Only 25 of 235 data-sharing initiatives in an industry registry had reached operational status, according to an OECD report published on October 20. The finding puts a commercial question behind the push to connect businesses’ information: who will keep paying once a project has been built?
The OECD assessment examines more than 200 initiatives. Its registry figures refer to the International Data Spaces Association’s Radar in February 2026, a collection dominated by European projects, not a census of every data-sharing arrangement worldwide.
A data space lets organizations exchange information under shared rules while retaining control over its use. Participants need compatible systems, agreed responsibilities and a reason to contribute. The OECD identifies a recurring problem: connecting a business costs money before enough other participants have joined to make the network worthwhile.
For companies evaluating such a project, a working connection and a viable service are separate achievements. An exchange can transmit information correctly while leaving its members unsure whether the benefit justifies the recurring bill.
Start with the decision the data will change
Consider a hypothetical port call involving a ship operator, terminal, haulier and warehouse. Each may hold information another participant needs. A revised arrival time is most valuable when it reaches the people who can alter berth plans, truck bookings or staffing.
The business case needs to identify those decisions. Counting participating companies or uploaded files tells a project manager little about whether customers have avoided a delay or reduced manual work.
Finland’s traffic management company Fintraffic describes this approach in its Maritime Data Space project. Its stated work includes rules for information exchange, governance, principles for sharing benefits and costs, and validation of the technical concept.
Fintraffic says exchanging timely vessel information could improve port operations and safety. These are the project’s objectives, not evidence that every participating port has already achieved a particular saving.
The coordination problem extends beyond a terminal. As we reported in our coverage of port disruptions reaching inland factories, a transport interruption can affect businesses far from the original bottleneck. Earlier information is valuable when it leaves time for a workable response.
Access rights do not create a business model
European legislation is making some industrial information more accessible. The EU Data Act, applicable since September 12, 2025, gives users greater control over data generated by connected products, including industrial equipment.
The European Commission identifies opportunities for users to obtain equipment-performance information and choose additional services, including maintenance. It also describes measures addressing unfair data-sharing contracts and switching between cloud providers.
Those provisions do not make every business dataset public or remove other legal protections. A company still needs to establish what information falls within an applicable access right, who may receive it and the conditions governing its use.
Operational questions remain after access has been agreed. Someone must maintain connections when software changes, check the quality of incoming records, manage permissions and investigate disputes. A shared format helps computers read a record; it cannot decide which company should bear those costs.
For a smaller supplier, joining can also require staff time and changes to existing systems. A project that budgets only for the central platform may leave its prospective members unable to afford participation.
The subscription needs a measurable return
A buyer can evaluate a proposed exchange by comparing it with the current process. How long does a task take? How many records need to be entered twice? What happens when information arrives late? The comparison should include the cost of integration and ongoing staff support.
A bilateral connection between two businesses may be sufficient for a narrow task. A wider exchange needs to explain what additional benefit its shared rules and membership provide. More participants also mean more decisions about access, accountability and how the service changes over time.
For an operator, recurring income must cover more than hosting. Security, support, testing and governance continue after launch. For a member, a cheaper membership fee can still represent poor value if using the service consumes substantial internal resources.
Before signing, businesses can ask for an exit process as well as an onboarding plan: which records they can retrieve, how permissions end and who maintains evidence of past transactions. A platform’s financial difficulties should not leave a customer unable to account for information it has already shared.
