I have been building out a series of IIBE Framework papers looking at how the European Union through its European Innovation Council (EIC), a major EU initiative supporting deep-tech startups and research, can move its new scaling mandate underpinned by deploying a recently announced Euro 5 Billion fund.

The EIC is the right institution for this. Not because it is the only EU institution with a scaling mandate, but because it is the only institution that already operates above the national interest level, already has portfolio-level visibility across node types, and is already at the moment — the first Scaleup Europe Fund investment tranche — when integrating this governance architecture is most effective. The extension of EIC’s remit from financing scale to governing the ecosystem conditions for scale is not a departure from its mandate. It is the logical completion of it.

I worked through four documents looking at a combination of ideas that look to challenge political geography and optimize functional architecture. We should look for imaginative ways for true ecosystems of capital, intelligence, connections and resources can flow freely to the points where that expertise is the strongest across Europe. We need to think beyond boundaries into optimized performance. Can we think differently across Europe when it comes to innovation, make our institutional flows stronger?

My first document looked at a different way to overcome the existing country or entity (allocation and rigidity issue) for a higher level of optimizing the system. Not who gets allocated at country level the central funds. As the EU has a default unit of analysis on country they inhibit how ecosystems can generate and compound value.

The right unit is the node, a structured unit defined by its function. Where a country asks “what do we produce?”, a node asks “what structural function do we perform, and for whom?” The EU-27 as a Node System has real merit to explore. This paper argues that the European ecosystem’s scaling challenge is not primarily a funding challenge. It is a governance architecture challenge. The node map of Western Europe reveals an ecosystem with extraordinary latent capability. The concept of nodes as the architecture for Ecosystem across Europe offers European sovereign advantage.

What Europe has not built is the node architecture that converts those positions into compounding systemic advantage. The control points generate revenue and geopolitical relevance. They do not generate the self-reinforcing cycle of intelligence flow, governance adaptation, and systemic advantage that defines a genuinely intelligent integrated ecosystem. My second document deals with control points.

My second document was looking at genuine control points, those positions of structural irreplaceability in global technology and value chains. The issue is compounding. Control points are a specific position in a technology stack, standards architecture or infrastructure layer at which a single actor holds a capability that the rest of the system requires and cannot replicate easily or bypass. ASML is a good example. They are irreplaceable and offer system dependency. Europe holds irreplaceable leverage here and it is looking at these control points as greater compounding ones. These can scale faster and hold European sovereignty.

The control point generates revenue and employment but does not compound into broader systemic advantage, because the node architecture that would allow it to do so is absent. The control point is an isolated asset, not a system-level lever.This is the dominant European failure mode — and it is directly visible in the EIC’s existing portfolio.

Europe has invested — sometimes deliberately, often accidentally — in acquiring control points of genuine structural significance. ASML, Ericsson/Nokia, SAP, imec, Airbus, and the Brussels Effect regulatory architecture are not minor competitive advantages. They are positions of irreplaceable leverage in global value chains that the rest of the world’s technology system depends on.

My third document is shifting thinking from Capital Scale to Ecosystem Scale and the governance architecture for the EIC Scaleup Europe mandate. This looks at different scaling ambitions and their structural limits.The EIC’s 2026 trajectory is clear and significant. The Scaleup Europe Fund — with EQT appointed as fund manager and €2.5 billion already committed from the EIC and private LPs including Novo Holdings, Allianz, APG, and the Wallenberg family — represents Europe’s most concrete attempt to prevent foreign capital from acquiring its best technology before it scales. That ambition is correct. But the architecture does not yet match it.

The EIC’s scaling mandate is the right ambition. But deploying €5 billion into companies that hold Europe’s most significant control points, without the node architecture to compound their leverage, produces larger isolated assets — not structural advantage.

My fourth document is where this post is directed at– building a Fusion Readiness Assessment. I am suggesting when an idea is ready to scale, will it have scaling compound.

Let me explain this Fusion Assessment in some detail.

The Problem the EIC Has Not Yet Solved– Fusion

The EIC funds ideas. It develops them, tests them, accelerates them. At each stage of its pipeline — Pathfinder, Transition, Accelerator — it applies criteria to determine whether an idea is ready to move forward. Those criteria are good ones: technology readiness, market validation, team quality, financial milestones.

They assess the idea. They do not assess whether the ecosystem around the idea has reached the conditions under which scaling will compound rather than merely grow.

That distinction is the problem the Scaleup Europe Fund is trying to solve with capital. More money, larger rounds, later stage. But capital deployed into an idea before its ecosystem has reached the decisive inflection point produces a larger, better-funded isolated asset — not a self-sustaining compounding system. The idea grows. It does not compound.

The Fusion Readiness Assessment is the missing instrument. It sits alongside existing EIC criteria — not replacing them — and answers the question that those criteria cannot: has this idea and the ecosystem around it reached the point at which scale capital will compound?

The Fusion Progression in Five Stages

The Fusion Progression describes the natural journey of an idea moving through its ecosystem toward self-sustaining scale. It has five stages. Each stage has its own character, its own observable signals, and its own implication for how the EIC should position its support.

At this stage the idea is still seeking — seeking connections, seeking capital, seeking partners, seeking market entry. But something has shifted. The direction of movement is beginning to reverse. Occasional inbound interest is appearing that was not created by the company. An industry actor has made contact without being approached. A potential partner has reached out. A researcher has cited the work.

These are small signals. They are not yet structural. But they are the first indication that the idea has developed sufficient mass to begin attracting rather than only pushing. Gravitational Pull is the earliest Fusion precursor — the signal that the approach to the decisive inflection point has begun.

At this stage the EIC’s role is to strengthen the idea’s mass: deepen the technology, sharpen the market position, begin building the ecosystem connections that will become the infrastructure of attraction. Node proximity matters here — an idea developing within or adjacent to a high-density node environment develops gravitational pull faster because the structural elements that enable attraction are already present around it.

Attraction is Gravitational Pull becoming structural. The occasional inbound signal has become a pattern. Industry actors are orienting toward the idea across multiple dimensions simultaneously — commercial interest, partnership approaches, talent movement, capital positioning. The idea has become a reference point in its domain.

The decisive test at this stage is whether the attraction is self-generating or EIC-dependent. If the inbound interest disappears when EIC support is withdrawn, it is not yet genuine Attraction — it is reflected light from the EIC’s own authority. Genuine Attraction continues and grows without the EIC’s active promotion. The idea is pulling under its own gravity.

This is where the ecosystem compounding potential signals become readable. Are connections between actors around the idea multiplying rather than adding? Is the intelligence generated by the idea circulating through the ecosystem rather than staying within the company? Are control points in the proximity beginning to orient toward the idea as a domain of interest? These are the Form signals — the evidence that structure is beginning to coalesce around the idea’s gravitational field.

Fusion is the decisive inflection point. It is not a company milestone. It is an ecosystem event — the moment at which the intelligence generated by the idea, the structural form that has coalesced around it, and the governance coherence of the surrounding ecosystem combine to produce something self-sustaining.

Capital is now attracted rather than deployed. Adjacent actors activate without being connected. The policy environment is beginning to reflect and react to the idea as a new field of opportunity. The two hard validators — competitive response from incumbents and entanglement through ecosystem roots — are both becoming visible.

The EIC’s role changes at Fusion. Before Fusion, the EIC is scaffolding — keeping the idea alive, building its connections, strengthening its ecosystem position. At Fusion, the EIC shifts to steering — directing the compounding that is now self-generating toward outcomes that serve European sovereign interests. This is the validated handover point for Scaleup Europe Fund investment.

Post-Fusion, the idea’s ecosystem is in active compounding. New actors are entering without being recruited. Capital is arriving without being summoned. The rate of connection, capability accumulation, and intelligence generation is increasing rather than plateauing. Each new connection multiplies rather than merely adding.

This is where Scaleup Europe Fund capital lands with maximum effect. Not creating momentum — the momentum already exists — but amplifying and directing it. The EIC’s role here is not to generate attraction but to ensure that the compounding is happening within European ecosystem infrastructure, deepening the entanglement that makes the idea unmovable.

The final stage of the Fusion Progression is the clearest evidence that an idea has fully compounded into structural significance. New fields of opportunity are becoming visible — adjacent applications, derivative ideas, new markets, new domains — that were not conceivable at the idea’s outset. These are emerging not from within the original company but from the broader ecosystem that has grown around the idea.

The idea has become infrastructure. It is being built upon. This is the point at which Pioneer-mode policy engagement becomes appropriate — not reacting to the idea but actively shaping the institutional architecture of the new field it has opened. And it is the point at which the EIC’s next investment generation is identified: the new ideas emerging from the field of opportunity this one has created.

The Assessment in Practice

The Fusion Readiness Assessment is designed to be conducted as a structured conversation between an EIC programme manager and the founding team, informed by the programme manager’s own market and ecosystem intelligence. It is not a form to be completed or a box-ticking exercise. By offering a signal grading, this is a discipline for honest observation, not a mechanical scoring system.

The output is a Fusion Readiness Signal Map: a simple visual representation of where the green, amber, and red signals sit across the three clusters and two Hard Validators. The map tells the programme manager, at a glance, where the idea is in its Fusion Progression and what the appropriate EIC response is.

The Scale Delivery End Point

Everything in the Fusion Readiness Assessment is in service of one outcome: the idea reaches self-sustaining scale that delivers the impact it was funded to deliver. Not a larger portfolio company. Not a stronger EIC track record. Not a better-governed ecosystem as an end in itself.

Delivered scale. In Europe. Compounding. The Fusion Progression describes the path.

There is more within the detail of the paper but the assessment stages are outlined for bringing scale and compounding together

Scale attraction and ecosystem compounding potential are the conditions we must strive for. Fusion is the moment they combine. The Scaleup Europe Fund is the instrument. European sovereign advantage — built through entanglement, anchored through node and control point integration, compounding through the intelligence the ecosystem generates — is the end point. This builds the Fusion State we need

We need to build intervention to accelerate the approach to Fusion. To scale, to compound we move towards fusion.

The post Adding Fusion into the European Innovation Scaling Mix first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Most organisations today are trying to move faster than the system they sit inside.
The slowdown isn’t execution — it’s structural.

They are operating inside ecosystems without an ecosystem architecture:
the missing layer that aligns capabilities, intelligence, and value creation across partners, portfolios, and products.

The Intelligent Integrated Business Ecosystem (IIBE) provides that architecture. It turns ecosystems from fragmented networks into intelligent, adaptive systems that can sense, learn, and coordinate — so strategy, capability, and value creation move together, not apart.

If you’re feeling the limits of the system around you, the IIBE makes those limits visible — and solvable.

The Structural Problem Modern Organisations Can’t See

Across every sector — energy, industry, logistics, healthcare, finance — organisations are trying to accelerate innovation, digital transformation, and new value creation.

We need to recognize organizations are doing so inside systems that were never designed to move with them. Most systems were designed for the single organization, keeping its knowledge and insights inside the organization. Sharing if at all was strictly bilateral.

The world is different today, we seek to share and exchange. We strive for more knowledge and insights. We contribute alongside others to tackle and solve more complex problems, that is the rise of Ecosystems.

If we don’t adapt and change the result are familiar to recognize:

• initiatives that slow at the boundaries
• digital and AI that scale locally but not across the chain
• partners moving at different speeds
• data and intelligence trapped in silos
• value creation that fragments across actors

These are not execution failures.
They are structural symptoms of a deeper issue:

Organisations are operating inside ecosystems — but without an ecosystem architecture.

Why Ecosystem Architecture Is Missing

Ecosystems emerged faster than the organisational tools built to manage them.
Companies built strategies, operating models, digital platforms, partner programs, and innovation portfolios — but none of these were designed for multi‑actor systems.

Ecosystems became real.
Ecosystem language became common.
Ecosystem ambition became strategic.

But the architecture — the structural layer that aligns actors, capabilities, incentives, and value creation — never emerged.

This is why organisations feel like they are pushing against something they can’t see.
They are trying to accelerate inside a system that cannot absorb the acceleration.

What an Ecosystem Architecture Achieves

An explicit ecosystem architecture transforms an ecosystem from:

• a set of partners,
• a collection of platforms,
• or a network of relationships

into an intelligent, adaptive system that can:

• sense what is happening across actors
• learn from distributed intelligence
• coordinate decisions and movement
• compound value rather than fragment it

It aligns strategy, capability, and value creation potential across:

• partners
• portfolios
• products
• and the wider system the organisation depends on

This is the shift from ecosystem as aspiration to ecosystem as advantage.

What Organisations Gain When They Finally See the Architecture

When leaders adopt an ecosystem architecture, three things change immediately:

1. Friction becomes explainable

The delays and breakdowns that looked like execution issues reveal themselves as structural misalignments.

2. Progress becomes predictable

You can see where the system will resist, where it will accelerate, and where alignment is possible — before investing time, money, or political capital.

3. Value creation compounds

Capabilities stop working in isolation.
Partners stop moving at different speeds.
Digital and AI stop scaling in pockets.
The system begins to behave as one coherent whole.

This is the moment when organisations stop fighting the system —
and start architecting it.

The Role of the IIBE

The IIBE is the first architecture designed specifically for modern ecosystems.
It gives leaders a structural view of the system they are trying to change — and a way to evolve it with clarity and confidence.

It is not a methodology.
It is not a framework.
It is an architecture:
a way of seeing, designing, and evolving the ecosystem as an intelligent, adaptive system.

For organisations feeling the limits of the system around them, the IIBE makes those limits visible — and solvable.

We need to recognise what limits our Ecosystem ambitions

• Most organisations today are trying to move faster than the system they sit inside. The slowdown isn’t execution — it’s structural.

• We’ve entered a world where value is created across partners, platforms, regulators, suppliers, customers, and data flows that no single organisation controls. In other words: every organisation now operates inside an ecosystem.

• But almost none have an ecosystem architecture — the structural layer that aligns capabilities, intelligence, and value creation across the system.

That missing architecture explains the patterns leaders keep seeing:

• pilots that don’t scale • digital and AI that work locally but not across the chain • partners moving at different speeds • data that doesn’t flow end‑to‑end • initiatives that slow at the boundaries

These aren’t execution problems. They’re symptoms of a system with no architecture.

The IIBE was built to make that architecture explicit.

It turns ecosystems from fragmented networks into intelligent, adaptive systems that can sense, learn, and coordinate — so strategy, capability, and value creation move together, not apart.

The time to recognize the missing architecture is now so you can turn your Ecosystem ambitions into a growing reality of greater growth, impact and value.

We need this scaffolding to be built in a complex world where we can exchange, share and build on combined knowledge and insights

The post Forget the Component Approach think Ecosystem Architecture first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Recently I have been evaluating a cohort of Seven leading companies on where they are on Business Ecosystem thinking

The seven organizations are

• Hitachi Energy
• ABB
• Maersk
• Johnson Controls
• DHL
• Allianz
• Siemens Healthineers (not Siemens AG)

Firstly you gain the universal tension they all feel

Firstly, it seems every company is caught in the same structural bind:

• Their value creation now depends on actors they don’t control
  (utilities, ports, regulators, integrators, OEMs, hospitals, carriers, developers, insurers, cities).
• Their strategic bets require multi‑actor coordination
  (energy transition, digital grids, smart buildings, logistics visibility, embedded insurance, connected care).
• Their existing operating model is built for bilateral relationships, not multi‑actor ecosystems.
• Their platforms and digital initiatives have already shown the limits of “technology + partners.”

This is their shared pain point they all can elevate into a compelling need for Ecosystem change if they have the 1)ambition and desire and 2) the understanding of what it takes..

The narrative that makes them recognize that Ecosystems are unavoidable

“Your next decade of growth depends on actors you don’t own, don’t control, and can’t replace. That’s an ecosystem condition — and it requires an ecosystem architecture.”

This reframes ecosystems as:

• a structural reality, not a strategy choice
• a capability gap, not a marketing theme
• a board-level risk, not a digital initiative
• a source of competitive advantage, not a partnership model

This is the rupture that is or will take place that should make the senior executives responsible (CEO down) lean in and take note

Let me give three reasons ecosystems become a compelling investment

These are universal across Hitachi Energy, ABB, Maersk, Johnson Controls, DHL, Allianz, Siemens Healthineers.

1. Their strategic bets cannot scale without ecosystem coherence

Energy transition, smart buildings, logistics visibility, embedded insurance, connected care — all require multi‑actor alignment.

If the ecosystem doesn’t work, the strategy doesn’t work.

2. Their existing ecosystem attempts have already shown the cracks

TradeLens, ABB Ability resets, OpenBlue repositioning, DHL platform consolidations, Allianz ecosystem pilots, HealthSuite fragmentation.

They’ve already paid the price of missing architecture.

3. Their competitors are moving faster in ecosystem posture

Siemens AG’s Xcelerator is the clearest example — and for example Siemens Healthineers (partly owned by Siemens AG) is visibly behind.

Ecosystem maturity is becoming a competitive differentiator. It is becoming a race that must be joined seriously.

The message that should stand out for ALL of them

“You don’t have an ecosystem strategy problem — you have an ecosystem architecture problem”
Until you solve that, every platform, partnership, and digital initiative will stall.”

“You’re already ecosystem-dependent.
You’ve already tried ecosystem initiatives.
You’ve already felt the pain of incoherence.
The only thing you haven’t done is architect the ecosystem itself.”

So lets look at each of these seven major companies

I am looking through the Intelligent Integated Business Ecosystem (IIBE) lens here

* Hitachi Energy

They are operating at the centre of one of the most complex systems on earth — grid modernisation, DER integration, and regulatory alignment. What I see across the sector is that the technical progress is strong, but the multi actor system around it isn’t keeping pace

How they talk now

• Mission / site: Energy transition, sustainable energy future, “advancing a sustainable energy future for all.”
• Innovation tone: Grid automation, digital, HVDC, “smarter, stronger, greener” grids.
• Ecosystem language: Strong implicit ecosystem: TSOs, DSOs, regulators, OEMs, renewables developers. Often framed as “collaboration,” “partnerships,” “co‑creation,” “integrated energy systems.”

The Issue

“Hitachi Energy is structurally dependent on grid and data ecosystems, has repeatedly reframed its digital platforms, and still treats ‘ecosystem’ as portfolio + partners rather than a designed architecture—exactly where IIBE provides the missing structural grammar.”

The need

Hitachi Energy is already building the infrastructure of the transition. The next step is making the ecosystem itself intelligent and coherent. This needs explicit architecture for multi-actor grid and data ecosystems

* ABB

ABB is in a unique position: Electrification, Motion, Robotics, and partners all contribute to customer outcomes, but the system they operate in is becoming more interconnected and more demanding.

How they talk now

• Mission / site: Electrification, automation, robotics, “transforming industries,” “more sustainable and resource‑efficient future.”
• Innovation tone: Digital solutions, ABB Ability, AI, automation, smart manufacturing.
• Ecosystem language: “Partner ecosystems,” “integrated solutions,” “end‑to‑end,” “across the value chain.”

The Issue

ABB’s future depends on orchestrating automation, electrification, and building ecosystems, yet ABB Ability and related initiatives show narrative resets instead of architectural clarity; IIBE makes their cross-domain ecosystem condition operable

The Need

Needs unifying ecosystem grammar across domains & partners

* Maersk

Maersk has made bold moves toward integrated logistics, and the ambition is clear: end‑to‑end visibility and orchestration across a global network of actors. What I see across logistics ecosystems is that the technology is ready, but the system architecture — the way partners, data, and decisions align — is the real bottleneck.

How they talk now

• Mission / site: “End‑to‑end logistics integrator,” “connecting and simplifying global supply chains.”
• Innovation tone: Digital platforms, visibility, integrated logistics, decarbonisation.
• Ecosystem language: Strong: “integrator,” “end‑to‑end,” “global network,” “partners,” “platforms.”

The Issue

“Maersk has already lived through a flagship ecosystem failure with TradeLens, proving that technology and bilateral partnerships are insufficient; IIBE gives them the architectural lens they were missing when they designed that ecosystem.”

The Need

Knows tech + partnerships aren’t enough; needs structural ecosystem design

* Johnson Controls

Smart buildings are no longer single‑vendor environments — they’re ecosystems of integrators, OEMs, platforms, and operators. The complexity is rising faster than the tools built to manage it.

How they talk now

• Mission / site: Smart, healthy, sustainable buildings.
• Innovation tone: OpenBlue, smart buildings, digital twins, sustainability, decarbonisation.
• Ecosystem language: “Partners,” “integrators,” “open platforms,” “building ecosystems.”

The Issue

Johnson Controls’ OpenBlue vision assumes an open smart-building ecosystem, but the underlying roles, flows, and governance remain implicit; IIBE turns that implicit ecosystem into an explicit, designable architecture.

The Need

Needs architecture for roles, flows, and governance in built-environment ecosystems

* DHL

Global logistics is becoming more interconnected, more digital, and more dependent on partners you don’t control. What I see across the sector is that visibility and optimisation work well inside the organisation, but break down across the wider system.

How they talk now

• Mission / site: “Excellence. Simply delivered.” Global logistics, connecting people and improving lives.
• Innovation tone: Digitalisation, data, AI, sustainability, e‑commerce, last‑mile, supply chain visibility.
• Ecosystem language: “Networks,” “partners,” “collaboration,” “end‑to‑end supply chain.”

The Issue

DHL’s logistics platforms and visibility solutions depend on a dense ecosystem of carriers, shippers, and data partners, yet their initiatives are framed as products and platforms, not as a coherent ecosystem architecture—precisely the gap IIBE fills

The Need

Needs ecosystem architecture beyond “platform + visibility”

* Allianz

Insurance is becoming deeply ecosystem‑driven — health, mobility, financial platforms, embedded services. The challenge isn’t the ambition; it’s the architecture behind risk, identity, and data across actors.

How they talk now

• Mission / site: Protecting futures, resilience, long‑term value.
• Innovation tone: Digital insurance, platforms, ecosystems (health, mobility, financial), data, AI, risk insights.
• Ecosystem language: Explicit: “ecosystems” in health, mobility, financial services; “platforms,” “partners,” “embedded insurance.”

The Issue

Allianz is betting on mobility, health, and embedded insurance ecosystems, but its pilots and platforms remain fragmented; IIBE offers the structural language to redesign these as one coherent ecosystem architecture instead of scattered experiments.

The Need

Needs structural grammar for embedded & cross-sector ecosystems

* Siemens Healthineers

Healthineers is pushing the frontier of diagnostics, AI, and digital health — but the clinical ecosystems these innovations depend on are fragmented and move at different speeds.

How they talk now

• Mission / site: “We pioneer breakthroughs in healthcare. For everyone. Everywhere.”
• Innovation tone: AI, digital health, precision medicine, integrated diagnostics, clinical decision support.
• Ecosystem language: “Care pathways,” “clinical networks,” “partners,” “integrated solutions,” “digital ecosystems” (sometimes explicit).

The Issue

Siemens Healthineers is increasingly ecosystem-dependent in data-driven care and AI, but its ecosystem posture lags behind Siemens AG’s Xcelerator framing; IIBE gives Healthineers the architectural catch-up path to align its ecosystem condition with the group’s ambition. The Health Ecosystem is one of the most important to be connected up.

The Need

Needs to catch up architecturally with Siemens AG’s ecosystem posture but create the distinctive ecosystems for the focus areas they are operating in.

They are all facing the Structural Rupture of how they operate today is starting to fail

Most companies don’t realise they’ve already crossed a line. They’re no longer operating in markets. They’re operating in ecosystems—whether they intended to or not.

And here’s the uncomfortable truth:

Their next decade of growth depends on actors they don’t own, don’t control, and can’t replace.

Energy transition.
Smart buildings.
Logistics visibility.
Embedded insurance.
Connected care.
Industrial automation.

Every strategic bet now relies on multi‑actor coordination.

Yet most organisations are still trying to scale these ambitions with tools built for a different world:

• bilateral partnerships
• product portfolios
• digital platforms
• integration programs
• “ecosystem” slides full of circles and arrows

These aren’t wrong but they are facing rapidly slower growth rates. They’re just not enough in today’s world.

Because the real blocker isn’t technology, or partners, or adoption. It is mostly within the companies themselves It’s the absence of something more fundamental:

An ecosystem architecture and they need to set about and build it – to fit their circumstances but they need to talk a different mission, innovation tone and build their ecosystem language.

Perhaps the IIBE is the missing piece, there is only way way to find out- ask!

• Ecosystems are now your operating environment.
• Architecture is the missing capability.
• IIBE is the only architecture built for multi‑actor value creation.
• Without it, you will continue to stall, consolidate, or retreat.
• With it, you can scale what your strategy already depends on.

This is the shift from “ecosystems are interesting” to “ecosystems are the only way forward.”

It is the time to take stock and each of these companies are caught in the same trap as countless others – there is a time to break out and follow those who are already ahead.

The post Business Ecosystems are more than your Companies thinks they are first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.