B2B digital platforms have become essential to many companies’ enterprise operations. Yet firms quickly learn that overseeing these platforms poses different challenges than managing traditional third parties—particularly the need to handle the degree of vendor lock-in, where switching platforms becomes costly or complex, and companies lose flexibility and control over their tech stack. BCG has found that 62% of IT buyers express concern about lock-in with digital platforms.
While companies must accept some degree of lock-in in exchange for the reliability, speed, and access to integrated services that digital platforms provide, it’s critical to understand the implications. To better grasp these dynamics, BCG conducted a study of 500 IT decision makers in North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region across industries. Participants came from a range of enterprises of varying sizes and IT maturity levels, and they offered valuable insights into their views on digital platforms and their strategies for managing these vital relationships.
Subscribe to our Digital, Technology, and Data E-Alert.
Choosing Strategies and Priorities
We found that companies are generally happy with their digital platform vendors: 79% said the value justified the cost. Yet 70% also said they were actively scanning the market for alternatives, and 64% reported using more than one digital platform. In particular, high spenders on digital platforms (more than 21% of overall IT spending on third parties) tend to favor multiplatform strategies, leveraging diverse capabilities across providers to meet complex business needs.
These findings suggest a deliberate effort to avoid overreliance on a single provider. In practice, however, using multiple platforms often shifts rather than removes dependence (for example, separating core applications and infrastructure still creates interdependencies). Exposure to pricing models, integration complexity, and ecosystem constraints persists. Another reason high spenders might be looking for alternatives is because they frequently contend with unexplained charges from providers and need cost clarification. These charges may stem from the complexity of their contracts or inflated expectations for financial accountability.
By contrast, low spenders (below 6%) show slightly more inclination toward single platforms. That’s likely driven by the desire for simplicity, greater cost control, or limited internal resources.
Clients stay because they get value—not because we block exits. –Vendor representative
When selecting platforms, firms prioritize cost efficiency (33%), security and compliance (18%), and ease of use (13%). Interestingly, while cost is the top driver, only 44% of total respondents reported significant cost reductions when using a platform. This gap between expectations and outcomes is offset by other areas where digital platforms deliver substantial value, including improvements in operational efficiency, data management, and delivery speed.
Switching Isn’t Easy
Switching between digital platforms in 2025 remains a costly endeavor due to the complexity of integrating new technologies into existing systems, a process that often requires significant engineering resources and retraining. Firms cite high concern around technical migration (75%), productivity loss (64%), and downtime (63%). (See Exhibit 1.) That concern is justified, given that the cost of failure for a typical large-scale tech program can exceed $20 million a year.
Even when platforms underperform, we didn’t consider switching. The disruption wouldn’t be worth it. –Client executive
The cost of switching is, not surprisingly, directly related to a company’s degree of lock-in with the digital platform. To be clear, there is no right level of lock-in. Each company must find a balance between lock-in and remaining flexible enough to rapidly adapt or pivot if business circumstances change.
High spenders are more likely to adopt loosely coupled solutions, which offer greater flexibility. But because these companies often have deeply integrated workflows, transitions are still disruptive. Low spenders, while still cautious, face fewer barriers and may be more agile in adapting to new platforms. They lean toward tightly coupled architectures and are more reliant on vendor relationships.
Companies can control their own level of lock-in by making certain strategic choices, such as opting for a single vendor or taking a multiplatform approach, choosing the length of a contract, or using an in-house data model versus opting for a platform’s out-of-the-box data model. (See Exhibit 2.)
You go to one hyperscaler, you’re in. Then you use their identity layer, and that ties you to their collaboration tools. Suddenly you’re not just locked into clouds, you're locked into a full chain. –Former vendor executive
Maintaining Control and Shaping Governance Frameworks
One area that most companies agree on is the need to retain their own data model. We found that 77% of firms prefer this to adopting platform-native data models. Organizations worry about data portability, potential data loss, security vulnerabilities, and API integration challenges. These issues are not just technical hurdles; they are strategic risks that can impact business continuity and regulatory compliance.
By maintaining control over their data architecture, firms preserve the option to switch providers more easily, mitigating one of the most significant risks in platform contracting: data lock-in. But even if companies use their own data models, the ever-increasing volume of data on these platforms creates a strong gravitational pull that makes switching extremely time-consuming and painful. In a striking example of the tradeoffs companies must make between lock-in and operating their businesses effectively, 72% of firms surveyed heavily tailored their digital platforms to meet specific business needs, a move that increases data gravity and platform stickiness.
We found that more than 80% of firms prefer to manage platform relationships internally rather than outsourcing to service providers. This puts the company in a better position to validate outcomes, enforce compliance, and maintain tighter control over service quality and contractual obligations
To navigate the complexities of digital platforms, companies must develop a distinct set of capabilities, such as continuous market scanning, financial operations and usage analytics, ecosystem orchestration, and ensuring data sovereignty and portability. This is not merely a technical challenge. Executives must actively shape enterprise-wide governance frameworks that align platform strategy with broader business goals.
Crucially, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Firms must assess their strategic position along a continuum: at one end lies deep platform lock-in and at the other lies full flexibility to switch providers. Understanding where the company sits—and where it aims to be—is essential for making informed sourcing and governance decisions.
Identifying Six Strategic Archetypes
Our analysis suggests that there are six archetypes of firms based on how much they invest in digital platforms and their experience in sourcing digital platform services. Knowing one’s archetype can help provide a strategic compass, allowing firms to benchmark against peers, uncover gaps, and improve their sourcing capabilities as they mature. (See Exhibit 3.)
Tactically Coupled (Low Spender, Inexperienced). These are firms with limited platform expenditure and early-stage experience. They tend to adopt highly coupled architectures and rely on vendor-driven solutions. Their sourcing practices are basic, with minimal market scanning and low governance maturity. Switching concerns are moderate, but agility is constrained by tight integration and limited internal capabilities.
Agile Optimizer (Low Spender, Experienced). These are experienced firms with lean platform expenditure that maximize value through modular architectures and agile sourcing. They actively explore alternatives and retain control over data models to reduce switching costs. Despite lower spending, they demonstrate high governance awareness and sourcing discipline, enabling strategic flexibility.
Cautious Integrator (Medium Spender, Inexperienced). These are firms that are in the early stages of platform adoption, with moderate expenditure. They favor multiplatform strategies and show growing interest in loosely coupled architectures. While cautious about switching costs and integration risks, they are beginning to build governance structures and sourcing capabilities. Their approach is pragmatic, balancing innovation with operational stability.
Disciplined Evolver (Medium Spender, Experienced). These are mature firms with moderate spending that demonstrate structured governance and sourcing intelligence. They favor loosely coupled architectures and actively engage in market scanning. These firms manage switching risks through modularity and data control, and they regularly review platform performance. Their sourcing practices are deliberate and aligned with long-term value realization.
Developing Integrator (High Spender, Inexperienced). These are firms with substantial platform expenditure but limited experience. They often face challenges with cost transparency, customization sprawl, and integration complexity. While they favor multiplatform strategies and express significant concern about switching costs, their governance maturity is still developing. These firms are in transition, working to align investment with sourcing discipline and operational coherence.
Strategic Anchor (High Spender, Experienced). These are highly experienced firms with deep platform integration and significant expenditure. They accept lock-in as a strategic tradeoff and focus on performance management and ecosystem orchestration. Their sourcing is proactive, with regular KPI reviews and vendor engagement. These companies treat platforms as core infrastructure, governed with precision and aligned with business strategy.
Knowing one’s archetype is also important for helping an organization understand what capabilities it must develop if it plans to improve its expertise or increase spending on these platforms. (See Exhibit 4.)
Living with Lock-In
Platform lock-in is not accidental. It is designed by vendors and internalized by clients—not as a failure, but as the practical cost of operating in a platform-dominated enterprise IT environment. Even so, companies cannot afford to simply turn their operations over to the digital platform and look away. They must exercise active oversight to ensure that their use of the digital platforms helps them realize their strategic ambitions. Here are eight key levers to help organizations improve the utilization of their digital platforms.
Deep Platform Integration. Companies should embed platforms into core operations, accepting lock-in as a strategic tradeoff. Architectures are modular but deeply coupled with business processes.
Advanced Governance Structures. Firms should maintain rigorous oversight through regular KPI reviews, quality assessments, and relationship management. Governance is proactive and performance driven.
Ecosystem Orchestration. Firms should manage not just platforms but also the surrounding network of vendors, integrators, and data partners. This includes aligning incentives and coordinating innovation across the ecosystem.
Strategic Vendor Engagement. Companies should influence platform roadmaps through co-creation and negotiation. They should maintain regular dialogues with vendors to secure innovation and capability expansion.
Sourcing Intelligence and Analytics. Firms should institutionalize data-driven sourcing practices, tracking cost transparency, utilization trends, and platform performance to help make decisions.
Contractual Flexibility and Adaptability. Organizations should negotiate contracts that allow for resource adjustment and regulatory adaptability, ensuring that platforms remain aligned with evolving business needs.
Data Sovereignty and Modularity. Firms should be sure to retain control over data models and design modular extensions to preserve agility and reduce switching costs.
Innovation Leverage. Companies should drive platform innovation, capability expansion, and knowledge sharing, using scale and maturity to shape vendor behavior.
Each firm must make its own strategic decision about the right level of lock-in. But without effective oversight, any level of lock-in will ultimately result in underperformance.
The authors wish to thank Samuel Berton and Valentin Vandekerchove for their contributions to this article.
