Kees Verhoeven: “Digital sovereignty starts with understanding, not with a hasty switch”

Becoming completely independent of suppliers, technology or countries is not realistic for almost any organisation. Nor does it need to be. “Dependence isn’t a problem at all if it’s mutual dependence,” Kees stated during his session at NEXT 2026. Collaboration simply means entering into dependencies. This applies to partners and suppliers, but also to the technology on which your organisation relies on a daily basis.

The question is therefore not whether you are dependent, but on what, to what extent, and what happens if circumstances change.

This makes digital sovereignty broader than data sovereignty. Kees: “With data sovereignty, for example, you look at where your data is stored, which legislation it falls under, and who has access to it. Digital sovereignty also encompasses the software, infrastructure and suppliers on which your organisation depends.”

Do you have an alternative? Can you switch providers? Can you carry on working if a key service fails? The aim, therefore, is not to eliminate every dependency, but to consciously decide which dependencies you accept and where freedom of choice, continuity or autonomy are more important.

That sounds logical, but according to Kees, it is precisely this holistic view that is often lacking within organisations. “Different departments, for example, know perfectly well which systems and suppliers they use,” explains Kees. “However, that information is scattered across departments, contracts and areas of responsibility.”

His advice is therefore simple: first, map out the full picture. This forces stakeholders (IT, security, procurement, the business and the board) to look at the same dependencies together.

Don’t automatically start with the largest supplier. Look first at your own organisation and determine:

• Which services form the core of what you do?
• Which processes simply cannot be allowed to come to a standstill?
• Where do you always need a backup or recovery option?
• Which components might you need to be able to manage yourself?

Only then does it become clear which dependencies actually pose a risk to your organisation. A system that is fairly easy to replace requires a different approach to a platform on which a business-critical process is entirely reliant.

The same applies to data. The question “where is our data stored?” is important, but doesn’t mean much on its own. You also need to know who has access to it, what other services are required to access that data, and whether you can retrieve or move the information when necessary.

During NEXT, Kees summed up a key part of his story in a single sentence: “We need to focus much more on the ‘I’ than on the ‘T’ in IT.” By that ‘I’, he means information. Organisations talk a lot about technology, whilst that technology is ultimately used to collect, use, share and make information available. Kees calls this ‘information autonomy’: consciously thinking about how you organise information and how much control you retain over it.

This is becoming increasingly relevant now that all organisations are making greater use of AI applications. The question is not just which tool you want to use, but also what information such an application is permitted to use, where that information ends up and who subsequently has access to it.

If you want to use AI responsibly, it all starts with information once again. Which data can be used and which cannot? Who decides that? How do you prevent today’s convenience from inadvertently creating a new dependency for tomorrow?

The same principle applies to cloud choices. An application may function perfectly well with a single provider from a technical point of view, but how easily can you move data and workloads if prices, terms or requirements change? Open standards, data portability and a realistic exit strategy then become part of the same strategic consideration.

Anyone who treats digital sovereignty solely as an IT issue is missing a key part of the discussion. During his session, Kees highlighted the divide between IT professionals, who know exactly how systems and infrastructure work, and executives who have to make decisions about the implications of these systems. It is precisely these two worlds that need to learn to understand each other better.

Kees: “That doesn’t mean every manager needs to understand exactly how cloud architecture is structured, but it does mean that technical choices must be translated into organisational questions.” What does this dependency mean for our business continuity? What level of risk are we prepared to accept? Where do we want to have alternatives at the ready? And how much are we prepared to invest in this?

According to Kees, it helps to put the subject on the board’s agenda on a regular basis, rather than only when a cyber incident or geopolitical development heightens the urgency. For example, by periodically presenting a concrete decision paper in which board members actually have to weigh up the options. “Translating technical complexity into the question of what this means for the organisation is absolutely crucial.”

Drawing up a comprehensive overview does not mean you then have to overhaul your entire IT landscape all at once. On the contrary, Kees advises organisations to choose just one specific component and gain experience with that. This could be a service that is relatively easy to replace or a clearly defined business process where you wish to reduce dependencies. By seeing such a project through to the end, you’ll also discover what a transition actually entails in practice in terms of technology, contracts, processes and people.

This often yields better results than starting with the largest and most complex system simply because, on paper, that’s where the greatest dependencies lie. It also ties in with a broader question: “What exactly is the problem in your organisation, and what do you actually want?”. According to Kees, organisations are still too quick to jump to a solution.

Kees: “A system needs replacing; people want to get started with AI as soon as possible, or collaborating with another supplier seems necessary. Yet the underlying question hasn’t been defined clearly enough.”

Digital sovereignty calls for action. But you don’t have to take every step right now. When asked what mistake he sees most often, Kees was strikingly emphatic: “Speed – far too much speed. They seem to be in a hurry.”

There is a sense of urgency, but when geopolitical developments or new technology ramp up the pressure, there is a tendency to look for an alternative too quickly. Anyone who switches suppliers without careful consideration may simply be swapping one dependency for another. Perhaps even for a dependency that ultimately suits the organisation less well.

Greater digital sovereignty therefore does not begin by saying goodbye to technology that works well today. It begins with understanding the role that technology plays, the risks you are willing to accept, and the alternatives available to you should the context change.

Do you want to start the conversation within your organisation? Then begin with these questions:

• Which processes and information are so important that you always want to retain control over them?
• On which suppliers, technologies and countries do those processes currently depend?
• Do you know where your data is stored, who has access to it and how you can retrieve or move that information?
• Can you carry on or recover if a key supplier or service is lost?
• If you want to change something: exactly what problem are you solving by doing so?

Digital sovereignty cannot be achieved through a single migration or choice of supplier. It is the ability to continue making choices, even when technology, suppliers or geopolitical relationships change. And to do just that, you first need to know where you stand.

In this article, Mark Jongen, Data Centre Solution Specialist at ARP, discusses seven key areas to help you gain a better grasp of your data centre strategy. If, after reading these articles, you have any questions or would like to discuss ideas with us, with no obligation, please get in touch with our specialists. We’d be happy to help you find the right solution.