“Autonomous mobile apps will disappear in five years”, “We are in for a cold war between the ecosystems of technological giants” - when writing about ecosystems, it is difficult to choose one of the many half-inspiring-half-threatening authority quotes. Today, almost all opinion leaders agree that ecosystems are the trend of the future, a new model of interaction with the consumer, which is rapidly replacing the standard "business - specialized application - client" scheme. But at the same time, as is often the case with young and popular concepts, there is still no consensus on what exactly should be understood as an ecosystem.
When you start to review sources, it immediately becomes obvious that even in the field of IT specialists, there are different and very contradictory ideas about the essence of ecosystems. We have studied this topic in detail out of practical necessity - some time ago our company began to develop in the direction of greater interconnectedness and breadth of market coverage. In order to build our own long-term strategy, we had to consolidate and systematize what is said about ecosystems, identify and evaluate the main concepts, and understand what the path looks like in this new model for mid-sized technology companies. Below we share the results of this work and the conclusions that we made for ourselves.
The general definition of an ecosystem is usually something like this: it is a set of products that are interconnected at the technology level to provide additional benefits to the user. It sets three ecosystem parameters that, in our experience, no one disputes:
- The presence of several services in its composition
- The presence of a number of connections between them
- Beneficial effect on user experience
Beyond this list, disagreements and conflicts of terminology begin. How many companies should be involved in building an ecosystem? Are all members equal? What benefits can they give to the client? What is the process of its origin and expansion? Based on these questions, we have identified four concepts of our own, representing fundamentally different models for creating “connectivity” between a group of products, which is called an ecosystem. Let's look at (and draw) each of them.
Insularity model
When the rapid acceleration of the digital transformation of business was just beginning, we often encountered the idea of an internal, closed ecosystem for each individual enterprise. When services are transferred to a virtual environment, it becomes easy to connect with each other, build a barrier-free space in which it is easy for the user to work. You don't have to look far for examples: Apple's system exemplifies this principle of universal accessibility in the best possible way. All information about the client, from authentication data to the history of actions, from which preferences can be calculated, is available to each link in the network. At the same time, the services offered are so diverse and tailored to the needs of the user that the need to involve third-party products that would break this perfect synergy does not often arise for him.
Now we are inclined to consider this point of view obsolete (by the way, it has become less common). She suggests doing the right thing - eliminating unnecessary steps from processes, making the most of user data - but in the current realities, this is no longer enough. Companies that are significantly smaller than Apple cannot afford a strategy of complete isolation, or at least expect it to give them a competitive advantage in the market. Today, a full-fledged ecosystem should be built on external relations.
Globalization model
So, we need external connections, and numerous ones. How to collect such a number of partnerships? Many will answer: we need a powerful center around which satellite companies will gather. And this is logical: if there is an initiative from a major player, it is not difficult to build a network of partnerships. But the result of such a scheme is a structure with a specific form and internal dynamics.
Today, we have all heard about monster platforms that seem to be able to do everything - they represent a natural result of development according to the globalization model. Gathering small companies under its patronage, a huge corporation is gradually increasing its influence and becoming a “face” in various business areas, while other brands are lost in its shadow. Suffice it to recall the Chinese application We-Chat, which brings together dozens of businesses from the most diverse areas under one interface, allowing the user to call a taxi, order food, sign up for a hairdresser and buy medicines in one go.
From this example, it is easy to deduce a general principle: when the popularity of a centralized platform reaches a certain level, partnership with it becomes voluntary-compulsory for small and medium-sized businesses - it is unrealistic to find a comparable audience elsewhere, and to recapture it from an application that so clearly dominates the market, even less real. Not surprisingly, the prospect of developing along such a model often causes fear and rejection among independent developers and small studios. Here it is almost impossible to take an active position and work directly with the audience, and the possible financial prospects look ambiguous.
Will such giant platforms emerge and develop? Most likely, yes, although, perhaps, not of such an overwhelming size (in order to capture such a significant market share, at least some prerequisites in its structure are needed). But limiting your understanding of ecosystems to just them, without considering a less radical alternative, is a highly pessimistic view of things.
Specialization Model
This is perhaps the most controversial of all the types we have identified. It is closely related to the collaboration model, but, in our opinion, it has several significant differences. The specialization model is also designed for small and medium-sized businesses, it also encourages not to limit oneself to one's own resources, but to benefit from partner projects, but it assumes a limited and not too flexible approach to their selection.
We can talk about this scheme when a company integrates some ready-made third-party solution that allows the product to work better, primarily from a technical point of view. Often these decisions involve security or data storage issues. You can also include the simplest messengers with some caution, but this is already a “gray zone” at the junction with collaboration - integration with developed systems like Trello or Slack can already be considered a connection to a full-fledged ecosystem. We called this scheme the specialization model, since the company actually delegates the filling of certain gaps in the functionality of the product to a third party.
Strictly speaking, this corresponds to our original definition of an ecosystem: a complex structure of several services that improves life for users (it would be worse if they risked their data or were not able to contact the company online). But this type of cooperation does not enrich the user experience enough: from the point of view of the client, the interaction is carried out with one service (even if several auxiliary ones are “invested” in it) and satisfies one need, albeit more efficiently. Thus, like the insularity model, the specialization model offers, in general, a reasonable idea of outsourcing individual components of a product, but falls short of the concept of building ecosystems themselves.
Collaboration model
Let's say the developer of a car spending tracking app has contracted with a bank to integrate a database with loan offers. So far, this is the usual single experience of cooperation. This made users feel better: now, while working on one task (budgeting), they can immediately close another, thematically related need (search for additional funds). Then the same developer built another third-party service into the application to notify car owners about prices and promotions for the services he needs in the service station. At the same time, his partner, the owner of a car service, began cooperation with a car dealership. If you look at this whole set of connections together, a complex network of "linked" services begins to emerge, once in which a person can solve most of the problems that arise in the process of buying and maintaining a car - in other words, another small ecosystem with good potential.
In contrast to the globalization model, where a centripetal force operates - an influential driver that connects more and more participants to the system through itself, the collaboration model consists of complex chains of cross-collaboration between partners. In such systems, the links are equal by default and the number of links for each depends only on the activity of the team and the specifics of the service. We have come to the conclusion that it is in this form that the concept of an ecosystem finds its most complete and healthy expression.
What distinguishes collaboration ecosystems?
- They are a combination of several types of services. At the same time, services can relate both to one industry and to different ones. However, if the conditional ecosystem combines partners who offer virtually the same set of services, then it is more appropriate to speak of an aggregator platform.
- They have a complex system of connections. The presence of a central link, which is usually called an ecosystem driver, is possible, but if other participants in the system are isolated from each other, in our opinion, the potential of the system is not properly realized. The more connections, the more points of growth are fixed and disclosed.
- They give a synergistic effect, that is, the very situation when the whole is greater than the sum of the terms. Users get the ability to solve multiple problems at once or close multiple needs through a single entry point. That being said, it should be emphasized that the most successful ecosystems are proactive and flexible: they don't just put options in plain sight and hope for interest, but draw attention to them when they are needed.
- They (as follows from the previous paragraph) stimulate a mutually beneficial exchange of user data, which allows both parties to more subtly understand what the client wants at every moment and what makes sense to offer him.
- They greatly simplify the technical implementation of any affiliate programs: personal discounts and special service conditions for “general” users, combined loyalty programs.
- They have an internal impulse to grow - at least from a certain stage of development. A solid user database, total audience and experience of successful integration through the analysis of common ground are things that are attractive to many companies. As we have seen from our own experience, after several successful cases of integration, a steady interest begins to form in the ecosystem. However, this growth has a limit - collaboration systems develop organically, not seeking to monopolize the market and not "crushing" individual businesses.
It is obvious that at this stage it is hardly possible to predict with 100% accuracy which type of ecosystems will be the most in demand. There is always a possibility that all types will continue to coexist in parallel, with varying degrees of success, or we are waiting for other, fundamentally new models.
And yet, in our opinion, the collaboration model is closest to defining the essence of a natural ecosystem, where “each part of it increases the chances of survival due to its connection with the rest of the ecosystem, and at the same time, the possibility of an ecosystem’s survival increases with an increase in the number of living creatures associated with it. organisms”, and therefore has a good chance of success.
As mentioned above, the presented concept is only our vision of the current situation. We will be glad to hear the opinion and forecasts of readers on this topic in the comments.
Source: www.habr.com