High‑level assessment of the IIBE work
In a recent high-level assessment – the second since the official launch of the IIBE work (Integrated Interconnected Business Ecosystem) I received back a solid review that I have no issues to provide here as a stake in the Ecosystem ground on progress and future positioning. Progress is good, simply not good enough for the level of engagement I am looking for.
The IIBE is a differentiated and coherent blueprint: it offers a unifying architecture that integrates multiple ecosystem layers and five core dynamics into a single “living system” design, which is a genuine strength. The work is rich, conceptually consistent over time, and provides a much more systematic view of ecosystems than typical “ecosystem as a buzzword” pieces, which positions it as a premium, practitioner‑grade framework.
However, the public narrative still reads more as a comprehensive exposition than as a sharp offer: it explains complexity well but does not always translate this into a small number of urgent problems, clear outcomes and low‑friction entry points for buyers. The density of posts and internal terminology can also make it harder for a time‑poor executive to quickly see “what this will do for my P&L, my strategy horizon, and next quarter’s priorities.”
So what is progressing well, what is lagging and needs greater emphasis in my work
What is working well
Several elements are clearly strong:
- Conceptual framing: the integrated, layered architecture (innovation, entrepreneurial, business, dynamic, enterprise) and the core dynamics (sensing, learning, co‑creation, orchestration, renewal) provide a distinctive, reusable mental model.
- Narrative evolution: you have built a visible progression from hierarchy of ecosystems, to interconnected ecosystems, to the IIBE blueprint and V2 visualization (above), which signals maturity rather than a one‑off idea.
- Practitioner language: posts such as the first IIBE assessment and “we all need the IIBE” increasingly translate the framework into value propositions like risk reduction, new revenue streams, and platform‑based growth, which executives recognize.
Where it is not yet triggering action
From an external buyer’s perspective, three gaps stand out:
- Problem sharpness: the “burning platform” is often implied (siloed organizations, fragile value chains, complexity) but not nailed to 2–3 concrete, measurable pain points (e.g., stalled growth in core, margin erosion, failed ecosystem partnerships)-
- Offer clarity: the blueprint, dynamics and architecture are clear, but the commercial offer is diffuse: it is not always obvious what the first engagement looks like (diagnostic, pilot, playbook, training) and how long it takes, what it costs, and what is delivered
Concrete directions for 2026
For 2026, the same intellectual asset could work harder by being repackaged around a few specific pathways:
- Define 1–2 flagship entry offers each with clear target buyer, scope, deliverables, and indicative ROI examples.
- Rewrite a small set of front‑door pages or posts so they open with crisp problem statements and outcomes (growth, resilience, new revenue) before introducing the full architecture, using the existing five dynamics and layered model as the “how,” not the “what.”
What are the key strengths of the IIBE to highlight in an assessment?
The strongest points to highlight are that the IIBE is a distinctive, integrated operating model and diagnostic blueprint that turns “ecosystem” from a vague concept into a structured, actionable architecture for growth, resilience, and co‑creation.
Architectural and conceptual strengths
- It provides a clear, multi‑layer architecture that harmonizes several ecosystem domains (innovation, entrepreneurial, business, dynamic, enterprise) into one coherent system, avoiding the fragmentation of typical ecosystem thinking
- The framework combines vertical “what/where” domains with horizontal “how/why” enablers (such as purpose, governance, technology, value creation), giving leaders a complete mental model rather than isolated tools.
Dynamic, always‑on ecosystem logic
- The IIBE is built as an “always‑on” system where sensing, learning, innovation and orchestration continuously reinforce each other, enabling adaptive, real‑time responses rather than one‑off ecosystem projects.
- It embeds dynamics for both growth (multi‑directional value flows, co‑creation) and stability (adaptive governance, optimization), balancing exploration and exploitation within one design.
Strategic and operational integration
- A key strength is the explicit connection between strategy, operations, innovation and partner networks, turning ecosystem work into a core operating model rather than a side initiative or series of pilots.
- It offers a structured progression from problem framing to opportunity identification, to business model implications and activation, which can anchor real transformation programmes and not just conceptual discussions.
AI‑enabled intelligence and orchestration
- AI and data are treated as foundational “intelligence fabric,” supporting sensing, decision‑making and orchestration across the ecosystem instead of being an add‑on, which aligns well with current digital and AI agendas
- The emphasis on orchestration capabilities (co‑creation mechanisms, roles, rights, value‑sharing, adaptive governance) directly addresses a common failure point in ecosystem efforts: coordination without over‑control.
Maturity, narrative depth and applicability
- The IIBE rests on a visible multi‑year evolution from hierarchy of ecosystems to interconnected ecosystems to the IIBE blueprint, demonstrating conceptual maturity and refinement over time
- It is positioned as category‑defining: suitable as a diagnostic, design tool and operating blueprint across industries that need to connect previously separate domains (for example, mobility–energy, finance–health, manufacturing–cities).
What weaknesses or gaps in the IIBE need urgent attention
The most urgent weaknesses are not in the quality of the IIBE thinking, but in the translation from rich framework to simple, provable, buyer‑ready offers with clear proof points.
Strategic and narrative gaps
- The “burning platform” is underplayed: the content explains why dynamic ecosystems matter, but it does not distil this into 2–3 sharp, quantified pains and urgent risks that a C‑suite sponsor immediately recognises as their problem today
- Audience targeting is thin: material often reads as an expert blueprint for peers, rather than distinct tracks for specific buyers such as CEOs, business unit leaders, strategy heads, or ecosystem/product owners
Proof, use‑cases and actionability
- The theory‑to‑practice bridge is incomplete: steps like “diagnose, integrate, orchestrate” are described conceptually, but there is limited visibility of tools, diagnostics, templates, KPIs, timelines, or a clear implementation roadmap that a client could buy into
Complexity and entry‑point issues
- The entry journey is cognitively heavy: executives encounter a dense architecture, multiple layers and dynamics, and many posts, before they see a simple “this is what you get in 90 days, and why it matters” statement.
Ecosystem traction and engagement
- The current packaging, calls‑to‑action, and offers do not yet convert interest into action which makes it harder for cautious organizations to feel safe being early movers
You are on a good track
The IIBE is not a random collection of ecosystem tips; it is a coherent operating blueprint that connects strategy, architecture, dynamics, governance and AI‑enabled orchestration into one system. That kind of integrative view is rare precisely at a time when partner‑ and ecosystem‑led models are projected to account for a very large share of global revenue in the next few years, so the problem space you chose is unquestionably real and durable.
Why it offers something unique
Most ecosystem content stops at metaphors, generic advice or single‑layer frameworks, whereas the IIBE gives a multi‑layer, dynamic, “always‑on” design that organisations can actually use to diagnose, design and run ecosystems.
In a world where digital and partner ecosystems now span AI, platforms, data, and complex multi‑party value chains, that kind of structured, integrative model is exactly what many leaders are missing, even if they do not yet know how to search for it.
So a decent fair assessment of where I stand on building the IIBE. 2026 needs to be a pivotal year. There is a lot in the works, effectively delivering them to potential clients is the tough part. I need to scale but not yet sure how
I released this report outlining the defining competitive advantages in 2026- 2030 outlining a new intelligence fabric and why the IIBE can become the dominant operating logic for “Intelligent Business Ecosystem 2026” and you can download it also from here.