A comparative survey of governmental and national-level reference architectures across 9 countries and the European Union — scope, timescales, strategic themes, similarities, and key differences, with thematic analysis of cybersecurity, AI, quantum computing, and international cooperation.
As research increasingly depends on large-scale data, high-performance computing, and AI, national governments have turned to reference architectures — formal strategic blueprints defining how scientific computing, data management, and digital infrastructure should be organised, governed, and evolved at a national level.
These documents differ in character: some are technical blueprints (Finland's TiLa), others are investment roadmaps (Netherlands' LSRI), national infrastructure programmes (Germany's NFDI), or supranational federation frameworks (EOSC). Together they reveal a global convergence toward FAIR data, open science, federated infrastructure, and AI-readiness — while also reflecting national priorities, governance cultures, and timescales.
This report surveys 14 architectures across 9 countries and the EU. Finland's two architectures — Tieteellisen laskennan viitearkkitehtuuri 2025 (TiLa) and Tutkimuksen datanhallinnan viitearkkitehtuuri 2030 (DAHA) — serve as the reference baseline. The final section analyses four emerging themes — cybersecurity and research security, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and international cooperation — with dedicated focus on what TiLa and DAHA say about each topic and what is currently missing from them.
This survey covers national or governmental-level documents relating to scientific computing, research data management, and adjacent AI/e-infrastructure strategies. Sectoral plans are noted where they form part of a broader national framework.
Published January 2021, five-year horizon. Developed by the Ministry of Education and Culture's Scientific Computing Cooperation Forum (YTF), supported by CSC. Defines the reference architecture for scientific computing resources, data management, and ancillary services for Finnish universities and research institutions. Emphasises interoperability, service development, and alignment with European e-infrastructure. The 2025–2027 YTF is now evaluating whether to produce a successor architecture, with AI, geopolitical security, and quantum identified as top priorities.
Version 1.0 published 2024, horizon year 2030. Developed under OKM mandate by the YTF 2022–2024 term, with CSC support. Describes the target state of research data management in Finland by 2030, covering the full data lifecycle, sensitive data, long-term preservation, and concrete institutional actions. Builds on TiLa and the Open Science reference architecture (AVOTT). Recipient of the Finn-ARMA award for best research conditions development work.
The EU's flagship open science infrastructure, providing European researchers a trusted multi-disciplinary environment for publishing, finding, and reusing data. The EOSC EU Node launched October 2024 as the first Federation node. Governed tripartitely by the European Commission, EOSC Association (200+ members), and Member State representatives. Horizon Europe funds services through 2027; post-2027 sustainability is under active negotiation.
Coordinates pan-European HPC investment including LUMI in Finland (9th globally, hosted by CSC), JUPITER in Germany (Europe's first exascale, 4th globally), and LEONARDO in Italy. The 2024 mandate extension launched 19 AI Factories including Finland's LUMI AI Factory, plus a network of 13 AI Factory Antennas. EuroHPC has also procured six quantum computers integrated with HPC systems across Europe, with Finland participating in the LUMI-Q consortium and hosting the LUMI-IQ experimental quantum platform.
Established by Federal Government–Länder agreement November 2018. A decentralised, consortium-based national infrastructure for managing scientific data across all disciplines. 27 consortia funded across three rounds (2020–2022). An Overall Architecture Working Group was established April 2025 to develop a shared federated blueprint. The Wissenschaftsrat published a structural evaluation July 2025 recommending continuation. Germany's funding runs to 2028.
Launched 2020 by UK Research and Innovation. Creates a coherent national digital research infrastructure spanning data, compute, software, networks, and skills. Includes BioFAIR, DARE UK (Trusted Research Environments), and the AI Research Resource (AIRR). In December 2025 UKRI set out a £38.6 billion four-year allocation, complementing DSIT's £1 billion UK Compute Roadmap targeting a 20-fold expansion of compute capacity over five years.
A developing national data infrastructure to make UK public data assets accessible for research and innovation. The Health Data Research Service (HDRS), backed by up to £600 million from Government and Wellcome Trust, will be fully operational by December 2030. Architecture is federated and distributed, with strong emphasis on safe-access Trusted Research Environments.
Published every five years by NWO, covering all forms of large-scale research infrastructure including supercomputers, data collections, and biobanks. The 2021 edition established nine thematic groups; the 2024 round awarded €197 million to eleven projects. A third roadmap is planned for 2026. The Netherlands participates in the LUMI-Q quantum consortium alongside Finland.
NAISS (from 2023) replaced SNIC as Sweden's national HPC infrastructure. In 2024 NAISS published its strategic report covering AI-dedicated hardware (MIMER initiative) and the Arrhenius supercomputer (Linköping, Q1 2026). Sweden is one of the first seven AI Factory countries (December 2024, MIMER AI Factory) and participates in the LUMI-Q quantum computing consortium. Sweden's 2024 research bill designates quantum as a strategic research area.
Australia's 2021 NRI Roadmap outlines national collaborative research infrastructure to 2028 under the NCRIS programme. A Draft National Digital Research Infrastructure Strategy (2023) extends this to a 10–15 year vision. The ARDC leads major programmes including the Nectar Research Cloud, HASS Research Data Commons, and the 2024 Australian National PID Strategy. Australia published a National Quantum Strategy in May 2023 targeting global leadership by 2030.
NASA's Science Mission Directorate Data and Computing Architecture Study (final report August 2024) addressed computing needs of 150+ active missions generating over 100 PB of open data, projected to exceed 500 PB by 2030. Recommends a hybrid on-premises/cloud architecture in support of SPD-41a open science mandates.
NITRD published an updated Federal Big Data R&D Strategic Plan in 2024, covering AI, generative AI, data quality, and sustainable computing. Coordinates federal investment across DOE, NSF, NIST, NASA, and NIH. The DOE operates Frontier (world's first exascale, USA) and Aurora at national labs. A parallel NITRD Cybersecurity R&D Strategic Plan was published in 2023.
The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat leads the whole-of-government Data Strategy 2023–2026, covering data standards, CDO accountabilities, data literacy, and indigenous data sovereignty. Canada's three federal research agencies (SSHRC, NSERC, CIHR) require mandatory Data Management Plans from 2023. Canada's National Quantum Strategy (2023) and National Security Guidelines for Research Partnerships (2021) address emerging technology risks.
Japan's Cabinet-level Comprehensive Data Strategy (June 2021, updated annually) directed a 21st-century digital infrastructure. The NII operates the NII Research Data Cloud: GakuNin RDM, WEKO3, and CiNii Research. Japan's 6th STI Basic Plan mandated open science; 70 university data policies were published by June 2024. Japan's Q-LEAP quantum initiative (2018) and RIKEN quantum computing programme have built significant national capacity.
The table below compares key dimensions of each architecture: issuing body, primary scope, horizon year, governance model, FAIR alignment, and international framework linkages.
| Country | Document / Programme | Horizon | Primary Scope | Governance | FAIR / Open | Int'l Alignment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇫🇮 Finland (TiLa) | Scientific Computing Ref. Arch. 2025 | 2021–2025 | HPC, data mgmt, services | Ministry + YTF + CSC | Partial FAIR | EOSC, EuroHPC/LUMI |
| 🇫🇮 Finland (DAHA) | Research Data Mgmt Ref. Arch. 2030 | 2023–2030 | Full data lifecycle, RDM | Ministry + YTF + CSC | FAIR-centred | EOSC, AVOTT, TiLa |
| 🇪🇺 EU (EOSC) | Architecture & Interoperability Framework | 2018–2027+ | Pan-European science cloud | EC + EOSC Assoc. + Member States | FAIR-native | RDA, OpenAIRE, national nodes |
| 🇪🇺 EU (EuroHPC) | EuroHPC Joint Undertaking | 2018–ongoing | Pan-European HPC / AI / Quantum | EU JU + member states | Open access | EOSC, Horizon Europe |
| 🇩🇪 Germany | NFDI — National Research Data Infrastructure | 2018–2028+ | Research data, all disciplines | DFG + 27 consortia | FAIR-native | EOSC (mandatory), RDA |
| 🇬🇧 UK (UKRI DRI) | Digital Research Infrastructure Programme | 2020–2030 | Compute, data, skills, software | UKRI + DSIT | FAIR-oriented | EOSC-adjacent, EuroHPC |
| 🇬🇧 UK (NDL) | National Data Library | 2024–2030 | Public data access, health data | Government + Wellcome + UKRI | Privacy-first + open | HDR UK, DARE UK, TRE network |
| 🇳🇱 Netherlands | National Roadmap for LSRI | 5-yr cycles | All research infrastructure | NWO + OCW ministry | FAIR in digital pillar | ESFRI, EuroHPC, EOSC |
| 🇸🇪 Sweden | NAISS | 2023–ongoing | HPC, storage, AI, quantum | Swedish Research Council + universities | Open access | EuroHPC, EOSC, LUMI-Q |
| 🇦🇺 Australia | NRI Roadmap + Draft NDRI Strategy | 2021–2028 (10–15 yr) | Research infrastructure, digital | Dept of Education + NCRIS + ARDC | FAIR + open data | RDA, international PIDs |
| 🇺🇸 USA (NASA) | SMD Data & Computing Arch. Study | FY22–2030 | Science mission data + computing | NASA SMD | Open science mandate | NITRD, DOE, NSF |
| 🇺🇸 USA (NITRD) | Federal Big Data R&D Strategic Plan | 2024 | Federal data + AI ecosystem | NITRD cross-agency (OSTP) | AI/ML data quality | G7/G20 data principles |
| 🇨🇦 Canada | Federal Data Strategy + Tri-Agency RDM | 2023–2026 | Gov data governance + research RDM | TBS whole-of-government + 3 agencies | Open by default | G7/G20, OECD principles |
| 🇯🇵 Japan | Comprehensive Data Strategy + NII RDC | 2021–ongoing | National data infra + open science | Cabinet Office + NII + Digital Agency | FAIR-compliant (NII) | G7/G20, data spaces |
Despite significant differences in governance, scale, and national context, a striking degree of convergence is visible across all surveyed architectures.
Finland and Sweden use ministry-mandated advisory forums (YTF, SRC) with operational agencies (CSC, NAISS). Germany chose a bottom-up science-driven consortium model (NFDI). UK operates through UKRI as a large mission-oriented funder. USA is fragmented by agency mission with NITRD cross-agency coordination. Japan is top-down from Cabinet level with NII as the operational node.
Finland's TiLa/DAHA pair is notable for its explicit architectural layering — from principles through capability mapping to services — and for the tight coupling between CSC, OKM, and YTF. DAHA uniquely treats Data Management Plans, long-term preservation, and sensitive data workflows as co-equal concerns alongside compute and storage. The 2025 YTF forum flagged AI, geopolitical data security, and quantum as the top forward-looking priorities.
Most architectures were published or revised 2020–2024. COVID-19 was a forcing function, exposing gaps in interoperability and data sharing. TiLa, NFDI, Japan's Comprehensive Data Strategy, Australia's NRI Roadmap, and UKRI DRI all reflect this wave.
FAIR principles have achieved near-universal adoption. Germany and the EU have built FAIR into foundational governance and technical design; others are working toward systematic implementation. Finland's DAHA 2030 sits in a mature implementation position, treating FAIR as a design requirement rather than an aspiration.
No country has chosen a purely centralised architecture. The dominant model is federated central coordination with distributed data sovereignty, driven by GDPR, cultural norms, and data volumes. Smaller countries with single national nodes (CSC, NAISS) navigate this considerably more easily than larger, fragmented systems.
In 2021-era documents, AI appeared as a research workload to be supported. In 2024–2025 documents, AI is first-class infrastructure. EuroHPC's 19 AI Factories across Europe — including Finland's LUMI AI Factory in Kajaani — represent the most architecturally integrated public AI response globally.
Every architecture identifies data stewards, research software engineers, HPC specialists, and AI literacy as the limiting factor — regardless of infrastructure scale. Training programmes and career pathways are universally emphasised.
Several architectures approach their nominal horizon years without fully resolved successors: TiLa 2025, NFDI 2028, EOSC 2027. Research infrastructure is politically difficult to fund on a long-term recurring basis, yet scientific research requires decade-scale stability.
Horizons range from 3-year operational plans (Canada) to 5-year roadmaps (Netherlands, TiLa) to decade-long visions (DAHA 2030, UK NDL, Australia NDRI). The most effective architectures combine a short-term operational plan with a longer-term aspirational vision — precisely the model Finland's TiLa/DAHA pairing demonstrates.
All architectures endorse open science in principle. The gap is in enforcement mechanisms: mandates (NASA, Canadian Tri-Agency), EU policy pressure, or recommendation-based models (Finland, Sweden). Countries with centralised research funding bodies can more easily attach open science conditions to grants.
Four topics have emerged as cross-cutting priorities that challenge or extend the scope of most national architectures. For each topic this section covers the international landscape, then provides a dedicated analysis of what TiLa and DAHA currently say and what is missing from those documents.
The threat landscape for research infrastructure has intensified markedly since 2020. State-sponsored actors have increasingly targeted universities, research databases, and HPC centres for espionage, IP theft, and disruption. Most earlier national architectures treated security as a compliance matter; 2024–2025 documents increasingly treat it as a strategic design principle. NIS2 (transposition deadline October 2024) expanded mandatory cybersecurity controls to digital infrastructure operators across the EU, and the January 2026 EU Cybersecurity Package proposes horizontal ICT supply chain security provisions that will directly affect EuroHPC operators including CSC.
Artificial intelligence has undergone the most dramatic repositioning of any theme in this survey. In most 2020–2022 architectures AI appeared as a research application domain. By 2024–2025 it is treated as a first-class infrastructure tier requiring dedicated hardware, data pipelines, governance frameworks, and sovereign model development programmes. The LUMI AI Factory — one of the first seven EuroHPC AI Factories, opened October 2025 — places Finland at the centre of European AI infrastructure, making the absence of AI from TiLa's architecture particularly visible.
Quantum computing has transitioned from a pure research topic to an infrastructure planning concern. EuroHPC has taken the most architecturally integrated approach, with six quantum computers deployed at HPC sites by late 2025. Finland participates in the LUMI-Q Consortium (eight countries), co-funding the VLQ quantum computer in Czechia, and is developing the LUMI-IQ experimental hybrid HPC-quantum-AI platform in Kajaani. Finland's Quantum Technology Strategy 2025–2035 sets ambitious national targets, creating a sharp contrast with TiLa's and DAHA's silence on the topic.
International cooperation takes several forms: multilateral frameworks (EOSC, EuroHPC, RDA), bilateral agreements (NASA MOUs, AUKUS), and coordinated export controls (quantum technology restrictions, semiconductor controls). A notable tension has emerged between the open science norm and a growing security-oriented trend toward restricting technology transfer. LUMI, as pan-European shared infrastructure with users from all 11 consortium countries and all EuroHPC member states, sits directly at this intersection.
Across all four themes, Finland occupies a leading position in infrastructure — LUMI as top-10 global supercomputer, LUMI AI Factory, LUMI-IQ quantum platform, LUMI-Q consortium membership, CSC SD Services — but faces a consistent documentation gap.
TiLa 2025 was written before the AI Factory era, Finland's Quantum Technology Strategy, and the current geopolitical security environment. DAHA 2030 is more forward-looking but focuses on data management and does not address AI model lifecycle, post-quantum cryptography for preservation, or the international governance challenges that LUMI's pan-European role creates. The case for a TiLa 2030+ successor that explicitly addresses AI infrastructure tiers, quantum computing integration, cybersecurity design principles, post-quantum cryptography for research data, and international access governance is both architecturally urgent and strategically necessary given Finland's infrastructure leadership position in Europe.