Ein paar Dinge, die der Rest der Website nicht ganz gesagt hat.

Most firms have an "Asia practice" — an outpost, a desk, a local partner. We don't. Senior practitioners and offices in Germany, Italy, Poland, China. Most mandates touch two or more. The cross-border dimension isn't a special service, it's the standard situation. That changes what you can ask for in the first call.

Both. Each of the four — M&A Advisory & Execution, Business Model Innovation, Restructuring, Ecosystem Building — can be commissioned on its own. Or two of them can run together when the situation calls for it: a BMI engagement that pivots into restructuring when the diagnostic reveals one is necessary; an M&A counsel that includes BMI work on the buyer narrative; a restructuring that bridges into ecosystem work for the asset that survives. The pricing reflects the actual scope, not a bundle premium. The choice doesn't have to be made before the first call — the conversation surfaces what the situation actually needs.

The seven-dimension lens informs every engagement — when we work on an M&A mandate, we read the company as a business model; when we work on restructuring, the same lens shows what's worth saving. That's BMI as method. BMI as service is when the primary question is the model itself: what worked is starting to slip, the next chapter isn't yet clear, a new revenue stream needs design. Then BMI is the centre of the work — diagnostic, To-Be scenarios, MVP design, selective implementation — and the rest of the firm's competences sit underneath. Same lens; different placement.

We name it. The engagement scope is fixed at the start, but the situation isn't. If a BMI diagnostic surfaces that restructuring discipline is what the business needs first — or that an M&A question has formed during the work — we say so, in writing, and we propose how to handle it. Sometimes the answer is to expand the current mandate to include the new work, at a transparent additional scope and price. Sometimes the answer is to pause and reset the contract entirely. Sometimes the right thing is to recommend you bring in a different firm for the new question. The owner decides; we don't keep working as if the original mandate were still the right one when it isn't.

Earlier than most firms get a call. Most M&A advisory enters six to twelve months before a transaction — when the company is being prepared for the data room. We typically enter two to four years before — when the question is still forming. Should I sell? Is the next generation going to take it? Could a strategic partner change the shape of the business before any of those conversations become real? Those are the questions we sit with first, often years before the answer is yes, sell. The strongest mandates are arcs, not events. Some run eighteen months; some run seven years. The published DiIT case ran four.

Meet Magento is the documented case — what you can read about. The current shape varies more than M&A or restructuring does, because every ecosystem grows differently. A typical engagement runs in phases: first, we read the existing ecosystem as it is — who contributes, who depends, where the energy concentrates, where it leaks. Then we work with the founder or institution on the architecture: governance, leadership distribution, the contracts and the unspoken arrangements. Then we sit alongside as the work happens — watering, defending, occasionally cutting — for as long as the situation needs us in the room. Engagements typically run twelve to thirty-six months and end when the ecosystem can defend itself.

Currently the principal plus seven senior practitioners. The practitioners are all senior by design, all project-based by choice, and join mandates where the work benefits from added capability. Composition varies per engagement and is named to the client in writing before any mandate starts. The full chronological track record of the principal lives on LinkedIn; the practitioner network is described once on the About page and not promoted beyond that — the work shows what it delivers.

In three places. First: the methodology updates. What we recommend in 2026 is not what we recommended in 2020 — the underlying research on how business models actually work moves, and our work moves with it. Your business deserves the current understanding, not the consultant's archive. Second: the working library. We keep a structured library of real operating business models, drawn from twelve years of practitioner work and read against current research; comparisons aren't conjecture, they're sourced. Third: the discipline. Research-grounded methodology means open framing — the work we propose can be read by you and your board against the academic literature it draws on. Nothing in the engagement is proprietary to take on faith.

Some members of the team participate without public visibility, by their own preference — they may be in current public roles or in active retirement and have chosen to keep their participation in mandates separate from their public profile. Names are confirmed to the client at engagement under appropriate confidentiality. References for any practitioner are available under non-disclosure on serious engagement. As consent levels change over time, the website will reflect that.

Both, in different ways. We use AI in our own work — for research synthesis, for working through scenario implications, for reading large documents at speed. The team is AI-sceptical in a working sense: we track research and capital flows in the industry daily, and we hold a stance — call it healthy AI usage. Tools deployed because they change the work, not because they signal modernity. We advise about AI in any direction, and especially when it's the trigger or the shape of a business model question — the legal-services boutique case is one example. We do not build production AI systems ourselves. 360e³ is not in the AI-implementation business. When a mandate calls for AI to be built, we work with engineering partners; the strategic and business-model judgement stays with us.

No. Europe–Asia depth is the firm's structural fluency — it doesn't disqualify mandates that don't touch Asia. A DACH-only owner-CEO has the same access to the same senior practitioner, the same methodology, the same multi-year arc. The cross-border dimension is a quality of how the firm works, not a filter on who works with us. If anything, the bicultural depth changes what the firm notices about purely-DACH situations — patterns that look local often have a shape that's visible only from a wider angle.

One question we ask before any mandate begins: would senior judgement actually change the outcome for this client? If the answer is yes — there's a decision to make, a path to choose, a situation where the wrong move is more expensive than our fee — we take it seriously. If the answer is no — the work is essentially execution that any competent firm could do — we tell you, often in the first call. We are not the right firm for execution at commodity pricing. We are the firm you call when the question is genuinely should we do this, and if so, how — and getting it wrong matters.

Most advisors are paid to take work. Our work is to be useful to the owner — which sometimes means: don't do this. Don't do it yet. Don't do it with us. Don't do it at all. When the right answer is no, no is what we give. Sometimes the most valuable thing we say in a first call is here is what we would not pay for, in your position.