One Year of OZG 2.0: The Digital Administration Still Awaits Its Breakthrough
One year after the enactment of the Online Access Act 2.0, the results are sobering. The big promises remain, but noticeable progress for citizens and administrations is scarce. A central solution has long been on the table: Cloud-native technologies. The BSI itself recommends containerization, Kubernetes, and modular architectures—not as a fad, but as a solid foundation for a secure, scalable, and modern administrative infrastructure.
We have been working with these technologies for years, in complex IT environments, under the highest security requirements. And we see: It works—if the political framework is created to actually implement it.
What Esther Menhard reveals in her insightful article on netzpolitik.org is the gap between aspiration and reality: Much has been announced, but almost none of it has been tangibly realized in the everyday lives of citizens. And this is systemic.
Patchwork Instead of System
The vision was clear: All administrative services digitally accessible, end-to-end digitized, interoperable, and citizen-friendly. The reality: Services function differently depending on the federal state, some applications must be sent by mail despite online forms, and digital forms are still printed and filed in offices.
The causes run deep: a federal patchwork of incompatible standards, historically grown jurisdictional boundaries, and a financial situation that leaves little room for investment. Instead of unified platforms, isolated solutions dominate—technically, organizationally, and politically.
New Structures, Old Problems
With Karsten Wildberger (CDU), a Federal Digital Minister was appointed for the first time. A glimmer of hope—after all, digitization is now institutionally upgraded. His new Ministry for Digital and State Modernization (BMDS) is to create 150 new positions. The plan: An app as a gateway to administrative services, cloud-first, AI, and bureaucracy reduction.
But this initiative also threatens to fizzle out as long as structural blockages are not resolved. Because the OZG 2.0 itself remains toothless at a crucial point: It does not allow the federal government to set binding standards for digital services if the states do not cooperate. And they continue to insist on their right to have a say.
Architecture Before App
As Malte Spitz from the National Regulatory Control Council aptly says: “We have taken the steps in the wrong order.” Before digitizing services, a common IT architecture is needed—and a modernization of the registers on which all administrative processes are based.
A digital frontend is of little use if paper prevails in the backend. Without end-to-end digitization—from application to archiving—everything remains a facade.
Monitoring: The Big Gap
Another problem is the lack of transparency. The law provides for monitoring, but remains vague. Concrete usage figures, quality metrics, or implementation statuses are hardly accessible—let alone openly available. The OZG dashboard shines with green checkmarks but says nothing about whether a service actually works or is being used.
Spitz puts it succinctly: “Just because a service has a green checkmark doesn’t mean it’s being used or even utilized by many people.”
Our Perspective: Act Now—with European Technologies
We are at a critical point as a society. The loss of trust in governmental capability is growing—not only due to sluggish digitization but also due to geopolitical tensions, new security threats, and increasing dependence on non-European platforms.
Therefore, we say: Now is the time to reset administrative digitization with clear focus and technological expertise.
The BSI has long recommended the use of cloud-native technologies, including containerization and Kubernetes—not as an end in itself, but because they are modular, scalable, and secure. This is precisely what an administration needs that wants to be resilient and future-proof.
And we should rely on European providers. Not only for data protection reasons but because digital sovereignty has become a security policy necessity. Those who want to withstand global conflicts must maintain control over their digital infrastructures.
Conclusion: Less Symbolic Politics, More Architecture
The OZG 2.0 was an overdue step—but so far, not a real advancement. The fundamental problems have been identified. The technologies exist. What is missing is the political will to implement them.
What we need now is not a new digital strategy. But the willingness to break up existing structures, define clear standards—and finally start.
Not someday. But now.