Data Exchange- Framework

1.1

Semantic interoperability within the DES is facilitated through either policy or technical means

Semantic interoperability refers to the system’s ability to ensure that data exchanged between different entities retains its intended meaning and format. This indicator looks at whether policies or technical solutions exist to maintain the integrity and understanding of data across systems. Effective semantic interoperability supports seamless data exchange by ensuring that all parties have a consistent understanding of the data.

1.2

Data is shared in (near) real-time through the DES

This indicator focuses on whether the data exchange infrastructure allows for sharing data in real or near-real time within its ecosystem. This capability ensures that data can be accessed and shared promptly, relying on internal sources rather than requiring data retrieval from external systems, which can introduce delays.

1.3

Technology architecture of the DES is scalable

Technology architecture is considered scalable if it can handle increased operational demands by expanding capacity and functionalities. This involves managing more users, transactions, or data loads efficiently, without the need for a complete redesign or loss of performance.

1.4

Data exchange has a federation capability

Federation capability refers to the system's ability to extend its data exchange functionalities to various levels of government beyond the central administration. This indicator examines whether the system supports seamless data sharing and collaboration across federal, state, and local governments, enhancing interoperability and data utilization across different governance levels.

2.1

A public-interest entity governs the development and operations of the DES

This indicator looks at whether a public-interest entity, which can be a public entity by default or a private entity governed by a multi-stakeholder board, oversees the data exchange system. It considers if the system’s operations and development align with public accountability and transparency, which are crucial for maintaining trust and meeting public needs.

2.2

Use of the DES is subject to transparent enrollment and participation conditions

This indicator examines whether the processes for entities to participate in or enroll in the data exchange system are clearly defined and transparently communicated. It considers if these procedures are openly available to all potential participants, ensuring equal access or participation.

2.3

Data exchange instances within the DES can be monitored in public-interest

Examines the methods to verify and review data exchange transactions. It considers if the system includes effective mechanisms to monitor the integrity of exchanged data, which is vital for safeguarding data accuracy and enhancing accountability in its handling. The focus is on the system’s capacity to trace transactions and verify them to maintain user trust and regulatory compliance.

2.4

Data exchange governance is regularly reviewed and reported on

Focuses on whether the governance framework of the data exchange system is subject to regular evaluations and public reporting. It considers if there are processes in place for periodic reviews of governance practices and the dissemination of these reviews.

2.5

Data exchange governance is informed by a multi-stakeholder group of representatives (especially from civil society, domain experts)

Considers whether the governance structure of the data exchange system includes a diverse range of stakeholders, such as representatives from civil society and domain experts. It examines the presence of multiple perspectives within the decision-making processes, indicating a broad-based approach to governance that addresses the interests and needs of various user groups.

3.1

Procedural rules for the DES (access restrictions, protections, etc.) are established

Looks at whether procedural rules for managing access to and protection of data within the data exchange system are formally established. It considers the existence of documented guidelines or policies that specify who can access the data exchange, under what conditions, and the safeguards implemented to protect the data, independent of the legal protections covered under Indicator 3.2.

3.2

Personal data on the exchange is protected by law

Considers the presence of legally binding protections specifically designed to safeguard personal data within the data exchange system. It highlights formal statutes or regulations that prevent unauthorized access and misuse of personal data, contributing to user privacy and system security.

3.3

Data and system security standards are publicly disclosed

Looks at whether the data exchange system's security standards are openly communicated and accessible to the public. It considers the transparency of the security measures, protocols, and mechanisms implemented to protect the system from unauthorized access and data breaches.

3.4

Data exchange is regularly reviewed for data protection and cyber resilience

Focuses on whether the data exchange system undergoes systematic and regular assessments for data protection and cybersecurity resilience. It looks at the system's ongoing efforts to monitor, manage, and enhance its security, ensuring the integrity and safety of data exchanges.

4.1

Data exchange across government is implemented by a coordination unit

Considers the presence of a coordination body that enables more ministries to participate in data exchanges, often initiated by an individual IT ministry. This body also helps course correct agencies’ data sharing practices.

4.2

Strategy for skills training and retention is established

Building the capacity of the data exchange to serve as infrastructure will require the state to invest in the talent and skills to improve the interoperability and efficiency of the data exchange. This might involve identifying a balance between internal and outsourced functions to create and manage for data exchange processes. This indicator is aspirational and challenging to benchmark or measure.

4.3

Budget for management of the data exchange is dedicated, reliable, sufficient

Considers the allocation of a dedicated and reliable budget for the comprehensive management of the data exchange system. It includes financial provisions for maintenance, development, documentation, training, knowledge transfer, version upgrades, and major migrations, supporting the system's sustainability and operational efficiency throughout its lifecycle.

5.1

Public entities (other than the operator of the DES) leverage the data exchange

Looks at whether public entities, apart from the system’s operator, actively utilize the data exchange. It considers how these entities leverage the system to improve their operations.

5.2

Data exchange is cross-sectoral

Examines the extent to which the data exchange infrastructure is adopted and utilized across various sectors. It looks at the system's capability to facilitate data sharing and integration between different sectors, promoting coordinated service delivery and policy-making.

5.3

Private entities leverage the data exchange

Examines the involvement of private sector entities in utilizing the data exchange system. It looks if private organizations interact with and use the system's infrastructure for their purposes

5.4

Civil society entities leverage the data exchange

Considers whether civil society organizations utilize the data exchange system. It focuses on the presence of non-governmental entities that use the system's infrastructure.