Strolling through informatics #33 – Governing digital transformation in the national interest (part two)

previous #32 –––         

by Enrico Nardelli

(versione italiana qua)

We began reflecting in the previous post on the need for serious political action to govern digital transformation, analyzing the infrastructure sector, the data management problem and the case of education. We resume and conclude with this post, which is also the last in the series: I therefore take this opportunity to thank IRPA's Digital State Observatory for their hospitality, inviting those who wish to explore the topics covered in this "stroll" in greater depth to read my book The Computer Revolution.

In Public Administration (PA), we continue to emphasize the importance of digital transformation, without understanding that generals without adequate armies can accomplish nothing. In the absence of a significant number of hires of high school and university graduates in informatics, PA efficiency and effectiveness will not improve. And while I'm confident that "digital soldiers" emerge well-trained from our schools and universities, which prepare high school and university graduates in informatics who distinguish themselves wherever they go in the world, I have some doubts that public management is generally capable of understanding the importance and implications of using informatics in organizations. In many, too many, ministries and public entities, people have remained stuck with a vision of informatics as "siloed" mechanization of individual data processing functions, disconnected from a global and process-oriented vision of relationships between the organization itself, its interfaces in the PA network and citizens. All complicated by a traditional view of automation, according to which once the execution of a function has been entrusted to a machine, the problem can be considered solved. In the case of informatics this is not so, the true informatization of services is always under maintenance (see the post How to address digital transformation), because reality itself is in continuous evolution. But if you don't have "in-house" people capable of carrying out this maintenance, if you must continuously resort to external suppliers, costs and times balloon intolerably.

In the private sector we still have a cultural deficiency, discussed here, which has so far held back the productive system. But there's also another important consideration. Our industrial fabric is made up mostly of micro and mini enterprises, which have made creativity, flexibility and speed the key to getting from a defeated and destroyed country after World War II to the world's seventh industrial power. These don't use digital technologies or use them little not because – as some say – they are pervaded by "amoral familism" or haven't understood their competitive advantage potential, but because overly rigid computer systems would constitute the molasses that would kill them quickly.

The typical Italian industrialist – not at all stupid and who has made flexibility and speed of change his strategic weapon – has intuited this and stayed away from it: primum vivere! He understood that the only good informatics is "personalized" informatics that accompanies the company flexibly, as if it were a person, but which is able to work without getting tired and without making mistakes, as unfortunately happens to people. And this cannot be obtained simply by buying "turnkey" solutions, as happened with previous technological innovations, but is obtained only if you have available technicians capable of developing such personalizations as the need arises. While entrepreneurs have always been agile in modernizing production lines whenever they glimpsed a market opportunity, in the case of digital automation they have prudently remained on the sidelines, understanding the danger of its rigidity that risked making them waste economic resources.

The problem therefore is not only the culture of businesses, but also the vision of politics. Providing public funding for digital transformation of businesses can be a positive measure, but if it then materializes mainly in buying foreign machinery and solutions, it's difficult for it to contribute to the country's revival.

Alongside defining a development model designed in the interest of the entire country's growth, a massive program of support for training active workers should be implemented, which cannot be limited to the necessary end-user digital skills but should give them the conceptual and cultural tools necessary for Sistema Italia to be competitive in this area.

All this shouldn't be so difficult to understand, for those in politics. And I know very well that politicians – contrary to the common belief that wants them to be freeloaders – are super-busy at all levels, from local to national. I fear, however, that we're neglecting a bit too much a sector that is strategic for the country's future. This doesn't mean letting technicians take charge. On the contrary, in every era and country, those who wanted to bring technicians to government, presenting them as priests of impartiality, have always actually wanted to remove from the people (the demos) the power (the cratos) to control the government's work. They have therefore moved in an anti-democratic way. Digital technology is no exception to this. Computer systems are not intrinsically neutral. Digital transformation is not an absolute guarantee of efficiency and effectiveness. Technology must be, as always, at the service of politics to implement this or that decision.

Politics must decide how to govern this digital transformation, well knowing that epochal changes of this magnitude are not realized in the few years of a legislature and with unrealistic plans. This is why a cross-cutting agreement on a country development plan in light of the ongoing computer revolution is necessary, one that finds everyone in agreement, at least on some fundamental guidelines. We therefore need politicians who care about democracy and our country's future, who are capable of listening to what technology has to offer, of understanding what the possible social impacts might be, and of composing a synthesis of different social classes' needs in everyone's interest.

Strategic long-term state action is needed, similar to that carried out in the post-war period with IRI to rebuild an industrial fabric that would support the country's development: a strategic plan for "digital reconstruction" is necessary. I recall that IRI, with its public-private partnership model, was admired in Europe as a "third way" for growth, between market and nationalization.

I'm convinced that, in all parties, there are people of good will and great political capacity. Together, we can make it.

[[The posts in this series are based on the Author's book (in Italian) La rivoluzione informatica: conoscenza, consapevolezza e potere nella società digitale, (= The Informatics Revolution: Knowledge, Awareness and Power in the Digital Society) to which readers are referred for further reading]].

--
The original version (in italian) has been published by "Osservatorio sullo Stato digitale" (= Observatory on Digital State) of IRPA - Istituto di Ricerche sulla Pubblica Amministrazione (= Research Institute on Public Administration) on 21 May 2025.