Dr. Floris van den Broek:''I would like to advocate for the establishment of a Ministry of Technology.''

Author : Edward van den Boorn

Graphic Design : Nikolaï Carels

Naarden-Vesting ׀ September 2026

In the ‘PODIUM – Dialogues’ series, Capita Selecta spotlights remarkable individuals and organizations. We focus on the interplay between the individual, the organizational, and the societal. Through in-depth dialogues, we explore personal motivations and career choices, as well as concepts such as leadership, sustainability, responsibility, ownership, and wisdom.

Dr. Floris van den Broek is a serial tech entrepreneur, investor, innovator, supervisory board member, and executive in the technology and energy sectors in the Netherlands and abroad. In addition, he is actively involved in the talent development of young artists and pianists on their path to the international top.

Capita Selecta invites you to meet a professional who is active, cheerfully curious, amiable, and possesses a multidisciplinary mindset. Technology is in his blood. Mr. Van den Broek describes technology as a tool that, when applied, makes people's lives more pleasant and contributes to our prosperity. In a highly accessible and clear manner, Mr. Van den Broek guides us through current technological developments and outlines the roles that the public and private (equity) sectors can play in this landscape.

THE DIALOGUE

The concept of ‘Information and Communication Technology’ (ICT) is central to your career. How do you define ‘technology’?

‘Technology’ is a constantly evolving tool that serves humanity. I follow it closely and leverage it wherever I can. For me, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) represents the ability to communicate over (great) distances. That is the breakthrough for humanity in the past century. The significance of this breakthrough can hardly be overstated.

Since the very beginning, people have sought ways to understand and communicate with one another over distances, from sending smoke signals to the real-time online sharing we see today. Crucial and broad developments in information technology - including those within the semiconductor industry - are succeeding one another rapidly. Hardware has shrunk, while mobile networks, computers, satellites, and data centres have emerged. Computing power and data processing speeds continue to rise. It is an upward trajectory that enables new possibilities over time. I find these developments fascinating.

The true significance of technology ultimately and exclusively lies in its potential applications. Mobile navigation, for instance, became possible when a digital map - such as one of the Netherlands (requiring around 500 MB of data) - could easily be stored on a handheld device, the necessary processing power (speed) became available, and mobile phones (which are essentially computers) became portable. The same applies to Artificial Intelligence (AI): it is all about potential applications. AI was already being discussed in the 1950s - thanks to Alan Turing (1912–1954), the British pioneer of the modern computer - but the hardware needed to put it to truly useful work was lacking.

"Artificial Intelligence" was already being discussed in the 1950s.

I am interested in the moments where technological developments converge and the applications that emerge from them. I aim to leverage these within an organization and/or for the benefit of society.

What have been the most important technological trends for you over the past few decades?

First, there is the accelerated miniaturization of devices, which has brought such equipment within financial reach. Second - and more importantly - is the process of importing real-world data into databases; a prime example is Google mapping the entire globe digitally. Third, recent decades have seen the emergence of new generations of technology users who are comfortable with technology and actively seek it out. These three examples illustrate a progression that began with the technology itself, moved to the large-scale accessibility and availability of information, and culminated in humans adapting to the technology.

Furthermore, we certainly shouldn't lose sight of the different ways in which various generations communicate. I am referring specifically to the distinct methods different generations or target groups use to communicate with one another across various channels and platforms. If you use Facebook, you are likely between thirty and fifty years old; if you use Instagram, you are often under thirty-five; and if you use Snapchat, you are probably under twenty-five. Incidentally, it turns out that people tend to stick with a communication tool once they have chosen it. I experience this myself with LinkedIn - launched in 2004 - which my children, for their part, have no interest in at all.

These examples illustrate the availability of numerous communication tools and channels that can coexist, as different generations of users make different choices regarding how they use them. One generation might look for a job via LinkedIn, while another uses Instagram to share photos and Facebook to tell their story. Young people themselves do not necessarily view it this way; they simply use the platforms that suit them best. I find this fascinating and am very curious to see how these trends evolve. However, I am concerned about the shift in communication from written information toward image- and video-based communication. This represents a fundamentally different form of communication. It also requires us to remain vigilant, as images can be manipulated - a method used to spread fake news via social media. Another example is research showing that the writing and reading skills of Dutch schoolchildren have hit an all-time low. Clearly, we must carefully examine the unintended consequences of technological developments.

‘Software’ increasingly holds a dominant position within technological developments. What is software, and what does that position entail?

‘Software’ offers a very easy way to adapt a device to the user. It makes developing a wide range of applications increasingly easy, while also heightening the need to specify exactly what we want that software to do - regardless of whether AI is involved, or not. The goal is to train people so that they can personally articulate what they want and the kind of assistance they need.

Writing software once began with coding. Is that still the case, or does the software do it itself these days?

Nowadays, the software handles this itself, yet you constantly realize that you haven't defined something precisely enough. Coding yourself is the ultimate form of precise definition; as soon as you move to a higher level, "noise" creeps in - noise you want to avoid. With today’s AI tools, it is crucial to learn how to "prompt" - that is, to provide highly targeted instructions, tasks, or directions to an AI model to achieve the desired outcome. The advent of AI compels us to be precise. Achieving a good result requires a high degree of detail, clarity, and lack of ambiguity. If you fail to do this, you leave the door open for the AI ​​to make its own assumptions and choices. This is precisely the issue highlighted by the CEOs of companies like Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google DeepMind in their joint calls to channel AI development in certain areas.

The argument for slowing things down can be summarized in part as ‘Safety over speed.’ What is your view on this?

Technological developments follow their own rhythm and move at the speed of light; they cannot really be managed. To claim that things are ‘uncontrollable’ implies that one could - or should -apply an external brake somewhere to keep them in check. I strongly question whether that is either possible or desirable. I do not see ‘slowing things down’ happening anytime soon. AI models are self-learning and ingest vast amounts of text containing bad, malicious, nonsensical, and/or fanciful ideas and storylines. You can, however, adjust the content so that certain information does not appear - or certain questions go unanswered. These act as ‘guardrails’ that effectively say, ‘This far and no further!’ That is already standard practice today.

We have to deal with what is already there, and we must relate to it.

In short, we are dealing with what already exists, and we must relate to it. It is a matter of the conscientious and responsible development and application of technology.

How do technological developments and critical infrastructure in the Netherlands relate to each other?

The term ‘critical’ indicates that - especially for a country as highly digitized as ours - this concerns the essential infrastructure upon which the functioning of the Netherlands depends. To me, this encompasses not only ICT infrastructure but also energy supply, transport infrastructure, public and private administrative systems, payment systems, water management, and so on. The common denominator, however, is that in this context, technology underpins the overall functioning of both organizations and the country itself. Without technology and reliable, secure applications, operations could grind to a partial or temporary halt. The parties involved are well aware of this. Constant vigilance is crucial. It is a matter of national and international importance to develop scenarios that address technological developments.

In this context, I would like to advocate for raising our level of digital awareness - at the individual, organizational, and national levels. Cybersecurity is not solely the responsibility of the system administrator; it also concerns users and those who provide information, whether encrypted or not. Standards could be set much more rigorously.

Does ‘politics’ play a role in this?

Yes, ‘politics’ plays a role here, but let us not forget that we are also simply dealing with the ‘human’ factor - people who, for instance, still let themselves be tempted to click on phishing links or share their paying card numbers over the phone. We need to adopt a comprehensive approach based on the premise that digital security is a matter that concerns us all.

We are simply also dealing with the ‘human’ factor.

Is there sufficient technical knowledge and talent in the Netherlands to meet the technological challenges?

The Netherlands possesses a wealth of technological knowledge and expertise, and we welcome foreign professionals and knowledge workers where necessary. While excellent talent is indeed trained in the Netherlands, the influx is insufficient. However, we risk falling behind certain other countries - especially when compared to India or US states like California.

Does the Netherlands have the right investment climate?

Capital availability in the Netherlands is too limited to tackle ventures on a truly grand scale. Those who create and innovate technologically, and those wishing to start a company or launch a product, are often required to present "proven" technologies or concepts. They frequently cannot move forward until they have demonstrated results or won investor confidence, thereby securing the investment needed to scale up. However, this approach does not work. An investor will often say: "First, show that you can become profitable in your home market; then we’ll replicate your idea in other countries."

With the Dutch stance, you are effectively running behind on two fronts.

Aside from the fact that the US domestic market, for instance, is twenty times larger than the Dutch one, there is no strict requirement there for something to be ‘proven’ first. Action is taken well before that stage is reached. With the Dutch mindset, you are effectively lagging behind on two fronts.

Are you thereby referring to the Dutch level of ambition regarding technical entrepreneurship and forward-looking orientation?

Certainly - and, by extension, the availability of venture capital. We currently find ourselves in a situation where Dutch pension funds and family offices are asking US asset managers to invest their capital. In doing so, both parties continue a strategy that has proven safe and reliable in the past, while achieving their desired returns. This enables US venture capital (VC) firms to invest European capital in American companies.

In the Netherlands, there appears to be a prevailing view that the private sector should take the lead in developing technology on a voluntary basis. European asset managers can also invest capital in European technology companies. Should they be encouraged to invest a certain percentage within Europe? Doing so would generate significantly more liquidity while also demonstrating a serious commitment to European technology and innovation - including that of the Netherlands.

Several public organizations in the Netherlands are making significant strides and achieving encouraging results. Notable examples include the European Investment Bank (EIB) and Invest-NL, alongside the strong support provided by organizations such as Techleap, which makes a substantial contribution to building the Dutch technology ecosystem. It acts as a catalyst for talent, capital, and knowledge, enabling Dutch tech entrepreneurs to accelerate their growth.

How does the Netherlands compare to, say, France - a country where technology has long been held in high regard?

In France, technology, science, R&D, and technical education enjoy more than ‘just’ status; they are strongly encouraged and actively shaped by both the public and private sectors.

The ‘Mistral’ initiative in France is an example of ‘technological Delta Works’.

If you look at the French (public) ‘Mistral’ initiative, for example, you see a government acting as a clear driving force. You see public leadership serving as the engine for a kind of ‘technological Delta Works’.

In the Netherlands, ideas frequently surface that point to a desire to bring - part of - critical infrastructure back into the public domain. What is your view on this?

I do not think that is a good idea. I experienced the liberalization of the Dutch telecommunications market firsthand in the late 1990s. That process went reasonably well, considering the rollout of the necessary infrastructure such as cables and antennas, the number of new commercial market players and the evolution of prices and services.

When examining the current Dutch energy market, one sees, on the one hand, public energy infrastructure companies that should not be privatized - if only from the perspective of infrastructure development. On the other hand, commercial market players have emerged that provide gas, electricity, and advisory services as part of their core offerings. Given the current challenges facing core energy infrastructure - including a shortage of connection and transmission capacity - it is a serious question whether the situation would have unfolded the same way under private enterprise. I suspect that, in that scenario, we would not have fallen ten to fifteen years behind. While complex procedures and regulations may have contributed to the lag in grid development, private companies operate with a longer time horizon than a single term of government and can secure funding for the much longer term.

Private parties consider the investment levels required for the construction of offshore wind farms or urban heat networks to be too high. They do not wish to bear these costs (alone). How do you assess this situation?

As a society, we must assess and decide what matters to us in the energy transition and determine what it is worth to us. We will have to tackle and resolve this together - in both the public and private sectors - and consider the associated costs. These costs could be placed on the government budget, with decisions made regarding how they are allocated. A similar approach would have been possible some thirty years ago with the rollout of fibre-optic telecommunications infrastructure. A different decision was made at the time, however, which is why the process took much longer. In any case, we now have fibre optics, and the "fibre-optic rollout across the Netherlands" is nearing completion. It was the private sector that made this possible, thanks to a coincidental combination of low interest rates over a certain period and a Telecommunications Act that streamlined the process of obtaining excavation permits.

Will the public and private sectors arrive at a joint, nationally coordinated approach?

Assessing the situation in the energy market, I believe it is wise to develop a unified vision and to tackle issues collectively - effectively through a 'Delta Plan' approach. Technology and innovation have brought us prosperity. I would advocate for the establishment of a Ministry of Technology, similar to those that already exist in certain advanced nations such as Great Britain and Estonia.

I would like to advocate for the establishment of a Ministry of Technology.

How did your career in technology begin? How has your career developed, and what choices did you make along the way?

My interest in technology was sparked during my childhood by my father’s profession. He was an Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) - specialist and asked me at the time whether that might be a future path for me as well. I did not choose that route. However, I was even more fascinated by the technology and equipment he used - such as microscopes and the connections established between elements within the ear.

After graduating in Computer Science, first in Nijmegen and finally at TU Delft in 1988, both in the Netherlands, I moved to the United States and completed my MBA at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1990. I began my career at AT&T, as the company had funded my MBA. While serving as CEO of Level 3 Communications, I obtained my PhD from TU Delft in 1999 with a thesis on the ‘management of international networks’.

My professional life is entirely rooted in my passion for technology and its application. Technology has the potential to make the world a better place, and I can lead and guide people and organizations in this process. Technology is interesting and simply fun - especially once you realize it isn't all that difficult.

What considerations formed the basis of the choices you made?

The choices I have made stem from my strong interest, keen curiosity, and ability to identify innovative possibilities and applications. Driven by an interest in - and a need for - change and challenge, I have led turnarounds and both structured and professionalized organizations. I enjoy bringing the right people together, assembling a top-tier team, and growing businesses.

How do you define the concept of leadership?

To me, ‘leadership’ means continuously activating and facilitating people’s potential. It starts with placing the right people in the right positions, allowing many things within an organization to run smoothly and naturally. A leader possesses a vision, provides direction to an organization, and manages and steers operations. He or she is only truly a leader if the people working for them also view and accept them as such. A leader without followers is not a leader.

A leader without followers is not a leader.

At the core is the ability to translate a vision and direction into highly concrete, clear, and operational objectives that are understood, accepted, and actionable. Leadership is about the present and the future, alongside that desirable and compelling vision of what lies ahead. It is about entrepreneurship, responsibility, ownership, and delivering results.

Is leadership about ‘culture’?

I find ‘culture’ to be too broad a concept. You need to be specific and define exactly what you mean by it. That ensures people within the organization understand and embrace it, and it can build support for any organizational or personnel changes. For me, that is the most appealing aspect of leadership and management. Since change is constant, it is a matter of continually answering the questions: ‘How, what, who, why, and when?’

I sometimes adjusted the organizational structure to suit individual qualities - something considered taboo. Yet, the human element is far too important a factor to ignore. People can surpass themselves when placed in roles where they truly excel and are at their best. That is my ultimate goal: continuously facilitating and mobilizing potential - that is, people's talent. My role involves constantly monitoring whether everyone is operating at the peak of their ability and job satisfaction.

How do you define sustainability - or stewardship?

For me, the answer to the question "Is what we are doing today future proof?" defines what "sustainability" is. And this is not just about raw materials, the environment, or working conditions, but also about maintaining balanced and financially sound business operations.

Sustainability concerns the entire organization.

Sustainability concerns the organization as a whole and the operational translation of objectives derived from defining its mission, vision, and strategy. It entails the ability to look ahead by considering the interconnectedness of things, as well as the capacity to perceive and understand value chains and relationships. It also manifests in the small, everyday aspects of both thinking and - above all - acting.

As a true ‘tech believer,’ sustainability has always been central to me personally. Rolling out a broadband network at Level 3 enabled features such as video conferencing, while managing a network of charging stations at Greenflux facilitated electric driving.

How do you define the concept of ‘responsibility’?

To me, ‘responsibility’ means ‘the behaviour, the awareness, and the desire to contribute to the organization’s objectives. Ideally, a sense of responsibility exists at every level of the organization. That requires maintenance.

What does ‘entrepreneurship’ mean to you?

Being an entrepreneur means bearing continuous responsibility for the ultimate continuation and growth of the company. You translate the continuation and growth of your organization into the responsibilities and tasks of the people within it. Ultimately, every day you set the example through your behaviour, communication, and the way you fulfil the (delegated) responsibilities you hold. You lead by example, facilitate, motivate, and show appreciation.

As an entrepreneur, you set the example; you facilitate, motivate, and show appreciation.

What does ‘wisdom’ mean to you?

Wisdom does not necessarily lie in simply ‘being smart,’ but also in choosing the right direction and making the right decisions for an organization based on available - and sometimes incomplete - information. The right choice brings the organization closer to its intended results. Making a lot of noise about something without any resulting action or outcome has nothing to do with wisdom.

You are actively involved in the talent development of young artists and pianists on their way to the international top. What do art and music mean to you?

While art and music are, of course, primarily meant to be enjoyed through watching and listening, for me they are also realms where the development of talent is vitally important. Just as in sports, the general public can quickly tell whether a performance is truly world-class or merely good. Performances and artworks are visible globally, and there is fierce competition to reach the top. If a single wrong note is played during an orchestral performance (a team effort), the audience hears it immediately.

In art and music, you must develop your talent by taking lessons, training, having role models, and connecting with true masters in the field. I once witnessed Vladimir Ashkenazy preparing for a concert as a conductor with an eighty musicians symphony orchestra; he managed to address every single musician flawlessly and motivate them to deliver a top-notch performance.

Which quote would you like to end with today?

‘Leadership means continuously activating and facilitating the potential in others.’

September 2026 | Edward van den Boorn

 About Floris van den Broek

Dr. Floris van den Broek obtained his PhD in Information Systems from TU Delft in 1999 and his MBA from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1990. He completed the Technology-Marketing program at Stanford University.

He began his career at AT&T in the United States and Europe. As CEO of Level 3 Communications, he played a key role in 1999 in the rollout of - and access to - fibre optics for the business market in the Netherlands. From 2005 to 2008, while at Philips in Paris, he led a turnaround of the telecom set-top box business within the former Canal+ company that Philips had acquired.

Since 2010, Mr. Van den Broek has been active as a serial technology entrepreneur, investor, innovator, supervisory board member, and executive.

From 2010 to 2014, he led the Software Improvement Group (SIG)—a company that enables organizations to take control of the software powering their operations—following a management buy-in. Between 2013 and 2019, Mr. Van den Broek founded OpenGlas Fiber Networks, a company that rolled out a fibre-optic network in the Netherlands. He sold the company to Delta Fiber. As an investor and CEO, he led Redsocks Security (2016–2019) finally selling it to Bitdefender - which developed Software as a Service (SaaS) solution for cyber threat detection. As an investor and CEO of Greenflux in 2021, he oversaw the SaaS software used for smart charging in electric vehicles. Between 2021 and 2024, Mr. Van den Broek built up Open Dutch Fiber (ODF), a company that rolled out a fibre-optic network in the Netherlands with private equity backing (specifically from KKR and Digital Transformation Capital Partners (DTCP), the latter originating from Deutsche Telekom). Currently, Mr. Van den Broek is a Managing Partner at Noordcap Investments, a private investment firm that invests in technology companies and funds.

Mr. Van den Broek contributes in many ways to technological developments, innovations, and progress in the Netherlands. At YES!Delft, he serves as a mentor to several companies in the cybersecurity sector, including Yokai Network, which focuses on the security of AI agents and from 2020 to 2023, he served on the Advisory Board of Getronics. As a member of the management team at the ICT Institute, he facilitates the transfer of knowledge and insights regarding software, cybersecurity, and privacy-related matters.

Finally, Mr. Van den Broek is deeply committed to the development of art and music in the Netherlands. He serves as Chair of the Supervisory Board of ‘De Ateliers’, an international institute in Amsterdam dedicated to the talent development of young artists. He is also Chair of the ‘Young Pianist Foundation’ - an organization he founded in 1999 - which supports young pianists across Europe in fully developing their talents as they strive to reach the international pinnacle of their field.