What can we do to safeguard our customers’ digital sovereignty?

There is increasing talk of the concept of digital sovereignty, but what does this actually mean in practice for a large company? And perhaps more importantly: what can a supplier do to ensure that its customers retain their freedom of choice?

I discussed these issues with Sándor Mester at the 6th VISZ Infogolf conference on 27 August 2025. During the panel discussion, we discussed the issue of digital sovereignty from the supplier’s perspective – what we are doing to ensure that our partners can make truly sovereign decisions.

When I first heard the theme of the conference, I must admit I was a little sceptical. The word ‘sovereignty’ is familiar to me from other contexts. But as I thought the topic through, I realised that this concept is very much a tangible reality in the corporate world.

Digital sovereignty means that an organisation is able to make independent decisions about its technological solutions and is not at the mercy of any single supplier. It does not find itself trapped when it wishes to switch providers. It is not dependent on systems over which it has no control.

This independence manifests itself in two ways within the supplier-customer relationship. On the one hand, the customer should not be overly dependent on the supplier; on the other hand, they should receive a solution that strengthens the digital sovereignty of their own operations.

The issue of compliance, which is a critical element of digital sovereignty, came up several times during the conference. I shared a curious experience I’d had regarding the NIS2 regulation: in theory, companies were supposed to be compliant from January 2025 (the regulation is running behind schedule), but even the large companies are still only in the process of preparing.

This is worrying because we are talking about a list of requirements comprising more than 900 items. Roughly 500 of these relate to BürOffice, and the high security classification comprises around 350 requirements.

We began our preparations in the summer of 2024 and by the end of the year we had met all the high-level requirements. Since then, we have also completed between a third and a half of the optional tasks. It may be that, out of professional commitment, we will complete them all – but this is something that can be done properly over two years, not in a single month.

If you use BürOffice and need a high-security system, I have some good news for you. From the system’s point of view, there will be no issues with NIS2 compliance, and this is included as part of the software maintenance package – there is no extra charge.

One of the key topics today was vendor lock-in – this is the situation where a company chooses a supplier and then effectively finds itself trapped by that supplier.

A recent example: VMware’s new owner quadrupled the prices overnight. What can those whose entire infrastructure was built around this do now?

But the situation is even more serious when I use stored procedures in a particular database. Migrating that to any other location is an extremely difficult task.

Choosing BürOffice does not entail such restrictions:

• No dependency on a database management system.
• No dependency on a DMS.
• No dependency on a BPM system.
• No additional licence costs.

Those who choose BürOffice retain the freedom to choose their own infrastructure and do not need to develop new expertise on the client side to operate a new database management or DMS system.

My favourite example is that of an unnamed manufacturer who one day decided to tie the licensing of one of its software programmes to the company’s headcount. There is a factory with 950 production staff who never go near a computer. There are 50 office staff. And yet the licence has to be paid for as if there were 1,000 people.

That’s what they call being clever. But, on the other hand, I wouldn’t accept that.

We changed the subject during the conversation when Sándor raised the question: to what extent does trust matter in a relationship between sovereign parties?

This reminded me of Stephen Covey’s book *The Speed of Trust*. When trust is present, we focus on the outcome. We work together to solve problems. There’s little red tape and plenty of value.

When trust wanes, the ‘cover your own back’ game begins. The valuable end product takes a back seat. And what’s worse: in a relationship where trust is already damaged, the extra work isn’t just five per cent. It runs into tens of per cent – on both sides.

I recall a case where, at a large state organisation, the consultancy firm brought a lawyer to every meeting to ensure they didn’t say or sign anything they shouldn’t have. Think about how this affected the effectiveness of the work.

Our approach to our clients is that we are partners; there is no hierarchical relationship of superior and subordinate. We have something they need. They have resources that we need. We both come out ahead.

Good companies strive for this sort of relationship, because it feels much better to go there and have a chat than to send emails vetted by a solicitor.