In recent years, digital sovereignty has become a central concept in discussions about technology, geopolitics and digital infrastructure. In its publication on the topic, the Danish IT Industry Association describes digital sovereignty as the access and ability to develop, use, protect and maintain critical technologies necessary for economic, security and political independence.
Behind this definition lies the recognition that modern societies are deeply dependent on digital infrastructures and global technology providers. When data, systems and digital services operate within infrastructures that organisations or states do not themselves control, a strategic dependency arises.
Managing technological dependencies is not in itself a new challenge. Organisations have always had to deal with risks such as system failures, supplier dependencies or technological obsolescence. What has changed is the degree of dependency, which today gives the issue a different character.
A large share of organisations’ digital environments is now based on service-based platforms delivered by a small number of global providers. These platforms are often deeply integrated into daily operations and work processes, making them difficult both to replace and to move. Technological dependency therefore becomes both more pronounced and more extensive. It is no longer sufficient to view such dependencies as local IT risks. Instead, they increasingly represent strategic risks. Their management consequently moves into executive management and boardrooms under the heading of digital sovereignty.
The question, then, is what this means in relation to organisations’ documents and information assets.
Digital Sovereignty in Document and Information Management
In this article we explore what digital sovereignty may mean in the context of document and information management. The concept is still relatively new in this context, but it is reasonable to ask whether well-established professional disciplines already contain many of the tools needed to address it.
As described above, the concept of digital sovereignty arises from the recognition of technological dependencies. When organisations depend on technologies and infrastructures they do not control themselves, the question arises of how much influence they actually have over the frameworks within which their digital activities take place.
Ultimately, digital sovereignty therefore becomes a question of control. The central issue is not necessarily whether an organisation can eliminate its technological dependencies, but rather to what extent it can retain control – and freedom of action – over the technologies and infrastructures on which its digital activities depend.
For professionals working with document and information management, the idea of control immediately sounds familiar. In this field, control over information has always been a central concern.
A closer look quickly points to several fundamental elements of what control over organisational documents actually consists of.
The first is overvew.
Overview of Information Assets
In practice, organisations store documents in many different places. They may be located in collaboration platforms, case management systems, quality management systems and other specialised applications. They may also be stored in shared drives or in document libraries connected to projects and work processes. In addition, older systems and archives often hold historical documentation.
Having control over documents therefore begins with the ability to form a coherent overview of this information landscape. The organisation must know where its documents are located and which systems and technologies they depend on.
In practice, such an overview also requires the organisation to define the types of documents it actually holds. Without an understanding of what the information consists of, it becomes difficult both to map and manage it.
Which Documents Are Important?
However, an overview of documents is not sufficient in itself. Organisations produce large quantities of documents, but not all of them have the same significance.
Some documents serve primarily a temporary role in work processes – for example drafts or working notes. Other documents have far greater importance for the organisation. These may include contracts, regulatory documentation, quality system documentation, project decisions or technical documentation related to products and intellectual property.
When documents serve such functions, they act as documentation of the organisation’s activities and decisions. It is therefore essential that they remain usable in that capacity. Control over information assets therefore also involves knowing which documents have this status.
The Context of Documentation
In information science, such documents are referred to as records, and their continued value as documentation depends on proper handling.
Records management standards, including ISO 15489, describe this through concepts such as authenticity, integrity, reliability and usability.
The credibility of documentation depends to a large extent on the context in which it exists and the processes it has undergone. This context may include information about who created the document, when it was approved, what role it played in a process, or which versions existed along the way. Classification, metadata and version history can therefore be crucial to how a document is understood and used as evidence.
Documentation must be preserved in a way that makes it possible to understand what the document is, where it originated, and what role it played in the organisation’s activities.
When dealing with records, control therefore concerns not only the document files themselves but also the context that makes the documentation meaningful.
Technological Embedding
In practice, this context is often closely embedded in the systems where documents are managed.
Metadata capturing the document’s context is often stored within the system. Version histories are maintained within system functionality. Classification structures and access rights are governed by system logic and data models. A large portion of the information that gives documentation its meaning therefore does not exist independently of the technological environments where documents are processed.
This also means that the value of documentation becomes dependent on these technologies. If a system changes, is phased out or replaced, the organisation’s ability to preserve the structure and coherence of its documentation may be affected.
When analysing what it means to have control over information assets, this adds a technological dimension. Organisations must understand and manage the metadata and processing traces that are essential for their records to retain their documentary value.
What Does Control Over Documents Mean?
Bringing these perspectives together suggests that control over documents in a digital sovereignty context consists of several elements.
Organisations must have an overview of their information assets and know where documents are located. They must be able to distinguish between documents that merely support work processes and those that function as documentation of organisational activities. They must understand the context and metadata that make documentation trustworthy. And they must understand the technological environments on which this documentation depends.
Seen in this light, digital sovereignty in document and information management is not primarily a technological question. It is a question of an organisation’s ability to maintain control over its information assets and their documentary value – even when they are embedded in digital systems and platforms.
At the same time, the analysis points to something else: much of what is described here as responses to digital sovereignty challenges already exists within established professional disciplines. Information specialists, records managers and others who work professionally with information management already deal with overview of information assets, assessment of document significance, understanding of documentary context and management of technological dependencies.
Digital sovereignty in document and information management is therefore not necessarily a new discipline that must be invented from scratch. Rather, it represents a new perspective on a familiar professional domain, where classical disciplines within information management acquire a clear strategic significance.
