Flow Form and Fusion are all required in Europe for successful Ecosystems
Seven of Europe’s most significant industrial leaders have written an open letter last week, Read it carefully ( provided at the end of this article) — not for its political framing, not for its diplomatic language — but for what it says beneath the surface. We do need to pay attention and we need to find solutions, both short term and long-term
It can become a pivotal moment in European Technology and Industrial businesses future.
These technology and industry leaders are not start-ups seeking support. These are not trade associations lobbying for advantage. These are the chief executives of companies that between them employ hundreds of thousands of people, anchor entire industrial ecosystems, and carry a significant share of Europe’s capacity to compete at global industrial scale.
They are saying, in public, that something structural is wrong.
A letter written by seven CEOs is not a policy request. It is a structural diagnosis attempting to become visible.
A direct response to the seven European CEOs who wrote an open letter, —with the EU Directorate in mind — and also to every large-company leader in Europe watching this unfold.
By Paul Hobcraft | Creator, IIBE Framework | Ecosystems4Innovating | May 2026
This week, seven of Europe’s most significant technology CEOs did something genuinely rare.
Christophe Fouquet, Guillaume Faury, Börje Ekholm, Arthur Mensch, Justin Hotard, Christian Klein, and Roland Busch agreed on a single text, signed it together, and pushed it into national newspapers across eight countries. These CEO’s represent ASML, Airbus, Ericsson, Mistral AI, Nokia, SAP, and Siemens.
€417 billion in revenues.
€1.1 trillion in market capitalisation.
957,000 high-tech jobs.
€40 billion in annual R&D.
213,000 patents.
That is not a symbolic gesture. That is sovereign-scale industrial weight applied to a public argument.
And the argument is correct: Europe keeps inventing what others end up scaling. Fragmented markets. Overlapping rules. A regulatory reflex that governs rather than builds. A capital union still on paper.
I respect the letter. I respect what it took to produce it.
But I want to say something directly to those seven leaders — and to every CEO of a large European company reading this:
By Paul Hobcraft | paul4innovating.com | ecosystems4innovating.com
Providing the Innovation Engine through Structural Emergence
In the first piece, provide yesterday, in response to the open letter from Seven CEO’s of some of Europe’s largest companies, I argued that Europe’s competitiveness crisis is not a coordination failure but an ecosystem architecture failure — and that the seven CEOs who co-signed this week’s open letter are calling for a forum when what Europe needs is a fundamentally different structural design.
This piece goes further. It applies the IIBE diagnostic framework – the Intelligent Integrated Business Ecosystem– directly to the situation those seven companies inhabit — and makes the case that the architecture gap is not only a political problem. It is partly a problem that sits within the organisations calling loudest for change. There is a time to equally look in on themselves and think in different ways.
That is not a criticism. It is where the most actionable opportunity lies.
By Paul Hobcraft | paul4innovating.com | ecosystems4innovating.com
The Need for a Unified Ecosystem Architecture
In response to this mornings announcement,that seven European CEOs — from ASML, Airbus, Ericsson, Mistral AI, Nokia, SAP, and Siemens — did something rare. They agreed on a single text and pushed it into national newspapers across eight countries simultaneously. It is all about the EU’s inability to scale the innovation it has and does successfully validate.
The numbers behind their signatures are not symbolic. €417 billion in combined revenues. €1.1 trillion in market capitalisation. 957,000 high-tech jobs. €40 billion in annual R&D. 213,000 patents.
Their argument is clear: Europe keeps inventing what others end up scaling. Fragmented markets. Overlapping rules. A capital union still on paper. And a regulatory reflex that treats AI as something to govern rather than something to build.
They call for a dedicated forum where business and political leaders can continuously align — and the broader conversation proposes this take the form of a standing “Tech Group” of ministers, modelled on the Eurogroup, dedicated to tech, AI, cybersecurity, and digital sovereignty.
Picking up from a article by Antonio Santos“This morning seven European CEOs — ASML, Airbus, Ericsson, Mistral AI, Nokia, SAP, Siemens — came together and, agreed on a single text, and pushed it into national newspapers across eight countries.
I respect the impulse entirely. But I want to name something that the CEO letter, the Draghi report, the Letta report, and the proposed Tech Group all share: they are proposing coordination solutions to what is fundamentally an ecosystem architecture problem. This difference forms the essence of this response here.
Coordination solutions and ecosystem architecture solutions are not the same thing.
value shifts from inside the organisation to the ecosystem between organisations
customers behave across networks, not channels
regulators influence pathways in real time
technologies reshape boundaries overnight
Yet organisations are still run using:
static frameworks
linear planning
siloed intelligence
annual strategy
task-based AI
This creates a structural gap:
Leaders today are attempting to run a ecosystem design with tools designed for a stable organisation or world. They disappointbut it does not need to be that way
The increasing pressure on business organizations to find real growth and impact is troubling. Expectations are growing with connected technology, the increased value from AI and the ability to collaborate all are requiring a different way to approach customers and provide radically new value opportunities.
Many of of existing organizations still operate with static operating models, hierarchical processes and siloed workflows. These modesl were built for predictability- not for complexity, interconnected markets, AI acceleration, or multi-party environments.
Today we are suffering from slower adaptation, fragmented intelligence, poor alignment across internal and external contributors, resulting in missed opportunities from this reluctance to collaborate, co-create or influence and shape markets beyond existing offerings.
What is necessary is to firstly explore why we need to shift to Ecosystems?
Forming the Network Effect through Dynamic IIBE Ecosystems
Mid- market sized European firms especially have always been caught in growth traps, reliant on the strength of thier domestic customers and the economies they operate within. If Germany and Europe are doing well, then the mid-market firms does well. These form the backbone of our industrial here in Europe.
In the past decade, or even more, this reliance and dependancies on the European growth engine have provide stable markets where the experience and history of these mid-sied firms has been constantly expanded in what they know- in adjacent products, regional extensions and incremental progress improvments- not through bold new market plays, there was largely this “no need” attitude.
It becomes a radically different story when the markets plateau and growth starts to flatten or become less predictable. That lost steady reliable growth momentum, increasing market vulnerability from cheaper suppliers, especially from China, the constant concerns over succession within smaller business, that growth uncertainty raises the risks.
The growing feeling of isolation and vulnerability needs a different change of mindset. From independence into different froms of collaboration, networks and business ecosystems.
In today’s interconnected business landscape, success is no longer just about listening to your customers or partners. It’s about understanding and leveraging your entire ecosystem.
In the complex web of modern business, success is no longer solely determined by individual companies, but by the strength and resilience of entire ecosystems. Just as we’ve learned to value the Voice of Customer (VoC) and Voice of Partner (VoP), it’s time we embrace the Voice of Ecosystem (VoE).
Enter Voice of Ecosystem (VoE) – the next evolution in strategic business intelligence.
Dynamic Ecosystems are core to Business Ecosystems
I have published a number of posts on Dynamic Ecosystems and wanted to provide a concise summary of each, capturing key takeaways and suggested action points to encourage readers to dive deeper into each topic. Each summary will focus on highlighting dynamic ecosystems core aspects and operational strategies.
Introduction: Dynamic Ecosystems are becoming increasingly central in shaping adaptable, resilient, and collaborative business environments. As ecosystems evolve, this series has highlighted essential learning points, actionable strategies, and a future-oriented approach for embedding dynamic ecosystems at the core of business strategy.
The Power of Integrated Interconnected Business Ecosystems
In today’s complex business landscape, navigating challenges and achieving long-term success demands a new approach. It’s time to move beyond traditional boundaries and embrace the power of Integrated Interconnected Business Ecosystems!
So a business ecosystem needs both the integrate and interconnected parts?
