In many boardrooms, the same conversation is currently taking place for the fifth or sixth time. About technical debt that really needs addressing next quarter, about that cloud provider on which dependency has quietly become too great, or about AI tools that no one quite understands in terms of how – or even whether – they will transform core business processes. These conversations have often been going on for years, always with the same outcome: we will revisit this next quarter.

For the Tech Reality Check 2026, the first in an annual series, we surveyed 1,058 IT decision-makers in Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain about the digital challenges many organisations are currently facing. From managing costs and technical debt to digital sovereignty, data collaboration and the use of AI. Across every one of these themes, the same pattern emerges: organisations have a clear understanding of their digital issues, yet struggle to translate that insight into concrete decisions. Awareness is widespread, but the policies needed to act on it are lagging behind. 

The fact that this pattern repeats itself across such a wide range of topics suggests that we are not primarily dealing with a knowledge or technology problem. Instead, three underlying mechanisms help explain where the gap between recognising and acting really comes from. 

Technical debt 

The first is that many digital challenges remain abstract enough to be postponed time and again. Technical debt is the clearest example. By technical debt, we mean the accumulation of overdue maintenance in IT systems that arises when organisations opt for quick fixes instead of sustainable solutions: a temporary patch, a stopgap integration, a deferred upgrade. The consequences are tangible, slower systems, costly dependencies and constrained innovation. Yet, the issue itself remains largely invisible in financial reporting. There is no line item on the balance sheet where it is amortised, no report in which it consistently appears. And what is not visible in figures and reporting rarely makes it onto the agenda. 

Too few concrete decisions 

The second mechanism is that governance may appear to be in place, but lacks real traction. Organisations generally know who is responsible for critical dependencies. However, what exactly needs to be done is far less clearly defined, leaving accountability in place without sparking meaningful progress. The policies exist, the procedures are there, roles have been assigned. Yet in day-to-day practice, this still translates too little into specific decisions: which supplier do we replace? Which system do we migrate? And what budget do we allocate to this? 

No fundamental adjustments 

The third mechanism lies in the tension between technology and culture. AI is being adopted at scale, but processes, roles and ways of working are rarely fundamentally adjusted as a result. The tools are in place, but the willingness to embed them into new ways of working is often lacking. As a result, organisations use new technology to make existing processes more efficient, while the real gains lie elsewhere: in redesigning the work itself. 

Four countries, four realities 

These mechanisms are far less about the technology itself and much more about how organisations are governed. The pattern is pan-European, but not identical everywhere. Germany demonstrates the strongest governance of digital dependencies, yet as a result experiences the greatest constraints on innovation. Spain more often translates awareness into active policy than its neighbouring countries and is the only country surveyed to have knowledge concentration risks under control. Portugal scores lower on governance, but achieves notably strong returns from AI applications – a pragmatic approach that shows a weaker starting position does not have to be a barrier to tangible results. And the Netherlands clearly recognises the issues, but acts on them less than comparable countries – an uncomfortable reality for a nation that prides itself on being a digital frontrunner. 

From recognising to acting 

What sets apart the organisations that will make the difference in the coming years is their ability to move from recognising to acting. They factor technical debt into investment decisions, translate awareness of digital dependencies into concrete policy, and use AI to reshape ways of working. It is not the size of the IT budget or access to the latest technology that determines competitive advantage, but the willingness to address existing challenges decisively. 

The full findings of the Tech Reality Check 2026, including country comparisons, detailed data and recommendations per theme, are available here.