Why are Ecosystem opportunities failing? It is not from poor execution, but from poor recognition, many potentially exciting collaborations never get out of the assessment gate, mostly stuck at Board level. They climb up to the Board and then suddenly they vanish or get rejected.
This is one of the biggest frustrations being face today on building Business Ecosystems and needs changing..
Walk into any boardroom today and mention “ecosystem strategy.” You’ll get nods of agreement, enthusiastic approval, and immediate pressure to move fast. Six months later, that same initiative is stalled, the team is frustrated, and the Board is quietly wondering what went wrong.
The problem isn’t the idea. It’s not even the execution. The problem is that Boards are approving ecosystem commitments without understanding what they’re actually committing to and these risks make them very uncomfortable to take. What if that can change?
Traditional business model tools — including the ubiquitous Business Model Canvas — were designed for a different reality. They assume firm-centric control, owned resources, and value you design and deliver. Ecosystems require co-creation across actors you don’t control, governance through influence rather than ownership, and value that emerges rather than gets designed.
Most organizations don’t lack innovation. They lack the ability to see, evaluate, and govern value that exists beyond their organizational boundaries.
In building the Ecosystem Business Model framework I was struck by this real breakdown, not from those building the Business Case for a specific Ecosystem concept but in not being able to engage the board at a real depth.
In my Ecosystem Business Model building I have build the three intelligence parts that build out the Business case for a particular Ecosystem proposition
Then We Hit the The Recognition Gap
Here’s what actually happens: A team identifies an exciting ecosystem opportunity. They present it using traditional business case logic — market size, competitive positioning, projected ROI. The Board approves based on the opportunity’s scale, never examining the organizational implications. Mid-execution, reality hits. IP conflicts surface. Control disputes emerge. Partners behave unpredictably. The initiative either dies quietly or becomes theatrical — announced loudly but never properly resourced or governed.
The fundamental insight is this: Most organizations fail at ecosystem business models not because they lack capability, but because they lack appetite — and they discover this too late.
They discover it when the partnership team realizes they can’t make decisions without five layers of approval. When legal blocks every data-sharing agreement. When finance refuses to fund “ecosystem health” investments that don’t show immediate ROI. When the organization’s antibodies reject the very behaviors ecosystem participation requires.
What’s Missing
Boards need a framework that asks the uncomfortable questions before approval, not after. Questions like:
- Are we prepared to prioritize ecosystem health over internal margin optimization?
- Can we govern through influence when we’re used to control through ownership?
- Will we fund multiple options to see what works, or do we need a committed business case upfront?
- Can we work credibly with partners who are also competitors?
These questions are confronting. They make Boards uncomfortable. And that discomfort is precisely the point.
Converting Discomfort into Clarity
What if there was an assessment framework that systematically evaluates organizational appetite across eight critical implication areas — control and authority, business model economics, technology dependencies, intellectual property, organizational capability, risk tolerance, coopetition dynamics, and commitment sequencing?
What if for each area, Boards could respond: YES (genuine appetite), CONDITIONAL (viable with explicit guardrails), or NO (insufficient appetite)?
What if CONDITIONAL responses triggered a structured mitigation playbook — specific governance mechanisms that manage exposure while enabling participation?
This transforms ecosystem decisions from enthusiasm-driven approvals into governed commitments.
It gives Boards three legitimate paths:
- Proceed with full commitment (predominantly YES responses)
- Proceed with guardrails (mix of YES and CONDITIONAL, with explicit mitigation architecture)
- Decline or remain exploratory (several NO responses, signaling appetite mismatch)
The Governance Imperative
Boards govern by making informed decisions about risk and opportunity. But you can’t govern what you can’t see. And right now, most Boards can’t see ecosystem implications until it’s too late.
The question isn’t whether your organization should pursue ecosystem strategies. The question is: Does your appetite match your ambition? Does it match your understanding of Ecosystems and what these strategically mean?
And the only way to answer that is to ask the uncomfortable questions first — systematically, explicitly, and honestly. Before resources are committed. Before teams are mobilized. Before the opportunity costs compound.
Ecosystem Business Models aren’t approved by enthusiasm or rejected by caution. They succeed when organizations recognize what they’re truly committing to — and govern accordingly.
Want to assess your organization’s ecosystem appetite? Do you want to build a robust Ecosystem Business Model? As part of this the exciting break-through is The Board Appetite & Implication Assessment provides a structured framework for converting uncertainty into documented commitment paths.
Get in touch to explore this further if you want to build out a Ecosystem Business and have this growing frustration with the board, that it is not making decisions around a really clear Ecosystem Business Model Governance perspective then lets talk