I was recently sent an advertised government role: “Lead transformational change to improve the lives of New Zealanders.” Salary? $277-$350K.
Now I can imagine what I’d do with a small piece of $350k if applied to a small community:
✅ Fund 3- 4 roles
✅ Develop education and training for a community/digital hub
✅ Build governance & management leadership skills
✅ Deliver capability and services where it’s needed.
Seems like we are setting up new agencies, new frameworks, new monitoring systems. We call it transformation, but it’s pretty much the same old thing.
There’s no sign of transformation or devolution anywhere I’ve been looking.
Meanwhile, in the not-for-profit sector; we’ve got agile, curious, wellbeing-focused leaders (some of the words in the JD ad) doing mahi in our communities. They might be on fixed-term contracts, most likely operating with a third of the budget and, most likely have no innovative AI technology investment on hand (to lighten the workload) and improve their systems.
Here’s the goal post: Transformation doesn’t live in the halls of bureaucracy, social investment lives in communities, those tagged as ‘deprivation targets’, ‘priority areas’, ‘underserved’ are where you start with transformation. Well meaning I’m sure, yet, we keep funding agencies to create “new solutions”, monitor, restructure… and repeat.
How we invest matters.
Those who might have followed my earlier AI articles will know I’ve mentioned this inequality, of government, funders improving their own systems (because they can) and using the latest AI tech (to scan applications/check if using AI)… it’s happening.
What I’m keen to understand is, will government, agencies, grant makers and funders have the advantage? What data will they want? What will they ask for? How will technology shift the balance of power, or will it?
This June we held our Board Talk on Digital Governance and Data Sovereignty.
Our June Board Talk on Digital Governance and Data Sovereignty sparked powerful reflections and a clear call to action. While our collective understanding of digital terminology and transformation is still emerging, the kōrero affirmed that this journey demands deep investment – in education, infrastructure, and grounded frameworks. The discussion on data sovereignty raised critical questions around ownership, Te Tiriti obligations, and whether “ownership” is even the right term when applied to how data relates to individuals, whānau, and communities.
I raised in our talk how data will be gold.
Data, is how AI grows (it’s called machine learning) AI, develops on what we feed the machine (consider the information a not-for-profit might hold), so, data matters.
Our panel didn’t just explore these issues, they challenged us to lead the conversation on data governance, establish an advisory group, and advocate for a platform that enables our communities to access and shape digital and AI solutions (these are pieces of work I’ve been seeking investment and support from various avenues over the past year)! What I’m finding though is we’re told by government and funders that it’s not a priority. But if it’s not, why are their systems being upgraded with the latest AI and security software, and our systems (which are on the receiving end), are not?
If you want to get up to speed, check out the range of AI articles I’ve written over the past few months. Let’s shape this transformation together.
Some reflections from our June Board Talk kōrero:
- Understanding of digital terminology is still in its early stages
- Transformation using technology and digital systems requires significant investment and education
- Data sovereignty was a discussion covered individual ownership rights, Te Tiriti, cultural, community and should reflect our values, how we treat data is how we would care for our nan, family, friend, ourselves.
