Comparison of Open Desk and Microsoft 365 for Public Administration
Public Cloud, Delos Cloud, and operating models
The digitalization of public administration has long been a key issue in Germany. Decision-makers are faced with a choice between various software solutions that have to meet both technical and legal requirements. Two prominent options in the area of commodity services for workplaces are "Open Desk"> - an open source-based solution - and "Office 365">, which is offered in two variants: the Public Cloud and the Delos Cloud. This blog article compares the three variants in the context of public administration, highlights possible operating models for Open Desk and lists the advantages and disadvantages of each. It also examines whether Open Desk could serve as a backup for Office 365.
Overview of the Products
Open Desk
Open Desk is a concept for a digital workplace based on open source software. It was initiated by the Center for Digital Sovereignty (ZenDiS), which was founded by the Federal Ministry of the Interior to reduce dependence on proprietary software. Open Desk combines various open source tools such as LibreOffice for office applications, Nextcloud for cloud storage and collaboration, and other components such as Thunderbird for e-mail. The aim is to offer a flexible, customizable, and data protection-friendly alternative to commercial solutions. Open Desk is also offered in various rental models, which are described in section 3.
Microsoft / Office 365
Microsoft 365 is a comprehensive productivity and collaboration suite based on a SaaS model. The service includes popular applications such as Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Teams, and OneDrive. It is cloud-based and offers advanced features such as AI support (e.g. Copilot). There are two relevant variants for public administration:
- Microsoft 365 Public Cloud: The standard version of Microsoft 365 runs on global Microsoft servers (for customers from the EU, mainly in the EU).
- Office 365 Delos Cloud: The Delos Cloud is a sovereign cloud solution based on Microsoft Azure and Microsoft 365, which is operated by the SAP subsidiary Delos Cloud GmbH and Arvato Systems in Germany. To this end, new data centers are being set up on German soil based on the Microsoft model and operated by a German company. It therefore meets the high requirements of the BSI, and the data is kept in Germany.
Comparison in the Context of Public Administration
Data protection and sovereignty
- Open Desk: As an open source solution, Open Desk offers the highest level of data sovereignty and transparency. The publicly accessible source code allows users to ensure that there are no hidden functions or backdoors. The option to store data locally or on your own servers makes it much easier to comply with the GDPR and national data protection regulations. In addition, there is no dependency on US providers, which completely eliminates risks such as access by US authorities via the Cloud Act.
- Microsoft 365 Public Cloud: This variant has been criticized because data is potentially processed on servers outside the EU. As a US company, Microsoft is subject to the Cloud Act, which means that US authorities could gain access to the data under certain circumstances. Use for public sector organizations requires special customizing of the environment, such as the data protection-friendly workplace offered by Arvato Systems.
- Office 365 Delos Cloud: The Delos Cloud addresses these weaknesses by storing data in Germany and ensuring that it is operated by a German company, Delos Cloud GmbH. The necessary updates from the USA are continuously checked and subjected to quality assurance by the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) to ensure the highest security standards.
Conclusion: Open Desk offers the highest level of data sovereignty, as data can be stored locally or on its own servers. It is closely followed by the Delos Cloud, whose operating model guarantees high data protection requirements. The public cloud performs the worst here.
Functionality and user-friendliness
- Open Desk: The suite is functionally solid and is particularly suitable for standard tasks such as word processing with LibreOffice and file sharing with Nextcloud. However, it often lacks the seamless integration and advanced features that proprietary software offers, such as AI tools. Ease of use can be limited for employees who are used to Microsoft products.
- Microsoft 365 Public Cloud: This variant offers a comprehensive range of features, including real-time collaboration, AI support, and an intuitive user interface. It is widely used in administration, which minimizes training time.
- Office 365 Delos Cloud: The Delos Cloud offers the same functions as the Public Cloud, but with some restrictions on the availability of certain features. The range of functions for the modern workplace is based on the O365 E3 license.
Conclusion: Microsoft 365 Public Cloud and Office 365 Delos Cloud outperform Open Desk in terms of functionality and ease of use. While Open Desk is solid for standard tasks like word processing and file sharing, it often lacks seamless integration and advanced features like AI tools.
Costs
- Open Desk: The software itself is free of charge, but implementation, maintenance and support require considerable investment in specialist staff or external service providers. The total costs vary depending on the operating model and can be found in more detail in section 3. This solution offers flexibility and control, but involves a higher initial investment.
- Microsoft 365 Public Cloud: The license costs for this variant are comparatively low, as Microsoft benefits from economies of scale. The total costs depend on the licenses used, which allows a certain degree of flexibility in budget planning.
- Office 365 Delos Cloud: According to Delos, this variant will be around 15% more expensive than the public cloud, which is due to the additional effort required for data sovereignty and the smaller target group. Despite the higher costs, the Delos Cloud offers similar functionality to the public cloud, but with the advantage that the data is stored and managed in Germany.
Conclusion: Open Desk can be more cost-effective in the long term, but requires a higher initial investment for implementation and maintenance. The Delos Cloud is more expensive than the most cost-effective public cloud, but is potentially cheaper than a full in-house implementation of Open Desk.
Dependence and flexibility
- Open Desk: This solution offers no dependency on a single provider (vendor lock-in). The administration has the option of adapting and further developing the software, although this requires technical expertise. This enables a high degree of flexibility and control over the software used.
- Microsoft 365 Public Cloud: There is a strong dependency on Microsoft here, both technologically and economically, as license costs can increase, for example. It is difficult to switch to alternative solutions, which limits flexibility.
- Office 365 Delos Cloud: Although the dependency on Microsoft remains, the German operator Delos mitigates it. Nevertheless, flexibility remains limited due to the software's proprietary nature.
Conclusion: Open Desk offers the greatest independence and flexibility, as there is no dependency on a single provider. Both Microsoft variants, on the other hand, involve a vendor lock-in, whereby the Delos Cloud is somewhat less dependent on the German operator than the Public Cloud.
Operating Models for Open Desk
Open Desk can be operated in different scenarios. Here are the three main models with their advantages and disadvantages:
Model 3: Hybrid model
The hybrid model combines on-premises for sensitive data and private cloud for less critical applications. This enables optimized use of resources, as the combination of both models allows resources to be used efficiently and costs to be optimized. It offers flexibility for different security requirements, as sensitive data can be stored locally while less critical applications are operated in the cloud, allowing flexible adaptation to different security requirements. In addition, cost efficiency can be achieved through selective cloud deployment, as the targeted use of the cloud for certain applications can be more cost-efficient than full on-premises operation. However, the administration and integration of the two systems is complex and time-consuming, as the administration and integration of the systems requires additional resources and time. Potential security risks exist at the interfaces between the on-premises and cloud components, which can pose potential security risks. The coordination effort is higher, as coordination between the different systems and teams requires additional effort and resources.
Model 2: Private cloud (own cloud)
In this scenario, Open Desk is operated in a private cloud environment hosted by a German service provider. This offers a good balance between control and flexibility, as well as the ability to scale resources quickly and easily as required. The German location also ensures data protection compliance, as the data is hosted in Germany and is therefore subject to national data protection regulations. However, the costs are higher than with public cloud solutions, as the use of a private cloud is generally more expensive because it is specifically tailored to the needs of the administration. The technical complexity of setting up and operating is greater, as setting up and operating a private cloud requires technical expertise and can be complex. There is also a certain dependency on the cloud service provider that provides the cloud infrastructure, which limits the independence of the administration.
Model 1: On-premises (local operation)
In this model, Open Desk is installed and operated on the administration's own servers. This offers full control over data and infrastructure, ensuring maximum data sovereignty and protection against external access. There is also no dependency on cloud providers. However, this model requires a high initial outlay for hardware, installation and training. Purchasing the necessary hardware, installing the software and training staff requires considerable initial investment. In addition, there are ongoing costs for maintenance and personnel, as the operation and maintenance of the servers and the employment of IT specialists generate continuous costs. Scalability is limited as demand grows, as expanding the infrastructure can be complex and costly.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The choice between Open Desk and Microsoft 365 depends on the priorities of the public administration. Open Desk is ideal for authorities seeking maximum sovereignty and independence. It is particularly suitable for local or hybrid operation, but requires investment in infrastructure and expertise. In the long term, it can be a cost-effective and future-proof solution.
Microsoft 365 Public Cloud scores with functionality and user-friendliness, but is sometimes challenging in terms of data protection law and harbors risks due to vendor lock-in.
Office 365 Delos Cloud offers a compromise: more sovereignty than the public cloud, but with compromises in terms of flexibility and costs. It is a solution for administrations that want to continue using Microsoft.
Recommendation: For strategic, long-term digitalization, public administration should rely on the successful compromise of the Delos Cloud to ensure both a high level of sovereignty and a high level of functionality. In particular, the Delos Cloud offers the same advantages as a private cloud, but with the additional flexibility and scalability that a public cloud environment brings. The operating model of the Delos Cloud is very similar to that of Open Desk in a private cloud, as it ensures the same high level of data security and control over the infrastructure without compromising the integration of Microsoft products.
Open Desk as a Backup for Microsoft 365: A Sensible Strategy?
However, an interesting approach could be to use Open Desk as a backup system for Microsoft 365 to compensate for outages or data protection issues. But how practicable is this? What challenges arise, and is it a hot or cold standby model? Is this the best of both worlds or unnecessary effort?
Suitability as a backup
Open Desk could theoretically serve as a backup, as it covers basic functions such as word processing, email and file storage. In the event of a Microsoft 365 / O365 outage (e.g. due to server issues or legal restrictions), employees could fall back on Open Desk to continue critical tasks. Especially in public administration, where continuity is essential, this could provide a safety net.
Challenges
Data migration and compatibility between Microsoft 365 and Open Desk is a challenge, as both use different formats and systems, such as .docx and .odt. A seamless transition therefore requires regular synchronization and conversion, which is technically complex.
In addition, employees who primarily work with Microsoft 365 would have to be trained in Open Desk. This could lead to delays, especially in emergencies, as the changeover takes time and resources.
Another aspect is integration. Functions such as real-time collaboration via Teams or AI tools such as Copilot are missing in Open Desk. A backup with Open Desk would therefore only be suitable for basic tasks and could not replace the full functionality of Microsoft 365. Finally, deploying two systems in parallel, including hardware, support and maintenance, significantly increases costs. This means that the resources required to manage and operate both systems are significantly higher.
Hot or cold standby?
There are various aspects to consider when deciding between hot and cold standby for Open Desk. A cold standby system means that Open Desk is installed but not actively used until an emergency occurs. This minimizes running costs as no resources are required for daily operation. However, this leads to longer response times in the event of a change, as the installation, data transfer and tests only have to be carried out in an emergency.
A hot standby system, on the other hand, would be constantly active and immediately ready for use. This is technically possible, but expensive and resource-intensive, as it requires the parallel use of both systems. The daily use of both systems would significantly increase complexity and could overburden the administration.
In practice, a cold standby model would be more realistic, as it keeps running costs low and does not overburden the administration. Although a hot standby system offers faster response times, it is less practicable due to the high costs and increased complexity.
Best of both worlds or unnecessary effort?
A backup with Open Desk could reduce dependency on Microsoft and serve as a contingency plan in the event of legal or technical problems, such as the Cloud Act or server failures. It would also facilitate the gradual introduction of open source technologies.
However, the cost of implementation, maintenance and training is disproportionate to the benefits if the backup is rarely used. Open Desk does not cover all Microsoft 365 functions, which limits its role as a fully-fledged backup.
The evaluation shows that Open Desk as a backup for Microsoft 365 is not a "best of both worlds" solution, but rather an unnecessary expense. It would make more sense to either rely entirely on Open Desk or to secure Microsoft 365 with robust contingency plans within its own ecosystem, for example through local backups. A parallel system as a cold standby could be conceivable in exceptional cases, such as with very high security requirements, but remains inefficient for most administrations.
Written by