability. It sets out a principles-based framework under three pillars: user-centred inclusion, robust governance, and cross-border portability.
Why it matters
Identity verification has always been essential but in the digital age, physical cards and passports alone are not enough. Digital identity underpins access to services, participation in the economy and cross-border transactions. Yet it is also risky: touching privacy, security, liability, inclusion and trust. That makes governance fundamental. The Recommendation’s narrative frames digital identity as critical digital public infrastructure, on a par with connectivity, payments and registries.
What the Recommendation covers
The Recommendation is structured around three main pillars:
- User-centred and inclusive systems
- Apply service design methods to make digital identity effective and usable.
- Prioritise accessibility and affordability; preserve non-digital alternatives.
- Encourage privacy-preserving and consent-based solutions, with user control over attributes and credentials.
- Provide support and skills-building for those excluded or struggling to access services.
- Monitor, evaluate and publish performance to ensure accountability.
- Strengthening governance
- Treat digital identity as strategic: set a long-term vision, clarify roles and responsibilities, and establish clear oversight.
- Anchor systems in privacy and security by design, with risk-based assurance levels.
- Align legal and regulatory frameworks, including liability, dispute resolution and redress.
- Promote public–private collaboration, healthy markets, and openness to alternative models.
- Establish trust frameworks and ensure ongoing investment, resilience and environmental sustainability.
- Anticipate emerging risks and adapt governance accordingly.
- Cross-border portability
- Identify priority use cases for cross-border interoperability.
- Cooperate internationally to map legal requirements, align trust frameworks and technical standards, and explore regulatory experimentation.
- Avoid discrimination against foreign users; clarify liability in cross-border transactions.
- Designate national points of contact and produce roadmaps for recognising each other’s credentials.
The up-front narrative
The Recommendation opens with a compelling scene-setting:
- Digital identity is essential for societies, economies and democracies.
- Physical documents alone are no longer adequate.
- Governance must balance opportunity with risks: from inclusion and adoption to liability and cybercrime.
- Trust between public and private actors is critical, requiring strategy, regulation and international cooperation.
- User-centred design and democratic values are non-negotiable foundations.
This narrative positions digital identity not just as a technical matter but as a social and political choice about how trust is mediated in digital societies.
The value of consultation
The consultation period was pivotal. The draft text (publicly available through the OPSI engagement platform) contained the core structure, but the open feedback helped us to strengthen:
- Language on equity and inclusion.
- Recognition of vulnerable groups and minorities.
- Provisions for transparency, redress and dispute resolution.
- Sharper commitments on privacy, user control and limiting data trails.
- A clearer roadmap for international collaboration and cross-border trust.
That all helped to make sure that the final version is not only more robust it is also more legitimate because it is shaped by voices beyond government insiders.
Why OECD Recommendations matter
Recommendations are not binding law, but I’d like to think that they matter:
- They are adopted by Ministers as collective political commitments
- They become benchmarks for national reform and peer review
- They are monitored and revisited — in this case, a formal review in 2028
- They shape international norms and guide other fora (e.g. G20, EU, World Bank)
All of the above should mean that they are viewed as helpful and reliable sources of inspiration and reference when OECD members, and then particularly candidates for accession, are thinking, planning and delivering their approaches to digital identity.
The blurb
The Recommendation on the Governance of Digital Identity was adopted by the OECD Council meeting at Ministerial level on 8 June 2023 on the proposal of the Public Governance Committee (PGC). The Recommendation aims to guide Adherents in their efforts to successfully establish domestic approaches to digital identity that are user-centred, trusted and well-governed and in so doing create the conditions for achieving the ambition of full international interoperability to realise the value of digital identity across geography, technology and sectors.
The G20 Collection of Digital Identity Practices has been published and reflects a brilliant period of close collaboration between the OECD team (my lead, under Barbara’s oversight and with Cecilia’s great support), the Italian government (grazie Daniela) and governments from across the G20 and beyond.
We ran quite an extensive survey that has allowed us to bring together examples from across the G20 and its partners, showing how different governments are approaching digital identity.
What’s the TL;DR?
A comparative mirror of digital identity in 2021.
The report documents how countries are designing, governing and using digital identity; the role identity played through COVID-19; and what it takes to make identity usable, portable and trusted. It doesn’t prescribe a single model; it surfaces patterns, trade-offs and enabling conditions.
Who’s in the compendium?
The survey and annex capture practices from: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, the European Union, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, Türkiye, and the United Kingdom.
Full information was unavailable for Democratic Republic of Congo and Mexico whose approaches are under development, and a note is included on the United States on the use of state-level credentials rather than a single federal solution.
Why digital identity matters
Identity is core public infrastructure. It underpins access to services, economic participation and cross-border movement. Yet it sits at the intersection of technology, law, institutions and public trust: one part infrastructure, one part service, one part social contract.
What the report covers
- Policy & norms. Legal identity rights, privacy, consent, security, and emerging ideas like SSI and EU wallet proposals.
- COVID-19 use cases. Digital identity enabling continuity of services, payments, logistics and vaccination credentials.
- Enabling conditions. Leadership and funding, UX choices, privacy and oversight, driving adoption, and three forms of portability (cross-platform, cross-sector, cross-border).
The big patterns
- No one-size-fits-all. Context shapes what’s viable.
- Governance is the hard part. Technology is rarely the blocker; clarity of mandate, oversight and coordination are.
- Interoperability lags ambition. Everyone talks about it, few achieve it.
Takeaways
- Identity adds most value when embedded in everyday life across sectors and borders.
- Keep user experience front and centre and not just for citizens but cruicially the relying parties who are essential to adoption.
- Give people visibility and control over their data.
- Anchor systems in comprehensive governance: clear mandates, laws, collaboration and resources.
The blurb
This report acts as a descriptive guide to the experience of digital identity for individuals and a potential departure for future work to realise the opportunities offered by trusted and portable digital identity. It presents the policy and normative context for digital identity, uses of digital identity during the COVID-19 crisis and the necessary enabling conditions for successful development and adoption. This report was originally submitted to the G20 Digital Economic Task Force in July 2021.
Too often, digital is treated as a specialist brick laid by others. But real transformation happens when digital becomes the mortar and binds teams, cultures, and missions together. This framework argues that while investment in digital, data and technology professions and leadership are essentials, the key to unlocking sustainable, whole of government transformation is making digital everyone’s business.
This framework emerged from work led by the OECD’s Digital Government and Data Unit. I had the privilege of co-authoring the paper alongside Lucia Chauvet, supported by the Working Party of Senior Digital Government Officials (E-Leaders) and its Thematic Group on Digital Talent and Skills. It builds on years of OECD collaboration in this space — drawing lessons from country reviews, global case studies, and shared experience from digital leaders across the world.
Since publication, the framework has been embedded in OECD Digital Government Reviews and country support work. It’s designed to be actionable — not just a diagnostic tool, but a map for reform.
One example: we used it as the basis for work with the Government of Tunisia, which led to a resource called Understanding Digital Government — a companion website (formerly at understanding-digital-government.com) in French and Arabic. We worked with Public Digital to design a set of training materials that would help public servants engage with and learn about the five digital government user skills. Sadly, that site is no longer live. I had always hoped we’d be able to translate those materials into every OECD language, but like many good ideas, that ambition outpaced our capacity.
We also used that Tunisian project as an opportunity to work with the School of Good Services to provide training to the most senior decision makers across the Tunisian local government sector.
What’s the TL;DR?
Digital, data and technology are transforming how we live, and also how we work. This is as true in the public sector as anywhere else.
Governments that want to deliver in a digital world need more than just technical upgrades; they need capable, confident, and collaborative teams. That means:
- Creating a working environment that encourages transformation,
- Defining and nurturing the skills that matter,
- And building the systems to attract, grow, and retain a digital-capable public workforce.
This paper presents the OECD’s framework for digital talent and skills, structured around those three imperatives, each grounded in real-world examples and practices from member and partner countries.
The Three Pillars of the Framework
Pillar 1: Create an environment to encourage digital transformation
Governments need more than strategies — they need workplaces where digital ways of working can thrive. That means:
- Digital leadership that’s visible, user-centred, and empowering;
- Organisational structures that enable multidisciplinary work and reduce hierarchy;
- A learning culture where experimentation is safe and valued;
- Tools and ways of working that support agility and delivery.
Pillar 2: Skills to support digital government maturity
Skills aren’t just about technical roles. The framework identifies that countries need to be mindful about the foundational “21st century skills” needed across society for people to thrive in the digital era and then identifies four categories of capability that rest on top:
- User skills — digital basics for every public servant
- Socio-emotional skills — collaboration, adaptability, resilience
- Professional skills — the know-how for delivering digital services
- Leadership skills — the ability to model and enable transformation
Each of those areas covers the detail needed to achieve a long-lasting and sustainable transformation and is grounded on raised expectations for all members of society and providing them with levels of digital competency that mean they fully thrive in our Internet-enabled world.
This has implications for government. And a critical observation in the framework is that digital government should not solely be the preserve of those in the digital, data and technology professions. Central to the framework is an expectation that governments should pursue a new baseline expectation for public sector workers to acquire a grounding in five core skills:
- Recognising the potential of digital for transformation1
- Understanding users and their needs2
- Collaborating openly for iterative delivery3
- Trustworthy use of data and technology4
- Data-driven government5
Pillar 3: Establish and maintain a digital workforce
It isn’t possible for governments to click their fingers and swap their existing workforce for a ‘digital’ one. And nor should they want to.
The answer to digital transformation is about having a workforce that is digital. There are important professions and career paths that need to be established but more importantly is creating an ongoing process that can enhance and equip everyone in the public sector to contribute to digital transformation.
This pillar focuses on how governments can:
- Attract digital talent through flexible recruitment and employer branding;
- Retain people by investing in culture, career progression, and equity;
- Support growth through structured development, mentoring, and learning opportunities;
- Build the systems to allocate skills effectively across teams and priorities.
The blurb
The rapid pace of technological advance and associated potential for the use of data have not only changed the way people live but also the way people work. This digital disruption hits all sectors, including the public sector, and this working paper emphasises pathways for developing a public sector workforce with the necessary skills to achieve successful digital transformation. It presents the OECD Framework for Digital Talent and Skills in the Public Sector, which highlights the need to create the right working environment, secure the right skills, and evolve the right workforce to support a progression from e-government to digital government.
- When a public servant recognises the potential for digital transformation they:
* identify, describe and analyse practical examples of digital transformation;
* look at the status quo of existing processes and identify opportunities for digital transformation;
* have a growing network of digital government practitioners to turn to for advice and challenge;
* understand, and can challenge, whether new activity involving technology is consistent with wider strategic activity;
* oversee and develop new digital, data or technology activity in ways that
complement broader strategic activities
* can ask relevant, informed, and challenging questions when they have oversight responsibility for digital, data and technology activity ↩︎ - When a public servant understands users and their needs they:
* champion and explain the value of user research and participate as part of user research exercises;
* can identify the users affected by their area of work, and define the user needs their work meets;
* can identify where their work interacts with, receives from, or hands off, to another part of government and recognises the importance of an end to end understanding of the user’s journey;
* recognise the different channels and modalities involved in the provision of a service and can map the user’s journey, including associated internal steps;
* understand the importance of tackling the digital divide and the priority, roadmap and strategy for accessibility, national connectivity and increasing 21st century skills in society ↩︎ - When a public servant collaborates openly for iterative delivery they:
* can explain the benefits of ‘working in the open’ and argue positively for an open by default approach
* can implement participatory approaches to their area of work to genuinely include their users
* understand the value of diverse, multi-disciplinary teams and expect to involve policy, delivery and operational colleagues to ensure a fully-rounded perspective on any given topic
* can explain the benefits of an iterative approach to delivery
* understand different phases of delivery (e.g., Discovery, Alpha, Beta, Live) and are clear about the benefits of researching, prototyping, testing and
learning on an ongoing basis;
* have an understanding of open source code and the community-based processes that support them
* know where to find, and appraise, the suitability of common standards, components and patterns ↩︎ - When a public servant is trustworthy in their use of data and technology they:
* understand their responsibilities in the workplace around information security and data handling or processing
* are confident in terms of digital security and clear about password policies
* understand the legal requirements on them as individuals in terms of their handling of data to protect the privacy of citizens
* are comfortable considering the ethical dimensions associated with the use of digital technologies or data, including knowledge of any relevant instruments such as Good Practice Principles
* understand the support and activities associated with maintaining a reliable service
* ensure that contracts with third party suppliers are consistent with the digital government agenda ↩︎ - When a public servant knows about data-driven government they:
* are aware of the individuals or organisations that are responsible for the data agenda
* understand the priority, roadmap and strategy for taking the steps to establish a data-driven public sector
* are familiar with the governance arrangements for access to and sharing of data
* are confident in their legal and ethical obligations for the treatment of data
* recognise opportunities for how interoperability, the Once Only Principle and access to transactional data can support the better design of services
* adopt an empirical approach to the use of data for generating public value in terms of Anticipating and planning, Delivery, and Evaluation and Monitoring
* understand the value of Open Government Data to government, and the wider ecosystem. ↩︎
These Good Practice Principles were developed by the Working Party of Senior Digital Government Officials Thematic Group on the Data-Driven Public Sector.
This group had been instrumental in ensuring the value of the experiences highlighted and questions answered through The Path to Becoming a Data-Driven Public Sector and the Data-Driven Public Sector Working Paper.
Lucia and I initiated this work under the leadership of Jaron Haas, Simone Schoof and Marieke Schenk from the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (MINBZK) in the Netherlands. We then workshopped elements of it in Paris during the Expert Group Meeting on Open Government Data prior to the pandemic.
The ultimate value of this exercise owes itself to Arturo’s leadership after he took on the responsibility of stewarding the Data-Driven Public Sector thematic group during this challenging period. He is indebted to the support of those countries but especially Natalia Domagala on behalf of the UK and Omar Bitar on behalf of Canada for getting to their final state.
What’s the TL;DR?
As governments deepen their use of data and AI, ethical guidance becomes critical. These 10 principles from the OECD are designed to help public officials protect the public interest at every stage of the data lifecycle. They go beyond compliance—emphasising public integrity, trust, and responsible innovation.
The principles stress:
- Putting people and the public interest at the centre
- Being transparent, inclusive and accountable
- Managing risks proactively, especially in automated decision-making
Here are the OECD’s 10 Good Practice Principles for Data Ethics in the Public Sector:
- Manage data with integrity
- Be aware of and observe relevant government-wide arrangements for trustworthy data access, sharing and use
- Incorporate data ethical considerations into governmental, organisational and public sector decision-making processes
- Monitor and retain control over data inputs, in particular those used to inform the development and training of AI systems, and adopt a risk-based approach to the automation of decisions
- Be specific about the purpose of data use, especially in the case of personal data
- Define boundaries for data access, sharing and use
- Be clear, inclusive and open
- Publish open data and source code
- Broaden individuals’ and collectives’ control over their data
- Be accountable and proactive in managing risks
Public trust in government is shaped not just by what services are delivered, but how they are delivered, and that increasingly means how data is handled. As digital technologies and AI become part of the machinery of public decision-making, it’s not enough to comply with the law. Citizens expect more: transparency, fairness, inclusion, and accountability.
These principles recognise that data is never neutral. The choices made by public officials – what data to collect, how to use it, when to automate – have real consequences for people’s lives. The OECD’s guidance offers a practical compass: helping governments navigate complexity without losing sight of the human stakes involved.
The blurb
The Good Practice Principles for Data Ethics in the Public Sector presented in this paper seek to shed light on the value and practical implications of data ethics in the public sector. They aim to support public officials in the implementation of data ethics in digital government projects, products, and services such that:
- i) trust is placed at the core of their design and delivery and
- ii) public integrity is upheld through specific actions taken by governments, public organisations and, at a more granular level, public officials.
This paper came about as a collaboration between us in the OECD’s Digital Government and Data Unit, and our sibling team, the Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI). It gave me a nice opportunity to work with Jamie Berryhill from OPSI whose previous work had included a focus on AI as well as Blockchains Unchained.
This was a paper for which we commissioned an external consultant: Juho Lindman, an academic at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. Filling out the team was my colleague Mariane from the Digital Government and Data Unit.
While Juho held the pen on the paper, it was a collaborative exercise in framing the argument and grappling with the ideas. I worked with Mariane on the 4th chapter and the discussion about digital maturity. For me it’s vital that in any conversation about blockchain we talk far less about its potential as a solution, and far more about whether public sector teams are equipped to ask the right questions and choose the right tools.
Because let’s be clear – in most cases, blockchain (or distributed ledger technology) is not the answer. This paper doesn’t just say “don’t believe the hype”, it explores why the hype emerged, how governments can see through it, and what to do instead.
This isn’t a framework in the same sense as some of our other OECD outputs so it doesn’t frequently feature in our in-country analysis. However it has been a helpful reference point for others with at least 40 citations (as of June 2025). And we hope it is helping to shift the conversation from “look at all these blockchain pilots!” to a more sober “perhaps blockchain isn’t the panacea we thought.”
We were invited to speak on a number of panels off the back of this work, and while the blockchain conversation continues to evolve, this paper remains a valuable counterbalance — especially in a public sector still vulnerable to buzzwords.
What’s the TL;DR?
Governments around the world have explored blockchain technologies, often with great fanfare. But beyond a few small pilots, meaningful public sector impact has been minimal.
This paper asks why — and offers four angles to understand what’s really going on:
- Is blockchain viable, valuable, or vital for government?
- What myths have inflated expectations?
- What distinguishes projects that succeed (or don’t)?
- And are teams equipped to make wise choices?
It’s not anti-blockchain. But it is sceptical. And where many saw disruption, this paper encouraged reflection.
Themes in the paper
Blockchain: Viable, Valuable, or Vital?
The paper proposes a simple but effective lens: that blockchain might be viable (technically possible), but that doesn’t make it valuable (worth doing), or vital (essential). Public sector adoption often leaps to the latter categories without pausing to assess whether a blockchain is even needed. Our contention is that it is only those situations where all three criteria are met that blockchain should be part of the discussion.
10 myths about blockchain in the public sector
The second chapter of the paper is dedicated to some myth-busting. Juho systematically engaged with the following ten myths
| Myth | Response |
|---|---|
| (Public) blockchains are disrupting the public sector all around the world | Blockchain-related public services that have actual users are very rare |
| It is impossible to build successful blockchain applications for the public sector | There is no obvious reason the public sector could not develop, implement, and use blockchain solutions |
| There is one obvious way to apply blockchain technology in the public sector | Blockchain could bring benefits to a number of areas |
| If you build it, users will come | Users need to be presented with the benefits of blockchain-enabled services |
| If it is blockchain, it needs to be big and disruptive | Small, pragmatic, and evolutive blockchain implementations are just as valuable |
| Nobody knows how blockchains are implemented | Technology and corresponding skills have developed in both the public and private sectors in recent years, and there is greater access to external skills (e.g., through partnerships or procurement) |
| Blockchain is a generic technological solution, like AI | Uses for blockchain technology are much more limited in their scope |
| We are not tech people and should not care about detailed design decisions like blockchain | Decoupling design from the implementation does not seem warranted |
| Results of blockchain projects contribute to blockchain knowledge | Experimentation is important, but those lessons and takeaways should be shared |
| Users care that services are based on blockchain | All other things being equal (e.g., equitable decisions, privacy of personal information, etc.), service end users do not generally care which technological infrastructure provides them with a service |
Success and non-success in government blockchain projects
The paper investigates a number of different examples of public sector blockchain projects, looking to determine whether any of them have achieved any levels of ‘success’. We were interested in projects:
- that have already launched (“gone live”) and obtained users
- where the user base is not limited to test users
- where users are demonstrating continued use of the service
We further considered success in terms of projects themselves, or in the benefits it brought to organisations.
In the case of projects we felt that these ideas would contribute to the success of a project:
- addressing a clear, specific business goal
- using appropriate technology
- identifying and managing relevant stakeholders
- engage end users with the service’s design
- addressing problems encountered during implementation and pursuing unforeseen opportunities
While on the other side of the coin, we felt that these were non-success factors that would prevent good blockchain based outcomes:
- disruptive projects are generally more complex and difficult to implement at scale
- deploying projects with limited scalability may be impossible or not worth the effort (notwithstanding the learning opportunities they provide)
- the lack of clarity regarding the legal or regulative side hinders service deployment
Teams, maturity, and organisational readiness
The blockchain question is almost never about the chain itself but whether or not the organisation has the capability to weigh options calmly, test ideas quickly, and adopt the right tool for the job. Mature teams:
- understand the problem before the technology;
- use the viable / valuable / vital test to filter hype;
- work in-the-open, iterating with real users; and
- draw on a common, government-wide platform of standards, data and guidance.
When those ingredients are missing, the conversation shouldn’t be “Should we do a blockchain project?” but “Why are we vulnerable to shiny-object syndrome in the first place?”
In other words, this paper doesn’t banish blockchain, it simply raises the bar. Only when a team shows real digital maturity, and only when all three V’s line up, does a blockchain solution make sense.
The blurb
Blockchain remains a hot topic for digital transformation and innovation. In the private sector, blockchain has demonstrated disruptive potential through proven use cases. However, despite strong interest and greater awareness, blockchain has had minimal impact on the public sector, where few projects have moved beyond small pilots. At the same time, there is a growing scepticism and cynicism about public sector blockchain. This paper seeks to understand why this is, by analysing the latest research in the area and identifying and analysing government experiences with successful and unsuccessful projects. It provides early findings on beliefs, characteristics, and practices related to government blockchain projects and the organisations that seek to implement them, with a focus on factors contributing to success or non-success. Although blockchain has yet to affect government in the ways that early hype predicted, government decision makers will nonetheless need to understand and monitor this emerging technology.