In an industry where technology sets the pace and regulation defines the boundaries, it is rare to find professionals who can think with equal confidence at the levels of architecture, strategy, security, and international standards. Nataliia Stashevska is one of those figures—an expert working across the markets of Europe, the United States, and the United Kingdom; a consultant on transnational projects; and a professional who turns complexity into a manageable system.
We spoke with Nataliia about how the mindset of an expert capable of judging innovation at an international level is formed, why true digitalization always begins with questions rather than tools, and what distinguishes mature organizations from those that merely declare innovation. In this interview, she reflects on global trends, managerial courage, system architecture, costly mistakes companies make, and her vision of the future of technology and the human role in the digital era.
Nataliia, many people talk about digital transformation as a natural evolution, but you often emphasize that it is always an act of conscious decision-making. What distinguishes organizations that are truly capable of transforming from those that only declare change?
— I often observe one clear pattern: it is not the most technologically advanced organizations that transform, but the most honest ones. Where leadership is ready to acknowledge weaknesses, skill gaps, and the lack of structure, movement begins. Transformation does not start with technology—it starts with the willingness to set aside illusions.
In organizations that imitate change, transformation begins with a beautiful presentation. In mature organizations, it begins with an uncomfortable conversation: “If we continue working this way, we won’t exist in two years.”
The ability to look at the business without cosmetic filters is the first step. For digitalization to truly happen, three qualities are required: the capacity for self-audit; a willingness to invest in architecture rather than visual effects; and leadership that understands that a system without discipline collapses faster than it is built. Surprisingly, many companies want fast algorithms but do not want fast accountability. These two things are incompatible.
Today, it has become fashionable to talk about data. Yet you often emphasize that the core problem of the modern market is not a lack of data, but its “distorted layers.” What do you mean by that?
— Data is always a consequence of human behavior. Distortions appear where systems were built on compromises. For example, government institutions may use indicators for years that were never truly objective, yet decisions are made based on them. In the financial sector, the opposite often happens: data is excessive, but no one governs it, resulting in informational noise.
When I enter a project, the first thing that interests me is not the reports, but the logic behind how the data was generated: who entered it, why, what incentive existed, what pain point drove that action. Sometimes, at this very stage, it becomes clear that the system is incapable of producing truth—it only reflects past mistakes.
Learning to “read” distortions is a sign of analytical maturity. Data never lies, but it always shows only the reality it was configured to represent.
Your expertise sits at the intersection of FinTech, government systems, and cybersecurity—a rather rare combination. How has working simultaneously in the private and public sectors changed your professional perspective?
— The private sector taught me speed and accountability in a competitive environment, where mistakes are costly and become visible very quickly. The public sector taught me large-scale thinking and the ability to work within constraints—legal, procedural, and human.
Most importantly, I realized that these two worlds can learn from each other. The private sector sometimes moves too fast without validating the foundation. The public sector can be overly cautious and lose valuable time. When I design system architecture or analyze processes, I always keep two axes in mind: private-sector efficiency and public-sector resilience. Because the ideal system is a hybrid. It is fast, but not fragile. Scalable, but not chaotic. Transparent, yet secure.
You have said more than once that the main task of an analyst is “to hear what the system is trying to hide.” What does this look like in practice?
— It is similar to making a medical diagnosis. Symptoms are not the problem; they are signals. You see delays, duplicated actions, strange metrics—but these are not the root cause. The root lies in architecture, motivation, management decisions, and human fear of change.
To hear the system, you must be able to go against the obvious. If a department says, “We’ve always done it this way,”that is not an argument. If a leader says, “This is impossible,” it is simply a sign that no one has tried to rethink it.
I study systems through people, context, and inconsistencies. Where logic breaks down, the truth is always hidden. This is a skill you cannot learn from a book. It emerges after you have seen hundreds of projects where the same patterns repeat.
Many people today are concerned about AI: some fear job replacement, others worry about increased risks. How do you assess its real impact on the industry?
— Artificial intelligence is not a threat to professions; it is a threat to mediocrity. It removes from the market those who merely reproduce the obvious. AI will not replace analysts, architects, or leaders. It will replace those who rely on superficial solutions.
For a mature professional, AI is a partner: it takes over routine tasks, provides speed, and expands the range of options. But there is an important nuance—the market will no longer demand tool knowledge; it will demand maturity of thinking. AI amplifies the strong and exposes the weak.
Which project in recent years has become a point of growth for you—not in terms of complexity, but in terms of professional depth?
— A project where I worked simultaneously with data, legal constraints, and international regulations. It required holding three levels in mind at once: security, the customer journey, and government protocols.
For the first time, I clearly saw how critical the analyst’s role is in balancing interests: you cannot simply “speed up a process” if it violates legal architecture; you cannot “simplify an interface” if it creates vulnerabilities; you cannot “deploy a system” if people are not psychologically ready to change their routines. It was a project that required thinking not vertically, but spatially—seeing consequences in all directions. It changed me significantly as a professional.
If you had to leave companies with just one piece of advice for growth in the digital age, what would it be?
— Before implementing technologies, learn to ask yourselves honest questions.
Digital maturity is not about how quickly you migrate to a new platform; it is about your ability to withstand your own growth. Technology amplifies the system. If it is stable, it becomes stronger. If it is chaotic, chaos accelerates.
Digital transformation begins where self-deception ends. And that is far more difficult than implementing an IT solution.
