Digital sovereignty: What the government speech means for the design of modern digital systems

In his speech on November 18, 2025, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz emphasizes the importance of digital sovereignty. However, behind this political term lie concrete technical challenges that are more relevant to organizations than any strategic formulation.

Ultimately, three key factors are decisive: the designability of software architecture, the question of technological dependencies, and the long-term stability of digital systems.

Digital sovereignty is an architectural issue. The individual development of software creates the structural basis for this.

At first glance, “digital sovereignty” sounds like a political buzzword. From a technological perspective, however, it means something very specific: systems must be designed in such a way that they remain controllable, interchangeable, and expandable. This is precisely where the question of whether digital sovereignty is possible is decided.

Many organizations rely on off-the-shelf solutions and platforms that promise quick implementation with little configuration, but offer little structural flexibility. However, those who want to maintain control in the long term need the ability to make architectural decisions that are not dependent on external product logic. Custom development plays a central role here, as it enables data models, interfaces, and process logic to be designed in such a way that they remain changeable – independent of roadmaps or exploitation schemes of individual providers.

From this perspective, custom development based on standards is not an ideology, but a strategic necessity, as it creates the flexibility that off-the-shelf software often cannot deliver in critical areas. Organizations that consciously develop their basic architecture instead of “adopting” it retain significantly more freedom of action in the long term.

It is not the use of external systems that leads to dependencies, but rather the lack of alternatives.

The Chancellor’s speech addresses Europe’s dependence on global platforms and infrastructures. In practical terms, however, this point only becomes relevant when broken down to the organizational level: there is no problem with using modern cloud or AI services and, in particular, outsourcing scaling. The problem arises when the technical structure is designed in such a way that alternatives are no longer realistic.

In many digital landscapes, this dependency does not arise from conscious decisions, but from the implicit structures of off-the-shelf software. The processes adapt to the platform instead of the platform adapting to the processes. As a result, the scope for maneuver narrows over time, and systems that appear efficient today may no longer be adaptable to new requirements tomorrow.

This is exactly where custom development comes in. It makes it possible to deliberately keep interfaces open, limit proprietary dependencies, and design central functions in such a way that they remain interchangeable in the long term. Technical freedom of choice thus doubles not only in abstract terms, but also in concrete terms: data can be moved, components can be exchanged, and new technologies can be integrated. Those who embed alternative capability in their system architecture achieve true digital sovereignty. Not because everything is built in-house, but because nothing is built in such a way that it cannot be moved.

Individual architecture is a decisive factor for the resilience of digital infrastructure.

Friedrich Merz’s speech makes it clear that digital systems are now part of the infrastructure relevant to security and the economy. This also changes the assessment criteria: efficiency alone is no longer enough. Systems must continue to function stably even when individual parts fail, regulatory frameworks change, or providers adapt their products.

In this context, resilience means designing digital landscapes in such a way that they can respond flexibly to change. This includes structural redundancies, but also the ability to reduce dependencies or migrate functionalities. This point is underestimated by many organizations, as it is particularly evident in crisis situations – for example, when a provider discontinues its services or security requirements change.

Custom development offers a significant advantage here: it allows system logic to be precisely defined and modularly structured. This allows parts of a system to be replaced, expanded, or redesigned without destabilizing the entire architecture. Resilience is therefore not created by chance, but through conscious structuring.

In the long term, the question is not whether a system is efficient, but whether it will continue to function when the environment changes. Organizations that integrate this idea at an early stage make more robust and sustainable technology decisions.

What does this mean in practice?

The chancellor’s speech certainly does not provide any radically new impetus for the operational and strategic planning of digital systems, but it does clearly confirm what has long been accepted in the world of technology. The decisive factor is not which software is used, but how flexible the architecture of a system remains.

Modern organizations would therefore be well advised to take three aspects particularly seriously:

1. Firstly, they should examine how easily central systems can be migrated and whether data can be moved without structural risks.
2. Second, a clear understanding is needed of where dependencies can arise in the system – not only technologically, but also procedurally.
3. And third, resilience-oriented design principles should be embedded in strategic decisions so that digital systems function not only in ideal conditions, but also under changing conditions.

Custom development plays a structural rather than a decorative role here: it enables precisely the kind of design flexibility that digital sovereignty requires from a technical perspective. This means that it is not a counter-model to off-the-shelf software, but rather a tool for securing long-term freedom of choice.