Digital autonomy starts with the choices the business needs—and an understanding of what prevents it from exercising them.
An organization wants to reduce its dependence on a technology supplier. It negotiates an exit clause, confirms its right to retrieve its data, and identifies an alternative provider.
An exit strategy is approved.
Then someone asks how quickly it could be executed.
If the concern is a future price increase, a twelve-month transition may provide sufficient negotiating freedom. If the concern is an abrupt loss of service, that same plan offers little immediate protection.
Both concern dependence on the supplier. They create different demands on the organization.
Before asking whether we have digital autonomy, we need to establish what freedom of action the business requires.
More than the ability to leave
Digital autonomy can be understood as the degree of effective freedom an organization has to make and execute decisions about its digital environment.
Switching supplier is one expression of that freedom. Others include changing functionality, controlling access, sustaining essential operations during disruption, and retiring technology that no longer serves a purpose.
These freedoms depend on organizational capabilities, contractual rights, technical arrangements, available alternatives, and sufficient understanding to make informed decisions.
External suppliers can support them. The question is whether the organization retains the authority and practical ability to direct what happens.
For each critical dependency, management needs to establish:
Which decisions must we remain able to make and execute, under which circumstances, and within what limits of time, cost, and disruption?
That provides a reference for deciding which measures matter.
Understanding debt can restrict autonomy
In the Practice Note How many systems did you retire last year?, I explored why an apparently obsolete system can remain operational for years.
Nobody is sufficiently confident that it can be switched off.
An obscure interface may still exchange data. An annual business process may depend on it. A responsibility may have been assumed to have moved elsewhere without that transfer ever being confirmed.
The organization cannot establish whether removal is safe.
The same reasoning extends to digital autonomy. An organization may have the contractual right to change a service while lacking the understanding needed to do so responsibly.
Which business processes depend on it? Why do particular rules exist? Who understands operational exceptions? What would changing the architecture affect?
Understanding debt can restrict the ability to govern, adapt, sustain, replace, or retire a service.
The formal authority remains. The practical freedom weakens.
Possession does not establish preparedness
Access to data, source code, configuration, and documentation may be essential. Their availability does not establish that another team can interpret and use them.
A data export may preserve records while leaving their business meaning unclear. Source code preserves implementation without necessarily explaining its rationale. Operational instructions may omit the judgment experienced specialists apply when something unusual happens.
In System Continuity, I distinguished the survival of artifacts from the continuity of understanding.
For autonomy, a useful question follows:
Could another competent team assume responsibility without having to reconstruct the service’s essential meaning from scratch?
This does not require everyone to understand everything. It requires sufficient accessible understanding to direct the service and transfer responsibility when necessary.
Assess freedom against the business need
An approved plan describes what the organization expects to be able to do. Evidence must establish whether that expectation is credible.
The required evidence depends on the freedom being sought.
For an orderly supplier exit, it might include validated data portability and a representative migration exercise. For continuity during disruption, it must address how essential operations would continue. For independent product evolution, it might demonstrate that significant changes can be made without depending on one supplier’s roadmap or specialist.
The depth of assessment should reflect the consequences of being wrong.
This follows a recurring distinction in the Practice Notes: completing an activity does not establish that its intended effect has occurred.
The management question is what evidence justifies confidence that the required choice remains available.
Improve the constraint that matters
Once the required freedom is explicit, investment can address the obstacles that limit it.
The main constraint might be contractual, architectural, organizational, knowledge-related, or a lack of suitable alternatives. Each requires a different response.
Changing platforms may achieve little if the organization carries its understanding debt into the replacement. Recovering critical knowledge and validating an alternative approach may improve autonomy without an immediate migration.
Some constraints may reasonably be accepted because removing them would cost more than the expected benefit. That acceptance should be explicit and revisited when circumstances change.
Improvements also need to survive the projects that introduce them. As explored in The Project Is Not the Subject of the Change, temporary teams can disappear; the understanding and responsibility needed to manage the service must continue.
Otherwise, today’s feasible choice can gradually become tomorrow’s impractical option.
Establish the freedom you need—and act on the gap
Select one business-critical digital dependency. Ask its business and technology owners to establish:
- Which decisions must remain possible, and under what circumstances?
- What time, cost, and disruption would the business accept?
- Which constraints limit those choices, and what evidence supports that assessment?
- Which improvements should be funded, who will sustain them, and which remaining constraints will management accept?
Use the answers to direct investment and continuing ownership.
The CIO’s task is to establish the freedom the business needs, obtain credible evidence of the freedom it possesses, and act on the gap between them.
Leave a Reply