At the top of our organizations they ‘require’ innovation but will often not want the potential disruption this might entail.

Yet the organization today is being challenged like never before, it has gone from managing the predictable business to responding to the unpredictable, more opportunistic and alert to change, a place innovation can fit within the need to respond to this different environment.

This is the final post in the series that has focused on the innovation work mat components

Within this final post, I look at why innovation needs to align into the organization. Innovation seems to be in conflict and tension within so much within our organizations. Innovation is challenging the established order; today’s world is also demanding a new organizational design.

The Executive Innovation Work Mat offers a framework to gain a higher level of strategic focus around innovation. Innovation requires engagement throughout the organization to deliver in today’s tougher, more challenging world.

In this series of articles I have looked at the seven components to raise questions, to probe and prompt the necessary thinking that needs to be made in organizations around building innovation that sustains and delivers to the strategic need.

Adjusting our innovation systems to the changes happening all around us

I certainly believe there is an awful amount of change occurring around innovation.

Organizations are attempting to integrate innovation far more into their existing practices.

I think many of these attempts will fail. Existing practices often are not innovation-friendly!

The old organization model built on efficiency and effectiveness, operating in predictable conditions is being destroyed, we are in the world of the disruptor. Innovation needs to be more central to organization design to counter this challenge. Innovation thrives well in networks, it gains from ‘being connected’

Innovation is at the core of a new battle for securing an organizations future, in its relevancy and importance, yet our organizations continue to struggle with where to box this.

If innovation stays a side-show the organization faces a slow demise, as it hangs on grimly, determined to continue to work in ways it has become comfortable with.

Those ‘old’ ways that values controlling in prescribed hierarchies and through rigid plans are simply struggling in today’s more connected world.

We are in uncomfortable times where past systems and structures are not fit for purpose. What is valued more today is “guiding coalitions” where iterations and co-creating thrive.

Strategy and execution are highly interrelated and it is the power of a connected network, working on common cause within innovation that can generate powerful results. ‘Connected’ and ‘collected’ intelligence gives us fresh capacity and far more promising futures.

Innovation is operating in this growing organization world of the designers’ dilemma.
The middle of our organizations continues to focus upon constantly looking to achieve efficiencies and effectiveness to deliver that more predictable result that the top really prefers.

Much of middle management is working with yesterday’s tools and techniques. Innovation is caught up in this middle kingdom and continues to be in conflict. This needs changing.

The innovator themselves, those beginning to roam around the organization, are seeking to disrupt, to challenge, to alter the established pattern as their remit is to bring new innovations into the world. They often face considerable resistance from so many antibodies to this new way of managing.

Organizations have to face this constant ‘tension’ around innovation and where it fits in design, function and structure. Innovation is today not the most comfortable space to work within in our organizations. It often seems to ‘rub’ up against much that seems immovable, innovation generates often unwanted heat and conflict.

Yet innovation is essential, it ‘must’ reside, so we need to manage this ‘creative’ tension to achieve real value out of innovation, results that have lasting impact.

Moving through this disruptive and tense world calls for a more radical response.
Organizations want to see well-defined processes and coordination happening across the functions undertaking the activities of innovation.

It wants innovation to fit within existing organizational design.

This struggle that innovation has with this ‘need to fit’ is a tough challenge. The resolution requires senior management attention to work this thoughtfully through.

It is through this designing of all the essential parts that make up innovation, that will give it the functioning fit for ‘innovation purpose’ but this takes time, engagement and dedicated energy. It needs integrating and coordinate throughout the whole organization.

Innovation is certainly no different from other functions specializing, it does need to be well-designed into the organization but it needs carefully managing, piloting through the organization and that attention to its needs has to come from the top, as it can challenge many established practices that need resolution.

Innovation requires a well-designed system, this is where risk can be managed and defined. This requires having in place a well-designed innovation framework that accounts for and builds around all that good innovation needs.

Designing an integrated innovation system that can ‘pilot’ the activities safely is critical. Organizations will not permit undue risk unless they are in desperate situations where radical actions need to come into play, regretfully these are often too little too late.

How do we design innovation into our organizations systems?

Innovation over time will become more of the core of an organization.

To do this it needs to be well-defined, fully resourced and valued.

It constantly needs to demonstrate value creation.

Organizations need to set about building distinct set of capabilities that deliver on the essentials to provide the future health of the organization.

Innovation offers ‘much needed’ fresh oxygen that allows an organization to thrive and grow. If it starves the organization of this oxygen not only innovation dies but over time so does the organization and it will die.

Innovation must fit somehow into an organizations thinking, find a way to be worked into the routines and practices to do its job of creating the growth, the advancement in new products, services and business models to compete effectively with others to attract the customer to buy.

It needs to balance risk and opportunity; to deliver both efficient and effective results, be highly visible, organized and able to deliver on its future promise.

The design of the organization’s innovation engine room is the place for managing future growth. It needs examining and managing carefully.

As the current organisational tensions are being navigated through with new organisational designs emerge, Innovation has the potential within its possible design and management that could significantly contribute to this new emerging organization order.

Every organization has some clarity in their design, function and their innovation process yet it is constantly constrained by these tensions within organizations. Today there is a need for a new architecture of design for our business as outlined here, a post relating to designing new business models.

The call is for a well-designed innovation framework.

Within this series around the Executive Innovation Work Mat, we covered the different components that make up this work mat. The overarching aim of the work mat is to address one of the missing links we face in innovation today.

We need to achieve a clear alignment and engagement on innovation with the top through to the bottom of our organizations, where a strategic innovation document or framework lays out the integrated thinking for innovation and its contribution to the strategic needs of the organization. This can provide a clarity and purpose to unite behind.

This intent is determined by aligning innovation with the strategic needs and business outlook from the Chief Executive downwards.

In conclusion to the innovation work mat series.

In my view organization engagement comes from adopting a framework that prompts identification.

By working with an integrative innovation work mat it outlines innovations critical aspects to be worked through across the organization, to gain this greater alignment to the strategic intent of the business.

Any design and engagement needs to be highly dynamic, where the learning taking place will flow throughout the organization, top-down, and bottom-up, to make innovation alive and all connected.

This endeavour starts creating a thriving innovation ecosystem. One that is fuelled by energy and organisational commitment as all can see the connected parts and their contribution to this.

Can the Executive Innovation Work Mat be the catalyst needed? I think so.

The post Organizations are in a constant dilemma of the innovation fit. first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

I always enjoy Steve Denning and his writing as essential reading. He has been discussing the fundamental changes taking place within the management of our organizations.

Just go over to the Forbes site for Steve’s articles http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/

Also just take a read of “Why Is Corporate American Eating Itself Alive?” about how Corporate America is practising self-cannibalism, triggered by Dennis Berman in an article in the Wall Street Journal with a message that resonates more and more today:

“isn’t it time we stop according extraordinary compensation to Corporate America’s leaders for meeting their quarterly numbers through the short-sighted tactic of self-cannibalism and instead focus the business on its true goal of adding value to customers with investments and innovation in real products and services?”

More destruction as against enlightenment or simply exposing themselves to a very thin core, leaving themselves totally vulnerable?

Steve preaches radicalism simply because he sees the fundamental changes taking place, setting in train a new set of social and economic changes. He points out we are creatures of habit but being delivered more and more is his “better, faster, cheaper, smaller, lighter, more convenient and more personalized,” and we tend to say, “Hey! Yes! I want that! And not only do I want it. I want it now! In fact, not only do I want it now. “I’ve got to have it now!”

Steve points out “For customers, this is fun. Hey, wonderful new stuff! Wow! Amazing! But for producers, it can be very big and very quick and very scary and very lethal”

To manage for this significant phenomenon shift the past practices, rooted in the 20^th Century management practices are in decline. They are being challenged dramatically, more outside today’s existing large, established organizations by those that have nimble, agile and responsiveness as central to their being. This radical change is tearing at the heart of many existing organisations.

Steve suggests we are heading towards an economy of continuous innovation and transformation, where delight becomes critical when it comes to serving the customer, in constantly improving their lives, looking to build new value but doing it in this highly responsive way of “quick and nimble”.

The tenets of Steve’s five simultaneous shifts that is now under-way.

These five shifts reverse everything. They consume existing doctrine, built on past established management practices and in Steve’s view, and many more in their own separate thinking and explanations of what is dramatically changing will become eventually the new system but they are mutually dependent on each of Steve’s five parts.

He remarks in different articles “Setting about one or two of these ‘principles’ is not sustainable; organizations will slip back into their old ways”

The five shifts are well explained in a number of his articles but these are:

• These shifts affect the goals of the organization,

• They affect the structure of work within the organization.

• They affect the way work is coordinated.

• They affect the values of the firm.

• They affect the way people communicate.

For me, the reason I outline this is his “step change” in organization capability, one of my principal focus areas. He argues “organizations have to become different kinds of animals, with different mindsets, attitudes, values and capabilities. It means different ways of thinking, speaking and acting in the workplace. It means change at the level of the firm’s DNA”

He finally suggests as “we grasp thinking the unthinkable” we all begin to question the fundamental assumptions of what lies at the core of our business, our societies, our institutions.

Radical and highly disruptive.

He delivers something powerful, it looks simple but is radical, it is in his words “grim and as thrilling”. Are we listening, are we preparing, are we seeing the same fundamental shifts , this “constellation of principles” that Steve argues is today’s radical management that is hurtling fast towards all of us?

Disruptive Innovation is faster, quicker and even scarier.

Somehow we all need to figure out the shifts that are taking pace at increasing speed around technology, the central gravity point of customers and what they are choosing is shifting the thinking of even Clayton Christensen’s “Innovation Dilemma.

Christensen’s disruptive innovation theory has possibly moved into the faster lane which was already deadly but changes were slower with competitors coming up from the bottom, steadily moving upmarket to eventually steal away the high-value customers. You had that greater time to react. Is it changing?

Today we are witnessing customers defecting en-masse where competitors are coming out of nowhere and going global extremely rapidly offering this “better, faster, cheaper, smaller, lighter, more convenient and more personalized,” and learning very fast how to scale. Knowing where and when they appear is becoming harder to predict but organizations need to shape themselves for this constant onslaught coming at them.

Take a read about this in a recent book by Larry Downes and Paul Nunes in how they explain this in their book, Big Bang Disruption: Strategy in the Age of Devastating Innovation (Penguin, 2014). Big bang disruption is large-scale fast-paced innovation that can disrupt stable businesses very rapidly. Also you can read an article on this here

Will leaders of organizations that are today’s incumbents’ recognize how radical this is or will they simply dismiss it.  Are today’s leaders and managers aware of the growing need for more radical change and getting ready for make the transformation?

Step changes that are so radical they are gut wrenching.

Are we in a place where it will it be left to others to prise their leaders fingers currently hanging grimly onto the controls and levers within our organization away, those not recognizing it is all about a new management of ‘flying-by-wire’ that is constantly picking up signals and adapting to these?

A constant feeding those signals into this “adaptive and agile” organization where they are needed to respond quickly and nimbly to rapid changing conditions and deliver to these changing customer needs, before others do.

Do you equally ‘sense and see’ this economic and social change going on? A movement of an often fickle market place where this “better, faster, cheaper, smaller, lighter, more convenient and more personalized,” is constantly moving and hunting for new feeding grounds?

Our organizations are like the buffalo in past days, roaming across the plains but eventually being chased and harried like never before in this quest for more of less. The difference is that today’s organization can choose to adapt to its changing habitat before it is too late.

The post Eating yourself for lunch, unpalatable but essential to adapt first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

I gaze through unbelieving eyes at the continued rise of unemployed in Europe. Unemployment in the Eurozone has reached another record high with the seasonally-adjusted rate for April  2013 going to 12.2%, up from 12.1% the month before according to the European Commission’s statistics office, Eurostat:An extra 95,000 people were out of work in the 17 countries that use the Euro, taking the total to 19.38 million. Both Greece and Spain have jobless rates above 25%. The lowest unemployment rate is in Austria at 4.9%.

It seems never-ending.

Youth unemployment remains a particular concern; you simply have to wonder what we are storing up in the longer term with this situation. Can the youth ever catch up, can our society as it is positioned give them the opportunities to turn today’s grim world into a world of optimism and contentment, or is it a lost generation?  In April, 3.6 million people under the age of 25 were out of work in the Eurozone, which translated to an unemployment rate of 24.4%.

Why does this issue of growing unemployment seem to be drowned out by events that seem important on the day but realistically pale in their significance against something as damaging as this present crisis?

Examples of persistent economic and social challenges

We are facing significant society challenges. These include declining Economic competitiveness, deepening Social inequalities, rising Mental ill-health, increasing Crime and social disorder and we see growing Alcohol and drug abuse, to name some of the issues being increasingly tackled as part of the consequences of these tough economic and social times.

We must increasingly recognise that the cost of deferring concerted action to confront these growing set of social challenges is beginning to rise – and could easily outpace our ability to respond.

Can we afford to wait? There are so many pressing questions.

The cost of lock in

More fundamentally, our existing approaches and institutions are also inadequate because, in the main, they lack the capacity to develop the new approaches we need through innovation.

We are faced increasingly with the ‘innovator’s dilemma’, identified by Professor Clayton Christensen, where a company or in this case whole nations can’t seem to address the changes (rapidly) going on around them.

Their existing models become obstacles in the face of changing conditions, deepening issues, new threats from emerging nations, rapidly changing technologies and a growing inability to overcome rapidly changing circumstances wrought by deteriorating economics, (infra) structures and upheavals.

Any organisation or system or even nation is susceptible to ‘lock-in’, whereby it loses the ability to develop novel ways to serve its customers or clients or markets because it has invested so heavily in its existing processes and technologies. This is part of one of the fiercest debates on the future of the European Union we have yet to have.

Our understanding of innovation has broadened

Today innovation is increasingly being understood in a broader perspective than just products alone. We are in a period of major transformation in what we mean by ‘innovation’. We need to push innovation across its broader understanding to explore new business models, unique services, greater collaborative techniques and community engagement.

Traditional innovation is insufficient for the challenges we face, this will not resolve climate change, an ageing society or reinvent public/ private services that match demand and need. We need greater connections across society.

There is a growing buzz around the Quadruple Helix of Innovation, where Government, Institutions (Academia, Foundations and NGO’s),  Industry and Citizens need to collaborate together to drive structural changes far beyond the scope of one organizations and what it can achieve on its own.

These will be increasingly through innovation engagement platforms where people use the designed structures to purposefully intensify exchanges to co-create value to solve our growing bigger problems.

Seeking out unconventional solutions through more radical innovation

These are times when we need some visionary leadership and thinkers out there. Those that dare to breach present accepted boundaries of rigid beliefs and conventions. Those that push beyond the normal practices and can depart from the commonly held goals of establishment, by looking for non-conventional novel solutions that can draw in more of the disenfranchised, we are seeing today.

Facing New Challenges: Promoting active inclusion through social innovation

Social inclusion is a pre-requisite for the creation of a just and cohesive society in which each individual can fully participate and realise his or her potential. Active inclusion, as one strand of the broader social inclusion concept is looking to draw in and deal with inclusion into society of people furthest away from the labour market.

We need to make new markets full of engaged young people.

 There is clearly a latent demand building in our societies and we need to turn this into a more ‘effective’ demand, to forge the links between supply and demand that will generate new value and opportunity. For example, who can invest in effective supply by supporting promising projects and collecting evidence of what works that shows promise of broader societal impact?

Then who can we involve who can invest in effectively ramping this up. Perhaps focusing the different Foundations already set up can turn this latent demand into effective demand. This might mean shifting resources from other parts of the world, back into Europe to get the economic engine kick started again.

Applying innovation intensity to what we do.

We need to rapidly accelerate a rigorous experimentation mentality by focusing far more on major societal challenges that need addressing, before it is too late. Ones that can encourage and embraces local solutions needed and engagement within communities but the learning can be rapidly absorbed and the winning concepts can be scaled up to benefit more communities or areas of need and resolution.

Different type of economic statecraft are needed to position ourselves

How can we encourage and accelerate more of our companies to pro-actively integrate environmental and social impact into their business models? To put into place better measures of investment performance over the long-term that ties into greater social good?

There is also a real challenge today to lay out a different position for government. One that is more the facilitator, setting out the conditions for  the impact economy ecosystem and  supporting in ways that invest in the longer-term infrastructure and platforms that can scale the innovations and partnerships needed to achieve sustainable, long-term growth.

Government cannot ‘play’ in all three horizon investment areas, it does not have the capacity, experience, capital and resources. We need leaders who not just make tough decisions but set about putting in place the different conditions, incentives and clarification of who does what and why. The more the short-term crisis extends, the harder it becomes for Governments to participate in mid-term future innovation activities. They simply can’t easily.

A time and place where we are converging to make social innovation a critical element

We are in a current battle to address both short and long-term economic and growing social challenges. We are faced with growing unemployment still, especially here in Europe. The youth of today need to engage, otherwise we are in a great danger of losing a whole generation and that has such significant impact on or nearly everything we have in place today.

How are we going to draw upon the imagination and expertise of a broader set of innovators and tap into the entrepreneurs that are out there, to tackle some of these significant societal challenges?

Are we at the early stages of a new economic order with even more disruption?

Of course we might be in the beginning of a very different set of economic factors. We might actually be heading to a completely different type of economy that melds features which are very different from economies previously based on the production and consumption of commodities. Today we are already seeing blurred boundaries between production and consumption.

We need to think about repeated interactions, care and maintenance and not one-off consumption; and a strong role for values and missions that are far more inclusive for society and less focused on individuals; otherwise we end up with a divided society that clash in ways reminiscent of past revolutions where the majority finally rebel.

Are we facing even more instability in the coming years?

The present value equation in our societies is rapidly getting unstable; we need some fairly radical solutions to reverse the existing trends. I think the challenges will only get harder in the months ahead.

We do need to positively disrupt before we get more unexpected disruptions occurring. Innovation needs to play an ever-increasing part in this to explore alternatives and allow those lost from current economic activities to begin to participate and make a contribution where they see there is a future for them.

The post Breaking out of the current economic dilemma needs radical innovation first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

The simple fact that innovation has been thrown open and organizations and individuals can simply explore outside their existing paradigms is offering us something we have yet to fully grasp and leverage. This is a W-I-P for us all.

Secondly innovation is simply getting faster, better is another story, but it is expected to move from idea or concept to final launch in ever decreasing compressed time

As they say ‘you can’t have one without the other’. Open innovation is potentially allowing for this compression of time but where we still ‘lag’ is within our organizations to reap the rewards. Why?

We are still stuck in the previous structures, systems and processes designed for internal developments that were designed for different times.

We need two really critical things really fast.

The speed of change needs agility. We need to learn to adapt, anticipate and lead change before change leads us. Building an agile company to manage the enormous unpredictability and creative destruction going on around us is an absolute must.

Secondly we need to recognise that the capabilities and skills needed to manage in this rapidly shifting world must be different from many we provide and train into our people today. We need more ‘dynamic capabilities’: the ability to understand what is needed and apply these capabilities to the challenges on hand.

The past has simply flashed before our eyes
When you stop and think, after you have captured your breath, just reflect on what has happened in the last thirty years of where we have placed our emphasis within innovation

Firstly we focused on efficiency through innovation, then we applied quality to the process, then we introduced flexibility (leaner supply chains, smarter product processes) and recently we have moved to a more open innovation.

This rapid movement or compression of innovation has been demanding, many simply have not kept up, or simply never changed and faded away

What is the future in any innovation focus?
We have skirted design innovation, we still attempt to link product and service, we are building more stand-alone business models and we are experimenting with social media that seems to become established as Social product innovation.

This social product innovation is the practice of leveraging Social Computing principles and technologies to support the product development process, innovation and business goals, programs and resources.

We are also striving to manage collaborative platforms, so as to manage projects that offer scale and market shifting paradigms. There is a giant mash up going on or mess up perhaps?

Disruptive, Radical and Volatile seems a reality

We seem to be heading into a real storm of change. The change brought on by overconsuming, disposing quickly and demanding even faster, better, more improved products at ever lowering prices.

This is not just a race to the bottom where commoditization lurks but where we simply will exhaust our resources, our planet and ourselves. We are facing some very unsettling times and we need to get equipped to deal with them fast in agile ways through new capabilities and competencies.

There is a race we are all in where eventually no one wins. We need to change the race.

We do need a ‘real’ paradigm shift.

The problem is nothing stops, it simply keeps moving at an ever-increasing pace. We can’t consolidate, we can’t experiment as much as we would like and we can’t wait and see.

We are all learning by doing and to do this we need to be highly agile, and amass new capabilities and competencies as we go- often on the fly, often by the seat of our pants.

Innovation has become our treadmill perhaps. Can we afford to get off? To make a real paradigm shift?

What would that be- any thoughts?

The post What are the new paradigms in innovation? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

I call this the innovation rates of exchange.

A little of the theory: Coherence between organizational context and coordination of outcomes is subject always to those natural tensions of planning, resource allocation and the time imposed. Often decisions have a real tension built into them and they ‘shear’ against the real forces in play.

Like our tectonic plates ‘shear’ and cause earthquakes, the ‘shear’ effect has a disruptive influence on innovation outcomes.

Often the time horizon of possible desired innovation often has these real conflicts. The actual realities and needs of the organization we lower the innovation impact in final delivery. We fall back on incremental solutions as the organization does not have the patience, appetite or desire to see through the potential fully.

So that puts the theory out there.

It is such a pity the different time horizons for different types of innovation are not simply treated differently in most organizations thinking and planning. We need to ‘account’ for innovation differently.

This is where my suggestions around the three horizons can partly help, these I have extensively outlined in previous blogs to see the value of different mindsets for different horizon thinking.

Different types of innovation need to be treated differently- certainly more than other parts of the business in the planning cycle.

Sometimes innovation cannot fit neatly within timing budgets, being assigned yearly targets and having tidy plans for allocating resources and expecting results. Innovation is simply messy; it does not often fit the norm of budgetary planning.

There is a need to treat different levels of innovation differently. Incremental, Disruptive and Radical all have distinct characteristics that often don’t fit the norm in organizational mindsets to allow them to be worked through at their ‘right’ pace, we force them far to often.

We have three emerging horizons that need different treatment for innovation.

1.Those innovations meeting given goals– these should be within specified period covered by a yearly plan and cover mostly incremental innovation.

2. Objectives that are more disruptive in nature-these are often attained later, after a lot of experimenting until a clear approach emerges. These need to be progressed within the period but have a likely longer horizon, in this case our horizon two within the three horizon framework but usually more than one planning cycle of 12 months. Sometimes they can take two to three years to emerge.

3. Ideals that offer Future Radical Promise– unattainable within the usual time period, more longer term, but the progress is certainly possible during and after the period planned as they move from a weak signal or an aspiration point, by probing and investigating over an extended period of time.

As this flow of understanding gets translated into something more tangible, as the future simply ‘firms up’, it falls more naturally into what fits more in the longer term horizon perspective but still needs allocating resource within the planning cycle.

Breaking down these into milestone achievements that fit more within traditional planning cycles would make sense.

Our existing planning does needs to account for all three, they cannot be simply fitted into one set of plans, all having clear metrics and financials. In many cases it simply ignores the differences completely and forces shortcuts, dilution of a great, potentially radical idea , so it becomes ‘boiled down’ into a series of part disrupting but more often incremental innovations.

The search for breakthroughs

Not accounting for those vital differences simply reducing the chances of more radical breakthroughs, the very thing the C-Level is often crying out for. We need to think our ‘numbers’ and planning differently for innovation, pure and simple, otherwise you end up with innovations competitors can easily copy, and quickly and you chase each other to the point of ever increasing commoditization.

Innovation has its own rhythm

We need a change in planning out innovation, it does not ‘beat to normal time’, and it does certainly have its own unique rhythm.

Any coherency of innovations purpose, of what you want to achieve, and applying this in a rigid accountancy planned way does not work, unless you treat innovation differently in planning cycles and recognize these clear different horizons.

Innovation operates through a different set of behaviours and also in its delivery commitment and purpose from ‘business as usual’, it is challenging and searching for “business not so usual‘ that provides new value. This requires different mindsets at the C-level to manage this dual thinking.

They need to manage expectations of when the potential value being extracted is worth and be patient for achieving a far more impactful return on investment. Breakthroughs happen but usually with a lot of hard work and a sense of commitment, even when you have setbacks.

Different innovation requires different thinking and planning. It is these different ‘rates of exchange’ in understanding that need more understanding.

Perhaps by using the three-time horizons framework it might give innovation a more appropriate context to plan them differently than the present and permit more disruptive and radical breakthroughs to occur.

The post Innovations ‘rates of exchange’ require better understanding first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.