Vendor Lock-in.

Lock-in arises on several levels at once. Technically, through proprietary data formats, missing or incomplete exports, and interfaces that only work with products from the same manufacturer. Contractually, through long terms, automatic renewal and price adjustment clauses. Commercially, through implementation and training already paid for that would have to be spent again on a switch. And organisationally through knowledge: once processes have grown around a product's peculiarities, switching costs more than the software itself — usually the largest share of the whole bill.

It is important to recognise that in-house development does not automatically set you free. A business that has a system built but holds neither source code rights nor repository access, comprehensible documentation and a documented path to operate it has merely swapped dependence on a product vendor for dependence on an agency. That variant is often tighter, because the market for a successor is smaller than for a widely used standard product. These points belong in the contract before the project starts, not in a later conversation.

A practical test: a business has used a sector-specific product for four years and wants to assess how realistic a switch would be. It requests a complete export of all data in an open format, including attachments, history and relationships. If an incomplete file comes back without documents and links, the lock-in is real — regardless of what the contract says. The test costs little, should be repeated regularly, and provides a defensible negotiating position before every contract renewal.

The countermeasures are unspectacular and effective: test the export with real data before signing, make open formats and documented interfaces a condition, keep terms and notice periods short, agree in writing how data will be returned at contract end, and describe your own processes so that they do not exist solely in one product's vocabulary. Sometimes deliberate lock-in is still the right decision — but then as a considered choice with a known price, not as a silent consequence.