12  Building a Shared Technology and Data Future for the United Nations

12.1 Scenario

The United Nations system consists of many organisations, agencies, programmes, funds, regional bodies, and specialised entities. These organisations have different mandates, funding models, operating environments, and technology requirements.

Over time, individual entities have developed or purchased their own:

  • software systems;
  • cloud services;
  • data platforms;
  • public data portals;
  • connectivity arrangements;
  • analytical tools; and
  • technical-support services.

This decentralised model has allowed organisations to respond to their own needs. However, it has also created duplication, inconsistent standards, weak interoperability, and high costs.

The UN system spends more than $2 billion each year on software, cloud services, connectivity, and related support. Much of this spending takes place separately across entities, limiting opportunities to obtain economies of scale or develop shared capabilities.

The UN is also a major custodian of global public data and statistics, including information on:

  • population and migration;
  • poverty and development;
  • public health;
  • humanitarian emergencies;
  • conflict and peacebuilding;
  • food security;
  • education;
  • climate and environmental risks; and
  • progress toward international development goals.

Despite the importance of this information, many UN data platforms remain fragmented and duplicative. Individual entities maintain parallel systems that often cannot exchange data easily. This creates blind spots, duplicated effort, slower analysis, and missed opportunities to understand interconnected global challenges.

Senior UN leaders have proposed two major responses:

  1. a Technology Accelerator Platform to modernise operations and expand shared information and communications technology services; and
  2. a UN System Data Commons, supported by shared data infrastructure and designed to improve interoperability across UN entities.

Under the proposed model, entities would retain data that genuinely needs to remain separate, while data that can be shared would be made available through common infrastructure. Collective financing and governance incentives would be introduced to support participation.

The proposal has broad support in principle. However, there is disagreement about how it should be implemented.

12.2 The immediate decision

A group of UN entities has been asked to participate in the first phase of the Technology Accelerator Platform and UN System Data Commons.

The pilot will focus on a fictional regional crisis involving:

  • severe drought;
  • food insecurity;
  • population displacement;
  • disease outbreaks;
  • disrupted education;
  • rising humanitarian needs; and
  • pressure on national and local public services.

At least eight UN entities hold relevant information. However, they use different:

  • country and location codes;
  • geographic boundaries;
  • definitions of affected populations;
  • vulnerability indicators;
  • data formats;
  • software platforms;
  • access rules;
  • update schedules; and
  • quality-assurance procedures.

Some datasets are publicly available. Others contain sensitive information about displaced people, children, health conditions, conflict-affected communities, and humanitarian operations.

Senior leaders want an integrated decision-support platform within nine months. They believe it could provide decision makers with a clearer picture of the crisis and help organisations coordinate resources.

Before the pilot can proceed, the participating entities must agree on:

  • the scope of shared technology services;
  • the governance structure for the Data Commons;
  • common interoperability standards;
  • rules for data access and reuse;
  • financing responsibilities;
  • exceptions for data that must remain separate;
  • accountability for quality and security; and
  • incentives for entities to participate.

Your group has been appointed as the UN Technology and Data Transformation Panel.

12.3 Key tensions

12.3.1 Shared services versus organisational independence

Some leaders argue that common technology platforms would reduce duplication, improve security, and lower costs.

Others are concerned that centralisation could:

  • reduce organisational autonomy;
  • create dependence on a system-wide platform;
  • fail to meet specialist operational needs;
  • introduce a single point of failure; or
  • allow larger entities to dominate decisions.

12.3.2 Open sharing versus responsible restriction

The proposed Data Commons is based on the principle that shareable data should be made available across the UN system.

However, not all information can be treated in the same way. Some data may need to remain restricted because of:

  • privacy;
  • humanitarian protection;
  • national security;
  • political sensitivity;
  • agreements with governments or partners;
  • intellectual-property restrictions; or
  • risks to vulnerable populations.

The panel must decide how “shareable data” will be defined and who can authorise exceptions.

12.3.3 Common standards versus existing systems

Interoperability requires common definitions, metadata, identifiers, formats, interfaces, and quality expectations.

However, replacing all existing systems would be costly and disruptive. Some entities have already invested heavily in specialist platforms.

The panel must determine whether entities should:

  • replace their existing systems;
  • connect them to a shared data backbone;
  • adopt common standards gradually; or
  • use a combination of these approaches.

12.3.4 Collective financing versus local budgets

Shared infrastructure creates system-wide benefits, but costs may not be distributed evenly.

Larger entities may be able to contribute more, while smaller entities may benefit significantly but have limited funds.

There is also a risk that entities will continue investing in separate systems while expecting others to finance shared infrastructure.

12.3.5 Voluntary cooperation versus enforceable governance

Previous coordination initiatives have often depended on voluntary participation.

Some stakeholders argue that collaboration will remain limited unless common standards and shared-service requirements are mandatory.

Others argue that formal enforcement would be difficult because participating entities have distinct mandates, governing bodies, and funding sources.

12.4 Stakeholder roles

Assign one role to each participant. In groups with fewer than five members, participants may combine roles.

12.4.1 Role 1: UN System Transformation Executive

You are a senior leader responsible for delivering organisation-wide reform.

12.4.1.1 Your priorities

  • Reduce duplication and unnecessary technology spending.
  • Demonstrate visible progress within nine months.
  • Build shared capabilities that benefit the entire UN system.
  • Strengthen the UN’s credibility in a rapidly changing digital environment.
  • Ensure that reforms support both internal operations and services to Member States.

12.4.1.2 Your concerns

  • The programme may become delayed by inter-agency negotiations.
  • Entities may support reform publicly but resist practical changes.
  • A small pilot may not produce meaningful system-wide savings.
  • Failure could weaken confidence in future transformation initiatives.

12.4.1.3 Questions you should raise

  • Which decisions must be made centrally?
  • What results should be delivered in the first nine months?
  • How will entities be held accountable for participation?
  • How will benefits and savings be demonstrated?

12.4.2 Role 2: Chief Information and Technology Officer

You are responsible for the shared technology architecture and the Technology Accelerator Platform.

12.4.2.1 Your priorities

  • Consolidate duplicative technology services where practical.
  • Improve cybersecurity, resilience, and technical support.
  • Develop reusable cloud, connectivity, identity, and integration services.
  • Avoid replacing specialist systems unnecessarily.
  • Create a scalable architecture that can support future AI and digital initiatives.

12.4.2.2 Your concerns

  • Existing systems may be outdated or difficult to integrate.
  • A single platform could become too complex or vulnerable.
  • Entities may demand extensive customisation.
  • Technology may be blamed for problems that are actually caused by weak governance or inconsistent business processes.

12.4.2.3 Questions you should raise

  • Which services should be shared across the system?
  • What should remain under local control?
  • Should the pilot use one common platform or a federated architecture?
  • What technical standards are essential for interoperability?

12.4.3 Role 3: Chief Data Officer and Data Commons Lead

You are responsible for the governance, interoperability, and long-term value of the UN System Data Commons.

12.4.3.1 Your priorities

  • Establish common metadata, identifiers, definitions, and interfaces.
  • Make data easier to find, access, combine, and reuse.
  • Define clear data ownership and stewardship responsibilities.
  • Introduce transparent data-quality and lineage information.
  • Ensure that the Data Commons supports local, regional, and global analysis.

12.4.3.2 Your concerns

  • The project may create another portal rather than a genuinely connected data system.
  • Entities may share data without sufficient metadata or quality controls.
  • Common standards may be treated as optional.
  • Data may be copied centrally without clear ownership or maintenance responsibilities.

12.4.3.3 Questions you should raise

  • What does it mean for data to be interoperable?
  • Who remains accountable for data contributed to the Commons?
  • What minimum metadata and quality standards should apply?
  • How should access and reuse decisions be recorded?

12.4.5 Role 5: Representative of a Participating UN Entity or Member State Partner

You represent an organisation that produces valuable data but has limited financial and technical capacity.

12.4.5.1 Your priorities

  • Preserve the ability to meet your organisation’s specific mandate.
  • Ensure that shared systems respond to local and operational needs.
  • Receive financial and technical support for participation.
  • Avoid unfunded requirements or forced replacement of effective systems.
  • Ensure that Member States and local partners benefit from the transformation.

12.4.5.2 Your concerns

  • Larger entities may control the platform and governance process.
  • Central standards may not reflect local contexts.
  • Your organisation may contribute data but receive little practical benefit.
  • Shared infrastructure may create new costs or dependencies.
  • Data may be interpreted without sufficient country or sector context.

12.4.5.3 Questions you should raise

  • What incentives and support will participating entities receive?
  • How will smaller organisations influence decisions?
  • Who pays for system integration and ongoing maintenance?
  • How will local context and Member State needs be preserved?

12.5 Group task

Your group must prepare a recommendation for the first phase of the Technology Accelerator Platform and UN System Data Commons.

The recommendation must address the following five areas.

12.5.1 Select an implementation model

Choose one of the following approaches.

12.5.1.1 Option A: Centralised platform

Create a common UN technology and data environment. Participating entities would progressively migrate selected systems and datasets onto the shared platform.

Potential benefits

  • Stronger standardisation.
  • Lower duplication.
  • Easier central security and support.
  • Greater potential for economies of scale.

Potential risks

  • Loss of entity autonomy.
  • Complex migration.
  • A possible single point of failure.
  • Difficulty accommodating specialist needs.

12.5.1.2 Option B: Federated network

Entities would retain their existing platforms but connect them through shared standards, interfaces, identity services, and governance arrangements.

Potential benefits

  • Preserves existing investments.
  • Supports organisational independence.
  • Allows gradual implementation.
  • Reduces the need for large-scale migration.

Potential risks

  • Continued duplication.
  • Inconsistent implementation.
  • More complex integration.
  • Greater reliance on voluntary cooperation.

12.5.1.3 Option C: Hybrid, phased model

The UN would centralise selected common services while connecting specialist systems through a federated data architecture.

The pilot would focus on a limited number of datasets and shared services before expansion.

Potential benefits

  • Balances standardisation and autonomy.
  • Allows early delivery and learning.
  • Prioritises high-value areas.
  • Reduces immediate disruption.

Potential risks

  • Boundaries between central and local responsibilities may remain unclear.
  • Temporary arrangements may become permanent.
  • Savings may take longer to appear.
  • Governance may become complex.

Your group may modify one of these models, but you must explain the changes.

12.5.2 Define the governance structure

Decide which bodies and roles are required.

Possible elements include:

  • a UN System Technology and Data Board;
  • an executive programme sponsor;
  • a Technology Accelerator Platform team;
  • a Data Commons governance office;
  • entity-level data owners;
  • entity-level data stewards;
  • technical service owners;
  • a protection, privacy, security, and ethics panel;
  • representatives of smaller UN entities;
  • Member State or regional representatives; and
  • specialist working groups for standards and interoperability.

Your governance structure must clarify:

  • who sets mandatory standards;
  • who approves exceptions;
  • who owns contributed data;
  • who resolves disputes;
  • who is accountable for security and quality; and
  • who can approve expansion beyond the pilot.

12.5.3 Establish participation and financing rules

Agree on a model for funding shared infrastructure and encouraging entities to participate.

Possible approaches include:

  • contributions based on organisational size;
  • contributions based on technology expenditure;
  • a central transformation fund;
  • usage-based charges;
  • donor or Member State funding;
  • subsidies for smaller entities;
  • mandatory use of shared services for selected functions; and
  • financial incentives for retiring duplicative systems.

Your group should also decide what happens when an entity:

  • refuses to adopt a mandatory standard;
  • continues operating a duplicative platform;
  • cannot afford integration work; or
  • wants the benefits of shared services without contributing resources.

12.5.4 Set minimum pilot conditions

Select five mandatory conditions that must be satisfied before the crisis-response pilot goes live.

Possible conditions include:

  • a clearly defined operational purpose;
  • named data owners and stewards;
  • agreed common identifiers and definitions;
  • minimum metadata requirements;
  • documented data lineage;
  • quality thresholds;
  • standard application programming interfaces;
  • role-based access;
  • privacy and protection assessments;
  • security testing;
  • rules for restricted data;
  • audit logging;
  • incident-response procedures;
  • retention and deletion rules;
  • financing commitments;
  • entity participation agreements;
  • Member State consultation; and
  • a formal review before expansion.

The group must prioritise only five.

12.5.5 Decide what should be shared

Classify the pilot’s data into three categories:

12.5.5.1 Category 1: Shared by default

Data that can be made widely available across participating entities or publicly released.

12.5.5.2 Category 2: Shared under controlled access

Data that may be used only by authorised users for defined purposes.

12.5.5.3 Category 3: Retained separately

Data that should not enter the shared environment because the risks or restrictions outweigh the benefits.

Consider the treatment of:

  • aggregated food-security statistics;
  • health-facility capacity;
  • individual health records;
  • locations of displaced populations;
  • humanitarian beneficiary lists;
  • school closure data;
  • satellite and environmental data;
  • conflict incident data;
  • staff security information; and
  • free-text field reports.

For controlled or excluded data, identify the safeguards or evidence required before broader sharing could be considered.

12.6 Required group output

Prepare a five-minute report-back containing:

  1. Your chosen implementation model
  2. Your proposed governance structure
  3. Your financing and participation approach
  4. Five mandatory conditions for the pilot
  5. One example of data in each sharing category
  6. Your most important unresolved risk

Each stakeholder should briefly state:

  • what they supported;
  • what compromise they made; and
  • whether they would approve the pilot.

12.7 Prioritised discussion questions

1. Should the UN adopt a centralised, federated, or hybrid model for shared technology and data?

Consider cost, interoperability, security, resilience, organisational independence, and the feasibility of implementation across diverse entities.

2. Which decisions should be made at the UN system level, and which should remain with individual entities?

Distinguish responsibilities for standards, infrastructure, data ownership, access, quality, security, and operational use.

3. What five controls must be mandatory before data is integrated into the UN System Data Commons?

Prioritise the controls that are most important for producing useful, secure, and trustworthy information.

4. How should the UN define “shareable data,” and who should have authority to approve restrictions or exceptions?

Consider privacy, humanitarian protection, political sensitivity, public benefit, local context, and the risk of future data misuse.

5. What financing and governance incentives would make organisations genuinely collaborate rather than continue building separate systems?

Consider mandatory standards, shared funding, subsidies, cost recovery, representation in decision-making, technical support, and consequences for unnecessary duplication.