Jahan
For WA Government

The AI project is the easy part. The data underneath it is the whole job.

Every agency has been told to do AI. Almost none has been told what that means for the data it already holds.

I spent six years inside government leading WA Health's data function: linkage, analytics, engineering, governance and sovereign AI. I know what a Cabinet-ready case looks like, what an audit finds, and why most AI pilots quietly stall at the data layer. For a year of it I also held the research and innovation brief, and the fund behind it, so I know what research needs from a system and how rarely anyone asks. Now I do that work for agencies, at fixed scope and fixed price, on the outside.

The desk, last day. September 2026
The part nobody budgets for

Your data people are the foundation for AI. Most of them haven't been told.

The agencies that get real value from AI in the next three years won't be the ones with the best pilots. They'll be the ones whose data someone is prepared to be believed on. Three things decide that, and none of them is a model.

  1. The truth layerAI on top of three teams pulling the same data and getting three answers doesn't fix the problem. It launders it. Agreed definitions, governed data products and someone accountable for them come first. Read the argument.
  2. Governance as designMost agencies put governance in front of data, as a committee you apply to. Put it inside the product instead: what's open by default, what needs approval, decided once when the product is built. Then the AI use case is approvable at all.
  3. FederationAgencies will not hand their data to a central team, and shouldn't have to. Shared definitions and a shared linkage spine, local control of everything else. It's how PeopleWA works, and it's the only model that survives privacy legislation.

Six examples of what I do for an agency

Fixed scope, fixed price, quoted to fit the way agencies buy. The second opinion is priced on the page and sits under every threshold. The rest are quoted once I've seen the brief. These are the six I'm asked for most, not the whole list; the rest is further down. I take one or two engagements at a time, so you'll hear quickly whether it's one for me.

01

Second opinion

An AI strategy, a business case, a vendor proposal, a platform roadmap. I read it the way I read them for six years on the approving side, and tell you what I see and what I'd do. In writing.

One day · $2,000 + GST
02

The real problem

Bring me the brief. I interview the people who actually do the work and tell you what you're really solving, whether AI has anything to do with it, and what to build first.

Two weeks
03

The small, rapid build

A working thing in weeks, not a discovery phase in months. Built at the keyboard with agents, with your team beside me so they own it when I leave. The shape the AI Investment Fund is asking for.

Four to eight weeks
04

Cross-agency data

Getting data across agency lines and through the governance that guards it. Linkage, data sharing agreements, the DAT Act, PeopleWA. I led the directorate that runs the state's linkage service, and I've sat on both sides of the request. Permission is the design, not the paperwork.

Four weeks
05

The operating model

Who owns what, who grants access, what governed means in practice, and how business units keep their autonomy. For a data platform, a data function, or the AI capability you've just been asked to stand up.

Four weeks
06

Emergency infrastructure

When the brief is "we need it in days". I've led a statewide pandemic build on a platform the state already owned. Calm, fast, and it stays up.

Days
For medical research and innovation

Research depends on systems it didn't choose. It's rarely in the room when they're chosen.

If you carry research or innovation for a health service, a fund, a bank or a registry, you hold the same three problems as the agencies above, with one difference. The systems your work runs on are bought, built and retired by someone else, on their timeline, and research is usually a request after go-live rather than a customer of the build. The job is getting the research case written down in the program's own language, early, by someone who has sat on both sides.

I've been the data side of that conversation for six years, and the research and funding side of it for one. I know what the program office will accept, what the research office needs, and how far apart the two vocabularies are. Three examples of how it arrives. There are more.

01

The seat at the table

A health service is choosing a system that will hold every patient record for the next twenty years, and nobody has written down what research needs from it: finding the cohort, the consent flag, the extract, the feed to the study database and the linkage service. I write that paper in the program's own language and carry it in, so research is a requirement rather than a retrofit.

Four weeks
02

The system that's about to break

A governance or ethics system that is years past its life, holds every approval the organisation ever gave, and is being replaced by a national one on somebody else's schedule. What's in it, what the new one will and won't hold, what happens to the history and the applications in flight, and who owns the gap in between. A plan before the migration becomes the incident.

Two to four weeks
03

The interface

Organisations outside the health system that hold something research needs: a tissue bank, a registry, a biobank, a private hospital's data. And research groups who know their science but not the data, the governance or the funding profiles. I translate between them and the system, and I know which door to knock on, because I've sat behind most of them.

A standing arrangement · Scoped after a look
When the money stops

Co-funding falls over. The program doesn't have to.

A national program gets endorsed. Then the other party's share doesn't arrive, or arrives two years late. The default is to pause and wait for the next round. By then the case is stale, the people who carried it have moved on, and another state has built the thing and is being asked to present on it.

The work is already scoped and already endorsed. The real questions are what the standalone version looks like, what it's worth on its own, whether your own share will fund it, and how you say all that so it reads as a decision rather than a retreat. I've written that case, and I've sat on the side it had to convince.

The version you build yourself is often the better one, because you're no longer designing for the lowest common denominator across nine jurisdictions. Someone still has to keep it moving while that's being decided. That's usually the part that's missing.

Done inside government, not pitched at it

For

Directors and executive directors of data, digital and ICT. CIOs with an AI mandate and no data strategy underneath it. Program leads with a fund deadline, or a co-funding partner who has just walked. Data linkage units. Whoever carries research and innovation for a health service, a fund, a bank or a registry, and depends on systems chosen by somebody else. Anyone who's been asked "what's our AI plan" and knows the honest answer starts with the data.

Not for

Agencies looking for a body-shop or a twelve-month transformation program. I don't do either. If you need thirty people, I'll tell you that in the second opinion and save you the engagement.

How it works

Jahan is one person, and that's a design, not a risk. Perth-based, on site when it matters. Fixed price per engagement, scoped in writing before we start. Everything I build stays with your team, documented, with no dependency on me.

Jahan was wound down in 2019 when I joined WA Health, and relaunched in October 2026 when I left. WA Health work is published here only after my last day, and always with the code of conduct in mind. Ask me about anything you don't see.

Not on the list?

If it's data, it's probably still mine.

The six above, and the three for research, are what I'm asked for most. They aren't the boundary. Same person, same way of working, on anything where the data underneath is the real job.

Send it anyway. If it's not one for me I'll say so, and usually say who it is for. Send me the brief.

Send me the brief. I'll tell you what it's really asking for.

nasir@jahan-interactive.com.au

Not an agency, or not sure which page you belong on? Send it anyway. Or message me on LinkedIn. Perth, Western Australia.