Does Interoperability Mean Loss of Control?

I’ve been fielding concerns from select communities about a basic question that feels increasingly relevant in our connected world: does interoperability mean giving up control?

I find myself surprised by this question but then I force myself to take a moment to pause and reflect. Why am I surprised when there is so much effort put into developing and securing boundaries of authority and accountability. Every lever is used to achieve and maintain control — legislation, regulations, policies, business practices. and more. Of course this would be a major concern.

At first glance, yes, it can feel like you are giving up control.

When systems, platforms, or organizations open themselves up to work with others, it can seem like loosening a grip—like inviting unpredictability into something once carefully contained.

But the more I reflect on it, the more I think that framing is misleading. Consider for a moment the tremendous benefits of connecting — both for your organization and the communities you serve.

For your clients:

• Less duplicate date entry
• Faster and more seamless service
• Additional services
• Better user experience

For your organization:

• More scalable management of data
• Better reporting
• Faster execution
• Potentially higher profit or efficiencies
• Possibly more transformational service delivery, relegating transactional tasks to better automation
• Structuring systems to better adapt to and adopt AI

These are only some of the benefits. And yes, we should recognize and address important topics like protecting IP and digital sovereignty. These and more are critical.

But let’s explore what we mean by interoperability.

At its core, it is about enabling different systems to communicate, exchange, and use information effectively. It allows complementary systems and services to work together without friction to the benefit of the end customer. It’s the reason you can move between tools, services, or even countries and still have things function as expected.

And yet, there’s often a concern expressed, sometimes softly, sometimes through a megaphone: if others can connect to your system, does that mean you’ve lost control, either of it, your authority, or your client interactions?

Here’s the flip side to this coin: why wouldn’t you do everything possible in an intentional way to make things easier for your client? And why do we equate this with losing control?

Maybe we should not be assuming that control is something that diminishes when shared. When creating interoperable systems, control isn’t reduced—rather, it’s clarified.

An image from the art world helps bring this into focus (forgive me but I’m an artist and think like one).

Imagine an artist preparing for a gallery show. Each artist has their own booth or section—curated, intentional, and entirely their responsibility. They decide what pieces to display, how they’re arranged, how their work is presented, and what story it tells. Their name is on it. Their reputation is tied to it. Their accountability is clear.

Now place that artist within a larger exhibition. The show itself is interconnected. Visitors move fluidly from one booth to another. Lighting, ticketing, promotion, and layout are coordinated across the entire space.

There are shared standards—hours of operation, safety rules, even aesthetic guidelines to ensure cohesion.

But within their booth, the artist’s control remains intact.

No one else alters their work.

No one else speaks on their behalf.

Their creative decisions, their quality, and their relationship with their audience are still theirs alone. The broader system doesn’t erase their autonomy—it enables their work to be seen, experienced, and valued in a wider context.

Interoperability works much the same way.

It doesn’t mean giving up ownership of your systems, your data, or your responsibilities. It means designing how your system interacts with others—under conditions you define. The “booth” is still yours. Your standards, your governance, your accountability remain firmly in place.

What changes is the environment around you.

A practical example of this shows up every time you travel.

When you use your credit card in another country, you’re participating in a highly interoperable system.

And yet, your bank is still your bank.

Your account is still governed by your institution’s rules, protections, and responsibilities.

Nothing about that core relationship has been handed over.

And yet, when you tap your card in a café halfway across the world, the transaction works.

Behind the scenes, networks, standards, and agreements between financial institutions make that possible. Systems interact across boundaries using shared protocols, enabling transactions across different platforms and organizations.

You haven’t lost control of your money. Your bank hasn’t relinquished its authority. Instead, interoperability allows your existing controls to function across a broader ecosystem.

That’s the shift.

Interoperability doesn’t erode core accountability—it extends its reach.

Of course, there is still a balance to strike.

Systems must be designed thoughtfully. Permissions, standards, technology, and governance matter.

Just as an artist agrees to certain exhibition rules, organizations participating in interoperable systems align around shared frameworks.

But alignment is not the same as surrender.

If anything, interoperability demands a clearer articulation of control: what you own, what you share, how others interact with your system, and under what conditions. It requires intention, not abandonment.

So perhaps the real question isn’t whether interoperability leads to a loss of control, but whether we’re willing to recognize that control can coexist with connection.

The artist in the gallery still owns their work. The bank still governs your account. The system still reflects its boundaries.

What interoperability changes is not who is responsible, but how systems participate in a larger whole.

And in that participation, control doesn’t disappear—it becomes more purposeful, more visible, and, ultimately, more useful.