Unequal couple seeks joint departure
![[shutterstock: 1063275593, Yurchanka Siarhei]](https://e3magpmp.greatsolution.dev/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/shutterstock_1063275593.jpg)
Blockchain technology has now arrived as an important topic at many federal and state authorities. 52 projects can be identified for Germany and the federal states in the various digitization strategies. However, the majority of the projects on blockchain technology and its possible application options are still in the idea phase.
This is shown by a new study by Bearingpoint, which identified, analyzed and evaluated all currently ongoing projects and plans for blockchain technology in public administration in Germany. The study shows that the discussion on the digital innovation blockchain is being conducted on a broad basis in public administration in Germany.
Many public authorities are now aware of the importance of this digital technology and have embraced this important topic for the future in order to be able to align their own service offerings with the future. However, of the 52 projects in the federal and state governments, 31 are currently still in the idea or planning phase.
The leap from an idea and an initial concept to a pilot or even a live system accessible to citizens is still a long way off. Thus, on a ten-point scale, the average maturity level of all the projects and plans considered is currently only 2.42.
Feasibility studies are available for many projects, but technical concepts for further implementation in practice are generally still lacking. The federal government's average maturity rating of 2.84 for 19 projects is slightly better than that of the Länder with 2.18 for 33 projects.
As the Bearingpoint study shows, the benefits of blockchain in public administration are expected across the board primarily in the automated verifiability of identities and in the tamper-proofing and availability of data. In organizational terms, the greatest challenge is that the maturity of the technology is not yet assessed as sufficient to make a decision to build a process on the platform of a blockchain.
DE
EN
ES
1 comment
Werner Dähn
Was sich mir nicht erschließt ist, warum sollte eine zentrale Organisation eine Lösung bauen, die mit großem Overhead dafür sorgt, dass es keine zentrale Organisation geben muss?
Blockchain basiert auf zwei Grundsätzen:
1. Nichts kann verändert werden, immer nur hinzugefügt werden. Alternative ist eine Insert-only Tabelle.
2. Es gibt keine Zentralinstanz der man vertrauen muss, sondern wenn die Mehrheit der Server sagt: “Das ist richtig”, dann gilt es. Alternative ist eine Datenbank als Backend.
Wenn jemand der öffentlichen Verwaltung nicht vertraut, dann hilft auch eine Blockchain nichts. Und wenn man der öffentlichen Hand vertraut, dann kann man auch deren Datenbank vertrauen. Damit erreicht man das Gleiche zu einem Bruchteil der Kosten und des Overheads.
Sieht irgendjemand einen Fehler in meiner Argumentationskette?