Evaluating Actual Business Ecosystems Using the Nine Dimension Diagnostic

Posted on by
Applying the Diagnostic

I built the Nine Dimensions comparative diagnostic to evaluate the differences between organisations on their Ecosystem journey to gain both insights and potential gaps that might want to be filled, hopefully with my help.

Recently I undertook a set of focused evaluations on different Healthcare organizations- Novartis, Roche, Bayer, Royal Philips and Siemens Healthineers for understanding their present Ecosystem position.

My next step was to extend this diagnostic approach across into other sectors as well, in wanting to establish a more updated “universal” diagnostic tool. This post takes me into the Industrial sector and the e-commerce one

So,stepping out of the work achieved in the Heathcare sector I have actually re-tested* against a group of Industrial and e-commerce offering marketplaces connecting businesses and buyers worldwide. I chose Siemens AG, Schneider Electric, Salesforce and Alibaba.

*Why re-tested? In much earlier work on Ecosystem validations I used a different nine dimensions, more general-purpose instrument: it was good for establishing “does this company have ecosystem architecture at all,” weak for discriminating between companies that are all somewhere in the ecosystem-emerging middle or their own ecosystem understanding. It helped me learn and relate as I was building my IIBE blueprint

This revised Nine Dimension is a sharper, more comparative instrument because it was built (or refined) under the pressure of actually needing to differentiate real companies against each other, not designed in the abstract.

This was a test to run pulling current evidence on each company’s actual ecosystem/partner model. In this specific diagnostic I had expected a cleaner split between Siemens and Schneider and Salesforce and Alibaba as these two are regarded as more mature in their Ecosystem approaches

Continue reading →
Share

Driving the future of Healthcare through an Ecosystem approach – Here’s a Plan

Posted on by
A structured X-Ray from the IIBE

If You’re a Healthcare Diagnostics Company, Here’s What the IIBE Diagnostic Actually Means for You

You’re in a tough position:

  • You have strong diagnostic technology.
  • You face entrenched incumbents with distribution power.
  • You’re being shut out of established channels.
  • Building your own ecosystem feels expensive and slow.
  • Joining someone else’s ecosystem feels risky or unclear.
  • You’re unsure where the leverage actually is.

This is exactly the kind of situation the *IIBE Diagnostic is built for.

Let me show you how as someone who feels the pressure of entrenched competitors, rising costs, and the uncertainty of whether to build, join, or partner into an ecosystem. I’ll answer in a way that is clear, strategic, and grounded in the IIBE architecture

*IIBE stands for Intelligent Integrated Business Ecosystem – the architectural approach to Ecosystems.

1. The Diagnostic Gives You a Structural X‑Ray of Your Strategic Position

Continue reading →
Share

Novartis Has Built Two Ecosystems. It Hasn’t Connected Them Yet. They Should.

Posted on by
The Converging Forces We Need To Connect Up

Vas Narasimhan (the CEO, Novartis) has named it directly: becoming the number one partner in the technology ecosystem is one of Novartis’s four digital strategic pillars. That is not aspirational language dropped into an investor deck. It is explicit ecosystem intent at CEO level, and it is rare in global pharma.

Novartis has acted on it. Two remarkable architectures now exist inside the company, each sophisticated enough to be a case study on its own.

I took a look at Novatis and its intent though a different approach here, exploring the results from the Intelligent Integrated Business Ecosystem (IIBE) and raising some fairly important Ecosystem building questions on Novartis, based on my analysis as part of the Healthcare research undertaken

So these two remarkable architectures seem to have so much value left on the table. There seems much to do on taking these to a very different level

Continue reading →
Share

Evaluating Bayer and Roche for their future Ecosystem potential

Posted on by
Starting here in any Diagnostic for Building Ecosystems

Within my work on Ecosystems a significant amount of this is through Diagnostics that leads to Discovery.

Over the past month or so I have been focusing on the Healthcare section and through a number of my diagnostic tools assessed GE Healthcare, Siemens Healthineers, Royal Philips, Novartis, Bayer and Roche.

Why Healthcare? If ever the potential for applying Ecosystem thinking and design it would be in Healthcare. Yet there is so much fragmentation, current relationship constraints and design obstacles to. resolve.

I have posted observations on Siemens Healthineers (post here) and Royal Philips recently. Specifically for Royal Philips I did a very extensive Business Case outline over four posts as I took a broader range of my diagnostic tools to apply to them

Here I am focusing on Bayer and Roche, specially through my Nine-dimensional diagnostic. They aim to offer structural truths. They exist whether the organization acknowledges them. The diagnostic does not create them, it makes them visible. The ones outlined here are not part of the total evaluation undertaken, they are an initial snapshot that needs some more detailed input to gain a more definitive result.

The importance within the IIBE is the sequence, handoff, linkage and movements. In this case the nine components shown are here in these results more “stand alone”, indicative of opportunities for organizations to focus and evaluate each component, to recognise the needs to improve or spot the constraints.

The results for Bayer and Roche offered surprising and different results in the stages they are at in Ecosystem design progress

Continue reading →
Share

Royal Philips: Two Scores, One Diagnostic, What the O&V Lens Surfaces

Posted on by
Building the Royal Philips Ecosystem Diagnostic

Most corporate boards are blind to the fact that they are quietly accumulating Enterprise Option Debt that their balance sheets cannot pay back in future times, when needed. Conventional accounting looks backwards to measure past performance but it is structurally incapable of assessing future survival.

This is a ecosystem diagnostic of Royal Philips that points towards a potentially dangerous, invisible convergence gap where there is growing risk their strategic choices are contracting and exposure might be spiking in a trajectory that needs questioning. Not by external sources but by internal ones capable of making their own assessments of this Optionality and Volatility laid out here.

Asset Entrapment, Invisible Capital Erosion and Valuation disconnects are needs system-level addressing in declining optionality, unhedged volatility and a growing convergence gap in the public narrative or market need and operational reality.

The Optionality & Volatility Lens within the IIBE framework surfaces what no other existing conventional assessment can achieve

A verifiable public baseline and a qualitative concern threshold, read together through the IIBE Optionality and Volatility lens — and why the gap between them is the most important strategic finding in this series

That is what the Optionality and Volatility lens reads, for Philips at this specific moment, what it surfaces is more consequential than any single quarterly metric — because it describes not where the organisation is but what it is still capable of becoming, and what stands between the current trajectory and that possibility.

Fourth and final in a series. The first asked whether Philips is building an ecosystem or borrowing its language. The second asked what architecture a genuine system-shaping role requires. The third put Philips, Siemens Healthineers, and GE HealthCare through the nine IIBE dimensions side by side. This piece applies the Optionality and Volatility lens promised at the end of that diagnostic series.

This piece introduces a methodological distinction that matters for how the findings should be read that often presents a radically different story on an organization. Reading time 15 minutes

Continue reading →
Share

Royal Philips in Competitive Context: Measured Against Its Major Rivals

Posted on by
Measuring through the IIBE Nine Components

This is third in a series. The first piece asked whether Philips is building an ecosystem or borrowing its language. The second asked what architecture a genuine system-shaping role requires.

This piece puts Philips, Siemens Healthineers, and GE HealthCare through the same nine-dimension IIBE assessment side by side — asking what a like-for-like architectural read reveals that a quarterly results comparison cannot.

One critical issue to ask : This looks beyond comparing scores at the harder structural question underneath as we compare: has any of them actually built an ecosystem, or are all three still running sophisticated versions of the same bilateral sell?

This is about a 15 minute read.

In this nine IIBE dimensions we look across rivals to see differences and opportunities offering competitive positioning and opportunity points and where it places Philips in its approaches.

Continue reading →
Share

Royal Philips: Will It Shape the MedTech System — or Be Shaped by It?

Posted on by
Royal Philips- Shaping or Being Shaped for its MedTech future?

We need to ask a broader question here: what does it actually take for an organisation to shape the system it operates in, rather than simply adapt to it?

Philips is not just the subject of the analysis. It is the case that makes the wider architectural question visible.

The Philips case matters because it shows the difference between speaking in ecosystem terms and building for ecosystem behavior. The lesson goes beyond one company: many organizations want ecosystem leadership, but few redesign their operating logic to support it.

The diagnosis is clear: Philips is speaking at system level while still operating largely at company level. That matters not only for Philips, but for any organization that aspires to ecosystem leadership without yet redesigning its architecture to match.

This second part of a series that builds on the Philips analysis following on from the first article: Royal Philips: Metaphor or operating logic?

This article raises some of those tougher questions when you are building collaborative Ecosystems.

Continue reading →
Share

Royal Philips: Metaphor or operating logic?

Posted on by
Infographic showing Philips’ strategic fork with two paths: Tier 1 ecosystem orchestrator with neutral governance, open platforms and strategic optionality, and Tier 2 subordinate contributor with a company‑centred network, control trap and subordinate trajectory.
Philips must choose between staying a company‑centred contributor or becoming a true ecosystem orchestrator, using neutral governance and open platforms to unlock innovation at system scale.

Roy Jakobs has been saying the right words for a while now. At Davos in January 2026, freshly reappointed as Philips CEO, he called for an “open ecosystem” in which Philips adopts other companies’ AI into its workflows rather than trying to build everything itself. By March, he was describing Philips’ shift from standalone devices toward integrated AI platforms, while also warning that slower growth leaves less room to keep investing in innovation. Then in July, alongside the Dutch government’s €102.5 million MedTech commitment, he returned to the same theme: “innovation thrives when we come together around a shared ambition”.

That is not random messaging. It is a CEO describing something close to an orchestrator strategy. The question is whether Philips’ actual architecture matches what its CEO is now saying in public.

A simple test helps. If Philips disappeared from HealthSuite tomorrow, would the hospitals, AI vendors, and researchers connected to it keep building together on their own? Or would the whole thing simply stop? If the honest answer is “it would stop,” then Philips does not yet have an ecosystem in the full sense. It has a company-centred network using ecosystem language. That distinction – metaphor versus operating logic – is the most useful lens for reading Philips’ current strategic fork.

Continue reading →
Share

The Siemens Evolution: three very different Ecosystem building stories hitting limits

Posted on by
Billions invested in components are yielding linear returns. Think Ecosystems

Siemens offers three distinct IIBE stories related to Ecosystem building – each is within the expansion of ecosystem thinking and design. Different arguments applied to three related entities at different stages of the same structural transition. AI is only part of their solutions.

The need here is all about hitting ecosystem buttons across all of them with a fully developed evaluation, analysis and emerging proposition can offer the move that transforms individual conversations into something structurally compelling. This post outlines part of this and focuses on Ecosystem Architecture..

My work operates at the intersection of ecosystem architecture and AI strategy — specifically on how organisations principally design the governance and orchestration layer, that allows intelligence to compound across a multi-actor network rather than accumulate within a single node.

I see the architectural question as the “golden thread” that runs through these individual Siemens entities and their future direction each oif them can travel, if they recognize it as their essential next step.

Continue reading →
Share

The Dual-Force Model of AI and Ecosystems

Posted on by

The Dual-Force Model of AI + Intelligent Integrated Business Ecosystem (IIBE)

AI Isn’t the Strategy: Why Ecosystems Are the Real Moat (and AI Is the Accelerator)

What this gives — above and beyond internal AI

Why an “AI-only” strategy plateaus

Continue reading →
Share