Creation of a federal technology department.

Problem

• Technology responsibility is fragmented within the federal government: computer science, data, information, AI, and cybersecurity are housed in different departments. This leads to unclear responsibilities, slow decision-making, and a lack of strategic leadership.
• Switzerland is lagging technologically. While other countries are deliberately investing in AI and digital infrastructure, there is a lack of clear direction here, which increases dependence on foreign countries.
• Without clear responsibility, Switzerland remains reactive rather than shaping key technologies such as AI – with risks to competitiveness and digital sovereignty.
• Without technology competence at the leadership level, the state lacks the ability to strategically manage digital risks and opportunities. A pattern that, in the private sector, has been proven to lead to falling behind and loss of competitiveness.
• The federal government is heavily dependent on foreign providers for critical digital infrastructure. Without in-house development competence, the ability to reduce dependencies and develop Switzerland's digital operating system is lacking.

Solution

• The initiative establishes a federal technology department that consolidates computer science, data, information, cybersecurity, and AI. This falls within the competence area of the Federal Council and does not require a constitutional amendment.
• Anchor technology competence in the Federal Council: A member of the Federal Council explicitly takes responsibility for digitalization, AI, and cybersecurity—analogous to the CTO in successful companies.
• A central federal agency with overarching competencies approaches processes from the ground up digitally. With its own software development and agile working methods, it digitizes the federal administration step by step, thereby strengthening the state's digital sovereignty.
• Leadership positions in the federal administration require proven digital core competencies. Only those who understand digital processes can take responsibility for and shape them.
• The federal government is creating a shared data exchange infrastructure modeled after Estonia’s X‑Road. All federal agencies are required to collect data once and share it via standardized interfaces.

Public support

Total votes: 95

Breakdown: FullyOnBoard: 54, SoundsGood: 27, NeedForDiscussion: 4, Concerns: 4, NothingAgainstIt: 4, NoChance: 2

Discussion

• Christian T. (2026-05-21): This is an organizational issue that the federal government could address and solve on its own responsibility. The legislator is not needed for that. Thus the problem was misunderstood: lack of incentives and focus on efficiency and digitization in the administration.
• ↳ Oliver Herren (2026-05-26): That is exactly the point. The federal government could have tackled this for years and hasn't. Without clear responsibility at the Federal Council level, incentives, prioritization, and continuity are missing. Organizational change in an administration without a structural framework remains a statement of intent. Failed federal IT projects illustrate this vividly.
• Bernie Beachman (2026-05-13): I’m not sure whether a new department would solve this problem. The issue isn’t a lack of resources, but the nature of the decision-makers—officials who make decisions in “protected workshops” without economic relevance. Only private markets and their strong incentives can better steer such misconduct. But with the pervasive dominance of new technologies and the demands of a modern state, a new department would absolutely take these circumstances into account.
• ↳ Tobija Fischer (2026-05-13): I don’t believe in this duality that all public authorities are supposed to be inefficient while all private enterprises are automatically super efficient. In my experience, larger IT firms (which are usually taken into account in procurement for digital federal projects) also have massive overhead and, as external service providers, bear the same responsibility for failed IT projects as the responsible federal authorities. Or am I completely wrong?
• ↳ Bernie Beachman (2026-05-13): I would like to reply to Tobija's comment. The world is not perfect, and I don't think the private sector can solve all problems. But incentives simply work better than plans. What needs to be tightened in the public sector is control and compliance. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed or prohibited. But I don't see how an authority can keep up with technological development – even just in the security area! By the time Bern realizes what the latest Claude can do, our private data has already been in Russia and China for a long time.
• Thomas Mathis (2026-04-18): I have the exciting task of getting digital transformation moving in a canton. They have been working on it for a while and keep running into the same dead end: a “graveyard” mentality in the departments/directorates because of money. Cross‑cutting digitalisation projects fail unless the federal government sets a standard (Justizia, etc.). Even then they always ask themselves, “How do we tackle cross‑cutting projects?” Not only at the federal level but also at the cantonal level, this department needs to exist as a separate entity. And they have the money. The challenge comes with prioritising the projects. There are of course the essential ones, but all the others have to be weighted. Ideally by added value, but that brings us back to the tech‑department problem. A federal/cantonal architect should be able to add a tech‑department assessment alongside value, so that pure infrastructure/tech‑department projects also get traction. It is very difficult to take into account the democratic and consensus‑oriented culture.
• Mathias Aebischer (2026-04-08): Pro: - A dedicated department could help advance key topics at the strategic level - A holistic view beyond individual silos can avoid duplication and create synergies - Paths between technology experts become shorter Contra: - Existing synergies would be lost by separating certain specialists (BFS & OGD, Landesverteidigung & BACS) - The distance between technology and subject‑matter specialists grows - Responsibility must largely remain with the offices/subject‑matter specialists who know the existing problems and conditions, which can lead to a diffusion of responsibility