Q2: Symbiosis: why care about ecosystems?
It goes without saying — my first piece on ecosystems (Q1) is abstract and definitional. Complementarities here, and interdependencies there. On one hand, from a formal standpoint, I think it’s necessary to have a theoretical foundation on which to build further notions — which was the point of Q1. On the other hand, most of us already have some idea of what an ecosystem is and what purpose it serves. So, allow me to once again make the topic more relatable (and perhaps initially confusing in equal measure) — by adding biology to the mix.
The Nature of Symbiosis
Most often, where ecosystems are concerned, biology is the first thing that comes to mind. The most talked about may be the Amazon rainforest — in large part due to its unprecedented biodiversity, but even more so because of the momentous impact its ecology has on the world. This is not only discussed on the macro level, where deforestation and its effects on climate change have been leading topics — but also on the micro level, where the case is made that even small reductions in biodiversity can have severe repercussions for the ecosystem holistically. Think of the few species of insects that serve a role in pollinating the vast majority of the world’s crops — certainly a valid reason for being protective of them!
Not all dots are easy to connect, though. To this end, we frequently make a point about leaving ecosystems untouched to the best of our ability, as we often have no idea about the mechanisms in place that hold it all together and make the given environment prosper. These mechanisms may make sense when presented to us, especially on the macro level (we know the direct role trees play in capturing carbon, for instance): but at face value, how many would expect tarantulas to protect small frogs (beware of pictures in the link!) that otherwise would have served as easy prey, in favor of a unique complementarity?
This is where the concept of symbiosis — along with how little we know about its propellants ex ante — reveals itself. Not to get caught up on spiders (in this case smaller ones), but the fact that these creatures, which so many of us are inclined to be scared of, are very often harmless and serve as natural pest control for our yards and homes is an interesting example of how counterintuitive symbiosis sometimes may seem. Even to the point where we may very well terminate complementary relationships because we fail to identify them.
Creating Social Symbiosis
Now, what does symbiosis have to do with business and innovation? Well, this paradigm of missed complementarities is all the more tangible and frequent in our societies, as we often fail to translate the lessons from our ecosystem findings into practice. We mention briefly in our roadmap that in the context of innovation, putting a finger on how value is created (and destroyed) within relevant ecosystems is a dangerous game, as in doing so, one may in fact close or damage pathways for innovative output. Human ecology, when compared to the purely biological kind, adds the difficulty of having many socially constructed components that increase complexity, thus expanding on the disciplines it draws inspiration from beyond the natural sciences — geography, psychology, anthropology, epidemiology and economics to name a few.
Nonetheless, social ecosystems are equally about coexistence as their biological counterparts but skew the locus of agency and control toward the entities and actors comprising it. In other words, social ecosystems are not merely about coexistence — they also present the prospects of co-creation and co-maintenance of said coexistence. One could make the case that our financial and regulatory systems are attempts at this — systems that have, for all their discrepancies, made our world significantly better compared to what it once was. But, these frameworks are mainly there to define the boundaries and accompanying incentives of such co-creation (at least if you ask me).
So, why should one then care about ecosystems? Because they open doors for this co-creation to occur in uniquely sustainable and rewarding ways. With the basic rulebook in hand, enterprises are equipped with the ability to use the boundaries and affordances at play in order to align governance, incentives, and resources with intended outcomes. The vision for these outcomes could be pretty much anything, big or small, from creating fun multi-tools (my first real business endeavor, in case you were curious!), to solving wicked problems like food insecurity. The notion of an ecosystem applies in either context under the assumption that the goal is to have people, entities and resources gathered around and focused on a common vision. In FuzeQube’s case, that bar was set high.
Mutualism and Meaningful Innovation
Much of the prominent literature around ecosystems argues the importance of keystone species (or organizations) in leading the trajectory through various means. This is the role we see for FuzeQube — serving as a venue for fueling meaningful innovation, through an alignment of governance, incentives, resources and vision. The structures set by governments and institutions are there to ensure people survive and define their baseline structural agency. It is the task of constellations like FuzeQube to take people and organizations from merely surviving, to purposefully thriving through the agency bestowed upon them and, in best case, expanding upon said agency. The latter also highlights the distinction between any type of symbiosis (such as parasitism, ammensalism and commensalism, where the relationship implies at least one party suffering net loss), and the mutualistic, win-win/all-win paradigm we seek to establish.
As much of a challenge that this poses, there is immense opportunity in solving some of these obstacles to unleash new value propositions for sustainable innovation. It expands on the incentives that can be put in place to achieve the same desirable outcomes. Symbiosis for FuzeQube means, inter alia, that collaboration is placed ahead of competition; that more people get a chance to be entrepreneurial; that work takes on new and expanded meaning; that use of resources is optimized; and last but not least, that impactful innovation is fast-tracked, diversified, and diffused. In biological systems, symbiosis is a representation of collaborative survival. In innovation ecosystems, it serves not only that function, but also as the vehicle for collective prosperity. Once again, it is mutualism we see as the opportunity here.
Hypothetically, there will be times where the competitive landscape of a particular realm should swallow a organization whole. Growth is suboptimal, the space is saturated, money is running out — but somehow, it is able to stay afloat and create a rewarding environment for its members. Why? Because it helps other organizations in the ecosystem thrive (and thus facilitates growth for the ecosystem as a whole); it provides services where there is a discrepancy between the tangible market value, and the global and occasionally intangible value extracted by those working toward a common vision; or maybe its members contribute their time and effort to other organizations in the interest of the collective outcome. The possibilities are many. The point is, that a well-executed ecosystem knows the worth of its actors and incentivizes them accordingly — similar to how Colombian tarantulas know the worth of microhylid frogs but, as we’ve clarified, maybe not quite. 😊
None of this happens on its own. We understand that. In the same way that there are mechanisms in nature by which symbiosis is achieved, innovation ecosystems require similar tools to coordinate, and create value cohesively. This will, in part, be the topic of Q3. Stay tuned!
Bardia Bijani
Managing Partner, FuzeQube Group
