Returning to the Hierarchy of Business Ecosystems

In January of this year, I introduced the thinking behind “the Hierarchy of Business Ecosystem needs.” This framework was outlined initially in a series of seven posts on my dedicated ecosystem posting site.

On this posting site here, I provided numerous supporting posts in “given” areas of Business Ecosystems that covered some areas I felt were important explainers. This filled a number of critical gaps in building a more comprehensive understanding of Business Ecosystems in their different parts for providing a “fitting” context.

If you go to the “Explore My Insights and Thinking” tag shown above, you will see there are two files you can download that provide all of these posts in a PDF format.

In all, I think I wrote 20-plus posts during the weeks that followed with a final post of “Why are we navigating to the New: A summary of the Hierarchy of Business Ecosystem needs” By just reading this, you can pick up on a reasonable understanding of what I was suggesting.

My conclusions from that final post was

“The Hierarchy of Business Ecosystem Needs presents a holistic approach to navigating the complexities of the modern business landscape. It emphasizes collaborative ecosystems as the key to unlocking untapped potential, driving sustained growth, and achieving collective prosperity.

“The hierarchy of business ecosystem needs emerges as a guiding force for organizations ready to navigate the new era of interconnected success. Deploying a design that recognizes the layers of an Innovation Ecosystem feeds the Business Ecosystem, and these provide the Dynamic Ecosystem to adjust and respond and, when combined, allow the Enterprise Ecosystem to generate collective prosperity, dynamism and a sustaining environment that thrives on its interdependence and interconnectedness.”

“This series introduced each ecosystem’s design, including thinking and construction principles. I recommend this Hierarchy of Business Ecosystems because it provides insights and transparent levels of undertaking this construct in each of the Ecosystem layers, to lend weight to this proposed transformation.”

Then, I needed to take a very conscious break to reflect and regroup

I needed a break, a time to reflect, to consider what comes next, what this framework offers, and what needs bridging to become a more robust framework. Also, I needed feedback, comments and observations, which I have been gathering in the past couple of months.

The sum of the Value and Worth so far can be summarized

Based on different views and feedback, evaluating the value, worth, and primary focus areas of this work on the Hierarchy of Business Ecosystem Needs gave good encouraging confirmation in the framing.

In summary, these suggested:

1. Structured Framework: The hierarchical framework provides a comprehensive and modular approach to understanding and navigating the complexities of business ecosystems. The added incentive to build this out further was that this structured model offers a valuable tool for organizations seeking to embrace ecosystem-driven strategies.
2. Emphasis on Adaptability and Resilience: The Dynamic Ecosystem layer provided a dimension that specifically focused on the critical importance of adaptability, resilience, and continuous learning in today’s rapidly changing business environments. This focus on proactive navigation of complexity and disruption is increasingly relevant and valuable for organizations seeking to future-proof their operations by treating the aspects of dynamics specifically.
3. Holistic Perspective: By integrating elements such as innovation ecosystems, business ecosystems, and enterprise ecosystems, the frame outline offered a holistic perspective on the interconnected nature of ecosystems. This approach to design and thinking does help organizations develop a deeper understanding of the interdependencies and synergies within their ecosystem strategies.
4. Economic and Strategic Advantage: By keeping the emphasis on it being a practitioner’s approach, it moves thinking and design closer to a more immediate economic advantage through adaptability, innovation agility, and ecosystem sensing. It begins to build towards providing a compelling value proposition. Organizations can leverage these insights to gain strategic positioning and actively shape market dynamics by working through the different ecosystems in a way that they can (increasingly) relate to.
5. Collaboration and Collective Prosperity: The framework’s focus is very much on collaboration, collective resilience, and mutual benefit, which aligns further with the principles of ecosystem-driven value creation. This aspect highlights the potential for shared growth and prosperity through collaborative efforts. Today, we increasingly recognise that collaborations, co-creation, and cooperation are helping to unlock the complexities and challenges that are being faced today.

The next step- bridging the gaps

Realizing, recognising and turning a concept into a robust framework must bridge several gaps.

To build this Hierarchy of Business Needs into a design that offers robustness, real practical applicability, and the ability to guide organizations in successfully implementing ecosystem-based approaches across various industries and contexts.

In summary, there is still much room for improvement in suggested areas such as quantitative metrics, explicit integration of dynamic adaptation and resilience, comprehensive governance mechanisms, addressing interdependence and feedback loops, industry-specific considerations, stakeholder perspectives, and the inclusion of real-world case studies or examples.

Addressing these areas could further strengthen the Hierarchy of Business Ecosystem Needs framework.

What still needs to be highlighted is the work I am currently undertaking as my work to be done.

1. Quantitative Metrics and Measurement:
   • While the hierarchy provides a conceptual framework, it lacks specific quantitative metrics for assessing ecosystem health and performance.
   • Developing measurable indicators for each layer would enhance its practical applicability.
2. Build Out Further Dynamic Adaptation and Resilience:
   • Incorporating and exploring as a critical focal point is the increasing need for adaptability and resilience as explicit layers might give this greater value
   • I initially addressed this in the Dynamic Ecosystem explainer, but it needs more emphasis, and this Dynamic Ecosystem is becoming the most exciting one for me.
3. Ecosystem Governance and Rules:
   • The framework focuses on layers within ecosystems but doesn’t delve deeply enough into governance mechanisms, although I have written previously on Orchestration and Governance.
   • Explicitly addressing rules, norms, and decision-making processes would enhance its completeness. Governance failures are a significant contributor and impact 85% of all Ecosystems that fail.
4. Ecosystem Interdependencies and Feedback Loops:
   • Ecosystems are interconnected, and actions in one layer affect others.
   • Highlighting feedback loops and interdependencies would enrich the framework. This became critically important to understand and build out
5. Industry-Specific Considerations:
   • The hierarchy is generic; industry-specific nuances are missing.
   • Customizing layers for different sectors (e.g., tech, healthcare, manufacturing) would add depth.
6. Stakeholder Perspectives:
   • The framework primarily considers organizational needs.
   • Including customer, regulator, and community perspectives would provide a holistic view.
7. Case Studies and Real-World Examples:
   • While the hierarchy is conceptually sound, empirical validation through case studies would strengthen its credibility.
   • Real-world examples of successful ecosystem implementations would enhance its practical relevance. These are hard to delve into at the level I would like, but my building up of examples does give the foundations to learn and think through when they apply to what one wants to be built out.
8. In summary, adopting an ecosystem-centric approach involves a significant shift in mindset, culture, and organizational structures. These aspects are as relevant as technology, platforms and the final ecosystem design.

Coming back to broader recognition and adoption of Business Ecosystems, what makes the argument really compelling? Does this come from the need for growth, new innovation, changing the organizational structure, or seeking a more unique approach to their markets? All can be factors for driving change, but making this or them compelling requires further building out to gain understanding and, hopefully, traction.

To make a compelling argument for broader recognition and adoption of business ecosystems, it’s essential to align the benefits and value propositions with the specific business imperatives and structures. Developing comprehensive frameworks, tools, and best emerging practices, along with aligning to the strategic priorities of organizations, are the tasks at hand.

In the end it is the ability to build out a framework that resonates with the organization’s core objectives is crucial. Taking a connected business Ecosystem approach needs to offer a compelling view that growth, innovation, organizational restructuring, and unique market approaches are needed today and can be achieved through Ecosystem designs. The essential recognition is that tackling the complexities and challenges we are facing today needs new thinking and design.

Over the coming weeks, I will fill many of these gaps and reinforce the value and worth suggested to date in posts on my www.paul4innovating.com and www.ecosystems4innovating.com sites, tackling a range of needs.

How will I “toggle” between the two posting sites I am currently working through?