What keeps coming back in discussions about digital governance —
whether it’s a Ministry of Digital Affairs, a Delta Commissioner, or even the NDS — keeps pointing to
the same underlying absence:
roles are not defined precisely enough, and the feedback loops do not function.
When structures behave this way for years, it’s usually not the people. It’s the architecture.
And here’s the uncomfortable observation that follows from that:
Without a functioning architecture underneath, a Ministry of Digital Affairs almost inevitably becomes a black box.
It accumulates expectations faster than it accumulates clarity. Inputs go in, outputs come out, but the internal reasoning becomes opaque because the underlying layers are not differentiated. This is why semantic precision matters so much at expert level: when layers blur, everything collapses into one undifferentiated “digital mandate.” No amount of political intent can compensate for that.
Control Loops (early conceptualisation)
Without these loops, the system behaves like a black box:
Signals flow upward (operational → tactical → standards → strategic → decision)
while mandates and direction flow downward (decision → strategic → standards → tactical → operational).
This prevents the strategic layer from guessing and the operational layer from improvising.
Five layers (working model) as a structure that remains consistent across conversations and analyses:
Why this matters (initial reasoning)
Working with these layers reveals several consistent effects:
Digital control starts with role clarity. When managers understand which layer carries
which responsibility, they don’t need constant access to scarce specialists.
Experts can then focus on the genuinely complex issues instead of compensating for structural
ambiguity.
A functioning architecture does the opposite of a black box: it makes each step inspectable.
Visit janwillemstegink.nl, KVK-nummer 59953888, to learn more.