Executive Summary

The federal government is planning the digitalization of the AHV through a new e-platform. The project raises concerns due to a long series of failed IT projects in federal administration. The unemployment insurance system "Asal 2.0" serves as a cautionary example: the 200-million-franc investment does not function in practical operation, forcing case officers to draft letters manually. The author calls for better project planning and complete transparency of construction plans from the outset.

People

Topics

  • Digitalization of administration
  • AHV reform
  • Failed IT projects
  • Transparency in federal administration

Clarus Lead

The planned AHV digitalization reveals a structural promise deficit: while the federal government invests hundreds of millions in IT projects, operational uselessness documents itself through everyday failures like the Asal 2.0 system. The reform pressure on old-age provision thus meets a credibility problem of federal administration. Without mandatory disclosure of project construction plans, the risk remains calculable – and uncontrollable.

Detailed Summary

Federal administration faces a repeated pattern: massively budgeted digitalization projects fail in practical application. The "Asal 2.0" system for unemployment insurance agencies illustrates the disaster concretely – an investment of 200 million francs resulted in software so dysfunctional that case officers resort to handwritten solutions. This is not a technical glitch, but an expression of faulty project governance.

Müller argues that administration must fundamentally restructure its IT development. The central instrument is not better technology, but preventive transparency: construction plans must be disclosed from the beginning. This creates two effects – external control and internal accountability. Without this mechanism, the pattern repeats: secret planning, budget escalation, operational collapse.

Core Statements

  • Failed IT projects are a systemic problem of federal administration, not isolated cases
  • The Asal 2.0 fiasco (200 million CHF) shows that heavily budgeted systems can be functionally worthless
  • Disclosure obligation of project construction plans is the primary control instrument against repetition

Critical Questions

  1. Evidence: What metrics define "failure" in IT projects? Should the 200 million francs for Asal 2.0 be fully evaluated as a bad investment, or are there partial functionalities?

  2. Conflicts of Interest: Who bears responsibility within federal administration for Asal 2.0 overruns, and are there personnel or organizational consequences?

  3. Causality: Is lack of transparency the cause or symptomatic of deeper problems (missing expertise, unrealistic requirements, poor vendor selection)?

  4. Feasibility: How would mandatory disclosure of construction plans be practically implemented? Who reviews, when, with what scope?

  5. Alternatives: Are there international best practices for federal data projects that could serve as a model?

  6. Risks: Could public disclosure of construction plans also increase security risks or project costs?

Bibliography

Primary Source: "Digitalization at the Federal Level – There is Only One Thing That Helps Against an IT Fiasco" – Annalena Müller, Tages-Anzeiger, 29.04.2026 https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz-ahv-projekt-vom-bund-weckt-aengste-vor-it-debakel-202949459401

Verification Status: ✓ 29.04.2026

This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial Responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-Check: 29.04.2026