Vendor Lock-in in the Public Sector: Risks of Proprietary CMS and Benefits of Open Source
In the digital age, governments increasingly rely on content management systems (CMS) to deliver information, services, and online procedures. However, choosing a technology platform is not just a technical decision, but also a strategic one.
The phenomenon known as Vendor Lock-in occurs when a public institution becomes tied to a single software provider, without real capacity to migrate their systems or data to another alternative without incurring high costs, time loss, or security risks.
This article analyzes the risks of Vendor Lock-in in proprietary CMS developed by local or regional vendors, contrasts them with the advantages of established Open Source CMS (such as Drupal and WordPress), and proposes an evaluation framework for public institutions.
What is Vendor Lock-in?
Vendor Lock-in occurs when the client, in this case a public institution, depends exclusively on a provider for maintenance, evolution, and support of a system. Migrating to another provider or technology becomes complicated because:
- Data is not in open or standard formats
- Integrations are custom-built without documentation
- Code is proprietary and cannot be audited or modified by third parties
- The institution lacks market alternatives that master the same technology
In a governmental environment, this poses critical risks to institutional continuity and technological sovereignty.
Risk Scenarios with Proprietary CMS
Structural Limitations of the Provider
Even when a vendor is financially healthy, their innovation capacity never compares to that of a global Open Source community.
Governments need to move quickly with new trends: accessibility, artificial intelligence, interoperability with open data systems, advanced security. A proprietary CMS, maintained by a small team, simply lacks the muscle to generate updates and new functionalities at the speed demanded by the market.Internal Operational Problems
Loss of key personnel, developer turnover, or lack of talent retention creates a bottleneck. If only a few people understand the proprietary CMS architecture, support becomes slow and expensive.
In contrast, with an Open Source CMS there is abundant documentation, active communities, and multiple providers capable of assuming support. This dilutes the risk of excessive dependency.Company Sale
When a vendor is acquired by another company, the rules of the game change: new prices, renegotiated contracts, product discontinuation.
With Open Source, intellectual property is community-owned. It doesn't matter if a company leaves the ecosystem; others can continue offering support.
Bankruptcy or Closure of Operations
In this extreme scenario, the public institution is left with an orphaned system, without support or updates. Emergency migration is usually costly, slow, and risky.
With Open Source, the code remains available, backed by global communities that ensure continuity.
Strategic Priority Changes
A vendor may decide to stop investing in their CMS to focus on another business. This halts technological evolution, leaving the government with an obsolete system.
In Open Source, the roadmap is dictated by a distributed community with different interests (companies, governments, NGOs, universities), ensuring resilience and continuity.
The Hidden Cost of Vendor Lock-in in Proprietary CMS
Even when a vendor delivers documentation and source code at the end of a contract, dependency doesn't disappear. Let's see why:
- Time and Cost of New Functionalities
In a proprietary CMS, each additional functionality must be programmed from scratch
In platforms like Drupal or WordPress, it's very likely that a tested module or plugin already exists that solves the need in less time and cost
- Learning Curve for New Providers
Although code is delivered, that CMS is unknown outside the company that created it
A new provider will need to invest much more in understanding the logic and architecture before being able to provide support or innovate
- Limited Ecosystem
In a proprietary CMS, innovation depends exclusively on the company that maintains it
In Open Source, thousands of developers and organizations constantly contribute improvements, accelerating technological evolution
- Reduced Interoperability
Proprietary CMS usually lack standard integrations with common systems like CRMs, ERPs, analytics platforms, or open data APIs
In Open Source, tested modules exist that facilitate these integrations
In other words: dependency is not eliminated even if documentation and code are delivered. The real differentiating factor is whether the technology belongs to an open ecosystem or to a single provider.
Success Story: How Various Public Institutions Protected Their Investment Thanks to Drupal
In recent years, we have seen a story repeat itself again and again in different government institutions. All of them made a wise decision at the time: building their sites and applications on Drupal, whether in monolithic or decoupled versions.
The initial investment was significant, and the projects started well. However, over time, the original providers faced inevitable changes: some sold their companies, others focused their strategy on private markets, and others simply stopped participating in public procurement processes.
The institutions were then at a crossroads: they had invested in robust platforms but were without support. The question was whether to start everything from scratch—with the enormous cost that implies—or find a way to give continuity to what already existed.
This is where ParallelDevs comes in. Thanks to these institutions choosing an open technology with a global community, we were able to take over without losing the initial investment. Our process was clear:
- Audit and discovery to understand in detail how each platform was built
- Continuous and evolutionary support, ensuring security, performance, and stability
- Technological upgrade, bringing each site to Drupal 11, with better performance and scalability practices
What's most valuable is that, instead of allocating budgets to rebuild everything from scratch, these institutions today invest in what really matters: improving accessibility, modernizing the citizen experience, and adapting to new digital trends.
This pattern repeats across various institutions and demonstrates the true value of Open Source in the public sector: public investment doesn't depend on a single provider, but on an open community that guarantees continuity, efficiency, and technological sovereignty.
Comparison: Proprietary CMS vs. Open Source
Strategies for Governments: How to Mitigate Vendor Lock-in
Public institutions can reduce dependency risk by including measures in their tender specifications aligned with the General Public Procurement Law (Law 9986) and the principle of service continuity:
1. Code Ownership and Portability
All development funded with public funds must be owned by the institution
The provider must deliver code and technical documentation
2. Knowledge Transfer and Training
Training for internal staff and user manuals
Guarantee that knowledge doesn't remain only with the vendor
3. Freedom of Future Support
Clauses that allow contracting other providers for maintenance and support
4. Use of Software with Proven Community Support
Prioritize solutions with wide adoption and provider availability (e.g., Drupal, WordPress)
5. Service Continuity Clauses
Establish that, in case of closure or non-compliance by the provider, everything necessary is delivered to guarantee public service continuity
Vendor Lock-in in proprietary CMS represents a significant risk for government institutions. Although the vendor may deliver documentation and code, hidden costs in innovation, maintenance, and support mean dependency remains.
Open Source CMS offer a more resilient model, with constant innovation, multiple providers, and greater technological sovereignty. To guarantee continuity, transparency, and efficiency in public procurement, governments must bet on open technologies, clear contractual clauses, and ecosystems with global communities.
.webp)
