Technology sovereignty is about control, not geography

In a TechRadar article, John Harms argues that technology sovereignty depends less on where systems or providers are located than on how much operational control an organization retains.

For governments, that control includes visibility into how systems work, how decisions are reached, where data is held and how technology can be adapted as circumstances change. Geopolitical developments, regulation, supplier changes, cyber incidents and technology failures can all pressure critical infrastructure, making resilience and accountability central to sovereignty.

Harms also argues that access to global expertise and technology providers can improve public services, provided governments retain control of their systems and data. In discussions about AI sovereignty, he identifies data quality, accessibility and governance as fundamental. Public-sector information often spans departments, legacy platforms and different technology environments, while applications such as fraud detection, healthcare, taxation and public benefits depend on trusted information.

Interoperability, open standards, portable data and supplier diversity can preserve meaningful choice and make future technology changes easier. As AI supports more complex decisions, transparency, explainability, auditability and human oversight become increasingly important. Governments may work with private organizations, but public accountability remains with the government, which means procurement must consider data control, transparency and long-term flexibility alongside functionality and cost.