What is holding many of our larger organisation back in their Ecosystem approaches? Looking at different organisations recently in my research (and ecosystem approach) they all seem to have common approaches of active recruiting of ecosystem partners, offer developer / API portals and have structured co-innovation tracks but they are all being held back, choking off unexploited synergies from a lack of a holistic Ecosystem approach.
The highest-value opportunities in modern industrial markets occur at the ecosystem boundary lines where data, AI agents, independent software and multi-entity governance intersect and most internal teams struggle to capture these opportunities because corporate structures are built for execution and not for ecosystem sensing. This strategic blindspot needs resolution.
For some reason there are so many blind spots that organisations do not surface in unexploited partner synergies and then be able to deliver validated “investable options” back to their leadership team.
Within the Intelligent Integrated Business Ecosystem (IIBE) I have different lens to look at Ecosystem maturity, structural openness and engagement frictions occurring within organisations.
There seems to me, so much value left on the table as most organisations do not deploy a structured Ecosystem Discovery and Diagnostic approach along with a real lack of a Ecosystem Ideation Engine to spot and detect their weak spots, and then test and validate emergent opportunities from this structured approach.
We, for instance, miss out on combining Ecosystem Sensing & Signals with AI and Human Architecture that within the IIBE this is called the Triad Engine.
The IIBE offers these. Let me provide where they can be applied in different organisations. They need to tackle their distinctive Ecosystem approaches but also their lack of treating Ecosystems in a highly structured and systematic framework.
I recently took time to look across Active, Open Ecosystems within Industry.
Taking these examples below I looked at their Ecosystem Vehicles, the way they are shifting within ecosystem offerings and angles that seem to me as still being blind sided or under worked.
My Tier 1 group – Advancing well but having internal constraints to resolve
1. Johnson Controls (JCI)
- Ecosystem Vehicle: OpenBlue Data Platform & OpenBlue Partner Ecosystem.
- Can they accelerate? the Odds Are High: JCI has shifted toward an API-first, cloud-to-edge platform strategy. The OpenBlue framework uses open data schemas (like the Brick schema) and maintains an explicit developer portal designed to integrate third-party apps, sustainability software, AI agents, and proptech solutions.
- Where they need to focus: They need to accelerate solutions that enhance energy management, indoor air quality, occupant experience, or predictive maintenance using their OpenBlue APIs in higher, collaborative ways.
2. Rockwell Automation
- Ecosystem Vehicle: Rockwell Automation PartnerNetwork™ (specifically the Technology Partner and Digital Partner tracks).
- Can they accelerate? the Odds Are High: Rockwell relies on a joint-selling and co-development partner network. Rather than building every solution natively, they systematically recruit hardware, software, and cloud providers to integrate with the FactoryTalk ecosystem.
- Where they need to focus: Focus on industrial automation, FactoryTalk integration, industrial IoT (IIoT), or digital twin connectivity but make it more open in networked collaboration..
3. Emerson
- Ecosystem Vehicle: DeltaV Edge Alliance Program & Emerson API Developer Portal.
- Can they accelerate? the Odds Are High: Emerson’s process automation division emphasizes open data access via the DeltaV Edge environment. They seek ecosystem partnerships around analytics, reliability/condition monitoring, and sustainability software that connect to their hardware base.
- Where they need to focus: By positioning more on additive analytics or edge layer for process industries (chemicals, oil/gas, pharma, water treatment) with more coordinated value propositions.
Tier 2: Shifting their Structured, Selective approaches would make an accelerated difference
4. Honeywell
- Ecosystem Vehicle: Honeywell Forge / Honeywell Developer Portal.
- Why Engagement Today is Mixed in results: Honeywell has a developer infrastructure and partner programs. However, their partner network is heavily weighted toward traditional channel partners, VARs (value-added resellers), and system integrators rather than open co-development startup ecosystems.
- Where they need to focus: Focus on Honeywell Forge (their Enterprise Performance Management SaaS) rather than their legacy building/industrial hardware divisions to gain real traction and capitalise on their strong network in exchanging data, insights and joint value creation.
5. Mitsubishi Electric
- Ecosystem Vehicle: e-F@ctory Alliance.
- Why Engagement Today is Mixed in Results: Mitsubishi runs a global e-F@ctory ecosystem designed to connect factory automation hardware with software and SI partners. However, business development and decision-making can be slow and regionally fragmented compared to North American or European peers.
- Where they need to focus: Giving a highly emphasis on their regional innovation hubs (e.g., Mitsubishi Electric US or European headquarters) to evolve and met specific regional needs with proven hardware-software integration capabilities that solve client problems.
Tier 3: These are making it harder on themselves for General Ecosystem Building
6. Knapp AG
- Domain: Intralogistics, Warehouse Automation, and Supply Chain.
- Presently constrained: Knapp focuses on specialized intralogistics (SAP EWM integrations, automated storage/retrieval, robotics). They do engage with niche technology partners, but their engagement model is project-driven or focused on hardware/software OEMs rather than a broad, public software ecosystem.
- Their need to rethink: Shifting how they approach solving warehouse throughput, computer vision, or supply chain orchestration problems into a more integrated design that enables greater value capture and cross-synergies.To accelerate their ecosystem potential
7. Thyssenkrupp AG
- Domain: Industrial Services, Materials, Automotive Technology, and Plant Engineering (Note: TK Elevator / TKE was spun off as a separate company).
- Presently highly constrained: Following structural shifts and divestitures, Thyssenkrupp’s business unit structure lacks a single central “ecosystem.” Engagement typically occurs through specific division procurement or targeted vendor relationships rather than joint developer/ecosystem tracks.
- The need to rethink: Identify the specific business unit (e.g., Decarbon Technologies, Automotive Technology) to accelerate and validate the value of integrated ecosystems to their business and partners. Adapt “ecosystem learning practices” across the wider businesses and explore different value propositions in highly active ways.
General observation for all
I believe by investing in understanding the Intelligent Integrated Business Ecosystems (IIBE), solutions for distinct Ecosystem Architecture, building edge accountability, and moving industrial giants past rigid “Platform Gatekeeping”—provides really distinctive advantage for all of the ones shown above
Where traditional consulting pitches fail is treating ecosystem engagement as mere “partner recruitment” or “channel sales.” The IIBE is rare, it provides the architectural framework for true ecosystem orchestration beyond hierarchy.
Consider these critical narratives holding many of these organisations back
The Strategic Angle: Of moving from Platforms to a Dynamic Building Ecosystem.
“Most platforms designed today stop at software integration—connecting APIs and calling it an ecosystem. But true business value breaks down at the boundary line, where decision-making authority is shared across building owners, tenants, utility grids, and third-party AI software.
The Intelligent Integrated Business Ecosystem (IIBE) applies non-hierarchical governance and edge accountability frameworks, into adaptive co-innovation networks, where partners don’t just connect—they dynamically compound value.”
The Strategic Angle: Redefining the Partner Networks
“Industrial automation is undergoing a fundamental shift: standalone products are losing out to connected ecosystem architectures. There needs to be a stronger foundation, to overcome traditional partner models as too slow for real-time AI sensing and edge orchestration.
Using the IIBE V3 framework and Orchestration models these can design dynamic operating models that need to move beyond basic channels to establish continuous, signal-driven co-innovation that locks in long-term enterprise dominance.
The Strategic Angle: Scaling the Alliances via Cross-Enterprise Value Creation.
“Process automation requires absolute trust, yet rigid platform gatekeeping throttles the speed of innovation in reliability and decarbonisation but only if the partner ecosystem overcomes traditional enterprise friction.
Applying Ecosystem Architecture from the IIBE there is real opportunity to structure the governance, data flow, and shared value mechanisms into high-velocity co-development environment—allowing specialized analytics, reliability, and ESG software providers to integrate seamlessly while maintaining system integrity. for all within the network to benefit
The Strategic Angle: Unlocking Enterprise Performance, more decentralised
“In enterprise software and industrial SaaS, winning is no longer about having the best stand alone product, that has become rigid, defensive, inwardly protective and slow in response—it’s about having the most responsive network. The need is to address why traditional enterprise platforms fail to capture multi-partner value.
I can work with leadership teams to audit their current ecosystem architecture, remove friction in partner co-innovation, and deploy dynamic operating models that accelerate time-to-value across their industrial assets and their partners seeking those value creation dynamics
Exploring further lets look at two further organisation examples.
Both Hitachi Energy and Baker Hughes offer a higher hit-rate for ecosystem-led engagement than legacy conglomerates like Honeywell or Siemens are presently offering.
They are both undergoing major strategic transitions from traditional heavy industrial hardware providers into asset-light, digital-first, energy-transition orchestrators. They actively need external framework expertise to manage non-hierarchical, multi-partner environments.
Strategic Evaluation of Both Emerging Ecosystem Candidates
1. Hitachi Energy
- Core Ecosystem Platform: Enterprise Software Solutions (Grid automation, Network Manager SCADA, APM, Nostradamus AI) & EconiQ™ / EcoSpace™.
- Ecosystem Maturity: High (Cloud & Multi-Cloud Centric)
- Why they need to focus:
Since its spin-out/rebranding from ABB Power Grids, Hitachi Energy has leaned heavily into co-innovation with tech giants (e.g., major strategic alliances with AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, and NVIDIA). They have built an explicit framework for Technology, Knowledge, and Implementation Partners around the digital grid.
Hitachi Energy has a Structural Problem the IIBE can help solve for them: While Hitachi Energy excels at tech alliances with hyperscalers, grid modernization, this requires managing an incredibly fragmented, non-hierarchical ecosystem: regional utilities, independent power producers (IPPs), renewable developers, and regulatory bodies.
They need to deploy a well- structured dynamic and agile governance so their software ecosystem handles the non-linear complexity of decentralized energy grids (microgrids, EV charging networks, and intermittent renewables) without falling back on rigid, slow platform gatekeeping.
2. Baker Hughes
- Core Ecosystem Platform: Cordant™ (Integrated asset performance and digital solutions platform) & the BakerHughesC3.ai Joint Venture / Alliance.
- Ecosystem Maturity: Very High (Hybrid Domain + AI Ecosystem)
- Where they need to focus
Baker Hughes is one of the clearest real-world examples of winning as an ecosystem rather than a stand-alone vendor. Their fundamental strategy hinges on merging deep energy domain expertise with external digital infrastructure (such as C3.ai for Agentic AI, Accenture, and hyperscalers) inside their Cordant™ platform.
Where they have structural problems I feel that can be solved applying the IIBE lens.
Managing multi-entity alliances (like Baker Hughes + C3.ai + energy operators) creates massive operational friction at the boundary lines. Traditional hierarchy fails when independent corporate entities must make real-time joint decisions on asset health, emissions, and carbon management.
Baker Hughes needs to avoid turning Cordant™ into a rigid platform gatekeeper. They need an executive framework to streamline joint decision sequences and edge accountability across the Cordant alliance network and build out their orchestration potential.
Industry needs to accelerate its approaches to Ecosystem management
Today there are growing and highly distinctive dilemmas. Hardware bases are massive and mission-critical and the software layer also is rapidly becoming mission critical for their customers, partners and themselves.
Each organisation discussed here is not moving in agile ways beyond their own boundaries. They all need to experiment, build out their capabilities for focused sprints and pilots to remove friction and encourage multi-entity co-innovation.
All of the above are forced to transition from “legacy equipment manufacturers to becoming “open orchestrators” where edge sensing, non-hierarchical governance and deploying intelligent engines to align solutions to the emergence that is clearly going on in their dynamic markets.
This needs a structured, complete Ecosystem framework that takes a business and its network of partners through an Ecosystem Architecture of Diagnostic and Discovery, Engagements, Sprints and Pilots, Building ongoing Capabilities and Capacities, Exploring the Intelligent Triad of Sensing- Meaning- Flow into Emergent for Moats and Proving Grounds.
Viewing innovation through the lens of ecosystems allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how innovations emerge, scale, and create value in today’s complex, interconnected world. This approach not only accelerates the pace of innovation but also enhances its sustainability and impact by leveraging the collective strength of all ecosystem participants.
In Summary
Each of the organisations shown here have significant potential to grow and expand their respective businesses in value and impact but this needs to be in systematic and structured ways of modern Ecosystem management, fully integrated and intelligent.
The IIBE offers a architectural framework for true ecosystem orchestration beyond today’s hierarchy. Contact us here for Booking / Contact arrangement.