How the State, Swisscom and the Army Get Tangled Up Digitally – and Why the NDP Becomes a Risk
How the State, Swisscom and the Army Get Tangled Up Digitally – and Why the NDP Becomes a Risk
A slightly ironic, but factual analysis
Overview – What is this actually about?
This dossier is a critical compilation of two topics that officially shouldn't have anything to do with each other – but very much do:
- The Confederation gives Swisscom new strategic objectives.
- The Army builds the NDP with Swisscom, one of the country's most important digital platforms.
Both stories together create a picture that can only be digested with a strong coffee.
Approximately 8–10 minutes reading time.
Summary – So you understand it faster than the Confederation can digitize
The New Digitalization Platform (NDP) of the Army is supposed to become the backbone of military ICT.
Official information:There are already budget and timing problems, some of them massive.
Source:Many IT programs of the Army are considered "at risk" or "delayed".
Source:The Federal Council allows Swisscom to prioritize security policy interests in the new ownership strategy – without clear operational metrics.
At the same time, paradoxical roles emerge: The Confederation is owner, regulator, financier, client and controller. All in personal union.
This collision leads to structural perverse incentives, inadequate market neutrality and a dependency that nobody openly addresses.
Why the NDP is in Trouble – and What This Reveals About the Confederation's Digitization Capabilities
1. Unrealistic expectations for a military-critical platform
The NDP is not an app, but a highly sensitive infrastructure.
Nevertheless, many project assumptions seem, to put it mildly, ambitious.
Budget and time have already been missed.
Conclusion: The state regularly overestimates how well it can manage complex digital projects.
2. Politics sets goals but understands technology too little
Swisscom is the operational partner, the Confederation the strategic owner.
A mixture of political wishful thinking and lack of technical depth leads to mismanagement.
Result: Dependency, overwhelm and a growing blind spot.
3. Delays despite highest security policy relevance
Full operation is planned for 2026 at the earliest – at a time when digital threats change daily.
Source:
Criticism: The pace is in no proportion to the urgency.
4. Critical applications are not yet ready
Many subsystems are still considered risky or incomplete.
Transparency? Rather sparse.
5. Security consumes innovation
More security in Swisscom's strategy is good, but without technical KPIs it remains a buzzword.
Problem: Security without agility leads to slow, cumbersome systems – particularly dangerous in the military context.
6. Platform strategy on paper is not operational reality
The "Cubes" and the modular approach sound modern.
But the digital history of the Confederation shows:
Many platforms remain PowerPoint, few become products.
Examples:
- eID
- EPD
- E-Government harmonization
Contradictions: When the Confederation is simultaneously owner, client and controller
1. The Confederation awards contracts to a company it owns itself
The Army pays – Swisscom earns – the Confederation collects dividends.
A financial circle that pulverizes any transparency.
2. Market neutrality? Only theoretically
When a semi-state telecommunications giant gets government contracts, the question arises:
Would a private provider be more efficient?
3. Role collisions without end
The Confederation is simultaneously:
- Owner of Swisscom
- Regulator of the market
- Financier of the Army
- Client of the NDP
- Controller of costs and quality
Conclusion: The state controls itself.
Independent quality control? Not happening.
4. Swisscom is "too important to fail"
Even if performance is lacking, the main partner cannot be replaced.
This leads to a risky power imbalance.
5. Innovation and security goals contradict each other
Swisscom is supposed to be simultaneously:
- innovative
- secure
- profitable
- ensure supply
- deliver dividends
Who seriously believes that all of this can work at the same time?
Opportunities & Risks – A realistic interim assessment
Opportunities
- The NDP could become a stable digital backbone for the Army.
- The cooperation creates know-how in one place.
- Swisscom can think big about security – theoretically.
Risks
- Delays could create security policy gaps.
- Dependence on a state-affiliated provider reduces market efficiency.
- Lack of transparency hinders democratic control.
- The structural contradictions increase the risk of systemic failures.
Look into the future
Short-term (1 year):
More reports on time and budget adjustments.
Medium-term (5 years):
The NDP could work – or become a new chapter of state IT problems.
Long-term (10–20 years):
Switzerland decides whether it takes digital sovereignty seriously – or remains trapped in structural contradictions.
Brief conclusion
The NDP is important, but it is also a prime example of structural perverse incentives in the Swiss state model.
When the Confederation is simultaneously owner, client and controller, it lacks the distance needed for real efficiency.
Anyone who doesn't look closely here risks more than a failed IT project: namely digital sovereignty.