We must emphasise the importance of ecosystem governance, providing a comprehensive structure for designing a practical framework. The robustness and depth of Governance understanding make or break Business Ecosystems. Building a robust governance framework clarifies that managing business ecosystems is not for the faint-hearted or light-of-pocket in all the aspects that need to be considered.

Managing governance is challenging but essential if we recognize that business ecosystems offer immense potential for innovation, rapid scaling, and adaptability. Otherwise, Ecosystems can become expensive and often disruptive ventures. They need to be managed well.

Early research indicates that less than 15% of business ecosystems are sustainable in the long run, with the primary reason for failure lying in the governance model, according to MIT Sloan in How Business Ecosystems Rise and Often Fall, published in 2019.

We have made significant progress in the past few years due to a growing understanding of Governance needs across all parties and the appreciation of the real differences in thinking, designing, and operating in business ecosystems.

The growing recognition of the real power of ecosystems is in the diversity and knowledge sharing today. Also, the recognition that balancing collective interests, mitigating risks, enforcing compliance, and promoting long-term sustainability from kick-off.

This low success rate depends on many factors, including lifecycle, investments, business proposition, type, diversity within the partners, and recognition of different ambitions. The better your Governance, the greater the success rate. Self-interest has been recognized as one of the most significant issues for failure, and thankfully, this is giving way to greater fairness and transparency.

Step One of Building a Business Ecosystem Governance Framework

Understand the Ecosystem Context:

• Begin by understanding the unique context of your business ecosystem. Consider the following factors:
  • Ecosystem Purpose: Clearly define the ecosystem’s purpose, goals, and boundaries.
  • Participants: Identify key players, their roles, and their interactions.
  • Value Proposition: Understand what value the ecosystem aims to create.

It needs to be decided where Governance sits. Recently I outlined the arguments for and against applying a Super Governance to any interconnected Business Ecosystem, as Governance is wrapped up in every level of everything we do.

Let’s go deeper into Governance in this post.

Suggesting building blocks for governance

The building blocks for a robust governance model should address the key challenges and considerations in managing complex, multi-party business ecosystems. Here are some potential building blocks to consider and fill out:

1. Shared Vision and Objectives: Establishing a clear and shared vision and aligning the objectives of all ecosystem participants is foundational. This helps ensure everyone works towards common goals and facilitates collaboration and coordination.
2. Value Proposition and Incentive Mechanisms: A well-defined value proposition that outlines the benefits for each participant, coupled with appropriate incentive mechanisms, can encourage active participation and contribution to the ecosystem.
3. Decision-making Processes: Clearly defined decision-making processes, including mechanisms for conflict resolution, are essential. These could involve a governing body or council with representatives from different ecosystem participants or a more decentralized approach leveraging technologies like blockchain.
4. Roles and Responsibilities: Establishing well-defined roles and responsibilities for different ecosystem participants and accountability measures can help ensure smooth functioning and avoid confusion or overlap.
5. Data Governance and Sharing: Policies and protocols for data governance, including data-sharing, access, and ownership, are critical, especially in ecosystems involving sensitive or proprietary data.
6. Risk Management and Compliance: Robust risk management frameworks and compliance measures should be in place to mitigate potential risks and ensure adherence to relevant regulations and industry standards.
7. Transparency and Trust-building: Facilitating transparency, such as regular reporting and communication channels, can help build trust among ecosystem participants and stakeholders.
8. Ecosystem Orchestration and Coordination: Effective orchestration and coordination mechanisms, potentially involving a central orchestrator or platform, can facilitate seamless interaction and collaboration among ecosystem participants.
9. Ecosystem Evolution and Adaptation: Provisions for evolving and adapting the governance model over time, based on changing circumstances, technological advancements, or new entrants, can help ensure the ecosystem’s resilience and longevity.
10. Participant Engagement, Interdependence and Feedback Loops: Establishing mechanisms for continuous participant engagement, emphasising interdependence and feedback mechanisms for improvement can help refine and optimize the governance model based on real-world experiences, constant feedback and insights.

These building blocks should be tailored and combined based on the business ecosystem’s specific characteristics, requirements, and dynamics.

Building an effective governance model is highly challenging and complex due to the dynamic nature of such ecosystems, ambitions, systems, and diverse groups often seeing things (radically) differently.

Key challenges that may be encountered that need to be overcome:

1. Aligning diverse interests: Business ecosystems involve multiple stakeholders with potentially conflicting interests, priorities, and goals. Aligning these diverse interests and finding common ground can significantly challenge establishing an acceptable governance model for all parties.
2. Defining clear roles and responsibilities, who does what: In a complex ecosystem, defining clear roles, responsibilities, and decision-making authorities for different participants can be daunting. Ambiguity in these areas can lead to confusion, overlap, and potential conflicts.
3. Ensuring fair and equitable value distribution: Developing a governance model that ensures fair distribution of value and benefits among ecosystem participants, based on their contributions and roles, can be challenging, especially when dealing with power imbalances or dominant players.
4. Establishing trust and transparency: Building trust and ensuring transparency among ecosystem participants, who may have different levels of access to information and resources, is crucial but can be difficult to achieve, especially in the early stages of ecosystem formation.
5. Managing data governance and intellectual property: Establishing clear policies and protocols for data governance, data sharing, and intellectual property rights can be complex, mainly when dealing with sensitive or proprietary information.
6. Adapting to ecosystem evolution: Business ecosystems are inherently dynamic, with new entrants, shifting power dynamics, and evolving technologies. Developing a governance model that can adapt and grow along the ecosystem is a significant challenge and must pass through recognition stages to adjust to governance challenges.
7. Overcoming resistance to change: Implementing a new governance model may face resistance from ecosystem participants who are accustomed to traditional organizational structures or perceive the changes as threatening their existing positions or interests.
8. Ensuring compliance and regulatory adherence: Depending on the industry and geographic scope of the ecosystem, ensuring compliance with various regulations, standards, and legal requirements across different jurisdictions can add complexities to the governance model.
9. Securing adequate resources and funding: Establishing and maintaining an effective governance model may require significant resources, including funding, personnel, and technology infrastructure, which can be challenging, especially for ecosystems with limited resources or in their early stages.
10. Resolving conflicts and disputes: Developing mechanisms for conflict resolution and dispute settlement that are perceived as fair and impartial by all ecosystem participants can be complex, particularly in ecosystems with power imbalances or competing interests.

Addressing these challenges requires carefully considering the business ecosystem’s unique characteristics, dynamics, and objectives and leveraging best practices, innovative governance models, and emerging technologies to facilitate effective collaboration and governance. Each point on this list will require patience, determination, and an immense willingness to compromise and revisit the goals, mission, and purpose of why this Ecosystem is valuable to all involved.

I have written different posts that equally have value to read.

I wrote an earlier piece on Governance within Ecosystems that outlined several considerations, but the most important one was that “any Governance should be a living, breathing thing.” I also wrote at the time, “It provides the rules, mechanisms and framing for all the partners to sign on to and use as (one of) the foundation documents, to refer to constantly, as issues arise and need different resolution levels“.

It does need to be this living document, constantly reflecting the changes occurring without taking away the overarching principles and considerations.

I also discussed Innovation Governance and its role, as it significantly helps and supports our decision-making to take a project, concept or product forward.

Governance of Ecosystems is vital. It needs that constant dynamic to bring any collaboration to life and provide an environment that thrives and improves on what is already there to build an even more robust operating environment, shared on common understanding.

A strong argument exists for deploying a third party to manage this governance-building framework.

If there is a strong orchestrator, the one who often drives the Ecosystem, their specific interests might overshadow the need for an open and balanced ecosystem. Often, the orchestrator goes on an even steeper learning curve than the others who are attracted to the ecosystem.

Having third-parties advising does reduce the risks of multiple early learning mistakes.

By involving a neutral third party, they can play a crucial role in negotiating and building a balanced governance model for the ecosystem.

The role of a third party in this context could involve:

1. Acting as an impartial mediator: A third party can act as an impartial mediator, facilitating discussions and negotiations among ecosystem participants, including the orchestrator, to ensure that all interests and perspectives are represented fairly.
2. Providing objective analysis: An independent third party can offer objective analysis and assessments of the proposed governance model, identifying potential areas of imbalance, conflicts of interest, or unfair advantages for any particular participant, including the orchestrator.
3. Advocating for ecosystem health: While individual participants may prioritize their interests, a third party can advocate for the overall health, sustainability, and fairness of the ecosystem, ensuring that the governance model promotes long-term viability and balanced value distribution.
4. Establishing accountability mechanisms: The third party can help establish accountability mechanisms, such as independent audits, reporting requirements, or oversight committees, to ensure that the orchestrator and other participants adhere to the agreed-upon governance principles and rules.
5. Facilitating consensus-building: A third party can, with its neutral position, facilitate consensus-building among ecosystem participants, helping to find common ground and compromises where necessary to establish an acceptable governance model.

Governance is a complex issue in managing Business Ecosystems

It needs to be built in learning, listening and exchanging, taking a building block approach as briefly outlined above. There is so much of avoiding “the devils by going into detail.”

Here’s why I would prioritize trust and openness as the bedrock of Governance framing

1. Trust is the bedrock of collaboration: For diverse stakeholders to work together effectively within an ecosystem, they need to have a high level of trust. Without trust, it becomes challenging to share information, align interests, and make decisions for the collective good of the ecosystem.
2. Openness promotes buy-in and engagement: An open governance process that encourages diverse perspectives, transparency, and active participation is far more likely to foster buy-in and engagement from ecosystem participants. When stakeholders feel their voices are heard, and their interests are considered, they are more likely to support and adhere to the governance framework.
3. Transparency builds credibility: By promoting transparency in decision-making processes, communication channels, and reporting mechanisms, the governance framework gains credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of ecosystem participants and external stakeholders.
4. Trust and openness enable constructive dialogue: Addressing cultural differences, identifying conflicting interests, and building consensus requires open and constructive dialogue among ecosystem participants. An environment of trust and openness creates a safe space for such dialogues, facilitating mutual understanding and collaborative problem-solving.

To prioritize trust and openness, the governance framework could incorporate the following elements as the litmus paper test that need to be tested and validated as any Governance framework emerges:

1. Establish clear principles and values: Define and communicate the core principles and values that underpin the governance framework, such as transparency, fairness, inclusiveness, and respect for diverse perspectives.
2. Implement robust communication channels: Implement multidirectional communication channels that enable frequent, open, and transparent information sharing among ecosystem participants and with external stakeholders.
3. Foster participatory decision-making: Encourage active participation in the decision-making process through open forums, voting procedures, and opportunities for feedback and input.
4. Promote cross-cultural understanding: Organize training, workshops, or collaborative activities that foster cross-cultural understanding and appreciation among ecosystem participants, addressing potential cultural barriers or misunderstandings. Deploy design thinking and brainstorming techniques to help in this consensus-building.
5. Build trust through consistency and accountability: Consistently adhere to the established governance principles, follow through on commitments, and implement accountability measures to build and maintain trust among ecosystem participants.

By establishing a culture of trust and openness, the governance framework can create an environment conducive to addressing cultural differences, identifying and resolving conflicting interests, and building consensus more effectively. Trust and openness lay the groundwork for constructive collaboration and the long-term sustainability of the business ecosystem.

There is a critical list of common challenges in ecosystem governance, but I see this as a checklist when you want to engage in Business Ecosystem management.

Governance for Business Ecosystems is challenging to build out as robust and fit for a sustaining purpose. The relatively low long-term success rate of ecosystems rises or falls on good governance and a clear mission shared by all.

It has real challenges, but it is essential to have a comprehensive framework agreed upon by all and kept as a living document throughout the collaboration’s life. Operating in Ecosystems requires order and dependence, which is so important.

The post How to Design and Resolve Effective Business Ecosystem Governance. first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Business Ecosystems are the growing force to galvanize change and build a more collaborative culture, where the partners’ diversity enables solutions to be solving more complex and challenging problems we seem to be facing today.

When thinking about and designing business ecosystems, you must recognize that different ecosystems contribute, evolve, and determine their part in a “bigger” scheme of things. Recognizing that innovation, business, dynamic, and enterprise ecosystems through the design to be interconnected has evolved into the Interconnected Business Ecosystem framework.

Below in this post, I have clarified where the Dynamic Ecosystem fits and its significant contribution, influence, and impact on the health, dynamism, and future solution orientation we strive for in any new solutions. The C-level pitch sums it up well.

I have written extensively about “the dynamics within a system,” especially an innovation one, arguing that adaptation and resilience are consequences of practising “dynamics.” I got caught up in the importance of studying and recommending the need to build dynamic capabilities. More recently, I have written about the critically crucial dynamic ecosystem that “sits” in the interconnected business ecosystems of innovation, business, dynamics, and enterprise.

I will be honest I still can’t crack the complete dynamics code but I am trying hard as are many other people, it holds much of our future requirements. I developed an innovative fitness landscape methodology into a capability model based on dynamic capabilities, providing a nine-step approach.

I recently built out dynamic capabilities for Ecosystems, into a Journey in achieving a Dynamic Ecosystem in nine steps. My best mind maps were constructed around these dynamic capabilities to explain them and the interconnected parts required. It is a pity I can’t show them here.

Constantly extracting the essence of Dynamics in capabilities and ecosystems are the “essential oils” for ecosystems; they allow for rapid adaptability, continuous learning, extracting network effects, and greater decentralised decision-making and building resilience. Innovation thrives in an environment that recognizes dynamic ecosystems as the opposite of static, siloed systems. They constantly search for adapting, evolving and collaborating to thrive and grow.

Exploring the potential of adopting Dynamic Ecosystems

It is within the ability of organizations to integrate, reconfigure and build internal and external resources to respond to the often complex and challenging environmental changes and seize new opportunities but they need an organizing framework. The role of dynamic capabilities is to identify emerging trends, adapt strategies and allocate or re-order resources to meet those changes in rapid ways to capitalize within the organizing Dynamic Ecosystem.

I have written on “understanding Dynamic Ecosystems and why they should be different” emphasizing their unique characteristics and how and why they are different from other ecosystem models by adaptability, continuous learning, networking value and providing greater resilience to change.

Also, I have written on the “critical differences in understanding dynamic ecosystems” as this ecosystem actively supports other ecosystems to provide further impact and dynamism. They leverage, orchestrate and accelerate what is happening.

When I was working through my opening framework, published in January and February 2024, “Building the Case for The Hierarchy of Business Ecosystem Needs,” it was the dynamic layer that held my attention as the most exciting to recognise for its differences I was suggesting in Thriving in the Dynamic Ecosystems as a core post within the series. I put this down as a pivotal role as it can transform and challenge conventional business practices; it builds adaptability and resilience to navigate uncertainty, addressing this and not ignoring it, attempting to manage and mitigate risks.

Dynamic Ecosystems strives to be future-orientated, focusing on advancement and continuous learning, and delivers the primary drivers for economic advantage by proactively shaping market dynamics and positioning to spot and seize breaking opportunities, I call ecosystem sensing to stay ahead of the curve and gain those strategic edges.

The critical part of Dynamic Ecosystems is why they are so different, as outlined as the “pitch point” to C-levels to recognize their value.

“At the heart of this framework lies the Dynamic Ecosystem layer, a powerful engine designed to actively challenge assumptions, validate strategies, stress-test our adaptation and resilience capabilities, and provoke the re-imagination of our fundamental business models.

In today’s rapidly changing business landscape, complacency and rigid thinking can harm an organization’s long-term viability. The Dynamic Ecosystem layer serves as a contrarian force, a provocateur that continually questions our established norms and pushes us to explore alternative perspectives.

Imagine a dedicated team of visionaries, futurists, and disruptive thinkers whose sole purpose is to introduce dissenting voices, identify blindspots, and simulate contrarian scenarios we may have overlooked. This team would act as our internal “red team,” stress-testing our strategies against potential disruptions, Black Swan events, and alternative futures.

We cultivate a healthy debate and cognitive diversity culture by fostering an environment where dissenting opinions are tolerated and actively encouraged. This open discourse prevents groupthink and echo-chamber effects, ensuring that our strategies and business models are continuously refined and reinvented to stay ahead of the curve.”

The validation, foresight and power

“Moreover, the Dynamic Ecosystem layer would serve as a validation mechanism for our innovation pipelines, stress-testing new ideas and concepts against alternative scenarios before broader implementation. This iterative process mitigates risks and enhances the resilience and future-proofing of our innovations.

But the true power of this layer extends beyond challenging assumptions; it also empowers us to shape our destiny actively. We can anticipate and proactively position ourselves through ecosystem-sensing capabilities to capitalize on emerging trends, disruptive forces, and game-changing opportunities before our competitors.”

Imagine and embrace the distinct values of Dynamic Ecosystems

“Imagine having the foresight to navigate disruptions, mitigate risks, and seize strategic advantages by continuously adapting our strategies and business models in real-time, fueled by the insights and contrarian perspectives generated within the Dynamic Ecosystem layer.

This commitment to dynamic adaptation and resilience-building will permeate every layer of our Ecosystem Framework, from the Innovation Ecosystem, where we foster a culture of experimentation and agile development, to the Business Ecosystem, where we cultivate resilient partnerships and collaborative networks and, ultimately, to the Enterprise Ecosystem, where we instil a culture of adaptability and future-readiness throughout our entire organization.

By embracing the Dynamic Ecosystem layer, we are not merely reacting to change; we are proactively shaping our industry’s trajectory, turning disruptive forces into strategic growth opportunities, and fostering a mindset of continuous evolution that will propel our organization towards sustained excellence and collective prosperity.” (finish)

The influencing of the entire ecosystem design is the dynamics within the system.

So, let us embrace this contrarian force, this provocateur, and harness its power to challenge conventional wisdom, stress-test our resilience, and ignite a perpetual cycle of re-imagination and adaptation. Only through this relentless pursuit of evolution can we truly future-proof our organization and cement our position as industry leaders for years to come.

Dynamic ecosystems should be treated according to our ability to adapt and build resilience. We can measure dynamics in many ways, but firstly, we must open our minds to recognizing the Dynamic Ecosystem and its value in future business ecosystem design.

The post Dynamic Adaptation and Resilience in Interconnected Business Ecosystems first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

What are the significant differences between Natural and Business Ecosystems? I wanted to look at this and make some observations and comparisons. Firstly what we seem to get wrong in many labelling of business ecosystems, where sustainability fits, and then attempting to show apparent differences between Natural and Business Ecosystems needs a greater appreciation of differences.

We label far too much as Business Ecosystems.

Applying the label of “Ecosystems” to everything degrades the understanding of its true intent. Ecosystems need to be appreciated as vital and recognized as radically different in how they function and operate.

We call something an “ecosystem, ” which simply provides a rubber stamp of being politically correct, showing the day’s currency, and trying to represent what this means provides additional value or impact. Ecosystem thinking and design are fundamental challenges to how existing organizations go about their business.

Many businesses are claiming “ecosystem” but are, in fact, extending their present, established open innovation activities and placing a greater emphasis on open networking to seek out diverse ideas. This extension alone is not new Ecosystem thinking or design; it is existing thinking.

The Importance of Networks

We must fully appreciate and recognize the potential of the “network effect“within Ecosystems, the inter-relationships that are essential for any ecosystem.

The more connections, the greater the diversity potential and bringing different ideas or views into the thinking and possibly deriving more value; this a not a good interpretation of ecosystems. It is only one part of the design of Ecosystems needed.

Are Ecosystems going the same way as Innovation?

I wonder if we have often just taken to the word “Ecosystem” the same as “Innovation”; it can and often does mean different things to different people but fails to fundamentally “move the growth needle” as it does not have the robust structure, processes and thinking behind it.

Innovation and Ecosystems are both associated with the need to convey the purpose of new growth, supporting existing and new life (growth) in the intent. Still, business seems to me to so often simply offer these as “greenwashing”, conveying a false impression or providing misleading information about how a company’s products are changing to attain stakeholder approval.

We do need to think about ecosystems in a deliberate design

Applying a level of ecosystem thinking really does allow opening up the (internal) thinking to more diverse, open thinking. This appreciation allows for greater collaboration and appreciation of each party’s contribution.

The need for building out of any business ecosystem in the future has to consider the notion of the circular economy as a fundamental part of its building block.

The Ellen Macarthur Foundation does an excellent job of describing this circular economy by asking the question: “What will it take to transform our throwaway economy into one where waste is eliminated, resources are circulated, and nature is regenerated?”

Sustainability needs to be built into the design of Ecosystems from day one.

Ecosystems are the web of life on Earth. The growing realization within the business that this Ecosystem thinking, adjusted for its purpose and needs, is perhaps offering a different future for sustaining what is there but at what long-term cost?

We urgently need to build a much greater appreciation of what Sustainability means. I wrote, “Reshaping the core of your business through a focus on Sustainability“. It gives a helpful set of values and attributes needed for a sustainability approach.

Just let’s hope “sustainability” does not become another catch-all word like “ecosystems” or “innovation” has become; overused, undervalued, and not fully understood its significance to build a business differently. It is so often just promising growth by liberally applying this, and not recognizing this requires fundamental changes in business design, resources and strategic thinking.

We need to take care as we promote the concept of sustainability within business ecosystems, which we are or will be doing.

We need to give back more than we take out of them within our ecosystems to give this more sustaining value to all those who participate. That requires a more sustainable approach (referring back to my previous post) in fully considering any business ecosystem design.

Let me draw out some differences between Natual and Business Ecosystems

So drawing from the points made in a wonderful report released in 2021, Ecosystem Restoration Playbook offers a practical guide to healing the planet.

I thought I would look for (immediate) differences between Natual and Business Ecosystems to give a more distinctive differentiation between business aspects to separate the two.

Differences in Business Ecosystems from Natural ones

-Businesses tend to design Ecosystems as “competitive forces”, not fully appreciating “complementary forces” that might have greater consideration in a globally connected world of interdependencies.

-Business ecosystems look to “transform” the landscape in a given time, whereas Natual Ecosystems are “evolving” over a longer timeline and are not required to be at the same pace.

-Business ecosystems are technology dependant and enabled, as their value is communicating and exchanging distinct parts, making them highly dynamic to thrive.

-Business ecosystems tend to ‘force’ change; they attempt to impose it. Within Natural Ecosystems, those more dominant species, plants, trees, etc., can also impose themselves. Still, it is more based on natural evolution, not a forced one, unless something (primarily humans) intervenes to alter the balance radically, often not anticipating the consequences. Business Ecosystems tend to impose a deliberate need.

-Business ecosystems seem mostly not to want to conserve, consolidate and balance; they are looking to change, redesign, challenge and disturb the existing and so radically alter what is known to produce something different, more valuable or useful (perhaps).

-Ecosystem design should protect, nurture and grow, to build on the existing. Still, as in the business case, it is often very self-centred, striving for levels of “destruction”, often driven by the platform owner looking for competitive advantage and where the ecosystem is built around. The intent is to (re)build its position to be dominant or gain a superior advantage.

-Business Ecosystems look to be agile, responsive to rapid change and disruption and gain that faster “speed to market”. Natural ecosystems react and respond but at different evolutionary speeds, adapting over time to their changing circumstances. Elements of the natural ecosystem evolve in their own time.

-Partnerships are sought out in both a natural ecosystem and a business one. There are similarities; the natural one is looking for being complementary, recognizing its reliance or dependencies for often its own survival. In business partnerships, the need is to search for diverse and distinctive capabilities to advance a radically different position and build a more dominating market position, where a greater “equal” partnership is needed to succeed.

-Companies fight for the best partners, technologies, and networks in a business ecosystem to create, build and defend added value. Equally, in a natural ecosystem, there is the survival of the fittest to determine existing value. Yet, we must often not consider all the different “dynamics” within the communities formed or being formed and future consequences or changes.

-The business ecosystem seeks to develop that outside-in philosophy of finding new value. In contrast, the natural one is more of an inside-out, already showing and maintaining its value.

– We can adapt and have an effective navigation system to adjust or shift to constantly “maximise value” in business ecosystems. In contrast, a natural ecosystem has its place that can and does evolve, but maximising can disturb and actually, eventually destroy.

The business ecosystem is characterized by several unique attributes that I can see evolving.

• To be highly effective in today’s competitive world, business ecosystems require perhaps hundreds of collaborators, making up a rich diversity or patchwork.
• The collaboration is enabled by a digital thread, as its pulse connects all the parts.
• Collaborations sometimes seek not-so-obvious partners within the network to determine and be distinctive.
• Evolution in business needs to be rapid; relationships shift and mature as the recognition of finding the competitive advantage gathers in pace or shows signs of early failure. Evolution is forced.

There are some challenges and contradictions that need evaluation.

-The sharing and exchange of information and intelligence need a created IP framework, whereas we, as humans, struggle to find the connection dependencies in natural ecosystems. Often we interfere and destroy the balance. In business, we attempt to determine or anticipate the linkages. sometimes missing greater potential from purposeful design.

-Business Ecosystems are there in design to transform, challenge and change the existing; regretfully, in the natural ecosystems, we as humans have imposed and transformed far too much by disturbing balances that we have significantly contributed to our planter facing this significant point of crisis today.

Redefining Ecosystems into their different types.

I do like one reference I found in the Ecosystem Restoration Playbook – a practical guide to healing the planet suggests. There are four major types of ecosystem services: provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural.

Ecosystem services are all the processes and outputs that nature provides us with. These include provisioning services (food, water), regulating services (wastewater treatment, pollution control), supporting services (shelter), and cultural services (recreation and tourism).

Now, what if we similarly defined business ecosystems in the same way?

They are set up for provisioning services and regulating services. they are supporting services and providing cultural or social services.

That might be an exciting way to define business ecosystem approaches as well, and they can evolve by being more specifically designed on their business or societal intent.

My final thoughts here

Perhaps by adopting ecosystems the way we are currently undergoing in business, this constant search for new growth and the higher impact, we are accelerating the further depletion of precious resources in a consumption-driven society. Ecosystems must strive to have a (careful) balance; otherwise, we can have serious long-term unintended consequences.

Business Ecosystems need to be carefully considered and designed; they do need effective orchestration.

*building from a previous post on comparing the Natual and Business Ecosystems

The post Ecosystems need re-stating for business. Are they real ecosystems? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.