Thanks for the context! I’ll review the PlanExe report as a strategic document and evaluate it for conceptual completeness, missing sections, and structural or content improvements—especially in areas that support execution and credibility. I’ll get back to you shortly with a set of improvement suggestions, identified gaps, and any standout omissions.

Evaluation of the PlanExe Digital Sovereignty Strategy

Conceptual Gaps and Missing Themes

Global Geopolitical Context: The report ambitiously focuses on European autonomy but could further address the international dimension. For example, it doesn't fully discuss how the U.S. might respond or how to manage transatlantic trade implications. A section analyzing the geopolitical landscape (e.g. U.S. tech policies, China’s digital ambitions) would strengthen the strategic context. Different approaches to digital sovereignty have “deepened geopolitical competition between the US, China and the EU”www.weforum.org, so acknowledging these external dynamics and potential diplomatic friction is important.
Regulatory and Legal Roadmap: While GDPR and NIS2 are cited, the plan could outline specific legal or regulatory changes needed to facilitate this migration. For instance, are new EU directives or national laws required to mandate or incentivize the use of European infrastructure? A clearer legislative roadmap would ensure policy alignment. The plan might also mention initiatives like the EU’s Digital Markets Act and Data Act that support sovereignty goalswww.weforum.org www.weforum.org, tying the migration effort into Europe’s broader digital governance framework.
Economic and Market Impact: The report emphasizes security and autonomy benefits but has less detail on the economic impact. A comprehensive plan of this scale typically includes a macroeconomic analysis – e.g. projected job creation, growth of the European cloud industry, and impact on GDP. Highlighting these would bolster the plan’s appeal. (For reference, analysts predict the EU digital economy could boost GDP by over 14% by 2030www.oliverwyman.com.) A dedicated section on market development – how Europe will cultivate competitive cloud and SaaS providers – is somewhat implicit but not fully fleshed out. This could address questions like: How will European firms compete on cost and innovation? Will there be R&D tax credits, startup funding, or procurement preferences to grow local providers?
International Collaboration vs. Autonomy: The plan understandably centers on reducing dependency on U.S. firms, but it might discuss strategic collaboration where appropriate. For instance, could Europe partner with other regions (like Japan or India) on open-source alternatives? Or use forums like the EU–US Trade and Technology Council to ensure the sovereignty push doesn’t become an isolated silowww.weforum.org. Balancing open innovation with sovereignty is a tricky theme the report could acknowledge.
Final State Vision Beyond 2035: While the long-term vision hints at a “self-sustaining ecosystem” beyond 2035file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5, the plan could articulate what happens after the migration is complete. Is there an ongoing mechanism to prevent relapse into foreign dependence? A brief post-2035 strategy (e.g. continuous innovation programs, trans-Atlantic data agreements on Europe’s terms, etc.) would round out the conceptual picture.

Opportunities to Strengthen Detail and Framing

Deeper Geopolitical Analysis: The plan could benefit from a more explicit recognition of geopolitical risks and opportunities. For example, framing the project as not only a tech upgrade but a move to safeguard European “strategic autonomy” in a data-driven era might resonate strongly. Citing real-world events can add weight – e.g. noting how certain U.S. cloud providers have been subject to extraterritorial laws (Patriot Act, CLOUD Act), which underscores Europe’s risk of dependencewww.weforum.org. This kind of narrative, coupled with data sovereignty definitionswww.weforum.org, would reinforce why this initiative is urgent.
Public-Private Incentives: Currently, the plan assumes governments will drive the migration, but industry buy-in is crucial. The report can propose incentive schemes: e.g. EU-wide cloud adoption vouchers for SMEs, tax breaks for companies migrating off foreign SaaS, or prizes for innovative sovereign tech solutions. Such incentives would make the strategy feel more comprehensive and realistic. It would also acknowledge that some stakeholders might resist change due to cost or convenience – which can be countered with tangible benefits. In practice, fostering homegrown tech requires nurturing an ecosystem (the way the EU did for GDPR compliance or 5G investments). Emphasizing how the program will “foster European tech entrepreneurship and funding innovation”www.weforum.org would address this gap.
Stakeholder Resistance and Change Management: The report could be reframed to more directly tackle resistance points. It notes public concerns in Risk 7 (Social) and includes a Stakeholder Engagement Group, which is good. However, a stronger narrative on how the plan will handle entrenched interests (for example, large enterprises comfortable with U.S. vendors, or even EU citizens wary of change) would add rigor. Perhaps referencing case studies or surveys showing European attitudes about data sovereignty could illustrate the challenge. A plan of this scope might typically include a change management strategy: identify potential “blockers” (like certain industries or lobby groups) and outline how to convert or accommodate them. This could tie in with the communication strategy – e.g. public education campaigns highlighting successful early migrations to build momentum.
Comparative Examples for Credibility: The inclusion of GAIA-X, EPI, and the French Cloud plan is excellent. These could be leveraged more pointedly to strengthen framing. For instance, the report could briefly discuss lessons learned from GAIA-X’s struggles – internal complexity and inclusion of U.S. firms diluted its impactwww.politico.eu www.politico.eu – and how PlanExe will avoid those pitfalls (perhaps through clearer governance and purely European control). Citing GAIA-X as a “first step” toward sovereignty that showed the need for even more decisive action makes the case for PlanExegaia-x.eu. Similarly, referencing how China’s Digital Silk Road and domestic laws (CSL, DSL, PIPL) aggressively safeguard its data sovereigntywww.weforum.org can provide a contrast, implying that Europe must act with similar resolve but in a democratic way. These comparative frames reassure readers that the authors are aware of global benchmarks and past attempts, lending the plan credibility.
Security and Defense Angle: Given the geopolitical tensions in cyberspace, another framing angle is to treat digital infrastructure akin to critical defense infrastructure. The report touches on cybersecurity robustly, but framing the migration as a national security imperative could be even more explicit. For example, the narrative could note incidents (e.g. past cloud outages or espionage revelations) to underline that foreign control of digital backbones is a sovereignty vulnerability. This aligns with EU leaders’ statements that “critical infrastructures and technologies need to become resilient and secure”www.weforum.org. Such framing might persuade more conservative or security-focused stakeholders.

Missing Sections and Structural Improvements

Dedicated “International Strategy” Section: To boost strategic credibility, a section could be added outlining how Europe will navigate the international fallout and cooperation. This might cover engaging in standard-setting bodies (to promote European values globally), forming alliances for open-source development, or even plans to export European cloud services abroad as a diplomatic tool. Currently, the plan is inward-looking; adding this section shows foresight about Europe’s role on the world stage, turning a defensive plan into an assertive global strategy.
Economic Impact and Financing Details: A “Business Case and Economic Impact” section is noticeably thin. The Executive Summary mentions €150–250bn funding but doesn’t detail ROI beyond security gains. A new section could present a cost-benefit analysis: for example, estimate the economic value of a sovereign cloud sector by 2035 (perhaps referencing how increasing Europe’s share in tech could boost growth). It should also break down the budget more explicitly – how much for data centers, for training, for R&D? Policymakers will want to see that rigor. Quantifiable metrics like “market share of European providers” were suggested in feedback and indeed should be in the main report (e.g. target X% of EU cloud market belongs to EU companies by 2035). Currently, the plan sets migration % targets, but adding market share or revenue targets for European providers would reinforce the industrial success criteria.
Legislative/Policy Initiatives Roadmap: It would enhance policy appeal to include a section listing necessary policy actions and when they must occur. For instance, mention if the European Commission should propose mandates for government data to be on EU infrastructure by a certain date, or if a new “European Cloud Certification” (beyond existing ENISA schemes) is needed to build trust. A timeline for policy milestones (e.g. 2025 – establish legal basis for sovereign cloud procurement, 2026 – implement an EU-wide cloud security certification) would parallel the technical milestones. This assures readers that the authors have considered the enabling policy environment, not just the technical execution.
Integrated Timeline Illustration: While the plan has detailed steps and milestones scattered across sections, a consolidated timeline section (perhaps as an infographic or table) is missing. A concise timeline aligning funding tranches, tech migrations, and governance setup would improve clarity. For example, a visual could show Phase 1 (2025–2027 audit & foundation), Phase 2 (2028–2031 major migrations), Phase 3 (2032–2035 optimization and completion), with key deliverables under each. This helps readers see the big picture at a glance and judge if the sequence makes sense. It also aids consistency – ensuring that, say, the “75% DNS/CDN by 2032” targetfile-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5 aligns with the schedule of actions. Currently, these pieces exist but are not synthesized in one place.
Governance Simplification and Flexibility: The governance framework in the report is very detailed (perhaps one of the strongest sections). However, to enhance credibility, the plan might include a short justification of governance approach – why this complex structure is necessary and how to prevent bureaucracy from slowing progress. Additionally, one could add a note on how governance will adapt after initial setup. For example, after 2030, might some committees merge or disband as the project matures? A missing element is the role of the Project Sponsor – the report notes the Sponsor in implementation steps but not much about their accountability. Clarifying the Project Sponsor’s mandate (perhaps the European Commission or Council acting as Sponsor) would fill a gapfile-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5. In summary, a brief section or paragraph on “Governance Evolution and Review” would show that the structure itself will be reviewed for effectiveness as the project advances.
Risk of Not Acting / Status Quo Scenario: One structural element that could persuade policymakers is a section outlining the consequences of doing nothing. While the vision implies the risks, spelling out a scenario for 2035 if Europe remains reliant on U.S. providers (e.g. security incidents, economic leakage, loss of competitive edge in AI/cloud, etc.) can sharpen the urgency. Essentially, present a “do-nothing baseline” vs. the plan’s outcomes. This kind of section is often seen in strategy documents to justify the investment.

Consistency of Vision, Milestones and Governance

Vision vs. Targets: The overarching vision is achieving European digital sovereignty by 2035, which is clearly stated. The interim milestones (30% cloud migration by 2028, 50% SaaS by 2030, etc.) generally align with that vision, showing a phased pathfile-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5. There is good consistency in that the metrics in the Executive Summary reappear in the assumptions and timeline. One minor point: the vision could be interpreted as complete sovereignty by 2035, so if only 75% of DNS/CDN is migrated by 2032, is the plan assuming ~100% by 2035? It’s implied but not explicitly stated. Ensuring that the final 2035 state is quantified (e.g. “100% of critical infrastructure on European solutions”) would nail the consistency between the vision and end-state metrics.
Governance and Execution Alignment: The governance structure is well thought out and maps to the plan’s needs – for every major aspect (technical decisions, compliance, stakeholder comms, etc.) there is a body responsible. This is a strength, not a weakness. The Governance Implementation Plan ensures these bodies are stood up early (project weeks 1–10)file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5, which aligns with the urgent early actions (e.g. secure funding commitments by 2025-05-01 in the Executive Summaryfile-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5). This shows consistency: the authors knew that without governance in place, you can’t hit those milestones. One recommendation is to double-check that the decision escalation matrixfile-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5 covers all likely conflicts. For example, it lists budget, risk, scope, ethics issues – which is comprehensive. If anything, maybe include an escalation for major timeline slippage (though one could argue that falls under Steering Committee oversight generally). Overall, the governance seems well aligned with the risk management and monitoring mechanisms defined.
Risk Management Integration: The plan’s risk section is detailed and the mitigation actions are woven into the execution (e.g. the central legal team to mitigate regulatory risk is also one of the first tasks to set up). This cross-referencing is a sign of alignment. One check for consistency is whether the assumptions made are addressed by risk mitigations. For instance, an assumption is a 60/40 funding split – the risk of funding shortfall is addressed by contingency fund and diversifying sourcesfile-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5, which the plan does mention. Similarly, an assumption on skill availability is mitigated by training programs and partnershipsfile-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5. This alignment between assumptions and risk planning is solid. The report could strengthen this by explicitly referencing the assumption list when discussing mitigations (e.g. “Given the assumption that 60/40 funding holds, we have a risk mitigation if it doesn’t…”). But even as is, the reader can see the thread: every major assumption (funding, timeline, skills, governance, security) has a corresponding risk entry and a mitigation strategy. This internal consistency is a notable strong point of the document.
Operational Planning and Vision: The plan is very detailed operationally (e.g. tasks for PMO, kick-off meetings, etc.), which sometimes can swamp the high-level vision. However, here the operational detail generally supports the vision by showing it’s executable. One possible inconsistency to watch is flexibility: the vision is bold and transformational, but the plan is also quite structured and rigid in governance. The authors should ensure the governance model leaves room for innovation and adjustments. The Monitoring Progress section partly addresses this by defining adaptation triggers (e.g. if KPIs deviate >10%, PMO can propose changes)file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5. That is good, showing the plan won’t blindly stick to the initial course if reality differs. Ensuring that this adaptive ethos is mentioned in the vision (for example, a line in the summary about being agile in execution) would align the tone throughout.
Milestones and Funding Synchronization: Consistency between funding and milestones appears reasonable (funds disbursement is tied to milestonesfile-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5). Perhaps the plan could explicitly ensure that early milestones (like the 2028 30% cloud) have adequate funding released by then. The assumption of “pre-approved milestones for funding release”file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5 is aligned with the milestone schedule provided – which is good. One suggestion is to include a check that the budget timeline (from the High-Level Funding Framework document) matches the technical timeline. If the plan intends, say, 40% of budget spent by 2030 to achieve 50% SaaS migration, that should be stated. Minor as it may be, aligning those timelines would prevent any internal inconsistency between the financial planning and technical delivery. In summary, the plan’s components generally reinforce each other. The vision establishes clear goals, the milestones break it down on a timeline, the governance and risk management provide control to reach those goals, and the operational plan gives detailed steps. Apart from a few small tweaks (explicit final targets, flexibility messaging), the consistency and alignment are strong.

Assumptions and Metrics: Realism and Rigor

Funding Assumptions: The plan assumes ~€150–250 billion funding with a 60% national / 40% EU split. This was rightly flagged as optimistic in the expert reviewfile-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5. To be sufficiently grounded, the report should back this with evidence or alternatives. For instance, providing context like “this budget equates to roughly €5–10bn per year over a decade across all member states, which is about X% of EU GDP – a scale comparable to existing EU programs (e.g. the Connecting Europe Facility)” would help readers judge feasibility. If such data is not in the report, it’s a gap. Including a sensitivity analysis (which the expert review did qualitativelyfile-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5) in the main report would be wise: e.g. a table showing outcomes if only €100bn is secured, or if funding is delayed 2 years. Right now, the plan’s metrics don’t convey these ranges of uncertainty, but they should. Legitimacy with policymakers often requires demonstrating “what if we only get 80% of the money?” – and having an answer (prioritize core infrastructure first, etc.).
Timeline and Migration Metrics: The key metrics (30% by 2028, 50% by 2030, 75% by 2032) are clear and time-bound, which is good. Are they realistic? The expert feedback suggests they are ambitious but not impossible if well-managedfile-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5. To ensure they’re grounded, the report could compare these targets to current baselines. For example: What percentage of EU government infrastructure is on European solutions today (2025)? If today it’s, say, 5%, then 30% in three years is extremely aggressive. Providing such a baseline metric would contextualize the challenge. Also, consider aligning with the EU’s official Digital Decade 2030 goals – the EU aims for “75% of EU companies using Cloud/AI/Big Data by 2030”commission.europa.eu. Our plan’s 50% SaaS migration by 2030 is in a similar spirit but focusing on critical systems. Citing these official targets could lend credibility that our metrics are in line with broader EU ambitions, and not plucked from thin air.
Quantifying Success Beyond Percentages: The plan does list some qualitative success indicators (growth of digital economy, number of EU tech companies thriving, reduction in incidents, etc.)file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5. To be more rigorous, each of those could have a metric. For example: “Grow European cloud providers’ combined market share to at least 50% of EU cloud market by 2035” or “Reduce major cybersecurity incidents affecting EU infrastructure by X% by 2035”. The current report could strengthen its KPIs by adding such numbers. It was even suggested in the feedback to include market share metricsfile-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5. Without them, success might be hard to measure. A policymaker will ask: How do we know if we succeeded in digital sovereignty? – The plan should answer in one sentence: e.g. “By 2035, no single foreign entity controls over 10% of Europe’s critical data or infrastructure” (as a hypothetical metric).
Assumption on Technological Competitiveness: An implicit assumption is that European solutions will be able to match the features and performance of US providers by the time of migration. This is critical – if EU offerings are inferior, users will resist. The plan touches on this risk (Market/Competitive Risk 10)file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5 and suggests investing in R&D. However, it might need more explicit metrics or benchmarks. For instance, an assumption could be “European cloud services achieve parity with leading hyperscalers in key performance benchmarks (uptime, cost per transaction) by 20XX.” Without stating this, the plan assumes away a huge variable. Adding a technology benchmark assumption (and a plan to monitor it via the Market Analysis monitoringfile-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5) would make this more concrete. Otherwise, there’s a risk the metrics of migration will be met, but the end-users might be unhappy (a nuance the plan should preempt).
Grounding Skill and Human Resource Assumptions: The document assumes Europe can cultivate enough cloud architects, engineers, etc., and sets up training programs. Are there metrics for this? Possibly missing. A robust plan would include numbers like “Train 1,000 cloud migration specialists by 2027” or “Each member state to have at least X certified cloud security experts in public sector by 2030.” Currently, it’s qualitative (e.g. “comprehensive skills development program”). Given that workforce is often a bottleneck, adding such metrics or targets would show the authors have quantified the talent pipeline issue. It also lets the project track progress on capacity-building, not just on tech deployment.
Validation of Assumptions Through Data Collection: It’s excellent that the plan has a full section on data collection to validate assumptions (funding model validation, timeline validation, etc.)file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5. This indicates the authors know their assumptions need proof. To amplify rigor, the plan should commit to revisiting and updating assumptions at certain milestones. For example: “After the initial infrastructure audit in 2025, revisit migration milestones with real data.” The presence of a “Make Assumptions” and later “Distill Assumptions” section shows a process, but the loop to feed back into the plan could be clearer. Essentially, ensure the plan states: assumptions are not fixed truths but will be tested and adjusted. This makes the whole strategy more scientifically grounded (and humble). It might even add credibility to mention that some assumptions are intentionally conservative to stay safe, while others are aggressive targets, and explain why. In summary, the assumptions and metrics in the report cover all the key areas (funding, timeline, skills, governance compliance, environmental impact, etc.), which is a strength. To improve, the plan should provide evidence or rationale for each assumption (e.g. referencing historical EU funding patterns, or current adoption rates) and commit to monitoring them with data. By doing so, it moves from a set of educated guesses to a living plan that can be quantitatively tracked and refined. This will reassure stakeholders that the targets are not wishful thinking but are anchored in reality and subject to verification.

Visual and Persuasive Enhancements

Executive Summary Clarity: The Executive Summary is content-rich; however, its readability could be improved with visual elements and crisper phrasing for busy policymakers. Consider adding a one-page infographic: perhaps a timeline bar, a pie chart of funding sources, and three bullet icons for key benefits (security, innovation, compliance). Visual storytelling (charts, icons, color-coding) can hammer home the scale and goals more memorably than text alone. For instance, a simple chart showing the target migration percentages over time can immediately convey progress trajectory. Right now, those numbers are buried in text. Given the importance, highlighting them visually – even in the summary – would leave a stronger impression.
Use of Imagery and Examples: Embedding a relevant image or diagram could also help. For example, a map of Europe with data centers marked, or a schematic of the governance structure, could translate abstract ideas into something tangible. The plan could include a figure comparing the current state vs. the future state: e.g., Today: Most EU data flows through a few US tech giants’ servers (illustrated by logos or network diagrams), 2035 Vision: Decentralized European cloud nodes across EU (illustrated by a network of EU flags). This kind of visual comparison can be persuasive for investors and officials by clearly showing the “from–to” transformation.
Persuasive Framing for Different Audiences: The report could be tailored with audience-specific framing. For European policymakers, emphasize sovereignty, compliance with EU values, and economic growth. For investors, highlight market opportunities, ROI, and the fact that the EU is politically backing a whole new industry (de-risking their investment). The current text touches these points but could be organized to speak directly: e.g. a subsection “Why this Matters to Investors” listing the expected size of the new market, or “What’s in it for Member States” highlighting jobs and GDP in their regions. Using bold call-out boxes or sidebars for these pitches can break the monotony of the text and ensure each stakeholder sees their primary incentive at a glance.
Storytelling and Narrative: While the plan is detailed, injecting more narrative elements can make it compelling. The “Pitch” section already does this with an imaginative intro (“Imagine a Europe where our data is truly ours...”file-xlqvm3ebqkuhyuve5af6t5) – that’s excellent. Maintaining that inspirational tone occasionally throughout the report would help. Perhaps start major sections with a one-liner that ties back to the human impact (e.g., “No entrepreneur should be forced to rely on a foreign cloud to launch the next big European startup – this plan ensures they won’t have to.”). Such messages resonate emotionally and underscore the vision behind the dry details. Using a few real-world personas or use cases might help: “Consider a hospital in France – under this plan, by 2030 its patient data will be stored in a secure French cloud rather than on servers overseas, ensuring GDPR compliance and faster access.” Little illustrative anecdotes like that can paint a picture of the outcomes, reinforcing the why.
Alignment with EU Strategic Narratives: To persuade policymakers, it’s smart to align the report’s language with EU’s own strategic narratives (like “Open Strategic Autonomy” and “Digital Decade”). For example, explicitly mentioning that this project supports the Digital Compass 2030 targetscommission.europa.eu commission.europa.eu, or quoting the high-level goal of a “digitally sovereign Europe” as expressed by EU leaderswww.institutmontaigne.org, creates a sense of unity with existing policy. It shows the plan is a vehicle to achieve what Europe’s political vision has already set out. This kind of framing can make the document sound less like an isolated idea and more like the implementation plan for Europe’s stated goals. Including a short foreword or quote from a known figure (even hypothetically, like citing Ursula von der Leyen’s statements on digital sovereignty) could lend authority and connect the plan to ongoing discourse.
Summarizing Complex Sections: Some parts of the report (e.g., the exhaustive governance bodies or the detailed step-by-step implementation plan) could be overwhelming to readers. To maintain persuasiveness, consider summarizing these in a digestible format. For instance, a table or a diagram summarizing the governance model (with rows for each body and columns for role, members, decisions) might replace a page of text. This would allow a reader to quickly see that “okay, all governance pieces are accounted for” without wading through paragraphs. Likewise, the 41-step implementation plan might be too granular for an executive audience. It might be better presented as a high-level checklist of critical actions (with sub-bullets collapsed). The detail can be there in an appendix, but the main report might stick to milestones like “Establish governance bodies (by Week 10)”, “Complete current-state audit (Month 6)”, “Launch pilot migrations (Year 2)”, etc. Streamlining presentation in this way retains rigor but boosts clarity.
Tone and Messaging: For policymakers and investors, the tone should combine urgency with confidence. Currently, the plan is very matter-of-fact and sometimes technical (e.g., listing compliance actions or simulation steps). To persuade, a few sections could adopt more executive messaging: assert the opportunity (“Europe can lead in trustworthy cloud services globally, capturing market share from foreign providers”) and not just the problem. Also, acknowledging challenges openly but framing them as surmountable with a clear plan can build trust. The expert critique sections do this well by pointing out optimism biases – the final document could incorporate those critiques so that the text itself says, for example, “We recognize the funding model is ambitious; therefore we will conduct a detailed feasibility study and secure binding commitments (as recommended by experts).” Showing that kind of responsiveness to potential criticism makes the plan more persuasive because it appears well-vetted and not defensive. In conclusion, improving the visual presentation and sharpening the messaging for target audiences will significantly enhance the report’s impact. By adding infographics, clear summaries, and echoing the strategic language that resonates with EU leaders and investors, the PlanExe report can transform from a detailed blueprint into a compelling call to action. This will help European policymakers and investors not only understand the plan but also believe in it and champion it.Sources:
Merkel, A., Kallas, K., et al. (2021). Joint Letter on accelerating European digital sovereignty – emphasizing resilient critical infrastructurewww.weforum.org www.weforum.org.
European Commission (2021). 2030 Digital Compass – targets include 75% of EU companies using cloud/AI, and deployment of secure edge infrastructurecommission.europa.eu commission.europa.eu.
Politico (2021). Gaia-X as a cautionary tale – internal divisions hampered Europe’s prior cloud sovereignty attemptwww.politico.eu.
Institut Montaigne (2021). Priorities for a digitally sovereign Europe – highlighting the need for a strong industrial base and skilled workforce for digital autonomywww.institutmontaigne.org www.institutmontaigne.org.