The Supreme Audit Office (NKÚ) offers a sober view of digitalization: money is not lacking, but a leader, coordination, and rigorous measurement of results are missing. Since 2015 it has carried out 30 audits; some projects have been revived, others have revealed systemic weaknesses. The key to progress is working with data, transparency, and strengthening digital competencies already in schools.
Money is not lacking; a leader and direction are missing
Digitalization in Slovakia is not underfunded: in 2022–2024 alone, more than 1,6 billion euros went into this area, plus tens of millions from EU funds and 561 million euros in the Recovery Plan. In the coming years, approximately 2,5 billion euros are prepared in Program Slovensko. The problem is not the volume of resources, but their efficient and purposeful use and the state’s ability to manage projects. A clear leader is missing to set priorities and coordinate ministries, and the action plans of the National Concept of Informatization have remained largely on paper.
Fragmented competences across key ministries and thousands of municipalities lead to fragmentation and competition instead of cooperation. Moreover, the Recovery Plan requires performance management and the fulfillment of measurable targets; otherwise the funds may not be reimbursed. In such an environment, it is essential to have stable rules, a unified architecture, and rigorous evaluation of benefits for citizens. Without that, even large allocations will remain untapped potential.
Where it breaks down: procurement, management, and measurement
A frequent weak spot is public procurement set to the lowest unit price, which pushes projects into time and quality stress. Implementers then fall behind schedule and only a few months remain for the actual delivery of the solution. This translates into compromises in quality, unfinished integration, and problems during deployment. The result is systems that do formally come into being, but do not deliver the expected benefit.
Another problem is weak project management and a minimum of measurable indicators, often just "the system runs" and "it has X modules." In this way it is impossible to assess whether the investment has brought benefits for citizens and institutions. The state also suffers from a shortage of in-house experts and inadequate remuneration, so contracting authorities cannot clearly specify needs or be an equal partner to suppliers. User-friendliness and real needs are revealed only at the end, when it is already late and expensive to correct.
Lessons from practice and what really matters
Failures are cautionary: eHealth and registers in healthcare have long failed to meet expectations, and EU auditors have pointed to lagging behind in working with data. In education, there is repeated investment in "hardware" and connectivity, but digital textbooks, syllabi, and cyber protection for schools are missing. The Unitas project, which was supposed to unify the collection of taxes and contributions, stopped after the first stage and practically faded out. Alongside that, however, there are also examples of revived solutions after audits, for example in the cadastre or e‑portals.
Why does all this make sense? Only high-quality data will make it possible to hold public policies to account and verify whether we are spending economically, and open information systems strengthen transparency and civic oversight. Artificial intelligence can streamline analyses, benchmarking, and risk identification, but it needs to be deployed purposefully and responsibly. Finally, without enough qualified computer science teachers in primary schools, we will not build the digital skills the state urgently needs.
