The CDDO basically leads the digital, data and technology function for the UK government, i.e. the transformation of how government uses digital tools, data and new technologies. This encompasses issues ranging from artificial intelligence, including generative artificial intelligence, to enhanced use of data for public service provision. I am not aware of any similar offices in Spain. In Catalonia, the closest thing would be the Centre for Telecommunications and Information Technology (CTTI). 

When we talk about digital and technology policies, there are two different facets or perspectives. The first looks at all these public policies with a view to the outside world, the economy, people and companies. Then there is the more inwards-facing perspective, which looks at them more in relation to public bodies. With regard to the former, at the European level, a lot of work is done in coordination with other countries. But the more internal policy, the one concerning government, is a much more focused responsibility within each country, because each government and structure is completely different. 

I think I’ve been very lucky, because ever since I was a child, I knew I wanted to study political science and that I wanted to do it at UPF. I remember it clearly: conversations, filling out the forms for the university entrance exams, my first and second options... But beyond my interest in politics and public policy, I’ve always been very intrigued by new technologies, computers, the digital world, the whole digital sphere in general. So that’s the basis, but the pivotal moment came when I did the internship for my degree programme: it touched a bit on the topic of smart cities and public policy, which later motivated me to do my final degree project at UPF on smart cities, which, in turn, opened up a new world for me. 

The fact that I am here now bears witness to the motivations that have guided me. When I was at UPF, I realized that the marriage of public policy and new technologies was non-existent. In 2012, 2013, 2014, there was talk of digital inclusion, but not much else. Academically, after my time at UPF, I decided I wanted to understand the technical aspects of new technologies a little better, so I went to Madrid to do a master’s degree, which included a lot of statistics. I also started to get into programming. When I finished, I realized I still needed a bit more. I discovered that Oxford University offered an MS in Social Science of the Internet. That was when I realized that it was what I had always wanted to study. Only one place in the world offered that master’s degree, so I seized the opportunity. And I think you can start to see a dynamic here. My master’s thesis at Oxford was also about smart cities and digital economies: I was trying to continue what I had started to work on years earlier at UPF. 

When I was at UPF, I realized that the marriage of public policy and new technologies was non-existent

For me, aside from what I’ve studied, the fact that I have always placed a premium on professional experience has been decisive: from unpaid internships to summer jobs to help me pay for school. Although I’ve always enjoyed and been fascinated by digital public policy from a more theoretical and academic perspective, that’s not how the world works. So, I’ve always tried to find jobs and internships that were in some way related to this field or would at least let me learn transferable skills that I could then apply somewhere else: the internship for my degree programme, the internship I did after graduating at a not-for-profit organization in Brussels, the internship I did at a polling firm in Madrid... 

I think this mix of my studies with many different experiences – in the public sector, private sector, third sector, academia – has given me a more comprehensive perspective of the issues and allowed me to cultivate my interest in things much more

All that allowed me to end up working on research projects related to the European Commission, on digital policy and social inclusion issues. And not only that: when I was at Oxford, I was able to work as a research assistant in two departments, looking at issues such as disinformation, the use of social media, their impact on elections, digital inclusion, etc. I think this mix of my studies with many different experiences – in the public sector, private sector, third sector, academia – has given me a more comprehensive perspective of the issues and allowed me to cultivate my interest in things much more. 

I came to the UK to do the master’s degree in 2018; when I finished, I decided I felt at home here. My partner was here, too, so that made the decision to stay easier. My first job in the UK was at a consultancy, in the field of digital and technology policy, for large tech multinationals. I learned a lot. It was a terrible fit, I didn’t like it at all, and I had a very tough time of it, but it helped me realize that I didn’t enjoy working thinking only about profit and end-of-the-month or end-of-year bonuses. I discovered that I preferred to work on things that had a more real impact and that were also more intellectually demanding. 

That was when I finally decided to apply for a job with the UK government, which, unlike those of many other countries, is open to anyone. My first job just happened to be on the smart cities team – there it is again, the connection with UPF and Oxford – in the Cybersecurity Office, in the Digital Policy Department. Since April 2023, I’ve managed to move up a bit and have joined the Central Digital and Data Office (CDDO), which is part of the Cabinet Office, roughly equivalent to the Spanish Ministry of the Presidency, where I’m working on data strategy and governance. I’m quite happy there. I feel like my work is highly valued, and I can apply all this knowledge. 

Crec que un mix entre la meva carrera acadèmica i moltes experiències diferents, sector públic, sector privat, tercer sector i acadèmia m’han donat una perspectiva més completa dels temes

One very interesting thing I discovered working for the UK government is that the concept of smart cities is a bit outdated. Here, they use the term connected places instead. Originally, the smart city concept made sense, because technologies were first rolled out and tested in large cities, which is where most of the population lives. But we’ve reached a point now where the term city has become obsolete and a bit discriminatory in this context, as it excludes technologies implemented outside this sphere. New technologies can be found at train stations, in crop fields, on football pitches, at medical centres, etc. We’re not just cities. So, the cities of the future will be – indeed, not only will be, but already are – hyperconnected. We’ll have more technology, it will be more advanced, and we will use it in more areas of our everyday lives. Perhaps one of the main trends – and there has been talk of it for a couple of years now – is the implementation of artificial intelligence and generative artificial intelligence in cities. 

As for challenges, I think the greatest one that smart cities face and will face is cybersecurity risks. More and more devices are becoming more interconnected, and that means cities are increasingly likely to be attacked. One of the greatest challenges has to do with technological and environmental sustainability. But in my view that’s something that not only affects smart cities but is also one of the great global challenges. 

As for challenges, I think the greatest one that smart cities face and will face is cybersecurity risks

The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre publishes an annual report. Not long ago, I read that 2.1 million cyberattacks were detected and handled in the country in 2022. I’m not an expert, but my personal view is that this trend does seem to be on the rise, because everything is related. We are increasingly interconnected, and digital life is more important; digital presence and the use of new technologies is the norm in virtually all areas of our lives. We have more devices, and we use them longer. In the end, that increases the chances of being attacked. 

Digital presence and the use of new technologies is the norm in virtually all areas of our lives

When you look at any report from the last few years, including academic studies, they all say that the main cause of cyberattacks is the human factor, not the fact that technology is not secure enough. They say that it’s a matter of you, me or someone else opening an e-mail and clicking on a link that we shouldn’t have or opening a message and clicking on the wrong spot... I think it’s a rather curious dynamic, but, fortunately, the feeling I have is that more and more work is being done and more actions are being taken on this front. 

I would say not only data-driven public policy, but also evidence-based public policy. Public policy on paper, or in theory, is one thing; what is actually doable, what works in real life, is something else entirely. In recent years, and in the time I’ve been working in the public sector, I’ve found that it is essential to create a conversation with all stakeholders: what theory tells us, what academic research tells us, what the experiences of other countries tell us, what the data tell us versus what we can do to create public policy based on all this evidence that actually works. That’s why I think the key lies in making evidence-based decisions. 

Data don’t tell us what to do; they help us implement existing public policies much more efficiently

My academic background and the experiences I’ve had have allowed me to learn from different perspectives and include them in the equation. But I think there’s another angle, more related to my current lines of work. In the UK, we have the National Data Strategy. Within the CDDO, we also have a 2022-2025 roadmap, which defines the UK government’s goals for digital, technological and data transformation. Within this roadmap, I work on a mission to have better data in order to offer better public services. What does that mean? It means using all the data and information we have, not to tell us what public policy to put in place, but to help us deliver better and more efficient public services. In other words, data don’t tell us what to do; they help us implement existing public policies much more efficiently.

Although making better use of data is essential to achieve more efficient services, data-driven efficiency is not the goal. At the end of the day, when you work on public policy, the ultimate goal is to provide people with better public services. And you have to prioritize the services with the greatest and most positive impact, the ones that provide people with the most benefits. Can the data tell us one thing and what works be something else? Of course, but this is also where the importance of considering other sources of evidence when making decisions comes into play. 

For example, we attach a lot of importance to UX, or user experience, in relation to public services: we consider it an essential source of evidence when weighing public policy. In recent years, I’ve realized that the field of digital, technology and data policy is a bit different from the field of traditional public policy. Sometimes, you start with a blank page, because everything has yet to be written, and that means there are often initiatives that don’t completely work, despite being data-driven and evidence-based. What matters is to improve and learn from what is being done elsewhere that works. 

What matters is to improve and learn from what is being done elsewhere that works

Fortunately, since the Data Protection Act was passed, I think this area is much better controlled, much more closely monitored. In the UK, which is the case I’m most familiar with, we have laws to guide us, including the General Data Protection Act, the law that transposes the regulation. We also have the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is the regulator and responsible for enforcing these laws and imposing fines for violations. Additionally, the different departments have chief data officers, or CDOs, which are not just one person, but whole teams who work to ensure proper data management and protection. Then there is another level, and this is where the CDDO comes into play. We centralize the coordination of the digital, technology and data function.

In short, we have laws, we have regulators to enforce these laws, and we have teams of professionals with data-related knowledge and skills: people who focus specifically on data security; people working on the more ethical perspective of data use; other people responsible for protection, for transfer; and, finally, us, who are responsible for governance from a more coordinated and centralized perspective.

The Data Protection Act defines different types of data. There are personal data, which are the ones that allow us to identify individuals; but there are also pseudonymized and anonymized data. Personal data are of great value, because they provide us with a lot of information about individuals. Data in general are also highly valued, given their value and potential to enable the provision of better and more efficient public services. 

I don’t think personal data are needed to offer these enhanced and streamlined public services

However, I don’t think personal data are needed to offer these enhanced and streamlined public services. I don’t need to know a person’s ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, place of work, etc. to offer them a better public service. All I need to know is that someone, whatever their personal characteristics, needs a certain type of support or public service. Personal data have to be well protected, but they are not the only thing that allows us to act and work. The use of pseudonymized data, the constant review of how these data are transferred, their use and control, and knowing with whom and how they are shared are all factors to be considered.

It was not that long ago at all, and I have very good memories, not just from the past, but also the present. UPF is where I met my partner, who has given me unconditional support throughout my career, during tough times, too, of which there have been many. And not just supported me but stimulated me a lot intellectually to achieve all this.

Obviously, I’ve also made a small group of very good friends, whom I still see and keep in touch with today, and who have always found an excuse to come and visit when I’ve moved: in Brussels, Holland, Madrid, Oxford, and now London. In general, as cliched as it sounds, I have a lot of good memories of my university experience, with great lecturers and great subjects I’ll always remember; other lecturers I’ll also always remember, although for different reasons; breakfasts on the Ciutadella campus; the first UPF Festa Major party... It was a really well-rounded stage, the kind you look back at and think: we had such a great time! It really shaped who and where I am today. It’s a shame not to be able to go back and stay there forever.

The nice thing is that the UPF network is very large. There are a lot of students at UPF, especially on programmes such as Political Science or Law. It’s a programme where you have a lot of classmates and with a lot of different career paths. I think the UPF network can help you reconnect with people and classmates who have done similar relevant things in the same fields. And you have to take advantage of that, because I’m sure there are a lot more people whom we shared classes and spent many hours with, who are doing really interesting things, and, in the end, these connections, these networks, are essential. As for personal ties, my partner and some friends; professionally, I’m in touch with some classmates, even some lecturers, who still follow me closely and are interested in what I’m doing. And that is very satisfying for me. 

Not everyone knows exactly what they want to do, especially at the start. My case wasn’t quite like that, as I had a pretty good idea of the path I wanted to take and more or less where I wanted to end up. So, if you do have a good idea of what you want, great. Go for it! You have to fight for everything you want to achieve. My advice is that, often, even when you are sure, the path will not be easy and you cannot do it alone. So, to those who are sure, I would say: appreciate the people around you, accept help, accept the unconditional support they give you at all times, accept all those things that question you, that don’t just pat you on the back and say, ‘Go on now. You’ve got this.’ I don’t really believe in the whole American ‘self-made’ culture. No one gets far on their own. I think that is something that is not always fully appreciated, and in my case it has been essential. Without all of these people, without my partner and family, I would not be where I am today. 

No one gets far on their own. I think that is something that is not always fully appreciated, and in my case it has been essential

And for those who still don’t know what they want to do: no problem! Especially outside Spain and outside Catalonia, I’ve realized that transferable skills are increasingly valued. I think you can draw lessons, learn new things and skills, from every academic, professional and personal experience, even the negative ones. That’s what will make even those who are still unsure right now well-equipped for whatever they want to do in the future. In my case, for example, it was the internship at UPF that opened my eyes and made me realize, ‘Oh wow. This is what I want to do! I’m going to look into this and see how I can keep moving forwards and continue to grow.’