State data quality crisis: why 'single window' does not work

What we see

Citizen submits an application through my.gov.uz. System routes to MVD for check, to Soliq for tax statement, to cadastre for property check. Each of these agencies has its own copy of citizen data.

The name is spelled differently. The address is outdated. The tax ID exists but is not linked. Passport data is updated in one system, not in another.

The “single window” turns out to be a façade — behind it, the same fragmentation as before e-gov.

Why this happens

Each agency built its system separately. A historical reality.

Master Data Management is absent at the state level — there is no single source of truth.

Digitisation was project-based, not platform-based. Each project solved its own task.

Data-exchange regulations exist formally, but operating discipline does not.

Incentives to share data are low. Each agency protects “its” data.

What does not work

Build “yet another portal”. It does not solve the underlying fragmentation.

Mandatory data-exchange protocols without enforcement. Agencies ignore them.

Big-bang MDM project across the whole state. Too much scope, politically toxic.

What works

Domain-by-domain MDM. Citizen master first — it is the foundation for the rest.

Event-driven integration. Change in one domain → notification to all subscribers.

Stewardship per domain. Owner accountable for quality.

Audit and transparency. Citizens see what data the state holds about them.

Incremental, not big-bang.

What to discuss at government level

Who owns the citizen master data? Without clear ownership — nobody is accountable.

Who pays for infrastructure? This is a cross-agency capability, not one agency’s.

Which 3-5 use cases have the highest impact on the citizen? Start there.

Related

• /en/solutions/government-data-platform/ — data platform
• /en/architecture/government-master-data-management/ — MDM
• /en/insights/government-after-egov/ — after e-gov
• /en/insights/government-cross-agency-debt/ — integration debt