Put data behind every decision

We empower organisations with data management and analysis services, turning complex data ecosystems into strategic capabilities that deliver competitive results. By combining the deep expertise of our UK-based specialists with global-scale technology and innovation, we help you make every decision with confidence, knowing your data is accurate, reliable and ready to drive impact.

Our trusted clients and partners

Who we are

We are a B-Corp–certified, end-to-end data consultancy with over 20 years of experience, helping organisations turn complex data challenges into meaningful solutions.

By combining deep expertise with a technology-agnostic approach, we design solutions that use the right tools for each situation - supported by globally trusted partners such as SAS, Snowflake, Informatica and Databricks.

Our experience in highly secure environments ensures that sensitive data is handled safely and in line with rigorous compliance standards.

Recognised across multiple Government Commerical Agency and other public sector frameworks, we support organisations in delivering value, enabling citizen-focused projects and obtaining insights that drive smarter decisions.

From improving data quality and cloud adoption to advanced analytics and AI/ML, we guide both private and public sector organisations through every stage of the data journey, whilst always remaining focused on ethical, practical and impactful outcomes.

Our services

Turn untapped potential into continuous improvement

Data quality, governance, and privacy

Ensure your data is accurate, well-governed, and safeguarded for evolving privacy standards, whilst establishing a trusted foundation for AI.

Data engineering, integration, and cloud adoption

Design and implement scalable data platforms that enable seamless integration, automation and cloud-based operations to support modern analytics and AI solutions.

Data analytics and visualisation

Transform complex datasets into clear, interactive visual insights that support smarter, faster decision-making.

Data science and AI solutions

Apply advanced AI and machine learning to unlock predictive insights, automate workflows, and drive measurable business value.

Our experience

Why Butterfly Data?

Proven expertise

With over 20 years’ experience, our dedicated team of data scientists, engineers and technologists, familiar with secure and compliant data practices, bring unrivalled expertise, adding real value without the overhead costs associated with larger firms.

Abstract design of curved golden lines forming a flowing wave pattern on a black background.

Innovative technology

We use cutting-edge technologies from leading vendors like SAS, Databricks, and Snowflake to boost performance and accelerate business transformation.

Abstract yellow curved lines forming a flowing wave pattern on a black background.

A personalised approach

Every organisation is unique, and so is its data. We build close relationships with your team, tailoring our services to align with your business objectives and solve your challenges.

Spiral pattern made of small golden dots on a black background.

Data for good

As a proud B-Corp, we use the power of data for good – partnering and collaborating with organisations that align with our core values to create a positive impact.

Abstract flowing yellow mesh lines forming wave-like curves on a black background.

Measurable results

Chosen by industry leaders for our agility and commitment to excellence, we let the data speak for itself.

Yellow curved parallel lines forming an abstract wave pattern on a black background.

Simple procurement

Easily procure our services, either directly or via key public sector frameworks, including G-Cloud, DOS, Spark, ACE, and NVfI.

Abstract geometric design of overlapping yellow square lines forming a diamond shape on a black background.

“The invaluable work that Butterfly Data have undertaken with a key collaborator of mine will feed directly into my work, making it both simpler and faster and enabling me to better identify data gaps. Incredibly useful. Thank you."

Abstract dark background with smooth, curved yellow light streaks.
Butterfly DATA guide

70+ projects. 35+ organisations. One brochure.

If you are evaluating data consultancies, our brochure sets out our services, our track record and how we work.

resources

Insights to power better decisions

Digital sovereignty has moved from a niche concern to a strategic priority for governments across Europe. In the UK, efforts have focused largely on sovereign AI while a far larger lever has gone underused: the government’s own purchasing power. This article looks at the state of public procurement, sets the UK against how European neighbours are meeting the moment and argues for a national digital sovereignty strategy and a bolder approach to innovation. 

Why everyone is talking about digital sovereignty

The conversation about digital sovereignty started gaining momentum when the former European Central Bank President, Mario Draghi, released his report on the future of European competitiveness in 2024; highlighting the strategic dependency on critical technologies like computer chips, cloud computing platforms and frontier AI models that are dominated by overseas giants. 

Digital sovereignty - broadly, a nation's ability to make independent choices about its digital infrastructure, data and technology, rather than having those choices shaped or overridden by foreign providers and governments - has since become a political priority. 

Various events have precipitated UK and European efforts to find a response to this mounting challenge; among them: 

How the UK and EU are reacting

In the UK

Despite spending an estimated £14 billion per year on digital services, the UK Government does not have an overarching policy on digital sovereignty. Instead, much of its attention has focused on sovereign AI, in the hopes of turning fundamental AI research and talent from UK universities, the presence of leading AI labs and the AI Institute’s global leadership on AI safety and governance into a competitive advantage.

Building out national AI compute is seen as a major enabler and the government plans to invest up to £2 billion by 2030 and to establish AI Growth Zones to keep momentum behind private data centre investment. In addition, a £500 million Sovereign AI Unit aims to de-risk and scale British AI startups by offering funding, access to compute and fast-track R&D visas. Yet these efforts remain strikingly disconnected from the government's own purchasing power: the Sovereign AI Unit has no influence over the £14 billion the state spends on digital services each year; spending that continues to flow mostly to big overseas vendors.  

In the EU

In contrast, the EU has a much more defined policy approach, agreeing on a Declaration for European Digital Sovereignty during the Summit on European Digital Sovereignty in Berlin. It is also working on a Cloud and AI Development Act meant to close the gap in cloud and AI infrastructure, as well a European Open Digital Ecosystem Strategy that acknowledges “open source as a crucial contribution to EU technological sovereignty, security and competitiveness”.

In addition, the EU developed a Cloud Sovereignty Framework that it hopes will be a reference point for cloud providers to drive compliance with European standards and values which will play a role when assessing whether cloud services meet digital sovereignty requirements during procurement. That public procurement design can play an important role in strengthening digital sovereignty has also been noticed by the EU, which launched a new procurement process for cloud services based on mini competitions that will enable cloud providers of varying sizes to build multi-tenant solutions.

In the private sector

In the private sector, businesses have started to work on redundancy plans for technical infrastructure and generative AI systems as part of their risk management. While the market share of cloud providers this side of the Atlantic remains small, the pressure on US hyperscalers is big enough for them to advertise European sovereign cloud offerings. However, these offerings mostly amount to data residency rather than data sovereignty: a European data centre operated by a US-headquartered company remains subject to the CLOUD Act.

It is no accident that such offerings do not meet standards like France's SecNumCloud, which excludes providers subject to extraterritorial legislation by design. Additionally, some European governments have started to move away from US-made software, ditching tools like Teams and Microsoft Office in favour of homegrown or open-source options and the Dutch government blocked the takeover of cloud provider Solvinity by US-based Kyndryl to protect the sovereignty of the Dutch digital ID. 

The status quo of public procurement and SMEs in the UK

Public procurement is a major lever to strengthen the UK’s digital sovereignty and an obvious path to tap into the capabilities of national SMEs. That SMEs can play a key role in a country’s digital sovereignty has been demonstrated by digital leaders like Estonia. X-Road, a secure open-source data exchange layer for sending and receiving data between private and public sector organisations, is a prominent success story. Rather than procuring a finished product from a single vendor, the government specified an open standard and contracted domestic firms to build against it, retaining ownership of the architecture while keeping individual contracts small enough for SMEs to win. This approach demonstrates that sovereignty can be an output of procurement design, not just procurement nationality. In addition, choosing an open approach let Estonia benefit from the contributions of other countries who faced similar challenges. Today, X-Road contributes to the digital sovereignty of over 30 countries and is maintained by over 2000 members from more than 60 countries.

In contrast, recent reports by the National Audit Office and the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee on technology procurement found that the UK government’s approach is hampering modernisation and innovation while preferencing operating models like subscription-based cloud services from big tech companies that weaken the UK’s digital sovereignty. In addition, today’s public procurement makes it hard for innovative SMEs to participate and favours large and often overseas incumbents.

Research from Tussell shows that, among the Top 150 IT government suppliers, the market share of UK-based vendors has declined in recent years and the value of AI projects awarded to US-based firms was almost double that of those won by UK-based suppliers. The most striking recent example is the £240 million Ministry of Defence contract awarded to Palantir in December 2025, which Politico states was awarded without a competitive process, and criticised from across the political spectrum for deepening reliance on US firms at the expense of British alternatives, highlighting the tension between the government’s ambition to support sovereign capabilities and actual procurement outcomes.

Decisions like these are, in part, driven by a longstanding culture of risk aversion in public procurement, which limits innovation and makes access to public contracts especially difficult for SMEs and startups. The Procurement Act 2023 was meant to change this through a focus on outcomes and more flexible tenders but, so far, this has done little to change the default stance procurement teams take.

How public procurement and SMEs could support the UK’s digital sovereignty

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee recommends several changes to public sector procurement practices aimed specifically at increasing SMEs’ access. This includes a mandatory spend on UK-based SMEs, the creation of a central contracts database, outcome-based procurement to provide flexibility and stage-gated contracts that allow smaller companies to develop and scale their processes. This could make it more likely for SMEs with innovative solutions to the UK’s digital sovereignty challenges to get access to and succeed in tenders.

Some of the necessary tools already exist. The Procurement Act 2023 provides for flexible competitive procedures and the disaggregation of contracts into smaller lots, levers well suited to opening tenders up to SMEs. What is missing is the instruction to use them for this purpose, which the government could supply through the National Procurement Policy Statement. Tussell’s GovTech Market 2026 report shows a tenfold increase in social value-related terms in award criteria following the Procurement Act, suggesting that this act is an effective way to steer procurement across public sector organisations. Formal implementation of sovereignty-focused award criteria would also give SMEs additional incentives to develop sovereignty-focused solutions and would de-risk their long-term investment in upskilling staff to work with alternatives to big tech’s services, which would otherwise be the default. 

Procurement can also work as a scaling mechanism, not just a defensive one. Analysis from the University of Cambridge argues that the UK's core problem is not inventing technology but scaling the companies that build it. The government acting as an anchor customer is the missing pathway, with institutional adoption validating solutions and giving startups the revenue and references they need to grow. Connecting the Sovereign AI Unit's portfolio to real public sector procurement opportunities would be the obvious place to start, and would answer the criticism that it operates in isolation from the government's own spending. 

Additionally, a UK sovereignty certification or assessment scheme, analogous to France's SecNumCloud or the EU's Cloud Sovereignty Framework and Gaia-X label, would simplify sovereignty-focused procurement. Creating a shared standard would prevent each department devising its own and give SMEs a clear target to work towards. Open standards and interoperability as default award conditions could also lead to solutions that naturally work towards sovereignty goals.

At Butterfly Data, we have made good experiences with frameworks like the Home Office’s Accelerated Capability Environment (ACE). ACE brings together expertise from industry, academia and the public sector to speed up the development of innovative technology solutions. It directly supports public sector organisations with technical expertise, removing one of the limiting factors identified by the National Audit Office’s report. An overarching framework that focuses on digital sovereignty could give more SMEs access and spawn innovative solutions.

In the meantime, there are private initiatives starting to fill the void left by the government’s lack of an overarching strategy, such as AIM for the UK, a citizen-led group which wants to develop a “vision for the role of AI in our society, democracy, and economy”. SMEs should also seek strength in numbers, use their networks and collaborate with peers to demonstrate to the government that they can play a crucial role in strengthening the UK’s digital sovereignty while advocating for the much-needed national frameworks and changes to public procurement.

Conclusion

So, can public procurement strengthen the UK's digital sovereignty? Yes, but not as currently practised, quietly working in the opposite direction.

Given the scale of the UK government's technology operations, changing course is a major challenge and it seems unlikely to happen without a clear vision. Developing a national digital sovereignty strategy that goes beyond the existing measures, mostly limited to the UK's AI economy, should be a priority. That strategy will have to acknowledge that more control over our digital services and infrastructure comes at a cost and that the UK cannot outspend the US tech sector.

It means being selective, applying the strictest sovereignty requirements where the stakes are highest rather than everywhere at once and learning from digital leaders like Estonia, who have shown that smart procurement design makes a difference. If spent differently, the £14 billion a year of demand that the government already controls could have a sizeable impact on the UK's digital sovereignty. At the same time, the government needs to back those willing to take risks on innovative ideas, SMEs and startups. Only if procurement teams overcome the reflex to buy tried-and-tested yet dependency-deepening solutions do the many good ideas coming from within the UK stand a chance to make us more sovereign. 

Government AI systems are only as reliable as the data behind them. Before departments can deploy AI safely and effectively, they need accurate, complete, and well-governed data — because poor data quality produces unreliable AI outputs regardless of model sophistication. The Artificial Intelligence Playbook for the UK Government identifies data quality as a foundational requirement, yet many departments prioritise AI investment ahead of the data work that makes it trustworthy.

At a glance

Point

Detail

Policy basis

The AI Playbook for the UK Government names data quality as foundational to AI adoption — though it's guidance, not a procurement mandate

Real-world case

Butterfly Data's HMRC engagement helped to address a £32 billion tax gap through a dedicated data quality framework (SAS 9.4, DMS, Viya) — built before, not alongside, analytics/AI use

Efficiency case

Home Office knowledge graph work cut processing costs and time by 85% once data quality issues were resolved

Governance angle

AI governance in the UK public sector centres on ethics, transparency, and accountability — none of which functions if the underlying data feeding the system is inaccurate or unrepresentative

The UK Government is racing to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) across public services. But there is a problem that no amount of investment in algorithms can fix: some of the underlying data is not good enough to support it.

— Sara Boltman, Founder & CEO, Butterfly Data

What is data quality in the context of government AI?

Data quality refers to the accuracy, completeness, consistency, timeliness, and provenance of the datasets that train or operate an AI system. In a government context, this typically means records that match across systems, fields that are populated rather than left blank or defaulted, formats that are standardised, and a clear, auditable trail of where each data point originated.

Why can't AI governance alone solve this?

AI governance frameworks address ethical and procedural risk — bias review, explainability requirements, and accountability structures. They don't fix the data itself. A well-governed AI system built on flawed data still produces flawed outputs. Governance and data quality are complementary, not substitutes: governance tells you who is responsible and how decisions get checked; data quality determines whether there's anything trustworthy to check in the first place.

What happens when government AI is built on poor-quality data?

●      Biased outcomes — models trained on unrepresentative or incomplete records replicate and amplify that gap

●      Inaccurate risk scoring — decisions in areas like fraud detection or eligibility assessment inherit the errors in the source records

●      Unreliable predictive models — forecasts degrade in proportion to the noise in the input data

●      Loss of traceability — with data provenance under increasing scrutiny, poor lineage makes it difficult to explain how a decision was reached, which is a growing legal and audit risk, not just a technical one

How should departments sequence this?

1. Data quality audit and remediation — establish the actual state of the data before building on top of it

2. Governance and stewardship structures (DAMA-aligned) — assign ownership and accountability

3. AI/analytics deployment on the now-trustworthy data foundation

4. Ongoing monitoring — data quality isn't a one-off cleansing exercise; it degrades again without continuous checks

FAQ

Does UK government policy require data quality checks before AI deployment?

The AI Playbook for the UK Government identifies data quality as foundational, though it isn't a hard procurement mandate in the way transparency-of-AI-use disclosure is under PPN02/24. It is best-practice guidance — strongly recommended rather than legally required.

What's the difference between data quality and data governance?

Data quality is about the state of the data itself — is it accurate, complete and consistent? Data governance is about the structures and accountability around it — who owns it, who's responsible for maintaining it, and how decisions about it are made. Quality work typically has to come first, or governance frameworks end up managing bad data.

Can AI itself be used to fix data quality problems?

Partially. AI-assisted anomaly detection and pattern analysis can accelerate quality checks, but it can't substitute for the foundational governance and cleansing work — especially where data provenance and lineage need to be established for audit or legal purposes.

This resource builds on our CEO Sara Boltman's piece for UKAuthority, The Missing Prerequisite: Why Data Quality Must Come Before Government AI.

Government organisations are sitting on vast stores of internal knowledge — policy documents, operational guidance, and procedural notes. The challenge isn’t having the data. It’s being able to find and trust the right answer quickly. Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is changing that.

The hidden knowledge problem in government

Think about how your team finds answers to policy questions. Someone searches a shared drive. Someone else emails the person who’s been in the role longest. Another person pulls up a PDF that might be the right version — or might be two updates out of date.

This is not a technology failure. It is an information architecture problem, and it affects almost every large public sector organisation we work with. The guidance exists. The knowledge is there. But it is scattered across repositories, intranets, legacy systems and the heads of experienced colleagues who have learned the hard way where things actually live.

When AI is introduced into that environment without proper grounding, the results are predictable: responses that sound plausible but cite the wrong version of a policy, or miss a more recent update entirely. The model is not lying, but it simply does not have access to the right information at the right time.

What is Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG)?

Retrieval Augmented Generation — RAG, for short — is a technique that gives AI models access to your own internal documents when answering a question, rather than relying purely on what the model learnt during training.

Here is a simple way to think about it. Imagine an AI assistant that, before answering your question, first searches your organisation’s document library, finds the most relevant pages, reads them, and then gives you an answer — with a footnote pointing to exactly where that answer came from. That is broadly what RAG does.

For public sector teams, this matters enormously. It means:

●      Responses are grounded in your most current internal guidance, not general training data

●      Every answer can be traced back to a source document — which supports accountability and audit requirements

●      Knowledge that previously lived only in long documents or experienced colleagues becomes accessible to everyone

What we saw at SAS Innovate on Tour

As a SAS Gold Partner, our team attends SAS Innovate on Tour each year to stay close to what is coming next across the platform. Last month, at the conference, one announcement stood out for its relevance to the public sector knowledge access problem: SAS Retrieval Agent Manager (RAM), part of a wider set of agentic AI advances SAS unveiled for its Viya platform. 

SAS RAM is a no-code RAG platform. That means teams can build and manage AI workflows that pull from internal document repositories — without needing a data engineering team to set it up. It ingests unstructured documents like PDFs, policy notes, and operational guidance and enables AI agents or chatbots to return accurate, citation-backed answers from that content.

A few things make it particularly well suited to regulated environments like UK government:

●      On-premises or hybrid deployment — your documents do not have to leave your environment

●      Citation-backed responses — every answer links to the source material it used

●      Human-in-the-loop oversight — people stay in the decision chain

●      Built-in evaluation tooling — so you can monitor and improve response quality over time

●      No vendor lock-in — it works with multiple large language models and vector databases

Why governance-conscious organisations should pay attention

We often hear from public sector teams that AI governance concerns are slowing down adoption. That is understandable. The questions are real: Is this the right version of the guidance? Who approved it? Is it still a live policy?

But here is the thing: those questions are exactly what a well-designed RAG architecture is built to answer. Version-controlled document ingestion means the model works from current material. Citation-backed outputs mean decisions are traceable. Human oversight means a caseworker or policy analyst remains in the loop.

Good AI governance – as defined in the UK Government's AI Playbook – and good RAG implementation are pointing at the same requirements. You do not have to choose between them.

Departments with the most complex policy environments — where guidance updates frequently, where inconsistent answers carry real consequences, and where experienced staff carry knowledge that has never been formally documented — often have the most to gain from getting this right.

Beyond live queries: requirements gathering and standards alignment

It is not just live caseworker queries that benefit. The same retrieval and citation mechanics are just as useful earlier in the project lifecycle — during requirements gathering.

When teams are scoping a new system, drafting a business case or writing a set of non-functional requirements, they are often working from a patchwork of organisational standards – security policy, accessibility requirements, data retention rules, interoperability standards, and department-specific technical guidance – much of it scattered across the same repositories, causing the labyrinth problem in the first place.

A RAG-backed tool can pull the relevant policy and standards directly into that process, rather than leaving it to whoever happens to know where the latest version sits. In practice, that means:

●  Automatically retrieving current standards — pulling the organisational policy that applies to a given system or service, rather than relying on a project team’s memory of what was agreed last time

●  Populating generic NFR templates with department-specific detail — security classification, accessibility level, retention period — pulled straight from current policy and citation-backed, rather than copied from an older project

●  Keeping requirements aligned as policy changes — so documentation does not quietly drift out of step with the standards it is supposed to reflect

This matters for consistency as much as for speed. Where requirements are gathered project by project, with each team interpreting the same policies slightly differently, the result is exactly the kind of inconsistency that governance teams worry about. Grounding requirements gathering in the same retrieval layer used elsewhere in the organisation means every team is working from the same version of the same standards and can show where each requirement came from.

What good implementation looks like in practice

Getting RAG working well in a government context is not just a technology question. It also requires thinking carefully about which documents go into the system and how they are maintained, how retrieval quality is evaluated on an ongoing basis (not just at launch), what happens when the system returns a low-confidence answer, and how the AI layer fits into existing workflows rather than sitting alongside them.

No-code platforms like SAS RAM lower the technical barrier significantly. But the best outcomes come when data management, governance, and technology expertise work together from the start — which is exactly the kind of cross-functional approach Butterfly Data brings to these projects.

If you are working on AI adoption in a public sector setting and want to talk through how RAG could work in your environment, get in touch. We’d love to help you find the right path through the labyrinth.

___ 

Frequently asked questions

What is Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG)?

Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is a technique that improves AI accuracy by grounding model responses in retrieved documents from a specific knowledge base, rather than relying solely on training data. The model retrieves relevant source material at query time, uses it as context, and returns a response with citations traceable to that source material.

Why is RAG particularly suited to public sector AI deployments?

Public sector organisations hold large volumes of policy documentation, operational guidance, and procedural knowledge that changes frequently and must be applied consistently. RAG ensures AI responses are grounded in the most current internal documents, supports auditability through cited sources, and can be deployed on-premises to meet government data sovereignty requirements.

What is SAS Retrieval Agent Manager?

SAS Retrieval Agent Manager (RAM) is a no-code RAG platform built on the SAS Viya platform. It enables organisations to deploy AI that retrieves and responds from unstructured enterprise documents — policies, procedures and guidance notes — with citation-backed, auditable outputs. It supports on-premises or hybrid deployment and integrates with multiple large language models and vector databases without vendor lock-in.

What was showcased at SAS Innovate on Tour?

SAS Innovate on Tour showcased advances in SAS Viya’s agentic AI capabilities, including SAS Retrieval Agent Manager as a no-code tool for enterprise RAG deployment. The event highlighted use cases in regulated industries including public sector, where knowledge access and auditability are primary concerns.

How does RAG support AI governance requirements in government?

RAG supports government AI governance by grounding responses in specific, identifiable source documents (enabling auditability), supporting version-controlled document ingestion (ensuring currency of guidance), and enabling human-in-the-loop oversight of outputs. These characteristics align with the transparency and accountability principles in the UK government’s AI governance framework.

Can RAG be deployed without a large in-house AI team?

Yes. No-code RAG platforms like SAS Retrieval Agent Manager are specifically designed to allow non-technical users to build and manage retrieval workflows without deep AI engineering resources. Implementation typically still benefits from expertise in data management, governance design, and document curation to ensure retrieval quality is maintained over time.

Ready to transform your data?

Book a free discovery call to explore how our tailored data solutions can help you manage complex datasets, gain actionable insights and drive measurable results.