Smart Data is coming. The boring bits will decide if it works.

Smart Data is about to have a moment in the UK — and it could reshape how people buy, switch, compare and access services across whole sectors.

In plain English, Smart Data means giving people (and small businesses) a secure, consent-based way to share their data with trusted third parties, so they can get better deals, more personalised products, and less annoying admin. It’s the infrastructure behind things like switching providers in a few clicks, getting smarter mortgage options instantly, or seeing your energy usage translated into real savings.

The UK cares because Smart Data is one of the most practical ways to make markets more competitive and consumer-friendly — without relying on regulation alone. It also matters in a world where AI and digital services increasingly depend on high-quality, accessible data to work well.

In December, the Department for Business and Trade published a review of how existing UK data standards can support future Smart Data schemes across finance, energy, property and retail. The potential is huge — but standards alone won’t deliver it.

Because the real work starts after the standards.

The exciting promise (and why it matters)

Smart Data is a chance to move beyond the limited success of “data sharing” as a concept and instead build practical, trusted ecosystems that work for consumers and businesses.

In finance, Open Banking shows what’s possible when the market has a clear framework, shared technical standards, and a strong trust model.

Now the ambition is to bring that kind of value — at scale — into other sectors where customer data is fragmented and services are unnecessarily complex.

It’s the kind of transformation that can feel incremental from the inside… and revolutionary from the outside.

Standards are necessary. They’re not sufficient.

The DBT review makes a point we see all the time in delivery work: you can have excellent technical standards and still fail to build a functioning scheme.

Because the real question isn’t just “what data format should we use?”

It’s:

• who is allowed to participate?

• how is consent captured, stored, and audited?

• what does “authorised” mean in practice?

• what security and liability model applies?

• who owns and updates the standard?

• how do we enforce compliance and performance?

• how do we fund the infrastructure and governance over time?

Those questions live in the governance and execution layer — the layer most people would rather not talk about.

The governance layer is where Smart Data wins or fails

The report highlights a crucial truth: Smart Data success depends on building the scheme infrastructure around the standards — not just publishing the standards themselves.

It’s not glamorous work. It’s often slow, politically sensitive, operationally complex, and full of trade-offs.

And it’s exactly the work many organisations avoid investing in because it looks like overhead.

But without it:

• adoption stalls

• interoperability breaks

• trust erodes

• fragmentation increases

• consumers see little real benefit

This is how we end up with innovation theatre instead of infrastructure.

The risk: fragmented Smart Data schemes that don’t connect

One of the most important warnings in the review is the risk of sector-by-sector fragmentation.

If each sector builds its own scheme in isolation — with different consent models, accreditation processes, security approaches, and identifier choices — we’ll end up with a UK ecosystem that is harder to navigate, harder to regulate, and harder to scale.

Cross-sector foundations are the unlock:

• shared accreditation patterns

• common identifiers

• reusable trust infrastructure

• consistent governance expectations

Because interoperability isn’t just technical — it’s institutional.

Why we’re excited

At Friday Initiatives, we’re genuinely optimistic about Smart Data — and proud to have contributed to this review.

We care deeply about the infrastructure layer of modern data systems: the governance, operating models, standards, and execution disciplines that make good ideas real.

It’s the work that gets labelled “boring”.

But it’s also the work that determines whether a scheme becomes:

• a trusted national capability, or

• a patchwork of half-adopted standards sitting on a shelf

We love the boring bits — because they’re where value is built and risk is controlled.

What we hope happens next

If Smart Data is going to deliver on its promise, the next phase needs to focus on:

• designing schemes around real use cases, not theoretical data sets

• investing in governance and operating models early

• prioritising adoption and maintainability, not perfection on paper

• building cross-sector reusable infrastructure wherever possible

• treating standards as living assets, with clear ownership and funding

The UK has an opportunity here to build a Smart Data ecosystem that is practical, trusted, and scalable. But it will only happen if we take execution as seriously as ambition — and if we’re willing to fund and build the “boring” layer that makes everything else work.

If you’re working on Smart Data schemes — or thinking about how your organisation should prepare — we’d love to compare notes.