Skip to main content

Opinion on the 2030 Digital Competence Development Programme

In view of the subject matter of the document under assessment, the Sectoral Board for Competences – Computing and Sectoral Council The competences of Telecommunications and Cybersecurity have been set up by the Joint Working Group for the Evaluation of the Programme.

Main findings of the team’s work:

  1. The document presented for evaluation in the opinion of the Working Team is not a programme. It diagnoses Poland’s starting position in terms of digital competitiveness in general, using the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), but does not use other sources to identify areas of competence whose support could significantly improve the situation. There is no clearly defined objective of the programme, which seems to be guided by the belief that digital competence is a patent for “universal happiness” (extract of the vision: Everyone in Poland has digital competences corresponding to their individual, social, civic and economic needs). The authors of the document do not try to diagnose what competences are key in a modern economy in the area of digital transformation. It is therefore difficult to understand the design of the programme, which it is essentially intended to serve. The studies have a whole spectrum of different issues that are difficult to reconcile in a single development project. Not only individual priorities, but also many actions can be an area of separate, ring-fenced projects. There are also no reliable programme metrics and there are no recommendations on the validation of training. The document does not address the issue of certification of digital competences and their recognition. In principle, the programme does not envisage funding for the new EU perspective (2021-2027) nor for 2030 (in line with the title of the programme). The funding assumptions relate to most projects from a 2020 perspective (and in line with the n+ 3 rule – until 2023) – the exception is the funding of programming courses for persons with disabilities. The document gives the impression of an ad hoc compilation of the state’s activities in the field of digitalisation so far.
  2. The document reflects the so-called perspective of a digitally colonised country. By narrowing down the definition of digital competences, the focus is only on passive use of information technologies. Support is to be provided to those who only use IT solutions (thus becoming the last link in the value chain). Developers of solutions and tools used to solve business problems have been almost completely ignored. Indeed, the task of improving digital skills does not extend to the workers of large companies, which generate half of the GDP. Digital transformation is not an end in itself, but a means to significantly improve the competitive position of a country. The document completely ignores the purpose of using new technologies (problem-solving and value creation) and the business dimension. It seems to be aimed exclusively at consumers of digital content and, in a residual way, at certain groups of ICT specialists (including top class – whatever it means). As a result, the authors of the document lose their eyes. 90 % of the economy. It should be noted that wider access to computers, smartphones and the internet in the youngest age groups does not guarantee that they are prepared to use digital technologies creatively.
  3. The content of the document is inconsistent. It seems initially to focus only on civic digital skills as key competences, followed by support for digital competences in the labour market. As a result, the introduction (vision, purpose and rationale of the programme) does not refer at all to the section on the acquisition and extension of professional competences in the ICT sector, which represent the two Councils. The ICT sector has been treated marginally. ICT specialists were divided into two non-defined groups (specialists and top-class specialists). Support for top-class specialists is to be implemented through two projects: The University of Innovative Digital Technologies and the PAN Information and Biomedical Technology Doctorate. Since the issue of ICT vocational training has been completely closed by the authors of the document, the representatives of both Councils therefore take the view that the last part of the document should be taken (Task IV.3. Increase the ICT specialist pool) relating to the ICT sector, fully ring-fenced and transformed into a separate programme. It should be borne in mind that people involved in the creation and innovative use of ICT, now entering the labour market, will operate in a highly changed economic and social reality in 10-15 years’ time. Therefore, the perspective of the use of technology in specific sectors of the economy should be added to the professional competences currently sought and developed and complemented by technical competences for business development and effective interdisciplinary cooperation, creating a business context of technological solutions. Any support programmes launched should develop interdisciplinarity among their beneficiaries, because the silo model of education does not facilitate the cooperation of IT professionals with business.
  4. The document does not contain any reference to the problems of intellectual property protection as well as ethical issues raised in the discussions on AI development strategies. There is also no reference to legislative issues, e.g. the creation of “algorithmic” legislation, corresponding to the information structures of the public administration and the economy, and enabling the creation of well-functioning IT systems of public administration on this basis.
  5. The question of the operational efficiency of the implementation of the programme sketch as outlined is also very important. The systemic approach referred to by the authors of the document does not amount to centralising the management of a wide range of activities and areas. The panel of both Councils opinion on the “Competency Development Programme” considers that it is a programme manifest rather than a substantive document and therefore needs to be developed into a real programme or programmes that guide action in the 2030 perspective.


Link text

Link Type

Digital technology / specialisation

  • Digital skills

Digital skill level

  • Basic
  • Intermediate
  • Advanced
  • Digital Expert

Geographic Scope - Country

  • empty