The _Digital Public_ *
The "tech for good/development (T4D)" landscape is undergoing a pivotal transformation, moving from a focus on individual Digital Public Goods (DPGs) to an ambitious vision of integrated Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI). For years, we celebrated the impact of standalone, open source solutions like DHIS2 in health and Mojaloop in finance. These DPGs in its value proved the power of reusable technology to tackle specific development challenges. Now, the ecosystem is consolidating around a more powerful, "whole-of-government" approach, heavily inspired by the success of national scale platforms like IndiaStack and GovStack. By integrating foundational layers for digital ID, payments, and data sharing, India catalyzed strong financial inclusion, boosting its banked population from 17% to 80% in under a decade and empowering massive private sector innovation.
This shift, beyond trend, is now institutionalized at the highest levels. The UN, World Bank, UNDP, and major IGOs and philanthropies are all aligning their strategies and funding to support countries in building out their national DPI, with my hope of DPGs serving as the critical building blocks. I am a firm believer in this future, yet my conviction is not without its questions highlighting hurdles. This is a reflection on my current challenges and frowns with both DPGs and DPIs, and a call to the community to move from critique to constructive action.
The DPG Dilemma: A Victim of Its Own Success?
My admiration for the DPG ecosystem is immense. The benefit of having a list of vetted, open source solutions that countries can adopt and adapt is a game changer for development. However, as the ecosystem matures, the very processes designed to ensure its quality and integrity are showing signs of strain.
A significant challenge I've encountered is the under-resourced review pipeline. The Digital Public Goods Alliance (DPGA) has done a commendable job in establishing a standard for what constitutes a DPG. This hope to bring a much-needed level of trust and quality assurance. The DPGA has 2 main functions: the 'standard' & 'registry'. However, it appears the 'registry' stream doesn't receive the same level of attention or resources as the 'standard' stream. This can lead to delays and a sense of being deprioritised for impactful projects that are already creating public value but seek the official DPG recognition to scale further. There is also lack of effort in creating value proposition for individual projects to be a registry listed solution.
This brings me to another critical gap: the lack of clear maturity indicators for individual DPGs. While there are murmurs and discussions about developing such indicators, tangible progress seems elusive. For implementers and funders, understanding the maturity of a DPG beyond its initial vetting is crucial. Questions around the vibrancy of its community, the robustness of its governance, and the sustainability of its maintenance are often left for each entity to assess independently, leading to duplicated effort and inconsistent evaluations.
Instead of simply lodging a complaint, the question becomes: how can I help? The open source ethos that underpins DPGs should also apply to the ecosystem's own challenges. I believe many of us with experience in project management, software development, and governance could offer our expertise to the review process. Could we establish a community-driven peer-review system to augment the DPGA's capacity? Could we form a working group to collaboratively define and pilot maturity indicators? The answer, I believe, is a resounding yes - but this ecosystem feels less open than usual open source project ecosystem. What's the pipeline of contribution?
The DPI Definition Quagmire
My challenges with DPGs are compounded when we zoom out to the broader concept of Digital Public Infrastructure. As astutely pointed out in a recent LinkedIn article by my friend Aparna, and her co-author Friederike, "Words Matter: Why clear definitions are the cornerstone of good work." This sentiment resonates deeply with my experience in the DPI space.
The term 'DPI' is now ubiquitous in development circles, yet there is no single, commonly understood definition. This ambiguity, while perhaps a natural part of a nascent field, is starting to create friction. Different stakeholders often have divergent interpretations of what constitutes DPI, leading to misaligned expectations, fragmented efforts, and a lack of coherence in national strategies. Without a shared language, how can we effectively collaborate to build these foundational systems?
The call to action here is one of collective clarification. We need a concerted effort to move towards a more harmonized understanding of DPI. This doesn't necessarily mean a rigid, one-size-fits-all definition, but rather a framework that outlines the core principles and components of DPI while allowing for contextual adaptation. This is a conversation that needs to involve not just technologists and policymakers, but also civil society, academia, and the private sector. DPGA has made some effort to clearly define - but from what I hear, there was a preference by stakeholders to keep the term flexible - so it can cater to everyone's preference. Imagine my with my biggest eye roll.
From Frustration to Collective Action
My frustrations with the current state of DPGs and DPIs are born from a deep-seated belief in their transformative potential. The path from standalone solutions to integrated, human-centric digital ecosystems is the right one. But to walk it effectively, we must address the growing pains.
This is not a passive complaint, but hope for proactive engagement. I, us, as a community, need to step up. Let's offer our time and skills to strengthen the DPG review process. Let's collaborate to build the maturity indicators we all need. And let's work together to forge a clearer, more inclusive definition of DPI. The challenges are real, but so is our collective capacity to solve them. The future of digital development depends on it.