The Lewicki and Hiam’s Negotiation Matrix

Executive Summary

Public sector digital transformation in the Netherlands and Europe is shaped by complex negotiations involving government agencies, regulators, technology vendors, and international partners. The Lewicki & Hiam Negotiation Matrix – which outlines five strategies (competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, accommodating) based on the importance of outcomes vs. relationships – provides a useful lens for understanding these negotiations . In the context of EU digital regulations (like the GDPR and forthcoming AI Act) and goals of digital sovereignty, government decision-makers must carefully balance assertiveness and cooperation.

Key findings include:

• Competing strategies can help governments enforce compliance or secure favorable contracts, but overuse (e.g. focusing only on lowest cost) may sacrifice innovation and partnerships.

• Collaborating strategies are essential for win-win solutions, such as co-developing ethical AI standards with regulators or vendors, aligning with EU initiatives, and fostering public-private partnerships.

• Compromising plays a role in balancing strict regulatory requirements with practical needs – for example, finding middle ground on data-sharing or AI implementation timelines to satisfy both innovation and compliance.

• Avoiding is occasionally used to postpone or sidestep contentious issues (like high-risk AI applications) until conditions improve, but it risks delaying critical transformation if over-employed.

• Accommodating strategies appear when maintaining trust or alliances takes priority – for instance, yielding to stringent EU rules or stakeholder concerns at the expense of short-term digital gains.

Ultimately, successful digital transformation in government requires a flexible negotiation approach. Actionable recommendations include using the Negotiation Matrix to plan stakeholder engagements, emphasizing collaboration for ethical and compliant innovation, and knowing when to stand firm versus when to compromise or accommodate. By aligning negotiation strategy with the context – whether negotiating GDPR-compliant cloud contracts, shaping EU AI regulations, or pursuing sovereign tech solutions – public sector IT leaders can achieve transformative outcomes while managing relationships and obligations effectively.

Introduction

Government IT leaders in Europe operate in a demanding environment of digital transformation, where adopting AI and data-driven services must align with public values and legal frameworks. The Netherlands and other EU nations face dual pressures: deliver innovative digital public services and comply with stringent regulations like the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and upcoming Artificial Intelligence Act. At the same time, there is a strong push for digital sovereignty, meaning Europe wants control over its digital systems and less dependence on foreign tech providers . This context creates a complex negotiation landscape. Governments must negotiate internally and externally – with EU regulators to interpret or shape rules, with technology vendors to procure compliant solutions, and with international or inter-governmental bodies to set standards – all while balancing efficiency, ethics, and strategic autonomy.

Lewicki and Hiam’s Negotiation Matrix offers a framework to navigate these interactions by identifying five distinct negotiation strategies based on two factors: the importance of achieving a desired outcome and the importance of the relationship with the counterparty . In public sector digital initiatives, the “outcome” can mean successful deployment of a digital service or policy goal, and the “relationship” can mean trust and cooperation with stakeholders (regulators, vendors, other governments, or the public). The matrix’s strategies – competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating – can each be observed in how governments handle negotiations around IT projects, data use, and AI adoption. The following sections break down each strategy’s role and illustrate it with examples in the context of EU digital regulations, ethical AI, sovereignty concerns, and procurement challenges.

Figure: Lewicki & Hiam’s Negotiation Matrix illustrating five negotiation approaches based on the priority of outcome (horizontal axis) and relationship (vertical axis). In public sector digital transformation, choosing the right approach helps balance compliance, innovation, and stakeholder trust.

Competing Strategy in Government IT Negotiations

A competing negotiation strategy is high on outcome focus and low on relationship focus – essentially a “win-lose” approach where the government assertively pursues its desired result . In the public sector digital realm, this strategy is sometimes necessary when non-negotiable goals are at stake, such as strict legal compliance or national security requirements. For example, if a technology vendor’s product poses GDPR compliance risks, a government might take a hardline stance – insisting on contract terms that enforce data protection or even threatening to switch suppliers – to ensure regulatory adherence. A notable case was the Dutch government’s negotiations with Microsoft: after a data protection impact assessment found Office 365 violated privacy rules, officials temporarily banned certain Office apps and demanded fixes, pressuring Microsoft into remedial action . This competitive stance led to successful results – by 2019, the Netherlands achieved new privacy terms with Microsoft for 300,000 government users, eliminating identified GDPR risks through technical, organizational, and contractual measures . Here, the government prioritized the outcome (compliance and data control) even at the risk of straining the vendor relationship, demonstrating a strategic use of leverage.

Competing strategies are also evident when governments negotiate procurement contracts. Emphasizing competition can drive costs down and enforce higher standards. The EU’s procurement framework encourages open competition, and indeed many public tenders default to awarding contracts based on lowest price . This can be seen as a competitive approach – ensuring the government “wins” a cost-efficient deal. However, an overemphasis on price (a pure win-lose mindset) can backfire if it neglects quality, innovation, or partnership. EU data shows over 55% of procurement procedures have used price as the sole criterion, likely sacrificing considerations of quality and innovation in the process . Thus, while competing style can be effective for enforcing requirements and getting favorable terms, government IT leaders must use it selectively. It works best when the issue is critical and one-sided – for instance, enforcing compliance with GDPR or security standards where there is no compromise on legal mandates. In such cases, being firm (even adversarial) with vendors or partners may be warranted to “win” the necessary outcome (e.g. full data sovereignty, stringent privacy protections). The downside is that a consistently competitive approach may erode trust or willingness to collaborate in the future. Hence, governments often reserve the competing strategy for when regulatory imperatives or public interests leave no room for concession, or when dealing with vendors in commoditized markets where relationship concerns are minimal.

Collaborating Strategy for Win-Win Outcomes

A collaborating strategy aims for a “win-win” outcome – it is high on both outcome and relationship importance . Governments adopt collaborative negotiations when they seek to maximize public value from digital transformation while also preserving positive relationships with stakeholders. This approach is prevalent in scenarios where multi-stakeholder cooperation is essential, such as developing ethical AI guidelines, implementing cross-border digital services, or fostering innovation ecosystems. In the EU context, collaboration is not just idealistic but often institutionalized. For example, the Netherlands actively engages in public-private partnerships like the Netherlands AI Coalition, which brings together government, industry, academia, and civil society to accelerate AI development in a human-centric, ethical way . Such initiatives involve negotiating common goals and sharing resources – a collaborative effort ensuring that AI adoption meets both innovation outcomes and societal values. By working jointly (rather than at odds), the government maintains strong relationships with technology providers and experts, leading to solutions that everyone “wins” (business value for vendors, improved public services for government, and trusted, ethical AI for citizens).

Collaboration is also key when governments negotiate with regulators and other governments. Rather than seeing EU regulatory bodies as adversaries, national governments often take a collaborative role in shaping and implementing regulations. For instance, during the formulation of the EU AI Act, member states including the Netherlands participated in extensive negotiations alongside the European Commission and Parliament to craft a balanced law . The process involved addressing concerns (like not stifling innovation) while achieving consensus on high-risk AI safeguards – essentially a collaborative, multi-party negotiation resulting in a compromise text that all could accept . By engaging constructively, governments helped shape rules that they can more readily implement, and regulators gained buy-in from those who must enforce the law. Another area is digital sovereignty initiatives like GAIA-X (the European cloud/data infrastructure project). Here, European governments and companies collaborate to set common standards for data sharing and cloud services aligned with EU values, rather than each acting alone . The outcome sought is a robust European digital ecosystem (shared goal), and the relationships are maintained through transparency and joint governance.

For government IT leaders, adopting a collaborating style means bringing stakeholders to the table early, transparently sharing objectives and constraints, and looking for creative solutions that satisfy all parties’ core interests. In practice, this could look like co-designing an AI system with both the vendor and the data protection authority involved, ensuring the system is innovative (meeting the project outcome) and privacy-compliant (meeting the regulator’s relationship/trust needs). It can also mean engaging in pilots or innovation partnerships instead of a rigid tender, to allow more back-and-forth. The benefit of collaboration is sustainable, compliant innovation: it builds long-term trust (important for future projects and public acceptance) and often yields better technical outcomes because multiple perspectives contribute to problem-solving. The challenge is the time and effort required – collaborative negotiations can be slow, as consensus-building takes dialogue. Nonetheless, in areas like ethical AI adoption or EU-wide digital projects, the collaborative approach is increasingly favored because it aligns with the EU’s ethos of “co-regulation” and stakeholder involvement, leading to more robust and accepted solutions.

Compromising Strategy and Finding Middle Ground

The compromising strategy represents a middle point – moderate concern for outcome and relationship, aiming for each side to “win some, lose some.” Governments may pursue compromise when they need a balanced settlement that partially satisfies both their objectives and stakeholders’ demands . In the realm of digital transformation, compromise is often seen in negotiations involving trade-offs between innovation and regulation. For example, when implementing a new data analytics platform, a government agency might negotiate with the national data protection authority on how to proceed in a way that respects privacy laws yet still allows the project to move forward. Neither side gets everything: the agency may agree to limit certain data uses or phase the project (conceding some outcome), while the regulator might allow an experimental period or provide flexible guidance (conceding a bit on strict immediacy) – a compromise to enable progress under oversight.

At the European level, the final stages of negotiating major regulations often involve compromise among member states. The EU AI Act negotiations in late 2023 are a prime example. Initial positions varied – some countries (and the European Parliament) pushed for very strict rules to ensure ethical AI, while others feared over-regulation would hamper innovation . Through lengthy talks (trilogue negotiations), a compromise text was hashed out that all sides could accept . The resulting Act imposes bans and strict requirements on high-risk AI uses (to satisfy ethics and safety concerns) but also tempered some provisions that top EU economies worried about, in order to not “stifle innovation” in AI startups . The unanimous deal by EU countries came after each side gave ground – a classic compromise where the outcome (a workable AI rulebook) was achieved by each side adjusting its relationship expectations (accepting less-than-ideal terms to maintain unity) .

In government-vendor relations, compromise might manifest in procurement or contract terms. For instance, a city government wanting a cutting-edge AI system might be constrained by the AI Act’s requirements (transparency, risk assessments, etc.). The vendor initially may balk at some compliance costs or transparency demands. A compromise could be that the vendor agrees to extra compliance measures (like undergoing an external audit for algorithm bias) but the government in return agrees to a longer contract or slightly higher cost to offset the vendor’s effort. Each side gives something: the government doesn’t get the lowest price (outcome concession), and the vendor alters its product approach (relationship concession), but together they reach an acceptable deal that allows ethical AI adoption under EU rules.

Compromising can be practical when time is of the essence or when a standstill would be damaging. Government IT decision-makers often use compromise if strict competition or full collaboration aren’t feasible – e.g., when facing hard deadlines for compliance or spending budgets. It’s essentially the art of the possible: meet in the middle to keep projects moving. However, it’s important that compromises do not violate key principles. For example, one cannot compromise on fundamental GDPR provisions – those must be upheld. But one can compromise on how to achieve compliance (phasing implementation or using pseudonymized data as an interim solution, for instance). The risk of compromise is that it may produce suboptimal solutions that satisfy no one fully – some stakeholders may feel the outcome wasn’t good enough, while others may feel their concerns weren’t fully heard . Thus, compromise is often a fallback: useful for resolving stalemates and maintaining working relations, but ideally to be followed by iterative improvements. In EU digital transformation efforts, compromise has proven effective in governance (as seen with major laws and data-sharing agreements), ensuring that progress is made even when ideal solutions are elusive.

Avoiding Strategy – Postponing Conflict

An avoiding strategy is characterized by low emphasis on both outcome and relationship – essentially “no negotiation” or delay . In public sector IT negotiations, avoidance means a government chooses not to engage in a direct negotiation or conflict, usually because the issue is too minor to pursue or so contentious that it’s safer to wait. While generally not sustainable as a long-term strategy, there are specific contexts in which avoidance is employed in digital transformation.

One scenario is when a government faces a high-risk technology with uncertain regulation or significant public controversy. For example, consider advanced AI uses like live facial recognition in public spaces – currently a hotly debated topic in Europe. Given that the AI Act will likely ban or heavily restrict real-time biometric identification in public , a national government might opt to avoid negotiating any deployment of such technology with vendors or law enforcement agencies for now. Essentially, they postpone that digital initiative until clearer laws are in place or until public sentiment is more settled. By avoiding a negotiation on something like facial recognition, the government averts a possible confrontation with privacy regulators (and avoids risking relationship with the public that distrusts the tech). The downside is a lost outcome – the potential benefits of the tech are not realized in the short term. However, this “postpone to win later” approach can be prudent if engaging now would trigger legal violations or public backlash. Indeed, Lewicki and Hiam note that avoidance can be a temporary tactic to let tensions cool or wait for better conditions .

Another example is in inter-governmental settings. If a particular EU digital policy issue is not a priority for the Netherlands, it might take a back seat (avoid strong positions) during negotiations, focusing political capital elsewhere. Similarly, if a disagreement with a major tech vendor seems unresolvable, a government agency might table the discussion and use an interim workaround rather than forcing a negotiation that could sour the relationship permanently. For instance, if negotiating cloud service terms with a provider stalls over data residency demands, the agency might avoid pushing further at that moment and temporarily use on-premises solutions or a different approach, revisiting the cloud option later when perhaps EU-level solutions (like sovereign cloud frameworks) are more mature.

While avoidance can reduce immediate conflict, government IT leaders should use it sparingly. A major challenge like digital compliance or cybersecurity cannot be avoided indefinitely without repercussions. Avoiding negotiation on critical issues (say, failing to engage with the Data Protection Authority on a questionable data project) could lead to violations and penalties down the line. In fact, GDPR enforcement actions show that regulators will impose fines even on public entities if they ignore compliance duties . The Dutch Data Protection Authority has signaled it will closely scrutinize algorithmic systems and AI in government (“digital government” is one of its focus areas) . Therefore, a strategy of proactively avoiding dealing with data protection would be risky; engagement (collaboration or compromise) is usually wiser once an issue becomes pressing. However, strategic avoidance has its place: for minor issues or as a cooling-off period. For example, if a vendor relationship has turned contentious during a project, pausing negotiations (avoiding further conflict) until both sides regroup can prevent outright failure. In summary, avoidance in public sector digital negotiations is a delaying or defusing tactic – useful to postpone conflicts that the government is not ready to tackle or that are better resolved later, but it is not a permanent solution. Decision-makers should identify when an issue truly warrants avoidance (low priority or awaiting external developments) versus when it needs active negotiation.

Accommodating Strategy – Prioritizing Relationships

An accommodating strategy entails high concern for the relationship and lower concern for the specific outcome – effectively “yielding” to the other side in order to maintain goodwill . Governments might adopt an accommodating approach when dealing with powerful regulators, critical partners, or sensitive public concerns, choosing to sacrifice some of their own objectives to uphold trust or alliances. In European digital transformation, this often occurs when public interest or legal compliance is non-negotiable, and the government opts to fully align with those expectations even if it means a setback to its project.

One clear driver of accommodation is compliance with EU regulations. National and local governments have little leeway to negotiate the fundamental requirements of laws like GDPR – they must accommodate these legal mandates in their IT plans. For instance, a city government planning to roll out smart city sensors might find that certain data it wished to collect (say, video analytics for traffic management) raises privacy issues. Rather than fight the regulator or push the project in violation of GDPR, the city may scale back the data collection to only what is allowed, or implement it only after rigorous anonymization – essentially accommodating the privacy requirements at the expense of some functionality. The relationship being preserved here is twofold: with the regulatory authorities (avoiding sanctions and maintaining a cooperative reputation) and with the public’s trust. European citizens value privacy rights highly, and a government seen as riding roughshod over GDPR could face public outcry and reputational damage. Therefore, government IT leaders often err on the side of accommodation regarding EU data protection: better to lose some analytic capability than lose citizen trust or face legal penalties. As PwC noted regarding GDPR, beyond avoiding fines, demonstrable care for personal data builds trust and encourages uptake of digital services . In other words, accommodating the stringent privacy standards can yield a relationship win (public trust), which is crucial for long-term digital transformation success.

Another area for accommodation is when dealing with inter-governmental relationships and digital sovereignty goals. Sometimes a national government will support an EU-wide approach even if it’s not the optimal immediate outcome for itself, in order to bolster unity or future cooperation. For example, a country might agree to adopt a European common data space solution or cloud standard (perhaps less feature-rich than a global vendor’s product) to strengthen Europe’s collective digital sovereignty. The Netherlands has indicated it “must join Europe in a firm commitment to digital sovereignty,” meaning it may align with European-designed systems to reduce dependency on U.S. or Chinese tech, thereby preserving the broader relationship with EU partners and principles over short-term convenience . This accommodating stance trades some outcome (maybe sacrificing a bit of efficiency or low cost that a big tech solution offered) for the relationship and principle of European control.

In negotiations with vendors, accommodation might be seen when a vendor holds a monopoly or critical role and the government cannot easily replace them. In such cases, to maintain service continuity (relationship), the government may give in to certain vendor terms. For instance, if a specialized software provider for tax systems is the only viable option, the finance ministry might accept higher prices or less favorable terms to keep that relationship stable – essentially “lose to win” (lose in contract terms to win a stable system and partnership). However, governments will be cautious with accommodating too far in procurement, as EU rules discourage giving any one supplier undue favoritism.

The accommodating strategy is valuable for maintaining goodwill, ensuring compliance, and building long-term partnerships. It’s frequently seen when ethical issues arise. A government might accommodate public or expert concerns about an AI system’s bias by halting or significantly altering the project, even if it delays innovation. This happened in some European cities that paused predictive policing programs after civil society raised ethics issues – the authorities chose to prioritize the social relationship (public confidence and ethical standing) over the project’s immediate outcome. The key risk of accommodation is that the government’s own goals may be undermined if it yields too much. Continually giving in can also encourage stakeholders to push harder, expecting the government will always fold to preserve harmony. Therefore, accommodation should be used when the relationship or higher principle truly outweighs the specific loss. For government IT leaders, this often means putting compliance, public values, and alliances first, and finding other ways to achieve their goals in the long run. For example, if accommodating GDPR means a certain analytics feature is dropped, the team might look for privacy-enhancing technologies that could later fill the gap in a compliant way. In summary, accommodating is about being “the generous negotiator” now to cultivate trust and stability, which can pay off in future cooperation and smoother implementation of digital initiatives.

Recommendations for Government IT Decision-Makers

Negotiating the complexities of digital transformation in the public sector requires agility in strategy. Based on the above analysis, government IT decision-makers in the Netherlands and across Europe should consider the following actionable recommendations:

1. Assess Priorities and Choose the Right Strategy: Before entering any negotiation – be it with a regulator, a vendor, or a partner agency – determine how crucial the outcome is and how important the relationship is . Use Lewicki & Hiam’s Negotiation Matrix to map your situation. For example, if compliance with an EU regulation is non-negotiable (high outcome importance) and the vendor relationship is secondary, a competing stance may be appropriate. If both innovation outcome and long-term partnership matter, lean towards a collaborative approach. Deliberately choosing a strategy based on this assessment will lead to more effective negotiation planning.

2. Emphasize Collaboration for Complex, Multi-Stakeholder Issues: For initiatives involving new technologies like AI or data sharing, proactively engage stakeholders in a collaborative process. Set up working groups with regulators (Data Protection Authorities, etc.), involve legal and ethics advisors, and invite key vendors or open-source community members to co-create solutions. This win-win approach builds shared ownership. For instance, collaborating with the Dutch AI Coalition or similar public-private forums can help align tech deployment with ethical frameworks and public acceptance . Collaboration will often yield innovative ideas (like privacy by design features) that make compliance and digital advancement mutually reinforcing rather than adversarial.

3. Use Competing Tactics Selectively to Enforce Red Lines: Identify your “non-negotiables” – e.g., meeting GDPR obligations, ensuring data stays within EU jurisdiction (for sovereignty), or protecting critical infrastructure. In negotiations touching these areas, do not shy away from a firm competing strategy. For example, insist on robust data protection clauses with cloud providers and be willing to walk away if they won’t meet EU-required standards. The Dutch government’s success in renegotiating Microsoft’s terms shows that a tough stance can pay off . However, communicate clearly why these terms are critical (it’s about law and public trust, not arbitrary demands) to maintain some goodwill even in a hard bargaining scenario.

4. Be Ready to Compromise on Secondary Objectives: Distinguish between core requirements and areas where you have flexibility. Compromise is often necessary to get projects off the ground in a constrained environment. If budget or time is tight, prioritize the features or conditions that matter most and be prepared to give way on less critical ones. For example, if a vendor cannot meet the full list of ideal criteria for an AI system, focus on the most crucial (say, transparency and security) and compromise on others (perhaps interface features or timeline). In EU-level dealings, recognize when holding out is less beneficial than joining a consensus – sometimes accepting a compromise regulation or standard now gives you a seat at the table to improve it later. The key is to ensure compromises do not violate fundamental principles; compromise on the “how,” but not the core “what” (e.g., how to implement a law can be flexible, but whether to follow it is not).

5. Avoid Avoidance – Engage Early on Tough Issues: While avoidance can be a tactical pause, make it a point to address critical issues proactively rather than deferring them indefinitely. If you anticipate that an AI project might raise ethical or legal questions, consult with regulators and stakeholders at the project’s conception, not after problems emerge. Early engagement can prevent the situation where avoidance seems like the only option. Moreover, many EU regulations have monitoring bodies or are open to interpretations – engaging with these (for example, participating in a regulatory sandbox or consultation) can resolve uncertainties that, if left unchecked, might have led to project delays. Reserve avoidance for cases where a topic is truly low-value or where timing is premature (e.g., not investing resources in a technology that is still banned or not yet viable). Even then, set a calendar reminder to revisit the issue periodically so that “avoiding” does not become forgetting.

6. Accommodate to Build Trust, But Have a Mitigation Plan: When you choose to accommodate – say, acceding to a strict regulatory request or a public demand – do so openly and strategically. Communicate to stakeholders that you value the relationship (e.g., public trust or EU solidarity) and that is why you are adjusting your approach. This transparency turns accommodation into a strength, signaling that the government puts values first. However, also plan how you will achieve your goals despite the accommodation. For instance, if you shut down a data project due to privacy concerns (accommodating the regulator and public), consider alternative methods (aggregate data, synthetic data, etc.) to achieve the policy goal in a privacy-compliant way. This way, you “lose the battle but not the war” – the immediate concession builds goodwill, and a revised strategy can still deliver outcomes. Always document these decisions to show auditors or oversight bodies that your digital transformation is being pursued responsibly and with respect for the law and ethics.

7. Leverage EU Resources and Collective Negotiation Power: The EU provides forums and tools that can bolster your negotiation position. Engage in communities like the Public Buyers Community Platform for procurement collaboration or EU joint negotiations for major tech contracts (sometimes EU institutions aggregate demand for better terms). By showing vendors that your requirements are not just one-off but backed by EU-wide standards or joint buyer groups, you strengthen the competing stance without harming relationships – it’s simply compliance with EU norms. Similarly, use EU-sanctioned model contracts and codes of conduct (for cloud services, AI, etc.), which already embed regulatory expectations. This turns some negotiations into a more straightforward adoption of known standards, reducing friction.

8. Invest in Negotiation Skills and Scenario Planning: Ensure your team is trained to recognize negotiation dynamics and adjust styles. A rigid approach is a pitfall – for instance, a procurement officer who only knows how to play hardball could alienate a potential innovation partner, whereas a policy officer who only ever accommodates might give up too much. Role-play scenarios: how would you handle a vendor pushing back on data localization? What if an EU body suggests a change that could delay your project? Having run these drills, your team can respond with the appropriate strategy mix (perhaps start collaborating, switch to competing if encountering non-compliance, etc.). Always identify your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) – e.g., if negotiations fail, can you do the project in-house or delay until rules change? Knowing this will inform whether you can afford a competing stance or need to compromise.

By implementing these recommendations, government IT decision-makers can more adeptly navigate the negotiation challenges inherent in digital transformation. The goal is to achieve digitally advanced, compliant, and ethical public services by smartly managing stakeholder relationships. In practice, that means sometimes driving a hard bargain (for security, privacy, or cost-effectiveness), and other times building alliances and trust to find creative solutions – all guided by a clear understanding of what’s at stake (outcomes) and who is involved (relationships). The Lewicki & Hiam framework, applied in the European public sector context, becomes not just a theory but a pragmatic tool: helping leaders decide when to compete, when to collaborate, when to compromise, avoid, or accommodate – ultimately leading to better negotiated outcomes in the journey of digital government modernization.

Sources:

Relevant EU and Dutch Legislation

• GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation)

• EU AI Act – Official Legislative Proposal

• NIS2 Directive (Cybersecurity EU directive)

Dutch Government and Regulatory Bodies

• Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens – AP)

• Dutch Government’s Digitalisation Strategy

• NL AI-Coalition (Nederlandse AI Coalitie)

EU and Dutch Strategic Frameworks & Negotiation Guidance

• European Commission Digital Compass 2030

• European Commission Cloud Strategy