Deja Vu: Why the APS struggles with data maturity
I’ve just read the latest Australian Public Service Data Maturity Report... and honestly, it feels like déjà vu.
The headline? A system-wide score of 2 out of 5 which Finance optimistically labels as “Developing”.
Key areas like Data Architecture, Analytics, and crucially Data Quality & Metadata are stuck at 'Initial / Ad hoc'.
If I may be blunt: that's a woeful state for a government aiming for world-class digital capability by 2030.
This isn't just about tidy databases; poor data maturity actively blocks innovation, hinders effective policy, prevents proper data sharing, and slams the brakes on using advanced tech (like AI).
The report flags the lowest scoring area (Quality/Metadata) as a critical barrier.
But here's the kicker: We don't necessarily need brand new strategies to fix this. We just need the APS to actually implement the smart, foundational recommendations it was given... 15 years ago.
Remember The Government 2.0 Taskforce back in 2009?
Their report, and the subsequent 2010 Government Response, laid out a clear roadmap. It identified the core issues and proposed solutions that directly address the problems highlighted in Finances’ 2024 assessment of the APS data capability.
It seems we're stuck in a loop, admiring the problem rather than executing the known solution.
So, what did Gov 2.0 tell us to do that's still painfully relevant today?
Ensure Leadership: The Task Force's Central Recommendation was a high-level Declaration of Open Government stating PSI is a national resource and demanded strong central leadership (Rec 2). Finance’s 2024 assessment finds 21% of agencies STILL lack senior data leaders. Where is the accountability?
Nail the Basics - Metadata & Standards: Gov 2.0 (Rec 12.2) explicitly called for deploying endorsed metadata standards (AGLS AS 5044, AGIFT) using the Interoperability Framework. The Government’s response (2010) agreed to guide this. Finance’s 2024 assessment identifies Quality/Metadata as the LOWEST scoring area. This is the bedrock – without it, discovery, reuse, and integration remain pipe dreams.
Enable, Don't Just Block: Gov 2.0 called for guidance on enabling online engagement, addressing risks pragmatically, and providing tools (Rec 3, 4, 10). The 2024 report shows analytics and engagement maturity are still low. We need a culture shift supported by practical tools and risk management, not just risk avoidance.
The Gov 2.0 vision was clear: treat data as a national asset, enable collaboration, build a culture of openness and innovation.
So, maybe the foundational focus should be on disciplined execution of the foundational work already identified, and agreed to, years ago?
It's time to break the cycle. It's time to implement.
What will it will take for the APS to follow through and build the data capability Australia deserves?
Perhaps a look at a contrasting example offers a clue. The DTA recently published their (second) "Major Digital Projects Report". This report has clearly evolved, moving beyond just data points (like the 2024 version) into a more mature and analytical assessment in its latest iteration.
It's now providing not just data but also:
A broader narrative about the importance of digital projects and the government's approach to managing them.
Analysis of project performance, investment trends, and key challenges and successes.
A stronger emphasis on transparency and communicating project performance to the public.
Highlighting reforms and processes aimed at improving future digital project delivery.
I also especially like the part of Chris Fechner's foreword, directly linking transparency to improvement:
"Central to this work is an ongoing focus on creating the conditions projects need to succeed. Transparency is one such condition and is a cornerstone of good governance which, in turn, fosters trust and accountability. For the public, transparency means having access to information that allows them to understand and engage with government decisions and initiatives."
Ironically, the Government does not demonstrate the same level of transparency for its own Data Maturity capabilities - agency-level ratings from the Finance report remain unpublished.
This contrast highlights what might be missing in the Government’s approach to data maturity: accountability and transparency. Without sunlight on individual agency performance, is it any wonder we're stuck revisiting the same problems 15 years later?