Open Forum #80 Creative Workshop Mix Fix Tech Driven Solutions to Societal Challenges

Summary

This discussion focused on exploring how technology can enhance understanding of public and societal challenges, rather than simply providing solutions. The session was a collaborative workshop between Lithuania and Norway, examining tech-driven approaches to complex governmental problems. Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy highlighted the country’s impressive achievements in digital governance, ranking 6th in the European Commission’s 2024 e-government benchmark and operating the successful GovTech Lab Lithuania, which has solved over 100 real-world public sector challenges through partnerships with startups and innovators.

Norway’s Chief Public Procurement Officer emphasized the importance of opening procurement processes to diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies, while noting challenges in working across bureaucratic silos for mission-oriented solutions. The interactive workshop portion involved participants working in groups to analyze specific public sector challenges using randomly assigned technology cards, encouraging them to think from a technological perspective about problem-solving approaches.

Two main challenges were discussed in detail: the exclusion of marginalized voices in digital service co-creation, and supporting people with intellectual disabilities in financial transactions. For the first challenge, participants explored how technologies like quantum computing, process mining, and agentic AI could free up public service employees to engage more directly with constituents while providing proactive government services. The second challenge involved developing personalized AI solutions that could adapt to individual conditions and capabilities, potentially incorporating medical data and stress indicators, while using augmented reality or metaverse environments for safer interactions.

The workshop revealed important ethical considerations, particularly regarding decision-making autonomy for vulnerable populations and determining appropriate levels of government, medical, or financial institution involvement in personal choices.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Technology as a lens for understanding problems rather than just solving them**: The session explored how technological perspectives can enrich understanding of societal challenges themselves, moving beyond the typical approach of viewing technology solely as a solution.

– **Digital governance achievements and GovTech ecosystems**: Lithuania’s success in digital transformation was highlighted, including their 6th place ranking in EU e-government benchmarks and the GovTech Lab’s role in connecting government institutions with startups to solve over 100 public sector challenges.

– **Procurement challenges and market engagement**: Discussion of how public sector procurement functions need to effectively engage with diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies, emphasizing the need for simple, predictable, and fast processes while building trust and cooperation between different organizational cultures.

– **Cross-governmental collaboration and structural barriers**: The challenge of addressing complex societal issues that don’t fit within traditional bureaucratic silos, requiring cooperation across ministries, local governments, municipalities, private sector, and NGOs.

– **Inclusion of marginalized voices in digital services**: Workshop groups explored how to include people who are not active in digital spaces in policy and institutional feedback loops, discussing solutions like proactive public services using AI and diverse channels to reach underserved populations.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how technological perspectives can enhance understanding of public and societal challenges, facilitate knowledge sharing between Lithuania and Norway on digital governance and innovative procurement, and engage participants in collaborative problem-solving through interactive workshops.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and optimistic tone throughout. It began formally with welcoming speeches that were informative and achievement-focused, then transitioned to an energetic, interactive workshop atmosphere. The tone remained constructive and solution-oriented, with participants actively engaging in co-creation exercises. Even when discussing complex challenges like marginalization and ethical dilemmas, the conversation stayed focused on possibilities and learning rather than dwelling on obstacles.

Speakers

– **Liucija Sabulyte**: Workshop moderator/organizer, appears to be involved in organizing discussions on technology and societal challenges

– **Dag Stromsnes**: Norwegian Chief Public Procurement Officer, Agency for Public and Financial Management, expertise in public procurement and working with startups

– **Participant**: Role/title not specified, expertise not mentioned

– **Magne Hareide**: Workshop assistant/moderator, appears to be from DFO (Norwegian organization), expertise in innovative public procurement

– **Lina Viltrakiene**: Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy, expertise in digital governance and GovTech

– **Dovile Gaizauskiene**: Workshop moderator/facilitator, colleague of Liucija Sabulyte, expertise in workshop facilitation and co-creation sessions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Lena Viltraitenė**: Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy (Note: This appears to be the same person as Lina Viltrakiene, likely a transcription variation of the name)

# Workshop Report: Technology as a Lens for Understanding Public and Societal Challenges

## Executive Summary

This collaborative workshop between Lithuania and Norway explored an innovative approach to public sector challenges, positioning technology not merely as a solution provider but as a lens for enriching problem understanding. The session brought together participants to examine how technological perspectives can transform the way we perceive and address complex governmental problems, featuring insights from both countries’ digital governance experiences.

## Welcome Speeches and National Perspectives

### Lithuania’s Digital Governance Achievements

Lina Viltrakienė, Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy, presented Lithuania’s impressive digital transformation achievements:

– 6th place in the European Commission’s 2024 e-government benchmark

– 8th position in the World Bank’s GovTech Maturity Index

– 10th ranking in the OECD’s Our Data Index

She highlighted GovTechLab Lithuania’s success in solving over 100 real-world public sector challenges through partnerships with startups and innovators, with 70% of institutions continuing to operate these solutions. Viltrakienė emphasized Lithuania’s approach of balancing “sovereignty and cybersecurity with interoperability and open innovation.”

### Norway’s Procurement Innovation Perspective

Dag Strømsnes, Norway’s Chief Public Procurement Officer, shared insights from Norway’s experience with innovative procurement, particularly highlighting the Startoff project that won a European prize. He emphasized the importance of opening procurement processes to diverse suppliers while acknowledging significant challenges in working with startups.

Strømsnes identified key barriers startups face: “They don’t have time, they don’t have resources, they don’t have knowledge, they don’t have leadership.” He stressed the need to make processes “simple, predictable and fast” for startup engagement, while also noting the cultural differences between public sector buyers with permanent contracts and entrepreneurs who “don’t know if they have a salary in two months.”

He advocated for cross-governmental cooperation, noting that “bureaucratic structures are not designed for mission-oriented challenges that span multiple organizations.”

## Workshop Framework and Methodology

### Foundational Approach

Workshop moderator Liucija Sabulytė articulated the core premise: “Usually we think of technologies as a solution to the problem. And this time we try to explore how technological perspective can enrich the understanding of problem itself. And for those of you who are working on societal challenges, you probably know that understanding problem well is the key part of solving it.”

### Workshop Execution

The practical component, facilitated by Dovilė Gaižauskienė, involved participants working in small groups to analyze specific public sector challenges using randomly assigned technology cards. The facilitator noted during the session the natural tendency of participants to jump to solutions: “We already have a feeling that you started, instead of discussing problem, thinking of solutions. That’s very natural and now we are moving actually to that part of the workshop.”

The workshop faced some technical and audio challenges, and the discussion period was somewhat rushed, limiting the depth of participant feedback that could be captured.

## Participant Reflections

### Challenge Analysis: Marginalized Voices in Digital Services

One group examined how to include people who are not active in digital spaces in policy and institutional feedback loops. A participant reflected on their group’s evolution in thinking: “We did not see how the technology would contribute significantly to solving this challenge because we had a lot of, for example, from my case it was process mining, quantum computing or agentic AI but then after discussing together with the colleagues we started discussing maybe… these technologies like quantum computing or process mining can first of all help overall public service employees to deal with their issues more that do not necessarily require human interaction so then they would have more time to engage actually with their constituents.”

The group also considered agentic AI for creating proactive public services that reach out to citizens rather than waiting for them to engage.

### Supporting Vulnerable Populations

Another group briefly discussed supporting people with intellectual disabilities in financial transactions, with some mention of ethical questions about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations.

## Key Themes Discussed

### Cross-Organizational Cooperation

Both speakers emphasized the critical importance of cooperation across governmental silos. Sabulytė noted that “cooperation, moving through silos and building mutual trust is key to digital transformation impact,” while Strømsnes highlighted the need for coordination across “ministries, local governments, municipalities, private sector and NGOs.”

### Technology as Problem-Understanding Tool

The workshop successfully demonstrated how examining challenges through technological perspectives can reveal new dimensions of problems, particularly the insight that technology could free public servants from routine tasks to enable more direct citizen engagement.

### Public-Private Collaboration Models

The discussion revealed different but complementary approaches: Lithuania’s structured GovTechLab model focusing on startup partnerships, and Norway’s broader market engagement strategy including both startups and established suppliers.

## Future Directions

Participants were invited to continue the discussion at the GovTech Leader Conference on October 23rd in Vilnius, focusing on “GovTech dilemmas.” The session concluded with encouragement for continued cooperation between Lithuania and Norway on sharing experiences in digital governance and innovative procurement.

## Conclusion

The workshop demonstrated the value of reframing technology’s role from solution provider to problem-understanding enhancer. While the session faced some practical challenges in execution, it successfully illustrated how technological perspectives can reveal new approaches to complex societal challenges. The collaborative approach between Lithuania and Norway showed the potential for international cooperation in digital governance, while highlighting the ongoing challenges of cross-governmental coordination and public-private partnership in digital transformation initiatives.

Liucija Sabulyte: Liucija Sabulytė, Magne Hareide, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaijauskienė Today we are going to explore how technologies can help us understand public and societal challenges better. This time we took a bit different road from what we usually do. Usually we think of technologies as a solution to the problem. And this time we try to explore how technological perspective can enrich the understanding of problem itself. And for those of you who are working on societal challenges, you probably know that understanding problem well is the key part of solving it. So I want to start by inviting two representatives of Lithuania and also Norway to give welcoming speeches. And then we will move to more interactive session and invite you all to share your thoughts and insights. So firstly, I would like to invite Lena Viltraitenė to the stage. Lena is Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy. Lena, the floor is yours.

Lina Viltrakiene: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Liucija, and good morning everyone. It is my great pleasure indeed to welcome you to this session on tech-driven solutions to societal challenges. No doubt, complex challenges in today’s world require innovative and out-of-the-box thinking and solutions. So, particularly the public sector needs to improve efficiency, enhance services, foster transparency. For this to happen, it is crucial to adopt new technologies and processes and to equip employees with skills. I am glad to open this session where there will be a possibility to learn from the experiences of two countries, and in particular from the experience of Lithuania. As in recent years, my country, Lithuania, has emerged as a European leader in digital governance. Let me share a few ratings. We rank 6th in the European Commission’s 2024 e-government benchmark. We are 8th in the World Bank’s GovTech Maturity Index, reflecting our strong public sector digital transformation. And we are 10th in the OECD’s Our Data Index, recognising our leadership in open, useful and reusable data. At the heart of this transformation is the award-winning GovTech Lab Lithuania. It’s a team in the innovation agency Lithuania that connects government institutions with startups and innovators to co-create solutions. GovTechLab has proven to be an indispensable point of contact when public sector organizations are eager to innovate. Through GovTech Challenges series, over 100 real-world public sector challenges were solved. For example, in one city in Lithuania, Šiauliai, a startup developed an urban monitoring tool that helps the city assess and manage public maintenance work more effectively. Our communication regulatory authority partnered with a startup to build an AI tool for detecting illegal online content, and it scanned over 288,000 websites, flagged violations, and even led to criminal investigations. In education, a collaboration between a school and a tech company produced a student achievement tracking tool that saves teachers time and helps tailor inventions. These are not just pilot projects. They are scalable, impactful solutions that improve lives and save time, and also build trust in government. It’s important to say that 70% of our institutions continue to operate. What sets Lithuania apart is the culture of experimentation and collaboration. We have a vibrant GovTech ecosystem, host international conferences, and also help other countries launch their own GovTech labs. And I am happy to say that we have in our delegation people who can share all this experience from an innovation agency, but also a company, NRD companies, that really work, cooperate closely with other countries to build their GovTech labs. And today I am also pleased to invite you to save the date for our annual GovTech Leader Conference, being held on 23rd of October in Vilnius. This year’s topic is GovTech dilemmas. And indeed, digital governance is a battleground where nations must balance sovereignty and cyber security on one hand, and interoperability and open innovation on the other. The rise of AI-driven disinformation, cyber warfare, and global tech decoupling deepens these dilemmas. So in this conference, there will be an opportunity to explore how governments can navigate these challenges, ensuring resilience, national security, and public trust. Let’s innovate not just for efficiency, but for equity. resilience and trust. And let’s see GovTech not as a niche but as a powerful engine for societal progress. So I wish you to have a very fruitful and inspiring workshop. Thank you very much.

Liucija Sabulyte: Thank you Elena so much for sharing a bit about Lithuanian achievements in the digital capital and GovTech space. I think these achievements wouldn’t be possible without openness and ability to cooperate. And speaking about cooperation, actually we met this workshop partners, DFO, during Lithuanian public sector representatives visit in Norway where DFO was really open and shared their experience in the innovative public procurement. And we are really grateful for that. And I think it helps us to strengthen as a whole. So with that, I really want to invite Dag Strømstøn, Norwegian Chief Public Procurement Officer, to give his welcoming speech.

Dag Stromsnes: Good morning everyone and thanks a lot for the invitation to participate on this important event. I’m very happy on behalf of Norway to give a welcoming remark from the Agency for Public and Financial Management. I think that the program description is very good, talking about the rapid We have seen rapid advancement of technology, rising public expectation for effective services and ever-expanding pool of data. Governments around the world are pressured to tackle complex societal issues with innovative solutions. This is a huge challenge and I think all countries in the Western world are struggling with this challenge. We see this in the OECD community that we are facing these challenges in different ways. From my point of view, I think it is very important to emphasize how the procurement functions are approaching this challenge. The key point from my point of view is how we open our challenges to the market. How do public sector authorities approach the market to get the best result of the suppliers? It is a huge challenge and we need to focus on getting the results from a huge variety of suppliers. From the start-ups and the very small suppliers to the huge tech companies. Some key words about how to work with the start-ups. I think we have seen from our practice, we have a project called Startoff that we actually got a European winning prize for two years ago. But approaching the start-ups represents some key challenges for the public sector. There is a lack of time and resources. We see there is a lack of innovation, knowledge and competence. and we also see there’s a lack of leadership involvement in how to go how to are going to approach this market. I think if you’re going to work with these startups that often are small, they don’t have a lot of resources, you need to make it simple, predictable and fast. I think that is really really important for these types of suppliers. I think our experience is that both the public sector that are going to buy these solutions and the startups need to have help and support throughout their procurement process. I think it’s important to create a good framework for trust and cooperation and we also need to develop a sort of respect for each other. I think a public sector buyer and a grinder have a very different approach. The grinder he doesn’t know if he has a salary in two months, a public sector buyer knows he has a permanent contract in an agency and these two cultures, these two approaches are going to meet in a cooperation that we really really need to work hard to establish. It’s important to know that the effects take time, the processes take time, you don’t see the results right away, you need to be patient. I think this procurement process that is documented both by us in start-up and the Go-Tech lab in Lithuania shows that. But I think it’s also important to keep in mind that we could get much more innovation from the huge suppliers like Capgemini, IBM, Accenture and these types of companies. I think it’s important to keep in mind that the public sector buyer does not have the solution in his head. I think we also need to open the process for the experiences that the big suppliers have made maybe in other parts of the world. So I think it’s very important to just focus on your need and then use the creativity from the supplier to develop the good solutions. So then we need to do market sounding. We need to be aware of our needs. We need to formulate that in a way that the suppliers could transfer this into some good systems. And it’s really important to take the big companies’ experiences into the account and open the procurement process to that. So we need to include all the potential good ideas in the market in a good way. The third challenge I would like to mention is that the problem we actually are facing is not following the bureaucratic structure. In Norway we have 19 ministries and I think the projects that fit into one ministry are well taken care of. But if there are more cross-governmental challenges, we need to cooperate. You maybe need to cooperate with local governments. You need to cooperate with municipalities. You need to cooperate with private sector and you need to maybe to cooperate with NGOs. Our bureaucratic structures are not made and we are struggling to make the good cooperation in this more mission oriented challenges. So it’s important to understand and learn from this. experiences and we need to work across the the world to learn what is working and what is not working that that well. But my key point is that we need to be creative in the way we are approaching the market. I really hope that this workshop can inspire to see the opportunities in using technologies in new ways and establish a good cooperation with the market. We will not succeed unless we are facing this challenge. I wish you a great workshop. Thank you.

Liucija Sabulyte: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Definitely cooperation moving through silos and building mutual trust is key to making impacts for digital transformation and building strong economies through the power of GovTech. Now we’re going to move to more interactive part, the workshop part. People who are joining on Zoom can also scan the code and work together with us. This part is going to be moderated by my colleague Dovila with the help of our DFO colleagues Magne and Matijas. So Dovila is here on the side and we can start.

Dovile Gaizauskiene: Hello everyone. I hope you can hear me. Yes, okay. I see people nodding. Super excited to be here to see you all in our workshop. Now I will introduce very briefly what will happen, but at first you need to group yourselves because it will be some group work. How it will happen? You need to look for For paper sheets like this, it might be even behind you. So now it’s time to very, very quickly find these tables with paper sheets. Leave your computers behind, leave all your belongings behind. Just look for the paper sheets like this, with some more material. We are expecting to see six, seven groups. Just turn your chairs around and just make some round tables for now. I see that it’s happening, good. And for those who are online, we really want you to scan the code and you will find this working material in MiroBoard. So you need to register there. Now I see the groups are there. Okay. So what is happening now? We will have a very short workshop. It will be a little bit rushed, but it’s good to be rushed in the morning. It will be like training for your brains, preparation for an entire day. So it will consist of three steps. Please follow instructions, which I will be giving to you. There are not so many, we hope it will be very intuitive. It will be group work, some individual work, and group work again. Basic rules for this session are co-creation. So really, co-creation requires listening to each other. So we want you to listen to each other. At some point, you will have to take off headphones in order to be able to… but then I will show you signs so you can hear me again and you will have to put headphones. I really encourage you to think that there are no wrong answers and no wrong questions here because it’s really a co-creation session, very very short but that’s the approach we want you to have. And you also see some post-it notes or like small colorful paper sheets so please make sure that you write one idea on one post-it. And now it’s not a good time to be sustainable because later we will be grouping these ideas so it’s really important to have one idea, one concept in one post-it note separately. That’s basically the rules. Let’s move. So we will have, as I said, three steps. First of all, you will have to familiarize with public sector challenge and the challenges are printed out on these paper sheets. My colleagues will help you if you cannot find. And we pointed the challenge, you cannot choose, we already chose for you the challenge we want you to focus. You will have now ten minutes to read the challenge and talk a little bit about it, what you know. The main question for you while reading is to understand where is the real problem. Okay? So you will have ten minutes to read the challenge and discuss a little bit in the group how you understand and maybe exchange ideas how you see where is the real challenge. The time starts now. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay, now it’s time to maybe, maybe you can ask. Okay. Please put the headphones, I see that people are coming back to give attention to me a little bit. We already have a feeling that you started, instead of discussing problem, thinking of solutions. That’s very natural and now we are moving actually to that part of the workshop. It will be a little bit less time for this part and you will have to work a little bit like for 10 minutes individually. On the tables you see technology cards. You see these cards with blue color. Now it’s time to randomly pick three cards for each participant. Three cards for each participant, randomly. On this tech card you will see technology and an example how it was used by a public sector institution. Can you share cards already? Start reading through. What will happen now? You have to read the text about the technology and produce at least three ideas stemming from the technologies that you randomly picked, which would show the possible solution of the challenge you were discussing. Familiarize with technology and think of how it could be used for solution of the challenge that you were discussing in the group. This has to be done individually, so not too much sharing in this part, sorry. But we really want you to think individually, a little bit from the technological perspective. So at least three different ideas. It doesn’t have to be like real solution, but more like of technology. We have an idea of how this technology could be used to tackle this challenge. Time starts now. Ten minutes again. As I said, we will be rushed a little bit. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE!!!! We can see some discussions happening. You already moved very intuitively to the third part of our workshop. Now it’s the time to present the ideas you had from reading about the technologies, different examples, and discuss in the groups what you actually produced. Now it’s time to discuss actually. Try to merge ideas, try to discuss why some technologies maybe couldn’t be used in your opinion, and so on. You will have 10 minutes for this discussion, and after that we will want you to actually give us reflections of how you feel after this exercise. So last 10 minutes to share in the group the ideas you produced, the insights you got, and the most important question here is to discuss how your perception of maybe challenge itself changed. 10 more minutes, and then we will be very much pleased to hear from you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That was great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. and the first public debate on agentic AI and AI. Cosmic computing is a highly relevant topic, but agentic AI and the idea was that a disabled person or an AI agent could recognize the world, and also, depending on how incapacitated or how little intellectual capacity they had, the world could be a way of understanding you. It could be a dog, it could be a guy, it could be a human being, it could be a human being. And it had to be trained for your own personal interests. It could be trained to detect data, it could be set to research the data, it could be about similarities. It would have to be very personalized and adjusted. It had to be… Someone has the role in that, but that has to be a public debate. It has to be a society debate, it has to be a private debate. I’m sure there will be a firm representing that person. So I think agentic AI has a big role in that. Again, thank you very much for this discussion. Thank you very much for the discussions which are happening now. It’s time to really, as I said, to move to the reflection session. Our time is running very fast. And now we would like to hear from you. And we have three questions for the discussion. And we really encourage you to get the microphone which Magne can bring to you and try to answer what have we learned from this exercise. Maybe you would like to reflect. Maybe you can reflect on certain technologies which you discussed maybe more deeply. And maybe I heard in some groups you discussed some nuances. Maybe you built some arguments why not to use technologies. It would be great to hear from you now. So who wants to just raise your hands and we will bring a microphone for you to be heard. Who wants to be first? Just sharing what was happening at your table and reflecting what you’ve learned from this.

Participant: Okay. Yes, okay. We were the first group. We had the first challenge which was focused on the exclusion of marginalized voices in digital service co-creation. And I believe one thing to absorb is that first we saw it as a very, very complicated challenge. There was a lot of statistics and data. And overall marginalization of people is a very multifaceted issue whether you are rural, low-income or overall not digitally fully able person. So the key challenge that we saw is how do we include more of voices of people who are not as active in digital spaces in, for example, policies and institutional feedback loops. So that is the focus of the challenge. And I believe at the beginning we… We did not see how the technology would contribute significantly to solving this challenge because we had a lot of, for example, from my case it was process mining, quantum computing or agentic AI but then after discussing together with the colleagues we started discussing maybe, you know, these it’s a mostly faceted issue, so maybe we need to see how these technologies like quantum computing or process mining can first of all help overall public service employees to deal with their issues more that do not necessarily require human interaction so then they would have more time to engage actually with their constituents or the citizens and then for example certain aspects like agentic AI could act as something what we in Lithuania call proactive public services where the government could reach out to you and basically identify that you are entitled to certain public services whether, you know, it’s a renewal of your passport or social benefits or some other aspects that maybe colleagues would like to contribute. Okay, thank you very much. So basically the topic of inclusion of the marginalized voice in terms of bringing those individuals that are not opportune to, you know, access to the digital platforms and, you know, part of the conversations I’ve had involved, you know, so in different rural areas different locations people finding difficult to actually access those digital platforms and part of the solutions that, you know, we looked at is, you know, trying to, you know, look for diverse channels to actually take digital solutions to people. You know, there are some persons that can actually read and write but they can’t speak. You know, how do you get those people involved and people that can, you know, that can speak fluently. Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė

Dovile Gaizauskiene: Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė

Magne Hareide: Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė while paying and that would identify the risks and that would hopefully lead us to the solutions one of which was use of agentic AI and and tailoring the the data into the in the algorithm into the into the model of AI that would have a personalized solution based on the condition of the person on on his use cases to to pay safely to pay reliably and as well to meet his budget because the the conditions are very very different across across people and one of the things that as well we would have the the medical component let’s say the variables that would bring more medical data let’s say is it the stress level elevated by you know because of the the heart rate being elevated because this the situation that stays very stressful that the person is is is anxious for some reason and that would bring more components to the solution and then as well there’s other things let’s say in the digital space it could be metaverse if if if it’s completely online we would have more control let’s say if it’s online to do the payments of some of some digital transactions and some people are very visual let’s say which may be not not so into social interactions but very visual so metaverse could help online or it could be augmented reality and in real life let’s say they would have certain visual guidances to help them to to connect with people more safely so that is one of the solutions but the the nuance we found as well that the person has very limited possibility to decide on himself how much to spend how many how what do things cost and then who who has the say in that so is it the government is in the bank is it his medical professional so that is a an ethical thing that has to be decided and it’s I think a very very thin line Where is the right and wrong in this?

Dovile Gaizauskiene: Thank you everyone for joining this session. Please meet us, come to our stand where we are this day and upcoming days and discuss with us more. Thank you very much for participation.

Agreement points

Cross-organizational cooperation is essential for addressing complex societal challenges

Speakers

– Liucija Sabulyte
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Cooperation, moving through silos and building mutual trust is key to digital transformation impact

Cross-governmental challenges require cooperation across ministries, local governments, municipalities, private sector and NGOs

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that breaking down organizational silos and fostering cooperation across different entities and levels of government is crucial for successful digital transformation and addressing complex challenges

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Technology should enhance understanding of problems rather than just provide predetermined solutions

Speakers

– Liucija Sabulyte
– Dag Stromsnes
– Dovile Gaizauskiene

Arguments

Understanding problems well is key to solving them, and technological perspective can enrich problem understanding

Public sector buyers should focus on needs rather than predetermined solutions, allowing suppliers to use their creativity and global experience

Workshop demonstrated how technological perspective can change perception of challenges themselves

Summary

All three speakers advocate for an approach where technology is used to better understand and frame problems rather than imposing predetermined solutions, emphasizing the importance of open-ended exploration

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Innovation requires balancing multiple stakeholder needs and building trust between different organizational cultures

Speakers

– Lina Viltrakiene
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Digital governance requires balancing sovereignty and cybersecurity with interoperability and open innovation

Both public sector buyers and startups need support throughout procurement processes, requiring trust and respect between different cultures

Summary

Both speakers recognize that successful innovation requires navigating tensions between different priorities and building trust between stakeholders with different cultures and approaches

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that addressing complex challenges requires innovative approaches and engaging with diverse market participants to achieve public sector transformation

Speakers

– Lina Viltrakiene
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Complex challenges require innovative and out-of-the-box thinking, particularly in public sector efficiency and transparency

Public sector authorities need to open challenges to the market and get results from diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers focus on AI applications for people with disabilities, with one exploring technological possibilities and the other raising critical ethical considerations about implementation

Speakers

– Participant
– Magne Hareide

Arguments

Agentic AI can enable proactive public services and personalized solutions for people with disabilities, including stress monitoring and visual guidance through AR/metaverse

Ethical questions arise about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations – whether government, banks, or medical professionals should have control

Topics

Human rights | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Structural limitations of bureaucratic systems in addressing cross-cutting challenges

Speakers

– Dag Stromsnes
– Liucija Sabulyte

Arguments

Bureaucratic structures are not designed for mission-oriented challenges that span multiple organizations

Cooperation, moving through silos and building mutual trust is key to digital transformation impact

Explanation

It’s unexpected that both Norwegian and Lithuanian representatives openly acknowledge the limitations of their own bureaucratic structures, showing remarkable institutional self-awareness and willingness to critique existing systems

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Technology as a lens for problem understanding rather than just solution provision

Speakers

– Liucija Sabulyte
– Dovile Gaizauskiene
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Understanding problems well is key to solving them, and technological perspective can enrich problem understanding

Workshop demonstrated how technological perspective can change perception of challenges themselves

Public sector buyers should focus on needs rather than predetermined solutions, allowing suppliers to use their creativity and global experience

Explanation

The consensus on using technology as a diagnostic and analytical tool rather than just an implementation tool represents an unexpectedly sophisticated approach to technology policy that goes beyond typical solution-focused thinking

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the need for cross-organizational cooperation, technology-enhanced problem understanding, stakeholder engagement, and acknowledgment of structural limitations in current systems

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than conflicting viewpoints. The agreement spans both strategic approaches (cooperation, problem-first thinking) and practical implementation challenges (cultural differences, ethical considerations). This consensus suggests a mature understanding of digital transformation challenges and creates a solid foundation for collaborative policy development and implementation.

Different viewpoints

Approach to supplier engagement – startup-focused vs. inclusive market approach

Speakers

– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Public sector authorities need to open challenges to the market and get results from diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies

Public sector buyers should focus on needs rather than predetermined solutions, allowing suppliers to use their creativity and global experience

Summary

While Stromsnes advocates for engaging both startups and large suppliers equally, emphasizing that big companies like Capgemini, IBM, and Accenture can provide significant innovation from global experience, the Lithuanian model presented by Viltrakiene focuses primarily on startup partnerships through GovTechLab

Topics

Economic | Development

Unexpected differences

Ethical decision-making authority in AI implementation for vulnerable populations

Speakers

– Magne Hareide
– Participant

Arguments

Ethical questions arise about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations – whether government, banks, or medical professionals should have control

Agentic AI can enable proactive public services and personalized solutions for people with disabilities, including stress monitoring and visual guidance through AR/metaverse

Explanation

While the participant enthusiastically presented AI solutions for people with disabilities, Hareide raised fundamental ethical concerns about who should have decision-making authority over these individuals’ lives. This disagreement was unexpected as it emerged from what appeared to be a collaborative workshop discussion and highlighted deep ethical tensions in implementing seemingly beneficial technologies

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts being methodological rather than fundamental. The main areas of disagreement centered on procurement approaches (startup-focused vs. inclusive market engagement) and ethical considerations in AI implementation for vulnerable populations

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers shared common goals of improving public sector innovation and digital transformation, but differed on implementation approaches. The ethical disagreement about AI decision-making authority represents the most significant tension, as it touches on fundamental questions of autonomy and control that could impact policy development and technology implementation strategies

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that addressing complex challenges requires innovative approaches and engaging with diverse market participants to achieve public sector transformation

Speakers

– Lina Viltrakiene
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Complex challenges require innovative and out-of-the-box thinking, particularly in public sector efficiency and transparency

Public sector authorities need to open challenges to the market and get results from diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers focus on AI applications for people with disabilities, with one exploring technological possibilities and the other raising critical ethical considerations about implementation

Speakers

– Participant
– Magne Hareide

Arguments

Agentic AI can enable proactive public services and personalized solutions for people with disabilities, including stress monitoring and visual guidance through AR/metaverse

Ethical questions arise about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations – whether government, banks, or medical professionals should have control

Topics

Human rights | Development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Technology should be used not just as a solution but as a lens to better understand societal problems themselves

Successful digital governance requires balancing sovereignty/cybersecurity with interoperability and open innovation

Lithuania has achieved significant digital governance success (6th in EU e-government benchmark) through GovTechLab partnerships with startups, solving over 100 public sector challenges

Public procurement innovation requires making processes simple, predictable and fast for startups while leveraging creativity from large suppliers

Cross-governmental cooperation is essential but challenging due to bureaucratic structures not designed for mission-oriented challenges spanning multiple organizations

Marginalized voices in digital services can be addressed through diverse technological approaches including AI agents, process mining, and AR/metaverse solutions

Building mutual trust and respect between different organizational cultures (public sector vs. startups) is crucial for successful collaboration

Workshop methodology demonstrated that examining challenges through technological perspectives can change understanding of the problems themselves

Resolutions and action items

Save the date for GovTech Leader Conference on October 23rd in Vilnius focusing on ‘GovTech dilemmas’

Participants encouraged to visit the organizers’ stand for continued discussions during the event

Continued cooperation between Lithuania and Norway on sharing experiences in digital governance and innovative procurement

Unresolved issues

Ethical questions about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations – unclear whether government, banks, or medical professionals should have control

How to effectively balance the thin line between right and wrong in automated decision-making for people with limited capacity

Specific mechanisms for achieving cross-governmental cooperation given existing bureaucratic structural limitations

How to scale successful pilot projects beyond initial implementation

Concrete methods for including diverse marginalized voices (rural, low-income, digitally disadvantaged) in digital service co-creation

Suggested compromises

Using technology to free up public servants from routine tasks so they have more time for human interaction and citizen engagement

Combining multiple technological approaches (AI agents, AR, metaverse) to address different aspects of accessibility challenges

Engaging both startups and large tech companies in different capacities to leverage their respective strengths

Requiring public debate and societal discussion before implementing AI agents for vulnerable populations

Usually we think of technologies as a solution to the problem. And this time we try to explore how technological perspective can enrich the understanding of problem itself. And for those of you who are working on societal challenges, you probably know that understanding problem well is the key part of solving it.

Speaker

Liucija Sabulyte

Reason

This comment is insightful because it fundamentally reframes the relationship between technology and problem-solving. Instead of viewing technology as merely a tool for solutions, it positions technology as a lens for deeper problem analysis. This represents a sophisticated understanding that proper problem definition is often more critical than solution implementation.

Impact

This opening comment set the entire tone and framework for the workshop. It established the unconventional approach that would guide all subsequent activities, moving participants away from their natural tendency to jump to solutions and instead focusing on problem understanding first.

The key point from my point of view is how we open our challenges to the market. How do public sector authorities approach the market to get the best result of the suppliers? It is a huge challenge and we need to focus on getting the results from a huge variety of suppliers. From the start-ups and the very small suppliers to the huge tech companies.

Speaker

Dag Stromsnes

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it highlights a critical but often overlooked aspect of public sector innovation – the procurement process itself as a barrier or enabler. It recognizes that innovation isn’t just about having good ideas, but about creating systems that can effectively engage with diverse supplier ecosystems.

Impact

This comment introduced a practical, systemic perspective that complemented the more theoretical framework. It grounded the discussion in real-world implementation challenges and set up the importance of understanding different stakeholder perspectives in problem-solving.

I think a public sector buyer and a grinder have a very different approach. The grinder he doesn’t know if he has a salary in two months, a public sector buyer knows he has a permanent contract in an agency and these two cultures, these two approaches are going to meet in a cooperation that we really really need to work hard to establish.

Speaker

Dag Stromsnes

Reason

This observation is particularly insightful because it identifies a fundamental cultural and psychological barrier that goes beyond technical or procedural issues. It recognizes that successful innovation requires understanding and bridging vastly different risk tolerances, time horizons, and motivational structures.

Impact

This comment added a human dimension to the technical discussion, highlighting that technology solutions must account for human and organizational psychology. It influenced the workshop’s later focus on understanding multiple perspectives and stakeholder needs.

We already have a feeling that you started, instead of discussing problem, thinking of solutions. That’s very natural and now we are moving actually to that part of the workshop.

Speaker

Dovile Gaizauskiene

Reason

This meta-observation is insightful because it captures a fundamental human tendency that often undermines effective problem-solving. By acknowledging this natural inclination to jump to solutions, it validates the difficulty of the exercise while reinforcing its importance.

Impact

This comment served as a crucial course correction that reinforced the workshop’s core methodology. It helped participants become more self-aware of their problem-solving approaches and emphasized the value of the structured process they were following.

We did not see how the technology would contribute significantly to solving this challenge because we had a lot of, for example, from my case it was process mining, quantum computing or agentic AI but then after discussing together with the colleagues we started discussing maybe… these technologies like quantum computing or process mining can first of all help overall public service employees to deal with their issues more that do not necessarily require human interaction so then they would have more time to engage actually with their constituents.

Speaker

Participant

Reason

This comment demonstrates a sophisticated evolution in thinking – moving from direct technology application to indirect, systemic impact. It shows how technology can solve problems by freeing up human capacity for higher-value activities, representing a more nuanced understanding of technology’s role.

Impact

This insight demonstrated the workshop’s effectiveness in changing participants’ perspectives. It showed how the structured approach led to more creative and systemic thinking about technology applications, moving beyond obvious solutions to more strategic approaches.

Someone has the role in that, but that has to be a public debate. It has to be a society debate, it has to be a private debate. I’m sure there will be a firm representing that person… Where is the right and wrong in this?

Speaker

Magne Hareide

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it introduces the critical ethical dimension that often gets overlooked in technology-focused discussions. It recognizes that technical solutions for vulnerable populations raise fundamental questions about autonomy, representation, and decision-making authority.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from technical problem-solving to broader societal and ethical considerations. It demonstrated how deeper problem analysis reveals complex stakeholder dynamics and ethical dilemmas that must be addressed alongside technical solutions.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively shaped the discussion by establishing a sophisticated framework that moved beyond traditional technology-as-solution thinking. The opening reframe set an unconventional approach, while the procurement and cultural insights grounded the discussion in real-world implementation challenges. The facilitator’s meta-observations helped maintain focus on the methodology, while participant reflections demonstrated the evolution in thinking that the workshop achieved. The ethical considerations raised toward the end showed how proper problem analysis reveals complex societal dimensions that pure technical approaches might miss. Together, these comments created a progression from theoretical framework to practical challenges to demonstrated learning outcomes, illustrating how technology can indeed enrich problem understanding rather than simply provide solutions.

How do we include more voices of people who are not as active in digital spaces in policies and institutional feedback loops?

Speaker

Participant from first group

Explanation

This addresses the core challenge of digital exclusion and marginalized voices in service co-creation, which is fundamental to creating inclusive digital governance

How do you get people involved who can read and write but can’t speak, and people with different communication abilities?

Speaker

Participant discussing inclusion challenges

Explanation

This highlights the need for diverse communication channels and accessibility solutions for people with different abilities and limitations

Who has the say in financial decisions for people with limited capacity – is it the government, the bank, or medical professionals?

Speaker

Participant discussing payment solutions for people with disabilities

Explanation

This raises critical ethical questions about autonomy, guardianship, and decision-making authority for vulnerable populations in digital financial services

Where is the right and wrong line when it comes to making decisions for people with limited capacity to decide how much to spend?

Speaker

Participant discussing ethical considerations

Explanation

This addresses the ethical boundaries and moral considerations in developing AI-assisted financial management tools for people with cognitive or other limitations

How can diverse channels be developed to take digital solutions to people in rural areas and different locations who have difficulty accessing digital platforms?

Speaker

Participant discussing rural access challenges

Explanation

This addresses the digital divide and the need for alternative service delivery methods to reach underserved populations

How can agentic AI be personalized and adjusted for individual needs while maintaining ethical boundaries?

Speaker

Participant discussing agentic AI applications

Explanation

This explores the technical and ethical challenges of creating personalized AI agents that can assist people with disabilities while respecting their autonomy and privacy