Federal Government Seeks Digital Exit
Open Source Aims to Reduce Microsoft Dependence
Relying on a single provider for all office work offers comfort, but also introduces strategic risk. The Federal Administration therefore aims to assess how extensively it can conduct daily operations with open technologies. Following a feasibility test, the verdict is cautiously positive: an open-source workstation is generally possible, but not yet equally suitable for all tasks.
Starting in late 2027, about 3,000 selected federal employees will use the so-called CEBA workstation. Applications for email, calendars, word processing, presentations, telephony, and audio and video conferencing are planned. The federal government anticipates costs of around nine million Swiss francs for the initial phase. A complete replacement of Microsoft is neither decided nor short-term realistic: the open solution will initially be deployed in parallel with Microsoft 365.
The Test Reveals Strengths and Clear Limits
In the previous proof of concept, 172 individuals worked with the system. According to the Federal Chancellery, standard tasks were manageable. A strength is also that such a workstation could serve as a fallback if individual cloud services are unavailable. Limitations emerged with large video conferences and when integrating specialized applications tightly linked with Microsoft products.
This is precisely where the real difficulty lies. A word processor is relatively easy to replace. Identity management, shared calendars, file sharing, security requirements, and thousands of specialized workflows are more complex. Therefore, comparing only license costs underestimates the expense of a switch. Training, support, data migration, and dual operation can be more expensive in the short term than the status quo.
Sovereignty Means Freedom of Choice
The Federal Administration has implemented Microsoft 365 across approximately 54,000 workstations. Highly sensitive and confidential documents must not be stored in the Microsoft cloud. This demonstrates that the discussion is not about general distrust of American technology. It concerns whether Switzerland can maintain operational independence during technical, political, or economic changes.
In this sense, digital sovereignty does not mean programming every piece of software oneself. It means maintaining data in portable formats, mastering interfaces, and possessing a credible Plan B. The mere existence of a functioning alternative improves the negotiating position with large providers. It can also create opportunities for Swiss and European IT companies, provided the federal government defines open standards and awards contracts transparently.
What This Means for Switzerland
For taxpayers, the project is meaningful if the federal government does not permanently fund two complete systems in parallel. Therefore, measurable goals are necessary: Which tasks function without proprietary dependence? What are the total costs per workstation? How quickly can one switch in case of disruption? And how satisfied are the employees actually?
Cantons, municipalities, schools, and state-affiliated companies will also observe closely. They face similar questions but often have less specialized knowledge. Through this trial, the federal government can establish standards, gain experience, and create reusable components. If the test fails in practice, that too is valuable insight, provided it is openly documented. If it succeeds, Switzerland will not achieve a spectacular liberation, but something more enduring: greater freedom of choice in an infrastructure upon which almost every state service depends.
