Speaking to Each Other: Open Standards and the Case Against Lock-In

The quiet decision that shapes everything downstream

When two systems need to share information, something has to define how. That something is a standard, and whether it is open or proprietary turns out to shape the entire future of the systems built on it. Open standards let anyone build compatible systems and move data freely between them. Proprietary ones quietly hand control to whoever owns the format. This primer is about open standards and interoperability, the unglamorous technical agreements that determine whether public digital infrastructure stays flexible and portable or hardens into a set of expensive dependencies.

The argument is that interoperability is achieved through standards rather than through tools, that pursuing it the wrong way is one of the most common and costly mistakes in public technology, and that open standards are among the most effective protections of long-term public investment.

Standards versus tools

There is a tempting shortcut to interoperability: rather than agreeing on a standard, just connect the specific systems you have with custom integrations. It works at first. Two systems talk, data moves, the demo succeeds. But this is interoperability through tools, and over time it creates exactly the dependency it was meant to avoid. Each custom integration is a tight coupling, and as an institution accumulates them, it ends up with a brittle web of bespoke connections that is difficult and expensive to change. Flexibility disappears precisely as more systems are added.

Open standards take the other path. Instead of welding specific systems together, they define a common language that any compliant system can speak. A new service can join by implementing the standard rather than by being custom-wired to everything already present. Data can move because the format is shared and documented, not because someone built a one-off bridge. The difference is that standards make interoperability durable and portable, while tools make it temporary and increasingly fragile. When the standard comes first, innovation accelerates, because new systems build on a stable foundation rather than negotiating a fresh integration each time.

How proprietary formats become traps

The cost of getting this wrong shows up as lock-in, and it is usually invisible at the start. When data lives in a proprietary format that other systems cannot easily read, or when a system exposes only closed interfaces, the institution gradually loses the ability to move. Migrating away would mean abandoning or expensively converting trapped data, so the institution stays, and the vendor's leverage grows. Public-sector surveys consistently find lock-in widespread, usually traced to exactly this: systems that cannot interoperate and data that cannot be ported between old and new providers.

The remedy is to insist on portability and openness as properties of the data and the interfaces, not as afterthoughts. Frameworks for cloud and data portability now treat the ability to retrieve all of one's data at the end of a contract, in a usable form, as a basic control rather than a favor. Regulatory efforts in some jurisdictions have begun mandating portability and interoperability outright, requiring that data can move across providers and sectors and that customers can leave without losing what is theirs. The throughline is that openness has to be required at the level of the format and the interface, because that is where lock-in is silently created or prevented.

Interoperability as public value

For public infrastructure, interoperability is not only a technical convenience; it is a form of public value and even of resilience. When government systems can securely share data through open interfaces, services can be delivered through a single front door rather than forcing people to navigate a dozen disconnected systems. When infrastructure is built on open standards, institutions and even nations can share and jointly govern it, turning interoperability into a basis for collaboration rather than dependency. And a standards-based, modular ecosystem keeps a competitive market alive, because providers compete on merit rather than on the strength of the lock-in they have engineered.

The honest qualifier is that standards require coordination and discipline to adopt, and they deliver their benefit only when actually enforced, in procurement, in design, and in the ongoing governance of the systems that implement them. A standard that exists on paper but is not required in practice protects no one. Open standards are powerful, but they are a discipline to maintain, not a box to check once.

What this means for public-interest infrastructure

Treating open standards as foundational changes how interoperability is pursued. The measure is not whether two systems happen to connect today but whether the underlying formats and interfaces are open enough that any compliant system can connect tomorrow and any data can move when needed. That favors standards-first design and enforced openness, portable data, open interfaces, modular components, over the quick custom integration that works now and traps later.

This is the Foundation's stewardship concern at the level of how systems speak to each other. Interoperability built on open standards keeps public infrastructure flexible, portable, and competitive over its whole life, while interoperability improvised through proprietary tools quietly builds the trap. Require open standards from the start, enforce them through procurement and governance, and public systems stay free to evolve. Skip them for the convenient shortcut, and the lock-in is already forming before anyone notices.

References

1. SpruceID. Interoperability Without Lock-In: Why Standards Matter (2026). Interoperability pursued through tools creates dependencies that are costly to unwind; open standards make it durable and portable and accelerate innovation. https://blog.spruceid.com/interoperability-without-lock-in-why-standards-matter/

2. Keystone Procurement. Vendor Lock-In in Public Sector ICT Procurement (2026). ~40% of public procurers perceive lock-in, usually from lack of interoperability or data portability between systems. https://keystoneprocurement.eu/vendor-lock-in-in-public-sector-ict-procurement-risks-costs-and-strategies/

3. Cloud Security Alliance. Implementing CCM: Interoperability & Portability Controls (2025). Treating end-of-contract data retrieval and cross-platform portability as basic controls against lock-in. https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/blog/2025/06/13/implementing-ccm-interoperability-portability-controls

4. IAPP. EU Data Act operational impacts. Strengthening cloud portability, reducing vendor lock-in, and promoting interoperability for cross-sector data flows. https://iapp.org/news/a/eu-data-act-operational-impacts-introducing-the-data-act

5. Chatham House. The case for expanding digital public infrastructure (2025). Open APIs and standards ensure interoperability, reduce lock-in, and enable shared cross-national governance. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/10/case-expanding-digital-public-infrastructure/08-conclusion-and-recommendations

6. Nextgov/FCW. Interoperability and modernization: Competition drives progress (2025). Open standards-based, modular IT incentivizes competition and supports a sound data and AI foundation. https://www.nextgov.com/sponsors/2025/11/interoperability-and-modernization-competition-drives-progress/408499/