Building the Ecosystem: an alternative to building the next new thing

There has been a hugely exciting, ambitious and thoughtful movement growing within and beyond the social sector for some time, which seeks to carve out a much bigger role for systems changers and field catalysts. This movement has been pushed forward by pioneering work from organisations like Lankelly Chase, Bridgespan Group and Nesta and described, energised and convened by people like Cassie Robinson, Indy Johar and Immy Kaur.

At Shift, we have been trying to learn from and contribute to this movement as best we can. And for us, a central and consistent question is starting to define more and more of our work:

As a bit of context, we’ve also been acknowledging that, despite the value and role of product design, it had limitations and flaws as our only focus. We have, of course, learnt very fast from the successes and failures of that work. We learnt about how to make things actually work in the world (or not), how to get people to pay for and commission them (or not), how to measure and prove impact in chaotic environments (from a lot to none), how to build teams (eek) and, most of all, how to work with and for the people that we hope to use, play with, eat or contribute to what we’re making. But, looking back at our work on products and services like Historypin, Internet Buttons, Box Chicken and Champions of the Shengha, we had to reach three important conclusions:

The 3rd one is the big one really. If you’re trying, on your own, to fight against powerful market forces or overcome massive systemic challenges, you’re probably not doing something right. But this is, sadly and strangely, how many mission driven organisations set about their work, how they win funding and commissioning and how their leaders get good TEDx gigs (links to my TEDx talks available upon request).

So, what has emerged from joining the movement of systems changers and field catalysts and from this self-reflection? What does this concept of building the ecosystem mean for us and how is it being applied? Here are 4 examples:

An ecosystem emphasises community and connections and they can only really have people, their lives and their relationships at their centre. That’s one of the reasons why we like the concept and language so much.

For example, this forces us and our partners to avoid over-emphasising specific outcomes and, in turn, avoid taking a narrow, external view of the people and communities affected most by those outcomes.

At the moment, we are funded or commissioned to work a lot on specific outcomes that particularly affect lower income, low bandwidth families with children, such as childhood obesity, poor infant attachment and youth mental illness. That people care about and want to improve these outcomes is, of course, very valid — they all have enormous human and financial costs, they can be measured and reduced, they have major implications for things like education and healthcare systems and they all need attention.

But, from where a family affected by childhood obesity stands, these single, specific outcomes don’t have any meaning or role beyond potential, occasional interactions with, for example, a formal healthcare system. A people-centred ecosystem looks like a complex, interdependent, messy web of influences and outcomes, where issues like lack of high quality child care, the chaos of universal credit changes, threats of eviction and so much else combine into a scenario where a family diet that risks childhood obesity represents a logical response.

This is now well established systems change thinking, with great principles, methods, tools and evidence pouring out of the wider movement. But, it is still surprisingly rare. Questions like “what is the ecosystem of influences, relationships, services, products etc that surrounds and affects the people we are working with and for?” helps us push and prioritise this approach.

The concept of an ecosystem also helps emphasise diversity as a requirement.