The field of digital sovereignty goes beyond the question of hosting and data protection, which is only the tip of the iceberg.
It affects several areas across the IS and highlights the notion of software dependence that is generally undervalued. This software, certainly at the service of business performance through the automation they generate, also induces a chain of risks that can have far greater repercussions than the value of their contribution, especially if the economic situation is uncertain. In the light of this observation, it is necessary to put the issues in perspective to move towards a fairer and more engaging digital sovereignty.
Re-examine risk management to better reclaim this science
Fashionable digital solutions SaaS are very common today. Often more agile and more efficient, they nevertheless involve outsourcing business processes. In fact, companies are exposed to multiple risks that are difficult to identify and manage. Unavailability, data and tool security, ability to make it evolve… are all risks that are rarely taken into consideration when making purchasing decisions. If the company builds its IT ecosystem with third-party technologies, then it jeopardizes its operation.
Challenging the standards imposed by the digital giants and creating your own software therefore becomes vital. This avoids placing essential resources in the hands of an external company and finding oneself trapped in the event of a technical malfunction, for example. This practice nevertheless remains very rare in France, partly for cultural reasons, and deserves to be promoted. Today, digital talents are not perceived in the same way in the world. Remuneration can vary considerably, with certain profiles such as “ops” being more impacted by this trend. The disparity therefore creates tensions on the labor market worldwide. This state of affairs generates a biased perception of the profession in the education system and also influences the choice of career.
Micro and macroeconomic levers to activate
In order to modify the current dynamic, it would be a question, from a microeconomic point of view, of integrating the non-functional elements into the purchasing criteria. But also to require digital partners to provide explanations of their own dependencies. On the other hand, imposing regulations around digital sovereignty and dependency would encourage companies to ask themselves the right questions in terms of risk management at the time of their choice. In addition, with the establishment of a principle of governance, companies and service providers could refer to a guide to good practices. Finally, European players must be encouraged to “reinvent the wheel” during their innovation process. They should be invited to question technologies, challenge the status quo and existing standards while limiting their dependence. And, more broadly, to convince them to act in favor of an “education in digital sovereignty” for all stakeholders and beyond, drawing inspiration from the groups that have made the choice of technological development.
Eventually, developing solutions locally will become obvious, the idea being that all the data and systems created, sources of wealth, remain within the fold of the organization to which they belong. The current model where ultimately two or three companies have the monopoly of certain fundamental technical devices will be gradually supplanted in favor of a constellation of technologies truly adapted to the needs of each structure. Risk management will then be considered as a science with high added value.