Interview with Michael Hagedorn
Initiative D21 and the Technical University of Munich have published the eGovernment MONITOR 2026. For the study, 8,091 internet users aged 16 and over in Germany were surveyed about their experiences with public administration and their expectations of digital administrative services.
A key finding is that those who use digital public administration services are largely satisfied with them. At the same time, there remains a significant gap between this positive user experience and the expectations of a modern digital public administration.
In an interview, Materna CEO Michael Hagedorn discusses what really matters now in the digitalisation of public administration – and why a functioning, citizen-centred and service-oriented administration can also strengthen citizens’ trust in the state.
The eGovernment MONITOR 2026 paints a contradictory picture: digital public services are rated highly by their users, yet at the same time only a small minority feel that their own expectations of a modern public administration are being met. How does this fit together?
Michael Hagedorn: To me, this is less of a contradiction than a fairly accurate description of our situation. After all, the overwhelming majority of people who dealt with their most recent administrative matter entirely or partly online were satisfied with the quality of the service. In the case of purely analogue processing, the figure was just under two-thirds. And almost all digital users would choose the digital route again next time.
So we clearly do not have a fundamental problem with acceptance. People do not need to be persuaded to use digital public services; they have long since come to expect them.
At the same time, only 15 per cent of respondents feel that their expectations of a modern digital public administration have been met. The problem therefore lies primarily in reach and end-to-end accessibility. Effective digital services win people over. We must ensure that significantly more people can find them, make full use of them and actually complete their business digitally.
Completing matters digitally without any interruptions
What does this mean for the way we measure progress in the digitalisation of public administration?
Michael Hagedorn: The number of administrative services available online remains relevant, but it still says too little about the actual level of digitalisation. An application that I fill in online and which a member of staff then has to transfer manually into another system is simply not yet a fully digital process.
We see this reflected in the eGovernment MONITOR too. Only a quarter of respondents were able to complete their most recent administrative task entirely online. A further quarter experienced a mix of digital and analogue steps, whilst half completed the task entirely offline.
That is why we should think more in terms of the complete process: from the specific reason for the enquiry, through identification, the application and register checks, to processing, decision-making and digital delivery. And looking ahead, we must also ask ourselves in which cases a traditional application is even necessary at all, given that the state already possesses the relevant information.
For me, therefore, the key metric is not so much: ‘How many services are available online?’, but rather: ‘How many matters can citizens and businesses actually complete digitally and without unnecessary interruptions?
The 27th Public Administration Symposium focused on digital sovereignty. What connection do you see between sovereignty and a citizen-centred administration?
Michael Hagedorn: At the Public Administration Symposium, we discussed digital sovereignty, AI, interoperable infrastructures, specialist procedures and digital platforms in very concrete terms. It became clear to me once again that digital sovereignty is not an abstract technological issue. Ultimately, it is about the ability to act.
A public administration must be able to deploy technologies in such a way that it can fulfil its tasks sustainably, securely and reliably. To achieve this, we need clear architectures, common standards, interoperable components and defined interfaces. Particularly in a federal system, systems must be able to work together without citizens having to understand the underlying responsibilities.
The public administration must not turn its citizens into search engines for federalism.
If someone wants to register a car, apply for housing benefit or set up a business, they are understandably not particularly interested in which authority at which level of government is responsible for which step in the process. They expect clear access and a service that works. A good digital architecture manages the complexity behind the scenes.
Relieving staff of routine tasks
You often talk about thinking about digitalisation more in terms of its concrete benefits. How might that look in practice?
Michael Hagedorn: A good example is SPARK Workflow. Particularly in complex planning and approval procedures, numerous legal requirements, documents and pieces of information need to be collated and checked. SPARK structures regulations into traceable verification steps and links them to application data and documents. Deviations can be identified and verification results can be justified in a traceable manner. The technical decision remains with the responsible case officers.
To me, this is a good example of productive digitalisation. We are not replacing necessary expert assessment. We are structuring complex procedures more effectively, automating suitable work steps using agent-based AI, and relieving staff of manual, routine tasks. This enables significant gains in speed, particularly in time-consuming infrastructure procedures.
And speed is not an end in itself here. When decisions on important projects can be made more quickly whilst still being transparent, citizens and businesses experience a government that is capable of taking action.
SPARK Workflow places a strong emphasis on internal administrative processes. What does citizen-centredness look like on the other side of the process?
Michael Hagedorn: It often starts with something very simple: language and accessibility.
With the AI extension of the federal government’s form management system, citizens can enter their details in everyday language or even in their mother tongue. The AI converts this information into the required application format. At the same time, complicated official language can be made more understandable. With the ‘Smart Application’ approach, existing documents can also be scanned and relevant information assigned to the appropriate fields on an application form.
Technologically speaking, this may sound less spectacular than some of the current debates on AI. However, for someone who has previously been faced with a complicated form and first had to work out what the administration actually wanted to know from them, it makes a very tangible difference.
This also highlights what really matters when it comes to AI in public administration. We should not be asking where we can use AI everywhere. We should use it where it measurably improves a process for citizens or staff.
Viewing digitalisation through the lens of its impact
The eGovernment MONITOR also establishes a link between digitalisation and trust. Can better digital public administration actually strengthen trust in the state?
Michael Hagedorn: 41 per cent of respondents say that simple and fast digital access to government services would strengthen their trust in the state. I consider this finding to be extremely relevant.
Of course, a good online procedure will not resolve all the causes of dwindling trust in state institutions. That would be too simplistic. But people do not experience the state solely through political debates. They experience it in very concrete terms when submitting an application, obtaining a permit, moving house, setting up a business or dealing with many other administrative services.
If I can find a service quickly, apply for it in a way that is easy to understand, do not have to enter my details multiple times and receive a decision reliably, I experience a state that fulfils its responsibilities. Conversely, complicated forms, disjointed processes and long waiting times shape the perception of the state’s effectiveness just as much.
That is why we should take a more consistent, impact-based view of the digitalisation of public administration: Can people find the service they need? Can they complete their business entirely online? How quickly does the administration reach a decision? And does the technology actually help staff to do their jobs better?
As an IT service provider, we can contribute domain knowledge, public-sector experience, architectural expertise, integration capabilities and operational experience. The interaction between politics, the public sector and the private sector remains crucial.
The digital state does not need to be spectacular. It must be understandable, service-oriented and reliable.
