A turning point in state-managed data governance: where is Lithuania heading?

The decentralized approach to the data architecture of state information resources that has prevailed for the last few decades is beginning to change at an accelerating pace. 

The traditional view that data structures and data needs of different state information systems should be planned and managed separately is being replaced by a new paradigm - a systemic, integrated approach to state-managed data. The aim is to ensure that each institution's data is managed centrally and that data exchanges between different systems (including with external institutions) are implemented through integration layers built on common technologies.

EY, as a team of technology consultants, is contributing to several important projects on centralization of Lithuanian state information resources, development of unified data architectures for information resources, and development of metadatabases. In our consultancy work, we observe the different levels of maturity of organizations' data governance processes and the lack of common data governance mechanisms, but at the same time we are pleased to see that such projects are taking place at the state level.

The projects to design and develop a single institutional data architecture are multi-layered and take years to complete, but the value they create is also multifaceted.

In particular, the metadata descriptions of data managed by public authorities and the implementation of centralized data exchange tools provide the basis for the accelerated development of e-services in the country and the secure and efficient use of such services. And there is still a lot of potential here. According to the EY study "Engaged Citizens", Lithuanians do not lag behind Western Europe in terms of e-services usage, and in some areas they are even ahead. For example, 66% of Lithuanians use public services online, compared to 23% in Germany, 46% in the UK and 51% in France.  The same study shows that Lithuanians are most looking forward to technological breakthroughs in education, healthcare and public services.

This is why investment and leadership in this area is important: organized, cleansed, integrated data at a national level is essential for AI solutions and a new quality of service for citizens and businesses.

In addition, projects to centralize public information resources minimise the duplication of data, reduce the risk of errors and inaccuracies and create the preconditions for systematic data lifecycle management. These benefits are tangible, since, based on our experience, errors and inaccuracies caused by poor data management can cost an organization tens of thousands of euros per year.

In cooperation with national institutions, we see that in the medium term, Lithuanian public institutions and bodies will focus on common enterprise service bus (ESB) and extract-transform-load (ETL) layers with centralized data exchange environments and data transformation components. Investments will also be made to modernize existing point-to-point information system integrations by moving them to common institutional integration layers built on common technologies and control mechanisms. The third area is the development of metadata management tools to support the production of machine-readable metadata inventories and the exchange of metadata.

However, all these investments will only be effective if institutions start to set up data management units, creating positions responsible for managing the data architecture and the quality and availability of data and its metadata. It is the team of specialists and their competences that will be the key to the success of these projects.

Another important point is the periodic audits of data management and data quality assessment. The continuity of the centralization projects in the future must be ensured by consistent evaluations that quantify the quality of the data used in key business processes.

In summary, the implementation of the architectural vision for interoperability of public data has direct links to national and EU-supported public information resource initiatives. The latter are focused on building a seamless data architecture for government-managed data and on the secondary use of data. Thus, the development of the necessary metadata management tools and architecture would enable Lithuania to carry out public data accessibility and reuse projects at national level and to develop a unified data ontology at national level. The qualitative and economic benefits would be felt by society as a whole. Therefore, the first projects to centralize data governance are setting the right strategic direction.