## 1 Introduction  
Whenever a product or service is brought to market, it is crucial that the product or service in question is safe for the consumers and the environment. For these purposes, a global quality infrastructure (QI) consisting of both public and private organizations has been established [1]. The cornerstones of the QI are metrology, standardization, accreditation, conformity assessment, and market surveillance, which have their own sub-infrastructures, such as the metrology infrastructure (MI), which all have their own international organizations [2]. The global cooperation of the QI is coordinated by the International Network on Quality Infrastructure (INetQI) [3]. Due to the differences in the roles of the organizations and regulatory frameworks in the QI, there are organizations and regulatory bodies covering the different parts of the QI on national or regional levels. Due to this divisioning, there are possibilities for overlapping or conflicting regulations, which the regulatory bodies ideally aim to avoid. Currently, as significant efforts are being made to digitalize the QI [1; 4; 5; 6; 7], the differences in current practices and requirements quickly become apparent, causing challenges in the implementation of digital solutions. For ensuring that the data formats and digital processes meet their respective requirements and are applicable globally in different applications, harmonization is needed as the current requirements may vary by the domain or region. Otherwise, it could be impossible or at least highly cost-inefficient for the organizations participating in the maintaining of the infrastructures, such as calibration laboratories and service providers, to adapt their services to be interoperable with the varying systems used by individual customers. In this paper, we focus on the industrial part of the MI, in which the determining of the measurement uncertainty of individual instruments and traceability of measurements to the measurement unit system are established through calibrations [8]. As calibrations are a confirmative part of the quality management of processes that are based on measurements, they are not directly profitable operations but instead are necessary for avoiding prohibitive expenses and delays or fulfilling compliance requirements, allowing access to markets. For this reason, estimating the total economic benefits of the digital transformation of the MI for all the involved organizations individually is complex. The same also applies to other similar processes in different parts of the QI. As the purpose of the QI, and thus also the MI, is mainly to oversee and support the industry in providing reliable and safe products and services to customers [1], the most economical benefits from the digital transformation are formed in the customer end of the infrastructure. In the MI, this includes, e.g., manufacturing companies that can have several thousands of measurement instruments monitoring and controlling production lines and processes. For these companies, a significant part of the value of the digitalization comes from the improvements in efficiency and reduced need for manual work through automation, which leads to savings from reduced human resources tied to quality management. In the case of calibrations, where the costs and possible savings from managing the information of the instruments are relative to the number of the instruments that need to be regularly calibrated, these benefits will not be as significant for smaller service providers. This means that any investments in the digital transformation become difficult to justify without support and demand from the customers. A good example of an industry that is reliant on the MI is the pharmaceutical industry, where measurements provide the means for controlling the drug manufacturing processes. Thus, the quality and safety of the pharmaceutical products are directly dependent on the reliability of the process measurements.